back to article Creep travels half the world to harass online teen gamer… and gets shot by her mom – cops

A New Zealand gamer who flew halfway around the world to confront a 14-year-old girl he met online got more than he bargained for when her mom shot him, according to police. Troy George Skinner, 25, flew from his home in Auckland to Sydney, Australia, took a connecting flight to Los Angeles, USA, then from Los Angeles to …

  1. Sampler

    http://www.esreality.com/index.php?a=post&id=1215499

    1. Oh Homer Silver badge
      Black Helicopters

      If you've done nothing wrong...

      Clearly we all have something to very legitimately hide, dear anti-privacy legislators.

      Not that the intended victim made much effort to protect her privacy, in this case, but nonetheless it does serve as a perfect example of why online anonymity/pseudonymity is not only justifiable but absolutely essential.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

    Given the use of social media and the sheer number of selfies that young people take and post.

    Once a potential stalker knows what you look like and approximately where you live it really isn't that hard for the bad guy to find you. Even the likes of Facebook will help you.

    This case really shows what a sad world we live in and young people today really have no idea how exposed they are often due to their own actions. The when told about it by us adults they just ignore it.

    I'm very glad that I've never even thought positively about signing up for any of the (anti-)social media sites. Thankfully, I'm far too old and wrinkly for anyone to want to stalk me.

    Pension day tomorrow. Yay!

    1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
      Boffin

      @AC ... Re: The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

      Even if you keep a low profile, there are other ways to identify you online. Like thru White Pages where your phone number is published with an address. Or thru your internet connection. They can geocode you to a point... and from there it becomes a bit more trivial to narrow down where you are.

      What you and others missed is that the guy didn't get it... When someone says they have a gun... in the US... its most likely true and its a warning... While many in the Western world can't own firearms... law abiding citizens in the US can and many do.

      In the US, there's a concept called the 'Castle Doctrine' where you have the right to use lethal force to defend yourself from someone trying to break in. Its important to point out that there is evidence that he broke in to the basement, was scared off and then attempted to break in again. So the second time, she shot him apparently while he was outside of the house but in the process of breaking in. The laws vary state by state, however in this case... she was well within her legal rights to defend herself and her children.

      What wasn't told in the story is if she dialed 911 and notified the police before she shot him.... again for those who don't live in the US or have spent time in the US... the police are usually minutes away when seconds count. In Chicago, they can be 5 seconds to 5 minutes away. In rural areas... 5-10 mins to 20-30 mins away. Had she dialed 911 before shooting... she's definitely in the clear. Even from a civil lawsuit.

      The moral of the story... don't bring a knife and duct tape to a gun fight. ;-)

      [Note: Its very legal to use lethal force to protect people, not property. No property is worth it. ]

      1. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

        Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

        @Ian Michael

        "While many in the Western world can't own firearms... law abiding citizens in the US can and many do.

        And non-law abiding citizens in the US are even more likely to...

        1. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

          Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

          The guy's lucky it was just a 9mm, up here he would have been peppered with some 7.62's from an AR -15. (YES Canadians CAN BUY an AR-15 if you get an FAQ certificate and some safety training!) Try crap like that the Midwest or southern states like Texas OR here in Alberta or Northern BC, where we are just like Texas. Don't mess with an Albertan or Northern BC'er as we'll make sure ya don't make it out with all yer nuts in place! In places like Virgina, etc. MANY states allow full open-carry for citizens (i.e. carry your gun in public on your hip holster or visible shoulder holster).

          SO the moral of the story is...DON'T GOTO a state or county that has open-carry, stand-your-ground and/or castle-doctrine laws and break into a house and EXPECT to live or keep your cajones intact!

          1. Rustbucket

            Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

            AR-15s are typically 5.56 mm.

            1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
              Boffin

              @Rustbucket... Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

              AR-15 can be found in a couple of different rounds like

              .223

              5.56 NATO (yes, .223 is not the same as the 5.56 round)

              6.8 SPC

              300 BLK

              and I think someone did a 7.62x39mm

              AR-10s are .308 or now 6.5 CM along with a couple of Wildcat rounds.

              1. philebbeer

                Re: @Rustbucket... @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

                Wow, an AR-10 in 6.5 cm, that's 65mm!!! A proper hand cannon!

                1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
                  Boffin

                  Re: @Rustbucket... @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

                  CM == Creedmore.

                  1. Johnny Wad

                    Re: @Rustbucket... @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

                    CreedMOOR

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: @Rustbucket... @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

                You can get a lower chambered for 7.62x39mm but it does not feed very well due to the angles of things and feed ramps etc.

                But if you are after using commie ammo then that is the way forward with your AR-15. However, it is much cheaper to pick up one of the 44 billion AKs that are about :-)

                1. kain preacher Silver badge

                  Re: @Rustbucket... @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

                  Better off cambering the ar15 for .308 or socom .458

            2. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

              Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

              You can get them in 7.62 too, You'll pay $2500+ for the privilege but you can get them in a NUMBER of round configurations! I've personally seen them at .223, .22, .177 (BB gun), 5.56, 7.62, 9mm and even .44 which is getting outlandish (if not expensive!)

              Some internet youtuber guy made a custom .50 version AR-15 and so long you use a 10 mag in some US states US or up to a 30 mag in others AND it's SEMI-AUTO ONLY you're all legal!

              1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
                Boffin

                @StargateSg7 ... Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

                No, you cannot get an AR-15 in 7.62 NATO.

                Note: 7.62x39mm (AK-47 round) or .300BLK is available, but not 7.62 NATO

                Cartridge is too big.

                .50 AE may be possible, however I seriously doubt it would be a good idea to fire. .50 BMG is a much different story. You need to be more specific when you talk about the calibers that a gun will shoot. A good example... a rifle that is designed to shoot .223 Remington cannot be used to shoot 5.56 NATO. While the 5.56 NATO rifle can shoot .223 Remington. (Both rounds are extremely similar however the pressures in a 5.56 NATO are higher. )

                And clearly you don't know anything about guns or gun laws.

                AR-15 are semi-auto only. Not select fire, nor full auto. ;-)

                1. Steve Walker

                  Re: @StargateSg7 ... @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

                  Indeed no 'A' for accurate :-)

                2. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

                  Re: @StargateSg7 ... @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

                  Have you EVER BEEN to a US gun show?

                  I see AR-15's Semi-auto in 7.62 NATO all the time. And YES! I know the differences between 3-shot select fire, full-auto and semi-auto as I used to use the M16 and M4 a lot in my day!

                  AND YES i know the pressure differences between .223 and the 5.56 rounds. I've also seen AR-15 look-alikes in .50 CAL AND EVEN in customized .60 CAL sizes. In places like Colorado and many southern states there are MANY ATF certified small arms manufacturers that do custom systems for wealthy shooters and for both police tactical and military units.

                  Every state and even COUNTY is different for gun type, possession, transport and usage so whenever you go out of state or county with your arms you need to check the laws of the in-between and destination state so if you get pulled over during transport you don't run afoul of local laws.

                  The worst states are New York, New Jersey and California for draconian transport and possession laws. The best are Colorado, the Midwest and southern states. And again for Castle Doctrine laws, YES you can shoot first and ask questions later if someone encroaches illegally upon or into your house/property and you feel your life or the lives of family/friends is in danger!

          2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
            Boffin

            Star child... Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

            AR-15s do not make a good home defense gun.

            (Well maybe if they're in 300BLK or if they're a carbine in 9mm or .40)

            Castle Doctrine exists in most states explicitly and at the same time... the lack of her being able to retreat is enough to warrant lethal force.

            Open carry on your private property is legal. In rural SC I open carried walking down the road and waved to the local sheriff. (I was walking along the fence line to a gate 1/2 mile down the road to where I needed to be.) No hassle.

            Again, the moral of the story, don't bring a knife to a gun fight... unless you're a highly trained assassin.

          3. Maty

            Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

            @StargateSg7

            Where do you get the information it was a 9mm? According to the news story linked in the article it was the 'family .22 calibre pistol'.

            Actually, catching a 9mm in the neck would be a pretty big, bad, deal. Given the mass/velocity difference a 9mm is much more likely to do serious damage to the many essential bits crammed into the area than a .22 would.

            With a .22 he would be unlucky to be fatally injured. With a 9mm he'd be lucky to survive.

            1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

              @Maty Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

              It depends on the hit. A graze from a 9mm could be less of a problem than if you got hit w a .22lr in a vital spot.

              I don't know what gun she had... if anyone has a link, please supply.

            2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

              Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

              With a .22 he would be unlucky to be fatally injured. With a 9mm he'd be lucky to survive.

              Not so, but there are many myths around firearms. Bigger isn't necessarily better, and I suspect there have been many fatalities, accidental or intentional involving .22 firearms. See Robert F. Kennedy for more info. There's more than enough energy in a .22LR to do lethal damage, especially if using HP or JHP rounds.

              For me, the best firearm for self-defence would be one you've practiced with. Preferably a lot. And although a .22 may not be as sexy as a chromed Hollywood Deagle in .50AE.. It's a lot cheaper to practice with. It also has a whole lot less felt recoil than a hot 'self-defence' round, so a lot easier to control a firearm and shoot accurately. It's also a lot smaller, which means you can have high capacity (where legal) magazines in a small frame. Which means it's easier to grip and shoot accurately if you've got small hands, or just want something compact.

              So something that's comfortable, easy & cheap to use with the potential to put 5 rounds rapid into a miscreant, should you ever need to. And there are other advantages, ie less muzzle blast. Kind of handy and underappreciated, especially if you're shooting in a hallway and value your hearing. A hot round can end up functioning a bit like a stun grenade given high SPLs bouncing off hard surfaces. And a .22 may also be safer for friends and neighbours, so less likely to overpenetrate or go through walls.

              But I'm just a Brit who post-Blair, misses 'plinking' with his old Hammerli 280.. That was a very accurate .22 and also very easy to shoot rapid fire.

              1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

                Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

                Can you be killed by a .22lr? Yes it is possible.

