It's a simple question. I'll repeat it: So tell me this: if a wife is home alone and armed and a group of armed guys are breaking into her home and she has a chance to flee or stay and shoot, she should stay and shoot instead of fleeing? I'll assume that the answer is, "No, I would never encourage my wife to risk her life to defend our house." - - - Updated - - - I gave a simple question. I'll repeat it: If a wife is home alone and armed and a group of armed guys are breaking into her home and she has a chance to flee or stay and shoot, she should stay and shoot instead of fleeing? I'll assume that the answer is, "No, I would never encourage my wife to risk her life to defend our house."
Yes. How are facts delusional? Just because you don't like a fact doesn't make it wrong. I am starting to suspect that I'm debating with children.
Fleeing triggers a chase response and once she starts running, she won't have any way to defend herself if she's caught. She is far more likely to be in trouble by fleeing than if she stands her ground in her own home and let's the intruders know that she is armed and ready to defend herself. - - - Updated - - - Common law isn't an American tradition? Pray tell us, what is the basis of law in the United States?
No need to repeat it, I answered it just fine, you'll just have to go reread my answer. You're starting to squirm here though. Once more just because I want you to understand. You don't understand situational awareness or have any idea of tactics do you? Your statement is bare of factors that I could use to make that determination (in other words gimme more information to go on) So in leiu of said facts I would say she would have to make that decision based on the facts she knows at the time of the confrontation. I do know, she won't know the intention of the attackers because she is not a mind reader, I do know she would be within her rights to stand and fight, I do know tactically speaking at close quarters running is not a good option when the intruder/intruders are armed. You can assume what you want but you just don't understand or you're starting to feel trapped and maybe a little guilty that you are going to risk your spouses life over a political belief. Umm did you miss the second part? "Your spouse is in a 3rd floor hotel room, one door, there is a window at the other end of the room from the door. The 2 kids are asleep on the far bed and the spouse is on the bed nearest the door. The spouse has a 9mm W/15 round magazine and it is on the night stand. You are not expected back from your business meeting for several hours, the hotel is on the outskits of the city. (read long police response times) Suddenly someone pounds the door, alarmed your spouse calls the front desk and they agree to call 911. The intruder starts kicking the door and your spouse sees the frame breaking and the door opening. At this point what would you want your spouse to do? " Please advise what you would want your spouse to do?
If she has a choice, of course she should flee. The thing is, everybody doesn't have that choice in all situation. If your wife is armed, she can flee or shoot. If she is unarmed, fleeing is the only alternative. If a group of armed men came into my house, if I got everybody to safety (fleeing), of course I would flee as well. However, I would not flee until my family is safe. My basic assumption is that if a group of armed men breaks into my house, they intend to do me or my family physical harm. Otherwise they would be unarmed and would break into an unoccupied house.
Castle doctrine was common law until the 1960s. Then, some states started to enact duty to retreat laws. Other states in response enacted Castle Doctrine laws. I agree that Stand your Ground laws probably need revision, but they don' t need elimination. I totally agree with Castle Doctrine laws. I shouldn't have to be forced to decide in the middle of the night4 if an intruder in my home is just there for my flat screen, or if he's there to kidnap my children and rape my wife. Any criminal knows about the Castle doctrine, IMHO, and if they just want my stuff, they'll break in during the day or when we're gone for the weekend. If they don't know the law, then they are dangerously ignorant, and can't be predicted.
I agree that she should flee. But, I was referring to the absurd claim from a guy who says his wife should stay and shoot regardless of whether or not she can flee. Here it is: If you're afraid to answer the question, that's fine. I really don't want to read paragraphs about exceptions to what is really a very simple question given the context of the recent posts. Huh? I feel guilt because I would prefer that my wife flee and survive rather than stay and have a shoot-out with a group of intruders? Have you been following this thread? I would want my wife to flee... as would most men. I feel no guilt in wanting her to avoid an intruder with a gun, a shoot-out or any violent situation. You sure can spin the truth. I'm not interested in a socratic debate. PRAIRIEOUTLAW stated that he wanted his wife to stay and shoot at armed intruders and not flee because she had to shoot them first. In other words, he doesn't want her to flee even if she could. Your question misses the point that some gun nuts actually believe that their spouses should risk their lives to defend their homes.
Rubbish, you come into my home uninvited and you WILL be shot after you cross the threshold. This has been the law of this state since it was founded and most other states as well. If some idiot breaks into a home and a scared woman is there with a shot gun the perp deserves to die. And after 20 mins. having called the police she shouldn't expect that they should be there??? And you want a lone woman with a baby to run out the back door into the arms of someone else that might be waiting out there?? Way to go, let's get them ALL killed.
