• Woman executes her intruder during 911 call.
    1,102 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Trotsky;18813198]It's simple killing is killing, no matter who it is. And it is wrong[/QUOTE] Jesus Christ really? Might as well had the man rape her and kill her right? What sick person would want that guy to stay alive? 53 and he can't make the right choices and continues his criminal career. Sounds like someone who deserves to live.
[QUOTE=Strongside;18813270]Jesus Christ really? Might as well had the man rape her and kill her right? What sick person would want that guy to stay alive? 53 and he can't make the right choices and continues his criminal career. Sounds like someone who deserves to live.[/QUOTE] i rated you bad reading because you didn't care to read the whole page.
America has issues.
[QUOTE=Aurain;18813280]America has issues.[/QUOTE] Whichever country you are from, it has issues too.
I don't understand, how is anyone in this thread defending the intruder's life? I was about ask if 75% of Facepunch is completely mentally inept, but I guess that question really doesn't even need to be asked. It's ALREADY against the law to break and enter (fucking obviously), so when someone breaks into someone's house with force they immediately forfeit their right to safety until they've left the premisis. That's even beside the point, though. Not only did this man break the law by trespassing, but he had the VERY obvious intention of harm (you don't throw a table through someone's window and scream threats at them if you don't intend to harm them) and was further warned by the woman who had a SHOTGUN pointed at him. She was within the LAW, and within her human right to do anything humanly possible to protect herself from him. It's reaching way, [b]way[/b] too far for some sort of skewed morality to try and say she could have "taken a less lethal shot". What are you defending? The living rights of someone who is smashing through people's back doors? Really? I mean, fucking seriously? Don't blame the [i]woman[/i] for this man's death, blame him for taking the risk by intentionally and dangerously breaking the law. And yes, I know this has probably been stated over and over again for the past 17 pages, but obviously it hasn't silenced the idiocy here.
[img]http://problembear.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/southpark_ep103_1.jpg[/img] [b]Holy crap! He's coming right for us![/b]
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;18813272]i rated you bad reading because you didn't care to read the whole page.[/QUOTE] And I rated you dumb for thinking killing is wrong in all scenarios.
Why didn't she just shoot him in the leg? Stupid woman.
[QUOTE=farmatyr;18813310]Why didn't she just shoot him in the leg? Stupid woman.[/QUOTE] Have you tried aiming a gun while overcome by fear for your own life? No? I didn't think so.
[QUOTE=farmatyr;18813310]Why didn't she just shoot him in the leg? Stupid woman.[/QUOTE] The guy continued even with a gun pointed at him, I'm sure he would have kept crawling at her if he was just down.
[QUOTE=Strongside;18813303]And I rated you dumb for thinking killing is wrong in all scenarios.[/QUOTE] so your saying killing a human being is okay? Even Trotsky and I are agreeing that woman had the right to defend herself and shooting an enraged man who has no self-concern for his wellbeing or any other people. We're also agreeing KILLING IS WRONG. There could've been a better solution to this, MAYBE, but the results are done. She is justified because of self-defense. Execution isn't, hence why this thread is screwed up: [b] OP FUCKED UP THE THREAD TITLE[/B].
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;18813327]so your saying killing a human being is okay? Even Trotsky and I are agreeing that woman had the right to defend herself and shooting an enraged man who has no self-concern for his wellbeing or any other people. We're also agreeing KILLING IS WRONG. There could've been a better solution to this, MAYBE, but the results are done. She is justified because of self-defense. Execution isn't, hence why this thread is screwed up: [b] OP FUCKED UP THE THREAD TITLE[/B].[/QUOTE]Yeah dude I definitely said killing is okay in my post. /sarcasm
[QUOTE=Strongside;18813336]Yeah dude I definitely said killing is okay in my post. /sarcasm[/QUOTE] [quote]And I rated you dumb for thinking killing is wrong in all scenarios.[/quote] this literally says: "It's right to kill in certain scenarios."
Yeah, like in self-defense? How is this even still be disputed.
ITT Trotsky trolls Facepunch. [I][B]Hard.[/B][/I] :munch:
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;18813341]this literally says: "It's right to kill in certain scenarios."[/QUOTE] Maybe it's not totally right, but if someone breaks into my house I won't think how to shoot/stab them so they don't die. In that moment I will be protecting myself and won't care if he dies or not.
