HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Woman shoots, kills her w...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:13 AM

Woman shoots, kills her would-be rapist.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/localnews/110812AlcaldeKilling#.UJudVOOe_II

Long article so I will summarize in italics, quotes are in regular font.


35 yr old woman gets gas, goes home, hears knock on door, opens door to strange man (Lawrence Sandoval), he forces his way inside, goes to kitchen and grabs knife.

She tells him to leave and runs to her bedroom. He says, "That's a good idea." and follows her. Put knife to her and begins to tear her shirt off.


“She told him to stop or she was going to shoot him,” according to the warrant, but apparently he didn't take her threat seriously: “The unknown male subject replied telling her, ‘You will not shoot me.’ ”

As Sandoval continued to push her to undress, the woman told deputies, she reached under her pillow, grabbed a loaded gun and pointed it at him. She told investigators the man “continued to come toward her placing his knee on her,” so she pulled the trigger.

Woman drops gun, (9mm Luger) runs out of home, calls 911.

Police and ambulance arrive, guy is dead, they get search warrant, seize the rest of her guns (two handguns, rifle, shotgun, and BB gun) and ammo as well as blanket from bed. They are searching for the bullet that killed him.

No charges have been filed.



Assuming that the investigation and evidence supports the story as represented, is there any question as to Sandoval's intentions or his willingness to use deadly violence to get what he wanted?

This woman had no other options except effective, violent resistance. If she had not shot him, he may well have killed her so she couldn't give a description to the police, or simply as part of his power/dominance/misogyny trip. In any event she would have been violently raped.

The ONLY thing that police could have done would have been to collect evidence after the crime. She would have been a crime statistic if she had been unarmed.

To help her, the gun had to be instantly available, loaded, with a round in the chamber. Empty, in a safe, with the ammunition in a different room would have been of no help at all to her.

She did not misidentify and shoot a family member, or herself, or anybody except a would-be rapist.

She took responsibility for her own safety and was able to save herself. It probably wasn't his first rape, bit was certainly his last attempt. Not only did she save herself, but she probably saved many future women from Sandoval.

138 replies, 14273 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 138 replies Author Time Post
Reply Woman shoots, kills her would-be rapist. (Original post)
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 OP
Marinedem Nov 2012 #1
oneshooter Nov 2012 #8
krispos42 Nov 2012 #10
holdencaufield Nov 2012 #2
99th_Monkey Nov 2012 #51
holdencaufield Nov 2012 #54
gejohnston Nov 2012 #3
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #5
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #68
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #4
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #6
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #7
krispos42 Nov 2012 #9
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #11
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #12
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #13
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #16
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #17
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #18
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #20
gejohnston Nov 2012 #23
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #25
petronius Nov 2012 #26
gejohnston Nov 2012 #30
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #31
gejohnston Nov 2012 #36
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #60
gejohnston Nov 2012 #62
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #64
gejohnston Nov 2012 #66
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #19
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #28
gejohnston Nov 2012 #38
gejohnston Nov 2012 #22
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #65
Trunk Monkey Nov 2012 #81
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #91
DonP Nov 2012 #97
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #98
misschicken Nov 2012 #14
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #21
yellowcanine Nov 2012 #128
Jenoch Nov 2012 #15
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #24
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #27
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #34
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #35
glacierbay Nov 2012 #41
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #47
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #63
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #71
glacierbay Nov 2012 #73
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #75
glacierbay Nov 2012 #82
glacierbay Nov 2012 #85
glacierbay Nov 2012 #70
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #72
MicaelS Nov 2012 #92
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #93
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #43
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #48
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #55
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #44
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #50
gejohnston Nov 2012 #56
Clames Nov 2012 #29
Jenoch Nov 2012 #40
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #45
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #57
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #59
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #61
Jenoch Nov 2012 #99
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #100
Jenoch Nov 2012 #107
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #104
Jenoch Nov 2012 #106
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #108
gejohnston Nov 2012 #58
MicaelS Nov 2012 #76
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #78
Simo 1939_1940 Nov 2012 #39
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #46
glacierbay Nov 2012 #74
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #77
glacierbay Nov 2012 #83
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #90
MicaelS Nov 2012 #94
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #95
MicaelS Nov 2012 #96
KansDem Nov 2012 #32
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #37
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #42
no_hypocrisy Nov 2012 #33
shadowrider Nov 2012 #49
PABigDaddyDemocrat Nov 2012 #52
vilify Nov 2012 #53
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #67
yellowcanine Nov 2012 #129
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #135
yellowcanine Nov 2012 #136
DWC Nov 2012 #69
rock Nov 2012 #79
glacierbay Nov 2012 #84
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #87
Blue Owl Nov 2012 #80
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #86
gejohnston Nov 2012 #88
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #112
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #89
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #111
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #115
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #116
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #118
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #119
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #121
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #122
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #123
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #124
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #125
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #126
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #130
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #131
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #133
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #134
Clames Nov 2012 #137
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #138
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #109
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #110
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #113
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #114
oneshooter Nov 2012 #117
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #120
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #101
tularetom Nov 2012 #102
Auntie Bush Nov 2012 #103
catbyte Nov 2012 #105
yellowcanine Nov 2012 #127
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #132

Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:16 AM

1. Ugh.

 

Now that poor man, who was probably just about to turn his life around and take some community college classes is dead.

I hope that aspiring Annie Oakley is real proud of herself, killing a fellow human like that.

What kind of wimp shoots a guy with a gun anyway? She obviously was to chicken to fight him off hand to hand. I mean a gun under the pillow? Really? What is this, Mad Max?

