• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mother-daughter duo shoot would-be robber in their liquor store

grip said:
Oliver Wendell Douglas longs for a simpler way of life, why don't you?
Click to expand...

I like simple, too, but I prefer the simple wisdom of Harry Callahan:

When a naked man is chasing a woman through a dark alley with a butcher knife and a hard on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross.
Click to expand...
 
Ahlevah said:
I like simple, too, but I prefer the simple wisdom of Harry Callahan:
Click to expand...

Dirty Harry was my nickname all thru High School and Clint Eastwood my childhood hero but I believe in 'free will' as do you. If I gave you my power to destroy them with but a thought, you would've let them hang you on a cross, because you wouldn't force anyone to love you. That's what creates freedom of choice and you Ahlevah are wise enough to know this. That's why I died and you won't.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
That video also shows why it helps to have a weapon with as much stopping power as you can handle. Why do I want something like an AR15 for home defense when we could just as easily use a hand gun? That video is one example why.
Click to expand...

That is why when I was in the army we carried the 45. Not many people came back for another round.
 
Ahlevah said:
Or if he was completely incapacitated and they walked up to him and emptied their guns into his head. That didn't happen either.
Click to expand...

The Bernie Goetz scenario-Bernard Cantby (IIRC) was unconscious and Goetz said-You don't look too bad, here's another and shot him in the back
 
Ahlevah said:
Another dumb criminal who couldn't stand being shot just once. He had to come back for seconds. :doh



Click to expand...


Not quite what came to mind when I saw "Mother-daughter duo shoot"
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't agree with that. I think its within the transactional moment and the intended victims have every right to continue to employ deadly force since the shooter might well come back
Click to expand...

There's a lot of confusion and misunderstanding on this issue. It's important to understand it because in the heat of the moment (as with the mother and daughter in question) one can make a mistake that could easily end with a prison term.

You mention "transactional moment" as a defense.

Read this article on the use of lethal force and see if you still feel the same.

It contains this paragraph:

Immediate, means "at this very second."
There is literally nothing more dangerous to you and your family than *not* understanding what is meant by "immediate" or "imminent" (depending on which term your state uses). This idea cuts through *all* emotions, fears, thoughts and suspicions and defines when you are - in the eyes of the law - justified to use lethal force.

If he isn't trying to kill you right now, you aren't justified to use lethal force.
Click to expand...

https://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html

I'm not saying that a jury will convict or that all cases will even be charged (especially in Texas, where it's pretty much legal to fire at will) BUT.......you fine, upstanding, gun-owning citizens who are squeaky clean and law-abiding might find yourself running afoul of the law and accruing back-breaking legal fees even if you finally do manage to stay out of prison.

The serious issue here is we don't want to leave the impression that one can legally shoot a fleeing criminal........

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.
 
Last edited:
Vox said:
The serious issue here is we don't want to leave the impression that one can legally shoot a fleeing criminal........

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.
Click to expand...

That word is where your argument goes off the rails. You're assuming he was fleeing because he exited the building. As I've already asked, how do you know that? In fact, he DID NOT LEAVE and assaulted the mother and attempted to shoot the daughter. This all occurred subsequent to the moment he exited. Even if you assume the mother is culpable for firing at him when he was outside of the building, how can you hold the daughter culpable when she shot him while he was pistol whipping the mother? YOU are the one being unreasonable here.
 
Ahlevah said:
That word is where your argument goes off the rails. You're assuming he was fleeing because he exited the building. As I've already asked, how do you know that? In fact, he DID NOT LEAVE and assaulted the mother and attempted to shoot the daughter. This all occurred subsequent to the moment he exited. Even if you assume the mother is culpable for firing at him when he was outside of the building, how can you hold the daughter culpable when she shot him while he was pistol whipping the mother? YOU are the one being unreasonable here.
Click to expand...

Where did you come up with this story that I would hold the daughter culpable for shooting him while he was pistol whipping the mother?

I've never said that, nor would I ever say something like that.

As to whether or not you can shoot a fleeing felon.......you CAN'T legally do that...... I've provided more than enough proof of that, so I don't know why you're still talking about it.
 
If the guy had dropped his weapon and screamed "I give up" and ran off, that is one thing.

Here it was different
 
Vox said:
Where did you come up with this story that I would hold the daughter culpable for shooting him while he was pistol whipping the mother?
Click to expand...

I qualified the statement with "if," but whatever. So correct me if I'm wrong, but your problem is when the mother fires at the robber after he exits the building. If the daughter didn't shoot at him at that point, then you wouldn't hold her culpable. Is that correct? As far as I can tell, the daughter doesn't fire her weapon until after the robber reenters and attacks the mother.
 
Ahlevah said:
I qualified the statement with "if," but whatever. So correct me if I'm wrong, but your problem is when the mother fires at the robber after he exits the building. If the daughter didn't shoot at him at that point, then you wouldn't hold her culpable. Is that correct? As far as I can tell, the daughter doesn't fire her weapon until after the robber reenters and attacks the mother.
Click to expand...

