http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...-27777235.html

On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...-27777235.html

Yeah, I posted a link to that one on Facebook earlier yesterday. One can only
imagine how badly it could have gone if she hadn't been armed.

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...-27777235.html

It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
didn't look very happy on the news last night.

Bill

On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...-27777235.html


It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
didn't look very happy on the news last night.

Bill

In the news clip I saw, she stated she was unhappy she had to shoot him
but in the same circumstances would do the same thing again. Good for
her! Am sure will take a little time to heal but look at the money she
just saved the state, not only this time but 4 years down the road when
he would have been back on the streets. Personally think the state owes
her some of that savings.

On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...-27777235.html


It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
didn't look very happy on the news last night.

Bill

Better traumatized than most of the possible alternatives I can think of.

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...-27777235.html


It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
didn't look very happy on the news last night.

Horse****!

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Bill Gill wrote:
On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...-27777235.html

It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
didn't look very happy on the news last night.

Bah! Killing people in self-defense is a mind-altering, but satisfying,
life event.

Shooting team interviewer: "So, then, officer your statement is 'The suspect
raced down the hallway with me in pursuit. He turned into a bedroom and from
a lower drawer on the dresser pulled a large-caliber weapon and pointed it
in my direction. I, in fear of my life, discharged my service weapon.' Is
that a fair and accurate summary of the events you experienced?"

Cop: "Exactly. Like I said: He went for his piece and I smoked him!"

On 1/5/12 8:50 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...-27777235.html



It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
didn't look very happy on the news last night.

Bill

Better traumatized than most of the possible alternatives I can think of.


I agree with Steve.
Life is traumas, and her husband had just died around Christmas, so how
do know if she would've looked any different on camera if she'd just
wounded the guy?

Taking a human life is a horrible thing but that guy chose to die that
day when he chose to break and enter the home of another person.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"Swingman" wrote ...
On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...-27777235.html


It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
didn't look very happy on the news last night.

Horse****!

Agreed.

There is all kinds of trauma. Her husband had died a few days earlier.
What kind of trauma would have happened to her and her babies if she did not
shoot him? Also. what if some politically correct prosecutor came after
her? Some self defense victims are ruined financially with having to defend
their actions. That would certainly be traumatic.

Also, she in no way did anything aggressive or reckless. She hid for 21
minutes, talking to 911 before she shot the guy. All the time protecting
her child. How many times have we heard about some idiot who lost it and
somebody died because they did not do the right thing and act in a manner
that protected life. She did the exact right thing. And for that, she
should be proud of herself. She was a mamma bear protecting her cub. I am
certain that any other kind of response (or non response) would be terribly
traumatic. Not only for her, but for every one who knew her. Again, she
did the right thing.

The other point that nobody wants to talk about is that she is a woman. I
taught self defense classes to women over 40 years ago. Long before it
became socially acceptable to do such things. There is tremendous pressure
on women in general to be a victim. Don't fight back, don't make a scene,
etc. Not only is this demeaning to women, but it is a green light to any
kind of whacko or criminal to prey on "helpless" women. Like the bumper
sticker says, "Nobody Ever Raped A .38".

Having directly dealt with a large number of women who were assaulted, I can
tell you that hurting somebody else is far preferable to being a victim.
The women I worked with fell into two categories. Those who wanted to move
on and were willing to do whatever to see that this sort of thing never
occurred again. The other category was much more tragic. These poor women
basically crawled into a paranoid hole and never came out again. They
became recluses, depressed, etc. I think today, there would be more support
for them. But the fact is that a large number of victims never live normal
lives again.

Whatever trauma occurs as a result of defending yourself, it simply does not
compare to the alternative. And I know that it is a cornerstone of liberal
philosophy to create more victims and disarm the populace. Apparently
creating safe working conditions for criminals has a higher social purpose.
This woman did exactly the right thing. She should be commended and
rewarded in some fashion. Certainly she should be given some support of
some kind. If more women were like her, there would be less problems in
this country.

And as for the poor misunderstood home invaders, that is simple. Just use
them for target practice. It is like those morons who hang a sign outside
of their house, "gun free zone". They get robbed pretty quickly. They take
the sign down. Criminal are safety conscious. It would be better for every
one to created DANGEROUS working conditions for criminals.

End of rant.

On 1/5/2012 8:18 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...-27777235.html


Yeah, I posted a link to that one on Facebook earlier yesterday. One can
only imagine how badly it could have gone if she hadn't been armed.


Hopefully the AHoles relatives will no come after her for some kind of
compensation.

On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...-27777235.html


It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
didn't look very happy on the news last night.

Bill


It is sad but probably the best out come whether she realizes it now or not.

On 1/5/2012 12:31 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:

Snip



And as for the poor misunderstood home invaders, that is simple. Just
use them for target practice. It is like those morons who hang a sign
outside of their house, "gun free zone". They get robbed pretty quickly.
They take the sign down. Criminal are safety conscious. It would be
better for every one to created DANGEROUS working conditions for criminals.

