Brave Woman Repels Home Invasion

[Tony]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/09/17/national1439EDT0640.DTL ..full article

A woman shot and killed a man who fell through her ceiling while she was getting dressed, and police said the intruder was a burglary suspect who was trying to evade arrest.

Police said they believe the shooting Tuesday was justified, and they will submit a report to the district attorney.

"I think anyone would agree you'd feel your life was in danger when a burglar falls through your ceiling when you're just getting out of the shower," police Lt. Tom Monahan said.

I guess the woman is a bad person, a good person would have let themselves get raped or murdered before they took another life.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/09/17/national1439EDT0640.DTL ..full article



I guess the woman is a bad person, a good person would have let themselves get raped or murdered before they took another life.

Considering the fact that this seems to be self defense and the district attorney suggested that no charges be filed why would anyone put forth the argument that she was wrong to shoot this guy. I'm totally in favour of using reasonable force if your well being in your own house is threatened. (even though it doesn't sound like this woman's life was necessarily threatened since this guy was only trying to evade the police. But I suppose she couldn't know that.)

Certainly such occurences are not pleasant and certainly are not the norm, but they do happen. So reasonable force might have to be used.

It can be frightening, though, when someone shoots first and asks questions later. "Oops, I didn't realize you were just reading the gas meter!!"
The potential for finality with a gun doesn't leave a lot of room for misunderstandings or accidents.

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by Tony
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/09/17/national1439EDT0640.DTL ..full article

I guess the woman is a bad person, a good person would have let themselves get raped or murdered before they took another life.

Oh, Tony, STHU. All you have to say is that guns were good in this instance, and leave it at that.
Thanks for posting this article.

[a_unique_person]

http://us.cnn.com/2003/US/West/10/01/school.shooting.ap/index.html



SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- A gun-wielding teen took an administrator hostage at a high school Wednesday, and both were wounded after officers confronted the youth, officials said.

Mario Rodriguez, 19, was in critical condition with multiple gunshot wounds, Sacramento County Sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Lou Fatur said.

[Richard G]

Score another one for the good guys. This won't be plastered all over the national news though, not like it would be if she had had her throat cut ear to ear.

How about some of you gun grabbers calling this lady and telling her she shouldn't have that EVIL gun.

(That Administrator should have been armed).

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/09/30/1064819933632.htm



Gun ads on hold as Olympian charged
Date: October 1 2003


By Liz Minchin

The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia has postponed a $500,000 national advertising campaign to attract new shooters because the campaign's star, Olympic medallist Michael Diamond, is facing court accused of assaulting his girlfriend.

A six-week television and print campaign featuring Diamond was due to be launched today, but yesterday the association announced it would delay the campaign after "an unfortunate domestic dispute on the weekend".

Diamond was arrested after an incident at a party on Saturday night in Queanbeyan, near Canberra, when he allegedly slapped his girlfriend, dragged her by the hair and punched her in the face.

Police searched Diamond's home on Sunday, where they allegedly found a shotgun in an unlocked case.

On Monday, Diamond appeared in the Queanbeyan Local Court charged with assaulting his girlfriend and failing to secure a firearm.

He will face court again on Friday.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/09/17/national1439EDT0640.DTL ..full article



I guess the woman is a bad person, a good person would have let themselves get raped or murdered before they took another life.

Well tony, where shall we start?

Would the woman have been attacked by the "guy from the sky"?
We will never know, Certainly he can't attack her when he has been shot dead....so score one point to the Lady with the gun in the shower. I dont blame her at all, you are most unreasonable to call her a bad person.

If the "guy from the sky" was next doors teenage kid playing hide and seek in the roof cavity I guess it would have been another tragedy.... Oh well, it was one anecdote to nil in this thread for a while but did I see A_U_P even the score?.....woohoo, its one anecdote each and we are nearing the 2 minute warning.

[Tony]

We get it AUP, other people use guns to kill, therefore this womans life is worthless.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool


I dont blame her at all, you are most unreasonable to call her a bad person.


I was being sarcastic.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by The Fool

If the "guy from the sky" was next doors teenage kid playing hide and seek in the roof cavity I guess it would have been another tragedy....

Excellent point. This what I was saying about the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality.
Certainly if this guy intended to hurt or rape this woman then it's hard to argue that some sort of force was reasonable, but it's not always so clear cut that you just pull the trigger and worry about the consequences later.

[peptoabysmal]

From the story, the man was evading police when he crashed through her roof. Nice shooting, lady! If you're going to do it, make it a good, clean kill.

They should deputize her. Maybe I could hire her to go to my step son's neighborhood and clean up some of the human refuse there.

[fishbob]

http://www.adn.com/alaska/story/4053068p-4073017c.html (http://)

Up in the Mat-Su Valley, about 40 miles north of Anchorage:
Reverend Mielke shot 2 burglars at his church. It is possible that good reverend got at least one of them outside as he was running away. Some snipped up sections from the article about this current court case:Mielke shot Palmer and Jones when he found them burglarizing Big Lake Community Chapel. He says it was self-defense. The prosecution says the situation wasn't dangerous enough to justify lethal force, especially considering both men were shot in the back.

Mielke was in bed at about 5 a.m. when he heard noise from the church over a baby monitor he had rigged to alert him to intruders. He and the burglars came upon each other in a small, dark arctic entry inside the chapel. Although the men may have been trying to get around him so they could escape out a door, what Mielke saw was two big men coming at him in the dark who refused to stop when he told them to, defense attorney Jim Gilmore said.

The prosecution and defense agree Jones and Palmer were on drugs and bent on stealing when they broke into the church that night, but disagree on whether they were a danger to Mielke when he fired on them with a .44-caliber Ruger he nearly always carried in a holster under his shirt.

Palmer was found dead a short way from the chapel, but Jones made it to the car the pair had left running in nearby bushes and was gone when troopers arrived on the scene. Superior Court Judge Beverly Cutler signed the arrest warrant for June Benedix at the request of prosecutor Bob Collins. Benedix lived with the two men who were shot to death after Mielke caught them in his church. It was to their home that the mortally wounded Jones fled and where he eventually died.

Apparently one window was shot out, from inside the church and there were divots in the ground from the shots that missed the fleeing burglar, but the rev eventually got him. Apparently the burglars dropped a gun while being shot. The trial is mostly about whether or not the good Reverend should have emptied his gun as the less injured burglar was running away.

[Zep]

I'm really puzzled about this...

How come this lady had a gun in the shower with her when the guy fell through the ceiling? Did she ALWAYS have one in the shower? I don't think that sounds too feasible...

If not, did she then run and get it and then run back and then shoot the guy? Would have taken some time, so why didn't he guy run away? Maybe he was stunned and dazed lying on the bathroom floor after falling 8 foot through the ceiling...certainly not in any condition to try and assault and rape a woman running around the house. BUT that would make the shooting premeditated, and the story about assault and rape would be invalid.

But wait - the story did say that the guy was trying to evade the cops by going into the ceiling. So...was she expecting that he would take time out from that little lark to come and assault and rape her? Hell of a dumb thing to try with the cops on your tail!

And if he was fleeing the cops, I doubt he would be trying to be quiet in the roof space, so it was more than likely she actually heard him there (and the wailing of the cops' sirens too, no doubt) long before he fell. Certainly more than enough time for her run and get a gun. Which means she was waiting for him when he fell through, and he didn't have a chance to even pick himself up and assault and rape her - what bad luck!

So what we probably have here is a premeditated shooting that was NOT in self-defence, and it was covered up by everyone claiming it was. Certainly, the dead guy ain't arguing!

Yep, score a big plus for the pro-gun side, and another body for this year's 29,000 gun related deaths.

[Stig]

The woman did well for sure. All that commotion of a guy unexpectedly falling through your cieling and she managed to get the gun and plug the guy.

She did the right thing.

Stig

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Stig
The woman did well for sure. All that commotion of a guy unexpectedly falling through your cieling and she managed to get the gun and plug the guy.

She did the right thing.


Eh. From the original article it's difficult to say if she did the right thing or not. In my opinion there's quite a difference between the scenario where someone falls through your roof and lies dazed on the floor whereupon you shoot them, and where someone falls through your floor, gets to their feet and snarls that they're going to kill you.

