[QUOTE=johanz;18813436]Wouldn't it shatter the knee beyond repair?[/QUOTE]
Lol and?
[QUOTE=r4nk_;18813446]Lol and?[/QUOTE]
Nothing, just asking if it would. I don't know much about guns.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;18813415]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]
I guess I do, but the idea that "killing is wrong" generally goes without saying. You just can't state that it applies to all situations as a bold fact and then say what she did was fine. Which, as I've said, I would agree that the woman was well within her right, but it sounds like you're trying to imply that she could have tried to be "less lethal". Let me list the reasons why such a claim would be preposterous:
A) She was holding a shotgun. It's been elaborated already that taking a "non-lethal" shot with a shotgun would be a difficult thing to do.
B) The guy was CLEARLY coming after her, and I'm sure she only had a second to react.
C) Even if she had a less powerful weapon and more time to aim, I don't even necessarily think she should be expected to humanely fire at a less vital body part. Let's think about this for a second. The guy was warned, and he was also completely aware that she had a gun pointed at him. If someone is running at you with the obvious intention to harm you, even IF you're equipped with a low-powered pistol and have the time to aim at his legs, would you really do that? Or would you aim at the largest target for the best chance of hitting them, their chest? I'm sure all she did was point the gun forward and pull the trigger, had she done anything else, who knows? She could have missed and been beat to death after being raped by this guy. Or maybe she WOULD have hit him in the leg and he would have kept coming regardless of the injury. Shooting this man square in the chest at that point in time in the situation was the most sane thing any person in that situation could do.
[QUOTE=iatealawnmower;18804594]If that man ran into your home - don't even think about telling me you wouldn't shoot him. Who cares if he was [b]not[/b]* armed - his intention was to rape and murder her.[/QUOTE]
jesus dude. i see you everywhere giving shit advice.
you are only 16 so shut the fuck up. i cant say much cus im 15 16 next month but at least i dont talk about stuff i dont know shit about.
i really doubt you know about rape and murder
[QUOTE=Mr_Sun;18813527]
i really doubt you know about rape and murder[/QUOTE]
What is that supposed to mean?
[QUOTE=Mr_Sun;18813527]jesus dude. i see you everywhere giving shit advice.
you are only 16 so shut the fuck up. i cant say much cus im 15 16 next month but at least i dont talk about stuff i dont know shit about.
i really doubt you know about rape and murder[/QUOTE]
He's still right... stop being so elitist. And I assume you have years of experience with rape and murder that he's clearly lacking yeah?
Sucks to be the woman, she did what she had to do though. What's gonna happen to her?
This entire discussion seems to be based off different people's interpretations of the evidence presented... and not what actually occurred.
"Billy Dean Riley was attempting to rape and murder Donna Jackson"
- His motives are completely unknown and the back story to the incident which hasn't been included yet make it even harder to figure out. Riley had just been in a car accident with his sister, caused by either alcohol, drugs, or both, sources are vague.
- Billy Dean Riley has a past police record, true. But the incidents are unrelated to any type of crime associated with this specific example, he just likes to drink a lot.
- None of his threats are audible on the 911 call, and Donna Jackson has not stated that he made threats against her life.
- She did however state that he was yelling for someone named Pat and about his truck.
These facts lead me to believe that Billy Dean Riley, in an intoxicated and dazed state, wandered away from the site of his truck's accident and onto Donna Jackson's property. In a drug and trauma induced state of delusion Billy Dean Riley, a very visually aggressive person, appears at the back door of Donna Jackson's house. She informs him she's armed and has the police on the phone, but because of his level of intoxication this message was most likely lost on Billy Dean Riley. At about this point the 911 recording picks up and the events are much clearer. You can hear Billy Dean Riley rapping on Donna Jackson's door in a manner that would be impossible to describe as aggressive, or by any means a way for him to break and enter her house. And at the climax of the whole ordeal, Billy Dean Riley picks up a plastic lawn chair to throw at the door, what more evidence do you need to hear that he had no idea what he was doing. Finally he actually breaks into Donna Jackson's house and is killed at the threshold. However during the fairly lengthy time it took for him to break in not once did Donna Jackson make any communication with Billy Dean Riley, there was no "stop or I'll shoot!" and it is doubtful if Billy Dean Riley knew an armed woman was waiting for him on the other side of the door.
Scared old woman sees scary looking intoxicated man looking scary and acting intoxicated, doesn't understand why he's acting this way and shoots him dead because she believes she's being threatened.
This is just my interpretation of the events, and one just as defensible as any of the posts I've seen labeling Billy Dean Riley a rapist and a murderer without even really looking at the events. Neither party is to blame for what happened, just misunderstanding.
[QUOTE=Scotchair;18813549]He's still right... stop being so elitist. And I assume you have years of experience with rape and murder that he's clearly lacking yeah?
[/QUOTE]
no i was saying how he OR I have no experience. do you really think a teenager would know about all about rape and stuff?
ya cus obviously if i were to break into somebody's house the first thing in my mind would be rape anybody and all in there.
like the guy above said. we dont know what he wanted and if it were me i would steal all their money and anything valuable. not rape some 50+ old hag
[QUOTE=Urkel01;18805932]
if you have to have a gun in order to take down an unarmed man, then lol @ u
[/QUOTE]
Sorry we don't all have mad kung fu skillz like you do. You are so tough, would you protect me?
But seriously, unless he was naked, you would have no way of knowing he was actually unarmed. In that epic fist to fist show down you see yourself winning he could reach into his pocket and start poking holes in you with whatever sharp little knife he has.
I personally believe the woman was in the right, because there was likely no way she could have stood up to this clearly deranged man.
[QUOTE=TheForeigner;18804740]She should be jailed for murder.
Self defence or not she could have held him at gunpoint and not fire.
Pressing the trigger should have a easy excuse "He was threatening me so i killed him"
Also why kill when you could shoot the guys leg or something and eliminating the threat without killing him.[/QUOTE]
If you are going to shoot at someone, you are not supposed to shoot them to neutralize them;
When you have a weapon, you are meant to and supposed to kill anything you fire at; if they survive, then good for them. But there is no "I'll just shoot him to make him not be able to walk".
And i think that legally, she may go to jail.
But morally, she is in the right.
[editline]10:09PM[/editline]
But i would have shot him
Holy SHIT this thread is popular. I guess that's what happens when someone says that the woman should be arrested :v:
I wouldn't say this is good or bad for the lady.
I'm just sad for everyone involved :frown:
She did a good thing, i would do the same if a crackhead would break into my house.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;18804563]If the man was armed, good for the lady. If he was unarmed, she should be charged with something. (Not murder, calm down guys)[/QUOTE]
She shouldn't be charged with something and she won't. If you were in your house watching somebody break in and you had a shotgun. You were calling 911 and then he threw a table through the glass door would you shoot at him? I sure as hell would. You'd be killed if you wouldn't.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;18813198]It's simple
killing is killing, no matter who it is. And it is wrong[/QUOTE]
I take back what I said. Killing is not just killing. Murder is murder, but killing has circumstances, like self defense for instance, or war (which I guess could be considered self defense in a way). You have to be careful how you word things.
is it not a constitutional right to defend one's property, even with firepower? If so, i don't understand some of the posters in this thread.
[QUOTE=phill977;18813836]If you are going to shoot at someone, you are not supposed to shoot them to neutralize them;
When you have a weapon, you are meant to and supposed to kill anything you fire at; if they survive, then good for them. But there is no "I'll just shoot him to make him not be able to walk".
And i think that legally, she may go to jail.
But morally, she is in the right.
[editline]10:09PM[/editline]
But i would have shot him[/QUOTE]
That's pretty much my understanding. When you bring a gun into play and shoot at someone, you're using lethal force, whether or not you shoot to kill. If you shoot someone in the leg with the intent not to kill, you're using lethal force, but obviously the situation wasn't bad enough to warrant lethal force in the first place if you didn't shoot to kill outright.