A neighbor, a sheriff, has a sign in his front yard that says,

NOTHING in this house is worth dying for.

"Lee Michaels" leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast dot net wrote in
b.com:



"Swingman" wrote ...
On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...er-18-kills-in
truder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html


It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
didn't look very happy on the news last night.

Horse****!

Agreed.

There is all kinds of trauma. Her husband had died a few days
earlier. What kind of trauma would have happened to her and her babies
if she did not shoot him? Also. what if some politically correct
prosecutor came after her? Some self defense victims are ruined
financially with having to defend their actions. That would certainly
be traumatic.

Also, she in no way did anything aggressive or reckless. She hid for
21 minutes, talking to 911 before she shot the guy. All the time
protecting her child. How many times have we heard about some idiot
who lost it and somebody died because they did not do the right thing
and act in a manner that protected life. She did the exact right
thing. And for that, she should be proud of herself. She was a mamma
bear protecting her cub. I am certain that any other kind of response
(or non response) would be terribly traumatic. Not only for her, but
for every one who knew her. Again, she did the right thing.

The other point that nobody wants to talk about is that she is a
woman. I taught self defense classes to women over 40 years ago.
Long before it became socially acceptable to do such things. There is
tremendous pressure on women in general to be a victim. Don't fight
back, don't make a scene, etc. Not only is this demeaning to women,
but it is a green light to any kind of whacko or criminal to prey on
"helpless" women. Like the bumper sticker says, "Nobody Ever Raped A
.38".

Having directly dealt with a large number of women who were assaulted,
I can tell you that hurting somebody else is far preferable to being a
victim. The women I worked with fell into two categories. Those who
wanted to move on and were willing to do whatever to see that this
sort of thing never occurred again. The other category was much more
tragic. These poor women basically crawled into a paranoid hole and
never came out again. They became recluses, depressed, etc. I think
today, there would be more support for them. But the fact is that a
large number of victims never live normal lives again.

Whatever trauma occurs as a result of defending yourself, it simply
does not compare to the alternative. And I know that it is a
cornerstone of liberal philosophy to create more victims and disarm
the populace. Apparently creating safe working conditions for
criminals has a higher social purpose. This woman did exactly the
right thing. She should be commended and rewarded in some fashion.
Certainly she should be given some support of some kind. If more
women were like her, there would be less problems in this country.

And as for the poor misunderstood home invaders, that is simple. Just
use them for target practice. It is like those morons who hang a sign
outside of their house, "gun free zone". They get robbed pretty
quickly. They take the sign down. Criminal are safety conscious. It
would be better for every one to created DANGEROUS working conditions
for criminals.

End of rant.

I'm a liberal. I am in favor of registration of firearms, and licensing
people for the use of them.

This lady did the right thing, and (I believe) has the 911 tapes to prove
it. Because she had a baby, and was in her home, she had and has the
right to defend herself against a perp like this. While it must be
traumatic to know she killed a human being, that human being didn't live
according to the rules. End of story. Kudos to the lady and I hope she
can get on with her life as best she can as soon as she can.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote in
:

"Lee Michaels" leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast dot net wrote in
b.com:



"Swingman" wrote ...
On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...her-18-kills-i
n
truder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html


It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
didn't look very happy on the news last night.

Horse****!

Agreed.

There is all kinds of trauma. Her husband had died a few days
earlier. What kind of trauma would have happened to her and her
babies if she did not shoot him? Also. what if some politically
correct prosecutor came after her? Some self defense victims are
ruined financially with having to defend their actions. That would
certainly be traumatic.

Also, she in no way did anything aggressive or reckless. She hid for
21 minutes, talking to 911 before she shot the guy. All the time
protecting her child. How many times have we heard about some idiot
who lost it and somebody died because they did not do the right thing
and act in a manner that protected life. She did the exact right
thing. And for that, she should be proud of herself. She was a
mamma bear protecting her cub. I am certain that any other kind of
response (or non response) would be terribly traumatic. Not only for
her, but for every one who knew her. Again, she did the right thing.

The other point that nobody wants to talk about is that she is a
woman. I taught self defense classes to women over 40 years ago.
Long before it became socially acceptable to do such things. There
is tremendous pressure on women in general to be a victim. Don't
fight back, don't make a scene, etc. Not only is this demeaning to
women, but it is a green light to any kind of whacko or criminal to
prey on "helpless" women. Like the bumper sticker says, "Nobody Ever
Raped A .38".

Having directly dealt with a large number of women who were
assaulted, I can tell you that hurting somebody else is far
preferable to being a victim. The women I worked with fell into two
categories. Those who wanted to move on and were willing to do
whatever to see that this sort of thing never occurred again. The
other category was much more tragic. These poor women basically
crawled into a paranoid hole and never came out again. They became
recluses, depressed, etc. I think today, there would be more support
for them. But the fact is that a large number of victims never live
normal lives again.