The only thing in the article that touches on this is the paragraph "Police said they believe the shooting Tuesday was justified, and they will submit a report to the district attorney"

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/09/30/1064819933632.htm



So is this supposed to be one of those "guns have some sort of peripheral link to the actual problem so they must be bad" articles? The first one you posted here was much better at showing firerms in a bad light. This one is just the guy had a gun, the guy slapped his girlfriend. Not exactly related there.

". . . didn't have to blast 'im, but I did anyway.
Ha ha, young punk had to pay."

[tamiO]

Tony

I think you should have titled your thread, "Scared woman shoots and kills man who fell through her ceiling."

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Zep
I'm really puzzled about this...

How come this lady had a gun in the shower with her when the guy fell through the ceiling? Did she ALWAYS have one in the shower? I don't think that sounds too feasible...

If not, did she then run and get it and then run back and then shoot the guy? Would have taken some time, so why didn't he guy run away? Maybe he was stunned and dazed lying on the bathroom floor after falling 8 foot through the ceiling...certainly not in any condition to try and assault and rape a woman running around the house. BUT that would make the shooting premeditated, and the story about assault and rape would be invalid.

But wait - the story did say that the guy was trying to evade the cops by going into the ceiling. So...was she expecting that he would take time out from that little lark to come and assault and rape her? Hell of a dumb thing to try with the cops on your tail!

And if he was fleeing the cops, I doubt he would be trying to be quiet in the roof space, so it was more than likely she actually heard him there (and the wailing of the cops' sirens too, no doubt) long before he fell. Certainly more than enough time for her run and get a gun. Which means she was waiting for him when he fell through, and he didn't have a chance to even pick himself up and assault and rape her - what bad luck!

So what we probably have here is a premeditated shooting that was NOT in self-defence, and it was covered up by everyone claiming it was. Certainly, the dead guy ain't arguing!

Yep, score a big plus for the pro-gun side, and another body for this year's 29,000 gun related deaths.

Dammit Zep, stop being so analytical. Your taking the wind of out the blustering sails of the pro-gun side who revel in stories such as this.;)

But seriously, you bring up some very relevant points.
Another one which I remember discussing in another gun thread sometime back is how it is possible to have access to a gun in such an emergency situation while still keeping it safely stored so that children can't get at it.

Now, it's very possible this woman lived alone, or had no children and might have had the gun sitting in a drawer right next to the shower. But, if she had children where exactly was this gun located that she was able to access it so quickly and easily? Does that also mean she keeps it loaded and ready to shoot at all times? That doesn't seem particularly safe.

It seems pro-gun advocates want us to believe that gun ownership is essential in personal home safety, yet they also want us to believe that safe, secure storage of firearms so children can't access them is essential.
I find it hard to believe that this is possible.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG

It seems pro-gun advocates want us to believe that gun ownership is essential in personal home safety, yet they also want us to believe that safe, secure storage of firearms so children can't access them is essential.
I find it hard to believe that this is possible.

I guess you have never heard of a safe. Y'know, those big metal thingys with combination (or key) locks?

[Tony]

Originally posted by tamiO
Tony

I think you should have titled your thread, "Scared woman shoots and kills man who fell through her ceiling."


:)

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony


I guess you have never heard of a safe. Y'know, those big metal thingys with combination (or key) locks?

So you think that in a home invasion or where a burglar falls through your roof you'll have time to open a safe and get the gun out. Will you ask the intruder to wait a few minutes while you get the gun.
This seems rather unlikely to me.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG


So you think that in a home invasion or where a burglar falls through your roof you'll have time to open a safe and get the gun out. Will you ask the intruder to wait a few minutes while you get the gun.
This seems rather unlikely to me.


And if I had never seen ice skating and you told me that people slid on ice with metal blades attached to their feet while doing crazy jumps and twists and stuff, that would seem rather unlikely to me.

If someone is really serious about home safety, don’t you think they would put the safe in the most accessible place, and practice on getting their weapon in a speedy time?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony

If someone is really serious about home safety, don’t you think they would put the safe in the most accessible place, and practice on getting their weapon in a speedy time?

[Tongue-in-cheek] I'd think someone who was really serious about home safety would get a pair of attack dogs rather than fiddle about with guns. [/Tongue-in-cheek]

[Agammamon]

After reading Zep's analysis I too have to wonder how much danger this woman was actually in. On the other hand the guy invaded her home and probably scared the crap out of her by falling out of the ceiling. I'd say it was a given that she wasn't thinking too clearly and was scared spitless so it's very understandable that she might have run and gotten the gun and come back to finish the guy off. Also consider that US law takes the stress of the situation into consideration when determining whether such incidents are justifiable (unlike UK law which makes it's determinations on justifiability based on clear, rational, after-action analysis). While trying to decide whether the guy really deserved shooting keep in mind that if he hadn't broken into her home she wouldn't have shot him.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Agammamon
if he hadn't broken into her home she wouldn't have shot him.

I don't know wether it was right of the woman in question to shoot or not - but according to the story the man she shot didn't break into her home as such. He tried to escape the police by crawling through the crawl-space, was too heavy and fell into the apartment below by accident.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony



And if I had never seen ice skating and you told me that people slid on ice with metal blades attached to their feet while doing crazy jumps and twists and stuff, that would seem rather unlikely to me.

If someone is really serious about home safety, don’t you think they would put the safe in the most accessible place, and practice on getting their weapon in a speedy time?

I'm really curious how many people have their weapons safely secured away and have a method that would be effective in an emergency situation to get at them quickly. But, you're right, I don't know for sure. I'm going to guess that a lot of situations in the home could arise that don't allow easy access to a gun. In this way I think the merits of gun ownership are overhyped. Not everyone is like the classic stereotype of the old woman in the rocking chair on her porch holding a shotgun.

But, if you feel secure and comfortable with a gun in your house and feel you are able to access it readily, then I suppose that is a good thing if it brings you comfort.

Personally, I've never in my life had even a fleeting moment where I felt a gun might be necessary, and I've lived in many different places. Even in Los Angeles I never even toyed with the idea of gun owernship.
But, that's just me, I guess.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Dammit Zep, stop being so analytical. Your taking the wind of out the blustering sails of the pro-gun side who revel in stories such as this.;)

But seriously, you bring up some very relevant points.
Another one which I remember discussing in another gun thread sometime back is how it is possible to have access to a gun in such an emergency situation while still keeping it safely stored so that children can't get at it.

Now, it's very possible this woman lived alone, or had no children and might have had the gun sitting in a drawer right next to the shower. But, if she had children where exactly was this gun located that she was able to access it so quickly and easily? Does that also mean she keeps it loaded and ready to shoot at all times? That doesn't seem particularly safe.

It seems pro-gun advocates want us to believe that gun ownership is essential in personal home safety, yet they also want us to believe that safe, secure storage of firearms so children can't access them is essential.
I find it hard to believe that this is possible.

You can buy a small safe that's opened with a key-pad. The gun is locked up......but you can access it if needed in a matter of seconds.

Also---many modern handguns are designed to SAFELY carry a round in the chamber. If you DID need it---the time spent racking the slide could mean the difference between life & death).

Sig Sauers for example----The first round fired will be under double action trigger pull (it takes quite a bit of finger pressure to pull the trigger). It highly unlikely it could get pulled by accident.
Subsequent rounds are fired under single action (much less pull required)

The guns are also designed to be unable to fire unless the trigger is actually pulled... Dropping it for example couldn't cause the gun to discharge. (the firing pin is not in contact with the chambered round).


Proper training & knowledge are the key.

I wonder how many of the anti-gunners have ever actually used a firearm or taken a course taught by professionals???..........Ralph

[Zep]

Y'know, if it were ME, notorious simpering coward, in that woman's position, and the sirens were wailing and the cops were shouting and the bad guy was bumping around inside my roof...

I would have simply grabbed a towel and RUN OUTSIDE the house to the cops and shouted "Help! Help! He's inside in my roof!" and then let the cops do all the shooting (if necessary). They are brave and trained and permitted and get paid to do that sort of stuff.

Which means that fast access to a gun, or safe storage or whatever, is entirely beside the point - a total red herring.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Ralph


I wonder how many of the anti-gunners have ever actually used a firearm or taken a course taught by professionals???..........Ralph


I have. I found it very interesting to go to the weapons range and fire at a few targets. I was a pretty good shot, too (must be all those quarters spent on Nintendo's Duck Hunt).


I wonder how many pro-gunners have been shot at. I have.

