NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4229146

Do you believe the boy in this situation did the right thing? Or should he have done something different? I believe he did the right thing - it's sad that any of it had to happen, but good riddance to the guy who broke into their house.

And does anyone think it bad that the boy had a 6-inch hunting knife under his bed? Or is that a fortunate thing?

It all began when a 19-year-old Las Vegas man, who was recently fired from a construction company owned by the family, broke into their home at 2650 N. 2200 West, near Cedar City, and held the boy and his parents at gunpoint, Gower
Related Articles
# Police identify slain Cedar City home intruder
said.
The masked intruder, whose name was not released, removed an air conditioning unit from the boy's bedroom window around 4 a.m. and climbed into the home with a semi-automatic pistol, Gower said. He woke the boy and bound him with duct tape.
The man then entered the master bedroom and bound the boy's parents with duct tape. At one point, the boy's stepfather began wrestling with the intruder.
While the stepfather fought with the intruder, the boy was able to free himself. He then pulled a 6-inch hunting knife from beneath his bed, walked into his parents' bedroom and stabbed the intruder five times in the back, Gower said.
The intruder continued wrestling with the boy's stepfather until he realized he had lost his gun, Gower said. He then told the family he was leaving and tried to exit through a locked front door. When he couldn't get out, a family member unlocked the deadbolt and let him out. The intruder then collapsed about 100 to 150 feet from the side of the home. The family called police. The boy's mother stood outside wrapped in a blanket next to her husband as paramedics worked on the unconscious man, neighbor Linda Chapman said. She said the couple were visibly upset.

How old was the kid anyways?

But yeah, if you break into someone's house with a gun, especially at night, you deserve what happens to you. Unless you get away clean and become rich off stolen property. Probably not deserving that. But I ramble.

The only reason I could imagine having a knife under your bed being terribly horrible is if there are younger children in your house who can get at it.

I think there are idealy better solutions but thoes rarly work out in real life

I find no fault with his actions as they stand.

The kid was seventeen. Seventeen year olds hunt. I had knife at that age(for scuba diving).

Kudos to the kid.

What I'm surprised about was this:
....stabbed the intruder five times in the back...The intruder continued wrestling with the boy's stepfather until he realized he had lost his gun, Gower said. He then told the family he was leaving and tried to exit through a locked front door. When he couldn't get out, a family member unlocked the deadbolt and let him out.

He stayed up quite a long time considering he was stabbed 5 times in the back with 6" hunting knife :eek:

conveniently the very top of the article was left out in the quotation:


CEDAR CITY - Police in southern Utah are calling a 17-year-old boy a hero after he fatally stabbed an armed intruder who broke into his family's home early Wednesday.
Iron County Sheriff Mark Gower described the boy as a level-headed kid "who, in my opinion, saved his family's lives."
It all began when a 19-year-old Las Vegas man, who was recently fired from a construction company owned by the family, broke into their home at 2650 N. 2200 West, near Cedar City, and held the boy and his parents at gunpoint, Gower
Related Articles
# Police identify slain Cedar City home intruder
said.


If his age and the fact that the stabbing was fatal change anybodies mind.

I think that a better effort could have been made to disable the intruder without killing him outright, but then again when you break into someones house and threaton them with a gun, I have little sympathy for what happens to you..

Kudos to the kid.

What I'm surprised about was this:


He stayed up quite a long time considering he was stabbed 5 times in the back with 6" hunting knife :eek:

Yeah, I read that and thought to myself; Drugs! Drugitty Drug-drugs!

Kudos to the kid.

What I'm surprised about was this:

He stayed up quite a long time considering he was stabbed 5 times in the back with 6" hunting knife :eek:

Stabbing people usually takes time to kill them.

Unless the knife penetrates the upper spinal cord, or the brain, the person has to bleed out.

That can take time, even if you perforate the heart or the aorta. At least 15 seconds before you lose consciousness (and perhaps longer, as blood pressure has to drop significantly).

The question will be-is it the right thing for him? Can he live with his choice and actions?

In my opinion, he did the right thing. Its a sad world were a child has to stab someone to death, but even sadder if an armed robber decides to have his way with people that are bound and gagged.

I will never make it to the tied up or otherwise incapacitated stage. Either I, or the agresssor will be dead before that happens.

conveniently the very top of the article was left out in the quotation:




If his age and the fact that the stabbing was fatal change anybodies mind.

I think that a better effort could have been made to disable the intruder without killing him outright, but then again when you break into someones house and threaton them with a gun, I have little sympathy for what happens to you..

Age doesn't really change my mind. If he was nine or something, I'd ask what he was doing with a six inch hunting knife under his bed...

And...
# Police identify slain Cedar City home intruder


I gathered that he was dead.

Stabbing people usually takes time to kill them.

Unless the knife penetrates the upper spinal cord, or the brain, the person has to bleed out.

That can take time, even if you perforate the heart or the aorta. At least 15 seconds before you lose consciousness (and perhaps longer, as blood pressure has to drop significantly).


Well, I was thinking more along the lines of
"Oh my. I have a burning sensation in my back.... there it is again...and again...and again.... and again.... Hmmm. Fiddidly di. I had better stop and RUN THE FUCK AWAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY."

Then I saw this:

Yeah, I read that and thought to myself; Drugs! Drugitty Drug-drugs!

What do you think of a

"Start criminal investigation (just in case), but presumed innocent until proven otherwise"

option

legally, he protected himself to the full extent of the law, which defines self defense as retaliation with equal or lesser force. the intruder had a gun, he had a knife, totally legal, and he was right to do so.

conveniently the very top of the article was left out in the quotation:

If his age and the fact that the stabbing was fatal change anybodies mind.

I think that a better effort could have been made to disable the intruder without killing him outright, but then again when you break into someones house and threaton them with a gun, I have little sympathy for what happens to you..

The quote I put in the OP makes it clear the guy died.

I left out the "heroic" part, because I wanted people to come to their own conclusions.

Disabling people isn't something that's possible to consider if they have a gun. The intruder had a gun.

Disable? He was stabbed fatally and was bleeding out, and still managed to leave the house.

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of
"Oh my. I have a burning sensation in my back.... there it is again...and again...and again.... and again.... Hmmm. Fiddidly di. I had better stop and RUN THE FUCK AWAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY."

Then I saw this:

Well, breaking into a house in Utah isn't a good idea - a lot of them own guns. So the drugs thing makes a lot of sense.

Well, breaking into a house in Utah isn't a good idea -
They might 'ask' you to "be ma wife" too. :eek: Mormons! :D

I think that a better effort could have been made to disable the intruder without killing him outright, but then again when you break into someones house and threaton them with a gun, I have little sympathy for what happens to you..

if a person breaks into my house with a gun and tries to hurt my family my first thought is going to be to do whatever it takes to stop them from hurting my family, I would use whatever force neccessary to do that. I agree that your goal shouldn't be to kill them, but if it came down to it (kill them or let them kill my family) I think I might use more force.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4229146

Do you believe the boy in this situation did the right thing? Or should he have done something different? I believe he did the right thing - it's sad that any of it had to happen, but good riddance to the guy who broke into their house.

And does anyone think it bad that the boy had a 6-inch hunting knife under his bed? Or is that a fortunate thing?

