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

That's all I have to say about this story...

Des

a reply to: QuietSpeech

Who cares why the men entered the house.

You DO NOT BREAK INTO PEOPLES HOUSES,or you might become dead.

The Police are not there to help you save your own life or stop crimes they are there to investigate AFTER crimes hve already happened.

Its about tie parents started breaking their kids free of Drug organisatons and if this is what it takes so be it.

a reply to: neo96

Interesting position however there are some flaws -

The 2nd amendment applies to the individual thanks to 2 scotus rulings in 2008 and 2010 (Washington DC and Chicago, of all places, were the involved parties).

The 4th amendment does not apply to the individual, it applies to the government. A 4th amendment violation can result in any and all evidence collected from the point of violation can be thrown out of court - Fruit of the Poisonous Tree argument. However there are exceptions to the 4th that a lot of individuals do not understand -
* - Consent
* - Search incident to arrest
* - Fresh pursuit
* - Field Doctrine
* - exigent circumstances
* - Inevitable discovery

There are also state rulings that can affect how these sections are interpreted. In my state of Missouri if an individual is fleeing from the police in a motor vehicle, stops his car, opens the door and flees on foot, leaving the door to the vehicle open, a warrant to search / seize the vehicle is not required as its considered abandoned property at that point.

All exceptions place the burden of justification on the officer.


The 5th amendment is only applicable when a person is A- In custody by law enforcement and B - is being asked guilt seeking questions. A person can commit murder, be caught, charged, tried and sentenced to death all without ever having to read the individual their Miranda warnings. A 5th amendment argument does not apply to motor vehicle laws in the same manner as non motor vehicle laws.

Exceptions to the 5th would be -
* - Spontaneous utterance - The suspect makes an unprovoked incriminating statement / comment.


The 6th amendment is what's referred to as Due Process and is pretty much the basis used when a ruling is challenged / appealed.


The 7th amendment has never been applied to the states by the US Supreme Court. With that said most if not all states have similar laws that allows a person involved in a civil trial to request a jury.


The 9th amendment says what it is however just like anything else in a society that advances with technology must be reviewed to accommodate technology / situations the founders never considered. The reason some amendments are "overly broad" (like the 1st and 2nd amendments) is to allow for new concepts / technology / societal changes / religions immediate protection under the Constitution while allowing those new areas to be reviewed / challenged / restricted / accepted.

Hence the ability of the individual to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


The 10th amendment is a bitch when it comes to State Sovereignty because in addition to the 10th, the Constitution also contains the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause. Because of how the supreme court has ruled in those cases it does allow the federal government to "meddle" in state affairs. A situation that I think the states should challenge more than they have.

While I agree completely with your view on the 2nd amendment being violated we need to look at it from different view points to understand opposing arguments.

As an example -
TSA security checkpoints - Since a "search" is not forced its not a 4th amendment violation. A person is free to leave the airport and find another means to get to their destination.

Travel within a state / across state lines - Travel in this manner is constitutionally protected however the manner of transportation is not. You don't want to get a driver's license you are not required to. However, you cant lawfully drive a vehicle on a public road. You don't want to go through airport security you don't have to, however you wont be able to fly to where you want to go so you will need to find another method of travel.

As for "Double Jeopardy" -
When a person is charged with a crime the judicial process has to reach a certain point before jeopardy is attached. If Jeopardy is attached and the case is dismissed, charges cannot be refilled. However if new evidence come to light that was not available the first time around additional charges are possible.

The federal government and state government are separate sovereigns. Because of that its possible (based on certain criteria) to be charged at both levels of government. I have seen this occur in tax evasion cases.


Don't get me wrong, I agree with what you are saying. I am pointing out some of the legalities involved that creates grey areas.

The US Constitution does not grant rights to the citizens. It places restrictions on the Federal Government. The 2nd amendment does not allow a person to own a firearm. It prevents the federal government from taking those firearms.

I think what we are seeing now is the Federal verse State issue coming to a head. Even the states are growing fed up with federal overreach. Our legal system is messy and is not intended to be efficient. Its designed to ensure justice is in fact justice, which is why the burden is placed on the government to prove their cases.

The 2nd amendment arguments we have seen is in fact working as intended. The government (state / federal) are trying to ague why / how the 2nd amendment should be applied. They are arguing that certain weapons should fall outside the scope of the 2nd amendment.

As annoying as it is, I take comfort knowing the government is fighting this in a legal setting rather than the methods the Crown used over 200 years ago.

a reply to: sputniksteve

My bad.. I took your post as non tongue in cheek.