Right.......although the daughter did hand the mother the gun in the first place, so they could try to tie them together.

I doubt that it would stick on the daughter, but if the mother shot at a fleeing robber she could be charged.
 
TurtleDude said:
If the guy had dropped his weapon and screamed "I give up" and ran off, that is one thing.

Here it was different
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read this again......or for the first time.

https://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html

There is literally nothing more dangerous to you and your family than *not* understanding what is meant by "immediate" or "imminent" (depending on which term your state uses). This idea cuts through *all* emotions, fears, thoughts and suspicions and defines when you are - in the eyes of the law - justified to use lethal force.

If he isn't trying to kill you right now, you aren't justified to use lethal force.
Click to expand...
 
I think the daughter is very lucky she didn't kill her mom.
 
Vox said:
Maybe you should read this again......or for the first time.

https://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html
Click to expand...

I don't know where the hell you came up with that drivel but if an armed individual threatens your life the ONLY assumption to be considered is that he is a threat to be eliminated.regardless of the direction he is facing.


The only exception would be if he dropped his guns with his hands up and surrendered.

As I said before you can come back and argue youo point when these ladies are charged with anything.
 
GDViking said:
I don't know where the hell you came up with that drivel but if an armed individual threatens your life the ONLY assumption to be considered is that he is a threat to be eliminated.regardless of the direction he is facing.


The only exception would be if he dropped his guns with his hands up and surrendered.

As I said before you can come back and argue youo point when these ladies are charged with anything.
Click to expand...

That "drivel" as you call it, is factual advice on self defense.

Don't twist my words to make yourself look good. I said from the start that IF she shot at the perp as he fled, the lady COULD be charged......NOT that she WOULD be charged.

This fact should be clear even to the meanest intelligence--when you shoot a fleeing person in the back it is NOT self-defense........it is revenge.

It is self defense at the exact time that person is trying to KILL YOU.......and that's the ONLY time.

Try to comprehend that simple statement.
 
Last edited:
Vox said:
That "drivel" as you call it, is factual advice on self defense.

Don't twist my words to make yourself look good. I said from the start that IF she shot at the perp as he fled, the lady COULD be charged......NOT that she WOULD be charged.

This fact should be clear even to the meanest intelligence--when you shoot a fleeing person in the back it is NOT self-defense........it is revenge.

It is self defense at the exact time that person is trying to KILL YOU.......and that's the ONLY time.

Try to comprehend that simple statement.
Click to expand...

I am not really sure that's how you want to put that.. If a man kicks down your door, walk in with a knife. Is he trying to kill you? Technically NO! If he starts walking towards you with the knife raised, Is he trying to kill you? Technically NO! Only when the knife enters your chest is he trying to kill you, Technically..

I would be more inclined to say "it is self defense at the time that person is a perceived threat, And that's the only time"

And I just have a very hard time feeling sorry for any criminal that robs/steals/beats or runs ( after the crime). They know it's wrong, they are trying to get away with it, and when someone deals out some justice, everybody feels sorry for the perp.

Shooting a fleeing CRIMINAL in the back after they just tried to rob you is only saving the next person from being robbed.

I will say this, Those women need more training, I thought the one almost shot the other during the struggle.

djl
 
bmr528 said:
I am not really sure that's how you want to put that.. If a man kicks down your door, walk in with a knife. Is he trying to kill you? Technically NO! If he starts walking towards you with the knife raised, Is he trying to kill you? Technically NO! Only when the knife enters your chest is he trying to kill you, Technically..

I would be more inclined to say "it is self defense at the time that person is a perceived threat, And that's the only time"

And I just have a very hard time feeling sorry for any criminal that robs/steals/beats or runs ( after the crime). They know it's wrong, they are trying to get away with it, and when someone deals out some justice, everybody feels sorry for the perp.

Shooting a fleeing CRIMINAL in the back after they just tried to rob you is only saving the next person from being robbed.

I will say this, Those women need more training, I thought the one almost shot the other during the struggle.

djl
Click to expand...

Yes, the daughter took a risky shot into the man's back while he was struggling with her mother. It may have looked worse than it was due to camera angle, but was still a bad choice. She needed to get up close and put one into his head at an upward angle to keep it away from her mother.

As to perceiving a threat, yes.....I would perceive it to be a threat if somebody tried to kill me--and WAY before the knife entered my body. :D

I don't feel sorry for criminals, but I do feel sorry for the gun owners who violate the law and end up in jail or fight the charges and get free but end up with crushing legal fees and civil suits that destroy their lives anyway.

Be smart, gun owners. Plan ahead to AVOID mistakes made in the heat of the moment.

https://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html
 
This was a “good” shoot in that this was totally lawful. There is a reason I carry a “high capacity mini murder death kill ghost gun” as liberal politicians put it. This is why. Should have put one in this guys dome. He clearly was willing to harm innocent people. These women do need more training though. They were lucky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom