Grandma Home Alone Opens Fire on Home Invasion Suspects, Killing One

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The gun issue is driven by the NRA and the gun manufacturers and these kinds of stories excite the gun proponents.
US has not reduced its annual rate of gun deaths, but other countries have been making progress. In new research the U.S. accounted for 82 percent of all firearm deaths among the 23 countries studied.
who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/violence/small_arms/en/
Ever-single mass-shooting in the USA except for Tuscon (where Democrats just choose not to carry at their event) has happened in a gun-free zone.

Also, the areas with the most gun control have the most gun violence.
 
If you break and enter onto someone else’s property and don’t have a warrant, your life is forfeit.

Catholic teaching supports this.
No, it doesn’t.

Catholic teaching in no way justifies killing someone for trespassing.
 
Are you implying that this Grandma is in violation of Catholic teaching for shooting an armed intruder?
Not at all. I wasn’t there, and I can’t make that judgment.

I was responding to SuperLuigi’s statement that "f you break and enter onto someone else’s property and don’t have a warrant, your life is forfeit."
 
This is an old woman we talking about, and that comment smells of intersectionality nonsense.
I had to look that up - thanks for the new word. 🙂
Having a gun is not an addiction. 99.99% of people with guns hope to never use them to shoot anyone else
I hope not. We own a couple - they’re tools, like hammers, knives, and other possible instruments of death & mayhem. It all depends on who is using them.
 
If you break and enter onto someone else’s property and don’t have a warrant, your life is forfeit.

Catholic teaching supports this.
Well, no, breaking and entering does not automatically imply that anyone who finds you on the property has a moral right to kill you on the spot. We may not take another human life when we reasonably have non-lethal options that would suffice to subvert an imminent threat to human life. (It goes without saying, I would think, that we do not kill people merely to protect material property.)

Having said that, these intruders came in armed and outnumbered the homeowner, who probably could not have subdued even one of them in a hand-to-hand struggle. Since they did not take off when they saw that the homeowner was there, they obviously were not carrying weapons for “self-defense.”

It was reasonable for her to conclude that she could not subdue two of them by herself with sub-lethal force. It is possible she knew enough about response time in her neighborhood to rule out calling the police and hoping they could subdue them without killing them. She knew they had seen her and had come prepared with the weaponry to not only subdue but to kill any witnesses.

She shot one and when the other ran, his life was spared. She seems to be well within the boundaries of using lethal force only for self-defense. I’m not exactly applauding her so much as my heart goes out to her that she was forced to make such a choice. In an ideal world, none of us wants to hurry someone to an unprovided death, and getting killed during an unrepented armed robbery meets that general description.
 
No, it doesn’t.

Catholic teaching in no way justifies killing someone for trespassing.
trying to force their way into your home is a wee bit more than trespassing!! Wonder what you would do id they were breaking into your home!! God Bless, memaw
 
Tl99.99% of people with guns hope to never use them to shoot anyone else
More like 99%, which is incredibly too high. i e. if there was a 1-2% chance a hiking trail resulted in robbery, rape, or death, very few people would ever take the hike. But, we have 10 times as many deaths in a single major US city than in the entire country of Japan. The primary people who suffer from these lobbys are the poor, the vulnerable, and the historically marginalized subcultures that pay the price in the blood of their children in schools, or of the old who are lonely.

It is doubtful the article has any concern for the welfare of those involved. The woman is a utilitarian object being used as political artillery. It is an early 20th century brand of propaganda used to glorify guns as a means to power and perseverance against a cruel world, hence the focus on ‘grandmother’ to emphasize even an old woman (who isn’t actually very old) can overpower her invaders.

Of course, said gun ownership produces overwhelmingly more casualties than it ever saves. We are the most dangerous highly developed country in the world.
 
I agree!!! Grandma had nothing to feel guilty about as she has a moral right to protect herself. I had a guy try to break into my house about 10 years ago and believe me if he would have made it thru the door, I would have done the same thing. I had grandkids here with me too. He couldn’t break in my heavy oak door tho. but the police got him anyway. The police instructed me on how to get a gun, they would teach me how to use it and etc. They have a program for that. I already knew all that but wanted to see how they would explain it. I grew up hunting. with my brothers. God Bless, Memaw
👍 Good for you! I owned a couple of weapons many years ago because my son and I lived in a bad part of town. Luckily, I never had to use it.
 