                The .22lr is a small cartridge. You can kill someone with a pellet gun too.

                1. kain preacher Silver badge

                  Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

                  .223 is small but used in the m16

                  1. Claptrap314 Bronze badge

                    Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

                    The m16 was specifically designed by NATO to NOT kill, on the theory that the invading Soviet troops would tend for their wounded. It earned the moniker "Widowmaker" in Viet Nam because the troops using it ended up themselves dead so often.

                    Yes, you can kill with a .22. Also, with bare hands. But the recommendation for effective self defense? My sensi was maximal rank, and he kept a .38 at the house. Well, more than one.

        2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
          Black Helicopters

          @Peny-gors ...Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

          Yes, criminals being criminals already own illegal weapons. Carrying concealed weapons is a crime if you don't have a permit.

          Which is why many law abiding citizens do own firearms.

          I used to only own air rifles. Why? Because I liked to shoot little holes in paper @ 10m.

          Then when I was at my father-n-laws farm, I got a hunting rifle and borrowed his shotgun. Less about killing bambi, but more about protecting the herd from varmints and pests. Also to stop crop damage.

          Back in Chicago, when the laws changed and I could buy a handgun, I got one. Why? To shoot little holes in paper at various distance out to 50yrds. Now I plan on getting my CCW permit. Why? Because even in my neck of the woods, crime is up and I choose not to be a target.

          The reality is that I will most likely not carry unless I'm out walking my dog early in the morning where there are crazies out who do want to hurt you for no real reason or because they need to get their next fix.

        3. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

          "non-law abiding citizens in the US are even more likely to" [own guns]

          pandering to the perception again, I see.

          maybe THIS will help...

          icon, because, facepalm at the lamenes and sameness of the anti-self-defense mantra. you probably want EVERYONE (except YOU) to be mild-mannered SHEEPLE, easily controlled, easily herded, etc.. no thanks, not THIS *RAM*. A few of us still have our genitalia intact.

        4. Johnny Wad
          Holmes

          Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

          And when laws are passed to inhibit gun purchase and use, the only people who suffer are the legal gun owners...the criminals never give a rip about the laws. They will retain their weapons, they will steal weapons or they will make weapons! Just remember this...the police arrive AFTER a crime is committed, and not before. As much as one likes to believe in police protection...it is...largely, a reactionary force.

        5. Ghostman
          Headmaster

          Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

          Mostly in "Gun Free" Zones , Chicago, New York, most of California, Philly and other places run by Democrats

          Icon: I did love Capt. Kangaroo while a kid.

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

            California is not a gun-free zone. Not even according to idiots like Feinstein and Pelosi.

      2. Ted Treen

        Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

        [...No property is worth it... ]

        I beg to differ: what I have worked damned hard to acquire is not available for some covetous scrote to help himself/herself/itself to simply because they can't be arsed to work for it. Sod 'em.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
          Boffin

          @Ted Treen ...Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

          First, you have insurance so the item can be replaced. The life you take can't.

          Second... the guy/gal who's life you took has relatives and they will sue you for millions in a wrongful death lawsuit. You will lose.

          The law allows you to use lethal force if you have reason to believe your life is in danger. And its a reasonable belief... like a guy breaking in to your house holding a weapon. It doesn't allow you to shoot someone to protect property.

          And then there's Karma. She's a bitch and needlessly taking a life... really pisses her off. Being forced to take a life... she's ok with that. But then you'll have to live with it.

          1. Jtom Bronze badge

            Re: @Ted Treen ...@AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

            In many states, if someone is in your house without permission, the default assumption is that you are in bodily danger, and may shoot to kill, even if there is no overt threat at all. Not only does that keep common burglars away, but your teenage girl's boyfriend as well.

            1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
              Boffin

              @Jtom ... Re: @Ted Treen ...@AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

              What you described is what is known as the Castle Doctrine.

              While in your house, you do not have the burden to show that you could no longer retreat.

              And if you are going to shoot, you shoot to stop the threat. (Yeah its a polite way to say shoot to kill. )

              Outside of your home, there's a 'Stand Your Ground' law which varies state by state. Without it, the burden of proof is on you to show that you could not egress from the situation.

              Yes, gun laws can be complicated. Just ask Zimmerman. While he may be a stupid git, his case was a clean shoot. The forensic and eye witness evidence supported his story.

          2. kain preacher Silver badge

            Re: @Ted Treen ...@AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

            Ian Michael Gumby

            Depends on the state. Texas you can use deadly force to stop some one from breaking into your car o your own property.

          3. J.G.Harston Silver badge

            Re: @Ted Treen ...@AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

            How does insurance replace my great-grandmother's letters and photos, my research papers, my 30+ years coding and documentation archives, my reference prototypes....?

          4. Marshalltown

            Re: @Ted Treen ...@AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

            @Ian Michael Gumby

            The law in the US varies from state to state. In most the some breaking into your house does not have to display a weapon to be considered a threat to your safety. In this case he had both a fair warning, AND a weapon, although probably not visible. He was carrying what the police sometimes call an abduction or rape kit. Most states have in addition to a "stand your ground" standard, either overt (as in Florida) or simply by omission as in most of the rest, that means that you can defend yourself if threatened, whether or not you are in your home, even California. While the common advice - even in the US - is to follow Monet Python's example and "run away," many people simply cannot do that because of age, infirmity or simple lack of condition. And, police response time is typically at least an order of magnitude longer than the typical "violent interaction" time between a felon and victim. Ideally, we should prosecute ANYONE who sues someone who defended themselves and injured or killed the felon as an accomplice to the crime. They are after all attempting to profit from the crime or attempted crime. And, while juries occasionally go off the rails, in the US they are not commonly sympathetic with the criminal, injured or not, or his or her relatives.

      3. Tomato42 Silver badge

        Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

        > While many in the Western world can't own firearms... law abiding citizens in the US can and many do.

        just because you have to have a permit to have a gun in civilised countries doesn't make them illegal

        also, this guy was "stupid" for not getting a gun himself, not like anything would prevent such an unhinged individual from getting one in the US

        1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

          @Tomato ...Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

          First, legally, he couldn't get a gun.

          Second... unless you know a guy or know a guy who know's a guy... you can't get a gun.

          Third... there are a lot of firearms that you can't own in other countries that you can own in the US and even if you own them. you may not be able to store them in your home. Of course YMMV. However in the UK... you have really weird gun laws.

          1. Tomato42 Silver badge

            Re: @Tomato ...@AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

            @ Ian Michael Gumby

            > First, legally, he couldn't get a gun.

            really? in country with such lax laws that they are essentially non-existent (ekhm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole ekhm)

            also, what happened to the "if making owning guns illegal, only criminals would have them", he isn't exactly an upstanding member of society, now is he?

            > However in the UK... you have really weird gun laws.

            there is a world outside anglophone countries, you know...

          2. Johnny Wad

            Re: @Tomato ...@AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

            The UK was so depleted in arms during WW2, that many many thousands of rifles came from the U.S. citizenry for UK Homeland Defense purposes to plus up that capability. That fact is not forgotten upon that generation, but it is little known to those outside of that era. Just remember this, under Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Dung or any other socialist dictator...the first event they want to control is any possibility of revolution...which means weapons. The 2nd Amendment was NOT designed for target practice, nor hunting and never states such. All the founders knew damn well what it was for...to protect all the other Amendments!

        2. Jtom Bronze badge

          Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

          He would not have been able to legally obtain a gun in the US. We have background checks, which he would have failed since he was not a citizen, and a waiting period.

          As far as getting an illegal weapon - it's not hard if you are a known person living in a sketchy area. You could find a friend or a friend of a friend who would sell you one. A stranger? Good luck. Show up to buy an illegal weapon, and you'll be leaving without a gun or your money.

        3. mikevp

          Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

          No... Show ID for instant check, and waiting period. Unless he has underworld contacts in Virginia to buy a gun illegally, or has obtained Virginia residency ID somehow, he can not legally purchase a firearm. (You *can* *not* buy a firearm outside your state of residence, unless the firearm is shipped to a FFL licensed dealer *in* your state of residence, and you pick it up there. I grew up in a border rural area; "going to town" crossed a state line. To buy a firearm, I would have to drive 50 miles to the nearest town in my state.)

        4. Johnny Wad

          Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

          This nut-job would NOT get a gun LEGALLY in the U.S., certainly as a non-citizen. The idea that just anyone can get a weapon here is patently wrong. Can you get illegal weapons? Sure, and that applies to most nations. It just depends upon how much money you have, or connections to get it done. But creating more laws only serves to hurt the legitimate users, the honest citizens of the nation. The criminals are not law-abiding...that IS their nature.

      4. cream wobbly

        Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

        In the US, there's a concept called the 'Castle Doctrine'

        -----------

        Uh, since there are no actual real castles in the US, where do you suppose they got the idea?

        I'll wait for you to catch up. You get an extra day off next week to think about it, and there's even a helpful clue in the name of the holiday!

        1. Ghostman
          Headmaster

          Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

          It came from the widely used phrase here in the US "A mans' home is his castle." Old advertising phrase, but yes, there are some castles here in the US. Look up Biltmore House.

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

            Biltmore's not a castle. It's a so-called "stately home".

          2. Claptrap314 Bronze badge

            Re: @AC ... The cat is pretty well out of the bag already

            That's actually a principle of English Common Law. It's why cops need warrants.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

    I know El Reg likes to be cheeky and/or provide sensationalist clickbaity article headlines.

    But this is highly embarrassing.

    1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

      If you post before reading to the end of the second paragraph you can end up looking a bit of a twit. If your attention span really is that short, perhaps you would prefer twitter where looking like a twit leads to getting elected president.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

        Distance around the Earth: 40,075 km

        Auckland to Virginia: 13662.11 km

        Auckland to Sydney: 2176.07 km

        Number of Words that needed to be read to understand the title and article before making a fool of yourself: 46.

        So not technically half way round the world but I myself would class Australia to USA as half way round the world likewise for Australia to London as you are crossing hemispheres. This post is brought to you by the running process which stops me from doing anything work wise.

