Shooting through closed doors pays off...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Folks only feel bad about shooting scum when they are trained to fell bad about it.

Good shoot and the kid ought to get a prize.

Anyone who warped him to the point of needing counseling needs teh everloving stuffing kicked out of them.

Sam
 
Last edited by a moderator:
well said, he shoud feel proud that he saved not only his own life, but that of his mothers as well

and perhaps saved others from being hurt later by that scum
 
but the cigar money would best be spent on counseling

Cigars money should never be spent on anything but cigars!:D
He should smoke the cigar while he is being counseled(that way he is not too bored):neener:
 
I think if I were the kid that shot him I would probably feel guilty about not feeling guilty that I shot the perp when everyone told me I was supposed to feel guilty.
 
otherguy overby said:
OIC, the "social contract" has nothing to do with self defense. This youngin' should have first considered this before shooting someone who was a deadly threat to his mother and himself...

Pardon me while I

What the heck are you talking about now? Is this some kind of sarcasm? Did you think I somehow said something about how he shouldn't have shot the guy? Because I didn't say anything like that at all, if you're mistaken about that. I don't know where you'd get that impression. Does anyone else out there understand what this guy is trying to say? Has your refridgerator box been emitting freon?
 
"There, but for the grace of God, go I..."



That is not a PC response. That is a PROOF.... For instance, if any of you were ME, then you would be ME. Q E D

There is no debate, so for that reason, I think that people should not act cavalier about shooting someone or otherwise killing them in anyway.

"...For my homies...."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I dont understand why anybody would feel bad about killing said criminal.

I feel bad for the kid who was put into a position by some a-hole where he had to defend himself. Like other have said, it doesn't matter if what you've done was right, when it involves harm lots of people just feel guilty. I hope he does well.
 
Agreeing with the above post (the one by Jason M.)...

You have the FREEDOM to bust into someone's house and break laws. You do not have the RIGHT to come away unscathed.

You have the RIGHT to shoot someone, but not without consequences... Repeat that. You do not have the RIGHT to a trouble free, productive life. You have the RIGHT to exist, but not without consquences...

Now extrapolate that out....
 
All the people who are happy about some kid killing someone probably have never killed anyone before

No, we're just happy not to be reading about yet another woman and child found brutally sliced up by persons unknown. Some killings are justified but leave you with a question mark. But this one? That thing the boy killed was no more than a crazed animal. He shouldn't lose a moment's sleep over it.

As the man tried to break into the room where the two were and threatened to kill them both,

I mean--come on. This isn't some teen trying half-heartedly to rob a motel when you put six slugs in his gut and chest. This is a stone cold ANIMAL. Not worth anything. Not worth salt. Not worth salvation. In more civilized times the locals would hack such animals up and leave their body parts on display as a message--this line you DO NOT cross. And tying up a mother and boy, then coming in to slaughter them? That's WAY over the line. It doesn't even qualify as honest crime, like robbing a bank.

It's the old, old notion of a good killing. There are folks need to be stopped with deadly force, and sometimes they die. Maybe they would have done better in life, maybe not. It's too bad, and I know it messes people up. I've known folks who've had to take that step and I don't envy them. But then there are folks who need to be KILLED. This fellow was one of them. No tears should be shed for such a thing, and in this case (thankfully) no time will be served for it either.
 
mbt2001 said: I think that people should not act cavalier about shooting someone or otherwise killing them in anyway

The man forced his way in, tied up the boy and his mother, then, after they loosed their bonds, the boy shot and killed that intruder. Yes, both he and his mother are going to have to take some time to come to grips with what happened.


Victims of burglaries generally attest to some feeling of being violated in their home. Survivors of tragedies express guilt over living thru the event when those they love died. Its human emotion.


I wish I were as bad as the rest of you. Personally, if that happened to my family, I'd have trouble sleeping in my house that night.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This boy became a M A N when he took the safety of his family upon himself, the way men do.
Becoming a man involves much more than assuming the role of protector of one's family. Some males become men and some never do. Any man I have ever known and respected, however, would agree that taking a life does not result in the killer becoming a man. A male becomes a man when other men recognize him as such. It requires quite a bit more than killing an attacker.