Drive-by-shootings were epidemic in my old neighborhood. (Remind me sometime to tell you all about the Christmas party at my house when all my guests had to hit the floor.) There were at least 20 drive-by-shootings or other unprosecuted random gunfire events while I lived there (I know, because I was the one calling the police each time.)

Maybe my gang-member neighbors needed more guns for a deterrent? Who knows.

I was a member of the neighborhood watch when I lived there. The crime statistics were very enlightening. Mostly car burglaries and drive-by shootings. No home invasions, at least not in the years I lived there. A neighborhood cross-memorial was nearby, where a gang had shot a 13-year-old boy at soccer practice. His photo remains there to this day, with fresh flowers replaced weekly.

Interesting that to protect my family I'd do much better with bullet-proof vests than with a gun.

I left that neighborhood as soon as I could afford to.

I've never seen a burglary, a robbery, an assault, a rape.. anything that I could do something about if I had a gun.

But on the other hand, all the violent crimes I have witnessed involved people firing their guns from moving vehicles, or otherwise involved in shoot-outs. I couldn't tell you what would possibly deter these people. Nothing deters them, not the death penalty and not the fact that their targets are as armed as they are and will retaliate on their turf.

At this same time in this neighborhood, the NRA was running an ad campaign on billboards that said "An armed society is a polite society."

I thought, "Maybe I'll invite Charlton Heston to my next Christmas party and he can meet my polite neighbors."

[Richard G]

I couldn't tell you what would possibly deter these people. Nothing deters them, not the death penalty and not the fact that their targets are as armed as they are and will retaliate on their turf.

Now you understand. Its not about detering them, its about STOPPING them when they are trying to kill YOU. No law, or ordinance, or gun ban, or statistic, or social program is going to do it. Hot lead knocking them on their ass will. Thats the language they understand, and thats the language that keeps me safe.

All free men are entitled to self defense. When evil men go about armed, it is only prudent to arm yourself. Only a fool thinks otherwise.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Richard G


Now you understand. Its not about detering them, its about STOPPING them when they are trying to kill YOU.

I don't think you understand. They weren't trying to kill me.

They were trying to kill their gang buddies by driving by their (and my) homes. And their equally armed gang buddies were also trying to stop them by knocking them on their ass with hot lead.

With all that hot lead trying to knock each other on their ass, it's no wonder it was such a peaceful, crime-free neighborhood, because these two groups of cowboys were busily exercising their rights as free men!


You call me a fool? Come to my neighborhood and call me that. Come play pea-shooter with the boys on my street, mr macho. Just remember, they outnumber you 5000 to 1.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Silicon


I don't think you understand. They weren't trying to kill me.

They were trying to kill their gang buddies by driving by their (and my) homes. And their equally armed gang buddies were also trying to stop them by knocking them on their ass with hot lead.

With all that hot lead trying to knock each other on their ass, it's no wonder it was such a peaceful, crime-free neighborhood, because these two groups of cowboys were busily exercising their rights as free men!


You call me a fool? Come to my neighborhood and call me that. Come play pea-shooter with the boys on my street, mr macho. Just remember, they outnumber you 5000 to 1.

I sympathize with your situation; I sympathize when any decent folk have to endure hell.

But do you think more gun control would really keep those guys from getting guns and stop shooting at each other?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Tony

But do you think more gun control would really keep those guys from getting guns and stop shooting at each other?


No I don't.

I just use it to refute the notion that people who don't like guns are doing it out of ignorance of guns.

For the crime in my neighborhood, I was the victim of gun crime (a drive-by) almost monthly, and yet no crime I witnessed would I be able to deter or stop by being armed.

I'm really countering the argument "An armed society is a polite society," which was the NRA's campaign at the time in my high-crime neighborhood. Obviously my armed neighbors weren't polite to each other, even though they knew each other were armed.

Now whether a disarmed American society would be a safer society, I don't know first hand, and so I'm not arguing that! Nor am I arguing that gun controls would be effective at disarming criminals.

[a_unique_person]

The idea that everyone has to be armed to kill to create a polite society just sounds so barbaric to me.

[Zep]

It all sounds like the few moments just before the first shots at the OK Corral or something - everyone just...standing there real still with their hands at the ready, trembling, just itching for the other guy to go first.

Of course, I'm willing to bet the adrenalin was pumping by the quart and their mouths were dry and they were TOTALLY FRICKING SCARED! SO natural...

And then someone makes a break and it's on for young and old! And then EVERYBODY IN THE TOWN is a potential target... Woo hoo.

Yeah, I'D like to live in a place where everyone is armed to enforce politeness...not. :rolleyes:

[Some Friggin Guy]

I wonder how many of the anti-gunners have ever actually used a firearm or taken a course taught by professionals??

I have used a gun. Now, I don't like guns and won't own one, but I don't think they should be illegal. I simply don't think they are as necessary as most people. Does this make me an "anti-gunner"?

As for my own protection (and my wife's) I have the following true story.

I collect swords. In fact, there is at least one blade in every room in my house. I am trained in their use, but use them for decoration.

Before getting married, I lived in a pretty shady area of Boston. One night, someone broke into my apartment while I was there. I was in a different room and did the only thing I could think of: I grabbed and drew one of my katanas and went to investigate.

Interesting dichotomy. When a person who has a gun sees another person with a gun, there is a possibility they will panic and think they need to shoot first. When a person with a gun sees a person weilding a sword, apparently, they think "This guy's NUTS!" and will turn and run.

In my case, he dropped his gun in the process.

The following day, I brought the gun to a buy back and made fifty bucks off it.

[Zep]

That was a GREAT result, all round, SFG!

How big was the katana? Some are ninja-size - the shorter version for close-quarters, I understand. But some of the bigger ones are fairly impressive weapons!

[Zep]

Just to fill in a small details gap about a gun control advocate...

Yes, I have fired a gun - it was only a 22 rifle at some tins, so I make no claim to being a reformed John Rambo. I have also fire a Bren but with blanks - just one burst.

I have tried paintball for a day - good fun and very energetic - got some bruises, discovered I'm a fair sniper. I do commend it as a valid, legal and safety-conscious "guns" activity.

[Jude]

I find it appalling that some of you are giving the invader the benefit of the doubt over the woman.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Jude
I find it appalling that some of you are giving the invader the benefit of the doubt over the woman.

I'm finding it appalling that some people are willing to pass judgement on either, based only on the information that has been published to date.

[Jude]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


I'm finding it appalling that some people are willing to pass judgement on either, based only on the information that has been published to date.

How much more information do you need? A burglar, while attempting to flee the police, broke into her home!

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Jude


How much more information do you need? A burglar, while attempting to flee the police, broke into her home!

Yes, he was a burglar. Yes, he was attempting to evade the police, but it seems unlikely that the woman could have known that at the time. No, judging from the newspaper article he didn't break into her home - it seems he accidentally fell through the roof into her apartment. That's not "breaking and entering" - well, not in the legal sense at all.

What happened from that point on, we don't know - except that the police stated that they believed the shooting was justified. Probably it was, but I have no way of judging that.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy



In my case, he dropped his gun in the process.

The following day, I brought the gun to a buy back and made fifty bucks off it.

You didnt call the cops?

Good thing you werent pulled over on your way to the buy back. Then youd be facing felony gun possession charges.

[Shinytop]

So do we need to state before every post it is opinion and I am not on the jury?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Jude


How much more information do you need? A burglar, while attempting to flee the police, broke into her home!
The article mentioned that she'd been a victim of a burglary in the past. This is what prompted her to buy a gun.....self protection.

I'm sure there are people here who'd argue she should have just "wounded him", or shot the gun out of his hand, or maybe just used a little karate on him...

How about this.....if the guy HADN'T BEEN OUT COMMITTING A FELONY.....he never would have been shot by a women who had a perfect right to feel her life was in danger........

[xouper]

a_unique_person: The idea that everyone has to be armed to kill to create a polite society just sounds so barbaric to me.I had to chuckle at this because in one sense you are right, on the surface of it, it does sound barbaric and ironic. But the alternative is even more barbaric, especially given the barbaric nature of some people who won't be civil except at the point of a gun.

[a_unique_person]

But this is exactly what has been achieved in various countries around the world already. Low homicide rates, (you will never get 0), and an unarmed populace.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Ralph

The article mentioned that she'd been a victim of a burglary in the past. This is what prompted her to buy a gun.....self protection.

I'm sure there are people here who'd argue she should have just "wounded him", or shot the gun out of his hand, or maybe just used a little karate on him...