Good thing the cops took all her other guns. Can't have this evil, NRA succubus killing again.


















































Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 06:25 PM

8. Not only that but

She can not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intended to rape her.














Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 06:33 PM

10. Unsecured loaded guns? Obviously paranoid.

I bet she wears seatbelts and keeps a spare set of keys at a relative's house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:04 AM

2. "but apparently he didn't take her threat seriously"

 

Bet he's kicking himself in Hell over that decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:54 PM

51. He must have been imagining to himself, "but she really WANTS it..

so she won't really shoot me." An inherent part of his delusional
misogynistic mindset it would seem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #51)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:04 PM

54. Her eyes said, "Yes, Yes..."

 

but her gun said, "No, No!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:14 AM

3. can any cops or lawyers explain why take

all of the guns? That one pistol and the bloody blanket for the investigation, I get. Any guns that had are not part of the investigation, unless she is being charged with something, I don't get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:21 AM

5. Yeah, without charges, she has been effectively (and publicly) disarmed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:51 PM

68. My take at this point is that media report is very flakey so its not sure if that was even done.

Even Washington DC cops did not try to take the rest of the guns in our possession when my wife double tapped a home invader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:36 AM

4. That's not entirely true.

 

This woman had no other options except effective, violent resistance. If she had not shot him, he may well have killed her so she couldn't give a description to the police, or simply as part of his power/dominance/misogyny trip. In any event she would have been violently raped.

All victims of violent crime without firearms have three choices: run away if they are fast enough, submit to their attacker if they are tough enough, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their attacker.

So the victim did have three other choices, they just were all bad. The firearm gave her a better fourth choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:53 PM

6. How uncivil.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:32 PM

7. Play stupid games

Win stupid prizes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 06:32 PM

9. But why did they seize all of her guns?

Sounds fishy. What if an angry friend or another relative (or another rapist, realizing she's just been publicly disarmed) decides to stop by for some ultra-violence?

I understand seizing all weapons fired for evidence collection. But ALL of them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 07:35 PM

11. I read some BG on the Sheriff and his department. Not very pretty...

I wouldn't be surprised if they regularly violate the law and investigative procedures. The Sheriff will not communicate with much of the MSM because of the latter's criticism of the department.

I think a friend may wish to loan her a gun to "tide her over." She should get legal advice about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:08 PM

12. Angry that some uppity citizen made them look bad?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:36 PM

13. It does sound a little fishy.

If it went down the way she claims, then it was definitely a justifiable homicide and kudos to her. However, it makes one wonder why a woman who keeps several guns in her house would open the door to a total stranger, leaving a deadly weapon available to her attacker. Maybe they seized them all because they weren't yet buying her story. It's also interesting that the bullet was not retrieved, only a casing.
I guess we'll have to stay tuned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #13)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:06 AM

16. 9mm makes a through shot, penetrates wall, needs search warrant to dig for it.

It appears that she didn't have a peephole in her door, so she had to open the door to see who was there. That is fairly common.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #16)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:34 AM

17. Sounds pretty dumb to me.

She can afford a small arsenal of weapons, yet can't be bothered to install a five dollar peephole. Makes no sense. If she's that paranoid, there's no way she would just open the door to a stranger and leave the closest gun in the bedroom, while leaving a handy weapon for her rapist on the kitchen counter.
I suggest we keep tabs on this story. See where it goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:06 PM

18. Small arsenal? Not even close

Sounds like a husband's hunting guns and a historical collectors item

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:25 PM

20. I must have missed the part where she's married to a hunter

who collects historical collectors' items.
All I saw was two handguns, rifle, shotgun, and BB gun and a woman. No mention of a hunting or husband or historical items. Do you have some inside info you'd care to share? Or are you just being creative? If the latter, I could conjure up all kinds of possible scenarios.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:40 PM

23. that isn't a small arsenal

that is typical for rural mountain west. Have to remember, this is a village of less than 400 people in northern New Mexico. That is actually pretty small collection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #23)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:50 PM

25. I didn't mean it in a disparaging way.

I understand it may be normal in that location and have no issue with it. My point was that she had a choice of several weapons. Yet she chose not to be cautious. I would expect someone who owns 2 handguns and a shotgun to be a little more wary about opening the door to a "stranger". What do you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #25)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:59 PM

26. I don't think the number of guns is relevant (and that number is reasonably small), nor the knife

on a kitchen counter (pretty normal place for a knife to be), but I do think that her 'precaution' of a loaded gun under the pillow but not a peephole, chain, or verbal ID suggests that her security planning isn't as balanced or thorough as might be desirable. Not to blame her or assign any responsibility, but there is a learning opportunity here...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #25)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:09 PM

30. country folks out west tend to be more trusting

Hell, we kept our guns unloaded and rarely locked the doors at night. Can't speak to her thinking. Projecting what I would do to someone with different life experiences and reasons for doing things always struck me as pointless. Fear and paranoia was a city thing. After living in California, New Mexico, and Florida, I would take New Mexico out of the three.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #30)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:18 PM

31. I love NM, except for it's lack of a coastline.

CA is a hugely varied state. Gets as rural as anywhere and where I am I doubt anyone ever locks a door. Even in West LA, my business partner, a single female, didn't her door for years until I insisted, because we had computers I didn't want to risk. Hell, she didn't even have a key. She used an old garage door opener. I had to change the locks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #31)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:32 PM

