A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer.
Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.
On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home.
As one of the men was going from door to door outside her home trying to gain entry, McKinley called 911 and grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun.
McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911.
"I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. "I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?"
The 911 dispatcher confirmed with McKinley that the doors to her home were locked as she asked again if it was okay to shoot the intruder if he were to come through her door.
"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.
When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.
"You're allowed to shoot an unauthorized person that is in your home. The law provides you the remedy, and sanctions the use of deadly force," Det. Dan Huff of the Blanchard police said.
Stewart soon turned himself in to police.
McKinley said that she was at home alone with her newborn that night because her husband just died of cancer on Christmas Day.
"I wouldn't have done it, but it was my son," McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO. "It's not an easy decision to make, but it was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn't going to be my son. There's nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child."
Source
A great story. Good job to this woman! Glad her child is safe.
It is terrible as hell all the loss she has suffered and that some fucks would try to use that to get at her when she was down. That said I'm just glad she and her child are not YET ANOTHER statistic on the violence against women wall of shame.
And yeah--"great!" I take particular pleasure in seeing the "little (person" come out on top.
Thank you very much.
BUT, like I said, I can't help but feel really good when I see the "underdog" stand up to bullies and come out on top. I can't help that. That's all it was.
Where is that even from jw
you really need to brush up on your Communications class, i'll bet your teacher would be so disappointed!
I hope this makes sense--many of us don't see this as 'great' as much as 'fucking terrifying ohgodohgodohgod.'
So on their behalf, FUCK YOU. Study history before you open your mouth, you ignorant prick. If it fucking counts for anything, I did my undergrad dissertation on the spread of power in totalitarian dictatorships, focusing on North Korea. This is the subject area I am preparing to study for the rest of my life. So if you want to challenge me on this, bring it.
Also, yes, it is awful that those acts of genocide were committed, and awful how many people abandoned them to their fates. Compare and contrast that example, however, to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Gh
I have studied history. I still study history. I'm glad you are devoting your life to doing so. But the fact remains, and the American Founding Fathers understood this and tried to teach their descendants this, that having equal weapons to the class in power available to the people with a simplistic enough design to be readily utilized by them was indispensable to remaining free and holding the government in check from becoming totalitarian as well as providing a domestic bulwark against invasion. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.htm
Looking at the sources that you provided, I see that in the entry on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, it is prominently written that "Just a few rifles and automatic firearms smuggled into the Ghetto were available. The insurgents had little ammunition, and relied heavily on improvised explosive devices and incendiary bottles." This is the opposite of readily available firearms. People are well known for creating improvised weapons, but gun availability on the street to the individual will not allow them to do much other than suicide by cop. This pattern of improvised arms holds true for partisan forces in France during WWII and in Spain before Franco's regime. Even the Bielski Partisan group that you cite were only able to remain active from 1942 to 1944. They were scattered by the NKVD, and the remaining brothers could only flee to the West to escape, a tactic I mentioned above.
If you want to make a serious argument that freely available arms among the citizenry are necessary to prevent totalitarianism, please cite an academic paper. Your "guncite" link consists only of the personal beliefs of early Americans, and this does not constitute any sort of historical argument. Besides, the people quoted are not talking about totalitarianism as it exists today, since they predate the regimes that we are discussing.
In conclusion, things are not as simplistic as "guns help me shoot bad guys, I prevent tyranny." (Not quoting you, just stating the logic of your position.) Life is not "V For Vendetta." You are trying to use the logical fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc," or "because I did X thing before even Y, X must have caused Y." Except... that doesn't work either, because the articles you cite don't even factually support your position.
In honor of my grandfather's memory,
Regarding Nazi gun control.
The Night of the Broken Glass took place in November 1938. It was preceded by the confiscation of firearms from the Jewish victims. On Nov. 8, The New York Times reported from Berlin, "Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews," explaining:
"The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been 'disarmed' with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment."1
On the evening of Nov. 9, Adolph Hitler, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels and other Nazi chiefs planned the attack. Orders went out to Nazi security forces: "All Jewish stores are to be destroyed immediately. Jewish synagogues are to be set on fire . The Führer wishes that the police does not intervene. All Jews are to be disarmed. In the event of resistance they are to be shot immediately."2
All hell broke loose on Nov. 10: "Nazis Smash, Loot and Burn Jewish Shops and Temples," a headline read. "One of the first legal measures issued was an order by Heinrich Himmler, commander of all German police, forbidding Jews to possess any weapons whatever and imposing a penalty of twenty years confinement in a concentration camp upon every Jew found in possession of a weapon hereafter."3 Thousands of Jews were taken away.
Searches of Jewish homes were calculated to seize firearms and assets and to arrest adult males. The American Consulate in Stuttgart was flooded with Jews begging for visas: "Men in whose homes old, rusty revolvers had been found during the last few days cried aloud that they did not dare ever again return to their places of residence or business. In fact, it was a mass of seething, panic-stricken humanity."4
1. The New York Times, Nov. 9, 1938, 24.
2. Gerald Schawb, The Day the Holocaust Began (New York: Praeger, 1990), 22.
3. The New York Times, Nov. 11, 1938, 1, 4.
4. The Holocaust, Vol. 3, The Crystal Night Pogrom, John Mendelsohn, ed. (New York: Garland, 1982), 183-84.
Finally, while I essentially agree with your analysis that making a group into a homo sacer can make it difficult to survive at all because of the surrounding citizens becoming informants and spies and thus precipitate fleeing the country, you have to realize that those two examples I gave, as well as a few smaller skirmishes such as one in Sobibor ghetto, i.e. Jews resisting Nazi tyranny and submitting even to death is that the rebels in the former case were able to acquire some measure of weaponry as well as make their own and obtain supplies. Warsaw was an Alamo from the start--they didn't appear to expect to survive. The Pielski's were quite craft and made it by surviving in the woods for years while conducting guerilla assaults against the Germans with stolen or inherited hidden weapons.
Now, historically, do you not think that if there had been more firearms available to the Jews at that time, in other words has not been obediently registered and then later confiscated, that armed resistance like those cases might not have been more common? That was my theory.
Also, why the fuck are you putting undergrad in scare quotes? Do you think