In Florida, the law says you can do that even if the intruder has the knife and YOU have the gun... if he has a knife, you can grenade him...

No questions about that in Florida.

But in the rest of the West, the issue arises... unless another place has that same law.

One thing thats taught is to make it clear to the person you've wounded them-often once they are aware they've been injured, they get the compelling urge to flee or simply drop. A person whose ability to reason is impaired by drugs,alcohol or mental problems may be able to maintain physical attacks or struggle as they truly arent aware.
Telling someone point blank that they've been shot or stabbed will more often than not, radically change their agressive behavior.

One thing thats taught is to make it clear to the person you've wounded them-often once they are aware they've been injured, they get the compelling urge to flee or simply drop. A person whose ability to reason is impaired by drugs,alcohol or mental problems may be able to maintain physical attacks or struggle as they truly arent aware.
Telling someone point blank that they've been shot or stabbed will more often than not, radically change their agressive behavior.

Good point, but I think that a seventeen year old kid that just worked free of the duct tape can be forgiven this breach in burglary etiquette. :p

In Florida, the law says you can do that even if the intruder has the knife and YOU have the gun... if he has a knife, you can grenade him...

No questions about that in Florida.

But in the rest of the West, the issue arises... unless another place has that same law.

If you are in my house in Virginia, and my property is posted No Trespassing, and it's after dark, you could be unarmed (assuming I can see you, but not whether you're carrying anything), and I can shoot you.

A "reasonable" person would assume that you're up to no good, and pose an imminent threat. I am not required to ask you politely if you're carrying a weapon, nor am I required to turn on the light, thus revealing my position to a potentially armed intruder.

if a person breaks into my house with a gun and tries to hurt my family my first thought is going to be to do whatever it takes to stop them from hurting my family, I would use whatever force neccessary to do that. I agree that your goal shouldn't be to kill them, but if it came down to it (kill them or let them kill my family) I think I might use more force.

Your goal is to stop them from doing what they are doing immediately. It depends on how intent they are, wether they live or die. Also,wether or not they have a weapon. I always have a weapon. If a drunk breaks in and turns and runs at the sight of it, he'll live. If someone breaks in with a knife or gun, they will most likely die.

I won't hit anybody but if somebody hits me....

Good point, but I think that a seventeen year old kid that just worked free of the duct tape can be forgiven this breach in burglary etiquette. :p



Thats just my advice to someone in a similar situation, based on the fact the felon was stabbed several times with a very large knife, yet was still struggling.
This kid did a good job and very liekly saved his mother & stepfather-and himself from God knows what. Usually, when you are bound and taped to a chair, tahts just the start of a really long night.
It starts as a break in for drug money. Then you have adult witnesses tied up. Then mom starts looking really good tied up. Then you have to worry about witnesses...some crimes grow exponentially from break in to murder-rape, especially when the felon is a defect to start with.

Experienced THIEVES dont break into houses when people are home. They just want loot.
The fuck-ups that break in when you are home are looking for a little ultra violence, real savage like.

If you are home when someone breaks in, you will be smart to assume the absolte worst and do whatever is humanly possible to put the felon down hard and fast. You wont be able to discuss it like gentlemen, especially after you are trussed up.

If you are in my house in Virginia, and my property is posted No Trespassing, and it's after dark, you could be unarmed (assuming I can see you, but not whether you're carrying anything), and I can shoot you.

A "reasonable" person would assume that you're up to no good, and pose an imminent threat. I am not required to ask you politely if you're carrying a weapon, nor am I required to turn on the light, thus revealing my position to a potentially armed intruder.

we have that in Oklahoma too, it's called the "make my day law" ;)

Your goal is to stop them from doing what they are doing immediately. It depends on how intent they are, wether they live or die. Also,wether or not they have a weapon. I always have a weapon. If a drunk breaks in and turns and runs at the sight of it, he'll live. If someone breaks in with a knife or gun, they will most likely die.

I have a weapon, I would try not to use it if I could help it, but if they put me in a position where it's no longer a choice, it's kinda their fault if they die isn't it?

we have that in Oklahoma too, it's called the "make my day law" ;)



I have a weapon, I would try not to use it if I could help it, but if they put me in a position where it's no longer a choice, it's kinda their fault if they die isn't it?

Once he breaks into your home wit ha weapon- you are in a position where you have no choice.
Women who brandish a weapon, moreoften than not, have it taken away and used on them.
A man that breaks into your house with a weapon, when you are there, has a mentality you cannot comprehend. You will not keep him at bay with a baseball bat or a kitchen knife. Your best weapon is that of surprise-if you have a weapon, use it. If you show it to him, thinking he will run off, you may be sorely mistaken.

Women who brandish a weapon, moreoften than not, have it taken away and used on them.
A man that breaks into your house with a weapon, when you are there, has a mentality you cannot comprehend. You will not keep him at bay with a baseball bat or a kitchen knife. Your best weapon is that of surprise-if you have a weapon, use it. If you show it to him, thinking he will run off, you may be sorely mistaken.

oh, no, I can use my weapon, I am almost sure though that I couldn't "not kill" someone with it. I am pretty sure the guy would be on the ground bleeding before he figured out what the hell was going on. I will continue to let my husband deal with things like this though, if he isn't home though? The bat'leth is my friend. ;)

We don't really get many break-in's around here because of the way the law is, people know they can break in with a baseball bat and the homeowner can shoot them, it's not going to make any difference. We get a few home invasions lately, but I just don't answer the door.

I think that a better effort could have been made to disable the intruder without killing him outright, but then again when you break into someones house and threaton them with a gun, I have little sympathy for what happens to you..

Not at all. Holding someone at gun point is the initiation the use of of deadly force, and should be dealt with as such.

An attack with deadly force with the aim to merely wound or disable is a sadly misguided myth perpetuated by the movies and comic books. One applies deadly force with the intent to kill or not at all, unless one is a fool.

Having posted first, and voted second I am rather surprised to see I'm the only one who voted for the gun. I did so on the assumption that the option assumes both a knife and firearm were equally accessable, and in the knowledge that a firearm is a more reliable killer. As I said above, if you're going to use a deadly weapon, you had best be trying to kill.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4229146

Do you believe the boy in this situation did the right thing? Or should he have done something different? I believe he did the right thing - it's sad that any of it had to happen, but good riddance to the guy who broke into their house.

And does anyone think it bad that the boy had a 6-inch hunting knife under his bed? Or is that a fortunate thing?I had a hunting knife under my bed, also three pocket knives.

a diving knife, and a replica sword on my wall...

and if the kid and parent's story mesh... then it is a clear cut case of self defense.

I'm surprised with his restraint, though. Six stabs, he's attacking still and you stop? Assuming I would have the courage to follow his footsteps up to this point, I might have kept going simply because he was still an immediate threat.

But then again, that's just me.

I'm surprised with his restraint, though. Six stabs, he's attacking still and you stop? Assuming I would have the courage to follow his footsteps up to this point, I might have kept going simply because he was still an immediate threat.

But then again, that's just me.

They showed him to the door! That's the most polite family in history. :p

i voted for gun too
if close enough to stab, close enough to shoot in back of head and instantly stop the attack

home invasion is a "deadly threat" deadly response is called for to stop it

post trauma stress, kid did a good thing, he should be proud and not bothered

:)

I think everyone is going to say he did (if roughly) the right thing

The intruder had a gun and it's a reasonable assumption to make that he might use it, so yes, from the information given, I would say so.