36. Reminds me of when I was in California

the more restrictive CCW counties were complaining about residents "county shopping", at least that was how the TV news put it. Folks would go to one of the northern counties like Humbolt to get a CCW, even though they lived in LA. One of county sheriff interviewed looked like Jerry Garcia dressed in bibbed overalls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:04 PM

60. 9mm Luger is a specific handgun from WW2 and is a historical collectable

A friend pointed out that may be yet another example of media inaccuracy and it may have been a pistol chambered in 9*19, which is sometimes called 9mm Luger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #60)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:50 PM

62. the Luger is actually older

from the first World War, the first being made IIRC, DWM. I found a few made in 1915. Unfortunately, my wallet said NFW. The Swiss used it as their sidearm until the 1970s.
It is called the Luger because the round, along with the 7.62 Luger were developed by George Luger. The 9x19 is sometimes called 9mm Parabellum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.65_mm_Luger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9_mm_Luger

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #62)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:38 PM

64. Indeed, the toggle link design has been around for some time

Most people associate it with WWII Germany. While it is an interesting action, I have never had any attraction for it.

I still see 9*19 ammo labeled 9mm Luger vice Parabellum

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #64)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:44 PM

66. I used to see Parabellum when

they, and semi autos in general, were "European" or "Canadian" but not red blooded Jack Armstrong USA.
Mauser made some Lugers in the 1970s, I found one at a gun show in .45 ACP. I had to choose between it and a Walther TPH.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_TPH

During WW2, some did carry Lugers, but the Walther P38 was the standard sidearm for the army. Many officers, mostly air force, carried the Mauser Hsc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:22 PM

19. May have lived in an apartment, no peephole, can't install one.

If she lived in her own home, I agree that a peephole is a basic must. Or at least a chain guard on the door to slow intruders down a bit. Large kitchen knives are often available in countertop holders, so that isn't a surprise.

I agree about watching followups but often the media doesn't follow a story. There was a July 5th shooting in Dallas that I wanted to follow but nothing else was ever written about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:07 PM

28. No apartment buildings on County Rd 39 that I can see

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:38 PM

22. unless she rents

and the owner is too cheap.
Another possibility, but very slim probability, on the bullet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaser_Safety_Slug

Depends on the layout of the house. There are houses in that part of the country where the front door is at the kitchen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:43 PM

65. Clearly it's her fault

 



/any news on how she was dressed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #17)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:29 PM

81. Given she actually DID shoot a rapist in her bedroom

 

How do you figure she's 'paranoid"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #81)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:39 PM

91. Would-be rapist, maybe.

Think about it. Go with what we know so far.

Facts:
1. One dead guy found in her bedroom on Saturday morning
2. Five guns found in the house, including 2 handguns.
3. Her explanation, which states she let a stranger into her house without taking precautions.
She claims he said "I followed you from the gas station." Really?
She claims he picked up a knife from her kitchen. How convenient.
She claims she ran to the bedroom and he said "That's a good idea" Really?
She claims she told him "I'll shoot you!" before retrieving the Luger from beneath her pillow. Really?
She claims he then said "No you won't."

Do I really need to continue?

Let's await more facts before coming to any conclusions, but based on what we know right now, it stinks. Sounds like she made the whole thing up, or is only giving part of the story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #91)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 04:27 PM

97. Yeah, women make shit like that up all the time :sarcasm:

Do you even realize how fucking sick you sound?

Maybe you should take that POV up to GD and let's see how long you last there or on DU overall?

Suggesting a woman that claimed she was being raped was just making it all up so she could shoot somebody and get away with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #97)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 05:36 PM

98. I'm not suggesting anything. I'm trying to figure it out what happened, based on what we know.

I learned many years ago not to take everything at face value, especially when there is one party telling what happened and the other party is dead. We have very limited info.
I have never suggested that "women make that shit up all the time" and you know it. If you bothered to read my posts, instead of shooting your mouth off, you'd already know that I support the shooting if it happened as she claimed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:10 PM

14. To help her, the gun had to be instantly available, loaded, with a round in the chamber.

 

"Empty, in a safe, with the ammunition in a different room would have been of no help at all to her."

Definitely a point I try to drive home to my mother when my father is out of town.

It isn't luck that this woman is still alive- it's being prepared. There's no such thing as being over prepared!
When given the option of being raped or murdered during a home invasion, or shooting the intruder, I am glad that the latter is an option.

I am curious as to why they seized all of her weapons and made that information available to the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misschicken (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:37 PM

21. She didn't sound too prepared to me.

Closest gun (out of 5) was under her pillow in the bedroom. Didn't check to see who was at the door. Left a handy knife for her would-be rapist in the kitchen. Sounds more like a scene from "Dumb and Dumber". If her story is true, which I seriously doubt, she was very lucky and very stupid.
Let's be honest here. If you were about to be raped by some stranger wielding a knife, would you say "If you try to rape me, I'll shoot you!" when your gun is still under your pillow? No, I didn't think so. First, you get the gun, second you point the gun and third, if the bastard is still in the room, you shoot the fucker. End of story.
So far, I'm not buying her story. Call me a cynic, but none of it makes sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #21)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:52 AM

128. I wondered about that also. Seems to me you would get the gun and then talk if you were going to

talk at all before shooting. I also think you would be running for the gun as soon as the guy barges through the door. But to be fair, people have not always thought through these things and she may have panicked. But if it turns out she knows this guy and had some kind of relationship with him, she is likely in some serious trouble. Not to say that the shooting still may have been justifiable but it will definitely be more difficult for her to show that. She better hope they can find some physical evidence to back up her story. His prints on the knife would help a lot, particularly if the prints were consistent with a knife attack and not chopping vegetables, for example. How many rapists don't bring their own weapon, is another thought which crossed my mind?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:21 AM

15. It is interesting

that no anti-gunners ever show up on this thread or on threads similar to this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:45 PM

24. What do you mean by anti-gunner? Such a meaningless word.

I thought Mike was anti-gun ownership, but apparently he isn't. Have you ever seen anyone here opposed to shooting a would-be rapist in their own home? I doubt that any who have been blocked from here would oppose such an action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:01 PM

27. anti-gunner is a perfectly meaningful word...

