you didn't mention the fact that the surviving robber is being charged for the responsibility of murder. the courts decided that any death associated with home burglary is the fault of the burglar or in this case the surviving burglar.
Well done to this true mother. She did what she had to do and did it while keeping a straight head it truly amazing. She also saved the tax payers from having to pay for this lowlife to go to prison. One less criminal in the world. And even the police operator knew how this was going to turn out and said the right thing.
Both deserve an award for doing a service to the community.
Shooting someone to save a life? I'm fine with that. However, shooting someone to save or protect property, Well that's a No Go. Shooting someone who breaks into your home? Well, I'm fine with that. But shooting someone who kicks your ass, or your afraid they'll to kick your ass in a fight? Well, that's a No Go. Shooting someone while your High or Drunk? Well, that's a No Go. But, shooting someone who drank your last beer out of the fridge, after you've worked in the sun all day, Questionable...
@EclecticSceptic they completely have the right to shoot a person who forcibly enters your home. criminals are unpredictable, and you can't wait around trying to figure out if this person wants to rape you, kill you, or rob you, because by the time youve found out, its already been done.
@HiopX If you every had gun training of any sort you would know you aim for the biggest target or you will probably miss. No extremities but the torso.
Thank God and the Founding Fathers for the Second Amendment. To those who wish to make citizens helpless so they can be raped and murdered: Go @#$% yourself.
Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776 Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve, rather, to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. - Thomas Jefferson
the people that don't understand this would give up their rights given by god and protected by the constitution, it is clear is someone makes a threat against you life you need to take aciton. Calling 911 takes time, average response is 2 to 15 minutes on such a case. The act of the attack is only 1/10th of a second so you do the math! kill or be killed! please all you anti gun nuts out there please don't defend yourself so they can come to your house and kill and molest you!
I recognize that people need to protect person and property from clear and present threats. I need to overcome the conditioning that causes me to feel faint if I even see a gun somewhere other than in man-made recordings.
I was hoping you'd comment on the fact that she killed the burglar. Unless he assaulted her, I don't see any justification for lethal use of force. I get that you were making a point about people defending themselves with guns.
@EclecticSceptic, I don't understand why you seem to think it appropriate to wait until after you have been assaulted. That makes no sense. Are you advocating retribution? Shooting someone AFTER THEY HAVE ASSAULTED YOU AND HAVE STOPPED is not self defense. It is murder. Or are you proposing that during the act of being beaten quite possibly to death, that you use some superhuman abilities to pull your gun and shoot to wound? Think. MORE.
@87Rumbler You're ordering me to 'think more', yet instead you substitute capital letters for thought. I meant assault in the legal sense. I don't think it's right to shoot someone dead just because they've broken into your house.
@EclecticSceptic Yeah, just keep focusing on grammar. Avoid thinking about surviving a violent home invasion at all costs. Because chances are highest that you will not. "Legal sense" means they have physically contacted you - hands on. You wait for that, you allow them to decide whether you live or you die. Call me crazy but I just can't see how that is an intelligent thing to do. Think more (better now?).
@87Rumbler What? I didn't mention your grammar! Anyway, assault in the legal sense would roughly speaking be the bit before you are attacked. As in, you are threatened or something similar. The point I am making is that it is not right to murder someone just because they've broken into your house. That's not self-defence. That's offence. If they assault you (using the above meaning), you may use force - and lethal force if it really is required.
@EclecticSceptic I don't know much about the law. What's your take on this interpretation: Person A tries to rape Woman B. Is this not like "trespassing" on her private property without her consent, just like trespassing into someone's home, without consent or invitation?
If Woman B were me, I would not hesitate to shoot Person A.
Second perspective. Humans are animals. If you ever threaten a mammal's offspring, prepare to have your head ripped off. Reason only goes so far.
@amamerc The reason rape is immoral, and a crime, is that it is violence against a person. When one rapes a person, one is using force against that person. This is true because the only way to engage sexually with someone without consent is by force. I wouldn't make recourse to primal animal behaviour, it can be used to justify all kinds of atrocious acts. And really, do we as humans aspire to act as beasts? Is there whence we take our example? Interesting points though.
@EclecticSceptic I'll bet Dr. Petit wishes he had done the same thing Sarah did. He would still have his family. The very act of breaking into someone's house is reason enough to use deadly force. You can't predict if someone has intentions of harming you. Dude was high on drugs. It would have been lovely if she had time to warn him to leave or get shot, but she had a working pistol only (didn't know if shotgun would work). It was her right to protect herself.
