This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
Claudia wrote on 2012-01-08 00:28
Again, pointing out that she's 18 does nothing but make you look like a moron.
Sure, she's a teen mom, but really, it's not your place to judge whether she's a good mother or not, because you have absolutely no idea. And especially not, because she was doing one of the most important things a mother should do; protect her child. Can you say she's a bad mother then?
TL;DR: shut up.
-
Skye wrote on 2012-01-08 01:40
Quote from Claudia;726753:
Again, pointing out that she's 18 does nothing but make you look like a moron.
Sure, she's a teen mom, but really, it's not your place to judge whether she's a good mother or not, because you have absolutely no idea. And especially not, because she was doing one of the most important things a mother should do; protect her child. Can you say she's a bad mother then?
TL;DR: shut up.
A nicer way of putting this is that yes, she was probably irresponsible with her sex life, but I think the fact that she
killed a man in order to protect her child shows that she is indeed a
very responsible parent.
-
Hiccup wrote on 2012-01-08 07:54
Quote from Nithiel;726723:
.
Yes there are a lot of cases where teenagers are not responsible parents but that does not rule out all of them.
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-01-08 11:26
On a sidenote the child never was in an actually threatful situation so considering this a kill to protect her child is nothing but fallacious.
First, the burglar didn't even come anywhere near close to it, second, it takes a lot of imagination to assume that someone who tries to gain entry into your house does it to kill a little baby. Like that child could be a witness or whatever?
So basically you're glorifying an unecessary and ridiculously easily avoidable death. You make me sick. You don't even show any pity that the circumstances had to make a person die to protect another. You just don't care about the guy who got shot dead, and guess what, the family and friends who are now grieving. You just don't care. You just see the baby survived a situation that was probably never gonna turn dangerous for it, think it's good and that's it.
-
Nithiel wrote on 2012-01-08 11:57
Quote from Sumpfkraut;727735:
On a sidenote the child never was in an actually threatful situation so considering this a kill to protect her child is nothing but fallacious.
First, the burglar didn't even come anywhere near close to it, second, it takes a lot of imagination to assume that someone who tries to gain entry into your house does it to kill a little baby. Like that child could be a witness or whatever?
So basically you're glorifying an unecessary and ridiculously easily avoidable death. You make me sick. You don't even show any pity that the circumstances had to make a person die to protect another. You just don't care about the guy who got shot dead, and guess what, the family and friends who are now grieving. You just don't care. You just see the baby survived a situation that was probably never gonna turn dangerous for it, think it's good and that's it.
True enough. Most burglars are just after your **** and have no interest in actually hurting anyone. 9 times out of 10 if they have a weapon it is just to scare you so they DON'T have to hurt anyone because you won't try to fight them. She could have just as easily pointed the gun at his head and told him to get out or she would shoot. I guarantee his ass would have been back out the way he came. And even if he wasn't. Even if she HAD to shoot him. There are 1,000 places she could have shot him that would have stopped him WITHOUT killing him.
The end of the video still makes me lol. "Nothing more dangerous then a mother with a child"
Specifically the "mother with a child" bit. What the hell other kind of mothers are their? By default if you are a mother you have children. XD Saying "A mother with a child" is just redundant.
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-01-08 12:18
I think it was meant to mean: "a mother in close proximity of her child (who feels her child may be in danger)".
You know, like boar sows. Oh boy.
-
Kaeporo wrote on 2012-01-08 14:12
Quote from Sumpfkraut;727735:
On a sidenote the child never was in an actually threatful situation so considering this a kill to protect her child is nothing but fallacious.
First, the burglar didn't even come anywhere near close to it, second, it takes a lot of imagination to assume that someone who tries to gain entry into your house does it to kill a little baby. Like that child could be a witness or whatever?
So basically you're glorifying an unecessary and ridiculously easily avoidable death. You make me sick. You don't even show any pity that the circumstances had to make a person die to protect another. You just don't care about the guy who got shot dead, and guess what, the family and friends who are now grieving. You just don't care. You just see the baby survived a situation that was probably never gonna turn dangerous for it, think it's good and that's it.
You know who should have cared about the guy who is now dead? Either of the two individuals breaking into someone else's home. The killing was justified regardless of your petty morality.
