ChatterBank1 min ago
Another Mad American With A Gun !
http://
He shot her, despite her telling him she was pregnant. He shot her in the back, she was unarmed but he still hasn't been charged by the Police !
He shot her, despite her telling him she was pregnant. He shot her in the back, she was unarmed but he still hasn't been charged by the Police !
Answers
I can understand the fear and anguish of an 80 year old coming home to find a robbery in progress and then being assaulted- absolutely terrible. I can understand him firing in self defence if there was a skirmish, what I can;t understand is him shooting someone in the back as they ran from his property after they had said they were pregnant and were very obviously...
17:43 Sat 26th Jul 2014
anneasquith...debate on AB always gives me surprises ! It certainly surprises me that so many people think it a good idea to shoot someone in the back and then not charge the person with the gun. I didn't see that one coming, thats for sure..... Thank goodness that we don't live in America, thats all I can say !
agchristie..."Play nicely girls" was meant to try to defuse the spat between kvalidir and gness...not very successfully alas. I do hate it so when the claws come out.
agchristie..."Play nicely girls" was meant to try to defuse the spat between kvalidir and gness...not very successfully alas. I do hate it so when the claws come out.
btw I'm on the fence on this one.
I was attacked in my own home. I doubt the dirty barsteward was banking on the fact I can fight. He fled...I grabbed a weapon and chased him. If I'd caught him I have no doubt I would have gave him a hiding. That's not anger, imo, it's adrenaline brought on by fear.
I've also been burgled by a sleeper burglar. Knowing a stranger was in mine and the kids bedrooms while we slept had a real effect on me. Prudie's comparison is a valid one.
I was attacked in my own home. I doubt the dirty barsteward was banking on the fact I can fight. He fled...I grabbed a weapon and chased him. If I'd caught him I have no doubt I would have gave him a hiding. That's not anger, imo, it's adrenaline brought on by fear.
I've also been burgled by a sleeper burglar. Knowing a stranger was in mine and the kids bedrooms while we slept had a real effect on me. Prudie's comparison is a valid one.
As others have said, I find it very hard to get away from the fact that the woman was fleeing the scene. This seems more like a revenge killing to me than self-defence.
By the way, I'd like to know how ABers who are defending this stand on gun control laws? It's always been my impression that people are generally grateful in the UK that guns are regulated sensibly.
If you're supporting this man's actions, I can't see how you can do so without being at least implicitly in favour of lax gun control laws. After all, if you think it's a good thing that this old man had a revolver to defend himself, can you really then say that more households shouldn't have greater access to guns? I don't think so, personally.
By the way, I'd like to know how ABers who are defending this stand on gun control laws? It's always been my impression that people are generally grateful in the UK that guns are regulated sensibly.
If you're supporting this man's actions, I can't see how you can do so without being at least implicitly in favour of lax gun control laws. After all, if you think it's a good thing that this old man had a revolver to defend himself, can you really then say that more households shouldn't have greater access to guns? I don't think so, personally.
Kromo...as I have said before...thanks goodness we are not in America.
Britain took the entirely correct decision years ago to control access to guns, after Hungerford and Dunblane. Nobody seriously doubts that now.
Its easy for us over here to form the opinion that most Americans support wide-spread gun ownership and use, but that is not entirely true. I have visited friends in the States many times over the last 40 years and none of them are fans of guns. One set of friends live just a short distance from the school at Sandy Hook, in Connecticut where the gun atrocity happened in 2012 and they were as appalled as we were over here.
The only reason that we don't have mass killings and atrocities here in Britain, is that the access to guns are strictly controlled. After all, America doesn't have a monopoly on mad people and if guns were as easily available here as over there, similar dire consequences would soon result.
Britain took the entirely correct decision years ago to control access to guns, after Hungerford and Dunblane. Nobody seriously doubts that now.
Its easy for us over here to form the opinion that most Americans support wide-spread gun ownership and use, but that is not entirely true. I have visited friends in the States many times over the last 40 years and none of them are fans of guns. One set of friends live just a short distance from the school at Sandy Hook, in Connecticut where the gun atrocity happened in 2012 and they were as appalled as we were over here.