        1. Bob Magoo

          Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

          " I myself would class Australia to USA as half way round the world"

          Auckland is in New Zealand. :-)

          1. Terry 6 Silver badge

            Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

            Normally I'd post "same thing" just to add a touch of wind up for the Anzacs*. But in the face of the kind of comment that doesn't bother to even read the sentence, Nah. Seems pointless. It'd be like building a sand castle on Mount Everest.

            * Especially those in the fictitious land of New Zealand http://worldmapswithout.nz/

          2. Stoneshop Silver badge
            Holmes

            Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

            Auckland is in New Zealand. :-)

            Sydney, however, is in Australia.

            Going via Sydney also got him closer to 'travelling halfway around the world" than a direct flight from AKL/NZAA would.

            1. Eddy Ito Silver badge
              Trollface

              Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

              Now hang on here! The article doesn't specify which way the plane went. Sure, we assume he went the short way but he could have flown much farther than "half way around the world". The wonderful thing about great circles is that one can choose to go the short way but one can also choose to go the long way. Why the flight from Sidney to LA then on to DC traveling westerly would only be about 3000 miles short of twice around the world.

              1. DougS Silver badge
                Pint

                Is this some kind of record?

                Never seen 167 downvotes before, let alone 167 downvotes with 0 upvotes...bravo AC, your brain's minuscule buffer size had you set a record that may never be broken!

                Have a beer, to kill your remaining brain cell.

                1. This post has been deleted by its author

                2. James O'Shea Silver badge

                  Re: Is this some kind of record?

                  "Never seen 167 downvotes before, let alone 167 downvotes with 0 upvotes...bravo AC, your brain's minuscule buffer size had you set a record that may never be broken!"

                  It's now up to 0 to 218. I didn't think that there were 218 commentards, period, much less 218 comentards who would agree on something. One of the replies has 214 upvotes. That may be a record, too.

      2. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

        "perhaps you would prefer twitter where looking like a twit leads to getting elected president."

        Oh, you obsessed anti-Trump'ers never stop, do you? [in case you hadn't noticed, the USA is in the middle of a 'socialism vs constitution' revolution here, and CONSTITUTION is winning, thanks in large part to Trump].

        Besides I'd rather see someone who might look like a twit online, but doesn't act like a twit when actually in office (like OBAKA did, and Mrs. Clinton WOULD have). And I suspect Trump would have read the entire article before commenting (so the first part of your argument is irrelevant to the 2nd part).

        icon, because, facepalm at that last part. You were right on until that point. then it went *splat*.

    2. Aynon Yuser

      Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

      I'm having trouble understanding your "clickbaity" assessment. Can you clarify how it's clickbaity? The title seems to match the news stories going around the US.

      If you're an experienced journalist then your explanation could be invaluable in enlightening us all.

      Thanks.

    3. tfb Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

      It really is embarrassing. You see the sentence went, in part, like this:

      [...] flew from his home in Auckland to Sydney, Australia, took a connecting flight to Los Angeles, USA [...]

      So, yes, if you can only read up to the comma before commenting, you might think that the headline was silly. But, you know, if you could manage to read the whole fucking sentence, you wouldn't look like such a twit. Perhaps it reached the 140 character limit of your brain, or something?

    4. Piro

      Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

      Auckland to LA...

      It's highly embarrassing you didn't know how to read the article before posting.

    5. Jonathon Desmond

      Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

      AC is obviously deliberately combaiting.

      Being combaitative.

      Laying combait.

      Etc

      Don’t fall for it!

    6. BOFH Jr.

      Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

      Not as embarrassing as failing to finish reading the sentence you’re attempting to embarrass the author about.

    7. Rainman

      Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

      The only thing vaguely "clickbaity" around here is the wuckfittery of your post. It's generated more clicks and comment than the other responses combined ... and there I go falling for the combait. Damn, I'm just a moth to a flame.

    8. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

      It's pretty impressive, I usually jump to (hilariously wrong) conclusions after I finish a sentece. You do the same, but take a more granular, word-by-word approach. Congratulations!

      p.s. if it's a trollbait I salute you twice as vigorously! :D

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

        "if it's a trollbait I salute you twice as vigorously!"

        Two fingers instead of one?

    9. Monty Cantsin

      Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

      @ Anonymous Coward, I only read the first 3 words of the title of your post, so I have no idea what you're complaining about, but I'm presuming you're a well informed and reasonable individual who wouldn't jump to incorrect conclusions based on incomplete information and then go an inform the world of any mistaken assumptions in an impulsive and embarrassing manner.

    10. Dazed and Confused Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: "Auckland to Sydney"?

      Auckland to Sydney isn't half a world away, it's a whole different planet. Neither of whom chose to admit the existence of the other :-)

      Beer coz it's not to early from one at either end of the worm-hole.

      1. DiViDeD Silver badge

        Re: "Auckland to Sydney ... it's a whole different planet"

        You're not wrong. Sydney is often full of desperately confused arrivals from Auckland, trying to reset their watches simultaneously 1 hour back and ten years forward.

        Thankyou. I'm here all week.

      2. Faceless Man

        Re: "Auckland to Sydney"?

        Auckland looks a lot closer to Sydney if you're in Bondi on a Friday night.

    11. teebie

      Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

      "A New Zealand gamer who flew"

      I find this very farfetched.

      And don't say "Ooh, you would see what this is about if you just read further". I have read the first 28 characters of the story, so clearly I know what it is about.

    12. Sam Therapy
      Thumb Down

      Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

      You utter fucking spoon.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

        There is no spoon!

    13. Efer Brick

      Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

      I imagine you are.

    14. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

      Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

      May they meant flying to Sidney, Nova Scotia, Canada or Sydney, British Columbia, Canada which ARE half-way around the world (and more!)

    15. Chris 239

      Re: "Flew halfway around the world" = "Auckland to Sydney"?

      Yes, getting zero thumb ups and over 200 thumb downs is highly embarrassing!!

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Geek of the Week.

    It's all in yer life, and you'm a long time dead..

  5. jake Silver badge

    As we say around these parts ...

    ... Stupidity should hurt!

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: As we say around these parts ...

      To quote Niven and Pournelle, "think of it as evolution in action."

      1. Sixtysix
        Go

        Re: Evolution in Action

        Ooh yes... time to re-read that classic!

        Thumbs up for the reminder.

  6. Waseem Alkurdi

    Isn't he supposed to be ...

    ... tried for attempting to harass the girl as well, not only for the break-in, or there's nothing like that?

    Anyway, should it be said that justice was served fresh and hot out of the gun's barrel?

    1. Solarflare

      Re: Isn't he supposed to be ...

      I'm sure when it gets a bit down the line he will have extra charges added to his sheet. I'd think there's a good chance of getting something along the lines of "conspiracy to kidnap" added without much effort too.

      1. Credas Silver badge

        Re: Isn't he supposed to be ...

        I'd think there's a good chance of getting something along the lines of "conspiracy to kidnap" added without much effort too.

        I reckon a conspiracy charge is just about the only one he won't eventually find himself facing, given that apparently he was acting alone.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: Isn't he supposed to be ...

          "given that apparently he was acting alone."

          They can always add the Walmart. Or claim he has a split personality.

      2. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

        Re: Isn't he supposed to be ...

        But he should look on the bright side (if there is a bright side to years in a US hell-hole) - if it had happened in the UK he wouldn't have been shot, but they'd probably have hit him with trrrrrsm charges (possesion of material likely to be of use to a trrrrst, i.e duct tape) and locked him up for life.

        1. Elmer Phud Silver badge

          Re: Isn't he supposed to be ...

          "but they'd probably have hit him with trrrrrsm charges2

          Nah he's white.

          White people are 'freedom fighters' (not career criminals with a life based on fraud)

          1. Tuesday Is Soylent Green Day

            @Elmer Phud

            Really? You make this into a race issue? How about you go eff yourself?

        2. Phil W

          Re: Isn't he supposed to be ...

          "possesion of material likely to be of use to a trrrrst, i.e duct tape"

          While that charge does have the potential to be abused, I'm pretty sure they'd be tying it to the knife and pepper spray rather than the duct tape, which is somewhat more justifiable they'd only try for the duct tape as a terrorist implement if that's all he had.

          Plus, honestly if you travel round the world and buy weapons with the clear intention of breaking into a house to attack a teenager you deserve zero sympathy and should be charged and convicted of anything that will stick.

          Violent crimes are sometimes, to a greater or lesser extent at least in some way understandable, when done in the heat of the moment in immediate response to some kind of perceived slight.

          But if after spending more than 24 hours in airports and on planes not to mention the time it would take to arrange those flights, you're still committed to violence against a person you've never even met then you're clearly a lunatic who should be locked up for as long as legally possible and subject to psychiatric treatment.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Isn't he supposed to be ...

            I disagree. I don't think this person is necessarily all that dangerous, assuming he has no previous record of violence, because:

            * He may respond to psychiatric treatment.

            * It's possible, indeed probably, he wouldn't have injured the victim even if he hadn't been prevented. Unless he has a record of violence it's likely he would have changed his mind / realised his mistake / chickened out. Most people are naturally averse to injuring other people in reality, even if they fantasize about it.

            * He's young enough to grow out of this kind of madness.

            The defence will, of course, point out that the equipment was purchased locally, which wipes out your "still committed to violence" argument. The idea of violence may have occurred to him at the last moment, under the influence of sleep deprivation and jet lag, or perhaps under the influence of US "immigration" procedures.

            1. Robert Helpmann?? Silver badge
              Joke

              Re: Isn't he supposed to be ...

              ..under the influence of US "immigration" procedures.

              Good point! They will probably throw some immigration charges against him too as I am sure there's nothing on the visa forms that involve deranged kidnapping attempt as a reason for visiting the country.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          trrrrrsm charges

          Nobody likes tourists, but everyone wants their money.

      3. DropBear Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: Isn't he supposed to be ...

        "I'm sure when it gets a bit down the line he will have extra charges added to his sheet."

        Ehhh, don't even bother with those, just add "wire fraud" at the end - that seems to be the one that truly gets everyone these days, and he _was_ using the internet after all...

    2. rmason Silver badge

      Re: Isn't he supposed to be ...

      By the time it reaches that stage they'll have a list of charges as long as the guy is tall.

      That's how it works in the USA, pile up those charges, *BUT WAIT* we'll drop this many if you plead guilty and do X years, or you can go to court and risk the 78 years the multitude of charges would mean.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Isn't he supposed to be ...

        "That's how it works in the USA, pile up those charges, *BUT WAIT* we'll drop this many if you plead guilty and do X years, or you can go to court and risk the 78 years the multitude of charges would mean."

        You have either watched to much TV or are an anti America kick. Lets say they hit you with 20 crimes but the top count has a max of a 5 years then yo are looking at 5 years as the time will run concurrent. It's exceptionally rare to have the sentence run continuously /conservatively. Even for career criminals .

        1. c1ue

          Re: Isn't he supposed to be ...

          Concurrent sentences aren't automatic.

          Furthermore, the additional charges are added later to keep you in the s**thole jail for months and years, until the general crappiness of living there makes even innocent people plead out, which in turns pumps up the prosecutor's track record for when he goes for judgeship.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. kain preacher Silver badge

            Re: Isn't he supposed to be ...

            Cue it depends on the state and the crime. Most states have restrictions on concurrent sentence and max time. It's not this sledge hammer you think it is.

            https://centerforprisonreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Consecutive-Sentences-in-America-2015_06_09.pdf

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Isn't he supposed to be ...

          That's for federal-level offenses! Most states or counties have consecutive sentencing laws where charges are stacked in consecutive layers! 5 counts of 2 to 4 years each served consecutively add up to a 10 to 20 year sentence! If certain conditions are met, such as a specific type of weapon such as a knife, scissors or sharp object were used or present, then sentences are automatically tripled so that 10 to 20 years ends up being 30 to 60 years!

          And in the USA, State Penns are far worse places to to serve your sentence than the federal prison system since they tend to have much harsher environments such as 2 inch thick mattresses, two-to-four inmates per cell, only two meals a day at $2.76 US per day assigned for cost of food, so the meals are agonizingly horrible all the time. Your medical treatment for a shank wound (stabbing which is the most common injury in US prisons) consists of two Tylenol every 6 hours (Paracetimol) for a week. Hopefully you don't bleed to death internally in the meantime since you don't get sent to the hospital but rather the prison clinic which does not usually have an X-Ray machine!

          You also get locked in your 6x10 ft 20 hours per day with your 1-to-3 bunkmates with a half hour for breakfast/lunch and then dinner and two or three hours of recreation, low level education or showering (you get 1 fifteen minute shower per every 4 days so it always stinks in prison of raw body odor!) Many state-level prisons and county jails have also removed their televisions and coffee/tea. You want a drink? You get a cup of water or Tang twice a day! You want recreation, you think or talk to yourself or try to converse semi-literately with your cell mates. You want air conditioning and heating? NO! To save money, many states and counties have a policy of turning off their air conditioning or heating during many months so you're either freezing or boiling during your stay. And every day, once or twice a day, in many state prisons, you are stood up against a wall and all cavity searched. I think many of you know what that means!

          No these are not exaggerations! The American prison system really is that brutal! And if you are a small male or female less than 160 lbs, you will be in a world of hurt as the larger and stronger prisoners, during their general prison congregation hours, tend to brutalize the smaller and weaker prisoners for fun which is why you need to join a gang once you're in.

          America is way more brutal than Europe! Even short sentences can get you ending up in a literal hell-hole which will scar you mentally and many times physically for life!

      2. Joe Gurman

        Re: Isn't he supposed to be ...

        Sorry, Buckwheat, but the local prosecutors are simply following the law, as defined in Virginia, which is, you know, kind of east you'd like district/state's attorneys to be doing. Breaking and Entering to Commit A Misdemeanor Other than Trespass or Assault and Battery (Va. Code §18.2-92) is a Class 6 felony, punishable with up to 5 years in prison, but if the offender was armed with a deadly weapon, the offense becomes a Class 2 felony, punished with 20 years to life in prison. There is no lesser to which he can plead, but it may be (I'm ignorant) that the jury is asked to decide whether he intended to commit a serious offense, and if so, then separately determine whether he was armed with a deadly &c.

        That, at least, was the way it worked in a trial in which I was a juror in a neighbo[u]ring (but culturally very different) state on charges of assault: first, did simple assault, a misdemeano[u]r, take place; if yes, then was it aggravated assault, a felony, which could bring s much stiffer sentence. The state's attorney wanted a conviction on the latter charge, but that required the jury first finding the defendant guilty own the lesser charge. There was no volition or piling on charges; it was a simple if b then a first.

        And the defendant was already behind bars on other corsages at the time of trial, so it was not as if she were a present menace to society.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Isn't he supposed to be ...

      > should it be said that justice was served fresh and hot out of the gun's barrel?

      No. That was just a consequence of needing to indulge in self defence.

      Justice is something else entirely.

    4. JohnG Silver badge

      Re: Isn't he supposed to be ...

      The cops have already said there may be additional charges, on top of "breaking and entering with a deadly weapon with the intent to commit rape, robbery or murder". As I understand it, this is a Class 2 felony in Virginia and could carry a sentence upon conviction of 20 years to life and a fine of up to $100,000.

    5. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: Isn't he supposed to be ...

      "should it be said that justice was served fresh and hot out of the gun's barrel?"

      Yes, and by an angry "mama bear" who knew how to properly use a firearm! But we still have to jail the guy for (allegedly) having the chutzpah to fly halfway around the world to stalk a young teenage girl with apparent intent to kidnap (or worse). [where was Ted Hanson?]

      I'd _MUCH_ rather see that (alleged) idiot's face on a mugshot, than the girl's face on a milk carton. So, KUDOS to mama bear for SHOOTING him! And, KUDOS to law enforcement for NOT prosecuting her for doing it!

      [yes, there IS still hope for the world/country/etc.]

      And I think the (alleged) perpetrator (allegedly) deserves a *DARWIN* *AWARD*! At _least_ get him out of the gene pool by keeping him in PRISON!!!

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: Isn't he supposed to be ...

        Y'know, bob ... it's frothing loons like you seem to be[0] (and StargateSg7 apparently actually is) in threads like this that are going to get my firearms confiscated. Kindly tone down the rhetoric in places like this. You are doing more harm than good.

        [0] Note: I don't think bob's a frothing loon. I think he's either been brainwashed in the politics department, or he's one of the best political trolls out there. It would be hard to explain the caricature that he is portraying in any other way ...

  7. J. R. Hartley Silver badge

    The title is no longer required.

    If he was black she'd have took his head off much sooner.

    1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

      1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: The title is no longer required.

          It doesn't matter what color your skin is, J. R. Hartley. What you are is a blithering idiot. Do you really think, even deep down, that the lady in question stopped to think "Oh, he's white ... I'll shoot him a bit more slowly because he's not black"? Because that's what you typed.

          Folks in that kind of situation don't notice skin colo(u)r, they quite literally don't have time to process that kind of information. Nor should they, as it's irrelevant to what's happening. So take your own xenophobic stereotypes and shove them up your pasty white butt.

        2. LucreLout Silver badge

          Re: The title is no longer required.

          I'm not black you cunt.

          No, but you are emotive and seemingly not very bright. Read my post and report back where I state your skin colour. Can't find it? No, wonder why that might be....

          Don't have to be black to point out the racism in America.

          And you don't have to be black to play the worn out race card incorrectly, as you are.

    2. Mattmattic

      Re: The title is no longer required.

      J. R. Harley, shouldn't you stick with fly fishing, instead of trolling?

  8. leeCh
    Go

    NZ Themed

    So that would be:

    "Flight of the Dischords"?

  9. Andy Mac
    Childcatcher

    I thought of the child(ren)

    While I’m firmly pro-gun control, it’s still nice to read a story of somone using a firearm who isn’t a criminal/cop/toddler and a shootee who seems to have thouroughly deserved it.

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: I thought of the child(ren)

      She was pro gun control, too. That being a good sight picture, a steady hand, proper breathing and squeeze not pull.

      Loony control is unfortunately a lot harder in modern society, alas.

      Violence control is a wetware issue, not a hardware issue.

      1. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

        Re: I thought of the child(ren)

        @jake

        Sounds like the training didn't work too well. Hit him once in the neck. Other shot probably went through the window of the house opposite, and narrowly missed the occupants who were quietly watching telly.

        She was two feet away from him, but couldn't see him to target because of a closed door. The safe option would be to shoot a single warning shot through the top of the door, at an upward angle. Would probably miss, but a) he'd know she was serious and b) no risk of injury to innocent passers by.

        1. Phil W

          Re: I thought of the child(ren)

          "The safe option would be to shoot a single warning shot through the top of the door, at an upward angle."

          Or alternatively, given that she appears to have shot him while he had his arm through the window of the door trying to open it, shoot him in the arm that you can see.

        2. LucreLout Silver badge

          Re: I thought of the child(ren)

          She was two feet away from him, but couldn't see him to target because of a closed door. The safe option would be to shoot a single warning shot through the top of the door, at an upward angle.

          The safe option is to clip him, reload, and clip him again. Repeat until the police arrive or you run out of bullets. When its your child he's attempting to kidnap, rape, and murder, your definition of safe simply doesn't encompass the offender.

          1. DavCrav Silver badge

            Re: I thought of the child(ren)

            "When its your child he's attempting to kidnap, rape, and murder, your definition of safe simply doesn't encompass the offender."

            Does it encompass bystanders?

            1. jake Silver badge

              Re: I thought of the child(ren)

              DavCrav: Hopefully you do not now, and never will have children.

              But if this unfortunate chain of events should occur, please do get back to us when you find out, m'k?

            2. Homeboy

              Re: I thought of the child(ren)

              What bystanders?

              The ones in your head or real ones that somehow aren't mentioned?

            3. LucreLout Silver badge

              Re: I thought of the child(ren)

              Does it encompass bystanders?

              Why would she be shooting a bystander?

        3. MonkeyCee Silver badge

          Re: I thought of the child(ren)

          "Sounds like the training didn't work too well. "

          She was using a .22 pistol. Hence why he's still breathing. Pretty sure those things deflect a fair bit when going through a door, depending on what material it's made from.

          She was also firing defensively, ie until he fucked off and the cops showed up. Else she would have carried on firing.

          "She was two feet away from him, but couldn't see him to target because of a closed door. "

          That would be the door made from glass? So all she could see was a large black mass and a hand coming through the broken pane. It was 4:30pm, so I presume not too dark.

          "The safe option would be to shoot a single warning shot through the top of the door"

          The advice I had from a friendly copper was that you shoot the intruder first, and then put a shot into the ceiling later. Then at trial you can claim you fired a warning shot. He also suggested a shotgun, since you can quite happily shoot through a door.

          As for the guy, how stupid do you need to be. Don't get into online fights, if your online GF ditches you, then showing up at her place isn't going to change anything. Oh, and if you're plannign a home invasion, the USA is a very bad choice.

          1. Homeboy

            Re: I thought of the child(ren)

            I think Mom needs to trade up to something heavier. Theb no-one would have to waste time and money on this wannabe kidnapper's trial and imprisonment.

            A .22 doesn't really have enough stopping power to deal with an intruder.

            1. Alan Brown Silver badge

              Re: I thought of the child(ren)

              "A .22 doesn't really have enough stopping power to deal with an intruder."

              The myth of "bigger is better" again?

              As with knives (a lot of fatal stabbings are done with a pen-knife), a .22 is quite effective, even in unskilled hands. Amongst other things the bullet has sufficient energy to enter a skull but not enough to leave, so it tends to rattle around inside for a wee while before stopping - resulting in scrambled brains for a tiny entry hole.

              As for Skinner - It's good that the girl's mother didn't kill him. He's going to wish she had though.

              1. Chris G Silver badge

                Re: I thought of the child(ren)

                A .22 unless it hits at right angles to the skull surface, is more likely to graze the bone and ricochet off, imparting little useful energy.

                If you are going to have a gun for self defence you may as well have something that will have an effect wherever and however you hit the target, even .38s can be relatively ineffective depending on where and how they hit.

                Personally I'm a fan of a big stick, blunt force trauma is very effective and less likely to get me into serious trouble but if I lived in a place where a .45 was legal for home defence, I would probably have one for when the stick is not enough.

            2. VinceH Silver badge

              Re: I thought of the child(ren)

              "A .22 doesn't really have enough stopping power to deal with an intruder."

              It appears to have stopped the one this story was about.

              1. Dal90

                Re: I thought of the child(ren)

                >>"A .22 doesn't really have enough stopping power to deal with an intruder."

                >It appears to have stopped the one this story was about.

                Because he was shot in the neck.

                Folks under attack aren't executing people with a gun shot to the head of an unexpecting (or unresisting) victim. They aren't aiming for the smallest part of the persons profile (the neck) except in the most unusual circumstances. They are firing with the sole intent of stopping the attacker from continuing to be a physical threat to the victim.

                So for self defense you would like to have something with enough energy to it to hopefully incapacitate with a single shot to the center of mass (the biggest part of the body thus easiest target to hit) -- not a lucky shot piercing the neck or a skilled shot rattling around in the skull. A .22 long rifle can also be quite lethal if not treated promptly, but eventual lethality is not the same as immediately incapacitating someone and/or incapacitating someone with the fewest shots needed.

                When I had woodchuck problems (they were subsiding my front lawn...my house sits on the edge of forests and fields) it always made me feel bad the only rifle I had was .22 long rifle that would drop them immediately and put them in shock -- but would invariably require the administration of a coup de grace to kill them. Wished I could've afforded even a .22 magnum that would have killed in a single shot.

            3. Mike Moyle Silver badge

              Re: I thought of the child(ren)

              "A .22 doesn't really have enough stopping power to deal with an intruder."

              That is apparently incorrect. The alleged perp seems to have been sufficiently dealt with: he was injured and driven off, and taken into custody.

              1. kain preacher Silver badge

                Re: I thought of the child(ren)

                .22 doesn't really have enough stopping power to deal with an intruder."

                Um didn't the guy collapse on the neighbors lawn? They life flight you just for the fun of it either.

        4. ArrZarr Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: I thought of the child(ren)

          @Pen-y-gors

          On the other hand, it takes a certain knack to shoot somebody in the neck and not kill them.

          I'm sure that there's a Pratchett quote that's relevant here but can't remember it for the life of me.

        5. jake Silver badge

          Re: I thought of the child(ren)

          Thanks for the input from Wales, Pen-y-gors. I'm sure you are quite correct, what with all your experience in such matters.

          Love the invented story of the neighbors. Did it make you all emotional as you typed it? Do you realize that that is exactly how your government wants you to feel?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: I thought of the child(ren)

            Do you realize that that is exactly how your government wants you to feel?

            What - the Welsh Assembly?

        6. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: I thought of the child(ren)

          @ Pen-y-gors

          "Sounds like the training didn't work too well. Hit him once in the neck."

          She hit her target, sounds good to me. And as MonkeyCee mentions a .22 will do damage but a door will have considerable effect on the bullet.

          "Other shot probably went through the window of the house opposite, and narrowly missed the occupants who were quietly watching telly."

          Why? Have you seen the large amount of space they have over there? A lawn and then a wide road then another lawn etc. And you are talking about a .22 fired from a pistol into a door.

          "The safe option would be to shoot a single warning shot through the top of the door, at an upward angle."

          Hell no. You are the one worrying about the neighbours watching TV and you want to put a bullet through the air which will intentionally miss the attacker? First it will still be affected by the door and will lose a lot of energy just hitting that (and malforming the bullet) but carrying your concern of travelling bullets- what goes up must come down and it would travel much further. As to a warning, she did a verbal warning she has a gun. Thats more than enough.

          *I am in the UK but I used to fire .22 rifle.

          1. Davisch

            Re: I thought of the child(ren)

            Just a small correction here. You seem to have been infected by the NRA description of .22s as 'plinking (sp?)' guns, so a couple of properties is good enough to stop the bullets. Fact is that when I first encountered them a .22 long rifle round was classified as potentially lethal up to 2 miles i.e. you don't have to have an aimed target to kill someone.

            Little known fact: Most national level agencies that did that sort of thing preferred slightly overloaded .22 long rifle rounds for assassination. More of the kinetic energy would be transferred to the target, and distance was not normally a factor.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: I thought of the child(ren)

              "Most national level agencies that did that sort of thing preferred slightly overloaded .22 long rifle rounds for assassination. More of the kinetic energy would be transferred to the target, and distance was not normally a factor."

              If the kinetic energy of the bullet is mass * velocity squared, then decreased mass can be offset by increasing the velocity (with more charge in the cartridge). A small high speed round is more likely to penetrate but will be slowed dramatically and is likely to ricochet around the body cavity. It is a much louder bang though.

              1. jake Silver badge

                Re: I thought of the child(ren)

                "A small high speed round is more likely to penetrate"

                Depends on what you mean by "high speed". I shot a bird sitting on a branch of a tree on my target range once. It was a .22[0] with a trifle more powder, the range was 500 yards. The bullet exploded on impact, killing the bird AND the bird on the branch above it.

                [0] For values of .22 that equals .220 Swift, pushed to 5,000 f/s ...

        7. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: I thought of the child(ren)

          " The safe option would be to shoot a single warning shot through the top of the door, at an upward angle."

          Unsafe

          "no risk of injury to innocent passers by."

          Until the bullet comes down somewhere - which can be anywhere up to a couple of miles away.

          Unless it's a shotgun, it's better to fire your warning shots _downwards_. That way even if it ricochets the bullet has lost most of its energy.

          1. DCFusor Silver badge

            Re: I thought of the child(ren)

            As a VA resident who teaches the concealed weapon carry class...

            Warning shots are completely illegal. Partly for the reasons mentioned, but if you think a warning shot is called for, you cannot also believe your life is in imminent danger. Movies aren't reality.

            Brandishing is illegal. No pointing a gun - if you get it out, you'd better shoot.

            If you are convinced your life is in danger, you may shoot at the (assumed) perp.

            There are occasional exceptions and variations between states, but they are relatively rare.

            If you happen to stop a mass killing or save a whole store/bank full of people, they might look the other way about you being in lethal danger personally. But might is a scary qualifier word, given the letter of the law, and of course if you mess up in some way, which is easy to do, that's right out...

            The scuttlebutt (which includes comments from police) is that if you're going to shoot someone in that kind of situation, you'd better kill them. Reason being - assume it is a perp type - they are expert at being dishonest and usually have some experience with the legal system. They're the one wounded, and that makes it possible for a lawyer to make a case it was somehow your fault. In these cases it's he said, she said - but one of them has a bullet hole and creating those tends to be highly discouraged.

            In our just-us system, the rules are obviously quite different for police.

            1. Davisch

              Re: I thought of the child(ren)

              The scuttlebutt (which includes comments from police) is that if you're going to shoot someone in that kind of situation, you'd better kill them.

              Yep, in my experience dead people seldom complain

            2. J. Cook Silver badge
              Boffin

              Re: I thought of the child(ren)

              @DCFusor:

              This. The concealed carry class that Arizona teaches states rather clearly: You shoot to stop the intruder, not to kill, not to wound, but to stop them from continuing what they are doing. If the perp just so happens to decide to take the 'room temperature challenge', so be it.

              I'm pretty certain that Virginia follows 'castle doctrine' (Arizona does), so you are permitted to shoot at someone who is trying to enter your castle uninvited and forcibly. Out here in the wild wild west, we have open carry, so the question of brandishing is... a grey area. (My non-laywer sense says that brandishing out here is having the gun out of it's holster, or in any sort of ready position.)

              Warning shots are both patently illegal, ill-advised, and IMHO mark you as an irresponsible gun owner.

          2. Davisch

            Re: I thought of the child(ren)

            Have an upvote sir, see my post above for why.

        8. 2Nick3 Bronze badge

          Re: I thought of the child(ren)

          "The safe option would be to shoot a single warning shot through the top of the door, at an upward angle. Would probably miss, but a) he'd know she was serious and b) no risk of injury to innocent passers by."

          Shooting upward is one of the most irresponsible things you can do with a gun - those bullets come back down (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire). Hitting your target is priority #1, not hitting something else is a close #2.

        9. Eddy Ito Silver badge

          Re: I thought of the child(ren)

          @Pen-y-gors

          How do you know she was two feet away? Being two feet away would be a stupid thing because you could easily be hit by door fragments should he bust it open and be within ready reach of the attacker. Natural instinct would be to get as far away as possible and assume a non exposed position so it's more likely that the shots came from across the room. Also as the door was glass and at the back of the house, probably of the sliding variety which is quite common leading to a deck, so she could easily have see him quite clearly. Moreover, given the area is highly wooded it's unlikely a stray level shot from a .22 pistol would make it through the brush.

          Lastly, shooting a warning shot at an upward angle is perhaps the worst possible advice since it means that if the bullet isn't stopped by the door, again glass which she apparently shot through, it now has an upward trajectory which only increases the distance the bullet has the potential to reach as it could potentially clear the near line of trees and decreases your knowledge about where it may wind up. Of course with Goochland having a population density of 77 people per square mile it's probably of little concern even if they live only a few minutes from "down town".

        10. Robert Helpmann?? Silver badge
          Childcatcher

          Re: I thought of the child(ren)

          The safe option would be to shoot a single warning shot ...at an upward angle. ... [with] no risk of injury to innocent passers by.

          This is not true and is bad advice on a number of levels. First, what goes up comes down just as hard. While the bullet might lose a little momentum from hitting the door and also from being deformed from the impact, to say there is no risk of injury is incorrect. Once the gun is discharged, there is risk in any populated area.

          Second, there was already a warning, several actually, which the attacker chose to ignore. Wasting ammunition in a situation where it will be needed imminently and endangering other people (see first point) for the equivalent of shouting "I really. really mean it" doesn't sound like a particularly good approach.

          Third, don't pull the trigger unless you intend to do the damage. If you are in a situation of this nature, don't play around. Do what is needed and be done with it.

          Finally, training is one thing, the real world is something else again. It's not like a video game where you can just keep playing until you get it right. She was facing a literal threat to her life and to her child and at the same time had to know the consequences of discharging her weapon were going to be high. Many, many people who have been put in emergency situations fail spectacularly the first time. She did not.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Jake

        To control him the mum needed to do some wetwork

  10. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Windows

    Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

    Luckily Littel Red Riding Hood was not in a disarmed country.

    1. Alister Silver badge

      Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

      Traditionally, Little Red Riding Hood was saved by a hunter / woodsman with an axe, no firearms involved...

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

        To be fair, firearms didn't exist when the fairy tale of LRRH originated ... and I'll go out on a limb and suggest that if they did, the woodsman would have been armed with one.

        1. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

          Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

          @jake

          Possibly, but the woodsman had an axe as a tool of his trade, to cut down trees. It takes a hell of a lot of bullets to chop down a douglas fir!

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

            When I'm logging, I often have a firearm (or three, occasionally) close to hand. Dinner lives in the woods, you know.

            1. Mark 85 Silver badge

              Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

              When I'm logging, I often have a firearm (or three, occasionally) close to hand. Dinner lives in the woods, you know.

              Not to mention critters that would like to have you as the main course for dinner.

          2. Phil W

            Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

            "It takes a hell of a lot of bullets to chop down a douglas fir!"

            That would depend on the size of the bullets. It would definitely take more than one, but probably less than 5 or 10 .50 cal rounds.

            1. jake Silver badge

              Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

              On my family's property, there is a fir tree that we have been pinning targets on for nearly 140 years. It probably has nearly a ton of lead in it. Over 60 of those many shots were from my Barrett .50, and another couple dozen from the .416 that I traded for it. The fir tree is thriving.

              1. Alistair Silver badge
                Windows

                Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

                Some folks just don't understand a tree with a 12' diameter trunk base.

                I do however recall cutting down a 4 or 5 year old maple with an uzi 9mm 40 round clip once. A loooooong time ago.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

              "It takes a hell of a lot of bullets to chop down a douglas fir!"

              That would depend on the size of the bullets. It would definitely take more than one, but probably less than 5 or 10 .50 cal rounds.

              Didn't "Mythbusters" bust this one?

          3. Shadow Systems Silver badge

            At Pen-y-gors, re: bullets & trees.

            It only takes one bullet to bring down any tree that isn't petrified. The round just needs to be an armor piercing high explosive one & you can kiss that tree goodbye. If you acknowledge that the round from a Howitzer is a bullet writ large, then it doesn't have to be an APHE one, it just has to hit the tree a glancing blow to reduce it to splinters.

            Granted, LRR probably wasn't armed with a Howitzer, but that's only because they're too hard to fit in your knickers.

            "Is that a 120mm cannon in your pants, or are you just REALLY happy to see me?"

            *Cough*

            =-Jp

          4. 2Nick3 Bronze badge
            Happy

            Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

            "It takes a hell of a lot of bullets to chop down a douglas fir!"

            True, but that just makes it that much more fun to try! Don't ask me how I know, I just do, OK??

        2. Elmer Phud Silver badge

          Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

          Now, I know that there are some superb rapid-fire guns for use on ships and the like but not sure that there is one made for the lumber market.

          1. Cameron Colley

            Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

            Somebody managed to cut down a tree with one of his "toys":

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KEz355keJ0

          2. J. Cook Silver badge
            Joke

            Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

            Mythbusters tried that; they used a M134 Minigun, and while it worked, it took far longer than a chainsaw or axe, and made a mess as well. (along with chewing up a good deal of ammunition)

            A better choice would have been a GAU-8 Avenger.

        3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

          "To be fair, firearms didn't exist when the fairy tale of LRRH originated"

          I'm not sure when it did originate (although they existed when the Brothers Grimm wrote it up) but before firearms there were bows and arrows to which firearms were the successor.

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

            Bows & arrows aren't handy when cutting timber. Nor do they work well in even light brush. My old Kimber fits the bill, though.

          2. Alister Silver badge

            Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

            I'm not sure when it did originate

            10th century, according to various sources - it is originally of French / Norman origin, long before the Grimms happened upon it.

            For context, the Chinese were just beginning to use fire lances at the start of the 11th century.

            The Battle of Agincourt, which was notable for the mass use of the longbow as a decisive weapon, wasn't until 1415, (15th century) and the first hand-held firearms appeared in Europe a decade or two later.

            1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

              Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

              "The Battle of Agincourt, which was notable for the mass use of the longbow as a decisive weapon, wasn't until 1415, (15th century)"

              Petite tranchet arrowheads go back to the Mesolithic which was a few thousand years beyond the C15th.

              1. Alister Silver badge

                Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

                Petite tranchet arrowheads go back to the Mesolithic which was a few thousand years beyond the C15th.

                Oh yes of course, I wasn't trying to suggest that the bow and arrow were a new idea in the 15th Century, rather that they were still considered a decisive weapon at that point.

                It wasn't until the late 15th that firearms were starting to be used on battlefields in Europe, and of course initially only as bloody big cannon, not hand-weapons.

            2. Ghostman

              Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

              Burning match (fuse) firearms were first recorded being used in 1364 (according to PBS)

              1. jake Silver badge

                Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

                1364? Try 1288 (and probably earlier).

        4. Jellied Eel Silver badge

          Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

          and I'll go out on a limb and suggest that if they did, the woodsman would have been armed with one.

          Colt made a nifty .22 target pistol called the 'Woodsman'. Quite an accurate and discreet pistol, especially if fitted with a supressor. So "Would be woodsman felled by woman's Woodsman".

          But joking aside, it must have been a terrifying experience for the women. The attacker must have been pretty deranged and determined to travel all that way, and based on his behaviour and what he was carrying, his intentions didn't look good. Self-defence seemed quite justified and demonstrate why firearms can be a good thing, especially if home invasions are fairly common, and police response times can be quite long.

          1. The Oncoming Scorn Silver badge
            Holmes

            Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

            The Colt Woodsman has been involved in one murder in the UK (1981).

            https://shootersunion.com.au/the-folly-of-gun-registration-part-1/

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!" / huntsman

        That Little Red Riding Hood hunter / woodsman with an axe was a proper CREEP. Think Jack Nicholson, think "here's JOHNNY!" A double-barrelled shotgun on the other hand... perfectly sane!

      3. Dazed and Confused Silver badge

        Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

        LRRH kept her pistol in her knickers.

        Everyone knows that.

        "The small girl smiles. One eyelid flickers. She whips a pistol from her knickers."

        Roald Dahl

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

          "LRRH kept her pistol in her knickers."

          You'd expect nothing less from the daughter of Robbing Hood.

    2. JohnG Silver badge

      Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

      I think he is more likely to end up with tattoos indicating that he is someone else's prison bitch.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: Now he can get a tattoo, "Shot by the Mom!"

        JohnG, prison rape is nothing to make fun of. Rape is rape. There are absolutely no extenuating circumstances that makes it OK.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Mistake...

    Biggest and most costly mistake this chap likely made is not having health/travel insurance for his injuries in the good ol' US of A...

    1. Sixtysix
      Facepalm

      Re: Mistake...

      Pretty sure any insurance policy he could have procured would have a lovely "...not involved in criminal pursuits..." exclusion.

  12. Mike 125

    Psycho creeps will always be with us.

    >>the mother – who had no idea of her daughter's online interactions

    And there, just there- that's most of the problem.

    Not wanting to go all DM here, but in the UK the mom would probably have been arrested.

    1. wolfetone Silver badge

      Re: Psycho creeps will always be with us.