I also agree with your position in your latest post. I tend to view those situations as while death is a nasty outcome, the 2 people who decided to break the law like they did sealed their fate.

Since both individuals have prior convictions neither one could lawfully be in possession of a firearm. once again demonstrating laws on the book regarding weapon possession only apply to those who obey the law.

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.

The best thing about a Bacon diet is how easy it is to lose weight whenever you want. All it requires is the purchase of a bacon slicer.

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.

Missouri has a law people refer to as "The Castle Doctrine". If a person breaks into your residence / tries to car jack you they automatically meet all requirements for the use of deadly force.

As always laws will vary from state to state so do your due diligence and review the laws in your neck of the woods. When in doubt, ask questions / contact your local police / prosecutor / lawyer.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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.

The best thing about a Bacon diet is how easy it is to lose weight whenever you want. All it requires is the purchase of a bacon slicer.

I'm not really sure bacon has a downside. I know some physicians don't like it, but it think they might just want more for themselves. That could possibly be an up and coming conspiracy theory. Tell everyone how fattening and unhealthy it is, then go scoop it all up for yourself.

I'm not falling for that banana in the tailpipe trick... Uh-uh. I see their game.

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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.

The best thing about a Bacon diet is how easy it is to lose weight whenever you want. All it requires is the purchase of a bacon slicer.

I'm not really sure bacon has a downside. I know some physicians don't like it, but it think they might just want more for themselves. That could possibly be an up and coming conspiracy theory. Tell everyone how fattening and unhealthy it is, then go scoop it all up for yourself.

I'm not falling for that banana in the tailpipe trick... Uh-uh.

I see their game.

It's very well known physicians have total control of the industrial production of Sus scrofa domesticus. Maintaining the highest of prices and inventory levels through the persistent threat of Cardiac ischemia. Although a nonexistent disease, it is promoted by liberal democrats as a danger to garner additional tax money and maintain the flow of smoked bacon to those that can afford the very best. The 1% if you will, the Baconators, the political and cinematography leaders of America.

Oddly enough TPTB (Tasty Perfection Through Bacon) in conjunction with the trilateral commission, CFR, and the Baconator Group all meet secretly to control flow of pork worldwide. They have yet to break into the Islamic countries of the world, hence the ongoing wars in those countries. With GPS locators and billions in bacon scented cash, they have yet to gain any successful penetration into the Muslim markets of the middle east.

There has been a staggering amount of concern over bacon flavored chemtrails dispersed at altitude over these and other countries, a hidden program by military officials to entice the use of bacon by camel riding haji's. As most now know Sgt. Bergdhal wasn't a deserter he was a 32nd degreed Baconator on a secret mission to deliver Burka's with hidden compartments to smuggle bacon. His captures tortured him through a five year bacon deprivation plan while making him count bacon scented government money.

Now that I have made this public to the members of ATS they need to know you and your husband are the elites and practice bacon fasting rituals promoting a covert tasting society in secret mansions throughout your country. We are on to you now.

I don't want to think how this would have went had this husband and wife not been gun owners. Good for them, they took their power back instead of being victims.

Holy sheetrock! All I can say is- It's a good thing he had his guns, and was a skilled marksmen... otherwise I can't even begin to imagine what would have no doubt taken place. His wife arming herself and firing a shot should also not be underestimated.

Even though she missed, just the visible presence of two armed individuals could have distracted the bad guys just enough for the husband to do his handiwork... she could've saved one or both or all of their lives with simply her presence rather than running for help or hiding, while the husband faces the attackers.

I like the teamwork. Of course he must've been confident in her skills, otherwise, at least if it was me, he would never let her put herself in danger needlessly. I guess if i had a gun i would probably want to practice at the range with my lady, if i could get her interested. It seems that having 2 skilled at marksmanship is twice as good as just 1, which is usually just the guy. But defending your home and family is not just a "man's thing". Throughout history women have been equally important, in all necessary and desirable aspects of life, including a safe home.

a reply to: buni11687

Go dad!

I bet his family feels safer than ever now.

a reply to: 3n19m470


To be honest the fact she missed supports the concept that if you are going to own a firearm a person must consider the ramifications of using one.

In the academy as well as our qualifications its constantly reinforced that every "miss" has the potential to kill a bystander. Certainly something people must take into account.

a reply to: MianeyeAnd the majority of those are gang and drug related murders with illegal weapons...

The lives saved by guns far, far outnumber those that are killed by guns on a daily basis...