Whatever trauma occurs as a result of defending yourself, it simply
does not compare to the alternative. And I know that it is a
cornerstone of liberal philosophy to create more victims and disarm
the populace. Apparently creating safe working conditions for
criminals has a higher social purpose. This woman did exactly the
right thing. She should be commended and rewarded in some fashion.
Certainly she should be given some support of some kind. If more
women were like her, there would be less problems in this country.

And as for the poor misunderstood home invaders, that is simple.
Just use them for target practice. It is like those morons who hang
a sign outside of their house, "gun free zone". They get robbed
pretty quickly. They take the sign down. Criminal are safety
conscious. It would be better for every one to created DANGEROUS
working conditions for criminals.

End of rant.

I'm a liberal. I am in favor of registration of firearms, and
licensing people for the use of them.

This lady did the right thing, and (I believe) has the 911 tapes to
prove it. Because she had a baby, and was in her home, she had and
has the right to defend herself against a perp like this. While it
must be traumatic to know she killed a human being, that human being
didn't live according to the rules. End of story. Kudos to the lady
and I hope she can get on with her life as best she can as soon as she
can.

Also, this was posted on FB by a friend, and I'll repost it here. I hope
this lady has some friends who will act on this to help her out:

1. I am not strong. I'm just numb. When you tell me I'm strong, I feel
you don't see ...me.
2. I will not recover. This is not a cold or the flu. I'm not sick. I'm
grieving and that's different. I will not always be grievi...ng as
intensely, but I will never forget my loved one. Rather than recover, I
want to incorporate her life and love into the rest of my life. That
person is a part of me and always will be, and sometimes I remember him
with joy and other times with tears. Both are ok.
3. I don't have to accept the death. Yes, I have to understand that it
has happened and it is real, but there are just some things in life that
are not acceptable.
4. Please don't avoid me. You can't catch my grief. My world is painful,
and when you are too afraid to call me or visit or say anything, you
isolate me at a time when I most need to be care about. If you don't know
what to say, just come over, give me a hug or touch my arms, and gently
say, "I'm sorry." You can even say, "I just don't know what to say, but I
care, and want you to know that."
5. Please don't call to complain about your husband, your wife, or your
children. Right now, I'd be delighted to have my loved one here, no
matter what they were doing.
6. Please don’t say, “Call me if you need anything.” I’ll never call you
because I have no idea what I need. Trying to figure out what you could
do for me takes more energy than I have. So, in advance, let me give you
some ideas:
a. Bring food
b. Offer to take my children to a movie or game so I have some moments to
myself
c. Send me a card on special holidays, birthdays (mine, his or hers), or
the anniversary of his death and make sure you mention his or her name.
You can’t make me cry. The tears are here and I will love you for giving
me the opportunity to shed them because someone cared enough about me to
reach out on this difficult day.
d. Ask me more than once to join you at the movies or lunch. I may say
“no” at first or even for a while, but please don’t give up on me because
somewhere down the line, I may be ready, and if you’ve given up then I
really will be alone.
7. Try to understand that this is like I’m in a foreign country where I
don’t speak the language and have no map to tell me what to do. Even if
there were a map, I’m not sure I could understand what it was saying. I’m
lost and in a fog. I’m confused
8. When you tell me what I should be doing, then I feel even more lost
and alone. I feel bad enough that my loved one is dead, so please don’t
make it worse by telling me I’m not doing this right.
9. Please don’t tell me that I can have other children or need to start
dating again. I’m not ready. And maybe I don’t want to. And besides, what
makes you think people are replaceable? They aren’t. Whoever comes after
will always be someone different.
10. I don’t even understand what you mean when you say, “You’ve got to
get on with your life.” My life is going on, but it may not look the way
you think it should. This will take time and I never will be my old self
again. So please just love me as I am today, and know, that with your
love and support, the joy will slowly return to my life. But I will never
forget – and there will always be times that I cry. · This is a reprint
from a High school friend who lost her son years ago but had to let
everyone know how grief affects those who lose someone close. It is a
good primer on what not to say to those who grieve. My heart goes out to
Nanette and hope she does find solice in knowing that we all care and
understand!


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

I'm a liberal. I am in favor of registration of firearms, and
licensing people for the use of them.

This lady did the right thing, and (I believe) has the 911 tapes to
prove it. Because she had a baby, and was in her home, she had and
has the right to defend herself against a perp like this. While it
must be traumatic to know she killed a human being, that human being
didn't live according to the rules. End of story. Kudos to the lady
and I hope she can get on with her life as best she can as soon as
she can.

Then live with the fact that in some benighted (i.e., liberal)
jurisdictions, she did NOT have the right to take a human life unless she
was certain her life was in danger (and maybe not even then). She would not
be allowed to presume an imminent threat to her life by the actions of the
squint. Unless he said "I'm going to kill you," he could just as easily been
inclined to merely rape her. She didn't know, hence she was guilty of at
least manslaughter.

What's been overlooked in this sorry episode is that she was on the 'phone
to 911 for 21 minutes. I can't imagine any urban jurisdiction where it would
take the cops more than five minutes to respond to a "home invasion in
progress" call.