@2mbR8erShan Not only would it "have been lovely" but I firmly believe if the police had arrived she would have simply put the gun(s) down and cooperated with authority but ya' know what? They didn't arrive in time and so often they won't because they can't. They can't be everywhere at once even though they wish they could. So Kudos to Sarah for having a backup plan...that worked.
How many more drug crazed criminals are we going to lose to these armed and highly dangerous moms?
tonyrobbins2 3 weeks ago
you didn't mention the fact that the surviving robber is being charged for the responsibility of murder. the courts decided that any death associated with home burglary is the fault of the burglar or in this case the surviving burglar.
rbmaserang 1 month ago
@rbmaserang apologies ididnt realize you shant make a disquition of legalities.
rbmaserang 1 month ago
awesome .....
BladeRunner4Hire 1 month ago
Id rather be tried by 6 than carried by 6. I love that!
DJKaneHtownshuffler 1 month ago
good.
Leprechraun 1 month ago
Right on!
Tressco 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Hahaha, this babe is rally hard nosed!!!
WasGibtsLeute 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
you're the fucking man Lionel
FuryoftheFilmFan 1 month ago
Well done to this true mother. She did what she had to do and did it while keeping a straight head it truly amazing. She also saved the tax payers from having to pay for this lowlife to go to prison. One less criminal in the world. And even the police operator knew how this was going to turn out and said the right thing.
Both deserve an award for doing a service to the community.
DreamsCatcher101 1 month ago 2
I absolutely LOVE Lionel's thoughts!
diegoabruno 1 month ago
The more firearms owned by the public, the lower the crime rate, check the facts.....
hrnciarska 1 month ago
Well its really 13 1/2 = 12 jurors 1 judge and 1/2 a damn chance.
BigT27295 1 month ago
Lione, its tried by 12 and carried by 6.
BigT27295 1 month ago
Why did you shoot him six times ? Well the gun went empty your honor.
BigT27295 1 month ago
Countering one extreme moron's view with another won't ever prove either point
e36killer 1 month ago
Shooting someone to save a life? I'm fine with that. However, shooting someone to save or protect property, Well that's a No Go. Shooting someone who breaks into your home? Well, I'm fine with that. But shooting someone who kicks your ass, or your afraid they'll to kick your ass in a fight? Well, that's a No Go. Shooting someone while your High or Drunk? Well, that's a No Go. But, shooting someone who drank your last beer out of the fridge, after you've worked in the sun all day, Questionable...
commonman80 1 month ago
@commonman80 Do you think someone has the right to shoot another person dead because they've forcibly entered their home.
EclecticSceptic 1 month ago
@EclecticSceptic *?
EclecticSceptic 1 month ago
@EclecticSceptic they completely have the right to shoot a person who forcibly enters your home. criminals are unpredictable, and you can't wait around trying to figure out if this person wants to rape you, kill you, or rob you, because by the time youve found out, its already been done.
fivefoflow 1 month ago
She could have also used her firearms to scare the shit out of him and telling them to fuck off.
Or shooting in the knee.
But that is MUCH easier to say now while sitting at home with no intruders in sight...
HiopX 1 month ago
@HiopX Exactly
BigT27295 1 month ago
@HiopX If you every had gun training of any sort you would know you aim for the biggest target or you will probably miss. No extremities but the torso.
angrywhenroused 1 month ago
Thank God and the Founding Fathers for the Second Amendment. To those who wish to make citizens helpless so they can be raped and murdered: Go @#$% yourself.
imsiriustube 1 month ago 2
It's "...judged/tried by 12 than carried by 6." but I'm right there with you!
thefirespectrum 1 month ago
Hell yeah!
exiquio 1 month ago
Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776 Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve, rather, to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. - Thomas Jefferson
MrChrisMcPhail2 1 month ago
the people that don't understand this would give up their rights given by god and protected by the constitution, it is clear is someone makes a threat against you life you need to take aciton. Calling 911 takes time, average response is 2 to 15 minutes on such a case. The act of the attack is only 1/10th of a second so you do the math! kill or be killed! please all you anti gun nuts out there please don't defend yourself so they can come to your house and kill and molest you!
bhbboland 1 month ago
@bhbboland try the god gave me the right to kill people defense in a court of law you will be in the nuthouse pretty quick.
angrywhenroused 1 month ago
I recognize that people need to protect person and property from clear and present threats. I need to overcome the conditioning that causes me to feel faint if I even see a gun somewhere other than in man-made recordings.
marasu66 1 month ago
If I lived an a lawless place like her I would probably have a gun.
