Man Kills Two Teens Robbers

[Elim Garak]

No, my statement was that the lungs don't take up 100% of the space (that they are not the only thing in the chest is another way I phrased it) so a shot to the chest isn't going to necessarily hit a lung or even necessarily a vital organ.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course lungs do not take 100% of the chest. making that an argument is well SILLY. You are either playing semantics now or backpedaling.
Lungs take the majority of space in the chest. then goes heart. there's little space left. But lungs do not take 100% of it no no no. they take like 66% and heart takes 33% and 1 percent is spread out in space between them. Go hit it soldier.

[Deleted]

Thread got boring in the last few pages.

/thread

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

look up a pic. Think.

I did, you still don't get it. Those are the vital organs. There's quite a lot of space between the abdomen and the neck (excluding the arms of course) that don't have vital organs.

Shot TO a chest is highly probable to hit lungs. It requires surgery ASAP or death.

Highly probably isn't the same as guaranteed.

Hahaha. You mean a soldier takes a bullet to the chest at point blank range - and lives to tell the tale?
Or maybe you are trying to make it look like it - while in reality it was a bullet that hit a soldier at very funny angle from some distance and though the entry point was in the chest - thanks to the angle of entry it gone into guts?

No, I'm talking about the people who were hit in the chest but had only minor wounds to their organs thanks to things like their ribs and luck.

[Elim Garak]

I did, you still don't get it. Those are the vital organs. There's quite a lot of space between the abdomen and the neck (excluding the arms of course) that don't have vital organs.

dude, though I said "pic" I thought you'd be reasonable enough to look up a photo or somewhat real pic.
like with x-ray for instance

black = lungs.
They end right where boobs end and abdomen STARTS.

Highly probably isn't the same as guaranteed.

If shot once. But he shot her multiple times in the chest. It is GUARANTEED.

No, I'm talking about the people who were hit in the chest but had only minor wounds to their organs thanks to things like their ribs and luck.

So a bullet entered at funny angle case? Dismissed.
Bullet was shot from afar and lost energy? Dismissed.

Do you know ANYONE who survived a point-blank .22 gunshot wound to the chest 16 miles away from civilization?
If you do - next question: do you know anyone who survived TWO gunshots at once?

---------- Post added 2012-11-29 at 03:19 AM ----------

I like that last one. "While surviving numerous gunshots could be a miraculous feat, doctors who have treated gunshot victims say that being shot is not automatically a death sentence."

Oh please, we all know that gun shot wounds in your arm are not that fatal.

[Strah]

I do think it is wrong.

But i do not pity them at all, they brought it onto themselves.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

If shot once. But he shot her multiple times in the chest. It is GUARANTEED.

Let me get back to you when I flip heads 10 times in a row.

Ignoring everything else because it doesn't add anything new.

[poser765]

Which is where it being unreasonable comes in. You don't get to shoot somebody out of unreasonable fear.

Also, I might buy that explanation a little bit if he hadn't implied he shot her in the head because she laughed at him.

This. As I said several pages ago, saying I feel threatened is not the end all be all justification for everything.

[Kasierith]

Oh please, we all know that gun shot wounds in your arm are not that fatal.

Pointless strawman.

"While Mr. Guzman survived at least 13 shots, Mr. Bell was struck only four times, and two of those shots were fatal. A bullet was found lodged near Mr. Guzman’s left kidney, and he had wounds on the left side of his chest and on his right cheek, among other places, according to testimony at the detectives’ trial on Wednesday from Dr. Albert Cooper, the surgeon at Mary Immaculate Hospital who treated Mr. Guzman on the morning of the shooting."

"Two doctors who operated on Mr. Vaughan said his survival was unlike anything they had ever seen. Bullets barely missed several vital organs. Two were less than an inch from his heart.

“How you can get that many bullets in the chest, the groin, the abdomen and extremities and not have a lethal injury is pretty remarkable,” said Dr. Phillip Shadduck, the general surgeon at Durham Regional Hospital who operated on Mr. Vaughan. “He was very fortunate.”

The gun used to shoot Mr. Vaughan was a .22-caliber rifle, a firearm that is much less lethal than, say, the 9-millimeter handguns that detectives in the Bell case used, Dr. DiMaio said."

Perhaps you should read articles before you dismiss them?

[Elim Garak]

Let me get back to you when I flip heads 10 times in a row.

Lol. it's not 50/50 case, dude. Though even your coin can do heads twice in a row.

Look let's take a d10 for instance (10% is even bigger than there's non-vital space inside a chest)

Now you have to do 2d10. Throw one d10 and then the second d10.

What is the probability of 2d10 to be equal 2, i.e. 1 each? (1 == miss vital organs)

Pretty easy to calculate: 0.1*0.1 = 0.01 = 1%

That's two shots. Now he shot her once with a rifle and then several times with a revolver that's 3+.

Now for 3 bullets to miss: 0.1% chance
4 misses: 0.01% chance

Can you really expect that to happen?

Ignoring everything else because it doesn't add anything new.

Nice one. Ignoring anything else cause you can't counter it. Just say the truth or say nothing, like, you know, IGNORE.

[SirRobin]

Which is where it being unreasonable comes in. You don't get to shoot somebody out of unreasonable fear.

Also, I might buy that explanation a little bit if he hadn't implied he shot her in the head because she laughed at him.

Who is to say it was unreasonable? He could not know for certain whether there were more intruders or not. Nor do we know how injured she was at that point. He did not imply that he shot her in the head because she laughed at him. He implied that he shot her in the chest, before he moved her, because she laughed at him.

[Elim Garak]

Pointless strawman.

No strawman. The quote you provided was vague - I pointed it out.

he had wounds on the left side of his chest

Shooter was a lousy shooter the victim happened to be lucky.

