Deadly home invasion rattles New Hampshire town

Natural Elements · 10-07-2009, 01:30 PM

A small, rural town in the hills of New Hampshire was jolted by a home invasion over the weekend that left a mother dead and her young daughter severely injured.

"This type of murder does not happen very often," New Hampshire Senior Assistant Attorney General Will Delker said. "This is something out of the ordinary."

Four teenagers have been charged in connection with the incident early Sunday morning along an isolated dirt road in Mont Vernon, a town of about 2,000.

In a news release Tuesday, the New Hampshire Department of Justice identified the victim as 42-year-old Kimberly Cates. The medical examiner determined that she died from "multiple sharp injuries to the head, torso, left arm, and left leg."

The victim's 10-year-old daughter sustained serious knife injuries that required hours of surgery.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/07/...ing/index.html

Allen Farlow · 10-07-2009, 03:09 PM

Home invasions are commonplace in Phoenix, Arizona and the surrounding suburbs. I can understand how it could be extremely upsetting happening in a small New Hampshire town, the kind of place where people go to sleep and leave the doors unlocked. It's unexpected and completely out of place.

This is why I own a gun. One can only wonder how it would have turned out had the mother been armed at the time.

So sad.

Natural Elements · 10-07-2009, 03:15 PM

Yes it is sad, and some people want to remove the right to be armed and defend ourselves, that's even sad.

**Zap** · 10-08-2009, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

One can only wonder how it would have turned out had the mother been armed at the time.

So sad.

Perhaps they would have taken the gun from the mother and ensured that the daughter met her end as well.

**South** · 10-08-2009, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zap

Perhaps they would have taken the gun from the mother and ensured that the daughter met her end as well.

Yeah, I'm sure he would have walked into the flaring muzzle of a 9mil to "disarm" her. Given the type of person he was we could only hope he would try that. He'd be dead and she'd be in the paper this morning as an inspiration to others who would choose not to be a victim.

John Scott · 10-09-2009, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zap

Perhaps they would have taken the gun from the mother and ensured that the daughter met her end as well.

Do you believe that is the most likely scenario? Let's pretend that 50% of the time, the murderers do succeed in taking the gun away and killing their prey. Even if it happened 50% of the time, which is unrealistic, that still leaves 50% of the victims in a position to defend themselves.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2122012/posts

In that case she tried it your way once - which is not to defend herself. That failed. Oddly enough, and unbelievably, the criminal was deterred by her pleas not to rape her. Unreal, huh? Why wouldn't pleas deter a criminal? I don't get it, either. Usually, you ask somebody not to rape or kill you, and they say "ok" and go home. Right?

The second time he came to rape her, he paid the price he should have paid the first time.

The reason criminals are so brazen in America is because most of the citizens don't carry guns. It's like laying out a welcome mat to to crime.

Allen Farlow · 10-07-2009, 03:55 PM

If you haven't yet, Google H.R. 45...that's Obama's latest gun control bill.

It has such goodies in it as this:

SEC. 304. FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by sections 101, 201, 301, 302, and 303 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(ff) Failure To Provide Notice of Change of Address- It shall be unlawful for any individual to whom a firearm license has been issued under title I of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 to fail to report to the Attorney General a change in the address of that individual within 60 days of that change of address.’.

and this:

SEC. 801. INAPPLICABILITY TO GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not apply to any department or agency of the United States, of a State, or of a political subdivision of a State, or to any official conduct of any officer or employee of such a department or agency.

and this:

SEC. 403. INSPECTIONS.

In order to ascertain compliance with this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the regulations and orders issued under this Act, the Attorney General may, during regular business hours, enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored, or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held.

So the Attorney General could conceivably just walk into your home without notice if you sell firearms and happen to keep them there to "inspect those areas where the products are...stored, or held."

Well, good luck with that one. That's a good way to get shot.

They need to add the following, "or his representatives" because I don't think Eric Holder has the time to inspect every single house in America...and I think he has better things to do like sit behind his desk twirling his thumbs.

But does it matter? This section bans the private sale of firearms:

SEC. 201. SALE OR TRANSFER REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFYING FIREARMS.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 101 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(bb) Unauthorized Sale or Transfer of a Qualifying Firearm- It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a qualifying firearm to, or for, any person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, or to receive a qualifying firearm from a person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, unless, at the time and place of the transfer or receipt--

‘(1) the transferee presents to a licensed dealer a valid firearm license issued to the transferee--

‘(A) under title I of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009; or

‘(B) pursuant to a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 established by the State in which the transfer or receipt occurs;

‘(2) the licensed dealer contacts the Attorney General or the head of the State agency that administers the certified system described in paragraph (1)(B), as applicable, and receives notice that the transferee has been issued a firearm license described in paragraph (1) and that the license remains valid; and

‘(3) the licensed dealer records on a document (which, in the case of a sale, shall be the sales receipt) a tracking authorization number provided by the Attorney General or the head of the State agency, as applicable, as evidence that the licensed dealer has verified the validity of the license.’.

