"It was like a movie... I drew the gun halfway out..." 17-yr-old teen...

defends home and property in the aftermath of the Bastrop, TX fires. As related to a Texas Monthly writer:

"'Y'all need to leave and get out of here now.'......a few unpleasant words were spoken, I said 'Y'all need to get your f____ asses off my place.' And they were like, 'Oh, you're just a girl. You won't do anything.' And I put my hand on the holster, unclipped the clasp, and told them. 'Y'all need to leave now.'"

"It was like a movie. The guy made a step toward me, and at that point I drew the gun halfway out, because I really don't want to shoot anybody -- I really don't -- but I was prepared. And he was like, *'Oh, do it,' And I was like, 'Do you really want to test me? Do you really want me to shoot your between the eyes right now?'

"I must have had a scary look on my face, because they got the picture and got back in their car and left. It was scary."
______________

The 17-yr.-old girl was trained in the use of the pistol by her boyfriend, and she alone was holding down the fort (castle?) as one of a few houses which survived the raging fires in her neighborhood. Her mom and boyfriend were off getting supplies, and she could only gain access to their home using back-country lanes. She witnessed the looters, 2 men and a woman, picking through stuff in her backyard and carport. She confronted them in the yard.

This is an example of the hundreds of thousands/few million incidents of self-defense using a gun; and like the vast majority, no shots were even fired. Perhaps she should have yelled from a window at first? Would the thugs (one of whom wasn't particularly worried) have then gone into the house to do a little human looting? There was no communication in the region; the nearest hospital in Smithville had one cell phone operating. I could find no other news stories about this incident in a brief Google; not surprising.

Texas Monthly, December 2011, "Trial by Fire." texasmonthly.com


*One of the looters proved to be a HyperPunk (personal definition, if requested).

What I can't figure is why they would consider themselves Democrats. :shrug:

Not even the Bradys want to "ban" guns. :eyes:

Uh - yeah - they do. Don't know what Bradys you're referring to, but Brady Campaign most assuredly does.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Paul Helmke once said that Brady was not a gun control organization and that gun companies have been putting orange tips on firearms to make them look like toys.
So um, sorry I don't believe very much of what they say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign

...and that of the organisation they "evolved" from:

Handgun Control, Inc

From your link:

"The Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center believe that a safer America can be achieved without banning all guns."

I know it kind of f*cks up your whole agenda - painting the Bradys as merciless gun-grabbers - but that's the way it is. Pity.

notice the qualifier, all guns. Which means they want to ban anything they created a buzz word for, but will have no impact. When nothing happens, it will be those good guns.
That is kind of how it worked in other countries.

Also, your sig line? A firearm puts more food on the table per dollar than anything else I can think of....

The man you are quoting clearly didn't think his position through very well.

"Rude toter" perhaps?


:rofl:

talk about rude!

kill or maim people.

Glad it was a lady, rather than some hormone pumped teenage male who would hope to impress the locals and maybe get Ted Nugent's autograph or something.

so where is it that someone got shot?

You are not, however, free to force others to trust looters- for which, I am quite glad...

The only one that says crap like this is you. You are the make believe "gunner".

all kinds of bad things that your guns will supposedly prevent.

They were rummaging through crap in a carport.

I don't see evidence rape wasn't on the agenda, opportunity....

Kick around acting all innocent out back, (Oh I'm just stealing stuff never mind me) don't get a rise out of anyone, move on to the inside. Find a young girl by herself...jackpot.

Christ.

And yet we aren't the ones calling for a ban on "toting", completely unsupported by any valid study or evidence.


Who really has the "vivid imagination", sounds a bit "paranoid/irrational", hoyt?

Be honest.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that i know.

not that we are unconcerned, but jesus h fucking christ on a pogo stick we don't live our lives in constant fear and apprehension of RAPE!!!!!

i work on a college campus, and the only people who bring up the subject of the possibility of carrying guns on campus are "males."

"I work on a college campus, and the only people who bring up the subject of the possibility of carrying guns on campus are "males."

