It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Woman 2, thugs 0 after home invasion

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Woman alone kills one attacker, critically wounds the other.


Then the situation, suddenly, got much, much worse: One of the robbers demanded that she take off her clothes.

"Come on, what are you waiting for," he told her as he started to yank on her sweatpants, trying to take them off.

Smith pleaded for her safety and distracted the attackers by telling them she would get her money, which was "in my purse."

The robbers inexplicably allowed her to drop to her knees and crawl across the floor to her purse, which the second attacker had dropped.

She reached inside, and the first shot was clear of the muzzle and into the torso of one of the attackers before she even pulled the weapon clear of the purse. Four more shots followed shortly and, in the end, one of the attackers was dead and the second was hospitalized facing a murder rap for having participated in a felony in which someone died.


www.wnd.com...

You go girl.


Well, you going to rob someone, you better be prepared to die. I bet he wasn't counting on looking into the eyes of his victim as he took his last, extremely painful breaths gurgling in blood before he died. I hope it was a juicy death you scum. You deserved every last gut wrenching, lead induced stab of pain and worse. Your lucky to die so fast.


And to the other guy, I hope you rot in prison the rest of your miserable life enslaved to Bubba every night 5 times. Yep. No mercy here. None.

[edit on Sun Jul 25th 2010 by TrueAmerican]




posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
She will be charged with use of excessive force and whatever else they can throw at her. You can't just kill criminals. Criminals are allowed to kill as they commit crimes though, because that makes sense to the courts. Someone has to go to prison, see.

Of course, the state will file the first charges against her, then they'll pay for the surviving criminal to sue her. It's the American way.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Ahahaha I like how you think, I can definitely relate to your feelings.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
And think there are people out there who want to take away out right to bear arms. I can think o no better reason than this to prove that the second amendment does truly afford us protection.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by DerbyCityLights]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Is she married?

I might consider breaking my celibacy for a good strong woman like that!

~meathead

ETA- bah she has a boyfriend..sigh ..all the good ones are taken...

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Mike Stivic]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
This is a perfect example as to why there needs to be a federal conceald carry law. Law abiding citizen should have the right to carry handguns at all times if they choose to do so.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicEgg
 


Oklahoma's castle law would be quite difficult to defeat in this case, should the state want to bring her up on charges.

According to OK's own laws, she was well within her rights to do the rest of us a favor by removing these thugs from the streets.

www.oscn.net...



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
In the UK that woman would probably have been raped and killed-no guns in handbags allowed over here.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 


See, where I live now, if someone wants to take your car, your possessions, wants to rape you, or even if they do this to another person in front of you (even to your kids), you may not use any force against them. There is no justification for use of force against another person except by criminals. If you use force, you are a criminal, unless you really are one and then it's kinda okay.

Finland sucks - unless you're a criminal.

And if any Finn comes here claiming otherwise, they lie. I've watched this cr*p for a quarter century here, but I'm originally from the American southwest. Grounds for comparison exist.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicEgg
 


That sounds even worse than in the UK buddy,at least we are allowed to use so called "reasonable force" to stop an intruder.
(Although reasonable force in a house invasion to me means stopping the intruders by any means you can,it does not mean the same to the courts.You can get busted here for even punching a burgular.)

In this case,I think shooting the intruders was justified,as the lady was in fear of her life.
Provided she legally owned the gun of course,she did what was neccessary to survive IMO.
I hope she recovers from the trauma of the event.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Silcone Synapse
 


But her boyfriend was in the house too.


She recalled with clarity the five shots, including those in which she picked out the attackers even though her boyfriend, black like the attackers, was struggling with them. He had been visiting and came in from the next room after the shots rang out.


I almost choked when the journalist wrote that she shot the right guy, even though her bf was black too. Do "they" all look the same or something? LOL Oh, maybe it was because she should have been hysterical. Surely it counts against her that she was an accurate shot. That means she was waiting for trouble, doesn't it?

Oh wait. *This* is Finland and *that* is someplace you can defend yourself because it's just natural to do so....



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Reading stories like this gives me a happy feeling inside me.

She should be given a medal, honestly. I'm dead serious- and these who try bring charges or lawsuits against the woman should have their photographs, names, and phone numbers published in the newspaper.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
In the UK that woman would probably have been raped and killed-no guns in handbags allowed over here.


Several countries around the world have decided that ppl do not kill
ppl guns do, however I am sure it confuses them when someone
is killed with a kitchen knife, a baseball bat, poison, or one many
other ways to kill ppl.

Disarming the population was a method used by Stalin, Mao, Pol pot,
and Hitler.

The UK leaders are in strange company.

Another persons insights below:

=================================

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control and from 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control and from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were r ounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935 and from 1948 to 1952, 20 million political
dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964 and from 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970 and from 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956 and from 1975 to 1977, one million
educated' people, unable to defend themselves, w ere rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.
--------- ---------------------
It has now been 2 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new
law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million
dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past
12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break- ins and assaults of the
ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety
has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense
was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind
; them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they
knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message < /B>
to all of your friends.

As a postscript; my Dad grew up in W. Pittston, had an old German living
cross the street who told him that the Polish and Czeck govt's mandated
gun registration after WWI, and when
Hitler invaded, his SS went to the hall of records, gathered up this info,
and then confiscated all of the weapons. Our 2nd Amendment has worked
just fine for almost 217 years, let's keep it that way!





[edit on 25-7-2010 by Ex_MislTech]

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Ex_MislTech]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Woman alone kills one attacker, critically wounds the other.


the second was hospitalized facing a murder rap for having participated in a felony in which someone died.



This is the second time I've seen this happen. It's quite an interesting law. The other time I saw this was a robbery at a store. The store clerk killed one of the robbers, and the other robber got charged with murder, because the death occurred during a crime he was committing.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
She will be charged with use of excessive force and whatever else they can throw at her. You can't just kill criminals. Criminals are allowed to kill as they commit crimes though, because that makes sense to the courts. Someone has to go to prison, see.

Of course, the state will file the first charges against her, then they'll pay for the surviving criminal to sue her. It's the American way.



Not in that state baby! Thank god she wasn't in one of the few "nutcase states" like IL, CA or WI where they would prosecute her for defending herself and not letting the criminals rape her. (WTH is wrong in the heads of people who would WANT to prosecute someone like her?) Any anti-gun, anti-self defense Brits here that wants to argue that nothing she owned including her body justifies killing another human being? Yeah I have seen that statement used before in a few arguments and I still don't understand it.

Thumbs up for the armed citizen!


While the prosecutor had not yet made a formal decision regarding her case, Willingham told WND that Oklahoma not only has a "make my day" law allowing residents to use deadly force inside their homes, but also a "stand your ground" law allowing force to be used against an attack outside the home.

He said the surviving attacker probably will face a murder charge under a state law allowing that charge when a person embarks on a felony and someone dies.

He said the two perpetrators are "well-known" to the Tulsa police "for criminal activities.




[edit on 25-7-2010 by infolurker]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
This story makes me sad...

Only because the second piece of crap lived..


now we gotta pay to keep his sorry butt in prison..


sad, sad, sad...

[edit on 25-7-2010 by baddmove]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
She will be charged with use of excessive force and whatever else they can throw at her. You can't just kill criminals. Criminals are allowed to kill as they commit crimes though, because that makes sense to the courts. Someone has to go to prison, see.

Of course, the state will file the first charges against her, then they'll pay for the surviving criminal to sue her. It's the American way.


Open mouth and insert the foot of ignorance.
She will not be charged with anything. Apparently you don’t know anything about the law in OK.

I bet you speak out allot with no actual knowledge of the subject at hand. You should read the full article and do some research so you don’t make yourself look like a fool next time.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
gun control means hitting what you aim at.

I dont remember where I heard this but some judge told the people of his district to arm themselves because he could no longer assure citizens that 911 calles would be responded to because of cuts to the police force.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkice19
Open mouth and insert the foot of ignorance.
She will not be charged with anything. Apparently you don’t know anything about the law in OK.

I bet you speak out allot with no actual knowledge of the subject at hand. You should read the full article and do some research so you don’t make yourself look like a fool next time.


You seem to have a little bit o' foot in your own mouth. This poster is in Finland. Why would they have detailed knowledge of a law in Oklahoma, USA?

It was pointed out that OK's law provides for the action taken by this woman a single post after their own. Why do you feel the need to make a point of it again? Why do you feel the need to maliciously attack another member while reiterating a point already made, multiple times, in a polite manner I add. Just couldn't pass up an opportunity to belittle someone? Maybe you should read the thread you're responding to "so you don't make yourself look like a fool next time."



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker
Originally posted by CosmicEgg



Not in that state baby! Thank god she wasn't in one of the few "nutcase states" like IL, CA or WI where they would prosecute her for defending herself and not letting the criminals rape her.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by infolurker]


Here in Calif some of us will take our chances and load them and bury them in some remote area. (saves the taxpayers and cops the time and money in paperwork)
I live in the Calif desert so body disposal is no problem. I have even been told by cops not to call just bury the body deep so that it will not be found and so they do not have to do the paperwork.

Let there criminal buddies wonder what happened to them.

Oh in Calif we do not have a castle law but we do not have to retreat we can stand our ground and if attacked we can shoot.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by ANNED]

[edit on 26-7-2010 by ANNED]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join