 

It describes someone who proposes disarming the citizenry, without cause.

Personally, I'm glad this Sandoval character is dead. I'm just sorry nobody set him on fire, while he was alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #27)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:26 PM

34. I doubt we have any of those types on DU

I guess you knew Sandoval well enough to justify your comments. Of course, dead men can't talk. If the woman was being truthful, then I agree with you.
"Anti-gunner" is a smear, never used by anyone to describe themselves, unlike the term "Gun-nut" which may be used with prejudice or with pride.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #34)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:31 PM

35. I can think of two "Total Ban" gun controllers on DU. They're vocal, and unhinged.

I promise you, yes, they are active here; one of them raises all sorts of hell even outside RKBA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #35)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:51 PM

41. I know exactly who you're talking about

 

one is G******4anything and the other is b*****43. They've both flat out said that all guns should be banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #35)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:34 PM

47. Maybe you'd care to share this knowledge with links.

We are talking about this group btw, not the whole of DU. One might expect a handful of beyond the fringe extremists of all stripes when considering our entire membership. One of the reasons the admins restrict gun nuttery to this group, where we encounter "vocal and unhinged" individuals on a regular basis. Thankfully, most of them don't last too long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #47)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:25 PM

63. Here's one, I can't find the other that Glacier mentioned:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117286046#post77


100% gun ban outside the home, eliminate all legal guns to stop illegal guns, et cetera. He walked that back recently-ish from 100% complete and utter outright ban, to "ban outside the home", because even other Controllers thought he was a loon. It's folks like him that stop me from being on the Controller side of the argument; I'd rather people have too many guns than have them banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #63)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:02 PM

71. He defiinitely went ott in this post, I agree.

But, looking at a few of his posts, I think he represents the more rational segment of society. He did not advocate a total ban on gun ownership, which was the original point.
I agree that they should be banned outside the home, except in special circumstances and in gun designated zones. Calling for a ban, I realized long ago, is pointless and not what a free society is about. What we can do is legislate against behavior, which would be far more effective.
Graham has the right ideas, but he hasn't thought them through yet. Neither have I, for that matter, but I'm working on it and hopefully he is too. That's why we're all here isn't it? To try and come up with some rational solutions to a horrible problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #71)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:19 PM

73. Graham does not have the right ideas

 

he supports the Patriot Act, the no fly list, the terrorist watch list, invasive surveillance, more govt. control. His posts here in the gungeon are disoriented, jumbled nonsense, most of the time, you need a translator to figure out what he's saying.
He advocates using the IRS to try to destroy the NRA even though there's no proof of any financial wrongdoing.
Fact is, his views on gun ownership belongs here.



Your posts, OTOH, are well thought out and sane, easily followed and do make sense, I don't usually agree with your views on gun control, but at least I can follow what you're saying, unlike him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #73)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:29 PM

75. I guess I'll have to read more of his posts.

Thanks for your comments and back atcha. My purpose in being here is to discuss and exchange ideas, not to agree. Spending time with folk you agree with all the time is boring and it stunts growth.
Respect

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #75)


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #75)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:48 PM

85. Had to self delete what I posted

 

I might hurt someone's feelings and get alerted on, but his posts are out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #47)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 10:13 AM

70. Here's the other one I was referencing

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #70)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:18 PM

72. If what he suggested were possible, I would agree with him.

Unfortunately, as is pointed out so often, such bans are pointless unless we are prepared to back them up with equally extreme penalties, which would mean a radical shift in our sociopolitical paradigm. Not gonna happen.

Again, though, he does not call for a total ban on gun ownership. Only handguns and ammo, which is laudable, but unrealistic, as ammo is restricted by caliber, not by type of gun, and handguns can be made in anyone's basement. Not to mention the fact that if manufacture stopped tomorrow, nothing would change except the growth of the black market in guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #72)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:44 PM

92. If ever gun in America was destroyed,

And some magical means was found to prevent any guns or ammunition from ever being manufactured or imported, Americans would simply revert to killing each other with edged weapons. And Prohibitionists would then be crying "We have to do something to get these terrible knives off the street!".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #92)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:55 PM

93. Right. I forgot about all those hi-cap semi-automatic knives.

Knives that can kill 30+ people in a few seconds. Knives that can kill at a distance. Knives that go through several walls.
Much harder to kill with a knife, plus you get your hands dirty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #34)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:45 PM

43. As certain people seem to be inordinately opposed to civilians owning firearms...

 

I would think that "anti-gunner" is an apt phrase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #43)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:37 PM

48. Ah yes, "certain people".

Let's see if these certain people appear and I shall gladly join the fray in educating them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #48)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:34 PM

55. Given your apparent tone, I wish you luck in said endeavor...

 

From my limited experience via teaching for 23 years, I'd say you have an uphill climb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #34)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:49 PM

44. What short term name would you prefer?

"Advocate of greater gun control" is too much to type every time. "Anti" is fast and easy and everybody knows what I mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #44)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:47 PM

