Since when is a man who was forced to take the ultimate measure in defense of his family reduced to a "shooter", as though he's the bad guy and not a victim?
Disclaimer- I don’t know the details of this case. I’m just speaking in GENERAL terms about the information given in the post: counterpoint- I think a man is justified to defend his home and family- and under the circumstances of “stranger in the house uninvited, pants less in a kids room..” I can see being justified in use of force to the point where barring other variables- no charges or malice should be rendered. That said-
Define “hero”? Dictionary says one admired or idolized for courage, outstanding achievement, or noble qualities. Shooting a man down isn’t an achievement, a noble quality, or particularly courageous- especially when they don’t have a gun too. Protecting your own children is evolution. It’s practical. It’s necessary- but heroic? I don’t know... If we want to idolize a person I’d probably idolize the person who could solve that problem without anyone getting hurt. That would be pretty courageous, exceptional, noble.
Now look- I’m no fool. You never know who wins until you fight. Safe bet- shoot the guy. He might have a knife, a gun, PCP or psycho strength or be a damn trained ninja. Shoot him- problem disappears- very low danger to self. That’s smart. But... is it heroic? The guy did what he felt needed done. He was there- I wasn’t. I can respect what he did. I’m happy his family is safe, and I won’t fault a guy ESPECIALLY in those circumstances for the force level used because that’s a bet that losing on would just be unacceptable. if someone has to take a worst case loss- yeah. My vote is pant less Guy in your kids room. Maybe mental illness caused it or whatever- but in the moment a normal human would protect what matters most to them.
That’s what he did. He protected what mattered most to him- in order. He protected his kid- he protected himself from danger of a take down, he protected his home- and the last thing he was worried about- if he cared at all- was the stranger without pants in his kids room. So in my book he’s a shooter. He took the shot. I’m not gonna admire someone for killing someone- at least an easy kill as kills goes. The heat of the moment kill that doesn’t take much thought and is more reflex. He may or may not find it hard AFTER- but right then- if survival is in you- you pull the trigger. Shooters pull the trigger and good shooters always pull the trigger.
In this day and age when people are demonized for any kind of confrontation, I'd say acting quickly and decisively to protect your own is heroic. Defending your family is noble. And when someone is evidently intent on victimizing a little girl, there ain't anything exceptional about being kind to this person, if anything it would be exceptionally stupid to hesitate in stopping them, and exceptionally terrible to let them live to try again.
Shooting a man down ain't heroic, any haji or sicario does it for fun, but the circumstances separate the hero from the monster.
I think it’s sad that “shooter” is a negative word- I’m glad they didn’t say “killer” or “murderer” etc- but by the same token- “hero” is perhaps too positive. I’d like to see less bias in news. Less hyperbole and salaciousness. In that regard “father” could work- “father kills man...” etc.
the problem is he used a gun and guns are evil as we all know so he is the bad guy so like all bad guys he is the shooter it makes perfect sense. hope he didn't use one of those evil black guns he could get the chair for that.
Well of course we all know guns are evil. They kill people. Good guys don’t kill people- good guys live in nice, suburban neighborhoods where they aren’t worried about getting killed- or the police respond quickly to any trouble and kill people for them. Good guys let other people do their killing. They don’t have wild cats or bears to scare or defend against- and using a rifle to hunt tofu is just rude- think of the noise pollution at the wholefoods that would cause. Like anything a person doesn’t have a use for or isn’t a regular part of their routine guns are obviously evil.
So you make a valid point. In fact- how do we know the guy wasn’t in the house BECAUSE there was a gun there? Maybe he was just looking for the gun to steal- and wandered into the wrong room? We don’t KNOW. How much better the world would be without guns. We could all just go back to simpler times of hacking people to pieces with our bare hands and getting hepatitis from being sprayed by blood and entrails- you know- “organic killing”? But it’s so much work to hit someone with a heavy object or poke them with something sharp that we’d probably see an end to murder and could simply destroy people through economic and social means like civilized folk.
They've actually asked home invaders in prison, and most said that suspecting a weapon is in the home actually deters them from targeting that home.
Firstly because "What if an occupant is willing to shoot me six times", and because being caught or accused of stealing a weapon has stiffer penalties than a tv or jewels.