The big bright colorful letters are unnecessary.
The chest beating here is humorous.
The ad hominem attacks are contrary to THR.

This thread has a lot of potential. Lets keep it open.

Several posts have been edited for language so my eleven year old daughter can read this thread. Thank you for your understanding.
 
I said taking responsibility for the safety of one's family does
There are many persons who take responsibility for the safety of their families, that most men would not consider to be men.

The majority of these "non-men" people are women. If you want to toss aside the gender differences, there are many social misfits i.e. gangster/criminal types who take care of their family's safety. I personally know quite a few criminal gangster types who still care for their elder family members, often passionately and tenderly. Are they men? I would say not. I consider a man to be more than a protector. Protection of one's family is part of the role, but manhood consists of more.

Do you define family only as a group formed by a man and a woman sanctified by God? If not, do you consider the Crips who protect their families to be men? Does Charlie Manson fit your definition of manhood?

I am not saying that taking responsibility for the safety of one's family is not a component of manhood. I am saying that manhood consists of much much more.

Chest thumping and posturing is often ignored by the silverback, who recognizes it for what it is. The silverback watches for strategic manuvering.

I enjoyed the colors, but they tended to over ride the points that were being made.
 
Wow!

A head shot through a closed door!
The young man is an astoundingly good marksman!!!

No wonder so many here are upset, they're jealous.:neener:
 
Well, if this experience didn't make that boy into a man, I know what it did turn him into.

A damn hero. And he deserves all our respect and prayers.
 
All the people who are happy about some kid killing someone probably have never killed anyone before

I'm much happier reading this than I would be reading about how some poor kid and his mother were killed by a scumbag.

So yes, I'm quite happy about the kid killing the guy THAT WAS ABOUT TO KILL HIM

Sheesh, some of you........
 
Humans are generally wired to feel remorse upon killing another. It's not so much a matter of social programming, "he deserved it", justification, etc., it's that the brain just does certain things in response to certain events. Some people don't feel such remorse for various reasons, but most do.

It's normal. They won't "just get over it". It's how their brains are wired. Yours probably is too, you just haven't been in the situation to find out.

Go read On Killing for more details.

On a related note:
I've been making a point of observing my own natural reactions to "outer limits" events. We have a standard mindset for most normal circumstances, but some of those extreme human events (abnormal events, or uncommon normal events) can induce emotional reactions sharply at odds with higher cognitive reasoning and training. We can rationalize what should happen, but the brain doesn't react that way with extreme circumstances.
 
I gotta meet this guy and give him a pat on the back. Too bad most kids his (and my) age wouldn't do that. All that crap they're feeding 'em in the schools. :cuss:
 
Go read On Killing for more details

Read this first:

http://www.warchronicle.com/us/combat_historians_wwii/marshallfire.htm

Man I get tired of this bunk. SLA's methodology was hopeless, and his findings totally failed to distinguish between those soldiers who hold fire for SOUND TACTICAL REASONS (no target clear, uncertainty about target, decision to avoid giving position away, no orders to fire, poor position to fire from, etc. etc. etc.) and those very, very few soldiers who had a kraut lined up and simply couldn't pull the trigger. Out of all the soldiers on the front line of hot combat, only a very small number are ever going to see Mr. Kraut walk out in the street and wave a banner, waiting to be shot. And to claim that most men can't fire when faced with that situation is absurd nonsense. Of course, that hasn't prevented a lot of con men from making big bucks off of the "science" of "killology" :barf:

Beyond this, the whole notion that people are "wired" to not kill flies in the face of millions of years of human existence. We are the greatest killers on the planet, BAR NONE. I know a mild mannered, deeply religious Korean fellow who without hesitation put six slugs in a kid trying to rob him, not twenty feet from where I sit now. I know of a quiet pastor near where I used to live who shot two men with a .44 Magnum without hesitation, killing both. I know other people who have also taken human life without any special training and they showed no hesitation. That's not to say they're not upset by the whole thing, but when it came to it they TOOK LIFE, and it didn't take some stinking program approved by Grossman to train them to do it.