The only reason that we don't have mass killings and atrocities here in Britain, is that the access to guns are strictly controlled. After all, America doesn't have a monopoly on mad people and if guns were as easily available here as over there, similar dire consequences would soon result.
Krom, //If you're supporting this man's actions, I can't see how you can do so without being at least implicitly in favour of lax gun control laws.//
Not at all. All people are saying is that if burglars meet with injury or death in the course of carrying out their chosen occupation, they have no one to blame but themselves. The weapon is irrelevant. It could just as well have been a knife - or a hammer over the head.
Not at all. All people are saying is that if burglars meet with injury or death in the course of carrying out their chosen occupation, they have no one to blame but themselves. The weapon is irrelevant. It could just as well have been a knife - or a hammer over the head.
That's fair enough I guess - like Mikey, I have no sympathy whatsoever with the dead woman or her partner. If you physically attack someone, you're essentially making a gamble that you can take them. If you're wrong, there's not really anyone else to blame. Had they immediately surrendered (or fled) as soon as he entered the house rather than assault him, I imagine things would have ended differently for them.
I still find it very hard to get away from the "shooting them in the back while running away" aspect of it though.
I still find it very hard to get away from the "shooting them in the back while running away" aspect of it though.
I don't agree with lax gun laws and am very glad it's different here. I don't advocate shooting burglars- but these clearly knew the risks and were happy to take them. In hindsight "shooting someone in the back" is easy to say, but he was shocked, scared, outnumbered and injured. He didn't know if she had a gun or whether they would grab something and turn back. I think it was adrenaline rather than revenge.
Well,we shall know soon enough what the prosecutors decide.Then no doubt the debate will rumble on.Im interested to know more about Greer's claims these low life targeted him several times before.This suggests increased vulnerability and anxiety so it is little surprise that he fired especially after he was violently attacked...
"That's not a considered action - it's a split-second reaction to the mayhem of what's happening."
Split-second? Really?
I'd say it was split second if she was running towards him. Or if she was still in the house. Or if her actions weren't immediately clear. But that wasn't the case. She had clambered out of his window and scarpered.
Furthermore, the man didn't describe it as a split-second decision. He described it as calculated. He said he deliberately intended to kill her so he could send a message to her partner. This is not self-defence.
Split-second? Really?
I'd say it was split second if she was running towards him. Or if she was still in the house. Or if her actions weren't immediately clear. But that wasn't the case. She had clambered out of his window and scarpered.
Furthermore, the man didn't describe it as a split-second decision. He described it as calculated. He said he deliberately intended to kill her so he could send a message to her partner. This is not self-defence.
Krom, Yes, I really think it is a split-second decision. She clambers out of the window, he grabs his gun, and shoots – all in a matter of seconds. I’m sure he did intend to kill her – at that moment. Had I caught the burglars who violated my home, I’m pretty sure that at that moment, had I been in possession of a weapon, I’d have used it with no thought of the consequences.
He already had the gun when she left. That was why she was leaving - he had a gun. He shot her twice and dragged her body back towards his truck.
I'm not grieving the loss of this woman. I don't particularly care that she is dead. But by the time he killed her, I think it's pretty clear we were well out of "split-second" territory. He described it as a calculated act, not an impulsive one.
I'm not grieving the loss of this woman. I don't particularly care that she is dead. But by the time he killed her, I think it's pretty clear we were well out of "split-second" territory. He described it as a calculated act, not an impulsive one.
There is a huge difference between guns, knives and hammers though. A gun can be used at distance, quite safely to the user, but with hammers and knives its not so easy easy. This woman died because she was in the wrong place, at the wrong time, behaving wrongly. Almost all of the incident could have happened over here, and probably has. The difference is that Yanks have guns and we don't. In addition, they seem to have invented laws that do not bring charges against the killer but against another person who can't possibly have been guilty.
For the last time on here, for today at least...thank God that we don't live in America.
For the last time on here, for today at least...thank God that we don't live in America.