I take that back. There have been several reports of UK ambulance drivers
declining to respond to an emergency call because they were on break.

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:28:56 -0600, "HeyBub"
I take that back. There have been several reports of UK ambulance drivers
declining to respond to an emergency call because they were on break.

That sounds close to an incident at a Niagara Falls hopital. An 82
year old women fell down and broke her leg in the hospital parking
lot. As security guard went into the hospital to ask for help and was
told to call an ambulance.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories...ulance-111018/

In article ,
says...

Han wrote:

I'm a liberal. I am in favor of registration of firearms, and
licensing people for the use of them.

This lady did the right thing, and (I believe) has the 911 tapes to
prove it. Because she had a baby, and was in her home, she had and
has the right to defend herself against a perp like this. While it
must be traumatic to know she killed a human being, that human being
didn't live according to the rules. End of story. Kudos to the lady
and I hope she can get on with her life as best she can as soon as
she can.

Then live with the fact that in some benighted (i.e., liberal)
jurisdictions, she did NOT have the right to take a human life unless she
was certain her life was in danger (and maybe not even then). She would not
be allowed to presume an imminent threat to her life by the actions of the
squint. Unless he said "I'm going to kill you," he could just as easily been
inclined to merely rape her. She didn't know, hence she was guilty of at
least manslaughter.

What's been overlooked in this sorry episode is that she was on the 'phone
to 911 for 21 minutes. I can't imagine any urban jurisdiction where it would
take the cops more than five minutes to respond to a "home invasion in
progress" call.

I take that back. There have been several reports of UK ambulance drivers
declining to respond to an emergency call because they were on break.

The bothersome thing to me is the BATF killing a woman who was armed
with a deadly six-poop baby, in an effort to enforce one of those
paperwork laws that Han loves so much.

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

I'm a liberal. I am in favor of registration of firearms, and
licensing people for the use of them.

This lady did the right thing, and (I believe) has the 911 tapes to
prove it. Because she had a baby, and was in her home, she had and
has the right to defend herself against a perp like this. While it
must be traumatic to know she killed a human being, that human being
didn't live according to the rules. End of story. Kudos to the lady
and I hope she can get on with her life as best she can as soon as
she can.

Then live with the fact that in some benighted (i.e., liberal)
jurisdictions, she did NOT have the right to take a human life unless
she was certain her life was in danger (and maybe not even then). She
would not be allowed to presume an imminent threat to her life by the
actions of the squint. Unless he said "I'm going to kill you," he
could just as easily been inclined to merely rape her. She didn't
know, hence she was guilty of at least manslaughter.

I must admit that I'm not sure whether she or her baby was indeed under
real imminent threat of being harmed, and I did live in Mass. when there
was a case of a woman fleeing into her basement during a home invasion,
and killing the guy who ccame down after her. She was acquitted, I
believe, because there was no secondary exit through which she could have
fled. Had there been another exit from the basement, she should have
used that.

What's been overlooked in this sorry episode is that she was on the
'phone to 911 for 21 minutes. I can't imagine any urban jurisdiction
where it would take the cops more than five minutes to respond to a
"home invasion in progress" call.

Not sure where she was in relation to emergency services, or how rural
and diispersed the area is, but that seems indeed a bit strange. When I
broke my arm on July 4th a few years back, police and ambulance were in
my back yard in minutes.

I take that back. There have been several reports of UK ambulance
drivers declining to respond to an emergency call because they were on
break.

There have been strange things like that in NY City as well, I think
(emphasis), but they are not really tolerated, nor should they. On the
other hand, an acquaintance spend almost 24 hrs in a corridor in the ER
area of New York Hospital after a suspected heart attack (wasn't a heart
attack, but he still smokes).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"J. Clarke" wrote in
in.local:

The bothersome thing to me is the BATF killing a woman who was armed
with a deadly six-poop baby, in an effort to enforce one of those
paperwork laws that Han loves so much.

What's BATF?
What's a six-poop baby?
I retired because I love paperwork so much that I refused to do anymore.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in
in.local:

The bothersome thing to me is the BATF killing a woman who was armed
with a deadly six-poop baby, in an effort to enforce one of those
paperwork laws that Han loves so much.

What's BATF?

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as the WACO
(We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.

Han wrote:

I must admit that I'm not sure whether she or her baby was indeed
under real imminent threat of being harmed, and I did live in Mass.
when there was a case of a woman fleeing into her basement during a
home invasion, and killing the guy who ccame down after her. She was
acquitted, I believe, because there was no secondary exit through
which she could have fled. Had there been another exit from the
basement, she should have used that.

## Yes, in some jurisdictions you MUST retreat. Many states, however, have
recently passed laws implementing the "Castle Doctrine," which presumes an
intruder means grievous bodily harm. Killing said intruder is not only
justifiable homicide, but NO civil liability can attach. That is you cannot
be sued by the asshole's relatives. Some states have gone farther (like
mine) and implemented a "Stand Your Ground" standard. That is, you may
respond with deadly force wherever you have a lawful right to be: in your
bedroom, in your car, on the sidewalk, at the mall, wherever.