Though I do not know the details of shooting. maybe it wasn't even point blank.

"Two doctors who operated on Mr. Vaughan said his survival was unlike anything they had ever seen. Bullets barely missed several vital organs. Two were less than an inch from his heart.

So according to their experience it's one of a kind case. A fluke. Though I do not see any mentions on how bullets got to the heart area if he only had wounds in the left side of his chest.
Bullets that missed the heart and lungs - that got to be right in the center of the body a little below heart in abdomen?

“How you can get that many bullets in the chest, the groin, the abdomen and extremities and not have a lethal injury is pretty remarkable,” said Dr. Phillip Shadduck, the general surgeon at Durham Regional Hospital who operated on Mr. Vaughan. “He was very fortunate.”

yes he was. Proving my point.

Also there's no information on how far from a hospital it happened and how fast ambulance was called.

The gun used to shoot Mr. Vaughan was a .22-caliber rifle, a firearm that is much less lethal than, say, the 9-millimeter handguns that detectives in the Bell case used, Dr. DiMaio said."

Yeah .22 is less lethal than 9mm. And even more less than .50cal. But still lethal.

Perhaps you should read articles before you dismiss them?

I dismissed your argument thru out-of-context quote. Not the article. I assumed you quoted the important thing. I was wrong. You failed that.

[Kasierith]

I dismissed your argument thru out-of-context quote. Not the article. I assumed you quoted the important thing. I was wrong. You failed that.

And away the goal posts go. I countered your argument with specific cases, and you change your tune to make up for the numerous errors in your views.

To reference:

Facts, no assumptions. Remote house - fact. Thanksgiving (less medics on duty) - fact.
Multiple chest (you should know what it is by now) wounds - fact.

No one ever survived that in such a situation - unless there was a surgeon next door.

[Lumocolor]

I could see justification for shooting him again. But his description of events makes it clear that neither of the teenagers were a threat after they had been shot the first time.

That is the whole problem isn't it? The victim went ahead and told the whole story and in doing so incriminated himself. All he had to say was that he heard someone break in, he was scared poopless and kept firing till he felt safe and nobody would have argued with him.

[Chrysia]

Lots of strawmanning going on.

Nobody is arguing that the teenagers were perfect angels. Hell, when I read the Dailymail article, I assumed they would paint the kids in as good a light as possible, and adjusted my expectations of them from there. I figured "ok, B&E, probably after prescription drugs for a kick." Guess I was right, huh?

All of that is irrelevant, however, as the man exercised his right to defense. He did not, however, stop at defense. His line "When your trying to shoot someone, and they laugh at you, you go again" paints him as a disturbed individual with frightening ideas of proper response to situations. The man at best needs help, and at worst needs to spend a few years in jail.

The boys death? Doesn't sound like murder to me. Self defense applies here, and every point in the case of the girl until he fires several shots to her chest, then drags her across his basement before firing again.

I'd even have said that switching to the pistol after the rifle jammed would have been reasonable, if it weren't for his comments and the fact that he fired "several times" according to his own account.

[Elim Garak]

And away the goal posts go. I countered your argument with specific cases, and you change your tune to make up for the numerous errors in your views.

Your anecdotal cases?
1. 7-month old baby - article is very scarce for details. Apparently father missed the chest (anatomical chest) and hit the abdomen (the bigger part of body-chest). It's easy to miss, especially when you are trying to kill your own baby - without malice intent (they had "good" reasons to kill). Also he shot her ONCE.
2. Fireworks? How is it even relevant? What's next? Axe to the brain - living to tell the tale? It happened.
3. Already covered. Plus victim was evading shooter. Hence lucky shots.

To reference:

You missed the MULTIPLE shots to the CHEST part.

[announced]

After reading about how these kids committed several break-ins in the past few weeks. This man deserves a medal for taking out the filth of society. He doesnt deserve a prison sentence at all. Do you know how unstable someone hyped on drugs is? one or 2 shots isn't always enough.. the fact that they were laughing with a gun pointed to them should clearly indicate that. I believe this man was still in shock.. a few days after the incident.. this isn't something you easily forget..

I find the fact that the courts are wasting their time with this case laughable, this is whats wrong with society when people can break into your home, possibly with the intent to murder you, get killed , and you are the one to pay for it.

I think what the man meant was when someone is laughing at you even if you are holding a weapon(they are either A)insane b) not alone c) on drugs.).. perhaps they had friends that were also entering the property.. maybe they had a 4 man team for burglaries? 2 people to draw out the home owner while the other 2 sneak around and slit his throat from behind? or perhaps they were just super high on drugs and didnt notice how badly the situation is going.

About his comments... I dont think he got the legal counsel he deserved because no1 in the right state of mind would say things to convict themselves.. hes obviously in shock, whether you can see that or not.. is up to you.

[Silhouette of Seraphim]

Well, this seems to have just developed into "I'm righter in medical knowledge than you!"

[Nadev]

I don't have any sympathy for people who willfully break into people's homes. None.

That said, the guy is gonna get jail time and rightfully so.

[Chrysia]

I don't have any sympathy for people who willfully break into people's homes. None.

That said, the guy is gonna get jail time and rightfully so.

The parents' pity party is definitely over the top, but not much argument in the thread centered on that.

The man just went too far for me to say "Yup, all that was self defense."

[smelltheglove]

I don't have any sympathy for people who willfully break into people's homes. None.

That said, the guy is gonna get jail time and rightfully so.

agree. if he had one-shot them while they could still conceivably be a threat this wouldnt even be a story imo. it was just the crazy over-the-top shit after he downed them that got the wheels turning - and crossed the line, making him very much prosecutable