But perhaps a baseball bat would have sufficed just as well, and possibly incapacitated instead of killing him. But I wasn't there. *shrugs*

Having posted first, and voted second I am rather surprised to see I'm the only one who voted for the gun. I did so on the assumption that the option assumes both a knife and firearm were equally accessable, and in the knowledge that a firearm is a more reliable killer. As I said above, if you're going to use a deadly weapon, you had best be trying to kill.

well, I voted on the assumption that he had to look for the gun first. he knew where his knife was.

and two, if it was me, the chances of me shooting my (step)father was great. stabbing would've been (for me anyway) more accurate.

I think the kid could of just stabbed him in the calf or something but in this case even in reasonable force land AKA England he would get away with it so long as he didn’t keep stabbing him after he passed out or legged it.

If I was the kid I’d barricade my door and call the cops (really loud so he can hear) should he manage to burst in I’d put the phone down off the hook (because operators are clever folk) usually intruders do a runner after they hear you calling the cops or at least won’t realise in there panic that you left the phone off the hook

The step-father did the stupid thing of struggling with the intruder what you should do is leave an escape route for the intruder and just back off and give him what he wants (unless its sexual in which case he can at you with a death ray;) ) all of this assumes though that he was just after drug money…

I think the kid could of just stabbed him in the calf or something but in this case even in reasonable force land AKA England he would get away with it so long as he didn’t keep stabbing him after he passed out or legged it.

If I was the kid I’d barricade my door and call the cops (really loud so he can hear) should he manage to burst in I’d put the phone down off the hook (because operators are clever folk) usually intruders do a runner after they hear you calling the cops or at least won’t realise in there panic that you left the phone off the hook

The step-father did the stupid thing of struggling with the intruder what you should do is leave an escape route for the intruder and just back off and give him what he wants (unless its sexual in which case he can at you with a death ray;) ) all of this assumes though that he was just after drug money…

Apparently the man had been fired from the family's business. So I don't think he was there for drug money, or to collect for the Red Cross.

The guy broke in. Tough shit.

What do you think of a

"Start criminal investigation (just in case), but presumed innocent until proven otherwise"

option
I think if that were added, a selection for blame vis-a-vis rape should be "the victim wore suggestive clothing and had it coming".

Apparently the man had been fired from the family's business. So I don't think he was there for drug money, or to collect for the Red Cross.

how did they know that?

how did they know that?

Dental records. :p

On a totally unrelated subject, if a victim can only be identified by his dental records, how the fuck do they know who his dentist was?!? :confused:

how did they know that?

It's in the article. I am convinced that someone in the family fired him, and he was out for revenge.

On a totally unrelated subject, if a victim can only be identified by his dental records, how the fuck do they know who his dentist was?!? :confused:

you are so funny LG........don't you know they have a huge database of teeth and all the CSI has to do is scan your teeth into the computer and it comes up with a match in 20 seconds:D

you are so funny LG........don't you know they have a huge database of teeth and all the CSI has to do is scan your teeth into the computer and it comes up with a match in 20 seconds:D

another CSI fan. :fluffle:

another CSI fan. :fluffle:

CSI is such bullshit. I've met people coming onto jury duty who are shocked that the police don't have the miraculous ability to produce evidence the way they do on CSI.

you are so funny LG........don't you know they have a huge database of teeth and all the CSI has to do is scan your teeth into the computer and it comes up with a match in 20 seconds:D

Hmm. Doctor-patient confidentiality doesn't apply to dentists?

:eek: Oh, crap! That means that everybody knows that I don't floss regularly! *hides*

It's in the article. I am convinced that someone in the family fired him, and he was out for revenge.

so the Kid knew this man? and that this man wasn't wearing some sort of disguise?

CSI is such bullshit. I've met people coming onto jury duty who are shocked that the police don't have the miraculous ability to produce evidence the way they do on CSI.

CSI is a Fictional TV Show. those Jury people obviously have problems.

Hmm. Doctor-patient confidentiality doesn't apply to dentists?

:eek: Oh, crap! That means that everybody knows that I don't floss regularly! *hides*

Doctor Patient Confidentiality is not broken when used to ID a person. so no, untill now, we didn't know you don't floss regularly.

Doctor Patient Confidentiality is not broken when used to ID a person. so no, untill now, we didn't know you don't floss regularly.

*whimper* :(

*whimper* :(
btw...

<.<


>.>


what's floss?

;)

there should have been an option for "stab him, but not to death"

I don't like the whole death thing.

there should have been an option for "stab him, but not to death"

I don't like the whole death thing.

Usually, if you stab someone several times in the back with a knife that has a 6-inch blade, if they don't go to the emergency room pretty quick they're going to die.

It's an outcome you could reasonably expect to occur, especially if the stabbing had the salutary effect of making the guy want to leave your house.

While it was right to defend his family and his home it is unfortunate that the guy died.
First of all, that 17-year-old - no matter how much others try to make him a hero - killed someone. That's not going to be that easy for him in the long run, once it sets in. Because no matter how much his actions were justified, I believe it's going to haunt him sooner or later.
I'd've liked to see the intruder learn a lesson from the incident and be able to tell the story - and while some people really need to learn the hard way, he didn't learn anything, he's dead.

So, yes, the kid was right to stab the guy - but disabling him would have sufficed in my opinion. He was a human after all, no matter how much a crook he turned out to be.

And rabbits are tasty!

Another thought - I'd probably have stabbed him but would have tried to safe his life afterwards.

CSI is such bullshit. I've met people coming onto jury duty who are shocked that the police don't have the miraculous ability to produce evidence the way they do on CSI.

well, of course it is. So is House for that matter but I still watch it.

If I wanted real, I wouldn't be watching TV

While it was right to defend his family and his home it is unfortunate that the guy died.
First of all, that 17-year-old - no matter how much others try to make him a hero - killed someone. That's not going to be that easy for him in the long run, once it sets in. Because no matter how much his actions were justified, I believe it's going to haunt him sooner or later.
I'd've liked to see the intruder learn a lesson from the incident and be able to tell the story - and while some people really need to learn the hard way, he didn't learn anything, he's dead.

So, yes, the kid was right to stab the guy - but disabling him would have sufficed in my opinion. He was a human after all, no matter how much a crook he turned out to be.

And rabbits are tasty!

Another thought - I'd probably have stabbed him but would have tried to safe his life afterwards.
in the heat of the moment, it's hard to think about "how to disable" especially when one is not trained to fight, especially when he wasn't sure of the intruder's intent. Robbery, torture/murder, rape, kidnapping...

yeah, I would've called the police after he stopped tho and if he wanted to leave, I certainly won't stop him.

Good shoot. I mean, uh, stab. Did the guy die? If he did, it sure sounds like he deserved it.

I don't care how bad your day is, you don't go out and commit several violent felonies.

in the heat of the moment, it's hard to think about "how to disable" especially when one is not trained to fight, especially when he wasn't sure of the intruder's intent. Robbery, torture/murder, rape, kidnapping...

yeah, I would've called the police after he stopped tho and if he wanted to leave, I certainly won't stop him.

They didn't. They even unbolted the door for him.

btw...

what's floss?
;)
:eek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_floss

(And one of the best ways to build a rope while in prison, too!

http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s271768.htm

read the bottom!)

Though I believe in solving things peacably whenever possible, I think it is no longer possible when an armed intruder has imprisoned my family. The young man was absolutely right in what he did. I would like to believe that I could be as brave and level-headed. However, I would not like to be that young man today. It must be horrible to take another life.

They didn't. They even unbolted the door for him.and they even called the paramedics. so after the kid stopped the attack, the family did call the paramedics.

but that kid probably needs some form of counciling...

Good shoot. I mean, uh, stab. Did the guy die? If he did, it sure sounds like he deserved it.

I don't care how bad your day is, you don't go out and commit several violent felonies.
You should go ahead and read the article before posting.

1) in the heat of the moment, it's hard to think about "how to disable" especially when one is not trained to fight, especially when he wasn't sure of the intruder's intent. Robbery, torture/murder, rape, kidnapping...
2) yeah, I would've called the police after he stopped tho and if he wanted to leave, I certainly won't stop him.
1) Well, stabbing someone in the back 6 times is already pretty close to a disabling move - so it's not like you have to restrain him much after that or anything. Simply waiting has shown to be enough...
2) That I would've done as well. But I wouldn't have simply stood there and waited for help to show up - I would've helped the guy myself, no matter how upset I'd have been. After all, a little bit of first aid might have turned the I-stabbed-someone-to-death-hero into an even better one, namely a I-stabbed-someone-and-tried-to-save-his-life-afterwards-hero.

and they even called the paramedics. so after the kid stopped the attack, the family did call the paramedics.

but that kid probably needs some form of counciling...

councilling on where to do one stab stop or where to remove genitalia so that if he lives his genepool is "cut off"

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4229146

Do you believe the boy in this situation did the right thing? Or should he have done something different? I believe he did the right thing - it's sad that any of it had to happen, but good riddance to the guy who broke into their house.

And does anyone think it bad that the boy had a 6-inch hunting knife under his bed? Or is that a fortunate thing?

If the tale, as told, was true then what he did was not only right, it was fucking awesome!

If the tale, as told, was true then what he did was not only right, it was fucking awesome!
I agree. I'm more concerned with why he has the knife under his bed. That's a little bit strange, but it was good that he had it in this case.

While it was right to defend his family and his home it is unfortunate that the guy died.
First of all, that 17-year-old - no matter how much others try to make him a hero - killed someone. That's not going to be that easy for him in the long run, once it sets in. Because no matter how much his actions were justified, I believe it's going to haunt him sooner or later.
I'd've liked to see the intruder learn a lesson from the incident and be able to tell the story - and while some people really need to learn the hard way, he didn't learn anything, he's dead.

So, yes, the kid was right to stab the guy - but disabling him would have sufficed in my opinion. He was a human after all, no matter how much a crook he turned out to be.

And rabbits are tasty!

Another thought - I'd probably have stabbed him but would have tried to safe his life afterwards.

Even still, the fatal stabbing didn't stop him right away. From what I read, it sounded like he kept fighting for a few minutes before deciding to run.

So disabling probably wasn't much of a reality. Especially to someone who probably has no good training on how to effectively do that.

It's understandable, but not justifiable.

It's understandable, but not justifiable.


Er... what isn't?

i feel bad for the kid. this is prolly going to haunt him for a long time to come. specially because people are making such a deal out of it.

that said, he did the right thing i think. i can't fault his decision.

(or are we all pissed about something i'm missing here [and no snarkies about that]).

Not to be gruesome but...

It's not at all surprising that the guy took awhile to expire. This ain't Hollywood where humans are easy to stab like pincushions.

You can't easily stab someone in the upper back because of the shoulder plates. From behind, they offer almost complete protection for the heart and lungs. A little lower, and you have ribcage. If he had the blade sideways he could do some real damage here, but consider that the assailant was wrestling around and moving, and it's doubtful the kid had the presence of mind to think about it and aim all that carefully.

So we can reasonably conclude that the first few jabs didn't penetrate very deeply at all.

All the while there's yelling and shouting and adrenaline and this kid probably struggling between the desire to fight back and the revulsion of having to use his knife on a human being, each time probably hoping it would somehow incapacitate the bad guy so he wouldn't have to KEEP doing it.

To really get in there, he'd have to go below the ribcage, where he'd be hitting kidneys, intestine, muscle, etc. Vital organs, to be sure, but not instantaneously life threatening.

The assailant probably (due to adrenaline) didn't feel the first couple tries, and may have given up only when, at some point, the severity of his injuries made him realize it was pointless to keep going... time for plan B, get outta there.

Yeah, the kid did what was necessary, but I sure wouldn't want to be in his shoes. He's going to have that on his conscience for the rest of his life. If you think people are second-guessing him now, just imagine what's going through his own mind, and what will go through his mind, every day for the rest of his life.

...
1) You can't easily stab someone in the upper back because of the shoulder plates. From behind, they offer almost complete protection for the heart and lungs. A little lower, and you have ribcage. If he had the blade sideways he could do some real damage here, but consider that the assailant was wrestling around and moving, and it's doubtful the kid had the presence of mind to think about it and aim all that carefully.

2) So we can reasonably conclude that the first few jabs didn't penetrate very deeply at all.

3) All the while there's yelling and shouting and adrenaline and this kid probably struggling between the desire to fight back and the revulsion of having to use his knife on a human being, each time probably hoping it would somehow incapacitate the bad guy so he wouldn't have to KEEP doing it.

4) To really get in there, he'd have to go below the ribcage, where he'd be hitting kidneys, intestine, muscle, etc. Vital organs, to be sure, but not instantaneously life threatening.

The assailant probably (due to adrenaline) didn't feel the first couple tries, and may have given up only when, at some point, the severity of his injuries made him realize it was pointless to keep going... time for plan B, get outta there.

5) Yeah, the kid did what was necessary, but I sure wouldn't want to be in his shoes. He's going to have that on his conscience for the rest of his life. If you think people are second-guessing him now, just imagine what's going through his own mind, and what will go through his mind, every day for the rest of his life.
1) First of all - it's shoulder blades, not plates. And the scapula is actually so thin that you could look through it, or at least that light can shine through it. So that really isn't as protective as you might think. Then, yes, while the ribs certainly do get in the way while backstabbing (no pun intended!) - when you're worked up on adrenaline and considering that your ribcabe is not a rigid system - it is indeed possible and not as hard as you think to drive a knife into someone's back deep enough to do some serious harm. Hey, one ruptured artery is enough to do you in in no time.
2) No, we can't.
3) Yes, I agree.
4) No. Brute force and a 6 inch knife are enough. While the human body can indeed absorb tremendous amounts of punishment - don't forget how fragile a system it is none the less.
5) Indeed.

I voted that the kid was right, but I really think the kid was justified or excused, but not right.

According to Jesus:

"If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed." Exodus 22:2

Er... what isn't?
What do you mean? Most crime is motivated by greed and other evil feelings.

Well you said it wasn't justified, and I was wondering what part of the event you were referring to.

According to Jesus:

"If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed." Exodus 22:2
http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/jesus.gif says: "Dude, that is just stupid, for my story is the New Testament, not the Old Testament you've quoted with Exodus! But I love you, none the less."