What's been overlooked in this sorry episode is that she was on the
'phone to 911 for 21 minutes. I can't imagine any urban jurisdiction
where it would take the cops more than five minutes to respond to a
"home invasion in progress" call.

Not sure where she was in relation to emergency services, or how rural
and diispersed the area is, but that seems indeed a bit strange.
When I broke my arm on July 4th a few years back, police and
ambulance were in my back yard in minutes.

Why would the police respond to a broken-leg / medical call? Did you inform
the dispatcher that some stink-eye broke your leg and is roaming the
neighborhood with a baseball bat?

On 1/5/2012 12:31 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:


"Swingman" wrote ...
On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...-27777235.html



It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
didn't look very happy on the news last night.

Horse****!

Agreed.

There is all kinds of trauma. Her husband had died a few days earlier.
What kind of trauma would have happened to her and her babies if she did
not shoot him? Also. what if some politically correct prosecutor came
after her? Some self defense victims are ruined financially with having
to defend their actions. That would certainly be traumatic.

Also, she in no way did anything aggressive or reckless. She hid for 21
minutes, talking to 911 before she shot the guy. All the time protecting
her child. How many times have we heard about some idiot who lost it and
somebody died because they did not do the right thing and act in a
manner that protected life. She did the exact right thing. And for that,
she should be proud of herself. She was a mamma bear protecting her cub.
I am certain that any other kind of response (or non response) would be
terribly traumatic. Not only for her, but for every one who knew her.
Again, she did the right thing.

The other point that nobody wants to talk about is that she is a woman.
I taught self defense classes to women over 40 years ago. Long before it
became socially acceptable to do such things. There is tremendous
pressure on women in general to be a victim. Don't fight back, don't
make a scene, etc. Not only is this demeaning to women, but it is a
green light to any kind of whacko or criminal to prey on "helpless"
women. Like the bumper sticker says, "Nobody Ever Raped A .38".

Having directly dealt with a large number of women who were assaulted, I
can tell you that hurting somebody else is far preferable to being a
victim. The women I worked with fell into two categories. Those who
wanted to move on and were willing to do whatever to see that this sort
of thing never occurred again. The other category was much more tragic.
These poor women basically crawled into a paranoid hole and never came
out again. They became recluses, depressed, etc. I think today, there
would be more support for them. But the fact is that a large number of
victims never live normal lives again.

Whatever trauma occurs as a result of defending yourself, it simply does
not compare to the alternative. And I know that it is a cornerstone of
liberal philosophy to create more victims and disarm the populace.
Apparently creating safe working conditions for criminals has a higher
social purpose. This woman did exactly the right thing. She should be
commended and rewarded in some fashion. Certainly she should be given
some support of some kind. If more women were like her, there would be
less problems in this country.

And as for the poor misunderstood home invaders, that is simple. Just
use them for target practice. It is like those morons who hang a sign
outside of their house, "gun free zone". They get robbed pretty quickly.
They take the sign down. Criminal are safety conscious. It would be
better for every one to created DANGEROUS working conditions for criminals.

End of rant.






You are right, but it is still a tragedy for her. She just lost her
husband and has had no time to even start recovering from that, and
now she has the knowledge that she has killed a man on top of that.
She did the right thing, but it is still a big tragedy to have that
piled on top of her already huge load.

Bill

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Han wrote:

I must admit that I'm not sure whether she or her baby was indeed
under real imminent threat of being harmed, and I did live in Mass.
when there was a case of a woman fleeing into her basement during a
home invasion, and killing the guy who ccame down after her. She was
acquitted, I believe, because there was no secondary exit through
which she could have fled. Had there been another exit from the
basement, she should have used that.

## Yes, in some jurisdictions you MUST retreat. Many states, however, have
recently passed laws implementing the "Castle Doctrine," which presumes an
intruder means grievous bodily harm. Killing said intruder is not only
justifiable homicide, but NO civil liability can attach. That is you cannot
be sued by the asshole's relatives. Some states have gone farther (like
mine) and implemented a "Stand Your Ground" standard. That is, you may
respond with deadly force wherever you have a lawful right to be: in your
bedroom, in your car, on the sidewalk, at the mall, wherever.


What's been overlooked in this sorry episode is that she was on the
'phone to 911 for 21 minutes. I can't imagine any urban jurisdiction
where it would take the cops more than five minutes to respond to a
"home invasion in progress" call.

Not sure where she was in relation to emergency services, or how rural
and diispersed the area is, but that seems indeed a bit strange.
When I broke my arm on July 4th a few years back, police and
ambulance were in my back yard in minutes.

Why would the police respond to a broken-leg / medical call? Did you inform
the dispatcher that some stink-eye broke your leg and is roaming the
neighborhood with a baseball bat?
================================================== ==================
The last time (only time) I broke my leg, the police were first on the
scene. Of course, I was laying in the middle of an intersection.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as
the WACO (We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.

Waco was a very bad job, but that bunch seemed quite nuts to me. YMMV.
Anyway, to me it didn't seem necessary to kill them at that time.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 1/5/2012 7:36 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
m:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as
the WACO (We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.

Waco was a very bad job, but that bunch seemed quite nuts to me. YMMV.
Anyway, to me it didn't seem necessary to kill them at that time.

What other time would have been better?

g, d & r

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"CW" wrote in
:



"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Han wrote:

I must admit that I'm not sure whether she or her baby was indeed
under real imminent threat of being harmed, and I did live in Mass.
when there was a case of a woman fleeing into her basement during a
home invasion, and killing the guy who ccame down after her. She was
acquitted, I believe, because there was no secondary exit through
which she could have fled. Had there been another exit from the
basement, she should have used that.

## Yes, in some jurisdictions you MUST retreat. Many states, however,
have recently passed laws implementing the "Castle Doctrine," which
presumes an intruder means grievous bodily harm. Killing said intruder
is not only justifiable homicide, but NO civil liability can attach.
That is you cannot be sued by the asshole's relatives. Some states
have gone farther (like mine) and implemented a "Stand Your Ground"
standard. That is, you may respond with deadly force wherever you have
a lawful right to be: in your bedroom, in your car, on the sidewalk,
at the mall, wherever.


What's been overlooked in this sorry episode is that she was on the
'phone to 911 for 21 minutes. I can't imagine any urban jurisdiction
where it would take the cops more than five minutes to respond to a
"home invasion in progress" call.

Not sure where she was in relation to emergency services, or how
rural and diispersed the area is, but that seems indeed a bit
strange. When I broke my arm on July 4th a few years back, police and
ambulance were in my back yard in minutes.

Why would the police respond to a broken-leg / medical call? Did you
inform the dispatcher that some stink-eye broke your leg and is
roaming the neighborhood with a baseball bat?
================================================== ==================
The last time (only time) I broke my leg, the police were first on the
scene. Of course, I was laying in the middle of an intersection.

It is usual here (Bergen county, NJ) that police (municipal in my case)
get to the scene first, since they are patrolling on duty. Ambulance and
fire are volunteers (doing a GREAT job!!), but with a longer response
time.

I made a mistake cutting a low branch off a dogwood, and fell off a
ladder, backwards. Very stupid, and very lucky it wasn't worse.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman wrote in
:

On 1/5/2012 7:36 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
m:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as
the WACO (We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.

Waco was a very bad job, but that bunch seemed quite nuts to me. YMMV.
Anyway, to me it didn't seem necessary to kill them at that time.

What other time would have been better?

g, d & r

He's dovetailing it out of here g

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

HeyBub wrote the following:
Han wrote:
I must admit that I'm not sure whether she or her baby was indeed
under real imminent threat of being harmed, and I did live in Mass.
when there was a case of a woman fleeing into her basement during a
home invasion, and killing the guy who ccame down after her. She was
acquitted, I believe, because there was no secondary exit through
which she could have fled. Had there been another exit from the
basement, she should have used that.

## Yes, in some jurisdictions you MUST retreat. Many states, however, have
recently passed laws implementing the "Castle Doctrine," which presumes an
intruder means grievous bodily harm. Killing said intruder is not only
justifiable homicide, but NO civil liability can attach. That is you cannot
be sued by the asshole's relatives. Some states have gone farther (like
mine) and implemented a "Stand Your Ground" standard. That is, you may
respond with deadly force wherever you have a lawful right to be: in your
bedroom, in your car, on the sidewalk, at the mall, wherever.

What's been overlooked in this sorry episode is that she was on the
'phone to 911 for 21 minutes. I can't imagine any urban jurisdiction
where it would take the cops more than five minutes to respond to a
"home invasion in progress" call.
Not sure where she was in relation to emergency services, or how rural
and diispersed the area is, but that seems indeed a bit strange.
When I broke my arm on July 4th a few years back, police and
ambulance were in my back yard in minutes.

Why would the police respond to a broken-leg / medical call? Did you inform
the dispatcher that some stink-eye broke your leg and is roaming the
neighborhood with a baseball bat?

911 calls usually go to the police or sheriff's office in areas where
the fire department and EMT are volunteer services.
The police are usually the first to respond followed by EMT.
It has nothing to do with a crime occuring.

--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:25:10 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...-27777235.html


It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
didn't look very happy on the news last night.

Horse****!

1,000:1 odds that Bill does -not- own a gun?

--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt

Rather than "we" speak of her being traumatized (and hence, giving her
the sense or idea that she should be), the general populace should be
speaking of her (and, hence, giving to her the sense of) being proud
of herself and be emotionally elevated, in the best way (exactlty the
opposite of traumatized), that she did what she did. Lets not just
offer her a dollar reward (material gain), but give her a mental gain,
also, ie., it's the right thing to do, so be glad. Screw the trauma
idea, in every way.

