11yr old defends his mother and himself

[SeekGod1st]

Check out this home invasion, an 11yr old boy defends himself and his mother.

Truly amazing!!!

Three held in Palmview home invasion : News : KGBT 4

 

[Jez]

I remember during the war in Zimbabwe the kids would be taught to shoot in order to defend the homestead if it came under attack.

I had no idea things had got so bad in the US.

 

[Fred]

Bad? Well, we have crime, same as anywhere.

Sadly, the UK version of this involves the mother and child being killed because they had no way to defend themselves. Had they found a way, the state would have treated them as criminals.

Have a read of this.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v26n2/cpr-26n2-1.pdf

I spend a lot of time on a forum that is 90% British posters. They're constantly talking about getting in fights, having their property stolen, and being hassled by chavs (British gangbangers who like to wear track suits).

In the gun crazy state of Texas, I can leave the keys in my motorcycle in the front driveway. I've left the front door of my house open by mistake. My garage door sometimes opens on its own, leaving thousands of dollars of tools and motorcycles exposed for anyone who walks by. I've never had anything stolen. I've never even been hassled while walking down the street.

And I live in a bad neighborhood.

 

[Scorphonic]

We're the same here in Ireland, if someone breaks into our home and you shoot them because they are coming up the stairs and are obviously posing a threat to you and your family then the shooter (aka..me!) will be arrested for assault/manslaughter.

I've even heard of a case where a guy broke into a house and the guy living in the house attacked him, gave him a few punches and called the Gardaí. The Gardaí then arrested both persons, the bad guy for breaking in and the owner for assault. Can you believe that????

Anyways, i'll be moving to America when I can!! Hopefully some states have their heads screwed on!

 

[SirIsaac]

We're the same here in Ireland, if someone breaks into our home and you shoot them because they are coming up the stairs and are obviously posing a threat to you and your family then the shooter (aka..me!) will be arrested for assault/manslaughter.

So what are you supposed to do? Politely ask the intruder to leave? Hold the door for him while he hauls out your possessions?

 

[SeekGod1st]

Bad? Well, we have crime, same as anywhere.

Sadly, the UK version of this involves the mother and child being killed because they had no way to defend themselves. Had they found a way, the state would have treated them as criminals.

Have a read of this.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v26n2/cpr-26n2-1.pdf

I spend a lot of time on a forum that is 90% British posters. They're constantly talking about getting in fights, having their property stolen, and being hassled by chavs (British gangbangers who like to wear track suits).

In the gun crazy state of Texas, I can leave the keys in my motorcycle in the front driveway. I've left the front door of my house open by mistake. My garage door sometimes opens on its own, leaving thousands of dollars of tools and motorcycles exposed for anyone who walks by. I've never had anything stolen. I've never even been hassled while walking down the street.

And I live in a bad neighborhood.

UNBELIEVEABLE!!!!

I'm speechless, if I lived there I guarantee you I would move.

I could never live anywhere where crime has more rights than hard working citizens.

 

[Wes_cf]

Totally agree with Scorphoic, here in Northern Ireland it is exactly the same,if your a being attacted your are supossed to bend over and and take one. Promlem is that our gov's have no back bone.

 

[Jez]

Bad? Well, we have crime, same as anywhere.

Sadly, the UK version of this involves the mother and child being killed because they had no way to defend themselves. Had they found a way, the state would have treated them as criminals.

Have a read of this.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v26n2/cpr-26n2-1.pdf

In the UK version you are far less likely to have two armed men attempting to break in in the first place. But anyway... even if they do, you are entitled to use reasonable force. In other words, whatever force is necessary to defend yourself, even if that results in a fatality. Couple of cases where people have been aquitted in exatly these circumstances here.

Unfortunately that CATO report cherry-picks cases to justify its stance and then doesn't give all the facts. As an example, the Tony Martin case: he was jailed not for defending himself, but because he shot the burglar in the back as he was running away, with fatal consequences. The court found that to exceed the definition of reasonable force.

The same applies to the Munir Hussein case, which is another one often misquoted in these discussions. He was jailed for chasing after burglars, calling someone to assist him, then when they caught the burglar, hitting him on the head with a cricket bat repeatedly, causing brain damage. Again, the court felt that by pursuing when he was no longer in danger, he had moved from defending himself to seeking revenge.
BBC News - Q&A: What is 'reasonable force'?

Both these cases are what's called the 'castle defence', which is when the householder moves from defending themselves as a priority, to inflicting violence due to the initial motives of the burglar. There are plans to make this legal in Ireland. It'd be interesting to see what happens, but while our own English law is far from perfect, I think castle defence is a step too far, as it'll lead to a rise in vigilante style attacks using it as a cover.

I spend a lot of time on a forum that is 90% British posters. They're constantly talking about getting in fights, having their property stolen, and being hassled by chavs (British gangbangers who like to wear track suits).