You have no idea what their intentions were. If she hadn't shot them, they could have raped the mother twice and dumped both the bodies in a river.
I also highly doubt that you've ever experienced any form of combat stress. Otherwise you wouldn't make such a misguided and ignorant post.
-
Tedio wrote on 2012-01-08 14:25
Wow, having your baby's father die on Christmas day, then you get attacked in your own home? No surprise she shot him.
-
Ithiliel wrote on 2012-01-09 03:37
Quote from Skye;726855:
A nicer way of putting this is that yes, she was probably irresponsible with her sex life, but I think the fact that she killed a man in order to protect her child shows that she is indeed a very responsible parent.
How is she irresponsible if she was married and decided to start a family with her husband? Age means nothing in this situation.
-
Leopher wrote on 2012-01-09 04:16
Quote from Sumpfkraut;727735:
On a sidenote the child never was in an actually threatful situation so considering this a kill to protect her child is nothing but fallacious.
First, the burglar didn't even come anywhere near close to it, second, it takes a lot of imagination to assume that someone who tries to gain entry into your house does it to kill a little baby. Like that child could be a witness or whatever?
So basically you're glorifying an unecessary and ridiculously easily avoidable death. You make me sick. You don't even show any pity that the circumstances had to make a person die to protect another. You just don't care about the guy who got shot dead, and guess what, the family and friends who are now grieving. You just don't care. You just see the baby survived a situation that was probably never gonna turn dangerous for it, think it's good and that's it.
Wait? So the burglar has to aim a gun at the baby or something before he's considered a threat?...
:(
-
Claudia wrote on 2012-01-09 04:18
Also, apparently we should've waited to see if the burglars were actually putting the baby in danger.
You know, after they did whatever the hell they were going to do to the mother, first.
-
Nithiel wrote on 2012-01-09 06:43
The baby was in another room with a bottle in its mouth to keep quiet. The mother was sitting in front of the door with a shotgun and blasted them the second the door was cracked open and blew him away. She was in no danger. The baby was in no danger. If all you have is a knife and an angry woman is sitting there with a shotgun pointed at your face, you are not going to try and fight unless you have a mental defect. If he had seen she had a gun pointed at his head ready to blow it off, he would have turned and ran.
-
Skye wrote on 2012-01-09 06:46
Quote from Lilith;729008:
How is she irresponsible if she was married and decided to start a family with her husband? Age means nothing in this situation.
Oh, she was married before she got pregnant? My mistake then.
-
Ithiliel wrote on 2012-01-09 09:03
Quote from Nithiel;729324:
The baby was in another room with a bottle in its mouth to keep quiet. The mother was sitting in front of the door with a shotgun and blasted them the second the door was cracked open and blew him away. She was in no danger. The baby was in no danger. If all you have is a knife and an angry woman is sitting there with a shotgun pointed at your face, you are not going to try and fight unless you have a mental defect. If he had seen she had a gun pointed at his head ready to blow it off, he would have turned and ran.
That's not always true. Also have you even stopped and considered the fact that if she hadn't heard them first what they would have done if they stumbled upon her? They were armed. They obviously brought the hunting knife with intentions to harm the occupants within the house, and you're condemning her for fearing for her child's safety and acting like a RESPONSIBLE mother and protecting her child?
I think you all are also forgetting the fact that she ASKED if she could shoot. If you're going to blame someone, why don't you blame the 911 operator as well? Hop off the fact that she's 18, stop claiming she's irresponsible and stop condemning her. I would rather hear about some low-life criminal being killed than to read about a mother and 3 month old being murdered.
@Skye-Even if she wasn't married that doesn't make her irresponsible. I'm actually offended that quite a few people here jump to that conclusion, you don't know her, you don't know her situation and you shouldn't be judging her.
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-01-09 17:26
Quote from PoLkaTulK;729072:
Wait? So the burglar has to aim a gun at the baby or something before he's considered a threat?...
:(
Do you think this is a joke? There are a few worlds between "just entered the room without being aware of anything" and "clearly only a split second away from killling the baby", so your deranged cynicism was very much unfitting. And even so, there are non-lethal ways to incapacitate someone, even with firearms.
But I know you people aren't prone to reason for otherwise you all wouldn't have jumped on the "glorious slaughter for children!" wagon without even considering the
actual victim's family, so why do I even bother~