50. Considering the flak I got for using the short term phrase "toter"

I would expect the same consideration. Even though the word "toter" and the term " gun nut" are used by many on all sides of the argument, I bowed to the sensitivities of a handful of carriers, who objected to being called "toters".
Neither of those terms are pejorative, IMO, but for a long time now, I have replaced "toter" with the phrase "those who carry loaded guns in public", which is longer than "Advocate of greater gun control".
"Anti" is short and fast to type, but you are wrong, as I have pointed out repeatedly, everybody does not know what you mean.
I am not an "anti" everything concerning guns or gun use, only extreme behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #50)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:35 PM

56. nor is it precise

Like I taught my kids, it is not the word, but what is being conveyed. They got the lecture when using euphemisms for "colorful metaphors" or illiterate adjectives. If "toter" is meant as a pejorative, then it is. of course there is the time honored US military, although I'm sure other militaries do it too, of using acronyms. We can go with:
Fudd: see urban dictionary. Ed Schultz could fall in this.
AGGC: see above, you for example. Could include gun owners like Schultz and Gabby's husband. Come to think of it, I can think of an "anti" that hasn't come by lately could fall in that. Bill Ruger supported magazine restrictions, but not so much gun restrictions.
SQS: status quo supporter, OK as is on current federal law, view on specific local laws may vary. Could include those supporting minor tweaks in current law either way. Repealing the Hughes Amendment could fall in this category.
DSH: don't see it happening, someone who supports repealing the Gun Control Act.
Prohibitionist: self explanatory. That would include banning specific types.
FINH: fucking insane/not happening, someone supporting repeal all laws including NFA. These guys are really rare, I have yet to find one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:08 PM

29. Mike is anti gun ownership.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:44 PM

40. You might be

correct that the term I used "anti-gunner" is somewhat meaningless. However, it gets the point across. You for instance don't even wish police officers to be armed. I would put you in the category of being anti-gun. You might not like it, but it is my opinion. Just because when you were a cop in Britain and you didn't carry a gun, that does not mean it should be that way in the U.S. I also remember a thread where a senior citizen was taking a beating by several teens and you thought the man was wrong in defending himself with his gun. That too sounds like an "anti-gunner".By the way, are you a naturalized U.S. citizen or are you still a citizen of your home country?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #40)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:23 PM

45. I have nothing against guns. Got it.

I do not suggest disarming the police, if you were to actually read my posts. I object to anyone carrying guns unnecessarily. There are many less lethal weapons that cops can and do carry on a regular basis. Cops in the UK have access to guns if and when they need them. As long as cops here routinely walk our streets carrying guns, then every other person should have the same right. You may not like it, but that is my opinion.
If you want to discuss my previous posts, you need to provide links. Regarding your other questions, it is none of your fucking business.
Your attempts to paint those you disagree with as extremists brings into question your sincerity. And your suggestion that I have ever said that my experience as a cop in the UK means it SHOULD be the same here is completely bogus.
If you want to use bigoted insults like "anti-gunner", that's your choice, but you do your cause a disservice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #45)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:47 PM

57. and yet you are well-reasoned, and mercifully free of casting smears...

 

"Gun-nut" can be as bigoted as "Anti-gunner," and a certain N-bomb.

As a proud Yankee of WOP/Mick descent, I take ownership of those words... Your use could constitute hate speech.

Guns serve a purpose: an equalizer in a deadly fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #57)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:48 PM

59. Really? Maybe you should tell these guys how sensitive you are

http://gunnuts.net/

The Gun Nut Test http://www.okcupid.com/tests/the-gun-nut-test1

The term "Gun nut" has been used to describe firearms enthusiasts who are deeply involved with the gun culture.
I have nothing against guns, or gun enthusiasts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #59)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:09 PM

61. just pointing out perspectives...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #45)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 06:33 PM

99. We actually agree on something you wrote.

"As long as cops here routinely walk our streets carrying guns, then every other person should have the same right." I don't happen to have a CCW permit, but I believe it is my right to if I so choose.

You post is saying that you do not believe cops should walk our streets carrying guns, that means they are disarmed. As has been pointed out on these threads ad nauseam, Great Britain and the United States are quite different when it comes to law enforcement.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone here.

Of course your citizenship is your business. I never thought you would even address it. If you admitted you are not a U.S. citizen that would make anything you post here have zero importance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #99)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 08:04 PM

100. Fortunately, other members don't suffer from your xenophobia.

"Of course you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone here.

Of course your citizenship is your business. I never thought you would even address it. If you admitted you are not a U.S. citizen that would make anything you post here have zero importance. "

Nice display of bigotry. Makes one wonder about your credentials as a liberal.

Many of us citizens have no issue with the hundreds of foreigners participating here, including one of the owners of DU. Your bigotry is on display for the world to see. Congratulations!

I'm happy that we can agree on something. However, you continue to misconstrue my meaning. I never said cops should be disarmed. I object to the ROUTINE carry of guns, which has nothing to do with access to guns kept in vehicles and armories, or at their homes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #100)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:40 PM

107. I don't know that I would

describe my views as bigotry. I find it annoying when a citizen of another country tells me what U.S. gun laws should be.

If a cop is walking their beat without a gun on their belt, he or she is disarmed. That is a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #99)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:13 PM

104. I agree that if a poster is ineligible to participate in U.S. elections and ineligible to be

 

a member of the Democratic Party, then it would seem that anything posted would have zero importance and no relationship to the purpose of this site. It is not xenophobic to recognize that.

You said to the poster, "If you admitted you are not a U.S. citizen ..."