Look at the Winter War, for example. We know the Finns had very limited artillery supprt and a dire shortage of any kind of heavy weapons. So you can't come in with the usual nonsense about how all the actual killing is done with high explosives. They had simple shoulder arms and used them to slaughter far more than their number of Red Army troops. The reason had nothing to do with the lethality of Finns. Most of them were simple farmers with no special efforts made to turn them into "killing machines." But that's exactly what they became, because the need arose. It was one of the rare cases by that point where the enemy still used mass, disorganized charges to try to take positions. So the SA men had good targets, and they took their shots carefully.

For the love of Pete, people, look how many everyday Americans with NO TRAINING AT ALL who slaughter their fellow man evey year, year in and year out. Tens of thousands every year. When you remove the basic framework of civilization even a little bit and add a depression or famine, these numbers can and usuallly do skyrocket.

The fact that the bright bulbs in the five sided building decided that recruits needed to be engrained with the "killer instinct" proves nothing more than SLA's good salesmanship. I often wonder if this manic, wild-eyed training doesn't just make the volunteers jumpy and prone to waste too much ammo.

And here we have a little kid who takes a man's life to defend his mother. Again with no special training and no effort to make him a killing machine. SLA was full of it.

And to top off my rant, consider this. The notion that only those who have been trained to kill can reliably kill feeds directly into the anti arguments that's any meek "sheep" civilian who has a sidearm is just going to have it taken from them by the "wolves," because the civilian will not have the "killer instinct" and will never be able to pull the trigger. It's bunk, people. And WE DISPROVE IT.
 
Well, I've never killed a human being and I hope I never have to. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that it is a traumatic thing, even if the killing is entirely justified.

OTOH, I put in my time on the ambulance and I saw a lot of not entirely pleasant stuff. I've finished calls and gone around behind the station to cry for a while. Kid calls, domestic abuse calls, the elderly man who'd spent half an hour trapped in the wreckage of his car with his decapitated wife of 53 years next to him. I'm human, and I've hurt for other's suffering.

But I've also had my share of "gangstas" and other such folks in my ambulance, and while I did my job, I'm boozy enough at the moment to admit that I couldn't have cared less when they died while looking into my face.

This world is better off when certain people die. I hope the kid in this story can believe that.
 
Cosmo, you missed the point.

Nobody's arguing that the shot shouldn't have been taken, nor did Ctdonath urge pacifism - the topic of your last rant. I have no problem plugging somebody intent on killing me. It's the aftermath that may cause problems with a person's psyche.

Discussion of that is now elsewhere, you know where to find it. ;)
 
I often wonder if this manic, wild-eyed training doesn't just make the volunteers jumpy and prone to waste too much ammo.
Cosmoline, what in the world are you talking about? I know you were on a rant and understand (about rants), I think you and good 'ol SLA are on opposite sides and the truth is in the middle. I can tell you for a fact, current US Army training bears no resemblance whatsoever to that statement. If soldiers miss it's because they aren't applying the fundamentals of marksmanship, not because they were trained in some crazy fashion.

Realistic training is a good prescription (not cure) for PTSD. It lets the soldiers know what to expect and mentally prepare for it. Sure, people can kill if they have to. The person who thinks long and hard about it. Trains for it, knows what it will look and sound like, knows what wounds look like, will have much less stress when they have to do it than someone who hasn't thought much about it at all. It's like anything unknown, a thorough briefing on exactly what to expect beforehand is a big help.

As far as tens of thousands of Americans getting murdered, well that's done by a distinct minority of the population. Yes, there are lots of reasons not to fire in combat, including the ones Marshall and Grossman talk about as well as the ones you mention.

Like .38 special said, he's seen plenty of death. He knows what to expect, what it looks like. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he had little or no emotional trauma at all after a just shooting. He knows (not just intellectually) exactly what the consequences are before he pulls that trigger. I've never watched anyone die...it would probably affect me more.
 