As far as I understand, that's the gist of the argument lawyers are going to chew you apart with in that type of situation. It's different if you shoot someone in the chest and they happen to survive.
[QUOTE=iatealawnmower;18804539]
Imo: good job, she did what the courts couldn't and got a dirt-bag off the streets. I wonder what kind of load she used in that 16-gauge.[/QUOTE]
It amazes me how people can see the world in black and white like this. You don't know what his motives were, or his background. For all we know he could be trying to get some money for food or medicine for his dying child.
[i]"Billy Dean is not my lover..."[/i]
[QUOTE=Foda;18804735]you can't prove that he was going to kill her. was her life in danger? nope. you should not be able to take someone's life because they broke into your house.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sick of all the "Good Riddance" comments from the typical juvenile Facepunchers but this is the most stupid thing I've heard in about half an hour. (I went to GD earlier)
[editline]04:19PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Malumbre;18814227]I take back what I said. Killing is not just killing. Murder is murder, but killing has circumstances, like self defense for instance, or war (which I guess could be considered self defense in a way). You have to be careful how you word things.[/QUOTE]
I think we can all agree that dead people suck though
[QUOTE=sp00ks;18815344]It amazes me how people can see the world in black and white like this. You don't know what his motives were, or his background. For all we know he could be trying to get some money for food or medicine for his dying child.[/QUOTE]
His motives are irrelevant. He got his ass blasted for victimizing someone else.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;18815344]It amazes me how people can see the world in black and white like this. You don't know what his motives were, or his background. For all we know he could be trying to get some money for food or medicine for his dying child.[/QUOTE]
Take a guess who didn't read the thread or listen to the tape.
You don't make a huge fucking racket and throw a patio table through the window and scare the holy shit out of an old lady for some [i]medicine[/i].
You don't take non-lethal shots in self defense.
You also don't take lethal ones.
You take shots that STOP. You shoot to STOP. Anyone who has any understanding of how firearms work in relation to neutralizing human beings is aware that shooting someone anywhere other than the upper torso or head is not an effective means of stopping a determined target.
Immediate major organ failure is the only way to drop a human. Anything short of impacting a major organ or disrupting one significantly isn't sufficient to stop a human high on adrenaline.
It's largely just basic evolution. If we cannot sustain substantial damage and still fight or flee, then we would die at the first sign of even non-fatal wounds because we would submit to our attacker. This is the point of adrenaline. It's primary purpose is to ensure that you continue to function well beyond the limits you would be able to otherwise.
So no. You don't take non-lethal shots in self defense situations.
[QUOTE=Gubbinz96;18815726]Take a guess who didn't read the thread or listen to the tape.
You don't make a huge fucking racket and throw a patio table through the window and scare the holy shit out of an old lady for some [i]medicine[/i].[/QUOTE]
Apparently you do in some people's idealistic worlds.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;18815344]It amazes me how people can see the world in black and white like this. You don't know what his motives were, or his background. For all we know he could be trying to get some money for food or medicine for his dying child.[/QUOTE]
You didn't listen to the tape.
You also haven't taken into consideration that the file picture they have of the man is a prison mugshot. This was not a nice fellow.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;18804563]If the man was armed, good for the lady. If he was unarmed, she should be charged with something. (Not murder, calm down guys)[/QUOTE]
And instead wait to possibly be disarmed or otherwise hurt (some people are too scared to pull the trigger).
Did you even think when you posted that?
[QUOTE=SHoGuNN3R;18804649]That's one of the most idiotic things I've heard.
"The man was about to rape me but I pulled out my firearm and shot him."
"Did he have a gun?"
"No."
"Did he have a knife?"
"No."
"Did he have a stick?"
"No."
"You're going to jail."[/QUOTE]
More like this
[QUOTE=farmatyr;18813310]Why didn't she just shoot him in the leg? Stupid woman.[/QUOTE]
Gahhhh stop post
[QUOTE=Zeke129;18804563]If the man was armed, good for the lady. If he was unarmed, she should be charged with something. (Not murder, calm down guys)[/QUOTE]
You have 270 disagrees.
You lose.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.