Do you have a link? Has the poster admitted that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #104)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:37 PM

106. No. I have no link.

I wrote IF. I did not make any claims as to his eligibility to vote in U.S. elections. I do know from previous posts (no link) that he is either from or was a cop in Manchester, UK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #106)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:38 PM

108. Thanks.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #40)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:54 PM

58. one thing about immigration

when one becomes a citizen of one country, they usually keep the citizenship of their birth country, becoming a dual citizen. He would have to go to the UK embassy to fill out forms renounce is UK citizenship. AFAIK, Kenya is the only country that does not allow dual citizenship.
One can also be a "natural born citizen" of more than one country. You don't have to be born in the US to be a natural born citizen either. See military brat. Mitt's dad for example. Both of his parents were US, and was registered with the US State Dept as a "citizen born abroad", Mexico has birth right citizenship.
That is what made the birthers even more stupid. My Niece has a Japanese birth certificate along with her CBA from the State Department. But, I digress. Oh yeah, the Hawaii one is real, in case this gets misinterpreted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #24)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:43 PM

76. I use "Gun Prohibitionists".

People who want to ban all guns, or any class of guns, i.e handguns or semi-automatics, from general civilian ownership, are "Gun Prohibitionists". Some people shorten that to "Prohi" or "Prohis" but that is too obscure for my tastes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #76)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:51 PM

78. Fair enough. Not too many of those around here, if any.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:43 PM

39. It is interesting in a psychoanalytical way, while perfectly predictable.


While it should be perfectly obvious that a tool that can be used offensively to commit murder & mayhem can just as easily be used to defend against murder and mayhem, this simple fact seems to elude many of my fellow left-leaning citizens.

Just this morning a buddy of mine posted a picture of a glass case in a shop in Baltimore stocked with knives and stun guns. The predictable anti-weapon echo chamber ensued, with one gal posting "WHO would need one of these?" in reference to the stun guns.
My response: "Perhaps people like my sister who have been victims of sexual assault." If past history is any example of how the conversation will continue from this point, the chamber will no longer echo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #39)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:27 PM

46. Your buddy is extreme IMO

Stun guns, pepper spray and other less lethal SD weapons have a valid place, especially in the public arena. Much better choice than the routine carrying of a handgun IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #46)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:26 PM

74. Much better choice in your opinion only

 

others have a different opinion, in public I carry a tazer, pepper spray, an asp, a G21 .45 acp sidearm and a backup .38 cal. in an ankle holster, when off duty, I don't carry anything except my wits even though my ID allows me to carry CC.
I don't have any problem with qualified citizens obtaining a CC permit and carrying and most cops I know support this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #74)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:48 PM

77. I would make exactly the same choices if I were in your place.

Nor do I have a problem with anyone obtaining a CC permit. Indiscriminately carrying OTOH, is a whole other issue. I think you make smart choices. If I were in uniform in a society where guns are ubiquitous, it makes sense. But I wouldn't do that job. I was offered it at three times the pay I was making at the time and turned it down. It's not having armed cops that bothers me, but the policy of them being routinely armed. It sets up and us vs. them society and IMO is antithetical to good community policing.
The reason cops are not routinely armed in the UK is that the public would never tolerate it. Also, cops like to be approachable. They are, after all, public servants and members of the community. Many people, in all countries, find the wearing of deadly weapons intimidating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #77)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:38 PM

83. All good points.

 

The reason I would oppose cops being unarmed like in the UK is that we have a whole different culture here and unarmed cops in this country would be a cruel joke and end up with a lot of dead cops and you would be hard pressed to find people willing to become cops.

I don't carry off duty because I just don't want the responsibility and my time off is my time off to spend with the wife, kids and grandkids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #83)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:24 PM

90. I'm not so sure there would be a "lot of dead cops"

Of course, it's a hypothetical and we probably won't find out any time soon. It is very hard to change a cultural mindset overnight, but not impossible. I think humans have basic moral and ethical codes, concerning fairness, that go beyond cultural norms. From personal experience, I find the Brits more violent on a primal level, yet they rarely lose their sense of fair play. I think that same sense was inculcated in American culture too. "Never shoot an unarmed man" and "never shoot a man in the back".
But you are right that the cultures are still vastly different. America has done more to glorify violence in films and TV and has also marginalized entire segments of the population, which is ironic considering the Constitution. Both societies are guilty of classism, but in different ways. Class in America tends to be synonymous with success and is measured by the accumulation of wealth. Perfect example would be Donald Trump. I cannot imagine human or other creature having less class. Class in Britain is traditionally based on "breeding" and education, which has evolved somewhat to mean "good manners", and success is more about achievement in all areas, including financial independence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #46)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:55 PM

94. And yet those places that have some of the strongest gun laws..

Also strongly regulate stun guns. http://www.safetytechnology.com/stungunlaws.htm

STATES WHERE STUN GUNS ARE RESTRICTED:

CONNECTICUT
ILLINOIS
HAWAII
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
RHODE ISLAND
WISCONSIN

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CITIES WHERE STUN GUNS ARE RESTRICTED:

ANNAPOLIS, MD
BALTIMORE, MD
BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD
CHICAGO, IL
DENSION / CRAWFORD COUNTY, IA (*According to Sheriff Tom Hogan*)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PHILADELPHIA


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #94)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:59 PM

95. Yeah, well they shouldn't. It's a 2A right

Seriously, though, government has a right to regulate what you can use where. We just need sensible regulation that does not take away a citizen's right to defend himself, while not turning him into a potential killer at the same time. We'll get there eventually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #95)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 04:20 PM

96. My opinion is that TPTB in these areas

Simply do not trust the average person enough to let them have the ability to be able to defend themselves. And I do not trust public officials who act that way. I do not care how noble they are, or pretend to be. I do not care if they have won the Noble Peace Prize. If they don't trust me and my fellow citizens with the capability to use Deadly Force in defense of my life, and the lives of my loved one, then I do not trust them, period.