Well, that obviously disqualifies their point of view. :eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Are men allowed to be concerned about rape of women or not? Its a rather simple question.

Answer it, if you dare.

If not, I guess those of us "men" who support a womens right to choose should just mind our own business on that topic, as well.




"i don't really think they are concerned one iota about rape of women (except maybe THEIR woman, and only because then she'd be spoiled by someone else) ... they just use it as a handy excuse to get wheat they want anyway, and makes them look like they care about us."

Your "thinking", is noted.

"YOU are the one claiming it disqualifies their point of view, i didn't say that."

Get your sarcasmometer checked.

I neither made that claim, nor claimed you did.

Was she over-reacting to three looters, esp. one who took a step toward her?

"i don't really think they are concerned one iota about rape of women (except maybe THEIR woman, and only because then she'd be spoiled by someone else) ... they just use it as a handy excuse to get wheat they want anyway, and makes them look like they care about us."

That is a rather hateful and prejudiced statement, redolent of the smarmy feminism that crapped out in the disco-era.

Which is perfectly OK of course. Then from there they move on to the house itself, since they didn't find enough in the carport they were rummaging thru, totally legally.

Her physical and mental health?

A safer society with fewer ambulatory scum?

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

As usual, your ignorance procedes you.

There ain't much in a carport or backyard worth shooting someone. Plus, the young lady was a fool for going out in the yard. Glad she's OK though.

Besides, there is no link to an article about the 17 year old.

Has it occurred to you that a 17 y.o. girl might not be the expert machete/bicycle wheel warrior that you've claimed to be?

When its YOUR carport or backyard, and it contains YOUR stuff, you'll be in a much better position both pragmatically, and morally, to make some determination of its worth.

When its someone elses carport, and someone elses stuff...not so much.

And that ignores the rest of it:

The young lady goes out in the yard, and tells the looters to leave.

At this point, it is no longer about "stuff", and becomes about control - one having rightful control over their own property, on their own property, and the behavior associated with both.


As has been pointed out to you, the looters then chose to challenge the young lady - essentially disagreeing with her notion to assert and maintain control over her own property, on her own property, and the behavior associated with both.

What you seem to be against here, is things escalating beyond it being about "stuff", - where it is about control - and sad but true, your stance favors the looters.

Let that sink in hoyt:

Your position favors the looters.

Principle still means something to a great many people in America, even if it means nothing, to you.



You could...I dunno...give out your address...and show us BY EXAMPLE, how unimportant your stuff and your control of it is, by allowing those so inclined to remove its burden from your tired shoulders.

Then again, maybe its different, when its YOUR property, and control over it.

:rofl:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...reply.

"You could...I dunno...give out your address...and show us BY EXAMPLE, how unimportant your stuff and your control of it is, by allowing those so inclined to remove its burden from your tired shoulders."

Looking forward to the results of the carport/yard "sale". Thanks.
quickesst

I hope you regularly invite people over to rummage through your belongings, take what they want, and do as they please on your property.

You should know by now that such DGU reportage by MSM is scanty at best, esp. when no shots are fired.

That being said, I wouldn't walk outside when you're locked safely in a house. Bad idea.

like, for instance, stealing material items that are not important to survival, I wouldn't run out from an easily defensive position to the outside where someone out there might catch you by surprise (or be armed themselves).

I can't agree that it's a good idea all of the time. Sometimes confronting just isn't worth it (especially if over stuff that you wouldn't even need or miss). Think of the phrase, "It's not worth your life."

i bet that under certain circumstances, when the danger is INSIDE your house, you would get out of the house too, right?

sensible people:
danger outside of house, i stay inside
danger inside of house, i go outside

..the whole area being heavily damaged from wildfires, didn't you?

why would someone, a prudent person anyway, leave the house and go outside if that's where the danger was, hmmm?

sometimes, when the danger is IN the house it is appropriate to get out of the house....

i did not say leave the house when there are 3 looters in your backyard....