How about this.....if the guy HADN'T BEEN OUT COMMITTING A FELONY.....he never would have been shot by a women who had a perfect right to feel her life was in danger........

Would it be fair to say that it was falling through the roof that got him shot? I don't see what he was doing in the roof as making a lot of difference....Granted, if he'd have been dressed as a Carpenter or an electrician she may have asked him what he was doing and not shot him...who knows? I doubt that he yelled
"lookout below, falling felon!":p

[xouper]

a_unique_person: But this is exactly what has been achieved in various countries around the world already. Low homicide rates, (you will never get 0), and an unarmed populace.Even if I grant what you say is accurate, I do not feel that is sufficient reason to abridge the right to own arms. And as long as the rate is not zero, you will have a hard time convincing me to give up my rights, regardless the cost.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Jude
I find it appalling that some of you are giving the invader the benefit of the doubt over the woman. WHAT "benefit of the doubt"? The guy is dead so we can't hear his side of the story at all. That's how fair-minded justice is done?

My own view is that the woman's story, as presented, just doesn't add up. To the extent that I would doubt the complete veracity of her statements.

Sure, the guy could have been a nasty bastard and violent rapist intent on harming this woman in the worst possible way. But he could also have been a young kid running scared from the police who simply had an accident. Which one was he, do you think? Do we know anything about him?

Another concern for me is that the police are going to take her word for it and simply report it as a justifiable self-defence killing. But if it wasn't, as my own doubts suggest, is that course of action still a good thing to do?

Think about this: What if it were YOUR son who was shot - wouldn't you want to know why he was shot, and why his death is going to be swept under the carpet and no-one was going to investigate it?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Jude


How much more information do you need? A burglar, while attempting to flee the police, broke into her home! What sort of dumb burglars do you breed over there?! Have you read back your own statement here??!

Let me tell you, if I was a burglar fleeing the police then I would NOT be taking time out from "running away real fast" to break into people's homes. Especially through the roof. And ESPECIALLY not to rape and terrorise someone as well.

Sheesh! How illogical can you get...

[Jude]

You're right, Zep. I'm sure the woman was just waiting around for an opportunity tokill a man: just to see what it feels like. She didn't feel in danger at all. What a bloodthirsty killer. Had a criminal fallen through my ceiling while I was showering, I would offer him some tea.

[xouper]

Zep: Let me tell you, if I was a burglar fleeing the police then I would NOT be taking time out from "running away real fast" to break into people's homes. Especially through the roof. And ESPECIALLY not to rape and terrorise someone as well.

Sheesh! How illogical can you get... What do you mean illogical. Seems perfectly logical to me. How was the woman supposed to know he didn't have harmful intent towards her once he fell through the roof? How could she know he wasn't planning on taking her hostage? To me, he was in the house illegally. Case closed.

Think about this: What if it were YOUR son who was shot - wouldn't you want to know why he was shot, and why his death is going to be swept under the carpet and no-one was going to investigate it?Sweeping under the carpet? No investigation? Methinks you exaggerate. Based on the info in that article, I feel the shoot was justified. Even if it was my own son who got shot (although in that case I'd want to see the police report and talk to the detectives who investigated it). But to say this was swept under the carpet without an investigation is simply ridiculous.

[Jude]

Originally posted by Zep
Let me tell you, if I was a burglar fleeing the police then I would NOT be taking time out from "running away real fast" to break into people's homes. Especially through the roof. And ESPECIALLY not to rape and terrorise someone as well.

And what if he decided to use her house to hide? You don't know! But you'd rather give the criminal's intentions the benefit of the doubt than the victim's.

[Zep]

Ahem. If you were on the lam from the law and the sirens were wailing as they pursued you, even if you DID fall through the roof into a bathroom, would you SERIOUSLY decide take time out for a bit of rape and pillage?

Get real! You would be outa there on your own two feet, surely.

But if you think it's all right to shoot at ANYONE who comes onto your property uninvited then I sure don't want to be the milkman or the pizza delivery boy in YOUR town! You must go through hundreds of them every year!

Yes, Xouper, he was in her house illegally. Why didn't she just shoot through the ceiling at him instead? He would have been just as frightening thumping about up there as sitting dazed in a pile of plaster in her bathroom.

Or, if she was feeling brave, just hold the gun on him and yell for the cops. Then if he HAD gone for her or pulled a weapon then she would at least have had an excuse to pull the trigger (and I would have no problems with that either). Did she say she did this though? Nope.

Scenario was that the guy fell through the ceiling, she ran out, searched for and got a gun, ran back IN, and shot him without any particluar reason except that she was "frightened".

What if this woman carried the gun in her purse for personal protection and a kid popped a balloon behind her in a shopping mall? I hesitate to think...

[xouper]

Zep: Ahem. If you were on the lam from the law and the sirens were wailing as they pursued you, even if you DID fall through the roof into a bathroom, would you SERIOUSLY decide take time out for a bit of rape and pillage?You are overlooking some of his other choices. Rape and pillage aren't the only threat he poses. How come you didn't acknowledge my comment that one of the possibilities was that he could take the woman hostage as part of trying to deal his way out.

Get real! You would be outa there on your own two feet, surely.YOU get real. Just because that's what you would do doesn't mean that's what the moronic criminal would do. Do we have your personal guarantee that this guy would not have harmed the woman? I thought not.

But if you think it's all right to shoot at ANYONE who comes onto your property uninvited then I sure don't want to be the milkman or the pizza delivery boy in YOUR town! You must go through hundreds of them every year!Now look who's being irrational. The milkman and the pizza guy don't invade your house illegally. And yes, in this country, if you invade someone's house illegally, you take the risk that you may be shot and killed. I want criminals to be afraid of that possibility.

Yes, Xouper, he was in her house illegally. Why didn't she just shoot through the ceiling at him instead?How am I supposed to know?

Or, if she was feeling brave, just hold the gun on him and yell for the cops.Wrong. If you do that, you may have just given away your only chance to defend yourself. If you wait until the crook looks like he is pulling a weapon, then it may already be too late. Never trust the crook to be rational.

What if this woman carried the gun in her purse for personal protection and a kid popped a balloon behind her in a shopping mall? I hesitate to think... Self defense outside the home is a different matter and has different rules. I know several people who carry concealed weapons to the mall. So what. If they screw up and shoot someone wrongfully, they should pay the price. But just because that's a possibility is not sufficient justification for denying them the right to carry the gun.

[Zep]

Originally posted by xouper
You are overlooking some of his other choices. Rape and pillage aren't the only threat he poses. How come you didn't acknowledge my comment that one of the possibilities was that he could take the woman hostage as part of trying to deal his way out.

I acknowledge here that that would be a possibility. But did she say that he threatened her IN ANY WAY? Did she say that he said or did anything at all towards her? Nope. He probably didn't get a chance to even apologise or possibly surrender - Excuse me lady...BLAM!

YOU get real. Just because that's what you would do doesn't mean that's what the moronic criminal would do. Do we have your personal guarantee that this guy would not have harmed the woman? I thought not.

So it's OK to kill people without question on the POSSIBILITY that they MIGHT do someone harm? And you can tell that somehow by just looking at them for a few seconds?

Now look who's being irrational. The milkman and the pizza guy don't invade your house illegally. And yes, in this country, if you invade someone's house illegally, you take the risk that you may be shot and killed. I want criminals to be afraid of that possibility.

Legal or illegal doesn't seem to matter here. You hear a thumping on the door or the roof - just put a few shots at the person to make sure you zap any POTENTIAL rapist/pillager/kidnapper.

Wrong. If you do that [holding a gun on him], you may have just given away your only chance to defend yourself. If you wait until the crook looks like he is pulling a weapon, then it may already be too late. Never trust the crook to be rational.

Sure, don't trust a crook. But she had the upper hand - he was in a heap on the floor, she had the gun out and ready before he went anywhere. Holding a gun on a perp is what the cops usually do, and that seems to be highly successful the vast majority of the time. She only needed to do it for a short period - the cops were very close, seconds away perhaps. She could have screamed her head off while doing so - a good idea, actually. I would have no problem with a personal weapon being used to pin someone this way.

Self defense outside the home is a different matter and has different rules. I know several people who carry concealed weapons to the mall. So what. If they screw up and shoot someone wrongfully, they should pay the price. But just because that's a possibility is not sufficient justification for denying them the right to carry the gun.