I think the kid could of just stabbed him in the calf or something

there should have been an option for "stab him, but not to death"

I don't like the whole death thing.

So, yes, the kid was right to stab the guy - but disabling him would have sufficed in my opinion.

As I pointed out above the whole disabling idea is a myth perpetrated by movies and comic books. The hero can do that in a m,ovie. But it simply doesn't happen in real life.

Knives, like firearms, are deadly weapons. Anyone who has properly trained with a deadly weapon knows not to pull punches, so to speak. You never, ever attempt to disable when using deadly force. You continue shooting/stabbing/hitting until the assailant stops, for good reasons.

Even if you are trained to the highest levels, is it nigh impossible to "shoot/stab to disable". And it is ineffective and dangerous to try. As pointed about by others, the assailant continued to struggle after being stabbed several times.

Poor kid. Hope he gets a good pyschologist.

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/jesus.gif says: "Dude, that is just stupid, for my story is the New Testament, not the Old Testament you've quoted with Exodus! But I love you, none the less."


If, as christians believe, "jesus is god," then jesus did say it.

Knives, like firearms, are deadly weapons. Anyone who has properly trained with a deadly weapon knows not to pull punches, so to speak. You never, ever attempt to disable when using deadly force. You continue shooting/stabbing/hitting until the assailant stops, for good reasons.


I agree. I got into a small debate while in France with some locals and their idea of 'shooting someone in the leg'. If you aren't going to kill someone, you problably don't have a legitimate reason to pull a gun, a knife, etc. If you didn't have reason to start with and pull out a gun or knife, you have just committed yourself to a life-or-death situation.

I agree. I got into a small debate while in France with some locals and their idea of 'shooting someone in the leg'. If you aren't going to kill someone, you problably don't have a legitimate reason to pull a gun, a knife, etc. If you didn't have reason to start with and pull out a gun or knife, you have just committed yourself to a life-or-death situation.

Shooting someone in the leg is pretty pointless. Even if you are that good a marksman if they have a gun they can still shoot you, shattered leg or not. Shoot them in the arm if you're that good(and don't want to kill them), or centre mass if not.

Shooting someone in the leg is pretty pointless. Even if you are that good a marksman if they have a gun they can still shoot you, shattered leg or not. Shoot them in the arm if you're that good (and don't want to kill them), or centre mass if not.

Nope. Always center of mass.

For one thing, nobody is a good enough marksman that in a close combat situation they will attempt anything but a center of mass shot. That is why the best trained close combat shooters, such as HRTs, Delta, and the like, are trained center of mass. (Military snipers, olympic caliber shooters, and top hunters might be good enough, but that's a whole other situation. Close combat is too quick and too stressful to line up the perfect shot.)

Secondly, the arm is not a guarenteed stop. Center of mass includes the Fatal zone that is as close to an instant stop as you can come.

Finally, firearms (and knives) are deadly force. If you're using deadly force, you have to acknowledge that you either want the person dead or are not concerened with that persons life. Otherwise, DO NOT use deadly force. It really is that simple.

Nope. Always center of mass.

For one thing, nobody is a good enough marksman that in a close combat situation they will attempt anything but a center of mass shot. That is why the best trained close combat shooters, such as HRTs, Delta, and the like, are trained center of mass. (Military snipers, olympic caliber shooters, and top hunters might be good enough, but that's a whole other situation. Close combat is too quick and too stressful to line up the perfect shot.)

Secondly, the arm is not a guarenteed stop. Center of mass includes the Fatal zone that is as close to an instant stop as you can come.

Finally, firearms (and knives) are deadly force. If you're using deadly force, you have to acknowledge that you either want the person dead or are not concerened with that persons life. Otherwise, DO NOT use deadly force. It really is that simple.
I thought the Columbine shooters had more Head Shots than anything else.

I thought the Columbine shooters had more Head Shots than anything else.

According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

12 out of the 31 people shot were shot in the head and/or neck. And that was not close combat, but shootings of people trying to escape or hide.

I thought the Columbine shooters had more Head Shots than anything else.

According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

12 out of the 31 people shot were shot in the head and/or neck. And that was not close combat, but shootings of people trying to escape or hide.

I thought the Columbine shooters had more Head Shots than anything else.

According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

12 out of the 31 people shot were shot in the head and/or neck. And that was not close combat, but shootings of people trying to escape or hide.

I'm so glad to see Jolt's change have done something about the multi-post problems.... :rolleyes:

Kudos to the kid.

What I'm surprised about was this:


He stayed up quite a long time considering he was stabbed 5 times in the back with 6" hunting knife :eek:

I dont think he was sane or a burglar.

He was fired from his job by this family some 350 miles away and was most likely seeking revenge. The kid getting loose and the father struggling long enough for the kid to get loose likely savged three lives at the cost of one madman's life,

Meh. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

12 out of the 31 people shot were shot in the head and/or neck. And that was not close combat, but shootings of people trying to escape or hide.

Yup, the crazies had time to take careful aim, &c. It's called a massacre for a reason, and a massacre isnt a fight.

In response to the original article, I don't think the kid should have stabbed him to death. It was self-defense, I'll admit that, and he has every right to defend himself and his family, but stabbing someone five times in the back is a little overboard for my tastes. I'd have aimed to stab him in the arm (so he'd think twice about using that gun again) and knock him unconcious, or hurt him enough that he wasn't in a posistion to do anything. I don't think that killing someone is real self defence. I think making them unable to hurt you should be the first step.

In response to the original article, I don't think the kid should have stabbed him to death. It was self-defense, I'll admit that, and he has every right to defend himself and his family, but stabbing someone five times in the back is a little overboard for my tastes. I'd have aimed to stab him in the arm (so he'd think twice about using that gun again) and knock him unconcious, or hurt him enough that he wasn't in a posistion to do anything. I don't think that killing someone is real self defence. I think making them unable to hurt you should be the first step.

Go back and read what I've been saying about aiming to disable. "(M)aking (someone) unable to hurt you" when using a knife means stabbing (or cutting them if you know what you're doing) until they stop. That's what this kid did. That's what he should have done. Trying to stab anybody in a non-fatal way is simply stupid.

Go back and read what I've been saying about aiming to disable. "(M)aking (someone) unable to hurt you" when using a knife means stabbing (or cutting them if you know what you're doing) until they stop. That's what this kid did. That's what he should have done. Trying to stab anybody in a non-fatal way is simply stupid.

Killing someone without considering other options first, in my opinion, is stupid. I'd never aim to kill anyone, even if it meant my death. Some people have a much greater sense to live, but I personally wouldn't be able to live knowing I took another's life.

As was said before- live by the sword, die by the sword. The kid is a hero- he saved his family and while he may not like having 2 hav killed the intruder i see it as justified. 6 stabs?- i culdve done it wiv 1 but blood spatter is messy

In response to the original article, I don't think the kid should have stabbed him to death. It was self-defense, I'll admit that, and he has every right to defend himself and his family, but stabbing someone five times in the back is a little overboard for my tastes. I'd have aimed to stab him in the arm (so he'd think twice about using that gun again) and knock him unconcious, or hurt him enough that he wasn't in a posistion to do anything. I don't think that killing someone is real self defence. I think making them unable to hurt you should be the first step.


Good thing it didn't happen in your house:rolleyes:

Killing someone without considering other options first, in my opinion, is stupid.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In this case, no. Not unless you're willing to see the assailant shoot your family members dead.

I'd never aim to kill anyone, even if it meant my death. Some people have a much greater sense to live, but I personally wouldn't be able to live knowing I took another's life.

Then I strongly suggest that you never ever pick up a knife, firearm, or other deadly weapon with the intent to use it against another person. Doing so without the resolve to kill is fatally foolish. There's a very good reason why the single most important firearms safety rule is never point a firearm at anything you aren't willing to kill or destroy.

As was said before- live by the sword, die by the sword. The kid is a hero- he saved his family and while he may not like having 2 hav killed the intruder i see it as justified. 6 stabs?- i culdve done it wiv 1 but blood spatter is messy

Sure, it's possible, but I seriously doubt you would have, especially in "fight or flight" mode. When that response kicks in, we tend to overdo things unless trained and constantly drilled not to (and even then it happens).

Sure, it's possible, but I seriously doubt you would have, especially in "fight or flight" mode. When that response kicks in, we tend to overdo things unless trained and constantly drilled not to (and even then it happens).

Uh, you are forgetting that he's a ninja and stuff.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

12 out of the 31 people shot were shot in the head and/or neck. And that was not close combat, but shootings of people trying to escape or hide.
ahh.. I thought so. It was a High percentage. I remember Military Marksmen commenting on that.

ahh.. I thought so. It was a High percentage. I remember Military Marksmen commenting on that.

Considering the circumstances (quite a few of the victems were shot at close range while not moving), I don't think it's all that surprising.

Uh, you are forgetting that he's a ninja and stuff.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

:)

In response to the original article, I don't think the kid should have stabbed him to death. It was self-defense, I'll admit that, and he has every right to defend himself and his family, but stabbing someone five times in the back is a little overboard for my tastes. I'd have aimed to stab him in the arm (so he'd think twice about using that gun again) and knock him unconcious, or hurt him enough that he wasn't in a posistion to do anything. I don't think that killing someone is real self defence. I think making them unable to hurt you should be the first step.
consider this.

He stabbed the man 5 or 6 times... while the man was struggling with his Stepfather, with his Mother, tied up in the room. and the struggle stopped, not at the stabbing but when the intruder realized he LOST HIS GUN.

so imagine, you stab the intruder, the stuggle continues, what... you gonna stop? you know the intruder has a gun, but don't know where, you gonna wait, or worse, try to slice the arm when he's struggling with your stepdad?

so he kept stabbing until the intruder stopped trying to hurt his family (when he left) so he did as you would have. kept stabbing until the threat was over.

Considering the circumstances (quite a few of the victems were shot at close range while not moving), I don't think it's all that surprising.

:)hmm... the report I remember hearing was that most of the head/upper body shots were at a distance. tho I won't argue the point.

consider this.

He stabbed the man 5 or 6 times... while the man was struggling with his Stepfather, with his Mother, tied up in the room. and the struggle stopped, not at the stabbing but when the intruder realized he LOST HIS GUN.

so imagine, you stab the intruder, the stuggle continues, what... you gonna stop? you know the intruder has a gun, but don't know where, you gonna wait, or worse, try to slice the arm when he's struggling with your stepdad?

so he kept stabbing until the intruder stopped trying to hurt his family (when he left) so he did as you would have. kept stabbing until the threat was over.

Then they accompanied him to the door and held it for him as he exited. That's pretty polite. :p

"Before you go, would you like some coffee? We just made it!"

Good thing it didn't happen in your house:rolleyes:

Funnily enough, I don't like being put down for my belief that killing someone isn't the first step in self defence. Self defence is exactly that, not killing someone.


Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In this case, no. Not unless you're willing to see the assailant shoot your family members dead.

-snip-


Then I strongly suggest that you never ever pick up a knife, firearm, or other deadly weapon with the intent to use it against another person. Doing so without the resolve to kill is fatally foolish. There's a very good reason why the single most important firearms safety rule is never point a firearm at anything you aren't willing to kill or destroy.

Funnily enough, I don't want to see my family members dead. By that same token, I don't want to see anyone dead. I'm not saying the kid is wrong for what he did, but I, personally would not have continually stabbed the guy. Interesting point, should police be aiming to kill criminals, or stop them from doing any harm? Should they aim for the head, or for the knee cap?


consider this.

He stabbed the man 5 or 6 times... while the man was struggling with his Stepfather, with his Mother, tied up in the room. and the struggle stopped, not at the stabbing but when the intruder realized he LOST HIS GUN.

so imagine, you stab the intruder, the stuggle continues, what... you gonna stop? you know the intruder has a gun, but don't know where, you gonna wait, or worse, try to slice the arm when he's struggling with your stepdad?

so he kept stabbing until the intruder stopped trying to hurt his family (when he left) so he did as you would have. kept stabbing until the threat was over.

This is just me, I wouldn't repeatedly stab him. I'd try something different. I wouldn't reach for a knife in the first place, I'd reach for something blunt and heavy that is more likely just to knock him out rather than cause him to bleed to death. Just my take on the situation, I really do not believe in killing anyone or anything without exploring other options first.

Another thought - I'd probably have stabbed him but would have tried to safe his life afterwards.

Ambulance, blankets, opening the door? They were alot nicer to him then I would of been. I'd of gotten to work with pliars and a blow-torch and got medieval on his ass. ;)

Interesting point, should police be aiming to kill criminals, or stop them from doing any harm? Should they aim for the head, or for the knee cap?

Cops aim for centre body-mass.

Cops aim for centre body-mass.

And they still miss a lot. The average hit rate per shot for police varies in the US between 8 percent and 30 percent - and that's for aiming at the center of mass, with combat occurring at an average distance of 8 yards (under 8 meters).

I've noticed that people who have never shot a pistol in a combat situation are always demanding that police somehow acquire the abilities of a civilian master competitive shooter with the added onus of having to make that shot in combat.

Cops aim for centre body-mass.

As do much better trained CC gunfighters - military and paramilitary HRTs for example, as I mentioned above. The most elite military and paramilitary close assault teams (1st SFOD-D, DEVGRU, HRT, GIGN, various SASs, GSG 9, etc) are the guys who storm hijacked aircraft and that sort of thing. They are trained to a level far beyond the average beat cop. (At one point I understand that SEAL Team 6, the forerunner of DEVGRU, had a training ammunition budget greater than the entier USMC. Think for a minute whnat that means in terms of shooting experience...) They train for center mass double taps.

And they still miss a lot. The average hit rate per shot for police varies in the US between 8 percent and 30 percent - and that's for aiming at the center of mass, with combat occurring at an average distance of 8 yards (under 8 meters).

I've noticed that people who have never shot a pistol in a combat situation are always demanding that police somehow acquire the abilities of a civilian master competitive shooter with the added onus of having to make that shot in combat.

Bingo. And that goes even double for those who expect average shooter Joe Shmow to pick up his 9 mm and put one through the bad guys hand as if he were the Lone Ranger or some other Oater matinee hero. And about 10x if you expect Joe to cut someone in a disabling but not potentially fatal manner.

hmm... the report I remember hearing was that most of the head/upper body shots were at a distance. tho I won't argue the point.

