Don't mess with Miss America

[wave rider]

Seems that if she could see well enough to shoot out the tires that she could have gotten the lisence plate numbers quite easily...

=wr=

[RAMd®d]

...what ever happened to backing up belief with facts?

I wasn't there, so I don't know all the facts, just those present in the article. Perhaps you have some more direct information wasn't revealed in the news article.

It's probably different in your state, but in CA, the trial test depends heavily on the actions of "a reasonable and prudent man". You might be quick to point out that she's not a man. Stipulated. But the fact that one of them was charged with trespass doesn't mean she didn't have reason to believe they were thieves.


So you're cool with people being armed and with an itchy trigger finger, even though you'd prefer they'd not be driving? Have gun, will travel (anywhere my walker can take me).

What "itchy" trigger finger? She wanted them apprehended, and they were. I'm *totally* cool with that. She deliberately aimed to shoot tires. She was successful in that endeavor. As she apparently needed a walker to get around, I definitely don't want her driving. You're saying that accurately firing a weapon is no different than driving a car?

You make characterizations and gross generalizations based on little information, and cast them as fact. I definitely would not want you on any jury.


Seems that if she could see well enough to shoot out the tires that she could have gotten the lisence plate numbers quite easily...

Please tell me where she was standing in relation to the car, that it seems to you she could have seen the license plate. Did the car have one plate or two? Did it even have plates on it? Where they legible? Were they the plates that belonged to that car? Please clear that up for me.

She wanted them apprehended. It's not difficult to understand that it's much easier to apprehend suspects by taking them into custody at the scene, than to hope the police can track them down later.

I find her actions far less troubling and disappointing than the fact that none of you displayed any objectivity based on the information at hand.

The article was light on facts, to be sure. Most media will fail to be as thorough as a police report. That's no excuse for trading on biases, though that may be for comforting for some than seeking objectivity.

But then, hey-- what's a forum for.

[trisho.]

She's my hero. I would have done the same thing or close to it in her situation and I'm not a very gun happy type person. I'm with Racer X & RAMd@d (shocking, I know!) on this one. At a certain point if she doesn't necessarily do something to defend the farm she would probably still keep getting robbed.

[Jp!]

Here is an interview video of her.

http://cbs4.com/watercooler/local_story_112222213.html

http://www.wltx.com/FYI/story.aspx?storyid=48978

That poor man is barely 5 foot tall.

If I were CZ, makers of firearms, I'd give Ramey a RAMI.



And in some states, not sure about Kentucky, you can use lethal force to stop a theft in progress. Allowing that as a remedy is called a DETERRENT.

[testcase]

You don't want to be shot, stay out of places where you don't belong (particularly PRIVATE property that you know you don't own). Victims shouldn't have to be afraid to live on their own property. Police almost always arrive after the crime (often WELL after). The Supreme Court has ruled that, in general, Police are NOT responsible to protect an individual, only the "community" as a whole. Couple that mess with courts that are more concerned about being "Politically Correct" instead of pursuing justice and, I can understand and accept Ms Ramey's action. I'd be willing to bet that local "bad guys" will be giving wide berth to Ms Ramey's farm in the future

[Jem]

I lean left of center on the handgun issue, but this seems a perfect example of where a gun may have been used appropriately as intended.

Guns for better or worse empower people to act beyond their normal capabilities offensively, or defensively. In this case Ramey's use of the .38 leveled the playing field against the much younger/stronger intruder.

Further, she used her weapon thoughtfully (though she admitted she didn't bother to think TWICE), and with intention... her goal to disable, not kill, so the law could take over.

Had she been directly attacked, who knows if she would have been effective "shooting to kill," but on her own property she would have been justified (in my opinion) doing so.

What scares me about handguns as a tool of empowerment, is when the get into the hands of people that lack good judgement... and god knows there are a lot of those people out there. When someone has more courage (bravado) than brains, handguns can be a very bad thing.

[modelamac]

IMHO, she did the right thing. If you think she was wrong, stay off her property and there won't be a problem.

No problem with proof if they can't leave. I'd have no problem if she held them at gunpoint until the police arrived.

[OWC Jamie]

[quote mattkime]Firing a gun isn't an appropriate reaction to misdemeanor trespassing.
We'll all be over tonite to graffitti your living room walls.
We won't paint swastikkas because we wouldn't want to offend your sensibilities.

[mattkime]

its particularly american to equate trespassing with an immediate physical threat. i spent some time walking through the british countryside and many of their public walking trails pass through privately owned property, even very close to homes. if they had an american attitude about trespassing then the losing the trail could have put you at gunpoint.

what if it had been a young man that shot the tires out? then would it have been a wise act? or can old women be more trigger happy?

[mattkime]

[quote billb][quote mattkime]Firing a gun isn't an appropriate reaction to misdemeanor trespassing.
We'll all be over tonite to graffitti your living room walls.
We won't paint swastikkas because we wouldn't want to offend your sensibilities.
I appreciate your dadaist approach to debate.