No, it doesn’t.

Catholic teaching in no way justifies killing someone for trespassing.
It seems to me you are supposing that they were only trespassing. They came armed. Do you want the senior citizen to wait until they do her harm and then shoot them (if she still can?)
 
As long as we have grandmas like this brave woman no ISIS, no North Korea will ever prevail over us.🙂
 
Yes, yes, of course. I agree with whatever you say, Memaw, and hope you are happy. Is there anything you need that I can get you?
Maybe not for Meemaw, but you can come and weed my front flower bed.
 
As long as we have grandmas like this brave woman no ISIS, no North Korea will ever prevail over us.🙂
I dunno about that - a handgun or rifle isn’t a match for a bomb! :eek:

But, if they invade as they did in Red Dawn, then we’d have a chance.
 
It seems to me you are supposing that they were only trespassing. They came armed. Do you want the senior citizen to wait until they do her harm and then shoot them (if she still can?)
Once again, I was responding to SuperLuigi’s statement that “If you break and enter onto someone else’s property and don’t have a warrant, your life is forfeit.”

As I said in my post, I wasn’t there at the incident described, and I can’t make a judgment about it.

But I *can *judge that a life shouldn’t be forfeit simply because of trespass, or breaking and entering.
 
It seems to me you are supposing that they were only trespassing. They came armed. Do you want the senior citizen to wait until they do her harm and then shoot them (if she still can?)
There was a 60 year old woman last week in Oregon (I think) who was raped by someone who had been deported many times. Of course, you need training to make sure you can use your weapon and not panic.
I think this Grandma kept her cool and she remained alive and unharmed. I hope
they catch the accomplice.
 
It seems to me you are supposing that they were only trespassing. They came armed. Do you want the senior citizen to wait until they do her harm and then shoot them (if she still can?)
Please, re-read my post (number 24 in this thread). I’m not pre-supposing anything about the circumstances of this shooting, and I was pretty clear about that.

I was expressing my doubts about SuperLuigi’s statement that “If you break and enter onto someone else’s property and don’t have a warrant, your life is forfeit.”
 
trying to force their way into your home is a wee bit more than trespassing!! Wonder what you would do id they were breaking into your home!! God Bless, memaw
What would I do? Well, not shoot anyone, because I don’t own a gun.

But, as I’ve posted in response to others in this thread, please re-read my post, in which I quite clearly said I’m not making any judgment about this woman, or this shooting. My comment was only in response to SuperLuigi’s somewhat over-the-top statement, which is quite inconsistent with any Catholic thinking about what justifies the use of lethal force.
 
What would I do? Well, not shoot anyone, because I don’t own a gun.

But, as I’ve posted in response to others in this thread, please re-read my post, in which I quite clearly said I’m not making any judgment about this woman, or this shooting. My comment was only in response to SuperLuigi’s somewhat over-the-top statement, which is quite inconsistent with any Catholic thinking about what justifies the use of lethal force.
Even if you didn’t have a gun and felt like your life was threatened and someone was trying to harm you, you wouldn’t reach for a weapon to defend yourself?
Maybe you don’t live in a high crime area and you feel safe and feel it will never
happen to you.
 
Even if you didn’t have a gun and felt like your life was threatened and someone was trying to harm you, you wouldn’t reach for a weapon to defend yourself?
Maybe you don’t live in a high crime area and you feel safe and feel it will never
happen to you.
Holy reading comprehension!

I WAS NOT CRITICIZING, OR JUDGING, THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS SHOOTING. I was responding to SuperLuigi’s statement that a life is forfeit even when no threat is made.

Was I not clear?

And, by the way, although I now live in a pretty crime-free neighborhood of New York City, which has a pretty low crime rate these days, I grew up in a definitely not-so-crime-free neighborhood in New York back in the bad old days of the seventies, and have lived here ever since, through the bad old days of the early and middle eighties. I have been a victim of crime, including violent crime. So I don’t feel like it can never happen to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top