Once again, you are expecting the law to carry the mop and bucket - cleaning up AFTER someone has been splattered. Sure, the shooter may have to "pay the price" but someone else has been wounded or killed. Is that a GOOD outcome? Wouldn't the SMARTER way be to not have it happen in the first place???

[xouper]

In the future, Zep, please do not put your replies inside a quote block, since they disappear when I click the quote button to to reply.

Zep: I acknowledge here that that would be a possibility. But did she say that he threatened her IN ANY WAY? Did she say that he said or did anything at all towards her? Nope.How do you know that? Do you have access to information that was not in that article?

So it's OK to kill people without question on the POSSIBILITY that they MIGHT do someone harm?If they are in my house illegally, yes. If they are in my house illegally, it reasonable to assume they intend to harm me. There are too many examples of home invaders having done harm to the occupants to assume otherwise. If a criminal can't live with this possibility, then don't come in my house illegally.

And you can tell that somehow by just looking at them for a few seconds?I would hope so. My life may depend on it.

Legal or illegal doesn't seem to matter here.In this country, shooting an illegal intruder is legal. As it should be.

You hear a thumping on the door or the roof - just put a few shots at the person to make sure you zap any POTENTIAL rapist/pillager/kidnapper.That isn't the scenario in the article, and I am not advocating shooting through the door at someone who isn't yet an intruder. Don't be ridiculous with your straw men arguments.

Sure, don't trust a crook. But she had the upper hand - he was in a heap on the floor, she had the gun out and ready before he went anywhere.How do you know that? Do you have access to information that was not in that article?

Holding a gun on a perp is what the cops usually do, and that seems to be highly successful the vast majority of the time.It is not reasonable to hold the homeowner to the same standards of performance as the police, or to judge them by those standards.

She only needed to do it for a short period - the cops were very close, seconds away perhaps. How do you know that? Do you have access to information that was not in that article? And more importantly, how would that woman have known any of that? She did the right thing by not taking the risk of doing what you suggest. It is not reasonable to judge her actions based on information she may not have had.

She could have screamed her head off while doing so - a good idea, actually.Wrong. Very bad idea. Do not give the crook any opportunity to gain the upper hand. They have no business being in my home in the first place and they certainly have no right to insist that I give them the benefit of the doubt. And neither do you.

You seem to want to give the crook the benefit of the doubt while they are in the middle of commiting a crime. I don't accept that. If they are breaking the law by invading my house, they get no benefit of the doubt. They are, however, likely to get dead. I want the crooks to be afraid of that possibility. And I resent that you are arguing that they shouldn't be afraid of that.

Once again, you are expecting the law to carry the mop and bucket - cleaning up AFTER someone has been splattered.Yes, that's the way most laws in this country work. The police come in and clean up after the fact.

Sure, the shooter may have to "pay the price" but someone else has been wounded or killed. Is that a GOOD outcome? Wouldn't the SMARTER way be to not have it happen in the first place???Come on, is this really a big problem? Is there some sort of epidemic of innocent people in malls being accidentally shot by honest citizens?

The cost of pro-actively preventing such a thing in the first place is totally unacceptable, since it involves a severe infringement of personal freedom. I am totally against denying everyone the right to carry concealed arms in the mall just to prevent the rare possibility that an honset citizen may accidentally shoot an innocent person.

This problem so remote that I can't believe you are really worried about it to the point of disarming honest citizens. It is certainly far less of a problem than the threat posed by the bad guys, which is why the concealed weapon is there in the first place. Take away the concealed weapon, and how many more innocent lives will be lost because honest people cannot defend themselves as effectively, and tell me that is less than the number of innocent people accidentally shot in a mall by an honest citizen.

[Zep]

In the future, Zep, please do not put your replies inside a quote block, since they disappear when I click the quote button to to reply.OK.

How do you know that? Do you have access to information that was not in that article? Exactly my point. We DON'T know. He could have been unconcious, surrendering, begging for mercy, or threatening her. Who knows! What if he WAS surrendering, hands up? Still shoot him then? All we know for certain is that he is dead now and she admits shooting him.

If they are in my house illegally, yes. If they are in my house illegally, it reasonable to assume they intend to harm me. There are too many examples of home invaders having done harm to the occupants to assume otherwise. If a criminal can't live with this possibility, then don't come in my house illegally.Defend your property by all means - I do myself with locks and alarms. But you should put up signs:

TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT AT.
Call xxx-xxxx to make an appointment with me otherwise.

And I'd still hate to be the next door neighbour who knocks on your back door for a cup of sugar unannounced...

In this country, shooting an illegal intruder is legal. As it should be.If the police arrive and find a dead guy shot in your back yard and you holding the smoking gun, is it OK for you to just claim he was "an illegal intruder"? What if he wasn't - if the killing was something else entirely...

That isn't the scenario in the article, and I am not advocating shooting through the door at someone who isn't yet an intruder. Don't be ridiculous with your straw men arguments.No straw man at all. You wouldn't shoot a potential intruder through a door, but you WOULD if you could see their face? Is THAT it?

The thing is, I'm having trouble how you manage to identify "illegal intruders" beyond the fact that they are on your property uninvited. Lots of other people are also regularly on your property uninvited...

[re holding a gun on a perp] It is not reasonable to hold the homeowner to the same standards of performance as the police , or to judge them by those standards.I, devout simpering coward, can point a gun on a crook. I have had no gun training and I would be scared as hell that I would shoot myself in the foot, but I could do it. So can a woman or a child. And I'm willing to bet that that the crook would be VERY worried I would indeed pull the trigger and would most likely cooperate because guns are just so easy to operate, aren't they, and amateurs are nowhere near as disciplined as the police in these matters. So comparison to the police is not the point - best use of the gun is.

Wrong. Very bad idea. Do not give the crook any opportunity to gain the upper hand. They have no business being in my home in the first place and they certainly have no right to insist that I give them the benefit of the doubt. And neither do you. WHAT benefit of the doubt?? If you were a crook faced by a screaming, nervous gun-wielding person, would you think you could get away with anything at all?

Yes, that's the way most laws in this country work. The police come in and clean up after the fact.Explains the situation, then. We like to stop crimes BEFORE they are committed, not mop up after they are done.

Come on, is this really a big problem? Is there some sort of epidemic of innocent people in malls being accidentally shot by honest citizens? You miss the point. If this person with a gun is so quick to drop a purported crim without a second thought, what's to say that she won't think she is being "attacked" in a shopping mall and respond accordingly. Many people do let the TV news be their brain about how "unsafe" society is these days...

The sum of my response is that there ARE societies where there are few, if any, guns in public, and they DO function perfectly well. And these same societies have ways of successfully dealing with bad guys that do not involve unexplained and unexplainable deaths at the point of a gun, where the police turn a blind eye, nay, encourage society to think that gun-violence is "THE answer".

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by xouper

In this country, shooting an illegal intruder is legal. As it should be.


Accidentally falling through the roof into the apartment below isn't illegal entry and from the article, that's what appears to have happened. So the man wasn't an illegal intruder per se.

[Tesserat]

Zep,
I'm pro-gun control, and I think your arguments are really stretching it. Any mention that the police were moments away, ect, mean nothing. The woman couldn't know that. So what if there were sirens (do we know that anyway?).

As far as the woman knew, she was on her own. I can't judge her without knowing a whole lot more. Speculation is is pointless self amusement.

Myself, if I had a gun, and somebody dropped through the ceiling - and if it was an eight foor drop, if he had a chance to hit his feet, he might not be stunned at all - I'd point my gun at the guy and scream at him not to move. If he moved towards me, I'd shoot him. If he ran away from me, I wouldn't.

If I was in Some Friggin Guy's house, I'd grab one of his swords. In my house, right now there's a pretty nasty pot that could do some damage.

If I had a gun, and I was inbetween the guy and an escape route for him, if he ran at me to get around me and out, I'd probably shoot him. With a sword or a pot, I'd get out of his way.

I just finished watching Bowling for Columbine for the first time, and the idea of the culture of America as a culture of fear
was interesting. It's certainly good business.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by xouper

In this country, shooting an illegal intruder is legal. As it should be.



Missed that one. Ignore for a second that this is a matter almost exclusively state law, so there is going to be a wild variance as to each particular state, but according to LaFave & Scott's Criminal Law "Hornbook" (a usually one volume summary of a particular area of law):

1) The majority view is that deadly force is never justified to protect property.