      "Not wanting to go all DM here, but in the UK the mom would probably have been arrested."

      Yes, she would for initial investigations. But as he was shot facing her, it'd be self defence and she'd be let off.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Psycho creeps will always be with us.

        yeah, in the UK she'd be let off, having her dna taken (for ever), and being put on God-knows-how-many databases, no doubt.

        1. Elmer Phud Silver badge

          Re: Psycho creeps will always be with us.

          Shooting people in the UK is actually seen as a serious matter.

          Or were you not aware of that?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: arrested for protecting your kids

            > Shooting people in the UK is actually seen as a serious matter.

            OK if she'd hit him with her umbrella which she kept by the door for use on rainy days.

            Or even if she'd struggled with him while he was holding his knife, managed to get it off him and he ended up cutting himself in the process, they still have arrested the mother.

            1. Alan Brown Silver badge

              Re: arrested for protecting your kids

              "OK if she'd hit him with her umbrella which she kept by the door for use on rainy days."

              Or cricket bat and suspiciously sharpened stumps. (as suggested by a local copper)

          2. jake Silver badge

            Re: Psycho creeps will always be with us.

            "Shooting people in the UK is actually seen as a serious matter."

            Breaking into an occupied dwelling with the intent to do harm to a child, or anybody else, is a serious matter anywhere on the planet.

            Or were you not aware of that?

      2. Alister Silver badge

        Re: Psycho creeps will always be with us.

        Yes, she would for initial investigations. But as he was shot facing her, it'd be self defence and she'd be let off.

        Really? Going on recent history in the UK, she'd more likely have been convicted of illegal possession of a firearm, attempted manslaughter, and parental neglect...

        1. Teiwaz Silver badge

          Re: Psycho creeps will always be with us.

          and parental neglect...

          Nice that it would be for parents oblivious to the online interactions of wayward progeny to finally get a demonstrable repercussion, I doubt neglect would ever be laid or even pursued.

          If only as it's too good a base excuse for internet clamp-downs in the name of 'protecting children'. Now if only there was a chance children could be caught up in a war zone they'd do their utmost to cut that out too....wait, what? they are???? And they're not doing much about it????

        2. wolfetone Silver badge

          @Alister

          "Really? Going on recent history in the UK, she'd more likely have been convicted of illegal possession of a firearm, attempted manslaughter, and parental neglect..."

          Don't be a clown.

          You're allowed to own a firearm in the UK, either a shotgun or a rifle. You have to be a member of a shooting club to get the license, and the license gets renewed every two years (I think).

          The Karl Bridgwater case did a lot to nail down the responsibilities of gun owners and home owners. In that case, as you might remember, the farmer said he shot Karl in self defence. However, the prosecution reasoned that Karl was shot in the back, so he was running away. If he's running away, then there is no longer an immediate threat to life to the home owner. So the farmer in this case (as far as I'm concerned) was wrong to shoot him. If Karl had attacked him with a crowbar then it's self defence. Otherwise it isn't.

          Even as recently as a few months ago when the pensioner stabbed the burglar. He was arrested and investigated because, thankfully, no one can just claim self defence when it was a pre-mediated murder.

          So away with you to the Daily Fail website!

          1. Alister Silver badge

            Re: @Alister

            @wolftone

            I forgot, sarcasm doesn't get across very well on El Reg unless you add /sarc...

          2. Ledswinger Silver badge

            Re: @Alister

            Wolfetone, have you been on the pop?

            "The Karl Bridgwater case did a lot to nail down the responsibilities of gun owners and home owners. In that case, as you might remember, the farmer said he shot Karl in self defence. "

            You're confusing the case of Carl Bridgewater who was murdered in 1978, with the separate case of Tony Martin, who shot a burglar in the back in 1999.

        3. R3sistance

          Re: Psycho creeps will always be with us.

          UK has a concept of reasonable force. In this case you have a man trying to break into a house with known occupants inside of it, it is reasonable in these circumstances to believe that he intends harm to the occupants, potentially lethally so. So while the Mother might be initially arrested in the UK, she'd be let go once the evidence gathered showed the legitimacy of her actions.

      3. LucreLout Silver badge

        Re: Psycho creeps will always be with us.

        Yes, she would for initial investigations

        Which is the crux of the problem. People defending their families in their own homes should not be subject to arrest. Arrest for anything ever invalidates things like the USA visa waiver elligibility, and that very much does mess with your employment opportunities - at least in the City.

        The visa waiver is used covertly as a proxy for not being a criminal, given the impossibility of determining if the person applying for the job is hiding behind the rehab of offenders act when completing the declaration of offences section. Whether it should or shouldn't is irrelevant - it is, and defending your family at home should not compromise your career opportunities.

        1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

          Re: Psycho creeps will always be with us.

          People defending their families in their own homes should not be subject to arrest. Arrest for anything ever invalidates things like the USA visa waiver elligibility, and that very much does mess with your employment opportunities - at least in the City.

          That comes down to the fuckwitts of America not being able to understand that arrest is not the same as being charged nor the same as being convicted.

          America's stupidity is not a good reason to change our perfectly good due process procedures. It is however one of many good reasons to think about wanting to go there.

          1. Dal90

            Re: Psycho creeps will always be with us.

            >That comes down to the fuckwitts of America not being able to

            >understand that arrest is not the same as being charged

            Because in America, an warrantless arrest only takes place after the police have decided at least the first thing they will be charging you with.

            You can be detained ("seized") for an investigation, or the safety of the officers or others. That might look like an arrest, with the person placed in hand cuffs and all that -- for a brief amount of time and, except for extenuating circumstances, kept at the scene until a decision is made to charge or release.

            That may become protective custody, that may become an arrest, that may become take the handcuffs off and tell them to have a nice day.

            Per the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1968 Terry decision,

            "It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs "seizures" of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the station house and prosecution for crime-"arrests" in traditional terminology."

            If you're arrested in the U.S. without a warrant the police have already reached the point they will be charging you a crime.

          2. LucreLout Silver badge

            Re: Psycho creeps will always be with us.

            America's stupidity is not a good reason to change our perfectly good due process procedures.

            The problem is that they're not perfectly good. I get a trashed career because some scrote fancied my telly and had a pop at my family for having the temerity to be watching it when broke in? Perfectly good, it ain't.

            It is however one of many good reasons to think about wanting to go there.

            I go where my employer needs to send me. They need me in Asia, I go to Asia, they need me in North America, guess what? I go.

        2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: Psycho creeps will always be with us.

          "People defending their families in their own homes should not be subject to arrest."

          Until sufficient facts have been established by investigation the reason for the shooting is unknown. So are you saying that someone who has shot a person for reasons not yet established should be allowed to go free and possibly take themselves off from the scene on the basis that subsequent investigation might establish a self defence motive?

          1. LucreLout Silver badge

            Re: Psycho creeps will always be with us.

            Until sufficient facts have been established by investigation the reason for the shooting is unknown. So are you saying that someone who has shot a person for reasons not yet established should be allowed to go free and possibly take themselves off from the scene on the basis that subsequent investigation might establish a self defence motive?

            If I'm in my home, then you pretty much know where I live and where you can find me later, should a need arise. I even have a job to pay for the damn thing, so you know where to find me during a work day too.

            Someone attacked in their own home who simply states "My home was attacked by an unknown intruder" should be assumed to be telling the truth and unless any evidence gathered from the scene / witnesses directly contradicts that statement then that should be the end of the matter.

            If the injured party claims to have been invited around, they'd know the names of all the family members, dob's or career/job roles etc. They'd know something. Some scumbag burglar/rapist/murderer won't know enough details to convince anyone they had a legiitmate reason to be there and were otherwise attacked.

    2. sandman

      Re: Psycho creeps will always be with us.

      Giving my age away here, I thought DM meant Dungeon Master (from a game for anyone who thinks it might relate to a predilection for whips, chains, etc) and it took me a second to realise that you meant a disreputable publication.

    3. Elmer Phud Silver badge

      Re: Psycho creeps will always be with us.

      arrested?

      well, yeah. -- every occurrence of gun use is investigated as we do not have a habit of gun ownership.

      And I don't think you understand the chain of detention rules, either.

    4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Psycho creeps will always be with us.

      "in the UK the mom would probably have been arrested."

      I don't know why you got the down votes as this is what happens.

      I've known it happen when an elderly couple in a remote cottage in S Down or S Armagh were being attacked. It took a little while for the police to get someone senior enough to countermand it (a gold course was mentioned). The SOCO who attended the PM told me there no brains in the carnial cavity but he wasn't sure there'd been any originally.

    5. DavCrav Silver badge

      Re: Psycho creeps will always be with us.

      "Not wanting to go all DM here, but in the UK the mom would probably have been arrested."

      Well, yes. Anyone firing a weapon in the UK will be arrested. First, arrested is not charged, it is done because there is clearly reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed. Second, it is highly like that this was a handgun, which are more or less completely illegal to own. So whether she would be charged for the shooting, she would definitely be charged, found guilty, and sentenced to 5-10 years in jail for possession of an illegal firearm.

  13. LucreLout Silver badge

    Great outcome, but what about over here?

    The thing that concerns me, is that if I were away from home, my wife & kids would have no chance against this guy. He's simply too big for them to fight. A kitchen full of knives probably won't help my wife much, even when her protecting the kids instincts kick in.

    1. MonkeyCee Silver badge

      Re: Great outcome, but what about over here?

      "my wife & kids would have no chance against this guy."

      I dunno, he doesn't seem especially smart. They could probably outwit him :)

      I'm a little more confused by the home security of having a gun but not having doors that can survive a brick being tossed at them. If that chap had tried that trick on my downstairs windows/door then the breeze block would have bounced back at him.

      If you are genuinely concerned about your families safety, then get a big dog. Can't be turned against you, generally attracts less hassle and is much more effective against those who are a bit mental.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Great outcome, but what about over here?

        Dogs can be turned against you, theoretically, but, more worryingly, sometimes they quite spontaneously kill children.