THIS would be the time one would be prudent to stay IN the house--y'know, when the threat of danger is OUTSIDE.

get it now?

"danger inside of house, i go outside"

I'm glad you added "sometimes," more reasonable than your first statement. If looters (or home invaders) are already in your house (a danger), then you are already in trouble, and "going outside" means getting past them.

Got that?

If you weren't so half-cocked about your arguments, you will notice in the OP where I questioned whether or not she should have stayed in the house; in other words, was her course of action the best. I would have stayed in the house, but warned them from a window that you were prepared to defend yourself and the property. Da Punks could have decided to do something with that information.

"If looters (or home invaders) are already in your house (a danger), then you are already in trouble, and "going outside" means getting past them."
only if you have only ONE door/window to your home ... rather unusual layout.

i never said in this instance, that she SHOULD have left the house, for fuck sake. in this instance, the danger was not in the house, it was in the carport ... you know, outside the house. a prudent person would stay inside the house when the danger is outside.

my first post in this thread, to chrisa's post 36 was:

To purchase, that is why. You can't get those years back, and insurance doesn't cover the full cost of replacement.

Second, if someone had been killed, it may well have been the girl, had she not had the means to defend herself. I would never trust my personal safety to the good will of the people who are robbing me: she was protecting not only her property, but her person as well. Third, I am disgusted by the notion that we should tolerate blatant thievery out of a concern for the physical well-being of thieves. What would police have done had they been there? Any cop would have drawn on these people. Why should the average citizen not do the same? She was completely justified in using a firearm to stop the crime in progress and protect herself.

Killing people over stuff is fucked up? Tell that to the person who comes to take all your stuff and then slaps you around when you object. That and worse happens every day. There are people who will kill you for your stuff. There are people who will kill you even if you give it up, just because they feel like it. You have every right to defend yourself against them.

No one was harmed here. This was a successful defensive use of a firearm, and not a shot was fired.

thieves routinely kill, hurt, and torment over 'stuff'. You can wait for the thief to kill you before retaliating with equal force if you like, I think I'll be proactive, I think it would be easier to defend myself if I am not dead or severely injured.

"I really don't want to shoot anybody -- I really don't -- but I was prepared"

Nobody sane wants to. She was prepared to do so though, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Correction - there is nothing wrong with that in the real world. In worlds altered by the gun control reality distortion field, one should never even have a gun, let alone be prepared to protect oneself with it.

Should break people's legs for Jaywalking?

It is also perfectly 100% legal in Texas.

Don't like it? Don't come here and steal stuff. Simple as that.

Take that! :P

You may not like it, hell, you're even free to think its pretty bloodthirsty, but the fact remains that it IS legal in this state to defend property with deadly force. It is also legal to use deadly force to stop the criminal from absconding with it - yes, we can kill the little fucker as he's running away.

We LIKE it that way here. Don't see it changing any time soon. Its been suggested a couple times, and each time the law was changed to give even greater protections to the victim. I think last time it was suggested we get rid of that law it was altered to provide civil as well as legal immunity - meaning the dead criminal's estate can't sue.

I'm sure you have SOMETHING I might find interesting...

Feel free to break in and take whatever you need...

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

My house is the big white one, you can't miss it.

...rather than back up your own views, you prefer instead to suggest I attempt to steal from a place you know to be heavily guarded by armed men who will not wait to see if i just want to steal something before shooting me...


Hmmm.....


Why is the word "hypocrite" coming to mind?

And you are calling me a hypocrite?

If you're going to say you absolutely will not defend your property, I'm more than happy to come help myself to whatever you have that I may want. After all, if you're not going to defend it, it isn't really yours, is it?

Just because you are unwilling to back up your ideology, do not for one second believe that others will act the same.

Nothing really belongs to anyone, even our own bodies. Property is just a made-up rule.

That said, I would rather you didn't come to the place I dwell and take the contents therein, so I will keep my address a secret from the likes of you. I also don't think my wife agrees with my position, so you will have to deal with her.