I don't think any of the shots were at any real distrance, were they? Anywho, I think we can both agree that it wasn't a close combat situation, right?


Funnily enough, I don't like being put down for my belief that killing someone isn't the first step in self defence.


I won't put you down for standing on principal. Even if I believe that principal is naive, I still have a great deal of respect for thoise willingf to die rather than bend.

Self defence is exactly that, not killing someone.

As for Not at all. Self-defence is exactly the defence of one's self - nothing more nothing less. Wheteher that invoilves killing others or not will completely depend on the circumstances.

Funnily enough, I don't want to see my family members dead. By that same token, I don't want to see anyone dead. I'm not saying the kid is wrong for what he did, but I, personally would not have continually stabbed the guy.

If he had not stabbed multiple times he and his family may well be lying on a morticians slab right now. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the object is to stop the assailant. Stabbing once is highly unlikely to achieve that goal. Stabbing the assailant enough times to force a cesation of the assault is quite possibly going to be fatal. The same goes for shooting. As I've said repeatedly, don't resort to deadly force if you are unwilling to kill.

Interesting point, should police be aiming to kill criminals, or stop them from doing any harm? Should they aim for the head, or for the knee cap?

You can't separate the first two. Aiming to stop is indistinguishablke from aiming to kill. And aiming for the knee cap is not aiming to stop. It's aiming to allow a violent person to continue acting violently, and quite probabaly provoking an even greater amount of violence.

This is just me, I wouldn't repeatedly stab him. I'd try something different. I wouldn't reach for a knife in the first place, I'd reach for something blunt and heavy that is more likely just to knock him out rather than cause him to bleed to death. Just my take on the situation, I really do not believe in killing anyone or anything without exploring other options first.

Then be prepared to trade the deaths of people you care about for the life of a stranger.

Cops aim for centre body-mass.

As do much better trained CC gunfighters - military and paramilitary HRTs for example, as I mentioned above. The most elite military and paramilitary close assault teams (1st SFOD-D, DEVGRU, HRT, GIGN, various SASs, GSG 9, etc) are the guys who storm hijacked aircraft and that sort of thing. They are trained to a level far beyond the average beat cop. (At one point I understand that SEAL Team 6, the forerunner of DEVGRU, had a training ammunition budget greater than the entier USMC. Think for a minute whnat that means in terms of shooting experience...) They train for center mass double taps.

And they still miss a lot. The average hit rate per shot for police varies in the US between 8 percent and 30 percent - and that's for aiming at the center of mass, with combat occurring at an average distance of 8 yards (under 8 meters).

I've noticed that people who have never shot a pistol in a combat situation are always demanding that police somehow acquire the abilities of a civilian master competitive shooter with the added onus of having to make that shot in combat.

Bingo. And that goes even double for those who expect average shooter Joe Shmow to pick up his 9 mm and put one through the bad guys hand as if he were the Lone Ranger or some other Oater matinee hero. And about 10x if you expect Joe to cut someone in a disabling but not potentially fatal manner.

hmm... the report I remember hearing was that most of the head/upper body shots were at a distance. tho I won't argue the point.

I don't think any of the shots were at any real distrance, were they? Anywho, I think we can both agree that it wasn't a close combat situation, right?


Funnily enough, I don't like being put down for my belief that killing someone isn't the first step in self defence.


I won't put you down for standing on principal. Even if I believe that principal is naive, I still have a great deal of respect for thoise willingf to die rather than bend.

Self defence is exactly that, not killing someone.

As for Not at all. Self-defence is exactly the defence of one's self - nothing more nothing less. Wheteher that invoilves killing others or not will completely depend on the circumstances.

Funnily enough, I don't want to see my family members dead. By that same token, I don't want to see anyone dead. I'm not saying the kid is wrong for what he did, but I, personally would not have continually stabbed the guy.

If he had not stabbed multiple times he and his family may well be lying on a morticians slab right now. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the object is to stop the assailant. Stabbing once is highly unlikely to achieve that goal. Stabbing the assailant enough times to force a cesation of the assault is quite possibly going to be fatal. The same goes for shooting. As I've said repeatedly, don't resort to deadly force if you are unwilling to kill.

Interesting point, should police be aiming to kill criminals, or stop them from doing any harm? Should they aim for the head, or for the knee cap?

You can't separate the first two. Aiming to stop is indistinguishablke from aiming to kill. And aiming for the knee cap is not aiming to stop. It's aiming to allow a violent person to continue acting violently, and quite probabaly provoking an even greater amount of violence.

This is just me, I wouldn't repeatedly stab him. I'd try something different. I wouldn't reach for a knife in the first place, I'd reach for something blunt and heavy that is more likely just to knock him out rather than cause him to bleed to death. Just my take on the situation, I really do not believe in killing anyone or anything without exploring other options first.

Then be prepared to trade the deaths of people you care about for the life of a stranger.

Cops aim for centre body-mass.

As do much better trained CC gunfighters - military and paramilitary HRTs for example, as I mentioned above. The most elite military and paramilitary close assault teams (1st SFOD-D, DEVGRU, HRT, GIGN, various SASs, GSG 9, etc) are the guys who storm hijacked aircraft and that sort of thing. They are trained to a level far beyond the average beat cop. (At one point I understand that SEAL Team 6, the forerunner of DEVGRU, had a training ammunition budget greater than the entier USMC. Think for a minute whnat that means in terms of shooting experience...) They train for center mass double taps.

And they still miss a lot. The average hit rate per shot for police varies in the US between 8 percent and 30 percent - and that's for aiming at the center of mass, with combat occurring at an average distance of 8 yards (under 8 meters).

I've noticed that people who have never shot a pistol in a combat situation are always demanding that police somehow acquire the abilities of a civilian master competitive shooter with the added onus of having to make that shot in combat.

Bingo. And that goes even double for those who expect average shooter Joe Shmow to pick up his 9 mm and put one through the bad guys hand as if he were the Lone Ranger or some other Oater matinee hero. And about 10x if you expect Joe to cut someone in a disabling but not potentially fatal manner.

hmm... the report I remember hearing was that most of the head/upper body shots were at a distance. tho I won't argue the point.

I don't think any of the shots were at any real distrance, were they? Anywho, I think we can both agree that it wasn't a close combat situation, right?


Funnily enough, I don't like being put down for my belief that killing someone isn't the first step in self defence.


I won't put you down for standing on principal. Even if I believe that principal is naive, I still have a great deal of respect for thoise willingf to die rather than bend.

Self defence is exactly that, not killing someone.

As for Not at all. Self-defence is exactly the defence of one's self - nothing more nothing less. Wheteher that invoilves killing others or not will completely depend on the circumstances.

Funnily enough, I don't want to see my family members dead. By that same token, I don't want to see anyone dead. I'm not saying the kid is wrong for what he did, but I, personally would not have continually stabbed the guy.

If he had not stabbed multiple times he and his family may well be lying on a morticians slab right now. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the object is to stop the assailant. Stabbing once is highly unlikely to achieve that goal. Stabbing the assailant enough times to force a cesation of the assault is quite possibly going to be fatal. The same goes for shooting. As I've said repeatedly, don't resort to deadly force if you are unwilling to kill.

