Earl Jones, a 92-year-old farmer from Verona, Kentucky, shot and killed Lloyd "Adam" Maxwell, 24, after Maxwell broke into his home about 2 a.m. 9/3/12. Jones was armed with a .22 caliber rifle and fired one shot that hit Maxwell in the chest.Text from Cincinnati.com, which has a more detailed video interview which I was not able to embed. Commentary about the man and discussion of "castle defense" in the Reddit thread.
07 September 2012
A 92-year-old man defends his castle
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A heart-warming story.
ReplyDeleteIn the name of every woman I love, the able elderly and able disabled, who make up far too large a percentage of crime victims everywhere--because criminals prey on those they know are the least likely to fight--I applaud this man, the castle law and, goodness-I-didn't-think-I'd-be-THIS-grateful-for-it, the 2nd Amendment. The more you stand up to criminals, the more they move along or reconsider their plans. Simple fact of life.--A.
ReplyDeleteOnly in the good ol' USA could shooting someone in the chest be described as "heartwarming," and making sure that no one dies because they can't personally afford a life saving operation... a "Socialist abomination."
ReplyDeleteI'm not gonna shed many a tear for someone who breaks into a 92 yr old's house in the dead of night- even though the mere sight of the rifle might of sent him fleeing. I'm not privy to the facts. He played with fire and got the ultimate burn; end of his life, end of story.
Meanwhile, all the gun nuts who want to strut their piece out in public proclaiming that we would all be safer and that they could have personally and single handedly prevented the Colorado movie theater shooting need only remember the even more recent shooting in NY where trained, professional NYC policemen shot up ten innocent civilians trying to be the very same heroes these delusional gun nuts imagine themselves to be.
And they will still continue to argue that same, tired and now thoroughly disproven nonsense even with such blatant, real life evidence proving their "logic" every bit as off as those policemen's aim...
Man bit a dog. Film at 11. Continuing to feed the hero fantasy that since this happened to this one guy, why, it could happen to ME! So I need a gun in my house, thus exposing all in it to a much greater risk of accidental discharge. To say nothing of the guns already stolen from this guy already out there doing who-knows-what damage.
ReplyDeleteYou want to be a hero? Learn where the defibrillator and epipens are located in your workplace and when and how to use them. You are much more likely to save a life that way then by toting a gun around.
relevant: Hear that chirping in the background? You could also make sure that the batteries in the smoke detectors of every geriatric you know are replaced twice a year. Also probably more likely to save a life that way than by toting a gun around.
So I'm catching up on my tywkiwdbi, this also seems relevant:
Delete"The fact of being reported multiplies the apparent extent of any deplorable development by five- to tenfold"
The "trained professional" police in New York were neither. As far as the shooting at the theater, a well placed shot by a patron may have prevented some deaths. MOST people are good, and can handle a firearm. Americans are not the incapable idiots the Government and media makes us out to be.
ReplyDeleteTell this dead victim
Deleteonline.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443819404577637910242101578.html
3:13 Anonymous- thank you, for proving my point... to the very letter.
DeleteLike I said the "trained professional" police in New York were neither (trained nor professional) and in my opinion, should never wear a badge again.
DeleteReply to Anonymous September 9, 2012 3:13 AM,
DeleteExactly true. No human, trained for their profession or trained for a possible circumstance, can predict and therefore react perfectly to every possibility. We're very trainable, however, which is the much larger and pertinent lesson here. If we stand around acting like we couldn't possibly handle a firearm with enough expertise to prevent every accident, making sure only the intended target is hit during a sudden, random act of violence, well then we defeat ourselves for the convenience of the criminally inclined, and they thank you. (Stan B., your attitude pleases the criminal community very much, and it encourages those who want the easily oppressed to line up dutifully, so your name is on the list of who to round up first.)
We can either train ourselves to be willing victims, emboldening the evil, or we can train ourselves to be formidable opponents not to be trifled with, at least, not without a fight.
Your mother is alone in the house. An unarmed man breaks in with plans to hurt her. She can either pick up the gun and *risk* all kinds of cruel turns of events, or she can not pick it up and *guarantee* at a minimum at least one.
I'd prefer my mother take her chances with a gun in her hands.
--A.
I've already previously expressed on this site my belief that we all have the right to defend ourselves whenever and wherever- and yes, even with a firearm (in the confines of our own home).
DeleteWhat I strongly protest is the outright arrogance, and ignorance, that only the gun owner speaking (usually someone hiding in anonymity) is trained above all others, his aim superior to all others, his nerve hardened and disciplined beyond all others...
As they say in the perfume commercials- live the fantasy!