True. I was just playing along with rachees tongue in cheek poking fun at how the media trend is to resort to emotional sensationalism and fear mongering about guns.
No worries. That’s a legitimate problem in 2020. You used to be able to say things that were so ridiculous that you were obviously kidding- but now there are few things that you can be safe to assume are just too ignorant to be taken seriously. So I appreciate you speaking up because someone somewhere probably really does think like this.
I don't even have kids but if some random came into my house let alone my child's room with the clear intention of harm, especially sexual, I'd be shooting them 6 times too.
How do we know he was a dangerous pedophile? "Stranger" means that he didn't know the family, so no reason to assume he was targeting the girl. Perhaps he was drunk or high, and thought he was in his own house. Could also explain the lack of pants.
It is most definitely better. A drunk person stumbles into a house thinking it is his own is 1000% better than a completely alert and oriented pedophile breaks in intentionally into a 12 year old’s room.
the problem is your military trained so going for center mass. with meth heads you got to take the legs out first then they got to crawl to you. makes for an easy head shot, works on zombies to.
@ilikemoderation- it’s true. Ignoring any details of the actual case or that came after the fact on review- and speaking on the GENERAL SCENARIO: This person could have mental health issues or there could be other circumstances. If we picture an elderly person or someone who had surgery recently- it may make it easier to be sympathetic- I could see my great grandparents- when alive- and with their senility and Alzheimer’s- wandering into a strangers home naked. I could see someone else brother or sister with mental issues doing something like this. It COULD happen.
BUT- this is where we split hairs. After action reviews have all the time in the world, and are removed from the sense of danger, the urgency, the confusion and emotion that was there in the moment. Perception is contextual and reading the circumstances and play by play cleanly written out is a lot different than taking it all in within a moment. What you see- think you see- the details you process or miss. We’ve all had a conversation with someone before and missed some crucial subtext until later when we review it or a new detail makes us go “OH! That thing that seemed odd but didn’t make sense was about THIS!” Haven’t we?
I can’t fault the guy too hard. He probably could have ended the threat without lethal force. Maybe he had the ability to safely remove himself and his daughter from the situation. Maybe he could have distracted the intruder until help arrived- or perhaps his very presence removed any danger to his child- creating a stand off where the intruder would either have to run or at least is aware that not only do they make themselves vulnerable to this third party by initiating acts against the child- but will likely bring aggression. MAYBE.
But if that’s your kid, your home- are you going to roll the dice on maybes? Because maybe this person has the skill or luck or due to chemicals or mental issues is strong and brutal in violence. Maybe they have a knife or a weapon you don’t see- and if they kill you or incapacitate you- no one can help your child. If they do decide to touch your child and do so with all their focus- can you stop them before it goes “too far” and how far is too far- there is no ending that doesn’t potential burden the child with trauma- just the situation could be traumatic even if the guy had walked in and then walked right out. But “daddy let someone rape me” or “daddy died and I got raped” to me- tops the list of worst case trauma.
I don’t know. It’s complex. We are weighing tragedy vs potential tragedy and there isn’t equivalency. I think there is nuance. If you leave your doors unlocked or open then “blast anyone who enters” becomes more open to scrutiny in my book since it is far more likely that an “innocent” but unable to comprehend person could be there. But... in a moment- a shooter makes a call. After that fact- we judge their decision. I think that judgment needs to be made by people who can understand what the choice is like to make.
@famousone, sorry miscommunication. I meant it’s better in terms of intent. As in, I wouldn’t be completely angry with a drunk person who thought they were breaking into their own home whereas I would be a little upset with a completely alert and oriented adult breaking into my child’s bedroom. In terms of physical altercation or safety, then yeah it makes no difference lol.
If only there was some kind of site or place you could look things up with. I bet entering a phrase like "louisville homeowner shoots man 6 times" could lead to some interesting results
Shooting a man down ain't heroic, any haji or sicario does it for fun, but the circumstances separate the hero from the monster.
Firstly because "What if an occupant is willing to shoot me six times", and because being caught or accused of stealing a weapon has stiffer penalties than a tv or jewels.