2) For a "perfect right" of self defense, the shooter must:

a) Be free of fault in bringing about the situation
b) Have a reasonable belief of the following:
i) The adversary will, unless forcefully prevented, immedately inflict upon the shooter a fatal or serious bodily injury.
ii) Deadly force is necessary to prevent such an injury.

An "imperfect right" of self defense exists if only "b" above can be shown. This "downgrades" the charge from murder to manslaughter.

Close to what you suggest is the "Imperfect right to prevent a felony." This right follows the general framework of self defense, but the applications and specifics vary wildly, and the "reasonable belief" is held stricter in some circumstances. However, "Illegal Entry" in and of itself is neither violent nor is it a felony in most circumstances, and I'm aware in West Virginia, and I suspect some other jurisdictions sometimes an "illegal entry" isn't even a crime, such as when the person entering doesn't realize he is on another's property, or if he enters by accident.

Depending on the details the crime here could fall into any or all of the above, or none of the above.

[Selvedge]

Like the woman in the article, I also live in an apartment. In my apartment complex, they do a nice job with the upkeep, and the maintenance guys sometimes work in the attic, ex. to repair wiring or insulation.

Suppose a maintenance guy falls through my ceiling while I'm showering. If I don't recognize him, and have no idea who he is or why he's there, is it o.k. for me to kill him? If not, how is this different from what we know of this incident? (Or, if so, should I warn all our maintenance guys here to wear bulletproof vests, just in case? ;) )

[xouper]

Selvedge: Like the woman in the article, I also live in an apartment. In my apartment complex, they do a nice job with the upkeep, and the maintenance guys sometimes work in the attic, ex. to repair wiring or insulation.

Suppose a maintenance guy falls through my ceiling while I'm showering. If I don't recognize him, and have no idea who he is or why he's there, is it o.k. for me to kill him? If not, how is this different from what we know of this incident? (Or, if so, should I warn all our maintenance guys here to wear bulletproof vests, just in case? ;) )I would expect maintenance to warn me if they are working in my ceiling, or if there's some other possibility they may accidentally enter my apartment. Their safety may depend on it. If I was a maintenance guy, I wouldn't count on the apartment dwellers not to shoot me if I fell through their ceiling unannounced.

[Shinytop]

I think that the attitude that deadly force is not justified to protect your property is one of the chief reasons we have so much violent crime. And no, I do not have stats to back this up. But why isn't deadly force justified? Why is it considered okay for some whack job to take my property? Why can't I defend that property with whatever means it takes? Are we not just telling the would be criminals to have at it? Might not they think a second time if they know the home owner has a right to defend his property?

It's a sick world when people who want to take my property have more rights than I do to defend it.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Tmy


You didnt call the cops?

Good thing you werent pulled over on your way to the buy back. Then youd be facing felony gun possession charges.

I didn't call the cops because I was too busy laughing. I should have, admittedly.

As for getting pulled over on the way to the buy-back, police very rarly pull over pedestrians. And the fact is that I unloaded the gun. I don't trust myself with a loaded gun.

[xouper]

Zep: Exactly my point. We DON'T know. He could have been unconcious, surrendering, begging for mercy, or threatening her. Who knows! What if he WAS surrendering, hands up? Still shoot him then? All we know for certain is that he is dead now and she admits shooting him.Right, so since you don't know the circumstances, what grounds do you have for judging her actions?

No straw man at all. You wouldn't shoot a potential intruder through a door, but you WOULD if you could see their face? Is THAT it?It is likely I would shoot an intruder, epecially if I had the slightest fear for my safety. I would not shoot someone who has not yet intruded. Is that clear enough?

The thing is, I'm having trouble how you manage to identify "illegal intruders" beyond the fact that they are on your property uninvited. Lots of other people are also regularly on your property uninvited...We are not talking about on my property, but in my house. Please stick to the point without dragging in other scenarios.

WHAT benefit of the doubt?? If you were a crook faced by a screaming, nervous gun-wielding person, would you think you could get away with anything at all?Why do you presume to know that a crook will always respond rationally? Someone in the midst of commiting an obvious crime has already demonstrated he has impaired judgment. Maybe he's stoopid enough to think he can get away with anything. Can you guarantee me otherwise? I thought not.

Explains the situation, then. We like to stop crimes BEFORE they are committed, not mop up after they are done.You can do that for all violent crimes? I'm amazed.

You miss the point. If this person with a gun is so quick to drop a purported crim without a second thought, what's to say that she won't think she is being "attacked" in a shopping mall and respond accordingly. Many people do let the TV news be their brain about how "unsafe" society is these days...Where is your evidence that this scenario is a problem in America?

The sum of my response is that there ARE societies where there are few, if any, guns in public, and they DO function perfectly well.Depends on how you define "perfectly well".

And these same societies have ways of successfully dealing with bad guys that do not involve unexplained and unexplainable deaths at the point of a gun, where the police turn a blind eye, nay, encourage society to think that gun-violence is "THE answer".Quite frankly I do not believe you. The police cannot protect you from all violent crime. Not unless they follow you around all day and act as your personal body guard.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Shinytop
I think that the attitude that deadly force is not justified to protect your property is one of the chief reasons we have so much violent crime. And no, I do not have stats to back this up. But why isn't deadly force justified? Why is it considered okay for some whack job to take my property? Why can't I defend that property with whatever means it takes? Are we not just telling the would be criminals to have at it? Might not they think a second time if they know the home owner has a right to defend his property?

It's a sick world when people who want to take my property have more rights than I do to defend it.

It's a sicker world where you can legally head shot a 12 year old boy to keep him from running off with one of your lawn ornaments. What? That's not what you mean? How valuable does it have to be before you can kill? A TV? Car? 18 year old? What?

They don't have more rights than you and they are not allowed to just take what you have. You just aren't allowed to kill. There are things called police, courts and jails that civilized people rely on for property crime.

[DavidJames]

"Might not they think a second time "

If they were thinking at all, they wouldn't commit the crime in the first place, that's the point. Criminals are different than "normal" people. If they gave a damn about the consequences they wouldn't be committing the crime, that's why they are criminals. Maybe you or I wouldn't break into a home knowing the owner had a gun but, guess what, I wouldn't break into a home in the first place, it's wrong and against the law. Criminals don't have concern for the law and if they carry a gun, I'm guessing they figure on using it and either wouldn't have completely thought through the consequences of meeting up with someone else with a gun, or don't give a damn.

Edit to add:
DJ's corollary to "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"
"when everyone has guns, outlaws will wear protective gear and get bigger guns"

[Zep]

Originally posted by Tesserat
Zep,
I'm pro-gun control, and I think your arguments are really stretching it. Any mention that the police were moments away, ect, mean nothing. The woman couldn't know that. So what if there were sirens (do we know that anyway?).

As far as the woman knew, she was on her own. I can't judge her without knowing a whole lot more. Speculation is is pointless self amusement.

Myself, if I had a gun, and somebody dropped through the ceiling - and if it was an eight foor drop, if he had a chance to hit his feet, he might not be stunned at all - I'd point my gun at the guy and scream at him not to move. If he moved towards me, I'd shoot him. If he ran away from me, I wouldn't.

If I was in Some Friggin Guy's house, I'd grab one of his swords. In my house, right now there's a pretty nasty pot that could do some damage.

If I had a gun, and I was inbetween the guy and an escape route for him, if he ran at me to get around me and out, I'd probably shoot him. With a sword or a pot, I'd get out of his way.

I just finished watching Bowling for Columbine for the first time, and the idea of the culture of America as a culture of fear
was interesting. It's certainly good business. Tesserat, I do agree that my arguments are a bit stretched, but I'm trying to expose just how stretched the pro-gun logic is by doing so.

With ALL your comments above I totally agree - that would be me too. It's the path of least harm all round, with the gun option being a last resort, not a first resort. Which is what I have been trying to get through to some people here!

[Zep]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Missed that one. Ignore for a second that this is a matter almost exclusively state law, so there is going to be a wild variance as to each particular state, but according to LaFave & Scott's Criminal Law "Hornbook" (a usually one volume summary of a particular area of law):

1) The majority view is that deadly force is never justified to protect property.

2) For a "perfect right" of self defense, the shooter must:

a) Be free of fault in bringing about the situation
b) Have a reasonable belief of the following:
i) The adversary will, unless forcefully prevented, immedately inflict upon the shooter a fatal or serious bodily injury.
ii) Deadly force is necessary to prevent such an injury.

An "imperfect right" of self defense exists if only "b" above can be shown. This "downgrades" the charge from murder to manslaughter.

Close to what you suggest is the "Imperfect right to prevent a felony." This right follows the general framework of self defense, but the applications and specifics vary wildly, and the "reasonable belief" is held stricter in some circumstances. However, "Illegal Entry" in and of itself is neither violent nor is it a felony in most circumstances, and I'm aware in West Virginia, and I suspect some other jurisdictions sometimes an "illegal entry" isn't even a crime, such as when the person entering doesn't realize he is on another's property, or if he enters by accident.

Depending on the details the crime here could fall into any or all of the above, or none of the above. Thank you! Sense and sensibility at last.

[Zep]

Xouper: ...since you don't know the circumstances, what grounds do you have for judging her actions? I'm not judging her. I'm simply pointing out that I don't think it is a cut-and-dried case like the report makes out - the situation as presented has holes in it.
Xouper: It is likely I would shoot an intruder, epecially if I had the slightest fear for my safety. I would not shoot someone who has not yet intruded. Is that clear enough? That's an awfully thin, even unsupportable basis for shooting someone, and could get you into serious trouble with the law...
Xouper: Why do you presume to know that a crook will always respond rationally? Someone in the midst of commiting an obvious crime has already demonstrated he has impaired judgment. Maybe he's stoopid enough to think he can get away with anything. Can you guarantee me otherwise? I thought not. Who cares about the perp's brain-scans? The scenario is that you have this perp covered with a gun. If he stays still until the cops come, fine. If he tries to run, let him go. If he comes at you, drop him.


Xouper, we can bat this back and forth some more if you like, but I don't think we will be getting anywhere constructive at all. Instead, why don't you come down and visit Australia yourself? It's coming on spring/summer so it should be fine. Then you can see for yourself how we live, and you can then make fully informed commentary instead. Don't worry! We don't bite!

[xouper]

Zep: I'm not judging her.OK, I'll accept your word on that. Though, it sounded to me like you were. At the very least, you were "second guessing" her, a pointless game without all the facts.

That's an awfully thin, even unsupportable basis for shooting someone, and could get you into serious trouble with the law...Some of the legal specifics were greatly clarified by Suddenly. I am fully aware of them. Perhaps I am guilty of oversimplifying my argument for the sake of not getting bogged down in the minutiae. If an intruder ran away, I would not shoot them in the back.

Who cares about the perp's brain-scans? The scenario is that you have this perp covered with a gun. If he stays still until the cops come, fine. If he tries to run, let him go. If he comes at you, drop him.Of course. But if he so much as flinches the wrong way, I will interpret that as a direct threat and then he's dead meat. I will not give him any opportunity to gain the upper hand, regardless whether he was capable of following through. "I thought he was going for a gun, officer." I don't have to wait until he points it at me.

Xouper, we can bat this back and forth some more if you like,No thanks. I am only interested in stating my opinions, or clarifying my opinions by answering certain questions. I am not interested in trying to convert anyone, although you may feel free to do so. :)

Instead, why don't you come down and visit Australia yourself?Thank you for the invite.

[xouper]

xouper: But if he so much as flinches the wrong way, I will interpret that as a direct threat ...Let me also add that if I see anything resembling a gun in the perp's hand, I will shoot immediately, regardless of his intent. To do any less and I may be forfeiting my only chance to defend myself.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/09/30/1064819933632.htm

So, Diamond didn't even use the gun in the assault? What's the point here?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jude
How much more information do you need? A burglar, while attempting to flee the police, broke into her home!

Well, as someone who is a big champion of gun rights, I would say that I'd need more information to be able to make a determination whether or not lethal force was justified. But that's not my call. The police who were there had this information and determined that she was justified. Unless and until information comes to light showing she may not have been, I'm going to take the determination of the police as evidence that she was justified.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Yes, he was a burglar. Yes, he was attempting to evade the police, but it seems unlikely that the woman could have known that at the time. No, judging from the newspaper article he didn't break into her home - it seems he accidentally fell through the roof into her apartment. That's not "breaking and entering" - well, not in the legal sense at all.

Being inside the crawl space in the first place isn't breaking and entering?

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
But this is exactly what has been achieved in various countries around the world already. Low homicide rates, (you will never get 0), and an unarmed populace.

How many of these are countries that previously had a high homicide rate with an armed populace?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Zep
Let me tell you, if I was a burglar fleeing the police then I would NOT be taking time out from "running away real fast" to break into people's homes. Especially through the roof. And ESPECIALLY not to rape and terrorise someone as well.

Have you ever thought that maybe he was running from the police he thought that he could hide from the plice in the crawl space? And that when he crashed through and saw the woman he would have just left her alone even though she was now a witness who could put him away, or someone who could have made a good hostage?

Don't talk about illogical! :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Zep
I acknowledge here that that would be a possibility. But did she say that he threatened her IN ANY WAY? Did she say that he said or did anything at all towards her? Nope. He probably didn't get a chance to even apologise or possibly surrender - Excuse me lady...BLAM!

And what are you basing this on, other than your own bias?

And you can tell that somehow by just looking at them for a few seconds?

How do you know it all happened in a few seconds? The story doesn't say that. You're making an awful lot of assumptions.

Sure, don't trust a crook. But she had the upper hand - he was in a heap on the floor, she had the gun out and ready before he went anywhere.

Again, with your assumptions! Or are you somehow privvy to more information you haven't felt the need to post here?

Holding a gun on a perp is what the cops usually do, and that seems to be highly successful the vast majority of the time.

There's more than one of them when they do that. If there is only one, he keeps his distance until backup arrives. You NEVER get close to someone you're holding a gun on without backup.

And let's not forget that this man was her neighbor who had broken into her house before. She probably knew quite well what he was capable of and what his intentions were.

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by Zep
Sure, don't trust a crook. But she had the upper hand - he was in a heap on the floor, she had the gun out and ready before he went anywhere. Holding a gun on a perp is what the cops usually do, and that seems to be highly successful the vast majority of the time. She only needed to do it for a short period - the cops were very close, seconds away perhaps. She could have screamed her head off while doing so - a good idea, actually. I would have no problem with a personal weapon being used to pin someone this way

Maybe she didn't know that the cops were outside. She just saw a stranger in her bedroom and reacted. No problem at all.

This quote makes it seem that you'd be one of those burglers who sues the homeowner because you were shot while trying to rob them.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Zep
I'm not judging her. I'm simply pointing out that I don't think it is a cut-and-dried case like the report makes out - the situation as presented has holes in it.
That's an awfully thin, even unsupportable basis for shooting someone, and could get you into serious trouble with the law...
Who cares about the perp's brain-scans? The scenario is that you have this perp covered with a gun. If he stays still until the cops come, fine. If he tries to run, let him go. If he comes at you, drop him.


Xouper, we can bat this back and forth some more if you like, but I don't think we will be getting anywhere constructive at all. Instead, why don't you come down and visit Australia yourself? It's coming on spring/summer so it should be fine. Then you can see for yourself how we live, and you can then make fully informed commentary instead. Don't worry! We don't bite!



You know Zep-----I know a man who did just that. He met an Aussie in the US, fell in love with her, and decided to move to her home town of Perth.

It had nothing to do with escaping crime. He was from a small town in upstate NewYork...very safe despite all the "gun-nuts" running around...He was an avid hunter and also had a CW permit but when he moved to Australia...partly because of his wife and partly because of Australia's laws.......he sold his guns to someone else.

Once upon a time he was an avid weight-lifter. He wrote a regular column in one of the strength-training mags in fact.

Today though....he can barely walk. His condition is deteriorating
and in a few years he may not even be able to do that. He's facing the prospect of spending the rest of his life in a wheelchair.

About a year after arriving in Perth he was taking an evening walk thru his neighborhood when he was assaulted by 5 men.

No...they didn't have guns. One of them had a wrench though but most of the damage was by simply kicking the man in the spine when he was on the ground.

I guess not ALL the criminal in Australia are the "nice" ones you always talk about. The reasonable ones who simply want your wallet or your car. He was knocked out right away by the guy with the wrench. They could have taken his wallet & walked away but apparently they thought it would be fun to just kick him to within an inch of his life.

He'll tell you today.....if this had happened in the US.....he'd still be healthy and there'd be one or two dead thugs instead.

The police couldn't protect him and the government took away his right to protect himself from people like this.

I guess not everything is so rosy in the neighborhood he chose to live in.......................gun free or not......

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek


Being inside the crawl space in the first place isn't breaking and entering?

I'm assuming from the events that the man who fell lived in an apartment on the floor above the woman, with the crawl-space being between the floors. As the man was said to have entered the crawl-space to avoid police at his front door, that seemed a reasonable assumptions.

I suppose it might be considered breaking and entering into part of the house-owner's property that was off limits - but I'm not a lawyer, an I think that's stretching it a bit. He didn't, however, break and enter into the woman's apartment - the crawl space isn't part of her apartment any more than it's a part of his apartment.

[shanek]

More information:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Sep-18-Thu-2003/news/22184574.html

Starks, wanted in connection with other burglaries and for a parole violation, climbed into the attic crawl space to escape the plainclothes officers at his door.

If it's an attic crawl space, then he couldn't have been in the upstairs apartment because there would have been no upstairs apartment.

No more details about the shooting itself, other than she feared for her life, got her gun, and shot him, but it does say:

After the woman shot Starks, he fled her apartment and ran to his own apartment next door, where police took him into custody. Starks was taken to University Medical Center where he died.

So he obviously wasn't lying helpless on the floor like Zep and others would have us believe.

Oh, and you'll notice that his actual apartment was next door, not in the same building. So it was definitely breaking and entering.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek
More information:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Sep-18-Thu-2003/news/22184574.html



If it's an attic crawl space, then he couldn't have been in the upstairs apartment because there would have been no upstairs apartment.

No more details about the shooting itself, other than she feared for her life, got her gun, and shot him, but it does say:



So he obviously wasn't lying helpless on the floor like Zep and others would have us believe.

Oh, and you'll notice that his actual apartment was next door, not in the same building. So it was definitely breaking and entering.

You'd still say "next door" about an apartmant in the same building, but on the same floor. I just don't see how it would help him "escape the plainclothes officers at his door" to climb into a crawl-space in another building.

[Zep]

We are still batting this around???

First, thanks to Shanek for digging up more info on this incident.

Let me reiterate:

1. I'm not wanting anyone to "believe" anything about this incident. My only question stands - What ACTUALLY happened when she confronted him? We do NOT know enough, although the later info would suggest that she scared the dickens out of him [with the gun] because he then ran away.

2. I think the "break-and-enter" issue is pretty much immaterial. The guy was going to be in some sort of trouble about the hiding-and-falling-through-her-ceiling bit in any case, if not what the plain-clothes wanted him for anyway.

3. The later report says that the gun was in the bedroom (loaded, for Ed's sake!), while the guy fell through the bathroom ceiling onto or near her. That would seem to confirm that she MUST have left the bathroom, got the gun, CAME BACK or FOLLOWED HIM and shot him in the neck. As he ran away, possibly.

4. It seems strange to me that this guy, on the run from the cops at his door, would take time out to try and molest or even just get seen by the woman next door. So, to me, the support for shooting for "self-defence" is a bit (must pick a neutral term here) "questionable".

5. I can imagine she was scared, but to shoot at a fleeing man, inside the house, possibly with children about too, is a MAJOR worry for me. Question for the gun-trained people: Do you think that is the action of a gun-user properly trained with safety in mind? COULD she have been just as effective by simply threatening/pointing at the guy with the gun?

6. What worries me most is the ongoing assertion by the POLICE that it WAS "self-defence" and that they are literally wiping their hands of it now the guy is dead. As I asked before, is this correct justice?

As I said before, I don't have answers to these questions, but they are simply some of the questions that spring to my mind when I hear these stories.

[xouper]

Zep: We are still batting this around???OK, I give. Why? :)

1. I'm not wanting anyone to "believe" anything about this incident. My only question stands - What ACTUALLY happened when she confronted him? We do NOT know enough, ... Exactly. So what is the point of all your speculations and assumptions?

3. The later report says that the gun was in the bedroom (loaded, for Ed's sake!), while the guy fell through the bathroom ceiling onto or near her. That would seem to confirm that she MUST have left the bathroom, got the gun, CAME BACK or FOLLOWED HIM and shot him in the neck. As he ran away, possibly.Aside from being shot in the neck, where in either of the two articles linked in this thread does it say any of that other stuff? The first article says she was getting dressed when the perp fell through the ceiling. She could very well have already been in her bedroom after having just got out of the shower. Remember, this is a journalist's version of the story, not the official police report, and I assume I don't have to remind people that journalists often get details wrong.

Questions:

Where does it say the gun was loaded? I'm tempted to think that's a fair assumption, though. And what's the point of keeping a gun in the bedroom for self defense if it's not loaded?

Where does it say the guy fell through the bathroom ceiling?

Where does it say he fell near her?

Where does it say she was in the bathroom when he fell through the ceiling?

Where does it say she (possibly) shot him as he ran away?

4. It seems strange to me that this guy, on the run from the cops at his door, would take time out to try and molest or even just get seen by the woman next door. So, to me, the support for shooting for "self-defence" is a bit (must pick a neutral term here) "questionable".OK, so it's strange to you. Not to me. Seems you like to under-estimate the stupidity, viciousness, or irrationality of crooks.

5. I can imagine she was scared, but to shoot at a fleeing man, inside the house,Where does it say she shot a fleeing man? What I read was thet he fled after he was shot.

possibly with children about too, is a MAJOR worry for me.The article says there were no children at home at the time of the shooting. The woman may actually have known that before she started shooting.

Question for the gun-trained people: Do you think that is the action of a gun-user properly trained with safety in mind?I'm not following the point of your question. Please clarify and be specific.

COULD she have been just as effective by simply threatening/pointing at the guy with the gun?Not necessarily. You assume that all crooks think rationally under those circumstances. That could be a fatal assumption on your part.

6. What worries me most is the ongoing assertion by the POLICE that it WAS "self-defence" and that they are literally wiping their hands of it now the guy is dead. As I asked before, is this correct justice?Where does it say that the police are "literally wiping their hands" of the matter? Or even figuratively (which is what you should have said)? On what basis do you assume that the police investigation was insufficient or not thorough enough? The article said a report was going to be submitted to the district attorney and charges could still be filed against the shooter. I hate to ask this, but just how carefully did you read that article?

[Zep]

Xouper, we are going in circles. The reports as presented to us leave giant gaps of knowledge about the incident.

Maybe this guy WAS a total ********* with a flagrantly unstable mental condition predisposed to irrational violence at random times and DID try to attack/rape her while being chased by the police next door, but I'm having a hard time believing that, quite frankly.

So I suspect, that word again is "SUSPECT", that something else somewhat more believable actually happened. As I have outlined previously. Exactly what, I can only conjecture from the thin available evidence, but in doing so, the incident doesn't seem to match its description any longer...

Anyway, perhaps my summary would be that the guy is now dead because he was found guilty and sentenced to death with a gun by scared woman before he had a chance to be tried and found innocent by proper means.

And would that outcome sound like a good and fair thing to you? I'm guessing it does... I could be wrong...

[xouper]

Zep: Xouper, we are going in circles. The reports as presented to us leave giant gaps of knowledge about the incident.Agreed, so why are you attempting to criticize the incident based on insufficient information and your own conjectures?

Anyway, perhaps my summary would be that the guy is now dead because he was found guilty and sentenced to death with a gun by scared woman before he had a chance to be tried and found innocent by proper means. And would that outcome sound like a good and fair thing to you?Yes, I think that is a fair and good outcome. People should be allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves.

[Zep]

1. Because what we DO have doesn't seem believable.

2. The application of "due process" doesn't seem to appeal to you much.

[xouper]

Zep: 1. Because what we DO have doesn't seem believable.We disagree on that point.

2. The application of "due process" doesn't seem to appeal to you much.Non sequitur. I never said that, nor have I implied it. Please don't put words in my mouth. In a self-defense scenario, there is no "due process". This in no way implies that I do not favor due process in other scenarios.

I am getting fed up with your lack of reading comprehension and your numerous failures of logic in this conversation. I have tried to be patient, but with your false characterization of my opinions, my patience has run out.

You have expressed your point of view. Obviously I do not agree. Let's leave it at that.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Zep
2. The application of "due process" doesn't seem to appeal to you much.

"Due process" has determined that she acted in self-defense.