Fear has nothing to do with it. You asked such a simplistic question that only someone without an understanding of self defense would answer it directly and if you need it broken down further because you don't understand the context of my response I'll say this. Given that no one situation can be responded to in the same manner due to situational and tactical considerations, you lame question is impossible to answer. Your condition is called being scope locked. Nuff said. She can't always flee, you really are lacking in perception eh? So without providing her every means of protecting herself you would just let her die because she can't run away WOW!. Your singular focus is incredibly selfish and politically motivated. You should feel guilty. Sheesh LOL you duck, you spin, you weave, and bob but you can't hide. It has been pointed out many times that that is not the singular answer because the VICTIM doesn't always get to choose. Questions and responses were redirected that resemble the real world and the above quote is your response. And most real men, would want their wives to live, grow old with them and be able to defeat an intruder who would attack them when they weren't there to defend themselves. I might add Pardy, your view is quite sexist. Women are everybit as capable to defend themselves as you are. I notice you refuse to respond to my question, that acknowledges something I have previously pointed out. you have no real answer and you are willing to sacrifice your spouse to uphold your silly political view. PrairieOutlaw is responsible for his world, you are responsible for yours, I am responsible for mine. you antigun nuts are scopelocked into a singular argument... I stated it once and you failed to comprehend so I'll ask it as a question. Without that knowledge your point is moot and your spouse not having a means to defend her life is quite ignorant. Now please respond to my scenario. Thanks
Please alert your neighbors that if they drunkenly enter your home by accident, they be shot on the spot. If those guys were armed with more than a knife, she might have gotten her and her baby killed if the other guy shot back. Instead, she kept her and her baby in danger for 20 minutes. She happened to be an acquaintance of one of the guy she shot, so this is very suspicious.... especially how she kept asking about the legality of shooting him the whole time she was on the phone. Who said she called the police as soon as the guys tried to break in? She is the one who said they spent 20 minutes trying to break in.
Your response is actually irrelevant because it doesn't mention the point that this gun nut was stating that his wife should stay and shoot REGARDLESS if she could flee. Your question went on about not being able to flee, which was not the issue. In my question, I stated that she can flee. I made it very easy... not easy enough it seems. You have failed to answer it because telling the truth would betray your pro-gun cause. Instead, you weasel your way out of it by deflecting, looking for exceptions, or answering a question with a question. I really don't want a childish debate. If you're telling me that people can't always flee, I know that. But that had nothing to do with PRAIRIEOUTLAW 's repulsive statement that "IF she feels that her LIFE IS IN DANGER, and there is someone in the house I want her to take the gun, take it off safety, aim it center mass at the idiots and shoot until it clicks..... IS THAT CLEAR? I don't want her giving them a chance to even have a shot." As you can see, he doesn't want her to flee regardless of whether or not she can. He just wants her to stay and shoot it out. You are just plain dense. Humans have had the ability to run away long before guns were invented. I would most definitely want my wife to leave a dangerous situation, and I'm proud of that fact. I would not want her to remain in a dangerous situation. i would want her to leave for her own safety. I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you. And some people are just plain irresponsible and need their behavior restricted. How can I answer something that I "fail to comprehend"?
Talk about irrelevant WOW UMM we were having a conversation between us, where you asked me . Why you decided to introduce another poster was to..... I dunno, misdirect, avoid a response help me out here. show me some comprehension eh? I mean I answered your question so how is it irrelevant? I answered the question you asked me, matter of fact I answered it two different ways so I can't help you with comprehension.... once again...you duck, you weave, you bob and once again you failed to respond to a redirect. Good now were getting somewhere, so if your spouse cannot flee you just want her to curl up in a fetal position or what? We weren't discussing PRAIRIEOUTLAW, you asked me a direct question in response to a comment I made to you. If PRAIRIEOUTLAW made you butthurt then deal with PRAIRIEOUTLAW . I want a gun control nut like you to answer a scenario I gave you that was similar to the one you gave me which I answered. Quit deflecting, denying, and defending. So now you have his answer....I don't care what PRAIRIEOUTLAW would do or not do in this conversation whereby you asked me what I would have my spouse do and which I answered, I would like you to have the courtesy to respond to my scenario as I have responded to yours. No I think the dense title looks you in the mirror every morning. Let's ask this one more time, If your wife couldn't run away, you would prefer her to do what? correct, and that's where the real blame lies with the behavior. Thanks Is there some other language I can put it in to help with the comprehension? I really want a response PRETTY PLEASE
Please answer my question...OH and on a public forum it's not considered butting in. BTW you started all this running stuff, Man up and answer the responses to your posts.