Interesting point, should police be aiming to kill criminals, or stop them from doing any harm? Should they aim for the head, or for the knee cap?

You can't separate the first two. Aiming to stop is indistinguishablke from aiming to kill. And aiming for the knee cap is not aiming to stop. It's aiming to allow a violent person to continue acting violently, and quite probabaly provoking an even greater amount of violence.

This is just me, I wouldn't repeatedly stab him. I'd try something different. I wouldn't reach for a knife in the first place, I'd reach for something blunt and heavy that is more likely just to knock him out rather than cause him to bleed to death. Just my take on the situation, I really do not believe in killing anyone or anything without exploring other options first.

Then be prepared to trade the deaths of people you care about for the life of a stranger.

Yippity skip for 45 minutes of non-responsive forum and a triple post.

"Killing someone without considering other options first, in my opinion, is stupid. I'd never aim to kill anyone, even if it meant my death. Some people have a much greater sense to live, but I personally wouldn't be able to live knowing I took another's life."----Should Land


you couldn't live with yourself knowing that you saved those that you love? talk about a screwed up sense of priority. not that it wasn't obvious already....from you mentioning that you would sit around considering various other options instead of defending your family. i just hope you're sterile....children deserve better parents than that

And they still miss a lot. The average hit rate per shot for police varies in the US between 8 percent and 30 percent - and that's for aiming at the center of mass, with combat occurring at an average distance of 8 yards (under 8 meters).

I've noticed that people who have never shot a pistol in a combat situation are always demanding that police somehow acquire the abilities of a civilian master competitive shooter with the added onus of having to make that shot in combat.

I don't think good marksmanship is too much to ask of an armed police force.

"Killing someone without considering other options first, in my opinion, is stupid. I'd never aim to kill anyone, even if it meant my death. Some people have a much greater sense to live, but I personally wouldn't be able to live knowing I took another's life."----Should Land


you couldn't live with yourself knowing that you saved those that you love? talk about a screwed up sense of priority. not that it wasn't obvious already....from you mentioning that you would sit around considering various other options instead of defending your family. i just hope you're sterile....children deserve better parents than that
I don't see anything in that quote about children or other people.

I have similar hopes for you if you're the kind of person who resorts to violence without thought.

"I don't see anything in that quote about children or other people.

I have similar hopes for you if you're the kind of person who resorts to violence without thought."----Ifreann


i didn't feel like quoting everything he had ever said. if you cared, you could go back and read it any time.

and the only thought that is needed is "hey, that person is threatening or harming those i care about" if you sit around after that without taking action, you are a poor excuse for a human being

I don't think good marksmanship is too much to ask of an armed police force.



Good marksmanship means hitting the center body mass with a pistol. Fantasy Hollywood Marksmanship means hitting someone in the leg or arm.

I don't think good marksmanship is too much to ask of an armed police force.

No police force is that accurate. Sorry. Especially under conditions of stress in combat.

There are studies that go back to the 1950s that back this up.

Given that time is short in a potentially lethal conflict, and pistols are of dubious value in "incapacitating" a person fast enough to stop them from committing a violent action (short of putting a bullet through their brain), studies have shown that in order to avoid their own deaths, police MUST shoot multiple shots into the torso (the easiest target) with bullets that have a minimum mass, minimum diameter, and a minimum penetration. 12 inches of penetration is the minimum - and because a person can be standing sideways to the policeman (very likely), the bullet has to be able to penetrate arm and arm bone, rib cage, and still make it 12 inches into the torso.

Shooting people in the knee or hands on purpose ONLY happens in the movies.

I don't think good marksmanship is too much to ask of an armed police force.

Err... do you realise how much training (ie time and money) a marksmanship program that would bring the millions of US law enforcement agents up to the skill levels you are talking about? Remember what I pointed out above - SEAL Team 6 (about 120 shooters) spent as much on ammunition for training as the entire USMC to get to the level you are talking about. And that's not including the several hours daily that one needs to maintain such high standards.

Are you really willing to see your taxes drastically increased (I'll let someone else do the math) just to make sure that law enforcement officers are perfect shots?

I don't see anything in that quote about children or other people.

Err... seeing as the scenario presented is protecting ones family, including children, against an armed assailant, it would be a given that anyone unwilling to use deadly force to protect their family would not be protecting children or other people...

Err... do you realise how much training (ie time and money) a marksmanship program that would bring the millions of US law enforcement agents up to the skill levels you are talking about? Remember what I pointed out above - SEAL Team 6 (about 120 shooters) spent as much on ammunition for training as the entire USMC to get to the level you are talking about. And that's not including the several hours daily that one needs to maintain such high standards.

Are you really willing to see your taxes drastically increased (I'll let someone else do the math) just to make sure that law enforcement officers are perfect shots?

Err... seeing as the scenario presented is protecting ones family, including children, against an armed assailant, it would be a given that anyone unwilling to use deadly force to protect their family would not be protecting children or other people...

The typical LEO in the US fires less than 100 rounds per year. Any training time takes them off the street. Any qualification time (which they do) takes them off the street.

I fire over 20,000 rounds of pistol ammunition alone in a year. And in a firefight (which is different from shooting at paper targets) I will still shoot center of mass, because there's no time to finesse things.

The police cannot be everywhere, and there comes a time when one must take their life's defence into their own hands, even if the result is death. I say this for women, I say it for children, I say it for any potential victim. Rather armed and alive than gentle and dead...

So, this kid did the right thing. Good that he had a weapon to defend himself.

And they still miss a lot. The average hit rate per shot for police varies in the US between 8 percent and 30 percent - and that's for aiming at the center of mass, with combat occurring at an average distance of 8 yards (under 8 meters).

I've noticed that people who have never shot a pistol in a combat situation are always demanding that police somehow acquire the abilities of a civilian master competitive shooter with the added onus of having to make that shot in combat.

That's pretty much what I was getting at. Police make the 'easiest' shot they can, and still miss alot, it's crazy for people to demand they start sniping for hands and knees, and equally crazy to assume they normally aim for the head.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4229146

Do you believe the boy in this situation did the right thing? Or should he have done something different? I believe he did the right thing - it's sad that any of it had to happen, but good riddance to the guy who broke into their house.

And does anyone think it bad that the boy had a 6-inch hunting knife under his bed? Or is that a fortunate thing?


is this a trick question ???:D


He was wrong in not cutting his throat and eliminating the threat to himself and his family...someone needs to teach the kid how to use a knife .

is this a trick question ???:D


He was wrong in not cutting his throat and eliminating the threat to himself and his family...someone needs to teach the kid how to use a knife .

I agree whole-heartedly. The kid should have sliced the guy's leg to immobilize him, and then pulled the head to the side to expose the jugular...

The typical LEO in the US fires less than 100 rounds per year. Any training time takes them off the street. Any qualification time (which they do) takes them off the street.

My point exactly.

I fire over 20,000 rounds of pistol ammunition alone in a year. And in a firefight (which is different from shooting at paper targets) I will still shoot center of mass, because there's no time to finesse things.

Exactly what I've been on about for the bulk of this thread.

...someone needs to teach the kid how to use a knife .

Couldn't agree more.

just above the hip bone but below the ribs- come in bout 4 inches, stab, twist and cut toward the hip and out of the body- they will b unconcious in 8 seconds at most