chess online
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
dmaestro 05-Jan-12, 01:36 |
 In the USA, Beware of OwnerPractically, a smart criminal needs to know where they live. Anyone stupid enough to break into a house knowing someone is there, in heavily armed Oklahoma, with only a knife, has a good chance of being summarily shot and the criminal was shot and killed as he entered the house without a word, and now his accomplice who ran off after hearing shots will face life in jail for participating in the crime leading to the death which meets the definition of first degree murder of his partner in Oklahoma. In the USA, beware of gun owner, who may not wait for the police ======================================== Teen Mom Shoots, Kills Intruder With 911 Dispatcher on the Phone Published January 04, 2012 Associated Press BLANCHARD, Okla. – Authorities don't plan to file charges against an Oklahoma woman who fatally shot a New Year's Eve intruder at her house while she had a 911 dispatcher on the phone, but the intruder's alleged accomplice has been charged in the death. A 911 tape released to Oklahoma City media outlets Wednesday reveals that 18-year-old Sarah McKinley asked a Grady County dispatcher for permission to shoot the intruder. McKinley's 3-month-old son was with her when she shot Justin Shane Martin, 24, at her Blanchard mobile home. "I've got two guns in my hand. Is it OK to shoot him if he comes in this door?" McKinley asked the dispatcher. "Well, you have to do whatever you can do to protect yourself," the dispatcher is heard telling McKinley. "I can't tell you that you can do that, but you have to do what you have to do to protect your baby." Oklahoma law allows the use of deadly force against intruders, and prosecutors said McKinley clearly acted in self-defense. According to court documents, Martin was holding a knife when he died. "Our initial review of the case doesn't indicate she violated the law in any way," Assistant District Attorney James Walters told The Oklahoman newspaper. However, prosecutors have charged his alleged accomplice, 29-year-old Dustin Louis Stewart, with first-degree murder. According to authorities, Stewart was with Martin but ran away from McKinley's home after hearing the gunshots. "When you're engaged in a crime such as first-degree burglary and a death results from the events of that crime, you're subject to prosecution for it," Walters said. Stewart was arraigned Wednesday and was being held in the Grady County jail. A bond hearing was set for Thursday. His attorney, Stephen Buzin, did not immediately respond to a message left at his office Wednesday night. According to court documents, Martin and Stewart might have been looking for prescription drugs. McKinley said it took the men about 20 minutes to get through her door, which she had barricaded with a couch. She said her husband had died about a week earlier -- on Christmas Day -- after being hospitalized with complications from lung cancer earlier that month. Read more: www.foxnews.com |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
DM This is one of the other reasons for having a personal weapon and I doubt that anybody can be opposed to this use. |
||||||
|
nope as a side note...it is odd that an 18 yr old's husband died of lung cancer, which rarely kills young people. |
||||||
|
hennybogan1953 05-Jan-12, 07:48 |
"The Usual Suspects" How cool would that be! I'm still happy with the outcome because this is really the first real feel good story of 2012. I love the midwest. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
thumper the 20 minutes that it took for the cops to arrive is a crime and should be investigated. |
||||||
|
Jeff |
||||||
|
Stinky I hereby pass that on to any of you who oppose water boarding to say Yea or Nea on if you are willing to shoot/kill an intruder who poses potential lethal force to your family and/or friends... how do you justify that discrepancy? |
||||||
|
stinky show me an example of where torturing someone will save my families life. i know. you are going to invent some tv show plot where a terrorist has planted a nuke in san francisco harbor and will not tell where it is - so we are morally justified in torturing him. a fine premise for the tv show '24' but hardly a real life scenario. |
||||||
|
It also appears that her late husband was able to help provide for his wife and baby's safety even after he was forced to leave. |
||||||
|
Wait till the libs butt in. |
||||||
|