[QUOTE=SHoGuNN3R;18804624]Imagine if she couldn't have a gun with her. :patriot:[/QUOTE] If she was in Briton she could have offered him in for a cup of tea, no windows breaking, no shooting. Much better in my opinion. :c00lbert:
[QUOTE=johanz;18813357]Maybe it's not totally right, but if someone breaks into my house I won't think how to shoot/stab them so they don't die. In that moment I will be protecting myself and won't care if he dies or not.[/QUOTE] No one is disputing this. If someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you, you have your right to protect yourself, this includes shooting the aggressor. I think most of this debate is from confusion by the title. Execution implies she mercilessly killed a yielding man who begged on his knees for his life in cold blood. Which is wrong. The article clearly says she killed the man in self-defense and panic. Which is justified. this 90 percent of the blame goes to OP.
[QUOTE=johanz;18813357]Maybe it's not totally right, but if someone breaks into my house I won't think how to shoot/stab them so they don't die. In that moment I will be protecting myself and won't care if he dies or not.[/QUOTE] Exactly, in a split-second scenario you're not going to think about it. Someone bursting through your door and charging at you warrents a shot, regardless of where it's going to hit. I'd argue that even if she HAD the chance to shoot him elsewhere, she still had the right to kill in this situation.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;18813369] this 90 percent of the blame goes to OP.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't. Just read the article. Sure op made a mistake, but article fixes it.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;18813369]No one is disputing this. If someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you, you have your right to protect yourself, this includes shooting the aggressor. I think most of this debate is from confusion by the title. Execution implies she mercilessly killed a yielding man who begged on his knees for his life in cold blood. Which is wrong. The article clearly says she killed the man in self-defense and panic. Which is justified. this 90 percent of the blame goes to OP.[/QUOTE] All right then, yeah. But you also said that it's wrong to kill period, but that what she did was justified, so you're also part of the confusion because you directly contradict yourself.
[QUOTE=gnome;18813379]All right then, yeah. But you also said that it's wrong to kill period, but that what she did was justified, so you're also part of the confusion because you directly contradict yourself.[/QUOTE] how so
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;18813390]how so[/QUOTE] At first you say killing is wrong at all times, then you say it's justified.
You stated explicitly that killing is wrong in any situation, but that it was okay for her to do so herself in self-defense. So either what she did was wrong to you or it wasn't. Make up your mind.
For all of you saying that she should've taken a non-lethal shot... fucking lol. Do you know how difficult it is to take a nonlethal shot with a shotgun? It sprays pieces of metal everywhere, even if you aimed at the legs, you have a big change of hitting the chest still, or the femoral artery. With a shotgun, there is no such thing as a nonlethal shot. With a pistol, yes, I guess you could shoot someone in the leg. But with a shotgun, hell no.
[QUOTE=johanz;18813404]At first you say killing is wrong at all times, then you say it's justified.[/QUOTE] But killing is wrong at all times, but she killed in self-defense therefore deserves no penalty. wait, your right, im contradicting myself, but you know the gist what I'm trying to say.
[QUOTE=sebbonaparta;18813413]For all of you saying that she should've taken a non-lethal shot... fucking lol. Do you know how difficult it is to take a nonlethal shot with a shotgun? It sprays pieces of metal everywhere, even if you aimed at the legs, you have a big change of hitting the chest still, or the femoral artery. With a shotgun, there is no such thing as a nonlethal shot. With a pistol, yes, I guess you could shoot someone in the leg. But with a shotgun, hell no.[/QUOTE] Uh no, too many video games for you. Shotguns are not as inaccurate as they are portayed in games, if you aim at the knee at close range its going to hit the fucking knee. I'm not saying the leg wouldn't be lethal, it could get the artery and would have a good chance of killing him depending on when help arrived.
[QUOTE=r4nk_;18813429]Uh no, too many video games for you. Shotguns are not as inaccurate as they are portayed in games, if you aim at the knee at close range its going to it the fucking knee. I'm not saying the leg wouldn't be lethal, it could get the artery and would have a good chance of killing him depending on when help arrived.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't it shatter the knee beyond repair?
[QUOTE=r4nk_;18813429]Uh no, too many video games for you. Shotguns are not as inaccurate as they are portayed in games, if you aim at the knee at close range its going to it the fucking knee. I'm not saying the leg wouldn't be lethal, it could get the artery and would have a good chance of killing him depending on when help arrived.[/QUOTE] I don't play video games. Yea, I don't know why I'm on a video game forum either. Still, it's ridiculous to say that you should aim at the legs for a nonlethal shot. For someone who is not trained in using firearms, you want to take the easiest possible shot, which is the chest obviously. Grandma isn't a marksman.
[QUOTE=sebbonaparta;18813440]I don't play video games. Yea, I don't know why I'm on a video game forum either. Still, it's ridiculous to say that you should aim at the legs for a nonlethal shot. For someone who is not trained in using firearms, you want to take the easiest possible shot, which is the chest obviously. Grandma isn't a marksman.[/QUOTE] Yes I agree with you there.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.