Sonny

On 05 Jan 2012 19:44:36 GMT, Han wrote:

"Lee Michaels" leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast dot net wrote in
eb.com:



"Swingman" wrote ...
On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...er-18-kills-in
truder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html


It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
didn't look very happy on the news last night.

Horse****!

Agreed.

There is all kinds of trauma. Her husband had died a few days
earlier. What kind of trauma would have happened to her and her babies
if she did not shoot him? Also. what if some politically correct
prosecutor came after her? Some self defense victims are ruined
financially with having to defend their actions. That would certainly
be traumatic.

Also, she in no way did anything aggressive or reckless. She hid for
21 minutes, talking to 911 before she shot the guy. All the time
protecting her child. How many times have we heard about some idiot
who lost it and somebody died because they did not do the right thing
and act in a manner that protected life. She did the exact right
thing. And for that, she should be proud of herself. She was a mamma
bear protecting her cub. I am certain that any other kind of response
(or non response) would be terribly traumatic. Not only for her, but
for every one who knew her. Again, she did the right thing.

The other point that nobody wants to talk about is that she is a
woman. I taught self defense classes to women over 40 years ago.
Long before it became socially acceptable to do such things. There is
tremendous pressure on women in general to be a victim. Don't fight
back, don't make a scene, etc. Not only is this demeaning to women,
but it is a green light to any kind of whacko or criminal to prey on
"helpless" women. Like the bumper sticker says, "Nobody Ever Raped A
.38".

Having directly dealt with a large number of women who were assaulted,
I can tell you that hurting somebody else is far preferable to being a
victim. The women I worked with fell into two categories. Those who
wanted to move on and were willing to do whatever to see that this
sort of thing never occurred again. The other category was much more
tragic. These poor women basically crawled into a paranoid hole and
never came out again. They became recluses, depressed, etc. I think
today, there would be more support for them. But the fact is that a
large number of victims never live normal lives again.

Whatever trauma occurs as a result of defending yourself, it simply
does not compare to the alternative. And I know that it is a
cornerstone of liberal philosophy to create more victims and disarm
the populace. Apparently creating safe working conditions for
criminals has a higher social purpose. This woman did exactly the
right thing. She should be commended and rewarded in some fashion.
Certainly she should be given some support of some kind. If more
women were like her, there would be less problems in this country.

And as for the poor misunderstood home invaders, that is simple. Just
use them for target practice. It is like those morons who hang a sign
outside of their house, "gun free zone". They get robbed pretty
quickly. They take the sign down. Criminal are safety conscious. It
would be better for every one to created DANGEROUS working conditions
for criminals.

End of rant.

Nice one, Lee. Kudos.



I'm a liberal. I am in favor of registration of firearms, and licensing
people for the use of them.

Does that hold for just us law abiding citizens, or the criminals,
too, Han?


This lady did the right thing, and (I believe) has the 911 tapes to prove
it. Because she had a baby, and was in her home, she had and has the
right to defend herself against a perp like this. While it must be
traumatic to know she killed a human being, that human being didn't live
according to the rules. End of story. Kudos to the lady and I hope she
can get on with her life as best she can as soon as she can.

Ditto.

--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt

On 05 Jan 2012 22:31:46 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

I'm a liberal. I am in favor of registration of firearms, and
licensing people for the use of them.

This lady did the right thing, and (I believe) has the 911 tapes to
prove it. Because she had a baby, and was in her home, she had and
has the right to defend herself against a perp like this. While it
must be traumatic to know she killed a human being, that human being
didn't live according to the rules. End of story. Kudos to the lady
and I hope she can get on with her life as best she can as soon as
she can.

Then live with the fact that in some benighted (i.e., liberal)
jurisdictions, she did NOT have the right to take a human life unless
she was certain her life was in danger (and maybe not even then). She
would not be allowed to presume an imminent threat to her life by the
actions of the squint. Unless he said "I'm going to kill you," he
could just as easily been inclined to merely rape her. She didn't
know, hence she was guilty of at least manslaughter.

I must admit that I'm not sure whether she or her baby was indeed under
real imminent threat of being harmed,

Didn't you listen to what she said in the video? Several large men,
one wielding a 12" knife, who broke her door down to get at her isn't
imminent threat of being harmed? Jesus, Han. Please buy a _clue_!


and I did live in Mass. when there
was a case of a woman fleeing into her basement during a home invasion,
and killing the guy who ccame down after her. She was acquitted, I
believe, because there was no secondary exit through which she could have
fled. Had there been another exit from the basement, she should have
used that.

So his (possible) accomplice could have caught her instead? Right.

--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:30:46 -0600, Bill Gill
wrote:

On 1/5/2012 12:31 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
--snip of fine rant--
You are right, but it is still a tragedy for her. She just lost her
husband and has had no time to even start recovering from that, and
now she has the knowledge that she has killed a man on top of that.
She did the right thing, but it is still a big tragedy to have that
piled on top of her already huge load.

Bill, I think it may have been a good thing, a freak chance, to have
happen to her. It sure ripped her out of her mourning for her husband.
It probably kick started her life again, too, weighing the value of
everything left in her life. She'll likely be an even better mother
as a result. (How's that for a positive spin on it?)