z It might be interesting to discuss how far away in relationship you would take it before you weren't interested in killing them and didn't think (anymore) they should be killed. For example, you would protect yourself and your family (I presume) but would you be willing to kill to protect your neighbor, or the neighbor two streets away... or a city away? The question is, then, how far removed from you or your immediate family does that threat need to be before you say it's not worth killing? But the real question here is, given that you can justify some amount of killing, why are you opposed to water-boarding somebody (a non-lethal) method of getting the information that might stop death to you, your family, or your neighbors? Is it a matter of physical distance removed? Is it a matter of familial relationship removed? Or is it a matter of immediacy? It seems to me that if you can justify the killing of somebody else for your personal safety and that of your immediate family, you must then justify it for anybody who has a personal safety issue and/or family safety issue no matter where they are located. And, if you can justify the killing of somebody else for your personal safety and/or the safety of your personal family, then certainly you must allow the water-boarding (a non-lethal method) for getting the information that will protect the safety of someone else. Yes or No? |
||||||
|
Jeff |
||||||
|
softy stinky - has that ever happened? it makes a great novel, or tv drama plot, but is not really a true life scenario - ok...maybe once or twice in many many years (find me a real case please). and same issue as softy - what makes you think torture will provide accurate data? there is no evidence that it does, and plenty that it does not. sorry - no hypocrisy here. yes to self defense. no to far-fetched made-up scenarios designed to justify the indefensible. |
||||||
|
You appear to purposefully miss their point. You admit to being willing to kill but refuse to allow even the possibility of torture. Your answer smacks of dishonesty. |
||||||
|
thumper so it works because they do it and they do it because it works. nice. you smack of dishonesty. your statement proves it. |
||||||
|
thumper |
||||||
|
logical consequences it is a logical consequence of his behavior; and he is the only one to be blamed. Torturing someone who is not directly the would-be attacker, but is an indirect accomplice makes no sense from the "every man is an island" standpoint; however, if "no man is an island," then we are like living cells in one body, and we protect that body by striking at the accomplices of the would-be attacker: there are joined, they are one, they are equally responsible and by their relationship as fellow felons they bring punishment and perhaps torture -- torture in self-defense -- on themselves as logical consequences of their behavior, past, present, and planned. |
||||||
|
Jeff |
||||||
|
Jeff |
||||||
|
thumper |
||||||
|
stinky |
||||||
|
Yea Jeff |
||||||
|
stinky Torture is not wrong, it just doesn't work, says former interrogator By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent, New York 7:15PM BST 28 Oct 2011 Sitting in the plush New York office he now occupies, Ali Soufan, a former FBI interrogator, is coy about his intelligence successes, many of them in Britain, but difficult to stop when he’s on the subject of torture. He has reason to feel strongly, not just because several of his most important cases were cut short by the CIA’s insistence on turning to “enhanced interrogation,” but also because his subsequent evidence in front of a Senate committee led to an inter-agency struggle which contributed to him leaving the bureau he loved. Still only 38, he believes, rightly or wrongly, that if he had been allowed to interrogate another one or two of the most senior figures in al-Qaeda, he could have prevented 7/7, Madrid and the Bali bombings. And he may be right because his record of getting prisoners to talk when he left the bureau six years ago was enough to bring him to the notice of the director of the FBI, who labeled him the “future of the FBI”. For Soufan, interrogation is a battle of wits with the prisoner, enticing him into talking by building up a relationship, pretending you know things you don’t to dupe him into giving away information. His most important weapon was not cudgels and whips, or even sleep deprivation and stress positions, it was an in-depth knowledge of al-Qaeda. |
||||||
|
I like how he said it isnt wrong |
||||||
|
stinky |
||||||
|
Just as you |
||||||
|
Jeff So how about discussing your willingness to kill: Since you are willing to kill to protect yourself and your immediate family, are you willing to kill to protect your nearest neighbor? What about the neighbors two houses down? What about neighbors two cities down? Since you willing to kill to protect yourself and your immediate family, are you willing to kill to protect your relatives slightly removed? What about relatives distantly removed, like in Israel? What about relatives who are only 2nd cousins wherever they may live? The point is that if you are willing to kill for yourself and your immediate loved-ones, then you must be willing to allow for killings in order to protect anyone from harm... because everyone is somebodies loved-one. Yes or No? |
||||||
|
Everybody |
||||||
| |||||||
Log in 
