Heroic’ mom, 85, kills masked intruder in gunfight

#2
#2
holy crap. 10 hours alive after being shot 4 times without medical care?

thats badass for a member of special forces, yet alone an 85 year old woman.

if the Democrats had their way there would have been two victims and the criminal would have gotten away.
 
#6
#6
I will not rejoice in a life being lost but this guy brought harm upon himself when he threatened others with it in their own home. Especially a mother who has obviously dedicated her life to taking care of a disabled son. That can't be easy.

She's obviously one tough cookie. To take shots to the abdomen and chest and survive 10 hours is testament enough to her toughness.
 
#7
#7
#8
#8
‘Heroic’ mom, 85, kills masked intruder in gunfight protecting disabled son while handcuffed to chair and shot 4 times

She is fortunate to be alive.
The predator underestimated this woman’s ability to protect her son and herself.
“Absent a clear attempt by Condon to retreat from the residence or surrender, which based on the evidence clearly did not occur,” Jolley wrote.

In the state of Idaho you can break into someone’s home, restrain them at gun point, ultimately “surrender” - and be safe?
 
#9
#9
@turbovol & @evillawyer want to know why this 85 year old lady hasn’t been brought up on murder charges yet.
Clearly wasn't a case of self defense according to their Kyle Rittenhouse logic.

wasn't even 3 vs 1, was only 1 vs 1, so life clearly wasn't in danger.
guy didn't even hit her before she shot him, unlike Rittenhouse.
pointing a gun at someone isn't enough to count towards self defense according to anti-Rittenhouse logic.
She didn't run several blocks away before shooting, so she was clearly the aggressor.

seems like a pretty open and shut case according to the anti-gun logic.
 
#10
#10
“Absent a clear attempt by Condon to retreat from the residence or surrender, which based on the evidence clearly did not occur,” Jolley wrote.

In the state of Idaho you can break into someone’s home, restrain them at gun point, ultimately “surrender” - and be safe?
If he surrenders and no longer poses a threat, why not? But as long as there's a threat to life or limb, fire away.
 
#12
#12
Clearly wasn't a case of self defense according to their Kyle Rittenhouse logic.

wasn't even 3 vs 1, was only 1 vs 1, so life clearly wasn't in danger.
guy didn't even hit her before she shot him, unlike Rittenhouse.
pointing a gun at someone isn't enough to count towards self defense according to anti-Rittenhouse logic.
She didn't run several blocks away before shooting, so she was clearly the aggressor.

seems like a pretty open and shut case according to the anti-gun logic.
I think he did hit her beforehand, but the rest of your point remains.
 
#14
#14
“Absent a clear attempt by Condon to retreat from the residence or surrender, which based on the evidence clearly did not occur,” Jolley wrote.

In the state of Idaho you can break into someone’s home, restrain them at gun point, ultimately “surrender” - and be safe?
Depends on who's telling the story
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#15
#15
If he surrenders and no longer poses a threat, why not? But as long as there's a threat to life or limb, fire away.
Ehhh, I don’t know who else might be a violent intruder in my house at that point. Is his buddy about to come around the corner from the kitchen?

I’m not accepting any “surrenders” at that point.

You’re an illegal intruder in my house, at night, armed with a weapon.
I don’t care what you say or claim - I’m putting rounds on you, center mass, until I’m sure you are no longer a threat.
 
#16
#16
Ehhh, I don’t know who else might be a violent intruder in my house at that point. Is his buddy about to come around the corner from the kitchen?

I’m not accepting any “surrenders” at that point.

You’re an illegal intruder in my house, at night, armed with a weapon.
I don’t care what you say or claim - I’m putting rounds on you, center mass, until I’m sure you are no longer a threat.
Anything other than that approach is putting yourself (and possibly your family if applicable) at risk. There is no rational argument that the safety concerns for the perpetrator(s) of an armed home invasion are even equal to, nevermind supersede, the occupants of the residence.
 
#17
#17
Anything other than that approach is putting yourself (and possibly your family if applicable) at risk. There is no rational argument that the safety concerns for the perpetrator(s) of an armed home invasion are even equal to, nevermind supersede, the occupants of the residence.
Yea, if you want to “surrender” after executing an armed intrusion into my home - I suggest you make a mad dash for the window, and jump through it to the safety of the yard, where I cannot engage you.
 
#18
#18
Ehhh, I don’t know who else might be a violent intruder in my house at that point. Is his buddy about to come around the corner from the kitchen?

I’m not accepting any “surrenders” at that point.

You’re an illegal intruder in my house, at night, armed with a weapon.
I don’t care what you say or claim - I’m putting rounds on you, center mass, until I’m sure you are no longer a threat.

This ^

If you enter my home uninvited and illegally, you are going to be considered a threat until I and I alone deem you to no longer be one. If that involves a full clip to the torso then so be it.
 

VN Store



Back
Top