The principles and elements of the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground pre-date America. The reason there is an America is because of the Castle Doctrine (US Dec. of Independence) and Stand Your Ground (US Fed. Constitution). She was defending her and her child's life. She wasn't speaking with an officer. The LEO's were more than twenty minutes away. Each felon positioned himself at one the two exit doors. One made entry (reportedly with a 12" hunting knife in hand) while the other had a revelation to return home taking off like a shot. Too bad the first one hadn't the same thought or simply decided to stay home that day. What was the reason these two bad actors were there in the first place anyway? Deal with it? Aggressively stated cyber warrior
My neighbors already know it and are of the same mind. Drunk, sober, or anywhere in between you enter a home around here uninvited and you are literally putting your life on the line. Like I said, run out the back into the other guy that's waiting out there, it REALLY makes sense doesn't it. Kill the perp after he comes in the door and be done with it. And who said she didn't call when they first started???
Why a LETHAL response? Is being drunk a capital offence? Surely in a civilised society drunkenly entering someone else's house, especially a neighbours would either get you gently pushed back out the door or invited to sleep on the sofa!!
CAN YOU READ? Don't try to put words in my mouth buddy, or use what I said to get people off your case. I personally think you see the problem with what you've said and now your hoping that people wont read what I posted... I clearly posted in all caps "IF" her "LIFE WAS IN DANGER"...... That means that if you could avoid a situation then by all respects do so, but if someone comes into the house, the first place I want her to run to is the bedroom because THAT is the safest place in my house. YES its because there is a small arsenal there, and yes because I know she can shoot better than most people therefore she can protect herself IF the intruder decides he wants more. So.... Instead of posting stupid comments to TRY and make yourself look better on this.... Maybe read first.
The lethal option is the final solution during a violent criminal encounter, however, when possible other strategies are chosen in response to the Bad Actor's intrusion on the citizen's tranquility. I know strong and deliberate statements have been made but surely you don't believe that people being forced to defend their lives hope for that circumstance. You don't believe that people living their lives are salivating, just lusting for a criminal or anyone else to put them in fear of their well being or life?
Good Post, I might add there is already proven history that good people aren't salivating to shoot someone, otherwise the blood in the streets myth would be true.
Unfortunately, I think they actually do think that's what people that would protect themselves think.... Look at how this other dude tried to skew what I said earlier. I'll be the first to tell you that IF ME OR MY FAMILY IS IN DANGER.... I'm going to do WHATERVER it takes to remove that danger. If that means I have to shoot someone, then so be it, but after this debate.... I see that there are people that really think folks want to be a victim. God knows they couldn't just be prepared for the worst in case it ever did happen.... Kinda reminds me of after Katrina when so many people relied on the government instead of thinking about what could have happened...... Oh wait, that happens every day here in America just in a different way. Sadly, more and more people get the mentality that "somebody else" will take care of it..... GROW UP PEOPLE.... Take care of yourself.
You're changing your story. Are you now saying that if she could flee, then she should? This is not what you stated earlier, dear.
I have not changed my story in any way... Maybe you should look back to the posts to see what was said because you are starting to confuse yourself.... Here let me help: In Post #63 I specifically said: "If she feels that is the best thing to do in the given situation".... This means she has a choice to get out or stay, but if she decided to stay... I don't want the scumbag to have a chance.... I want her safe and I want him dead if that's what it takes. In Post #65 I specifically said: "If she feels her life is in danger" That means there is no running... NO WHERE ELSE TO GO, NOTHING ELSE TO DO BUT SHOOT. Again, I still want her to get the first and last shot.... I don't want the scumbag having a chance at retaliation. In Post # 73 I specifically said: "I don't want a shootout... But, running doesn't work if there is nowhere to go" Hmmm This is yet again a last resort option, but I think its clear that I want ONLY the best for my wife and family and couldn't care less if some scumbag piece of dirt gets hurt for breaking into my house with God only knows what intentions. NOW, since I have given three instances where I have said during this whole debate that I would rather my wife NOT have to fight, where exactly did you get that I wanted her to get involved in a shootout???? I have been consistent and will remain consistent that I don't want her to HAVE to take any action, but you dang well better bet we have prepared in case it ever does become something that is deemed unavoidable. See you can call me a gun nut all you want, but I'm not the one hearing things or reading things that don't exist.
For a drunk neighbor to enter my house, he'd have to break down the front door. If my front door is broken down in the middle of the night, why should I determine his intent? Somebody that drunk as to break down my door in the middle of the night is dangerous. Don't think a gentle prodding will get him to leave. I wouldn't shoot him--unless he came after my wife or kids, but I would call the cops. Breaking down my door, drunk or not, should have consequences. Do drunks in your civilized society break down doors in the middle of the night?