Ironically I spend a lot of time on a mainly US forum where people continually post about the gun collection they need to make them feel safe in their own homes, and the heavily armed gangs that pose such a problem in their neighbourhoods.

There is an ambiguity in the law over self-defence, and a lot of people don't really understand quite what their rights are. There's a guide here from the CPS:
Self Defence: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service

As for the case in Texas, I just think it's sad. I'm pleased, obviously, that no harm came to the woman and kid, but saddened by the fact that it happened at all. And having lived in quite a few societies awash with guns, I feel considerably safer living in one which is not.

 

[Gilo-FZ6]

"if he lives" thats must of been one hell of an air gun

 

[bigdog9191999]

Her son had a 22 cal. Rifle and shot back at the alleged robbers.

no air in that.

 

[SeekGod1st]

In the UK version you are far less likely to have two armed men attempting to break in in the first place. But anyway... even if they do, you are entitled to use reasonable force. In other words, whatever force is necessary to defend yourself, even if that results in a fatality. Couple of cases where people have been aquitted in exatly these circumstances here.

Unfortunately that CATO report cherry-picks cases to justify its stance and then doesn't give all the facts. As an example, the Tony Martin case: he was jailed not for defending himself, but because he shot the burglar in the back as he was running away, with fatal consequences. The court found that to exceed the definition of reasonable force.

The same applies to the Munir Hussein case, which is another one often misquoted in these discussions. He was jailed for chasing after burglars, calling someone to assist him, then when they caught the burglar, hitting him on the head with a cricket bat repeatedly, causing brain damage. Again, the court felt that by pursuing when he was no longer in danger, he had moved from defending himself to seeking revenge.
BBC News - Q&A: What is 'reasonable force'?

Both these cases are what's called the 'castle defence', which is when the householder moves from defending themselves as a priority, to inflicting violence due to the initial motives of the burglar. There are plans to make this legal in Ireland. It'd be interesting to see what happens, but while our own English law is far from perfect, I think castle defence is a step too far, as it'll lead to a rise in vigilante style attacks using it as a cover.



Ironically I spend a lot of time on a mainly US forum where people continually post about the gun collection they need to make them feel safe in their own homes, and the heavily armed gangs that pose such a problem in their neighbourhoods.

There is an ambiguity in the law over self-defence, and a lot of people don't really understand quite what their rights are. There's a guide here from the CPS:
Self Defence: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service

As for the case in Texas, I just think it's sad. I'm pleased, obviously, that no harm came to the woman and kid, but saddened by the fact that it happened at all. And having lived in quite a few societies awash with guns, I feel considerably safer living in one which is not.

As for the case in Texas, I just think it's sad. I'm pleased, obviously, that no harm came to the woman and kid, but saddened by the fact that it happened at all. And having lived in quite a few societies awash with guns, I feel considerably safer living in one which is not.


I would agree with you and would feel safer if crime and citizens both did not have firearms, but we all know this is impossible, so I have to disagree with you.

I prefer to have a firearm to defend my family and myself if i had no choice and was forced to use it to protect ourselves.

I truly pray that I am NEVER encountered with a situation that I would be forced to.

 

[Jez]

I can appreciate that - it's a different society and different factors are involved, so any discussion is largely academic. I also believe that it's entirely possible to have a rational debate gun laws intelligently and courteously, and that it doesn't have to degenerate into mass cultural incomprehension and abuse.

It seems to me that as far as the US is concerned, the genie is already out of the bottle - there would be huge problems trying to bring in tighter gun control now, given the availability of firearms (although I understand New York has done so). In the UK that's a challenge that we've yet to encounter, despite what the tabloid press would have us believe, and we're still at the point where most people seem to take the view that guns are best left in the hands of the authorities. Indeed, many police in the UK when canvassed on the subject would rather not be routinely armed, but leave it to specialist units as we do at the moment, so as to prevent a kind of arms race with criminals.

If that equation changed - that guns became widely available in society and were routinely carried by criminals; and I don't know exactly where that tipping point lies - then clearly that's a different scenario. When I lived in Southern Africa we were surrounded by guns, and you'd have felt at a disadvantage in not having one. One of the things I like about the UK, and Europe generally, is that it hasn't yet reached that tipping point.

As for me, I have this thing called an assegai hanging on the bedroom wall, and a couple of axes in the hall. Given that the average burglar round here would be armed with nothing more than a flick knife that gives me a slight edge, if it came to it.

 

[Fred]

I've been thinking about this discussion a lot, and today I composed a video response to the various arguments and viewpoints that have been raised.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TMbA6y_GSc]YouTube - Calico Rapid Fire[/ame]


P.S. That magazine was only 3/5 full when I started.

 

[krid80]

Couple of cases where people have been aquitted in exatly these circumstances here.

I think it is a tragedy that the government makes a bad situation worse by even bringing charges against a victim. Not only is that victim psychologically injured (if not physically) by the crime, but also they are then financially and socially raped by the government they fiscally support.