I am not going to grant such people a monopoly on violence, because they will misuse that power. Look at the actions of Bloomberg. He is one of the biggest Gun Prohibitionists in power in the US. To some he is their champion because of his Gun Prohibitionism. And then he uses the power of the NYPD to crush OWS, engage in illegal surveillance of people in other states, maintains illegal safe houses in other states (New Jersey), and basically just to do what the hell ever he wants without telling anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:18 PM

32. "Woman drops gun, (9mm Luger) runs out of home..."

Not a smart thing to do if the perp wasn't dead...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #32)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:36 PM

37. True. Not too smart on several counts.

Just as well she leaves her guns at home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #32)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:24 PM

42. In times of extreme stress, people often do stupid things. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:21 PM

33. She did the right thing and I would have done exactly the same.

I was sharing a house with three guy friends. They invited someone I didn't know to sleep over as he was too drunk to drive. I locked my bedroom door before I retired.

Around 4 a.m., I heard him knock on my door and try the doorknob. When he couldn't get in, he went to a drawer and got a large knife. He got the door open and I saw his silhouette with him naked from the waist down, holding that large knife.

If I hadn't been able to get help, I would have killed him before he killed me. Even if I went to jail for it, I'd be alive.

It isn't an easy call unless you're the one alone, helpless and have precious few options.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:40 PM

49. This can't be possible. I caught "hell" from someone in a current meta thread

slamming my sigline for suggesting a gun is the ultimate in feminine protection. I guess this proves it actually is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:56 PM

52. Didn't anyone say it yet?

We shouldn't think of her pulling the trigger as "killing" him.
Killing in self-defense isn't really a "legitimate kill."
Rather we should look at the bullet as a "gift from God."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:58 PM

53. The story sounds fishy to me. It sounds like a well thought out murder to me.

 

However if her story is true then kudos to her for defending herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vilify (Reply #53)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:49 PM

67. While it sounds a bit pat, do not underestimate criminal stupidity

Those who decry CD as an unchallengeable license to kill are lying. This is a good example of what really happens. Resident shoots someone in their home and claims self defense. Police investigate to learn the facts, taking all standard precautions as they do.

Given the quality of the reporting, its hard to know what to believe really happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #67)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:57 AM

129. "Given the quality of the reporting, its hard to know what to believe really happened."

As it should be actually. Pertinent details should not be in the newspaper. Defendants read newspapers also and details can help a defendant put together a more credible story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #129)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:55 AM

135. The poor quality of the reporting has nothing to do with the police keeping details private during

an investigation.

The cited article has a poor timeline and I highly doubt the woman used a Luger pistol as they are rare and collectable. Once there are those kinds of errors in a writeup, the rest of it is highly suspect.

Note that in the end, the police will have to turn over all the facts they have prior to trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #135)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:16 PM

136. Well yes, which is one reason lawyers tell defendants to keep their mouths shut until trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:59 AM

69. Excellent defense. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:04 PM

79. So, a woman's body DOES have a way shutting down a rape!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rock (Reply #79)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:45 PM

84. LOL

 

good one and we got rid of that asshole for good I hope. I can't tell you how ashamed I was to know he lives here in MO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rock (Reply #79)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 02:10 PM

87. We just need to make sure the government doesn't intervene

 

to prevent it for "moral" reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:17 PM

80. I will not miss him or his "Godly plan"

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 02:03 PM

86. No One Said that Guns Aren't Used for Defensive Reasons

Let's assume the information referenced stand. I'm sure the results had the desired end that she wanted.

But a loaded gun under a pillow could have had just the opposite results as evidenced by the hundreds if not thousands of children accidentally killed each year. Not even the NRA recommends keeping a loaded gun under a pillow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #86)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:03 PM

88. more accurate to say least worst results

what she probably wanted was for him to take the hint the first time.

According to the CDC, children (small enough to think it is a toy or harmless) accidentally killed by guns is in the two digits. Since there does not seem to be children in the home, while your point is well taken but moot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #88)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:21 PM

112. Ok

I stand corrected and trust your numbers are correct.

Still doesn't diminish what I said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #86)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:06 PM

89. Not thousands, not hundreds, but only about 50 children accidentally killed per year.

By "child" use the definition of a human who has not yet reached puberty, commonly 12 or under for statistical purposes. VPC and other anti gun organizations have used up to age 24 to inflate the number for propaganda purposes.

The nation has about 50 million chidren so the odds of a child being killed by accidental gunfire is about one in a million. More children die of walking (does not include struck by vehicle) than die of accidental gunshot.

In her case, the article does not mention any children so it is entirely possible that she may not have any children. My wife and I don't have children at home so our guns are out in the open where they can be quickly grabbed. If we had small children here then that would change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #89)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:19 PM

111. Wow

Ok ... I stand corrected.