Lucky I live in sedate Lancashire where its not needed.
The issue should not be the fact there in now one less asshole in the world but these people exist in the first place.
angrywhenroused 1 month ago
@angrywhenroused You live in fantasy land. just saying.
BigT27295 1 month ago
@BigT27295 no Lancashire England, it's very soggy at the moment.
angrywhenroused 1 month ago
@angrywhenroused Hell can you even own a firearm? My bad.
BigT27295 1 month ago
I was hoping you'd comment on the fact that she killed the burglar. Unless he assaulted her, I don't see any justification for lethal use of force. I get that you were making a point about people defending themselves with guns.
EclecticSceptic 1 month ago
@EclecticSceptic, I don't understand why you seem to think it appropriate to wait until after you have been assaulted. That makes no sense. Are you advocating retribution? Shooting someone AFTER THEY HAVE ASSAULTED YOU AND HAVE STOPPED is not self defense. It is murder. Or are you proposing that during the act of being beaten quite possibly to death, that you use some superhuman abilities to pull your gun and shoot to wound? Think. MORE.
87Rumbler 1 month ago
@87Rumbler You're ordering me to 'think more', yet instead you substitute capital letters for thought. I meant assault in the legal sense. I don't think it's right to shoot someone dead just because they've broken into your house.
EclecticSceptic 1 month ago
@EclecticSceptic Yeah, just keep focusing on grammar. Avoid thinking about surviving a violent home invasion at all costs. Because chances are highest that you will not. "Legal sense" means they have physically contacted you - hands on. You wait for that, you allow them to decide whether you live or you die. Call me crazy but I just can't see how that is an intelligent thing to do. Think more (better now?).
87Rumbler 1 month ago
@87Rumbler What? I didn't mention your grammar! Anyway, assault in the legal sense would roughly speaking be the bit before you are attacked. As in, you are threatened or something similar. The point I am making is that it is not right to murder someone just because they've broken into your house. That's not self-defence. That's offence. If they assault you (using the above meaning), you may use force - and lethal force if it really is required.
EclecticSceptic 1 month ago
@EclecticSceptic Thank heavens that with few exceptions the law in this country disagrees with you.
87Rumbler 1 month ago
Comment removed
amamerc 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EclecticSceptic I don't know much about the law. What's your take on this interpretation: Person A tries to rape Woman B. Is this not like "trespassing" on her private property without her consent, just like trespassing into someone's home, without consent or invitation?
If Woman B were me, I would not hesitate to shoot Person A.
Second perspective. Humans are animals. If you ever threaten a mammal's offspring, prepare to have your head ripped off. Reason only goes so far.
amamerc 1 month ago
@amamerc The reason rape is immoral, and a crime, is that it is violence against a person. When one rapes a person, one is using force against that person. This is true because the only way to engage sexually with someone without consent is by force. I wouldn't make recourse to primal animal behaviour, it can be used to justify all kinds of atrocious acts. And really, do we as humans aspire to act as beasts? Is there whence we take our example? Interesting points though.
EclecticSceptic 1 month ago
@EclecticSceptic I guess you can make them a cup of coffee then ask them what there intentions are.
BigT27295 1 month ago
@EclecticSceptic I'll bet Dr. Petit wishes he had done the same thing Sarah did. He would still have his family. The very act of breaking into someone's house is reason enough to use deadly force. You can't predict if someone has intentions of harming you. Dude was high on drugs. It would have been lovely if she had time to warn him to leave or get shot, but she had a working pistol only (didn't know if shotgun would work). It was her right to protect herself.
2mbR8erShan 1 month ago
@2mbR8erShan Not only would it "have been lovely" but I firmly believe if the police had arrived she would have simply put the gun(s) down and cooperated with authority but ya' know what? They didn't arrive in time and so often they won't because they can't. They can't be everywhere at once even though they wish they could. So Kudos to Sarah for having a backup plan...that worked.
RonaldMetcalf 1 month ago