I have had a few people steal from me, but I never did anything about it. One guy was a co-worker who needed a place to stay. He stole my rent money and left town, and then I was evicted because I could not pay my rent. I could have turned him in since our workplace had all of his information, but I decided against it for ethical reasons. I was really hurt that he stole from me when I was just trying to help him out.

You hide it well....

I assure you - my property is mine. I own my body. Further, I have zero respect for a male who hides behind his wife rather than protect his own home and family.

How is ownership more than just an abstract construct?

Further, I have zero respect for a male who hides behind his wife rather than protect his own home and family.

Gender roles have caused more harm than not, in my opinion. I am myself, and my wife is herself. Your emotional reaction to perceived stimuli is understandable, given the context of our culture, but what is it truly based on?

Its mine. I own it. If you attempt to take it, i will do my best to prevent you from doing so. That's about as concrete as you can get.

Whether you believe sexual roles cause harm or not does not matter. Fact is, they exist - not due to any socialization, but due to fundamental realities of life. Remove the technological advantages we enjoy as a society, and you would rapidly discover men and women assuming more traditional roles and behaviors.

Your ideas and philosophy make for wonderful discussions about the nature and purpose of life, but in practice, they serve little to no real benefit and can cause great detriment.

What if they are stealing something you need to survive? Like insulin?

In a situation like...say Katrina, a diabetic may have a limited supply of insulin, and no guarantees of more coming. If someone were stealing a severe diabetics final doses of insulin is it still fucking bloodthirsty nuts to defend a substance upon which your life literally rests?

I think your position lacks nuance. I don't say that to be insulting, but simply to provide food for thought.

and I didn't want to complicate matters by adding new situations.

I once argued that people should be able to dress however they want, but with some basic safety exceptions, such as a surgeon wearing a face mask. My inclusion of the exception became a strange focus point, so now I am hesitant to use that much nuance on DU. Generally speaking, I find the successful DU posts only have one point. On DU, less is more.

"The looting was bad in our neighborhood. And, kid you not, the next day I was home alone—my mom and her boyfriend had left to get supplies—and two men and a woman pulled up, and I saw from my upstairs window what they were doing. They were looking around at our stuff in our yard. We have a back garage and a carport and everything, so they were digging through stuff and picking stuff up.

snip

The guy made a step toward me, and at that point I drew the gun halfway out, because I really don’t want to shoot anybody—I really don’t—but I was prepared. And he was like, “Oh, do it.”"



Disparity of force, threatening action, attempted theft of property... Seriously, should she just stand there and let the criminals have their way? Or am I grossly misunderstanding you?

then I would do nothing. If there is going to be punishment, then it should fit the crime. Killing people for stealing is over the top crazy.

...you assume the goal was merely to steal.

You assumed you could tell their intention was only to take stuff.

What I'm going to do is try to stop the theft with non-lethal means.

That's exactly what this girl did. She told the criminals to leave the property. She only presented the weapon when they offered a threat of force. Three-on-one is a disparity of force that legally amd morally permits use of deadly force in defense.

Precicely as I would do.

That it might taken years of work to purchase, is fucked up. You can't get those years back, and insurance doesn't cover the full cost of replacement.

You're welcome to your beliefs, as I am welcome to mine.

The criminal forfeits his rights the moment he violates mine. Anything which happens to him while I am defending myself or my property is HIS problem.

People often say that I get too bent out of shape over small thefts. I always respond, "no, they stole my TIME, and I can NEVER get that back."

Glad to see someone else agrees.

Tons of DUers steal music and movies off of the internet.

I am not saying you should like thieves more; I am saying you are in company of those you super-dislike.

I would give (and have given) significant portions of my own belongings to someone who humbly asks for it but when they break into my home or associated locations to just help themselves, they have forfeited any expectation of understanding, mercy or very possibly continued existence. These days, no thieves are Robin Hood and I am not the Nottingham Sheriff.

How could I be so obtuse?