        It's very unusual for a dog to be turned against its owner but there was an amusing case in the UK of a criminal who was very experienced with dogs successfully getting a police dog to attack a police officer.

        1. LucreLout Silver badge

          Re: Great outcome, but what about over here?

          It's very unusual for a dog to be turned against its owner but there was an amusing case in the UK of a criminal who was very experienced with dogs successfully getting a police dog to attack a police officer.

          Indeed - its why my friend (met. dog handler) uses a mixture of Japanese, German, and Dutch for different commands. He never uses English, except for "seek" - he wants the suspect to know the dog is coming. The command for release is definitely not the dogs name followed by "let him go", "release", or "get off him", often issued in increasingly loud sequence and seeming deperation - after all, you never know who is listening ;-)

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Great outcome, but what about over here?

        "not having doors that can survive a brick being tossed at them"

        Article says it was tossed through an adjacent glass panel. A door that can always be unlocked from inside and has a glass panel within reach of the lock should always be regarded as unlocked.

      3. LucreLout Silver badge

        Re: Great outcome, but what about over here?

        I'm a little more confused by the home security of having a gun but not having doors that can survive a brick being tossed at them. If that chap had tried that trick on my downstairs windows/door then the breeze block would have bounced back at him.

        Try it with your lounge window and report back :) Mine are double glazed but won't stand up to a brick.

        If you are genuinely concerned about your families safety, then get a big dog. Can't be turned against you, generally attracts less hassle and is much more effective against those who are a bit mental.

        Big dogs and small children aren't always the best mix, unfortunately. While my wife knows where the weapons are (martial arts / camping stuff), she's not trained in their use and she isn't a big lass.

        I don't want a gun in the house either, but I'd be more than happy for a Taser and some Mace. (Yes, I know deep heat has a similar if reduced effect as Mace). At least then if I'm away she can shock the scrote and peper spray him into a reduced threat until the police or the neighbours arrive.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Don't rely on sprays

          I was hit full face with bear spray (like pepper spray, but higher concentration & illegal to use even in self-defense) by a crazy woman. While it did a decent job in preventing me from using my eyes for more than a half of a second at a time, it did NOT incapacitate me. Pepper spray, at least, is merely a deterrent.

          The key phrase is "stop the threat". This does not require that you kill the individual. However, unless you are trained and prepared, the difference is likely academic. I recommend rapid injection of plumbum to the torso.

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: Don't rely on sprays

            I often rely on pepper spray. It's especially tasty on eggs :-)

            Want to make your own? No cooking required. Vinegar, chilis of choice, pinch of salt and sugar. Blend until smooth, eat immediately or store in fridge for up to ... well, I don't know how long, it always gets eaten before it goes off.

            Force multiplier, threat deterrent or delightful condiment? You decide.

    2. Alistair Silver badge
      Windows

      Re: Great outcome, but what about over here?

      @ LucreLout

      Considering what my wife can deadlift and benchpress, I'm not worried about her. More, being here in Canada, how much the city will charge us for scraping his smears off the street when he lands.

    3. W4YBO

      Re: Great outcome, but what about over here?

      God made Man. Sam Colt made men (and women) equal.

      1. Claptrap314 Bronze badge

        Re: Great outcome, but what about over here?

        Glad to see someone already did the Sam Colt. I'll see you with Dr. Who: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNxh4uxLkco

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    When he gets out of prison...

    .. there'll be the medical bill

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    But why?

    Why travel all the way around our little world just to be with/harass someone who clearly isn't interested in you?

    Why not just find someone who is interested (and perhaps lives a bit closer) instead?

    Get over it and move on...

  16. Rainer

    Home invasion 101

    If it's the US: Don't.

  17. SoaG

    Although that might sound vaguely romantic

    14-year-old girl

    Troy George Skinner, 25

    Nope.

    Nothing even vaguely romantic about pedophiles.

    You should be ashamed of yourself for having written that and your editor is clearly incompetent for not having removed it.

  18. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    Failed Darwin attempt. Better luck next time.

    1. Antron Argaiv Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Better luck next time.

      It may be some time before he's at liberty to travel again.

  19. Antron Argaiv Silver badge
    FAIL

    Full marks for dedication

    ...but points lost for not thinking his cunning plan all the way through.

    You have to hand it to the guy though, the flight from the Antipodes to the US is not something to be taken lightly.

    // should have remained in his mum's basement.

    /// we may have found the one person on earth who wasn't aware of the US gun culture

    1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: Full marks for dedication

      // Could have built his own submarine

  20. Jamtea

    GDPR got me good...

    The source link is GDPR blocked :(

    1. codejunky Silver badge

      Re: GDPR got me good...

      @ Jamtea

      "The source link is GDPR blocked :("

      The joy of being in the EU. GDPR and higher prices for US goods.

  21. Gustavo Fring
    Pint

    Wheres the outrage ?

    surely this is linked to a horror zombie shooter or other popular game? wheres the fortnite angle . Me ? I'm still playing my favorite game PUB-Goto... too much heat ... too much football ... too much hope ...Not enough Gas !

  22. adam payne Silver badge

    And when he arrived at her house on June 22, he was carrying a knife, pepper spray, and some duct tape he had bought at a nearby Walmart, it is alleged.

    Then he knew where she lived.

    You never give out your address especially online, didn't the parents have this conversation with her?

    1. Mattmattic

      Or he obtained her name and used online records to deduce her address.

  23. low_resolution_foxxes

    125kg? Damn, that's like trying to take down a bear.

  24. Speltier

    Just Wait till NZ gets the bill

    Free health care in NZ! The guy is covered! Yay! Medivac choppers run 50K+ (pure unalloyed greed, but that is another story) plus hospital at the walk-in uninsured rates (unless NZ has a contract with the hospital, seems unlikely). Going to be a truly huge bill, this is after all America, land of astronomical medical prices for mediocre care. The lawyers are already salivating since obviously NZ will try not to pay up; New Zealanders are going to wish mom had popped the miscreant and save a lot of NZ cash.

    Indeed, once the gravy train is recognized the guy will get all sorts of unexpected medical care ranging from proctological examinations, to mastectomies, just to bill at the full master list rates. Might end up better off if a lobotomy is thrown in after the chemo (using brand drugs, not generics); need the chemo after 72 cat scans in a row.

    1. sisk Silver badge

      Re: Just Wait till NZ gets the bill

      Medivac choppers run 50K+ (pure unalloyed greed, but that is another story)

      Insurance companies are to blame for that, not the medivac companies.

      plus hospital at the walk-in uninsured rates

      Most hospitals will write off most of the uninsured rate. Insurance companies demand a huge discount so they've got to jack up the price, but they rarely actually charge the full hyper-inflated price.

      Also, I'm pretty sure New Zealand won't be on the hook for medical care in America at all even if he is one of their citizens.

      1. MonkeyCee Silver badge

        Re: Just Wait till NZ gets the bill

        "Also, I'm pretty sure New Zealand won't be on the hook for medical care in America at all even if he is one of their citizens."

        Unless he's in the country illegally, otherwise yes, NZ will pick up the tab.

        Many countries with national healthcare systems have arrangements with the USA, whereby USA citizens in those countries get healthcare coverage as though they were locals, and the USA covers the bills for those people visiting the country. As far as I'm aware both NZ and UK do that.

        I believe it's different once people get permanent residency/citizenship, as compared a time limited residency.

        So in the same way that when an American tourist decides to do the Tongarino crossing in trainers and shorts, then breaks their leg, they don't get a bill for the search and rescue or the helicopter ride out, our dumb arse stalker here also won't be facing a bill for his chopper flight.

        As for his hospital bills once he's in jail. that's another matter....

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just wait

    Wait till he gets hit with the federal chargers.

  26. kain preacher Silver badge

    I wounder did he learn any thing ?

    1. Joe Gurman

      I'm guessing....

      ....that when the drugs wore off (and I don't mean the ones supplied at the hospital), he might have felt a sliver of remorse.

  27. sisk Silver badge

    I am going to print this article off and make my daughter read it. Articles like this should be required reading for kids around a certain age IMHO.

  28. Snowy
    Joke

    Stop or...

    my mum will shoot!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Stop or...

      You are Arnold ?

  29. steviebuk Silver badge

    It's not just the young kids...

    ...YouTubers do it as well that are in their 20s who should know better. I don't know if it's through wanting to boast or what, but the ones that end up suddenly making quite a bit of money from the advertising to afford to buy a big house, oddly then decide to do "NEW house TOUR". Ones which clearly expose where they live. One such YouTuber (I forget the name) then proceeded to be burgled while he was in the house.

  30. Mattmattic

    There was a similar case here in the UK a while back. Someone from a foreign country decided to visit someone in London who he had an online beef with and stabbed him to death.

    So when this happens in the US, a foreign perp may well get shot to death or at best, seriously wounded.

    But there's no possible reason why the private ownership of guns might be a good idea, right?

  31. silverfern

    Re: Just Wait till NZ gets the bill

    1. If that girl's mother had shot this prick back home (New Zealand), she'd have been arrested and charged with various firearms offences in spite of the sympathy of the general public. And she'd have had to use a rifle or a shotgun because handguns are generally illegal except for handgun club members, collectors and dealers.

    2. Just for the record, we have no free medical care in NZ. Never did. Our "social system" (medical care, pensions etc. etc.) is financed by the taxpayer but there are basic charges for most services, including prescriptions. And all dental care is fully private after age 15.

    3. And like the UK, our police are routinely unarmed, although there are exceptions.

  32. Mike Rodgers

    Oh, and btw, we don't have universal health care, so, good luck with that hospital bill. Oops.

  33. Joe Gurman

    Normally....

    ....I disapprove of the use of firearms because, as Danger Man John Drake put it, "They tend to be messy," but I'm pretty much OK with this one.

    1. The Oncoming Scorn Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: Normally....

      Half a dozen of the other..

  34. Eduard Coli

    Spinning in the news

    What's sad is that not of this kind of thing ever makes pop-media as it does not fit their narrative on gun-control.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019