The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

^ And she will still have to go to trial, I believe.

(01-15-2013 01:09 PM)Whinny1 Wrote:  ^ And she will still have to go to trial, I believe.

Ahhh, only in Amerika. The new Amerika anyway.

(01-15-2013 01:13 PM)Chipdip Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 01:09 PM)Whinny1 Wrote:  ^ And she will still have to go to trial, I believe.

Ahhh, only in Amerika. The new Amerika anyway.

Ahhhh, the all knowing Dip on his high horse. Will she have to go to trial? Second, what is the prevailing law in the state where that happened? Third, do you really believe a jury of her peers will convict her if she was in fact defending herself.

Ahhhhh.....

Takes closer to 20 minutes where I live.

(01-15-2013 01:17 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 01:13 PM)Chipdip Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 01:09 PM)Whinny1 Wrote:  ^ And she will still have to go to trial, I believe.

Ahhh, only in Amerika. The new Amerika anyway.

Ahhhh, the all knowing Dip on his high horse. Will she have to go to trial? Second, what is the prevailing law in the state where that happened? Third, do you really believe a jury of her peers will convict her if she was in fact defending herself.

Ahhhhh.....

WHINNY SAYS (not the all knowing Dip) she's going to trial. What's this "all knowing Dip crap" If as WHINNY SAYS she is going to trial and if what she says is accurate, then any one with half a brain could conclude that the law in that state doesn't allow for defending yourself in your own house. As for the jury, who the hell knows. After the OJ trial anyone can get off if you can stack it right.

Now, I believe this happened in GA, and I can't imagine a good old boy state like GA having such a law. But if WHINNY SAID IT I have to go with it.

Whinny is an Iowa fan and alumus....nuff said.

(01-15-2013 01:02 PM)Chipdip Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 11:47 AM)Tommyboy Wrote:  That story is being used by the gun rights groups to say that larger magazines are needed. I say she needed a better gun, 38s won't do much, a 9mm pistol would be both harder hitting and more shots, but as mentioned previously a shot gun is widely recognized as the best for home defense.

She hit him with 5 shots in the face and the chest and not only did he get away, he drove his car away. If he's got a 2nd perp with him she and her child are toast.

So you think a second perp is going to hang around when his buddy is running off with five bullets in him? you give criminals a high level of discipline. "oh you got got shot, let me take a quick look to see what kind of gun she has..." will never be said.
My example of a better weapon gave her more shots as well, the number being talked about is 10+1 that would double the number of shots she had any way.
Also this is a lesson to know how to handle your weapon, she hit him with five shots none of them hit anything vital, or in a place that would stop him, she needs more time with the weapon and she needs to stay calm and aim not fire off shots as fast as she can.


Edit from the link above:

Quote:Not realizing she was out of ammunition, she ordered the man to stay on the floor as he bled. She then fled the house with her children.

So she did drop him, and he stayed down long enough for her to get out of the house, and then he got up to get away. Apparently he didn't know she was out of shots either or he could have gotten her right then.

Perhaps she could have stopped by the kitchen, and plunged a butcher knife in him. Would have saved the courts some money and would have taught the daughter a good lesson about always finishing what you start.

Quick question: is the point of shooting someone in your house to kill them or protect your family (getting them to flee, incapacitating them, etc)?

Never pull a gun unless you intend to use it.

In days of old when knights were bold and your sword had a name, if you unsheathed your sword it could not br replaced unless it was "blooded".

That meant if you pulled it serious business was about to ensue.

The blade had to taste blood. They kept a few rabbits around for false alarms.

You should not draw a gun if you do not intend to use it.

I think to make the poll more fair it should read

A. Shoot the perp who has invaded your home and hope nobody gets hurt.

B. Follow the law and hope nobody gets hurt.

I'm not against guns, but I'm against uneven poll choices.

(01-16-2013 04:29 PM)Ubish Wrote:  I think to make the poll more fair it should read

A. Shoot the perp who has invaded your home and hope nobody gets hurt.

B. Follow the law and hope nobody gets hurt.

I'm not against guns, but I'm against uneven poll choices.

You need to go back to the beginning and read what the law is (in some states).

(01-16-2013 04:05 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  You should not draw a gun if you do not intend to use it.

Psyche!! You owe me a coke.....

I'm not saying you should try to shoot them in the leg or something, aim for chest and center of mass, but is the point to kill them or is killing a side effect of defending self/family? In the latter case incapacitating or getting them to flee are equally successful outcomes, in the former the only success comes if they are dead on the floor.

(01-15-2013 01:21 PM)Nacho Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 12:52 PM)Whinny1 Wrote:  Seriously though, my Medical Alert alarm button is always around my neck when I'm at home. One push, and law enforcement will be here within minutes. The monitor announces "Emergency!" loud and clear four times, and then connects you with an agent. I have noticed that there are also 9-1-1 buttons being promoted on TV that transmit your location to law enforcement, and can be taken with you outside the home.

I do not believe that guns are the answer. FWIW, law or no law covering the use of a weapon, a homeowner shooting an invader will still have to go through a court trial to determine whether it really was self defense. Is it worth it when there are other options for protecting your family?

So you'd rather press a 911 button when an intruder is running at you with a knife and waiting 10 min. for police to arrive rather than take it into your own hands and protect yourself?

Well yes, Nacho, I would. There's also the good chance that the loud, screaming "Emergency Reported" announcement would scare off most home invaders. The very nature of their chosen type of crime indicates that these are not people who want confrontation.

(01-16-2013 10:30 AM)Chipdip Wrote:  Perhaps she could have stopped by the kitchen, and plunged a butcher knife in him. Would have saved the courts some money and would have taught the daughter a good lesson about always finishing what you start.

Oh, lordy.

Dip, have you ever watched any criminal trials live on TV? Check out In Session on TruTV/CourtTV sometime. The gunshots could possibly qualify as self defense, if all evidence supports it. The secondary plunging of the butcher knife would negate any self defense claim, because she had already incapacitated him and there was no longer any need for her to defend herself. She'd be doing BIG time.

(01-16-2013 04:29 PM)Ubish Wrote:  I think to make the poll more fair it should read

A. Shoot the perp who has invaded your home and hope nobody gets hurt.

B. Follow the law and hope nobody gets hurt.

I'm not against guns, but I'm against uneven poll choices.

In Michigan you can "Follow The Law" and shoot them.

Quote:PRESUMPTION REGARDING SELF-DEFENSE (EXCERPT)
Act 311 of 2006


780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.

Sec. 1.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).// more available//

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28ixx...cl-780-951

^ With the key word being "rebuttable," as I read it. And it does indicate that this holds in a civil or criminal case. In other words, the "self defender" will go to trial.