This will also pertain to semi-automatic long guns (rifles) with detachable clips:

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General- In this Act:

(1) FIREARM; LICENSED DEALER; LICENSED MANUFACTURER; STATE- The terms ‘firearm’, ‘licensed dealer’, ‘licensed manufacturer’, and ‘State’ have the meanings given those terms in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code.

(2) QUALIFYING FIREARM- The term ‘qualifying firearm’ has the meaning given the term in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Amendment to Title 18, United States Code- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(36) The term ‘qualifying firearm’--

‘(A) means--

‘(i) any handgun; or

‘(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device; and

‘(B) does not include any antique.’.

They can try to pass this if they want. I mean, who do they think they are screwing with? The French?

No, we are AMERICANS and we are gun owners and our Constitution grants us the RIGHT to own them, not the privilege!

And this stupid bill is a blatant attempt to subvert the U.S. Constitution!

It ain't gonna fly.

Natural Elements · 10-07-2009, 08:56 PM

You forgot to say that will be in addition to the local firearms laws, which will make more and more pressure on firearms owners. You also forgot all the new federal laws with fees.

For example if you try to sell your own guns, and the gunstore don't sell it, you have to pass another backgound check + fees for your own guns, federal law passed.

Like I already mentionned on different threads they want to empty the 2A, because they will never be able to remove it. Oh yes they contour everything the 2A gives.

Sometime I am wondering where is a real war.

Allen Farlow · 10-08-2009, 08:51 AM

Yes, perhaps, Zap, but rather than looking at it in negative connotations, why not see the positive and realize that if the mother had access to firearms (I'm assuming she did not), she would have had a chance to shoot at the intruders and prevent this from happening at all?

She may not have even hit any of them, merely put holes in the walls, but the sound and the muzzle flash alone is enough to scare most of your average moron criminals back through the door. After all, who wants to get shot up?

And since it was reported that she died from multiple stab wounds and not gunshots, it indicates to me that the intruders were armed with no more than a knife or two. Even if they were carrying firearms and managed to get a few rounds off back at her (if she had shot at them), chances are very good in such a situation that they would have been just as lousy a shot as she was. It's very hard to hit the target when the adrenaline is flowing and you have to shoot on the run.

As it stands now, a woman is dead and her child will grow up without a mother, and there is possibly a boyfriend or a husband who's life has also been greatly effected, not to mention the woman's family, friends, co-workers and relatives.

**Zap** · 10-08-2009, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

Yes, perhaps, Zap, but rather than looking at it in negative connotations, why not see the positive and realize that if the mother had access to firearms (I'm assuming she did not), she would have had a chance to shoot at the intruders and prevent this from happening at all?

Or, they could have taken her gun(s) and turned them from legal into illegal firearms, which would go on to kill many more people than a mother and her daughter.

There are a number of possibilities here and "seeing the positive" is not often a strong trait of the gun loving crowd as they are prone to creating threads like this one in favour of gun ownership. And that's not a swipe at NE, either. There are literally thousands of threads like this one, created on several forums all the time.

The main point being that it could have gone better, but it also could have gone worse.

I mean, if we're talking about possibilities, then exploring both positive and negative outcomes have their merit.

Natural Elements · 10-08-2009, 09:21 AM

@ZAP "they could have taken her gun(s)"

To take a gun from you in this kind of situation, you have to be very close. There are techniques to avoid that, same as knife threat. I can tell you a real story from a French friend living in Florida. He wasn't a gun owner at this time and experienced a home invasion with 4 armed criminals (youngs). He was home with kids and wife. He scared them by hands, he was so mad, perhaps we can call that rage, that they flee. He was lucky not to be hurt or his family members.

Now he is a NRA member and have a conceal weapon permit.

dWhite · 10-12-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

Yes, perhaps, Zap, but rather than looking at it in negative connotations, why not see the positive and realize that if the mother had access to firearms (I'm assuming she did not), she would have had a chance to shoot at the intruders and prevent this from happening at all?

She may not have even hit any of them, merely put holes in the walls, but the sound and the muzzle flash alone is enough to scare most of your average moron criminals back through the door. After all, who wants to get shot up?

