While I admire his restraint

[Akasa]

If it had been me and someone tried to take my niece or nephew They'd be on life support with so many broken bones they might be a cripple when they wake up.

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_ne...ngamom_fanpage

[Kheldarson]

I think more what restrained him is he didn't have the gun in his hand. Plus, if she was picking up the baby, he wouldn't have wanted to hurt his daughter in the process.

Great restraint, but given different circumstances, would he have still not used greater force?

[Panacea]

Hmm. I think I would have used more force. I'd have shit kicked the bitch into the next century.

I'm not so sure that says such a great thing about me.

Look . . . this dad fixed the problem. He made his baby safe. He got the intruder out of his house. She's in jail, facing serious felony time, and probably can't make bail. She's no longer a threat.

Is termination with extreme prejudice really necessary?

Now of course, if she'd put up a fight, making paste of her would be most satisfactory.

[TheHuckster]

Hmm. I think I would have used more force. I'd have shit kicked the bitch into the next century.

I'm not so sure that says such a great thing about me.

Look . . . this dad fixed the problem. He made his baby safe. He got the intruder out of his house. She's in jail, facing serious felony time, and probably can't make bail. She's no longer a threat.

Is termination with extreme prejudice really necessary?

It's not necessary, for sure, but when things like this happen, most people don't think about what's necessary. There is a cocktail of intense emotion of fright, anger, and trauma that makes it very difficult to, in that moment, not go so apeshit as to cause serious injury to the attacker.

I wouldn't have blamed him or considered him a "bad person" had he gone apeshit to the point of using great force. What he did instead was admirable, but when someone threatens your child, no matter who they are, how can anyone be negative towards someone who couldn't show restraint?

More importantly, though, is I don't think any of us can really know how we'd react had this happened to us. We can imagine it happening, for sure, we might even be able to rehearse the situation in our minds, but until you add the actual adrenaline and emotional factor into the scenario, plus whatever other factors (does he/she have a weapon? is the baby in the attacker's arms? do you have a weapon available? do you know the attacker personally? are you the only other person in the house? is it daytime or nighttime? etc.), there's no telling how you might truly react, nor what consequences will be the result of your reactions.

[Geekus Rex]

Is termination with extreme prejudice really necessary?.

While I do have great respect for all life, once someone has chosen to become a threat to one of my children, then YES, termination becomes necessary... what's to stop her from coming back after she gets out of prison?

[cindybubbles]

While I do have great respect for all life, once someone has chosen to become a threat to one of my children, then YES, termination becomes necessary... what's to stop her from coming back after she gets out of prison?

Probably another kid.

[Panacea]

While I do have great respect for all life, once someone has chosen to become a threat to one of my children, then YES, termination becomes necessary... what's to stop her from coming back after she gets out of prison?

I doubt she'd come back. This woman was looking to steal a baby, not an older child or an adult. She's probably one of those women who couldn't get pregnant and is desperate to produce a baby to cover a pregnancy she faked. Yeah, the kid is a bit older. Or it could be good old fashioned ransom, which clearly didn't work the first time.

[Pixilated]

While I think the state would've been understanding had he gone for his gun, I too have to applaud him for not doing so. He would've shot her in front of his other daughter and what kid needs that? This showed Dad to be able to defend them; the gun would've shown the girl a lot more than she wanted to see about what's inside a human body. The older girl now knows there are ways to defend yourself and your loved ones that don't require you to automatically go all Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[HYHYBT]

...which reminds me of an annoyance with many of his movies: why hire an exceptionally muscular actor to *shoot* people (creatures, etc)?

[PepperElf]

Personally I think the stuff on whether or not he went for the gun is just ... moot.

Saying that he had "restraint" because he didn't use a gun is biased - it suggests the blanket idea that "using a gun is unrestrained" (as in "bad") and that "not using a gun is restrained and good".

And that's silly.


So he didn't use - or didn't need to use a gun - so what? The REAL answer in defense is "neutralize the threat". HOW you neutralize a threat cannot be predetermined by assuming "restraint/no restraint" on using a firearm. What works in one situation may not work in another.

You cannot blanket-decide what method of neutralization works for all situations.

That's like deciding, "Caster oil is great for a laxative!" and then using it to treat diverticulitis. Just because it's good for one GI tract issue doesn't mean it's good for all of them.


So yes, pulling the intruder by her hair worked. Does it mean it will work with all intruders? No. Also, I agree using a firearm on someone who's holding his baby would have been unsafe. But that doesn't mean he should never consider using a firearm.

each situation has to be judged by the actual situation. not blankets.

[Akasa]

Notice nowhere in my post did I say I would have gone for a gun. I said she'd have so many broken bones she'd be in a coma basically.

[Duelist925]

...which reminds me of an annoyance with many of his movies: why hire an exceptionally muscular actor to *shoot* people (creatures, etc)?

Male power fantasy. Same reason male superheroes are buff to the nines.

[PepperElf]

Notice nowhere in my post did I say I would have gone for a gun. I said she'd have so many broken bones she'd be in a coma basically.

my ire isn't against you but the woman who wrote that article & her clear bias.

Got that, folks? He threw her out of the house. He didn't get his gun and shoot her. He didn't beat her into a bloody mess. He got the threat OUT of the house.

Unfortunately, not everyone has the restraint that Meyers showed. We act first, think later. When we celebrate those type of actions, we overlook the unfortunate after effects.

sorry for the confusion.