It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Two Armed Men Use Daughter As Human Shield — Until Her Father Guns Them Down

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 11:35 AM
a reply to: buni11687

There is some interesting comments on the original article Husband and wife shoot gunmen who try to enter their St. Louis home, killing 1, police say

Many are of the opinion that this was not random, that the two heavies were brought in to collect a drug debt incurred by the 17 year old daughter and the parents simply reacted. Interesting because if true, none of that is even mentioned.

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 11:43 AM
That's the only reason i'd own a gun right there and I don't have kids

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 11:54 AM

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
Why is it the the gun haters never bring up these types of articles? This is just reason #1,632 why having a gun for your personal protection is a good idea.

Having a gun for personal protection is a good idea for those who know well how to use a gun. A person who has a gun, but no idea how or why to use it is not a good idea. How many people do you think really know how to use a gun, and also understand the very, very fine lines which define the necessity?

Tell all the 18 year olds who just graduated high school that they should go get a gun for their personal protection, and you'll see kids being slaughtered wholesale on accident. It requires a lot of emotional intelligence and training to be able to use, and know when to use a firearm properly.

We don't even teach our kids to maintain a bank balance, much less how and when to appropriately exact violence. Guns in the hands of everyone is a bad idea, not a solution to violence.

Live by the gun, die by the gun.

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 12:23 PM

originally posted by: Biigs
Ha nice.

Guns dont kill people, idiots get killed by people with guns.

I tend to look at it Guns don't kill people, bad people doing bad things get killed by people with guns. No one shoots an idiot, there is no crime in being an idiot. If that were the case Washington would be riddled with bullet holes. But citizens have been known to shoot criminals when necessary, but only when necessary.

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 12:31 PM
a reply to: 727Sky

Maybe we could all disarm like Mexico tried only to find out that is not the way to go with the Cartels or most Bad people... They tend to not listen to please don't hurt me and I will bake you a cake or we can all sing your favorite song together..

Add to that the US will supply the Cartels with firearms after the disarming of the citizens.

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 01:29 PM
a reply to: FairAndBalanced

Holder can complain all he wants. This is a local situation and as such the state will be the one to bring or not bring charges. In this case, based on my experience / accuracy of the news story they were in full compliance of the law.

The only way Holder is going to be involved is if there is a question about the suspects constitutional rights being violated by the victims. I don't see that happening based on the info.

It would be difficult for Holder to make an argument if the originating agency / PA don't file criminal charges. If they don't arrest / charge the victims it means their actions were in compliance, essentially negating a civil rights investigation / charges by the Feds.

The plurality of gun owners can make the following claim -
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my handgun.

edit on 11-6-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 01:44 PM
a reply to: skunkape23

I happen to disagree. I think it is better he rot in prison for the rest of his miserable life hopefully being the big dog's new play toy. While it is a shame tax payers will have to foot the bill, I think it might be worth it in this case

While it seems to be a righteous shooting, that father still has to live with the fact that he killed a man. While he was obviously prepared and willing to do that, I think it is a shame he has to live with that fact no matter what. In my opinion if I was in that situation I would be much happier to be able to disable them both without killing either of them all the while stopping the crime in progress.

Just my opinion. All in all I believe it would be psychologically healthier for all involved if no one had to die.

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 01:54 PM
Reference my post with the militia argument.

I stated the selective service is mandatory for people 18 to 35.

The correct age is 18 to 25.

My apologies

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 02:25 PM
a reply to: sputniksteve

** Sorry about the wall of text **

The ability to use force to defend yourself / third party vary from state to state. Some states, like Michigan, has a duty to retreat law. It means if an incident occurs and the victim has a safe avenue of escape he must take that option. The use of deadly force is the last option.

Civilians actually have more leeway when using deadly force than law enforcement. The overlap revolves around "disabling" the individual.

The purpose of a firearm, aside from it being used and the suspect surrenders, is to stop a deadly threat. If you are going to shoot in an effort to disable, then the situation itself cannot be viewed as a deadly force encounter. If you are in fear of your life the reaction is to stop the threat.

I see this mindset with some when it comes o law enforcement as well - we shoot to stop the threat. When people start trying to bring wounding / disable shots into the argument it can create an unintended backlash.

Possibilities for backlash
* - When deadly force is used it requires the situation to be deadly.
* - Law Enforcement is trained to shoot center mass. Its the largest "target" of the suspect.
* - If an officer / civilian attempts to wound the suspect it increases the possibility of missing the suspect and hitting someone who might be in the area.

It opens up Pandora's box in the legal realm and defense attorneys would have a field day with it. What criteria can possibly be used in order to justify a "disabling shot"? What happens when a white suspect is wounded and in the next incident a black / Hispanic / Asian / etc are killed. The argument is going to be why? Does the individual have a personal bias towards other ethnicities / skin color / socioeconomic conditions?

A "disable" incident is a legal landmine. Not to mention is violates Supreme Court rulings on the use of deadly force. The standard is what did the victim/officer perceive when deadly force was used? Hindsight 20/20 is not allowed when reviewing law enforcement use of force and a broader application goes to the civilian (training verse non training).

The above scenario is one of the main reasons why the use of deadly force must be based on a uniform standard. Once established then you can move into the area of excessive use of force / bias / etc. It must be based on a case by case basis as well since there will always be mitigating circumstances / totality of circumstances.

Even in this case one can make an argument about bias. The person who was shot and killed - why him and not the other? What if one suspect is black and one is white? The victim shoots and kills the black guy and wounds the white guy. Was it intentional?

The above is based on use of a firearm and the legalities that surround it. As you can see it can be a disaster based on the criteria that is in place now. Change that standard and it is going to do more harm than good.

A question for you reference living with the knowledge of killing someone -

What will be easier to live with -
* - Knowing you killed an individual who was willing to use deadly force on your family


* - Not doing anything, resulting in the death of your wife, kids, etc?

edit on 11-6-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-6-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 02:32 PM
And to think if some people had there way ?

Her parents wouldn't have had those guns, and their daughter could have been raped, and murdered in front of them.

Good for the parents.

Bad for people who try to demonize guns.

Because whether or not some people want to admit it ?

They save more lives than they take.

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 02:40 PM
a reply to: neo96

Another way to compare this incident with gun control.

Instead of having the 2 suspects, replace them with the government.
Instead of wanting to kidnap your family, they want your guns.

Since you have done nothing wrong and are in compliance with the law why does the government want them? The government, at times, has acted like the suspects as well as the mass shooters. They are not trying to take the guns away from themselves.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until the government tries to take it."
-Thomas Jefferson

edit on 11-6-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 02:53 PM
a reply to: Xcathdra

Since you have done nothing wrong and are in compliance with the law why does the government want them?

For the life of my I don't know why. I have been asking myself that question for years.

Since the NFA of 1934,the gun control of 1968, the Brady Bill of the 90s, on the heels of that Clintons ASWB.

Before all that stupidity none of it was needed since we have a law already saying we can't murder each other.

Hell they even made laws to the 'degree' of how bad murder is.

The majority has done nothing wrong.

And according to the US constitution we can't be held responsible for the actions of someone else without 'DUE PROCESS'.

Bil of Rights:

Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

They have broken this one.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

They have broken this one.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

They have broken this one, ' NO PERSON SHALL BE HELD TO ANSWER for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime'.

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Millions of gun owners have never received their day in a court of law.

Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

They have broken this one as guns cost more than 20 bucks.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

They have broken this one as our right to bears arms has been is clearly been 'construed' to deny, and disparage a clear right that has been established by the second, and the rest of those amendments.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And this one is being broken.

All of the above make gun control laws unconstitutional.

Some people don't care.

Hell even the first amendment is being denied, and disparaged to where 'free speech' zones exist in this country.

The second being broken again with the infamous 'gun free' zone that isn't so gun free.

Those shills on Capitol Hill say they read the constitution, but they sure don't effing act like it.

On top of that those people who deny us guns, give worse to other people around the globe that has been deemed to be 'friendly'.

Those politicians, even our next door neighbors have exactly zero 'moral' authority of telling me, you, any other gun owner what we can or can't own.

I am honestly dumbfounded as to why there is even a 'gun debate'.

It shouldn't even be happening.

The US constitution expressly laid out our rights.


Then there is that whole 'double jeopardy' deal that says people can't get tried for the same 'crime' twice, and we all know gun owners have been tried,tried, convicted,convicted, tried, tried, and tried again in the kangaroo courts of public opinions.
edit on 11-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:06 PM
You cannot take someone hostage or be in their home without permission without expecting fatal consequences to be levied upon yourself.

It has noting to do with guns,if the man had used a spear or a knife ot a taser or a set of pitbulls or his bare hands the result is still a reasonably expected one.

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:09 PM
a reply to: Xcathdra

Don't get me wrong, I understand the legal ramifications and different laws regarding legalities in shootings. I am extremely glad it was only the criminals being harmed. I would much rather they both die than any of the innocent people harmed at all. I was kind of speaking tongue in cheek with my statements, I was just trying to say It would be better for that man to have no killings on this conscience than 1 or 2, but 1 or 2 is definitely better than the alternative of his family being harmed. I think this guy is a hero, most certainly his family thinks he is. I just feel sorry for them all that these 2 dirt bags put him in the position to have to shoot to kill either of them; If he can solve the problem without killing both of them, or either of them then it is all the better for him in the long run.

With that said if I was in his position I would obviously try and kill them both quickly and efficiently without any hesitation. But in hind sight I am glad he only has 1 killing to deal with at the psychiatrist office instead of 2.

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 04:36 PM

originally posted by: LuXiferGriM
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

I want to know more about this bacon diet that you mentioned.

It's absolutely heaven.... Glorious, magnificent heaven.

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 05:08 PM

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe

originally posted by: LuXiferGriM
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

I want to know more about this bacon diet that you mentioned.

It's absolutely heaven.... Glorious, magnificent heaven.

You need to check out J & D's Foods the product page will get anyones bacon on. That is of course if you haven't already been there and are their best customer.

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 08:41 PM
a reply to: FairAndBalanced

I think it is a very reasonable proposition. If the attackers didn't have guns or the parents; perhaps the incident would have never happened.

We'll never know.

posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 01:27 AM

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: FairAndBalanced

I think it is a very reasonable proposition. If the attackers didn't have guns or the parents; perhaps the incident would have never happened.

We'll never know.

Yup, pointing your finger and yelling bang, would pretty much negate the whole idea of shooting an armed criminal holding your child hostage.

posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 02:19 AM
Outstanding, I commend this father and hope the +++hole that is still alive has life long complications from his wounds. No mercy, you might walk into my house uninvited, but you sure as hell aren't walking out!

posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 03:02 AM
a reply to: FyreByrd

no, because then it would have been knives, or some sort of short sword...and then the parents would have had to watch the scumbags slit their kid's throat, for not complying....

much better outcome, yes?

new topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in