--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:26:23 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...-27777235.html


It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
didn't look very happy on the news last night.

Bill


It is sad but probably the best out come whether she realizes it now or not.

Ayup. Both guys (dead and jailed) probably won't be ruining anyone
else's lives in the near future. And she proved to herself that she
can stand up to anything life presents to her, even without her
husband. It was a rough lesson, but a good one.

--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:25:10 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...-27777235.html


It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
didn't look very happy on the news last night.

Horse****!

1,000:1 odds that Bill does -not- own a gun?

There are other possibilities... One is that he decided he couldn't or
wouldn't be able to defend himself with a gun and he projects that personal
decision on others. Freedom of choice... that's fine. Making it policy is
another issue. Alternatively, he may not have ever been in a position that
led him to really ponder the situation. Sort of along the lines of the old
joke about a Conservative being a Liberal who was mugged... though a strong
argument has been made by some of my associates that Liberals are
Conservatives who have had to deal with the police. I can appreciate that
the use of force is not for everyone. I know too many women who were
forcibly raped, one of them twice, and despite that most of them would never
be able to shoot someone. That is a reality that many may not understand but
maybe they should accept...

There is widespread misinformation about the use of force and deadly
physical force. If you carry or otherwise maintain a gun for self defense it
would behoove you to take a comprehensive course on those issues. In NY it
would revolve around P.L. article 35.

Google "Grossbohlin Chan" for articles my associates and I wrote, and
articles I critiqued as early drafts, on these issues many years ago. Gary
Kleck, Don Kates and John Lott have good summary books/articles and Ed Suter
caused quite a stir with his article on the anti-gun articles in the medical
literature. As I recall I have Gary's summary of his seminal book Point
Blank on Jeff Chan's site. I'm sure Ed's article is there.

It's a complex issue... bumper stickers don't cover it!

John

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 05 Jan 2012 22:31:46 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

I'm a liberal. I am in favor of registration of firearms, and
licensing people for the use of them.

This lady did the right thing, and (I believe) has the 911 tapes to
prove it. Because she had a baby, and was in her home, she had and
has the right to defend herself against a perp like this. While it
must be traumatic to know she killed a human being, that human
being didn't live according to the rules. End of story. Kudos to
the lady and I hope she can get on with her life as best she can as
soon as she can.

Then live with the fact that in some benighted (i.e., liberal)
jurisdictions, she did NOT have the right to take a human life
unless she was certain her life was in danger (and maybe not even
then). She would not be allowed to presume an imminent threat to her
life by the actions of the squint. Unless he said "I'm going to kill
you," he could just as easily been inclined to merely rape her. She
didn't know, hence she was guilty of at least manslaughter.

I must admit that I'm not sure whether she or her baby was indeed
under real imminent threat of being harmed,

Didn't you listen to what she said in the video? Several large men,
one wielding a 12" knife, who broke her door down to get at her isn't
imminent threat of being harmed? Jesus, Han. Please buy a _clue_!

I indeed didn't listen to the whole story. I got the message almost
right away. I am not a lawyer who has to look at all sides. I believe
that indeed as you stated she was in imminent danger. And I am
definitely NOT saying she did wrong, liberal as I am grin.

and I did live in Mass. when there
was a case of a woman fleeing into her basement during a home
invasion, and killing the guy who ccame down after her. She was
acquitted, I believe, because there was no secondary exit through
which she could have fled. Had there been another exit from the
basement, she should have used that.

So his (possible) accomplice could have caught her instead? Right.

I lived in Mass in the early 70's - a long time ago, and my memory is
fading. If you want to research the details, go ahead. Not sure there
was or could have been an accomplice in this case.



--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"-MIKE-" wrote in message ...



Taking a human life is a horrible


-MIKE-



Uh........................Not always.

Max, 1st Cavalry Division, Korea, Aug. 1950 - Aug. 1951.

On 1/5/12 10:07 PM, Max wrote:


"-MIKE-" wrote in message ...


Taking a human life is a horrible


-MIKE-



Uh........................Not always.
Max, 1st Cavalry Division, Korea, Aug. 1950 - Aug. 1951.



No Max, it's always horrible. Even though it is often justified,
valiant, heroic, and wise, anytime man is forced to play God in deciding
when another life shall end, it is also tragic.

I truly thank you for your service, but I'm certain you don't look upon
what you had to honorably do with folly.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"Max" wrote in message
b.com...



"-MIKE-" wrote in message ...



Taking a human life is a horrible


-MIKE-



Uh........................Not always.

Max, 1st Cavalry Division, Korea, Aug. 1950 - Aug. 1951.
================================================== =========
Go Cav!

On 1/5/2012 6:39 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/5/2012 7:36 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
m:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as
the WACO (We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.

Waco was a very bad job, but that bunch seemed quite nuts to me. YMMV.
Anyway, to me it didn't seem necessary to kill them at that time.

What other time would have been better?

Never. Never would have been better.