Even if they are acquitted, they would have missed a lot of work and will forever have an arrest on their record unless they complete the process of having that record stricken, which likely costs more money and lots of paperwork. This is all begging the question that due to their inability to perform their occupation, their employer hasn't replaced them.

Regardless of your stance on guns in society (of which I am a proponent and owner), being punished for protecting what you have worked hard to build for yourself is just wrong.

 

[wrightme43]

One of the things that truely mystifies me about gun control people is that they refuse to acknowledge that there are truely evil people among us, they can not be "reformed" they must be destroyed or at least caged. We are not uncivilized by protecting ourselves from evil with any means necessary.

Good on the boy. Cheers to him.

 

[Jez]

One of the things that truely mystifies me about gun control people is that they refuse to acknowledge that there are truely evil people among us, they can not be "reformed" they must be destroyed or at least caged. We are not uncivilized by protecting ourselves from evil with any means necessary.

Assuming you'd leave the caging of these evildoers to the authorities - unless you were planning to set up a small jail in your basement - why not leave the destroying of them to the professionals as well?

 

[Wavex]

I think it is a tragedy that the government makes a bad situation worse by even bringing charges against a victim. Not only is that victim psychologically injured (if not physically) by the crime, but also they are then financially and socially raped by the government they fiscally support.

Even if they are acquitted, they would have missed a lot of work and will forever have an arrest on their record unless they complete the process of having that record stricken, which likely costs more money and lots of paperwork. This is all begging the question that due to their inability to perform their occupation, their employer hasn't replaced them.

Regardless of your stance on guns in society (of which I am a proponent and owner), being punished for protecting what you have worked hard to build for yourself is just wrong.

I think what Jez was trying to say is that there is a distinction between defending your home and yourself, and taking the law into your own hands...
For example, if a starving 15yo kids from Long Beach decides to break into my garage to steal some valuables in order to resell them to buy food, and I see him on his way out already 100feet down the street and I decide to pull out my scoped deer rifle and do a head shot from the back, is that legitimate because the kid broke into my house? There was no danger to me and my family anymore... does the fact that he broke into my garage give me the right to kill that kid independently of the circumstances?

What about I get out of work and see someone trying to break into my car... should I be able to pull my shot gun and unload a few clips in the guy's face?

It's different all together with someone who breaks into your home and is after you personally and you shoot to defend yourself.

Bluntly stating that you should be able to kill anyone who tries to steal anything from you is irresponsible imho.

 

[Fz6Sa]

Bad? Well, we have crime, same as anywhere.

Beeing a bit fed up with hearing the "Same as everywhere" statement, I feel I have to show you US citizens some simple numbers:

Murders (pr. 100.000)
In Denmark 0,8
In USA 5,6

In prison (pr. 100.000)
In Denmark 77
In USA 738

Or: In the US there are 7 times as many murders, and 9 times as many people in prison.


So please don't claim it's the same everywhere,- coz it's simply not true.

 

[krid80]

I think what Jez was trying to say is that there is a distinction between defending your home and yourself, and taking the law into your own hands...
For example, if a starving 15yo kids from Long Beach decides to break into my garage to steal some valuables in order to resell them to buy food, and I see him on his way out already 100feet down the street and I decide to pull out my scoped deer rifle and do a head shot from the back, is that legitimate because the kid broke into my house? There was no danger to me and my family anymore... does the fact that he broke into my garage give me the right to kill that kid independently of the circumstances?

What about I get out of work and see someone trying to break into my car... should I be able to pull my shot gun and unload a few clips in the guy's face?

It's different all together with someone who breaks into your home and is after you personally and you shoot to defend yourself.

Bluntly stating that you should be able to kill anyone who tries to steal anything from you is irresponsible imho.

I agree! I never once said anything about killing anyone. Protection with a weapon usually doesnt result in death. Shooting a intruder is still a tragedy but for the victim because he will forever live with that emotional scar. But, would you rather have your daughter wake up because an intruder was being shot or because an intruder already bound you up since you are unarmed and is going to sodomize her.

Killing someone who poses no physical threat is obviously wrong. Again, I never said it is ok to "headshot" someone who wants to take your car or bike. But. If presented with someone physically inside my house, I likely will not take the time to ask what are their intentions. Now if they see me and turn and run, I won't be shooting them in the back. I will, however be chasing them and if they choose to become a physical threat I would launch a prudent counteroffense.

I hope this makes clear that I am not a proponent of rationalized murder, only true self (collective family) defence.

 

[Wavex]

I was just clarifying per your comment earlier: "Regardless of your stance on guns in society (of which I am a proponent and owner), being punished for protecting what you have worked hard to build for yourself is just wrong."

No Gov in Europe will punish you if you honestly only protect yourself... they'll punish you if you decide to take the law into your own hands as described above though... like they would in the US too probably.