Update

Police: Intruder was in prison several times
Man had committed other burglaries and violated his parole

By mary ann cavazos Caller-Times
October 11, 2006


A 57-year-old man who was shot and killed by his 14-year-old hostage Monday at a home on Ocean Drive had been released from jail Friday and had committed several other burglaries, including a similar home invasion, according to police and court records.

Capt. John Houston said the man, who police identified through fingerprinting Tuesday as James Slaughter, had been involved in criminal activities since 1967 and was in and out of the prison system on several occasions.

"His (method of operation) was to break into homes. If someone was there, he'd tie them up," Houston said.

Police said they received a call from Rose Ann Kozlowski from her home in the 4200 block of Ocean Drive at 12:55 p.m. Monday reporting that a man had bound her and her son Michael and held them at knifepoint.

Houston said Rose Ann Kozlowski made the call after she freed herself and before Slaughter was shot but investigators were still trying to piece together a detailed timeline of the events late Tuesday.

An attorney for the Kozlowski family said he is certain Michael, a ninth-grade student at Incarnate Word Academy, acted purely out of self-defense.

"The truth is it was absolutely justified," said attorney Jimmy Granberry. "They'd all like to get back to the life they had, but they probably won't be able to."

The Kozlowskis referred all questions to Granberry.

"This is such a rare thing to happen. It's everybody's worst nightmare, but they're tough people. I think they're going to be OK," Granberry said.

Sister Anna Marie Espinosa, president of Incarnate Word Academy, said Michael has been a student there since elementary school and she expected him to be out for several more days.

"He's anxious to get back to school," Granberry said, adding the teen is also an avid soccer player.

According to police reports, Rose Ann Kozlowski had picked up Michael from school after he became ill and the two returned home. She then took a short trip to the grocery store and, upon her return home, was confronted by Slaughter, who threatened to kill her. He had a folding knife with a 4- to 5-inch locking blade.

Slaughter led the two to the upstairs master bedroom, where he bound their arms with men's neckties from the closet and ransacked the house for jewelry and other valuables, putting those items in the family's SUV.

She freed herself once, but Slaughter bound her arms again with more ties.

After freeing herself a second time and untying her teenage son, she took her husband's six-shot revolver from a security box under the bed, handed it to her son and locked the double doors to the bedroom.

Houston said that Slaughter heard the two moving around and tried to force his way back into the bedroom.

"He would slip the knife through the door and push it open a few inches to a foot," Houston said.

Michael aimed the pistol at the space between the partially open doors and fired one shot as Slaughter was trying to force his way in.

When officers arrived, they found Slaughter with a gunshot wound to the face.

Investigators said they also are looking for possible accomplices because neighbors reported seeing a suspicious 1970s green, four-door Lincoln Continental or Mercury Marquis about an hour and a half before the burglary drive slowly past several homes.

Slaughter, who lived in several Texas cities, was sentenced to 45 years in prison in 1984 for a break-in at a home in Taft the previous year. He tied up the couple and then fled the scene in their vehicle, which he packed with clothing and valuables. Earlier that day, Slaughter had also stolen a Corpus Christi woman's purse and vehicle.

San Patricio Sheriff Leroy Moody said Slaughter led deputies on a brief chase that ended when they rammed the stolen vehicle.

Slaughter was arrested after Moody and another deputy were forced to shoot him twice when he raised a rifle and pointed it at them.

He was paroled in 2000. Authorities said he was arrested again in June for violating his parole and transferred back to a Travis County jail.

Despite his feeling Slaughter never should have been paroled, Moody said ultimately the system was not to blame.

"He chose the lifestyle he lived. It's all about choices," Moody said.

Local residents at the nearby H-E-B on Alameda Street and Robert Drive commended the teenager for his actions.

"I would have done the same thing. I'm glad (Slaughter) won't be able to do it again," said Tanya Brandon, the mother of a 6-year-old girl. "He was protecting his family."

Yvette Contreras, who lives on Grossman Drive, said the recent burglary has made her reconsider keeping a gun in her home.

"They probably would have been killed if he hadn't shot him," Contreras said. "Nowadays, it seems like it's happening everywhere."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top