And since it was reported that she died from multiple stab wounds and not gunshots, it indicates to me that the intruders were armed with no more than a knife or two. Even if they were carrying firearms and managed to get a few rounds off back at her (if she had shot at them), chances are very good in such a situation that they would have been just as lousy a shot as she was. It's very hard to hit the target when the adrenaline is flowing and you have to shoot on the run.

As it stands now, a woman is dead and her child will grow up without a mother, and there is possibly a boyfriend or a husband who's life has also been greatly effected, not to mention the woman's family, friends, co-workers and relatives.

And if she had lived and injured the criminals? They can sue her, it's happened before with a home invasion where a burglar broke into a house, broke his leg on the way in and sued the home owner for it and won.

They could easily go for assault with a deadly weapon and attempt murder.

John Scott · 10-12-2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dWhite

And if she had lived and injured the criminals? They can sue her, it's happened before with a home invasion where a burglar broke into a house, broke his leg on the way in and sued the home owner for it and won.

They could easily go for assault with a deadly weapon and attempt murder.

Agreed 100%. It's always better to get murdered than it is to get sued.

dWhite · 10-12-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Agreed 100%. It's always better to get murdered than it is to get sued.

I'd rather kill them and live, not the other way around.

Natural Elements · 10-08-2009, 09:10 AM

That's right Allen, shooting up in the air could be enough to scare criminals. The goal is to scare them away. Now if they threaten your life or family members, then you do what is necessary to stop them.

Allen Farlow · 10-08-2009, 09:56 AM

I believe there are only two types of people in this world, the do-ers and those who want someone else to do for them.

I know which one I am. I choose to not have to rely upon a police force for protection when the criminal is looking me in the eyes and the cops haven't even been called yet. ("Hey, Mr. Criminal. Hold on while I get my phone and call the police, okay?") Uh, yeah, sure. That works.

I am a gunowner because I was accosted and the police were not there to offer assistance. My assailants were armed and I wasn't and it's only through dumb luck that I lived to tell about it. Nothing will wake up a person faster than someone pushing a loaded revolver to their temple and not knowing if or when they'll pull the trigger.

We can debate this back and forth between the pro-gun lobby and the anti-gun lobby all day but it won't get us anywhere. People should choose for themselves, their choice is what they feel is good for them, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Just know that when the chips are down it may be a gunowner and not the police who saves your bacon, if anybody saves it for you.

Unfortunately for that New Hampshire mother that died and her daughter, who is still recovering (and will still be recovering mentally for many more years to come), a gunowner wasn't there to help her.

Even if there was a chance the firearm could've been taken from her and used on her, I personally would prefer to go out fighting like a lion instead of a sheep at the slaughter. (I have a feeling the woman did go out like a lion, judging from the fact that she also had wounds to her head. I guess those kids found out the hard way that people don't die so fast as they see in the movies.)

I'm willing to lay odds that the daughter will become a gunowner for self-defense, because self-empowerment is a great way to get your head back on straight after such a horrible thing.

In this instance, in my opinion, happiness truly would have been a warm gun.

MikuruHirai · 10-08-2009, 12:00 PM

This is scary. What's their purpose of trespassing and doing that kind of act? It can't be just for fun... or is it?

Allen Farlow · 10-08-2009, 12:14 PM

I haven't learned any more about it, but I have a feeling the kids were just looking to steal something and mom surprised them. She may have even attacked them and they responded the way they did, I don't know that for sure.

Maybe the kids were hired to do a 'hit' and take mom out? I doubt that, considering we're talking about New Hampshire, which is small towns, farms and laid back lifestyles.

I'm thinking more along the lines of mom surprising them, wanting to know what they're doing in her house. Mom had a daughter to protect, and you know how that can be. I think one or two of the kids freaked out and stabbed her and her daughter, maybe a 'no witnesses' kind of thing. Mom and her daughter may have known all four of the kids, don't know.

It'll all come out because the cops have all four of the kids and one will rat out the others.

Whatever it was, it was an unfortunate set of circumstances that led them to come together, and we all know the results.

**Zap** · 10-12-2009, 01:38 PM

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wor...00910215403429

This is a case where it clearly wasn't a good idea to have a gun in the house.

Natural Elements · 10-12-2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zap

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wor...00910215403429

This is a case where it clearly wasn't a good idea to have a gun in the house.

I don't think it was a bad idea to have a gun in the house. Making generality based on one case is pretty biased, but unfortunately misusing a weapon show a lack of fundamental safety.