Now ask the 50 or so families impacted if they think that number is low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #111)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:00 PM

115. Balance that against those saved by guns.

Every year there are thousands of incidents of people defending their homes with guns. Usually with no shots fired, but that is still a save, even if the bad guy wasn't shot. Out of all of those, at least fifty kids were saved because the parents had a gun available when they needed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #115)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:06 PM

116. What Is That?

The Butcher's Tally?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #116)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:15 PM

118. If you take guns away from parents, some kids will die.

Parents also use guns to protect their families. That is a fact that you don't want to face. Take guns away from parents and there will be additional child fatalities from criminals. Taking those guns away would save about 50, but would also cost an unknown number of kids. I believe that unknown number would be greater than 50. Of course, since those child murders are prevented from happening due to armed parents, then there is no way to know the number.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #118)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:17 PM

119. Take Away Guns

Geez.... After THOUSANDS of posts, where have I said any such thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #119)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:59 PM

121. You are complaining about the woman having a gun readily available.

Therefore you appear to desire that her gun have not been readily available. Taking away her freedom to have the gun under her pillow, loaded, round chambered is a taking away of her freedom with the gun. You want to take her gun's availability away, even if you don't remove the gun completely. You would deny her the gun when she needed it most. In the name of public safety you would reduce her personal safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #121)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 03:23 AM

122. No

I'm not denying her anything.

I don't think any responsible gun owner would keep a loaded gun under a pillow.

'Take away her freedom'? Good grief....take your preconceived blinders about what you think I am advocating off. I simply think keeping a loaded gun under your pillow is stupid or at least it is if you ever crawl into bed with me and see how I toss and turn with a pillow. That's it. Nothing more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #122)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 08:17 AM

123. You are complaining about it, and claiming danger to thousands of kids.

So obviously you want something done about it. Why else would you so greatly exaggerate the danger while ignoring the benefit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #123)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 08:20 AM

124. Because the Benefit You Think Exist

Is not worth the cost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #124)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:12 AM

125. Therefore you want to restrict her ability to defend herself.

So you do want to take her gun away. You deny that people use guns to defend against criminals. Take a look at the number of children that are murdered each year. It is about 950, from all causes. There is a definate need for parents to be able to defend their families.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #125)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:18 AM

126. Perhaps I Want Her To Expand Her Notion of Defending Herself

.....beyond the limitations and over reliance of a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #126)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:02 AM

130. And your method of doing that is to deny her the gun. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #130)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:04 AM

131. And Once Again

Show me where I have ever said that. Won't find it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #131)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:07 AM

133. It is obvious from your many anti-gun posts. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #133)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:10 AM

134. You will never find any post where I have said any such thing.

I support the Second Amendment.

I disagree with the notion it is not subject to interpretation, regulation, or legislative and judicial review.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #134)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:30 PM

137. Has been interpreted, regulated, and subjected to legislative...

 

...and judicial review. Just not to your liking. Too bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #137)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:40 PM

138. Hardly

Hardly. There are a lot of great gun laws out there.

But I'm glad we both agree and support the Second Amendment and the fact that it is subject to interpretation, regulation, or legislative and judicial review.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #86)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:07 PM

109. " as evidenced by the hundreds if not thousands of children accidentally killed each year"

 

Since you're making those numbers up why not go for broke?

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of children are killed every year by pillow-guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #109)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:18 PM

110. I stand corrected

Ask the 50 or so families impacted if they think that number is low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #110)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:33 PM

113. Whenever the numbers are against you just appeal to emotion

 

if 1 person were killed in the entire US by guns every year, just one out of 320,000,000 people that would be a trivial amount.

To that one guy and his friends/family it'd still be one too many.

But as far as national crime stats go that would be amazing. Even though it would suck for that one dude. Grok?

So 50 kids out of 320,000,000 people or 1.5/100,000 is not a major public safety concern. Tragic yes. Especially so to those who knew the kids. However it is not justification for shredding our constitution out of safety concerns.

For comparison over 2000 children die every year while swimming. Or 40 for every 1 shot.

Shall we ban pools? From a public safety standpoint we'd save more kids by eliminating standing pools of water than we would even if we could eliminate all guns. You do care about the suffering of those 2000+ families don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #113)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:36 PM

114. No

But neither should we ignore making them safer.

And who said anything about eliminating guns other than you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #114)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:14 PM

117. You mean that you do not care about the suffering of the 2000 families that lost children to pools?

But you do care about the suffering of the 50 families that lost children due to firearms.

WOW! Talk about your self righteous people!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #117)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:19 PM

120. I'll Leave You to Compare Suffering

I know guns are often involved and it's self righteous to suggest otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 08:23 PM

101. There is no issue here She protected herself from someone trying to do harm. Good for her.

I am sorry that she went through this, and had to take his life. I am not a big gun person, but she protected herself. She has to live with what happened to her, and the fact that she had to take his life to protect hers. That is not easy to live with even though she was correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 08:26 PM

102. Sucks to be him I guess

Glad she knew WTF to do with the firearm. It could have turned out much worse for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:26 PM

103. She prevented a legitimate rape from happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:00 PM

105. Saved the county the cost of a trial & state incarceration

No sympathy for rapist. He learned that no means no the hard way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:39 AM

127. I suggest we wait for the investigation before jumping to conclusions.

When a man is found dead in a woman's house the police have to investigate it. Sorry but they cannot just take the woman's word. Her story sounds credible but what if the investigation shows that she actually knows this guy? That would put a little different light on things. Without physical evidence to confirm the woman's story the police have to take precautions and that includes removing any weapons in the house for the time being.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #127)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:06 AM

132. Unfortunately the media rarely follows up with a story on the investigation.

Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2012, 08:28 PM - Edit history (1)

I agree with what you said and like you I would like to see the results of the investigation. But by then it will be old news and ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread