Gun owner kills intruder, faces prison

[Tricky]

In Laredo, a man has shot and killed an intruder and winds up indicted for murder (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5732684.html).

Jose Luis Gonzalez, 63, was indicted Friday in the July killing of a teenager who sneaked into his home with three friends to steal drinks and snacks. Francisco Anguiano was shot in the back and later died at a Laredo hospital.
Gonzalez was indicted by a grand jury for first-degree murder.

What is wrong in America today when a man who is defending his right to drinks and snacks faces prison time for shooting thirteen-year-old criminals in the back as they were running away? I just thank God that our country recognizes the importance of keeping guns handy so that we can bring these snack-stealing burglers to justice before they have a chance to grow up into a life of crime.

[firecoins]

nobody indicted the gun

[RandFan]

It's high time we outlaw guns. While we're at it, let's outlaw any weapon that can be used to kill someone (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=%22stabbing+death%22).

:boxedin: Oh hell. I sense a gun thread coming on. I swear, if I ever see someone engaged in a gun debate, I'll shoot 'em.

[rjh01]

As far as I know, the death penalty is not the correct punishment for break and entry. The child was running away so self defense is not an issue here. He should not have even been pointing the gun at the child. If the gun was faulty and owned by the shooter then having a faulty gun is no excuse.

I think he should be facing a murder charge.

[Mobyseven]

Given the facts as presented, I hope the bugger goes to jail for a fair bit.

[Gravy]

As far as I know, the death penalty is not the correct punishment for break and entry. The child was running away so self defense is not an issue here. He should not have even been pointing the gun at the child. If the gun was faulty and owned by the shooter then having a faulty gun is no excuse.
[Devil's Advocate]There's nothing in that story indicating that the boy was running away. If I rush at you, then see you have a gun and turn as you're deciding to fire, you can shoot me in the back. Likewise if I'm going for a weapon like a knife in the kitchen. The homeowner claims to have been struggling with the intruders.[/DA] However, the fact that a first degree murder charge was filed means the prosecutor must be pretty confident that the shooter was totally in the wrong.

[rjh01]

If the child turned away just before being shot then the shooter had enough time not to shoot. Of course the child could be walking backwards.

Both things I think are unlikely.

[Architect]

Given the facts as presented, I hope the bugger goes to jail for a fair bit.

Agreed.

Doubtless someone will be along to tell us that shooting someone running away is a right that's enshrined in the US constitution and how we pesky and largely gun free Europeans/Canadians aren't really "free".



5......4......3.......2.......1..........

[Gravy]

If the child turned away just before being shot then the shooter had enough time not to shoot.The real world often isn't so neat. A person can turn in a fraction of a second, without the shooter knowing that the person intends to turn and flee.

ETA: Study reveals how suspects sometimes get shot in the back (http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/calibre-press/articles/1664149/)

[Darat]

I would have thought that the distance the person was shot from would be a good guide to whether it was a deliberate shooting in the back when they were fleeing or an accidental shot to the back during a struggle.

[billydkid]

In Laredo, a man has shot and killed an intruder and winds up indicted for murder (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5732684.html).


What is wrong in America today when a man who is defending his right to drinks and snacks faces prison time for shooting thirteen-year-old criminals in the back as they were running away? I just thank God that our country recognizes the importance of keeping guns handy so that we can bring these snack-stealing burglers to justice before they have a chance to grow up into a life of crime.What is wrong with America today when hoodlums can not feel free to enter other peoples homes at their discretion and expect to be given the benefit of the doubt that they are merely rambunctious teens looking for fun? After, it is not like we have ever had home invasions by violent sociopaths intend on raping or harming the inhabitants and any home owner must be held accountable for not assuming that people breaking into their home are harmless pranksters on a lark. And clearly, the responsibility for any tragedy that might transpire from invading someone's home must rest solely on the home owner sleeping in his bed and minding his own business. He should have thought ahead that anyone who might break into his home might be teens goofing around.

Obviously, not every shooting stemming from a home invasion is going to be justified in the eyes of on lookers - of course, it's not their home being invaded and they were not there. It could well be in this case the shooting was unjustifiable, but the idea that it is the person minding his own business, sleeping in his bed is somehow principally responsible for any tragedy transpiring from the unlawful invasion of their property is baloney - unless, of course, the teens exclaimed as he was shooting them "We're just teens looking to swipe some snacks and drinks! We're completely harmless!" Somehow there is always an inclination to put the blame on anyone except the persons starting the trouble in the first place.

[Gravy]

Billyd, part of the problem for the homeowner here may be that he was sleeping not in his bed but in a nearby shed and was not in physical danger (I don't know if anyone else was in the house, however).

[ponderingturtle]

What is wrong with America today when hoodlums can not feel free to enter other peoples homes at their discretion and expect to be given the benefit of the doubt that they are merely rambunctious teens looking for fun? .

So this is eithera false dicotomy, or you feel that death should be an expected possibility with any crime.

[Gravy]

One of the teenagers, however, told a different version days after the incident.

The survivor, whose name is not being published because he is a minor, said Gonzalez forced the intruders to kneel and began to beat them with the gun.

He then shot Anguiano and continued to threaten the other teens, even as Anguiano lay on the floor bleeding. The survivor said Gonzalez even yelled something at the caravan that rushed down the colonia's dirt road as they drove a bleeding Anguiano to the hospital.Oddly,

Gonzalez is also reported to have told authorities that his mobile home had been burglarized several times before, and the survivor admitted he and his friends had indeed entered Gonzalez's home on previous occasions, as he admitted they did the night of the shooting. http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19520847&BRD=2290&PAG=461&dept_id=569392&rfi=6

[RandFan]

The real world often isn't so neat. A person can turn in a fraction of a second, without the shooter knowing that the person intends to turn and flee.

ETA: Study reveals how suspects sometimes get shot in the back (http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/calibre-press/articles/1664149/)That is so cool. As one who is always complaining that the world ISN'T so black and white I would likely have debated with you that it's hard to shoot a person in the back and not know it or not be able to stop once you have committed to shooting before the suspect turns.

We're not always as skeptical as we think we are.

Thanks.

[RandFan]

Oddly,It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Sometimes things are as they appear.

[FarmallMTA]

"...indicted Friday in the July killing of a teenager who sneaked into his home with three friends to steal..."

Sorry, lefties, this case is as good as already over and the man is as good as free to go. Texas Castle Doctrine does not make exceptions for: teenagers, culpability of co-perpetrators, or what criminals afterwards claim to have been doing on the premises (Oh, Mr. ACLU Human Rights Lawyer Dude, I was only in there to steal, uh, drinks and, um, yeah, SNACKS!).

This is just a election-hounding Democrat DA playing to his cheap peanut gallery by testing the Castle Doctrine. His test will fail.

[casebro]

We don't know for sure about Gonzales, but the surviving teens ARE murderers. They ought to get punished worse than the homeowner.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's high time we outlaw guns. While we're at it, let's outlaw any weapon that can be used to kill someone (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=%22stabbing+death%22).

:boxedin: Oh hell. I sense a gun thread coming on. I swear, if I ever see someone engaged in a gun debate, I'll shoot 'em.

If that kid couldn't get away, then he wasn't moving his drumsticks fast enough.

[TragicMonkey]

I wonder, what would be the results if Gonzalez, tired of constant breaks-and-entry for snacks, had poisoned some snacks and left them in his own kitchen, and the thieves then broke in, stole the snacks, consumed them, and died? Would he face a murder charge? Or is a man's home his castle, and if he likes to store his antifreeze in Little Debbie Swiss Rolls, is that his right?

[Mobyseven]

"...indicted Friday in the July killing of a teenager who sneaked into his home with three friends to steal..."

Sorry, lefties, this case is as good as already over and the man is as good as free to go. Texas Castle Doctrine does not make exceptions for: teenagers, culpability of co-perpetrators, or what criminals afterwards claim to have been doing on the premises (Oh, Mr. ACLU Human Rights Lawyer Dude, I was only in there to steal, uh, drinks and, um, yeah, SNACKS!).

This is just a election-hounding Democrat DA playing to his cheap peanut gallery by testing the Castle Doctrine. His test will fail.
We don't know for sure about Gonzales, but the surviving teens ARE murderers. They ought to get punished worse than the homeowner.

Interesting. I had thought that there would be little disagreement as to whether or not shooting an unarmed, retreating teenager, who poses no threat to you, would be wrong.

Evidently, I have once again overestimated the human race. Thanks, Casebro and Farmall, for once again demonstrating that, just when you thought you'd seen the lowest homo sapiens can offer, someone new can come along and challenge your cherished beliefs.

[Bikewer]

One seldom gets the details of the investigation in these sorts of stories. Self-defense law can get really complicated.

Generally, deadly force may not be employed against fleeing criminals. We police can do so only if there are exigent circumstances which lead us to believe that further violence will result, or the community at large may be more endangered if the suspect escapes.

In this case, a house burglary (albeit a burglary in the first degree) with fleeing suspects.... We would not normally expect deadly force to be justified.
In order to seek justification, the law must try to determine the state of mind of the victim. Did he feel himself in danger? Was there any indication the burglars were armed? Did they make threats as they left? Etc, etc...

Conversely, if the resident had opened fire on the suspects as they broke into the home (especially after announcing his presence), there would be no problem.

As to the prospect of a successful prosecution of the fellow.....Good luck. Try to impanel a jury that would convict the guy.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I believe that the state of Texas has a, "reasonable expectation of bodily injury or death," in their deadly-force laws. I'll have to look it up after I get back.

In Indiana, if it were shown that the boy was shot in the back (penetration point) and at some distance (gunshot residue scatter), I believe that the shooter would be up the proverbial creek.

[Ranb]

Interesting. I had thought that there would be little disagreement as to whether or not shooting an unarmed, retreating teenager, who poses no threat to you, would be wrong.

I agree that shooting an unarmed retreating non-threatening teen in the back is wrong. Are you sure that the descrription you are using for the shooting victim is accurate? The only thing that leads me to believe it might be accurate is that a grand jury has decided to indict the shooter.

One of the surviving burglars says; http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19520847&BRD=2290&PAG=461&dept_id=569392&rfi=6
"The survivor said Gonzalez forced the intruders to kneel and began to beat them with the gun. He then shot Anguiano and continued to threaten the other teens, even as Anguiano lay on the floor bleeding."

Ranb

[Autolite]

This incident sort of raises the stakes reference the question "What would you do for a Klondike bar"???

[fuelair]

So this is eithera false dicotomy, or you feel that death should be an expected possibility with any crime.
Leaving out white-collar crimes, yes, death should be considered by the criminal as a possibility. If you wake me in the commission, unless you have a gun in my face as you do, it is a near certainty (I might miss - though I wait for a clear shot if possible and I won't miss with that) No, I would not shoot in the back - unless you have harmed my wife (you are dead - the only question is exactly how long it will take) or me - or have a weapon and start to turn.:)

[fuelair]

This incident sort of raises the stakes reference the question "What would you do for a Klondike bar"???
:D:D:D:D:D





And the way things are going, I could see a reality show operating on this premise!:)

[fuelair]

I agree that shooting an unarmed retreating non-threatening teen in the back is wrong. Are you sure that the descrription you are using for the shooting victim is accurate? The only thing that leads me to believe it might be accurate is that a grand jury has decided to indict the shooter.

One of the surviving burglars says; http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19520847&BRD=2290&PAG=461&dept_id=569392&rfi=6
"The survivor said Gonzalez forced the intruders to kneel and began to beat them with the gun. He then shot Anguiano and continued to threaten the other teens, even as Anguiano lay on the floor bleeding."

RanbIf, and only if, this is proven to be true (there will be multiple items of physical evidence if it is) then he should be put under the jail - but the other teens still should also be charged with, tried for and convicted of murder - since it could not have happened if they had not invaded his home - regardless of their reason. The reason should have no bearing - that is the problem I have with the people who put why they did it as an excuse. The homeowner only knows people who can harm him and have no excuse to be in his home ARE IN HIS HOME and he has a right to protect himself/other family members.

[Autolite]

The homeowner only knows people who can harm him and have no excuse to be in his home ARE IN HIS HOME and he has a right to protect himself/other family members.

This brings another question to mind. If someone was fatally shot while attempting to steal pop and candy from a private home located in a "Castle Doctrine" state, wouldn't that person be a prime candidate for the Darwin Awards? I personally wouldn't risk my life for anything less than two Big Macs and a large fries...

[Gate2501]

I see guns as such a gray area... I always have a different stance it seems on these issues, dependent upon the conditions of the shooting.

In this case, if the facts stand as they are presented in this story, then the property owner should not have shot the teen, unless the teen was coming towards him in an effort to challenge him physically. I say this due to the fact that the property owner was in a nearby shed (an outhouse perchance?), from where he apparently popped out to see these teens breaking into his trailer.

I put myself into this scenario and thought about what I would do. If the ne'er do wells had spotted me as I came out of the shed, I would have shown them the gun and told them to get out of here. If they had not spotted me I would have initially thought to hide, but would have come out and yelled at them after I realized that could create a boxed in situation if they had come looking in the shed for some cool stuff (snacks). A lot of my reaction would also depend on the distance from myself to the recipient of my hot lead.

As the facts seem to stand now... I don't have enough facts.

It does look like it may be a case of hillbilly rage however, but this is my very unprofessional unscientific opinion. I'd love to see what the actual scene of the crime looks like.

[Gate2501]

After reading http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19520847&BRD=2290&PAG=461&dept_id=569392&rfi=6 , I think that I would be on the side of the teens. According to this, it would seem that Mr. Gonzales heard the teens in his trailer, and actually went INTO the trailer for a confrontation. I know that this may not be against the law in his state, but if he did do things in this manner, then he was either:

A: An idiot that had no idea someone was gonna get shot.

B: Someone that values the contents of his trailer more than a human life (possibly even his own).

C: Someone looking to get a legal frag on a burglar.

The ONLY way that I would enter my trailer/home armed, after seeing or hearing someone inside burglarizing it, would be if I had a loved one inside.

The teens are in no way in the right for this, and Mr. Gonzales is definitely not totally right or wrong until his intentions can be deciphered, along with being tried against the allegations that he restrained and beat the boys.

I would hate to be on this jury, because if he did not beat and restrain them, then I would probably have to exonerate him due to state law. Even though I think that what he did was not right.

[qayak]

I think it is obvious that the man is not being charged with murder simply because he shot a teen, who had broken into his home, in the back. The charges are in the other details.

1- Home had been broken into previously.
2- Sleeping in a nearby shed.
3- Forced all three to kneel and began beating them with gun.
4- Shot kneeling teen in back.

I would say that the charges are first degree because this was premeditated. The owner was sleeping in a nearby shed and probably admitted to police that he was waiting for the teens who had broken in previously. He catches the teens and makes them kneel on the ground.

Up until this point everything is okay.

Then he makes his first mistake. He begins beating the teens with his gun. He has now committed assault with a weapon. He is now the aggressor and the teens have every right to defend themselves.

Whether the teen who was shot tried to defend himself and was shot for it, the gun simply went off by accident, or the guy shot the teen on purpose, the fact is, he shot the teen during the commission of a crime, the assault.

And so, he has been charged with first-degree murder as he should be.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Texas Statutes, Penal Code, Chapter 9. Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=EUHQGKTGVTBR&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=125421&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=4&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES), Subchapter C. Protection of Persons:§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE[0].
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: ... (emphasis mine)


There's a LOT of, "reasonable belief," stuff in what follows, as well.

It does look like the shooter has a pretty good case, what with the, "committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery," part, and was only indicted because the, "reasonable belief," aspect needs to be more closely examined.

Remember, please, that Grand Jury only decides if a trial should be held, depending on the presence and quality of the evidence and the current interpretation of the cited laws.

Also: One of the problems with this sort of thing is that we're seeing it filtered through the reporter's own opinions. As such we're not getting a complete picture.

... clip ...

I would hate to be on this jury, because if he did not beat and restrain them, then I would probably have to exonerate him due to state law. Even though I think that what he did was not right.


:( Big difference between, "Innocent," and, "Not Guilty." :(

[Drudgewire]

I'm shocking myself here after seeing the thread title, but I'm leaning towards "charge the guy." The point of the castle doctrine is to be able to use a firearm to defend yourself and your family. Using one to "subdue," even if I believed his version of events about it "just going off" (which I don't) leads to this sort of situation which becomes fodder for the anti-gun crowd.

In the same way the cops in New York were completely justified to use lethal force, this guy wasn't.

That said, he'd probably want to have me on his jury. :whistling

[ponderingturtle]

Leaving out white-collar crimes, yes, death should be considered by the criminal as a possibility.

Why leave those out?

If you wake me in the commission, unless you have a gun in my face as you do, it is a near certainty (I might miss - though I wait for a clear shot if possible and I won't miss with that) No, I would not shoot in the back - unless you have harmed my wife (you are dead - the only question is exactly how long it will take) or me - or have a weapon and start to turn.:)

Wait I am talking to the wrong person again. As you have stated that you will intentionaly try to manipulate such situations so that you get to kill someone, I should know not to expect you to ever restrict the use of violence.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm shocking myself here after seeing the thread title, but I'm leaning towards "charge the guy." The point of the castle doctrine is to be able to use a firearm to defend yourself and your family.

No it really seems especialy if fuelair is typical of not trying to choose the safest solutions to a situation, but the fun of getting to shoot people.

[Architect]

:( Big difference between, "Innocent," and, "Not Guilty." :(

Some of us live in a country with three verdicts: guily, not guilty, and not proven.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Some of us live in a country with three verdicts: guily, not guilty, and not proven.


I've always said that you guys are probably less NUTS than we are.

[Gravy]

We don't know for sure about Gonzales, but the surviving teens ARE murderers. They ought to get punished worse than the homeowner.What a blazingly ignorant comment.

[Gravy]

"...indicted Friday in the July killing of a teenager who sneaked into his home with three friends to steal..."

Sorry, lefties, this case is as good as already over and the man is as good as free to go. Texas Castle Doctrine does not make exceptions for: teenagers, culpability of co-perpetrators, or what criminals afterwards claim to have been doing on the premises (Oh, Mr. ACLU Human Rights Lawyer Dude, I was only in there to steal, uh, drinks and, um, yeah, SNACKS!).

This is just a election-hounding Democrat DA playing to his cheap peanut gallery by testing the Castle Doctrine. His test will fail.Re-reading this thread for comprehension may give you a clue as to why the man was charged with first-degree murder.

[madurobob]

The sum total of my knowledge of Texas gun laws comes from Ron White.. but I thought it was patently illegal to shoot anyone in the back in Texas regardless of the circumstance?

("but you can shoot them in the leg until they turn around")

I really need to expand my knowledge base on such things.

I'm no fan of marauding teenagers, and the fact that a teen is only 13 doesn't make him any less of a threat or any less of a criminal than if he was 25. But the whole kneeling and bludgeoning bit is just over the top. This shooter was clearly planning to confront these teens in the act and teach them a lesson. Ultimately the shooting may have been accidental, but the shooter set the events in motion that resulted in the death of the teen.

Catching them in the act and scaring them is OK by me, but once you have them on their knees and at gunpoint the rules change. You are no longer a threatened homeowner protecting his castle. Accidentally shooting someone in that situation has nothing to do with castle doctrine. It sure looks like murder to me, albeit more of the "manslaughter" variety.

[billydkid]

I think it is obvious that the man is not being charged with murder simply because he shot a teen, who had broken into his home, in the back. The charges are in the other details.

1- Home had been broken into previously.
2- Sleeping in a nearby shed.
3- Forced all three to kneel and began beating them with gun.
4- Shot kneeling teen in back.
I agree completely that he should be charged with murder if this is what transpired. Using deadly force in the face of a perceived, plausible deadly, or even not necessarily deadly threat is something entirely different. I believe, for example, that a woman has every right to shoot a man attempting to assault her - sexually or otherwise. Actually, I believe any victim of an assault has every right to use every mean at their disposal for their defense. The guilty and responsible party is always the one initiating the use of force.

[qayak]

Why leave those out?

Because people who have been robbed of a million dollars by a bank manager don't get as angry as people who had their Cheetos and Pepsi stolen . . . WAIT A MINUTE!! :D

[fuelair]

Why leave those out?


Wait I am talking to the wrong person again. As you have stated that you will intentionaly try to manipulate such situations so that you get to kill someone, I should know not to expect you to ever restrict the use of violence. I'm sorry but when did I say (congratulations on a good memory - I said and meant it under most situations) I would shoot them in the back? Manipulate is for outside and means I move into a cornered position so there is no way to say I could have run instead (In idiot criminal protecting states). I would shoot in the back only if they had harmed someone
else and still had a weapon or refused to stop (covers me on heat of combat)
but not in the back otherwise. In the back, not in heat of combat or after no more danger would be expensive because it might go to trial and a jury might convict.

[fuelair]

No it really seems especialy if fuelair is typical of not trying to choose the safest solutions to a situation, but the fun of getting to shoot people.I did miss the part where I said it was fun - feel free to quote my writing where that came up (like the back-shooting part above). You seem to have an interesting definition of fun - I see it as getting rid of a criminal hopefully before he has a chance to kill/hurt/ etc. anyone - and at least before he has a chance to do it again. If the police could and the courts would perform their actual duty to the citizens rather than play games of legal ethics over law and protection this would be unnecessary. The can't/won't,means it is (check out a couple of our recent threads on lawyers and the US system of legal "ethics" for samples and pray/hope you are never innocent and it is known but can't be used because it's a lawyer who knows you are innocent).

ETA: This is one of the legal system threads I mention: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=111640

[Gate2501]

I see it as getting rid of a criminal hopefully before he has a chance to kill/hurt/ etc. anyone - and at least before he has a chance to do it again.

Ever been a teenager?

I know that when I was a teenager, I did some dumb *** things. None of them on the level of breaking and entering, but I certainly trespassed frequently on others property and was involved in a few instances of vandalism.

It would have been a damn shame if I were to have been shot and killed, my son never born, ect. Just because I was an idiot teenager like 75% (unscientific *duh*) of us all were.

[shuize]

This really isn't that difficult. If a homeowner confronts someone in breaking into his house and the intruder gets shot, the presumption should go to the homeowner that he was defending himself until other facts emerge. Here, however, if things went down as reported and the homeowner stopped the intruders, forced them to kneel down and then, somehow, one of them ends up with a bullet in the back, he's on the hook for murder plain and simple. He can try to explain himself at trial.

Assuming that's indeed what happened, even as a strong supporter of the castle doctrine, I could easily vote to convict if I were on his jury.

[Drudgewire]

I see it as getting rid of a criminal hopefully before he has a chance to kill/hurt/ etc. anyone - and at least before he has a chance to do it again. If the police could and the courts would perform their actual duty to the citizens rather than play games of legal ethics over law and protection this would be unnecessary.


http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/bronsoncheetos.jpg

[Tricky]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, we don't know for certain whether the boys' story is true about being beaten and forced to kneel. It seems likely, given the other things we know about the case, like that the guy was lying in wait for them, but that will have to be determined by the trial. The indictment means that there is enough evidence to bring it to trial.

There are a lot more things I'd like to know about the case. When the boys robbed his place earlier, did they tear things up? Did they do more than raid the pantry? Was there any evidence that they were armed? All of these things would be important in determining how severely I'd judge the homeowner.

[fuelair]

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/bronsoncheetos.jpg
Cute - and if you have seen the movies you will know why I admire them - but, I would never (well, true emergency - but I own none) use a shiny/chromed pistol. Good caliber though.:):)

[Drudgewire]

Cute - and if you have seen the movies you will know why I admire them - but, I would never (well, true emergency - but I own none) use a shiny/chromed pistol. Good caliber though.:):)

I'm with you there. I've been going back and forth on which Kimber 1911 to get and finally realized I couldn't talk myself into liking a shiny one. So it's either going to be a Raptor or Gold Match because the Team Match only comes in a shiny version (plus that USA logo on the grip is just ugly).

And yes, the frame is silver stainless on the Raptor but it's SOOOO pretty. :)

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/grand_raptor.jpg

[Hamradioguy]

One seldom gets the details of the investigation in these sorts of stories. Self-defense law can get really complicated.

As to the prospect of a successful prosecution of the fellow.....Good luck. Try to impanel a jury that would convict the guy.

Well, the old saying, "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" probably still applies. That said, while I am a strong supporter of both the Second Amendment and the right of self-defense, I have a real problem with shooting anyone when your life or property is not at risk. If someone is fleeing I think it would be hard to justify risk to life or property.

The specifics of this particular case seem rather murkey at this point. And it's hard to know how any of us would really react in such a situation. Some of you may remember Bernie Goetz, the NYC "Subway Vigilante" from the 1980s. He shot four young men who tried to rob him. He ended up serving time, but his case wasn't helped by his fleeing the scene or saying to one of his victims, "You don't look too bad, here's another" and trying to shoot him again.

[The Fool]

This guy is an Idiot. In Australia the guys that want to shoot children for petty crime are much much smarter. Not so long ago we had the case of a guy who owned a derelict house that children were entering at night and were writing naughty words on the walls and other minor vandalism. He picked a random night and hid in the building armed with a rifle. As the first child climbed in a window he shot him.....

Now comes the bit about how much smarter our child shooters are.

When it got to court his story was that he called out "I am armed and if you don't go away I will be forced to defend myself" He then claimed the child called out "I don't care what you say I am going to kill you"....


He got off. The 14 year old child survived with a colostomy bag as a souveneer.

All lived happily ever after.

[Mobyseven]

I think it is obvious that the man is not being charged with murder simply because he shot a teen, who had broken into his home, in the back. The charges are in the other details.

1- Home had been broken into previously.
2- Sleeping in a nearby shed.
3- Forced all three to kneel and began beating them with gun.
4- Shot kneeling teen in back.

I would say that the charges are first degree because this was premeditated. The owner was sleeping in a nearby shed and probably admitted to police that he was waiting for the teens who had broken in previously. He catches the teens and makes them kneel on the ground.

Up until this point everything is okay.

Then he makes his first mistake. He begins beating the teens with his gun. He has now committed assault with a weapon. He is now the aggressor and the teens have every right to defend themselves.

Whether the teen who was shot tried to defend himself and was shot for it, the gun simply went off by accident, or the guy shot the teen on purpose, the fact is, he shot the teen during the commission of a crime, the assault.

And so, he has been charged with first-degree murder as he should be.

Agreed.

@ RandB: I misunderstood the situation - I thought the teen was shot in the back while fleeing.

[Bikewer]

The fuller description of the fellow's activities seem to justify the indictment. It is within one's rights to attempt to take such criminals into custody. (a "citizen's arrest) It is permissible to hold them at gunpoint; they are in fact felons committing a burglary.

It would be permissible to use deadly force if one of the burglars so confronted suddenly rose up an attacked the citizen.
However, to begin beating the apparently captive and submissive young felons, and then to arbitrarily shoot one....Again, if the facts are as stated, the indictment is justified.

We have seen cases where individuals who have been previously victimized by burglars have lain in wait, allowing burglars to force their way into the house before opening fire on them.
The law is liable to view such things with a rather jaundiced eye.

Just to digress for a moment..... The media frequently misreports these incidents and uses incorrect descriptions of the crimes committed. They frequently toss out terms such as "robbery" and "burglary" rather interchangeably.
"Burglary is breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime. Breaking into an unoccupied home or business is considered to be "2nd degree", less serious than breaking into an occupied dwelling, which is "1st degree".
Most all first-degree burglaries are inadvertent. The homeowner or resident is present, but sleeping or whatever. Burglars do not want confrontations. They do not want to be seen or identified, and they are generally not inclined to violence. The normal reaction to confrontation with citizens is to run.

This is quite different from a "home invasion", which is essentially an armed robbery of a residence. Many of these are drug-related... But not all. Well-to-do individuals who have a large quantity of cash or other valuables around the home may be targeted. These are often very violent crimes involving terrorizing or torturing the resident in order to find valuables.

[Cuddles]

In Laredo, a man has shot and killed an intruder and winds up indicted for murder (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5732684.html).


What is wrong in America today when a man who is defending his right to drinks and snacks faces prison time for shooting thirteen-year-old criminals in the back as they were running away? I just thank God that our country recognizes the importance of keeping guns handy so that we can bring these snack-stealing burglers to justice before they have a chance to grow up into a life of crime.

Fun as it is to criticise American gun culture: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/718129.stm

[fuelair]

Interesting to see Britain approves Burglary!! AndI love the way the police refer to the dead burglar. And, I hope no one missed the "put out a contract" thing on the shooter. Non-criminal families generally do not have the contacts for that IIRC.

[Architect]

Fun as it is to criticise American gun culture: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/718129.stm

Been discussed already here. Tony Martin sat in wait and shot him in the back. He rightly was convicted of murder. No problem there.

[Rolfe]

Been discussed already here. Tony Martin sat in wait and shot him in the back. He rightly was convicted of murder. No problem there.


And yet, just last week, another guy was released without charge after killing an intruder with a kitchen knife. I can't find the details of the case but the TV news said it was pretty clear self-defence.

It all depends onn the individual circumstances. Tony Martin's problems were that he boasted in the pub before it happened that if these guys came back he would shoot them (evidence of pre-meditation), he lay in wait with the gun (more evidence of pre-meditation), and he shot the guy in the back while he was running away.

Note that while there was huge outcry in favour of the right to self-defence after that case, there was not a single voice heard calling for more liberal gun laws. In fact what happened was that the police and the legal profession patiently pointed out that in fact all the scenarios where people were demanding the right to self-defence, were already legal and would not result in a prosecution, and the law did not change. The outcome of the stabbing I mentioned above confirms that reasonable self-defence is a sound defence.

By the way, to expand on the three verdicts, it's actually an anomaly.

Originally the Scottish courts had only two verdicts - proven and not proven. As it should be. You do not have to porve innocence, you have to prove guilt, and if you can't, the case falls - not proven. Then came a case where the innocence of the accused was apparently shining like the day, and public perception was that "not proven" wasn't strong enough exoneration. There was a demand for a "not guilty" option.

Thus the present situation is quite unsatisfactory - "not proven" should be the standard negative verdict, but instead it has become equivalent to "we think you did it but the evidence just isn't quite good enough". In effect, guilty on the balance of probabilities but not beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't really like this at all, and I think they'd be better to go back to "proven and "not proven". Because that's what it's all about. Probably too late now though, because "not proven" is associated with actual guilt in the minds of the public.

Rolfe.

[bigred]

This really isn't that difficult. If a homeowner confronts someone in breaking into his house and the intruder gets shot, the presumption should go to the homeowner that he was defending himself until other facts emerge. Here, however, if things went down as reported and the homeowner stopped the intruders, forced them to kneel down and then, somehow, one of them ends up with a bullet in the back, he's on the hook for murder plain and simple. He can try to explain himself at trial.

Assuming that's indeed what happened, even as a strong supporter of the castle doctrine, I could easily vote to convict if I were on his jury.
This more or less sums it up for me. I generally have little sympathy for someone who breaks into someone else's home or attacks someone (etc) and gets seriously hurt and have long been sick to death of the over-emphasis (IMO) on the "rights of the criminal," but it sounds like (granted the jury is out) he went way overboard here, even if he didn't intend to kill. If not murder, then manslaughter perhaps, or some such.

Perhaps.

I do disagree w/those ranting about how terrible it is to shoot someone who has broken into your home and use the wonder of hindsight ie they were "just" kids, they were only stealing food, etc......and this guy was supposed to know that how? You break into my home I assume you intend me bodily harm, whether you have other goals (eg theft) or not. It would be idiotic to assume otherwise, considering what lies in the balance, ie my life and/or lives of family. Given that, I have no problem inflicting serious hurt on said person(s) in defense - including blowing the dumbasses away if I feel justified. In a situiation like that, you don't exactly have a lot of time to sit and reflect about "well gee maybe they're just hungry and are just kids" etc and so on. Plus if they run away, who's to say they won't turn around when they hear you and blow you away? Feel like taking that chance, go for it; I'll pass.

But again, the CONFIRMED circumstances of this all make a huge diff. If this guy was just doing some "rage" thing and had no such concerns, certainly, convict him. It's just not a black n white issue by any means.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Leaving out white-collar crimes, yes, death should be considered by the criminal as a possibility. If you wake me in the commission, unless you have a gun in my face as you do, it is a near certainty (I might miss - though I wait for a clear shot if possible and I won't miss with that) No, I would not shoot in the back - unless you have harmed my wife (you are dead - the only question is exactly how long it will take) or me - or have a weapon and start to turn.:)


You reserve the right to be judge, jury and executioner and to apply the death penalty when you see fit.

What a miserably sick world that is.

[JoeEllison]

Interesting. I had thought that there would be little disagreement as to whether or not shooting an unarmed, retreating teenager, who poses no threat to you, would be wrong.

Evidently, I have once again overestimated the human race. Thanks, Casebro and Farmall, for once again demonstrating that, just when you thought you'd seen the lowest homo sapiens can offer, someone new can come along and challenge your cherished beliefs.
And, no surprise, one of them identified himself as a right-wing extremist, which seems to go hand in hand with a sociopathic disregard for human life.

[GreyICE]

I recognize, respect, and support people's rights to defend themselves and their home. Trespassers rarely bother to identify themselves (Oh, I'm just here to steal stuff quietly versus oh, I'm just here to kill you and take all your stuff). They are rarely nice people. Given that they are engaging in an illegal activity, they are probably armed.

Guns should only be used in self defense though. You have to feel your life (edit: Or someone else's life) is in danger if you do not take the shot. That's what everyone is taught. You take a shot when you don't think your life is in danger, it was a bad shot.

[JoeEllison]

He's hopefully going to jail for a long, long, LONG time.

[JoeEllison]

I recognize, respect, and support people's rights to defend themselves and their home. Trespassers rarely bother to identify themselves (Oh, I'm just here to steal stuff quietly versus oh, I'm just here to kill you and take all your stuff). They are rarely nice people. Given that they are engaging in an illegal activity, they are probably armed.

Guns should only be used in self defense though. You have to feel your life (edit: Or someone else's life) is in danger if you do not take the shot. That's what everyone is taught. You take a shot when you don't think your life is in danger, it was a bad shot.

The problem here, and the likely reason for the indictment, is that he was sleeping in a shed OUTSIDE OF his trailer. The laws about defending your "castle"(and you can tell by the language that the law is part of an immature impulse) say that you don't have to retreat. Nothing in the law says that you can go on the offensive and run towards the possible danger. The point of the law is the assumption that when you're cornered in your house, you can shoot first and ask questions later. You can't go into the house, and then claim you were cornered and had no choice but to shoot.

[Cainkane1]

nah you can't shoot a person running away from you. The old jerk should have just ate the loss of his snacks and drinks and called the police.

[ServiceSoon]

In Texas you have a legal right to use deadly force to protect your property.

[madurobob]

In Texas you have a legal right to use deadly force to protect your property.
<sigh> Read the thread. Especially the post that links to the specific wording of the Texas statute.

Educate yourself, son. You'll find that your statement is rather meaningless at this point. Hell, the DA appears to disagree with you.

[fuelair]

You reserve the right to be judge, jury and executioner and to apply the death penalty when you see fit.

What a miserably sick world that is.Life is hard, ain't it.

[Bikewer]

Just as another interjection, note that prior to the early 70s, it was quite legal for police officers generally to shoot at "fleeing felons". The nature of the felony was not important; a fellow running from the scene could (and often were) be fired at by police officers arriving at the scene.
The SCOTUS ruled somewhere in there (I don't recall the specific case law) that arbitrary imposition of the death penalty, without due process, and without any specific danger being shown to the community, was not justified.
Police departments all over the country changed their shooting policies. I recall the great deal of moaning and wailing among my colleagues at the time. "How will we be able to do our job?" "All the suspects will just run!"
Well, we coped.

A number of states have recently adopted the so-called "castle" defense doctrine, which essentially removes the responsibility of the homeowner to flee rather than confront criminals. This was never a very practical idea to begin with; many people are entirely incapable of fleeing.

[Tricky]

In Texas you have a legal right to use deadly force to protect your property.
If some of the details of the case prove true, the property owner had gone long past defending his property and on to judging and executing. You don't have the right to do that, even in Texas, though it is certainly not an open-and-shut case.

[MarkCorrigan]

I have no problem with the use of force in order to defend oneself in a situation whereby someone has illegally entered your home. However, I do not agree that deadly force should be used in any case if it is intended as being so (although this can be tricky to prove, anyone who shoots/stabs someone multiple times is unlikely to be aiming to wound) and that in this specific case, as far as I can tell by reading what's been presented this guy deliberately waited for and then proceeded to murder the intruder. Yes, the intruder should not have been in the house, but at the same time, noone should have the right to commit premeditated murder and get off on the grouds thatthe other person was committing a lesser crime.

[Autolite]

The old jerk should have just ate the loss of his snacks and drinks and called the police.

In any case, I assumed from the get-go that the "stealing snacks" scenario was a fabrication. I find it extremely hard to believe that even a young teenager, (unless there is some sort of mental impairment), would be stupid enough to take such risks to steal soda pop and snacks. Am I the only one here calling BS on this???

[bigred]

I have no problem with the use of force in order to defend oneself in a situation whereby someone has illegally entered your home. However, I do not agree that deadly force should be used in any case if it is intended as being so (although this can be tricky to prove, anyone who shoots/stabs someone multiple times is unlikely to be aiming to wound) and that in this specific case, as far as I can tell by reading what's been presented this guy deliberately waited for and then proceeded to murder the intruder. Yes, the intruder should not have been in the house, but at the same time, noone should have the right to commit premeditated murder and get off on the grouds thatthe other person was committing a lesser crime.Agreed on all counts...


In any case, I assumed from the get-go that the "stealing snacks" scenario was a fabrication. I find it extremely hard to believe that even a young teenager, (unless there is some sort of mental impairment), would be stupid enough to take such risks to steal soda pop and snacks. Am I the only one here calling BS on this???Nope, you've got company. I thought from the start that was a way for the "fry em" camp to work some apologist nonsense for the intruders. eg why would you say "snacks" vs simply "food?" They make it sound like it was Opie n pals just horsing around and they should have just gotten a wrist slap and sent on their merry way to the fishin hole.

[bigred]

Some of you may remember Bernie Goetz, the NYC "Subway Vigilante" from the 1980s. He shot four young men who tried to rob him. He ended up serving time, but his case wasn't helped by his fleeing the scene or saying to one of his victims, "You don't look too bad, here's another" and trying to shoot him again.
Recall it, although not the details. Again I'm all for self-defense and if that's all it was (it sounds like not, couldn't say), he shouldn't have served a single damned minute in jail. I also recall he got a lot of public support, and IMO rightfully so.

[Tricky]

In any case, I assumed from the get-go that the "stealing snacks" scenario was a fabrication. I find it extremely hard to believe that even a young teenager, (unless there is some sort of mental impairment), would be stupid enough to take such risks to steal soda pop and snacks. Am I the only one here calling BS on this???
That will certainly be easy to ascertain. It has been established (and admitted) that the boys had broken in before. If so, the property owner must have filed a crime report, and in that report would be a list of the things taken and the damage done. What I haven't seen is any claims by the property owner that the "stealing snacks" scenario is incorrect. So hold off on the BS call.

[Ranb]

The problem here, and the likely reason for the indictment, is that he was sleeping in a shed OUTSIDE OF his trailer. The laws about defending your "castle"(and you can tell by the language that the law is part of an immature impulse) say that you don't have to retreat. Nothing in the law says that you can go on the offensive and run towards the possible danger. The point of the law is the assumption that when you're cornered in your house, you can shoot first and ask questions later. You can't go into the house, and then claim you were cornered and had no choice but to shoot.

Did you read the law? It says in part "A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force."

It does not say the homeowner is forbidden enter his home to protect it. The law places limits on what the state can do to a person protecting his life or property under certain conditions. If the law does not prohibit an action, then it is legal.

Ranb

[volatile]

I'm with you there. I've been going back and forth on which Kimber 1911 to get and finally realized I couldn't talk myself into liking a shiny one. So it's either going to be a Raptor or Gold Match because the Team Match only comes in a shiny version (plus that USA logo on the grip is just ugly).

And yes, the frame is silver stainless on the Raptor but it's SOOOO pretty. :)

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/grand_raptor.jpg

Only you could turn a thread about the brutal murder of a minor into a fun-fest. You think this kind of smarmy, smiley-ridden post is appropriate?

I worry about your sanity sometimes, Drudge.

[Beerina]

As far as I know, the death penalty is not the correct punishment for break and entry. The child was running away so self defense is not an issue here. He should not have even been pointing the gun at the child. If the gun was faulty and owned by the shooter then having a faulty gun is no excuse.

I think he should be facing a murder charge.

One pulls out a gun, the other guy starts running away. You don't know they aren't going to go around the corner, pull out a gun, and start to shoot back at you.

I don't think it's proper to demand that someone under attack not shoot someone running away just in case the guy is actually running away, as opposed to getting themselves safe so they can turn around and attack.

How unbelievably arrogant for people sitting safely in an ivory tower to demand people in danger choose the former as the possibility, putting themselves, the innocent party, at risk, just so the ivory towerite can assuage their guilt and fantasize perfection in rulemaking.

[Tricky]

Yeah, better safe than sorry. I recommend you shoot anybody who is running away. Just in case.

[Beerina]

If one of the multiple thieves and potentially murderous invaders turned away just before being shot then the shooter...

Fixed it for you.

[CaptainManacles]

Interesting. I had thought that there would be little disagreement as to whether or not shooting an unarmed, retreating teenager, who poses no threat to you, would be wrong.

The problem is whether or not you really know he poses no threat. He could be turning to pull a pistol out of his jacket. He could be running to another room to grab a weapon. He could even be climbing out a window to grab a weapon and come back in. Certainly, in normal every day life, things would not function well if we assumed everyone who turned their back to us deserved to die. But I really don't see any reason why we shouldn't allow people to shoot fleeing home invaders.

[fuelair]

Only you could turn a thread about the brutal murder of a minor into a fun-fest. You think this kind of smarmy, smiley-ridden post is appropriate?

I worry about your sanity sometimes, Drudge.No offense, but in this case Drudge is just the last in a string - the first was the C.Bronson post addressing me and potentially the others who believe in self-preservation and do not like criminals - especially potentially violent ones. My response was purely about the color/reflectivity of my choices of armament and Drudges was a continuation of that. If you did not like that, that's fine, but it is kind of unfair to lay on Drudge simply because he was responding. You also ,and there is no reason you should(but), do not understand that those of us who use and have no problem with weapons in proper hands enjoy talking about them. Not smarmy. Smarmy would be saying "aaah, he should shot all of'em in the back" - which no one here - unless I have missed something - has said or implied. A smiley on that I would call smarmy.

Best:)

[sinclairmcevoy]

Why didn't he just call the cops while holding them? I can understand his anger at being burgled again, but killing a kid? Teenagers do stupid things sometimes. Did he deserve to die for what seems like a really stupid thing? I think that if he made it known to them that if they ever showed up again there'd be one less thief in the world, he might have scared some sense into them. Being charged might have scared some more sense into them.
On another note, was there any indication as to what race, color or ethnicity these kids were? Just wondering if it had anything to do with his decision to shoot one.

[Ranb]

Yeah, better safe than sorry. I recommend you shoot anybody who is running away. Just in case.

Better safe than sorry and not break into people's homes, especially those who live in a state with a "make my day" law. How stupid do these criminals have to be anyway? Darwin award anyone?

That said, I would not shoot those that I have kneeling on the floor in front of me.

Ranb

[Mister Earl]

Teenagers do stupid things sometimes. Did he deserve to die for what seems like a really stupid thing?

Stupid things can cause innocent people to die, too. In my home area, there was a case where some kids were throwing pieces of cinder blocks off of a highway overpass because they were bored. One of those pieces went through a windshield and killed a three month old baby.

The age of these kids is not, and should not be a factor. Only their actions, and that of the homeowner should matter. I'm not concerned with what they thought they were doing, or what they said they were doing, but rather what they WERE doing that day. Let's see what evidence is brought out, then make judgement call when we have more details to work from.

*EDIT: Small correction. The only time age should be a factor is when the perp is a minor, in which case I feel the parents should shoulder their share of the blame and punishment.

[volatile]

Yeah, better safe than sorry. I recommend you shoot anybody who is running away. Just in case.

I also recommend taking FuelAir's approach and actually putting yourself in a position where you can make out like you were in mortal danger even when you aren't, just to take the scum off the streets. That legal system's a joke, y'know, and due process is just a scam to let those rascals get away with anything they want. Who needs laws? We want justice.

[volatile]

No offense, but in this case Drudge is just the last in a string - the first was the C.Bronson post addressing me and potentially the others who believe in self-preservation and do not like criminals - especially potentially violent ones. My response was purely about the color/reflectivity of my choices of armament and Drudges was a continuation of that. If you did not like that, that's fine, but it is kind of unfair to lay on Drudge simply because he was responding. You also ,and there is no reason you should(but), do not understand that those of us who use and have no problem with weapons in proper hands enjoy talking about them. Not smarmy. Smarmy would be saying "aaah, he should shot all of'em in the back" - which no one here - unless I have missed something - has said or implied. A smiley on that I would call smarmy.

Best:)

Well, I think you're all equally guilty of insensitivity and sociopathy, frankly. But we've had this discussion numerous times before. Drudge seems to be particularly worthy of ire, though, given that freakin' whistlin' smilie he busted out up-thread.

I just find it pretty horrific that a) y'all don't seem to really mind much that this guy killed a kid, b) that you can make jokes and brag and wave and posture and smirk like schoolkids just cause you think guns are so damn cool even though they resulted in the deliberate, brutal murder of a child and c) in your case, specifically, that you admit that you will engineer a deadly situation where one need not exist because you consider your own brand of hot-headed vigilante justice to be superior to the legal system of a democratic, civilised nation.

It makes me sick to my stomach.

You're a nice guy, FA. And I'm sure Drudge would be a laugh to grab a beer with. But step back and look at yourselves. Look at what you're advocating. Look at what you're laughing at. You're revelling in death. That's not healthy, personally or communally.

[volatile]

That said, I would not shoot those that I have kneeling on the floor in front of me.



Why not? Better safe than sorry, eh?

Or are you not quite as comfortable with the murder of your fellow citizens as you might otherwise claim to be?

[Crazycowbob]

I have no problem with the use of force in order to defend oneself in a situation whereby someone has illegally entered your home. However, I do not agree that deadly force should be used in any case if it is intended as being so (although this can be tricky to prove, anyone who shoots/stabs someone multiple times is unlikely to be aiming to wound) and that in this specific case, as far as I can tell by reading what's been presented this guy deliberately waited for and then proceeded to murder the intruder. Yes, the intruder should not have been in the house, but at the same time, noone should have the right to commit premeditated murder and get off on the grouds thatthe other person was committing a lesser crime.

Agreed. If someone broke into my home, I'd have no problem using whatever means necessary to get them out. Preferably on their own two feet and without any of my stuff, but if not, so be it. But there's a huge difference between protecting yourself and property, versus laying in wait or setting a trap. Especially in this case, where they'd robbed him before, and he apearantly had a good idea that they'd be back.


Ever been a teenager?

I know that when I was a teenager, I did some dumb *** things. None of them on the level of breaking and entering, but I certainly trespassed frequently on others property and was involved in a few instances of vandalism.

It would have been a damn shame if I were to have been shot and killed, my son never born, ect. Just because I was an idiot teenager like 75% (unscientific *duh*) of us all were.

Yes, it would have been a shame had you been killed in a criminal act.

However, the whole "I was a stupid teenager", "Kids will be kids", "Everyone did stupid stuff like that" is nothing more than trying to rationalize the fact that you were a criminal. If the police had caught you and sent you to jail, it wouldn't be because you were "an idiot teenager", it'd have been because you broke the law. You had a choice in your actions, and you'd be hard pressed to convince me you didn't know what you did was wrong. Being a teenager didn't make you, or anyone else for that matter, do stupid crap, it was a concious decision to do what you knew was wrong, be it for lack of empathy, or just a thrill that was greater than the fear of consequences, or whatever other reason you may have had, that made you a criminal.

Sorry to derail there, but using that "everyone was young once" excuse gets me into rant mode...

[bigred]

there's a huge difference between protecting yourself and property, versus laying in wait or setting a trap. Especially in this case, where they'd robbed him before, and he apearantly had a good idea that they'd be back. I don't care if he had $50 bills taped to the windows. It doesn't excuse the crime in the least.



the whole "I was a stupid teenager", "Kids will be kids", "Everyone did stupid stuff like that" is nothing more than trying to rationalize the fact that you were a criminal. If the police had caught you and sent you to jail, it wouldn't be because you were "an idiot teenager", it'd have been because you broke the law. You had a choice in your actions, and you'd be hard pressed to convince me you didn't know what you did was wrong. Being a teenager didn't make you, or anyone else for that matter, do stupid crap, it was a concious decision to do what you knew was wrong, be it for lack of empathy, or just a thrill that was greater than the fear of consequences, or whatever other reason you may have had, that made you a criminal.

Sorry to derail there, but using that "everyone was young once" excuse gets me into rant mode... Don't apologize; it was well said and more than merited. I'm pretty tired of that too.

[fuelair]

Well, I think you're all equally guilty of insensitivity and sociopathy, frankly. But we've had this discussion numerous times before. Drudge seems to be particularly worthy of ire, though, given that freakin' whistlin' smilie he busted out up-thread.

I just find it pretty horrific that a) y'all don't seem to really mind much that this guy killed a kid, b) that you can make jokes and brag and wave and posture and smirk like schoolkids just cause you think guns are so damn cool even though they resulted in the deliberate, brutal murder of a child and c) in your case, specifically, that you admit that you will engineer a deadly situation where one need not exist because you consider your own brand of hot-headed vigilante justice to be superior to the legal system of a democratic, civilised nation.

It makes me sick to my stomach.

You're a nice guy, FA. And I'm sure Drudge would be a laugh to grab a beer with. But step back and look at yourselves. Look at what you're advocating. Look at what you're laughing at. You're revelling in death. That's not healthy, personally or communally.
First, the general, even the hotheadedest of us (unless I have missed a comment) agrees that IF the kids were all on their knees and on the ground
AND none of them had a weapon, AND none of them got up and moved toward the owner, then the owner is in the spot he should be in and we do not sympathize. Let me know if that is wrong.

Second, given that innocent persons have been killed, raped, beaten to the point where they were hospitalized/permanently crippled, etc. on large number of occasions in their homes, dorms, apartments, trailers, shelters by people who invaded same, we plan to take NO chances. Which means exposing ourselves as little as possible, observing what we can, and firing fast if necessary - that being determined only as clear, non belonging target. In Texas and Florida(at least) we fortunately have that right. When it can be guaranteed that I won't need that chance to live because the police will make an arrest/control the invader before I need to worry about it any and every time it happens (100% protection) I plan to continue that way. My life, my wife's life, your life (as best I can tell) are each worth more to me individually than those of all the violent criminal"s lives put together.

[volatile]

First, the general, even the hotheadedest of us (unless I have missed a comment) agrees that IF the kids were all on their knees and on the ground
AND none of them had a weapon, AND none of them got up and moved toward the owner, then the owner is in the spot he should be in and we do not sympathize. Let me know if that is wrong.

Well, to be fair on you and Drudge, you have erred on the side of caution here, but it's all these qualifications. All these ifs and buts and maybes. As far as I'm concerned, no-one deserves to die a brutal and horrible death, even if they are a heinous criminal and especially if they are a child. In this case in particular, I think those ANDs and IFs are misplaced. The kid's a KID. Let him steal your stuff. Property crime should not be a capital crime. Where do you want to live? Iran?

Second, given that innocent persons have been killed, raped, beaten to the point where they were hospitalized/permanently crippled, etc. on large number of occasions in their homes, dorms, apartments, trailers, shelters by people who invaded same, we plan to take NO chances. And given the number of burglaries (even hot ones) which have gone down with no injuries or deaths, the statistics are on my side. The kind of situation you talk about is beyond rare. People don't break into homes to rape and murder and torture the occupants (99.9% of the time). They break into homes to steal stuff. Burglars steal to get goods to sell. They're not interested in murder.

Look at the stats for burglaries. Look at the stats for 'hot' burglaries. Then look at the stats for compliant homeowners who got killed or raped, and tell me that it's legitimate to fear a housebreaker is going to kill you even if you happen to live in a house that gets burgled.

It's irrational.

Which means exposing ourselves as little as possible, observing what we can, and firing fast if necessaryAnd it's that speed that's the problem. Can't you see that? Heat of the moment is no time to be making rational decisions.

- that being determined only as clear, non belonging target. In Texas and Florida(at least) we fortunately have that right. When it can be guaranteed that I won't need that chance to live because the police will make an arrest/control the invader before I need to worry about it any and every time it happens (100% protection) I plan to continue that way. My life, my wife's life, your life (as best I can tell) are each worth more to me individually than those of all the violent criminal"s lives put together.Then you are a worse human being than I had hoped. Why are the lives of criminals not worth anything to you? Do you really support the death penalty (and, if I follow your logic, the immediate, extra-judicial death penalty) for all crimes? All property crimes? All violent crimes?

The kind of world you want to inhabit, and the kind of world you and Drudge seem so content to flippantly giggle about, is terrifying. It's a world that celebrates violence; glorifies death; salutes impulsiveness; praises cowardice; demeans human life to beneath that of material goods and fosters paranoia, aggression, fear, suspicion and hate. It's a world that wants to unpick every civil, civilising and humane action of the past 200 years. It wants to undermine the rule of law. It wants to do away with due process. It wants to take society back to the Wild West. It believes might is right, and it believes that the wants of the individual should over-ride the good of the collective.

It is base and backwards. It is juvenile and animalistic. It's not funny. It's not sexy. It's not exciting. It doesn't warrant smilies, or glib remarks, or t-shirts. It doesn't warrant sound-bites, slogans, ifs, buts or maybes. Think about the kind of world you're advocating - one in which each individual's sovereign right is to murder those who wrong him, and in which each individual's property is now quantifiable by the amount of blood he is willing to spill to defend it.

If that thought doesn't turn your stomach one little bit, then maybe you need to keep on thinking.

[skeptical]

Just as another interjection, note that prior to the early 70s, it was quite legal for police officers generally to shoot at "fleeing felons". The nature of the felony was not important; a fellow running from the scene could (and often were) be fired at by police officers arriving at the scene.
The SCOTUS ruled somewhere in there (I don't recall the specific case law) that arbitrary imposition of the death penalty, without due process, and without any specific danger being shown to the community, was not justified.

The case was Tennessee v. Garner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner


Police departments all over the country changed their shooting policies. I recall the great deal of moaning and wailing among my colleagues at the time. "How will we be able to do our job?" "All the suspects will just run!"
Well, we coped.

Similar gnashing of teeth occurred after Miranda. People thought that would be the end of confessions, but that has hardly been the case. Police are much more flexible than a lot of people give them credit for.


A number of states have recently adopted the so-called "castle" defense doctrine, which essentially removes the responsibility of the homeowner to flee rather than confront criminals. This was never a very practical idea to begin with; many people are entirely incapable of fleeing.

I agree, the retreat rule is both impractical and misleading. Even in those jurisdictions that had it, it only applied if the person felt they could retreat in safety, which left a lot of room for discretion, even assuming that it was physically possible to retreat, which as you say was often not the case.

[Ranb]

Why not? Better safe than sorry, eh?

Or are you not quite as comfortable with the murder of your fellow citizens as you might otherwise claim to be?

How do you come up with this reply when I say that a person should not break into a house, and that I would not shoot a helpless person? You are freakin nuts.

Ranb

[fuelair]

Well, to be fair on you and Drudge, you have erred on the side of caution here, but it's all these qualifications. All these ifs and buts and maybes. As far as I'm concerned, no-one deserves to die a brutal and horrible death, even if they are a heinous criminal and especially if they are a child. In this case in particular, I think those ANDs and IFs are misplaced. The kid's a KID. Let him steal your stuff. Property crime should not be a capital crime. Where do you want to live? Iran?

And given the number of burglaries (even hot ones) which have gone down with no injuries or deaths, the statistics are on my side. The kind of situation you talk about is beyond rare. People don't break into homes to rape and murder and torture the occupants (99.9% of the time). They break into homes to steal stuff. Burglars steal to get goods to sell. They're not interested in murder.

Look at the stats for burglaries. Look at the stats for 'hot' burglaries. Then look at the stats for compliant homeowners who got killed or raped, and tell me that it's legitimate to fear a housebreaker is going to kill you even if you happen to live in a house that gets burgled.

It's irrational.

And it's that speed that's the problem. Can't you see that? Heat of the moment is no time to be making rational decisions.

Then you are a worse human being than I had hoped. Why are the lives of criminals not worth anything to you? Do you really support the death penalty (and, if I follow your logic, the immediate, extra-judicial death penalty) for all crimes? All property crimes? All violent crimes?

The kind of world you want to inhabit, and the kind of world you and Drudge seem so content to flippantly giggle about, is terrifying. It's a world that celebrates violence; glorifies death; salutes impulsiveness; praises cowardice; demeans human life to beneath that of material goods and fosters paranoia, aggression, fear, suspicion and hate. It's a world that wants to unpick every civil, civilising and humane action of the past 200 years. It wants to undermine the rule of law. It wants to do away with due process. It wants to take society back to the Wild West. It believes might is right, and it believes that the wants of the individual should over-ride the good of the collective.

It is base and backwards. It is juvenile and animalistic. It's not funny. It's not sexy. It's not exciting. It doesn't warrant smilies, or glib remarks, or t-shirts. It doesn't warrant sound-bites, slogans, ifs, buts or maybes. Think about the kind of world you're advocating - one in which each individual's sovereign right is to murder those who wrong him, and in which each individual's property is now quantifiable by the amount of blood he is willing to spill to defend it.

If that thought doesn't turn your stomach one little bit, then maybe you need to keep on thinking.You have interpreted the world I want to live in very badly indeed. I want to live in a world where everyone respects and values everyone else, where people want to help their neighbors, where no one goes hungry, is homeless, is harrassed over religion or politics or other opinions, where everyone is free to learn and wants to. If I lived in that world, I would be a very happy camper. That is not the world I live in, but I will do what I can to come as close to it as I can in this one. Which requires something totally unnecessary in the world I would prefer: a willingness to fight against those who do not want a world like that - or at least act as if they don't.

[volatile]

How do you come up with this reply when I say that a person should not break into a house, and that I would not shoot a helpless person? You are freakin nuts.

Ranb

I was just struck by the disconnect between "Better safe than sorry" and your sudden distaste for bloody murder.

In other words, when is it not better to be safe than sorry? This is kinda my whole point...

[volatile]

You have interpreted the world I want to live in very badly indeed. I want to live in a world where everyone respects and values everyone else, where people want to help their neighbors, where no one goes hungry, is homeless, is harrassed over religion or politics or other opinions, where everyone is free to learn and wants to. If I lived in that world, I would be a very happy camper. That is not the world I live in, but I will do what I can to come as close to it as I can in this one. Which requires something totally unnecessary in the world I would prefer: a willingness to fight against those who do not want a world like that - or at least act as if they don't.

Well, it certainly comes across that way, particularly when you talk about subverting the rule of law and of deliberately engendering violent situations where none need exist.

Doesn't it behoove those of us who would strive toward a more civilised society to act in a more civilised manner than those who would act in ways contrary to social order? How does sinking to their level (and in doing so undermining much of what civilised society means in the first place) help make things better? That's what I don't get.

If everyone acted in the way you advocated, or if society was set up to facilitate the type of behaviour you seem to be so enamoured of, then the world would be as I described above. It would be nervous, paranoid and violent. It would be suspicious, anarchic and brutal.

If everyone shot everyone who committed a (violent) crime against them, if everyone deliberately manipulated tense situations such that they resulted in death, if everyone shot first and asked questions later, then the world would be horrible. It would be backward. It would be uncivilised.

Do you not agree?

[JoeEllison]

Did you read the law? It says in part "A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force."

It does not say the homeowner is forbidden enter his home to protect it. The law places limits on what the state can do to a person protecting his life or property under certain conditions. If the law does not prohibit an action, then it is legal.

RanbMaybe you should take your dime-store legal eagle badge and get a refund? :D I got my law degree from Law & Order, which is admissible in court. :D

Note, for the sake of argument, the phrases "who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used" and "not required to retreat before using deadly force." If you are outside of the home and KNOW someone is inside, entering the home could be seen as "provocation" on account of the fact that it isn't self-defense to willfully force a confrontation. Further, while you are not required to retreat, nothing in the law says that you can go chasing after someone in order to deliver deadly force. If you have to go looking for the person in order to shoot them, it isn't self defense.

[bigred]

Well, to be fair on you and Drudge, you have erred on the side of caution here, but it's all these qualifications. All these ifs and buts and maybes. Yeah I hate all this "depends on the circumstances" and "shades of gray" stuff. We all know that everyone at heart is either a rampaging cold-blooded murderer or a bleeding-heart wimp.

As far as I'm concerned, no-one deserves to die a brutal and horrible death, even if they are a heinous criminal Fine, no problem. But it's a highly subjective thing. Some of us disagree. That doesn't make us psychopaths or nazis FYI.


and especially if they are a child. In this case in particular, I think those ANDs and IFs are misplaced. The kid's a KID. Let him steal your stuff. Property crime should not be a capital crime. sigh

Disregarding the "he's only a kid" silliness, the stealing thing has been addressed at great length, ie again the circumstances kinda matter. For starters, it is typically difficult to tell whether someone who breaks into your home intends you and/or your family serious hurt or not. If you want to be some noble enlightened pacifist and take a chance by just letting them decide, go for it. Some people would rather not. That hardly makes them a bad person or wrong in defending themselves.

Where do you want to live? Thunderdome?


And given the number of burglaries (even hot ones) which have gone down with no injuries or deaths, the statistics are on my side. The kind of situation you talk about is beyond rare. People don't break into homes to rape and murder and torture the occupants (99.9% of the time). They break into homes to steal stuff. Burglars steal to get goods to sell. They're not interested in murder.

1 - Even if we assume that number is accurate, it can largely be attributed to people casing a home to make sure nobody is home when they steal, which is what most burglars' aim is (for obvious reasons). Small wonder the # of injuries/deaths are low.
2 - You can make statistics say pretty much anything you want.
3 - Even if that stat was true, I have a hunch you would change your tune if someone you loved was in that "mere" .1%
4 - PS and oh btw, people DO on occasion break into homes and do harm to people, either pre-meditated or because they got caught stealing and don't wish to go to jail (ie better to kill the witnesses). Again, why take the chance when your/your family's lives we're talking about? If you want to take your chances, fine; but damning others for refusing to do so makes no sense.


Look at the stats for burglaries. Look at the stats for 'hot' burglaries. Then look at the stats for compliant homeowners who got killed or raped, and tell me that it's legitimate to fear a housebreaker is going to kill you even if you happen to live in a house that gets burgled.

It's irrational.More twisting of stats/circumstances, ie "if you happen to live in a house that gets burgled" doesn't mean much if you're not home, which is likely.

And it's that speed that's the problem. Can't you see that? Heat of the moment is no time to be making rational decisions. :boggled:

Good point. If you catch a burglar in your house, you should loudly shout "TIME OUT! TIME OUT! Let's discuss this!"

[volatile]

Yeah I hate all this "depends on the circumstances" and "shades of gray" stuff. We all know that everyone at heart is either a rampaging cold-blooded murderer or a bleeding-heart wimp.

It's seems that in this thread, all the shades of grey are reasons TO shoot, not to refrain from shooting. It's all been "It'd be bad to shoot him if he was running away", "if he was kneeling down", "if he was unarmed", as if the burden is on the damn kid to explain why he shouldn't be shot dead. That's what I meant.

It strikes me that the default assumption amongst the gun-toting here is "Shoot", and only to refrain from doing so unless the guy happens to be Ghandi or something. That's entirely the wrong way up. Shooting someone should always be the last resort, if it is a resort at all.

Fine, no problem. But it's a highly subjective thing. Some of us disagree. That doesn't make us psychopaths or nazis FYI.I think wanting to kill people for stealing your stuff or in case they might hurt you is pretty psychopathic. Is that an outlandish opinion in your world?

It doesn't make you a Nazi, though. We agree on that point.

Disregarding the "he's only a kid" silliness,Do you understand why the age of criminal responsibility exists? Do you understand why it is perfectly reasonable to take someone's age into account when deciding appropriate punishments? Do you understand that recklessness and youth go hand in hand, and that maybe the appropriate punishment for adolescent misdemeanours should not be instant death without trial?

the stealing thing has been addressed at great length, ie again the circumstances kinda matter. For starters, it is typically difficult to tell whether someone who breaks into your home intends you and/or your family serious hurt or not. Of all hot burglaries, how many compliant homeowners were seriously wounded or killed? I don't know, you tell me. I suspect it's a very, very small number. I also suspect the number of hot burglaries itself is rare enough in itself.

If you want to be some noble enlightened pacifist and take a chance by just letting them decide, go for it. Some people would rather not. That hardly makes them a bad person or wrong in defending themselves.Have we not moved on a society in the past two centuries? Do you not see that this type of behaviour, as I explained to FuelAir, breeds an angry, violent, paranoid, cowed society. Imagine if everyone shot first and asked questions later when the potential for them to undergo some harm occurred. It would be anarchic.

Please try and reasonably imagine a society where everyone behaved as FuelAir, Ranb and Drudgewire have advocated in gun threads on these forums. Imagine a world where everyone was "rather safe than sorry" in the face of possible (even only marginally possible) harm. Imagine a world where property and personal crime was subject to instant vigilante death penalties. That's where your line of thinking leads. It's horrific.



1 - Even if we assume that number is accurate, it can largely be attributed to people casing a home to make sure nobody is home when they steal, which is what most burglars' aim is (for obvious reasons). Small wonder the # of injuries/deaths are low. Exactly. So why the need to have a dangerous weapon 'just in case'?

2 - You can make statistics say pretty much anything you want.Do you disagree that the chances of you getting burgled are low, the chances of you being burgled whilst at home are even lower, and the chances of you suffering serious injury whilst being burgled at home are so vanishingly small as to not even be worth worrying about?

3 - Even if that stat was true, I have a hunch you would change your tune if someone you loved was in that "mere" .1%If someone I loved was injured during a hot burglary, I'd change my tune on the sanctioning of instant, vigilante-administered death penalty for property crimes. I doubt that.

In fact, you only have to look at the reactions of the British in general after the Tony Martin case (which Rofle has already mentioned) to realise that we, as a nation, do not generally see the benefit in combating violence by escalating the lethal potential of our population.

And as for condemning others for "protecting" themselves - you're damn right I'll condemn those who are content to see our society crippled by division, fear and violence, and who revel in, laugh at and even celebrate the brutal murder of a child. You're damn right I'll condemn those who think that they can take the law into their own hands. You're damn right I'll condemn those who think that an arms race is the best way to deal with criminality, that criminals do no deserve their lives or that society would be better off if we were all "better safe than sorry".

What you want is war. I hope you never get it.

[Mick Houlahan]

From the Laredo Times article:
One of the teenagers, however, told a different version days after the incident.

The survivor, whose name is not being published because he is a minor, said Gonzalez forced the intruders to kneel and began to beat them with the gun.

Seems to me more than one of the surviving teens might have recalled this small detail, and sooner than "days after the incident."

That said, I still think they should throw the book at the guy. Asleep in a "shed?" Not buying that, sorry. My guess is he was waiting for the kids with the intention of taking a few shots at them. My other guess is that getting a Texas jury to convict this dirtbag will be harder than trying to shove a stick of butter up a wild dog's @$$ with a red-hot poker.

[Ranb]

Note, for the sake of argument, the phrases "who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used" and "not required to retreat before using deadly force." If you are outside of the home and KNOW someone is inside, entering the home could be seen as "provocation" on account of the fact that it isn't self-defense to willfully force a confrontation. Further, while you are not required to retreat, nothing in the law says that you can go chasing after someone in order to deliver deadly force. If you have to go looking for the person in order to shoot them, it isn't self defense.

My legal education is not worth even a dime. :)

Anyway, I would not say that a homeowner entering their home to confront a trespasser should be provocation enough to allow the trespasser to take any action except flight. If a home really is a person's castle, then the actions of a trespasser should never inhibit the actions of the homeowner. Unless the homeowner is advertising his or her intent to slay the trespasser, one should just assume they are merely entering their residence to identify or detain the intruder. There is nothing wrong with arming yourself in case the intruder decides to escalate the situation further than he already has.

Ranb

[Ranb]

I was just struck by the disconnect between "Better safe than sorry" and your sudden distaste for bloody murder.

In other words, when is it not better to be safe than sorry? This is kinda my whole point...

Sudden distaste for bloody murder? It sounds as if you are implying that I did not have any distaste for murder in the past. Aren’t you the same jerk who claimed I was in favor of capital punishment for drug abusers when I said I had no sympathy for those who willingly made themselves addicts?

Your hyperbole is deceitful. You should go post on the loose change forum or other places where this kind of crap is acceptable.

I think your whole point is that you are taking the time to post insults instead of making an effort to write something worthwhile.

Ranb

[volatile]

Sudden distaste for bloody murder? It sounds as if you are implying that I did not have any distaste for murder in the past.

Well, one minute you're claiming you'd rather be safe than sorry, and the next you're going against this by claiming that you wouldn't shoot someone you had already cowed.

There are plenty of plausible (by your usual measure of plausible) what ifs in that situation that I don;t really understand where you draw the line between "Better safe than sorry" and "better sorry than safe". From your quote that you wouldn't shoot an intruder on his knees, it seems that you wouldn't rather be safe than sorry at all, and do actually realise that shooting someone just because of something they might do is a little beyond the pale.

Which is a good thing, of course. I just wish you'd realise the inconsistency of your thinking and extend that simmering core of human decency to the broad spectrum of your ideology. You know shooting people who are just after property is a bad thing, deep down. So why not admit it?


Aren’t you the same jerk who claimed I was in favor of capital punishment for drug abusers when I said I had no sympathy for those who willingly made themselves addicts?

Yup, that was me.

You said you'd shoot dead drug addicts who were robbing your house, if I recall correctly. If finding that a little distasteful makes me a jerk, then yeah, I'm a jerk.

Your hyperbole is deceitful. You should go post on the loose change forum or other places where this kind of crap is acceptable.

I think your whole point is that you are taking the time to post insults instead of making an effort to write something worthwhile.

My hyperbole? You're the one who sees every petty thief as a potential psychopathic, murdering gang-rapist, and who who shoot first and ask questions later because it's "better to be safe than sorry".

If you have an issue with my "hyperbole", then address it directly. I'd be glad to defend my position - though not with deadly weapons, of course.

[Ranb]

Well, one minute you're claiming you'd rather be safe than sorry, and the next you're going against this by claiming that you wouldn't shoot someone you had already cowed.

You said you'd shoot dead drug addicts who were robbing your house, if I recall correctly. If finding that a little distasteful makes me a jerk, then yeah, I'm a jerk.

If you have an issue with my "hyperbole", then address it directly. I'd be glad to defend my position - though not with deadly weapons, of course.

I was not referring to myself when I said “Better safe than sorry and not break into people's homes….” I was obviously referring to the burglars when I said this. There is no way you should have assumed I was referring to myself.

Here, http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75467&highlight=ranb&page=10 I said I would stop a thief, I never said anything that should have led you to believe I would kill one as a first resort. I never said I would murder drug addicts. I tired to tell you this on that thread but you refused to acknowledge it. This forum is easy to search, yet you cling to your claim that I said I would murder a drug addict robbing me. This makes you a liar.

This is the third time I have tried to explain this to you that I would not murder an intruder. Addressing these problems to you directly is a waste of time. Your prejudice is warping your outlook on life.

Ranb

[ServiceSoon]

These sorts of laws give the benefit of the doubt to the person who isn't commiting a crime. Sometimes said protected persons takes advantage of that privilege.

Are we arguning that using lethal force to protect property is moral/immoral or are we arguing the use of force in this situation with facts we have from the media was moral/immoral?

<sigh> Read the thread. Especially the post that links to the specific wording of the Texas statute.

Educate yourself, son. You'll find that your statement is rather meaningless at this point. Hell, the DA appears to disagree with you.

The statute that you are talking about refers to self defense, which is different than the statute that refers to protection of personal property. Maybe I added something to the conversation afterall. Cases aren't decided by DA's.

If some of the details of the case prove true, the property owner had gone long past defending his property and on to judging and executing. You don't have the right to do that, even in Texas, though it is certainly not an open-and-shut case.Too much hearsay at this point.

[Rolfe]

[....]

Why are the lives of criminals not worth anything to you? Do you really support the death penalty (and, if I follow your logic, the immediate, extra-judicial death penalty) for all crimes? All property crimes? All violent crimes?

The kind of world you want to inhabit, and the kind of world you and Drudge seem so content to flippantly giggle about, is terrifying. It's a world that celebrates violence; glorifies death; salutes impulsiveness; praises cowardice; demeans human life to beneath that of material goods and fosters paranoia, aggression, fear, suspicion and hate. It's a world that wants to unpick every civil, civilising and humane action of the past 200 years. It wants to undermine the rule of law. It wants to do away with due process. It wants to take society back to the Wild West. It believes might is right, and it believes that the wants of the individual should over-ride the good of the collective.

It is base and backwards. It is juvenile and animalistic. It's not funny. It's not sexy. It's not exciting. It doesn't warrant smilies, or glib remarks, or t-shirts. It doesn't warrant sound-bites, slogans, ifs, buts or maybes. Think about the kind of world you're advocating - one in which each individual's sovereign right is to murder those who wrong him, and in which each individual's property is now quantifiable by the amount of blood he is willing to spill to defend it.

If that thought doesn't turn your stomach one little bit, then maybe you need to keep on thinking.


Nominated. Not just because you said everything I was thinking far better than I could have said it, but because you said it so elegantly. And for exemplary use of the semicolon - Lynn Truss would be so proud of you.

Rolfe.

[Tricky]

The whole thing about the "better safe than sorry" attitude is that it is very much a judgment call as to what is "safe". Admittedly, in the heat of the situation, it is easy to get emotional and do something based on an exaggerated idea of the danger to you. You can imagine that they have a gang waiting out in the woods that will charge you if he gets back to give the alarm. You can posit all sorts of scenarios.

So there's a great big fuzzy area as to when you are safe, but "erring on the side of caution" is not necessarily the right choice if it means killing a person for a minor crime. Especially if the person is a minor. Courts have to make a decision as to whether you really were in danger, and they tend to lean toward the side of the property owners, at least in Texas. But there are scenarios when you go too far in protecting yourself from imagined danger. This may be one of them.

[MarkCorrigan]

I fail to understand the insane paranoia that seems to have gripped a number of people in this thread.

What is with the assumption that the vast majority of people who break into your house want to do you harm? If you assume that this is true, what kind of society do you people LIVE in? My god, if this is true how DARE you attack anywhere for being backward or uncivilised? How DARE you claim the USA is superior?

If it isn't true what the hell happened to you? Do you know someone who was attacked or something? I can't think of anything else that would explain such rampant insane dangerous paranoia.

[bigred]

What you want is war. I hope you never get it.
What you need is reading comprehension. I hope you do get it, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.

[JoeEllison]

My legal education is not worth even a dime. :)

Anyway, I would not say that a homeowner entering their home to confront a trespasser should be provocation enough to allow the trespasser to take any action except flight. If a home really is a person's castle, then the actions of a trespasser should never inhibit the actions of the homeowner. Unless the homeowner is advertising his or her intent to slay the trespasser, one should just assume they are merely entering their residence to identify or detain the intruder. There is nothing wrong with arming yourself in case the intruder decides to escalate the situation further than he already has.

Ranb

That's a ridiculous and sociopathic view of the law. Homeowners aren't police officers. It is not their place to detain ANYBODY. It isn't a homeowner's job to go towards danger in order to justify murdering someone. I don't really know what century you think this is, or how much fear and paranoia grips your mind and conscience, but your attitude is a hell of a lot more dangerous to society than someone swiping a TV from someone else's trailer.

[bigred]

I fail to understand the insane paranoia that seems to have gripped a number of people in this thread.

What is with the assumption that the vast majority of people who break into your house want to do you harm? If you assume that this is true, what kind of society do you people LIVE in? My god, if this is true how DARE you attack anywhere for being backward or uncivilised? How DARE you claim the USA is superior?

If it isn't true what the hell happened to you? Do you know someone who was attacked or something? I can't think of anything else that would explain such rampant insane dangerous paranoia.
Ironic, ie you seem quite paranoid about paranoia. Offhand I don't recall anyone saying ANY of the things you state above.

One last time and I'm done w/this thread: being prepared to defend one's self and/or home and family is hardly "rampant insane dangerous paranoia," to put it very mildly. Based on that logic, you shouldn't bother w/your seat belt because the odds of being in a serious accident are small and you shouldn't care about fatty foods because the odds of a heart attack are well in your favor. And what's up w/all this health and home insurance BS?

You have no way of knowing how a criminal will react if they discover you are home - or worse, can now possibly identify them. Some will simply run (in fact the vast majority, I suspect) - but some will not; they will turn. Some people have this kooky idea they should be prepared if that happens, even though the odds are small. Given what's at stake, it's a reasonable concept and denying that doesn't change that, nor does it make such people war mongers, militia wannabes, or any other similar idiotic claims.

[Autolite]

I don't really know what century you think this is, or how much fear and paranoia grips your mind and conscience, but your attitude is a hell of a lot more dangerous to society than someone swiping a TV from someone else's trailer.

I have to agree with JoeEllison here. I'm not paranoid at all. In fact, it doesn't bother me in the least if there were a bunch of crooks going around "swiping TVs from someone else's trailer"... :D

[JoeEllison]

I fail to understand the insane paranoia that seems to have gripped a number of people in this thread.

What is with the assumption that the vast majority of people who break into your house want to do you harm? If you assume that this is true, what kind of society do you people LIVE in? My god, if this is true how DARE you attack anywhere for being backward or uncivilised? How DARE you claim the USA is superior?

If it isn't true what the hell happened to you? Do you know someone who was attacked or something? I can't think of anything else that would explain such rampant insane dangerous paranoia.
They watch a lot of television news and bad 1980's vigilante movies. In those movies, there's never just a guy who breaks into your house while you're at work and swipes your TV, like in real life. No, it is always a multi-ethnic gang in matching jackets like a varsity Breaking and Entering squad, who carry switchblades and have an Uzi in the backseat of their black Cadillac. They don't want your TV, they want to hold you down and make you watch them shove your wife back and forth between them. Then the black leader tries to kiss your wife, she smacks him, and he stabs her with his switchblade before punching you and breaking all of your stuff and pretty much not stealing anything.

Hey, if a few unarmed children have to be shot in the back to make sure some black dude doesn't kiss a white lady, then so be it! :rolleyes:

[JoeEllison]

I have to agree with JoeEllison here. I'm not paranoid at all. In fact, it doesn't bother me in the least if there were a bunch of crooks going around "swiping TVs from someone else's trailer"... :D

You've not agreeing with me, you're lying about my position. Your complete and rather pathetic lack of ethics is expected, of course, but still disappointing.

[RandFan]

Hey, if a few unarmed children have to be shot in the back to make sure some black dude doesn't kiss a white lady, then so be it! :rolleyes: Hey Joe, I've mostly been lurking and I guess I missed something. Who is advocating killing children to keep black people from kissing white women? I want to give them hell but I can't find the posts.

Thanks,

RandFan

[volatile]

I was not referring to myself when I said “Better safe than sorry and not break into people's homes….” I was obviously referring to the burglars when I said this. There is no way you should have assumed I was referring to myself.

Your response was to Tricky's sarcastic paraphrase, and whilst your direct use did refer to the home-breakers, it did seem to endorse his quote. My apologies if you really don't think "better safe than sorry" , but you have said in other threads that have lead me to conclude that you consider shooting first and asking questions later to be an appropriate course of action.


Here, http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75467&highlight=ranb&page=10 I said I would stop a thief, I never said anything that should have led you to believe I would kill one as a first resort. I never said I would murder drug addicts.

Funny how you think that page testifies in your defense.

You said: My life is worth more than any thief who might object to me interferring with his/her choies of occupation. In other words, it is priceless. There are no poor crackheads. There are only dumbs--t crackheads who decided to wreck their lives and drag anyone else down that they can in the process of supporting their habits by any means they see fit.

That seems to me to stand quite starkly as a statement that killing 'crackheads' in the process of property theft is entirely defensible. That's a sociopathic position.

Noone, not even crackheads, deserves to die at the hands of a gun. Even if they are robbing your house. Even if they're raping your wife. The last 200 years of human civilisation has come to understand this - that we're better off without endorsing violence or sanctioning murder. The sooner you catch up with the rest of us, the better.

[fishbob]

Leaving out white-collar crimes, yes, death should be considered by the criminal as a possibility. . . .

Do not leave out white-collar criminals.

[Darat]

Do not leave out white-collar criminals.
I am curious as to why "white collar" crime should be exempted from this type of view.

[MarkCorrigan]

Ironic, ie you seem quite paranoid about paranoia. Offhand I don't recall anyone saying ANY of the things you state above.

One last time and I'm done w/this thread: being prepared to defend one's self and/or home and family is hardly "rampant insane dangerous paranoia," to put it very mildly. Based on that logic, you shouldn't bother w/your seat belt because the odds of being in a serious accident are small and you shouldn't care about fatty foods because the odds of a heart attack are well in your favor. And what's up w/all this health and home insurance BS?

You have no way of knowing how a criminal will react if they discover you are home - or worse, can now possibly identify them. Some will simply run (in fact the vast majority, I suspect) - but some will not; they will turn. Some people have this kooky idea they should be prepared if that happens, even though the odds are small. Given what's at stake, it's a reasonable concept and denying that doesn't change that, nor does it make such people war mongers, militia wannabes, or any other similar idiotic claims.

To be blunt, any kind of discussion that includes "Better safe than sorry" and "you don't know what they will do/want" displays to myself that the people discussing such concepts are afraid of every burglar. Quite frankly, this IS massively paranoid. Yeah, it sucks if you get your house broken into but I will eat my fez if the vast majority of breaking and entering crime does not consist of people looking for loot and not wanting a confrontation. Equally, I will eat my fez if the vast majority of house breakers are not unarmed (unless you count a torch as armed). I understand you state that, but I also think that defending oneself can and should be limited, at least at first, to the threat of violence, at the most. Calling out that you are armed might spook them enough to get them to run, if it does not, then the home owner should be wary of the actions of the burglar, and if attacked, should defend themselves.

Of course, I find the difference between the UK and US in terms of gun laws may be a difference. I imagine that if the majority of the populous was armed with guns, I would probably be a lot more paranoid.

The other potentially dangerous situations you mentioned are of varying degrees of idiocy in terms of a comparison.

[Rolfe]

What is with the assumption that the vast majority of people who break into your house want to do you harm? If you assume that this is true, what kind of society do you people LIVE in? My god, if this is true how DARE you attack anywhere for being backward or uncivilised? How DARE you claim the USA is superior?


Wait for it....

Any minute now....

Here it comes....

5....

4....

3....

2....

1....


WHY-DO-YOU-HATE-AMERICA???!!!

Rolfe.

[fuelair]

It's seems that in this thread, all the shades of grey are reasons TO shoot, not to refrain from shooting. It's all been "It'd be bad to shoot him if he was running away", "if he was kneeling down", "if he was unarmed", as if the burden is on the damn kid to explain why he shouldn't be shot dead. That's what I meant.

It strikes me that the default assumption amongst the gun-toting here is "Shoot", and only to refrain from doing so unless the guy happens to be Ghandi or something. That's entirely the wrong way up. Shooting someone should always be the last resort, if it is a resort at all.

I think wanting to kill people for stealing your stuff or in case they might hurt you is pretty psychopathic. Is that an outlandish opinion in your world?

It doesn't make you a Nazi, though. We agree on that point.

Do you understand why the age of criminal responsibility exists? Do you understand why it is perfectly reasonable to take someone's age into account when deciding appropriate punishments? Do you understand that recklessness and youth go hand in hand, and that maybe the appropriate punishment for adolescent misdemeanours should not be instant death without trial?

Of all hot burglaries, how many compliant homeowners were seriously wounded or killed? I don't know, you tell me. I suspect it's a very, very small number. I also suspect the number of hot burglaries itself is rare enough in itself.

Have we not moved on a society in the past two centuries? Do you not see that this type of behaviour, as I explained to FuelAir, breeds an angry, violent, paranoid, cowed society. Imagine if everyone shot first and asked questions later when the potential for them to undergo some harm occurred. It would be anarchic.

Please try and reasonably imagine a society where everyone behaved as FuelAir, Ranb and Drudgewire have advocated in gun threads on these forums. Imagine a world where everyone was "rather safe than sorry" in the face of possible (even only marginally possible) harm. Imagine a world where property and personal crime was subject to instant vigilante death penalties. That's where your line of thinking leads. It's horrific.



Exactly. So why the need to have a dangerous weapon 'just in case'?

Do you disagree that the chances of you getting burgled are low, the chances of you being burgled whilst at home are even lower, and the chances of you suffering serious injury whilst being burgled at home are so vanishingly small as to not even be worth worrying about?

If someone I loved was injured during a hot burglary, I'd change my tune on the sanctioning of instant, vigilante-administered death penalty for property crimes. I doubt that.

In fact, you only have to look at the reactions of the British in general after the Tony Martin case (which Rofle has already mentioned) to realise that we, as a nation, do not generally see the benefit in combating violence by escalating the lethal potential of our population.

And as for condemning others for "protecting" themselves - you're damn right I'll condemn those who are content to see our society crippled by division, fear and violence, and who revel in, laugh at and even celebrate the brutal murder of a child. You're damn right I'll condemn those who think that they can take the law into their own hands. You're damn right I'll condemn those who think that an arms race is the best way to deal with criminality, that criminals do no deserve their lives or that society would be better off if we were all "better safe than sorry".

What you want is war. I hope you never get it.Never get it?? We have had this war since the beginnings of civilization - because we have the civilized (work together, recognize the values of civilization, try to act correctly) and the not civilized (work for themselves, recognize the values of civilization to help them do bad, act badly/steal, kill, rape,kidnap,break-and-enter). If the not civilized are not controlled/eliminated, they have won and civilization is lost. It may help to think bullies and victims and standing up to bullies.

[Ranb]

.....but you have said in other threads that have lead me to conclude that you consider shooting first and asking questions later to be an appropriate course of action.

Noone, not even crackheads, deserves to die at the hands of a gun. Even if they are robbing your house. Even if they're raping your wife. The last 200 years of human civilisation has come to understand this - that we're better off without endorsing violence or sanctioning murder. The sooner you catch up with the rest of us, the better.

Nothing I have ever written on this forum should have led anyone to the conclusion that I would use deadly force to protect property. I have made it very damn clear in my posts that I would only use deadly force to protect myself or another person. Only those such as yourself who have some strange reason to interpret my posts differently would think that I would kill to protect property. I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Just because I value my life more than someone else’s does not mean I will murder them to prevent them from stealing from me. Is that how it is where you live? It certainly is not the moral standard I live by. It is shameful that you would choose to interpret what I write in this manner.

If you are going to claim I would murder a burglar, then I suggest you post a link where I have actually said I would do this. You need to put up or shut up.

Ran

[Mobyseven]

Never get it?? We have had this war since the beginnings of civilization - because we have the civilized (work together, recognize the values of civilization, try to act correctly) and the not civilized (work for themselves, recognize the values of civilization to help them do bad, act badly/steal, kill, rape,kidnap,break-and-enter). If the not civilized are not controlled/eliminated, they have won and civilization is lost. It may help to think bullies and victims and standing up to bullies.

What a horribly uneducated, black and white view of the world. Victims and bullies. The good and the bad. The civilised and the uncivilised.

With a few exceptions, there is no such dividing line. People may make choices, but those choices are heavily influenced by the environment that they grew up in, and the environment that they live in. The choices are influenced by how they have been treated, and how they have been taught to treat others. Given better opportunities, better education, a better chance, many criminals would not be criminals; given worse opportunities, worse education, and fewer chances, you yourself may well have been a criminal. You may, for all I know, have broken the law a number of times with varying degrees of severity, and simply not been caught (though I am not suggesting you have).

There is nothing innate that makes a person a criminal, we are, however, all humans. Open your eyes to let the light in, Fuelair: We are them, and they are us.

[Ranb]

That's a ridiculous and sociopathic view of the law. Homeowners aren't police officers. It is not their place to detain ANYBODY. It isn't a homeowner's job to go towards danger in order to justify murdering someone. I don't really know what century you think this is, or how much fear and paranoia grips your mind and conscience, but your attitude is a hell of a lot more dangerous to society than someone swiping a TV from someone else's trailer.

Homeowners should be expected to protect their homes. Not doing so just encourages thieves. Whatever legal manner they choose to do this is up to them. I did not say I or anyone else would or should murder someone to protect property and I certainly was not justifying the homeowner’s actions in the original post after he allegedly assaulted and shot one of the intruders. If I were to confront a burglar, they might stop damaging my home and there is a better chance I can identify him or her and help the police apprehend them. If I am armed, this may persuade them to run instead of attacking. There is nothing wrong with this.

Why is it that people here leap to the conclusion that if a person decides to confront a burglar, then they are advocating the murder of said burglar? I certainly am not. What kind of world are you living in that brings you to this conclusion?

Ranb

[volatile]

A world where guns are tools designed for killing, frankly. Surely the whole point of having a gun is a willingness to use it?

[Ranb]

Use is a very broad term. Using a gun does not mean the handler shoots to kill a person. Carrying, brandishing and shooting are all uses. Restricting the word "use" to shooting a person does not fit well into conversation (like the ones here) unless you are more specific.

Ranb

[Cuddles]

Admittedly, in the heat of the situation, it is easy to get emotional and do something based on an exaggerated idea of the danger to you.

This is what really gets me about this thread. The heat of the moment. I can completely understand that in such a stressful situation people might make rash decisions, or overreact to perceived danger, or whatever. I have a lot of sympathy with that, and it can certainly be seen as mitigating circumstances, although not an actual excuse.

However, no-one here is posting in the heat of the moment. Instead, people are saying, in the cold light of day, that they consider it an entirely rational decision to shoot a fleeing child in the back just in case he deicdes to come back later with a weapon, something that I have never even heard of happening, even in fiction like CSI. If they can deliberately plan to do what I hope would be worse than I would ever do even in the depths of panic, what might they do if they ever actually end up in such a situation themselves?

[CaptainManacles]

Noone, not even crackheads, deserves to die at the hands of a gun. Even if they are robbing your house. Even if they're raping your wife. The last 200 years of human civilisation has come to understand this - that we're better off without endorsing violence or sanctioning murder. The sooner you catch up with the rest of us, the better.

Yet as much as you like to accuse everyone else's position of being irrational, you haven't offered up one rational reason why your position is better for society in the long run. There's been a lot of accusations of psychological problems and racism, but I don't see how or why, after it has been asked numerous times, should killing to stop a rapist from raping, in a situation where police cannot be expected to respond in time, be considered morally wrong?

[Drudgewire]

You're a nice guy, FA. And I'm sure Drudge would be a laugh to grab a beer with. But step back and look at yourselves. Look at what you're advocating. Look at what you're laughing at. You're revelling in death. That's not healthy, personally or communally.

Yeah, I'm a dirtbag. But I am fun to have a beer with.

And basically I had to say something. Let's not forget I said the guy should be charged for this crime. As a result, I was getting very uncomfortable being on the side of anti-gunners for any issue in here. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/sweatdrop.gif

[volatile]

Yet as much as you like to accuse everyone else's position of being irrational, you haven't offered up one rational reason why your position is better for society in the long run. There's been a lot of accusations of psychological problems and racism, but I don't see how or why, after it has been asked numerous times, should killing to stop a rapist from raping, in a situation where police cannot be expected to respond in time, be considered morally wrong?

You don't think a society which values human life, encourages communality and relies on the rule of law rather than the heated decisions of armed vigilantes isn't better than the alternative you're proposing?

What you're advocating here is a regression of society to the 18th century. You realise the Enlightenment happened, right?

There are plenty of rational reasons why advocating violence against criminals are bad. The first is one MobySeven has suggested, and that's that criminals aren't actually any different from you or I. People is people. I don't think anyone deserves the right to take the life of another human being. The second is that advocating violent responses to wrongs breeds a culture of violence and revenge and anger which does nothing to address the root causes of the problem and possibly serves to makes them worse. The third is that lots of rapists are mentally ill, and I think that advocating the killing of mentally ill people, even in the process of crime, is quite hard to justify. The forth is that sanctioning this type of behaviour encourages the carrying of offensive weapons, which seems to do little act as a deterrent, but actually increases the rate of gun deaths in the wider population.

In short, a society which sanctions murder is no kind of society at all.

[Drudgewire]

In short, a society which sanctions murder is no kind of society at all.

Agreed. Good thing we're not one of them.

There are plenty of rational reasons why advocating violence against criminals are bad. The first is one MobySeven has suggested, and that's that criminals aren't actually any different from you or I. People is people. I don't think anyone deserves the right to take the life of another human being.

Oh. In that case there's no point arguing with you. If you're ever in a life or death situation, I'll let you explain your position to your attacker. I'm sure he'll just say "oh I never looked at it that way" and apologize and go join a seminary. :rolleyes:

[Mobyseven]

Oh. In that case there's no point arguing with you. If you're ever in a life or death situation, I'll let you explain your position to your attacker. I'm sure he'll just say "oh I never looked at it that way" and apologize and go join a seminary. :rolleyes:

Holy misrepresentation Batman! An attacking strawman!

If I am in a life or death situation - a person poses an immediate threat to my body and my health - then yes, I will fight back. I would be reluctant to kill a man, however, when I could just as well incapacitate him - in order for me to kill a man there would have to be literally no other option obviously available.

However, in these gun control threads we are very rarely actually arguing life or death situations - no matter how gun advocates may try and always frame them in such terms. We are, in many cases including this one, discussing property crimes - burglary, theft, and other similar crimes - and quite frankly the purloining of a big screen tv is not a life or death situation (no matter how many people try to pretend that every property crime is a murder waiting to happen).

Use of a weapon to defend your life? Of course. Use of a weapon to defend your tv? You're freakin' crazy.

As an aside, the more I get involved in these types of threads, the more I am glad I don't like in the USA. If the gun proponents are as crazy and paranoid as they seem, I don't want to share a country with them for fear of my own life, and if they aren't as crazy and paranoid as they seem, I don't want to live in such a dystopian, violent, and downright uncivilised country.

[Drudgewire]

If I am in a life or death situation - a person poses an immediate threat to my body and my health - then yes, I will fight back. I would be reluctant to kill a man, however, when I could just as well incapacitate him - in order for me to kill a man there would have to be literally no other option obviously available.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the guy who said... QUOTE...

I don't think anyone deserves the right to take the life of another human being.

How is that misrepresenting what he said? There's no distinction for protecting your own life there.

And as a reminder: I THINK THE GUY IN THE OP SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH MURDER!!

[volatile]

Agreed. Good thing we're not one of them.

Acting in the way sanctioned by the 'Castle Doctrine' would most likely have you up on a murder charge in my country. So yes, you are.

[CaptainManacles]

You don't think a society which values human life, encourages communality and relies on the rule of law rather than the heated decisions of armed vigilantes isn't better than the alternative you're proposing?

No one is advocating a society where people don't value human life. What is being advocated is a society that can have other values as well, and doesn't see things in such psychotic black and white. Yes, encouraging people to wait for the rule of law in the circumstance of watching someone begin to rape your wife while you're standing there with a gun, but instead you go to the phone, make a call, and wait possibly an hour for the cops to show up while you watch someone get brutalized and possibly murdered, is absoltely psychotic.

What you're advocating here is a regression of society to the 18th century. You realise the Enlightenment happened, right?

No we're not. We're advocating for exceptions to the rule based on reason. What you're doing is, at best, an arguement ad populum, at worst, it's random mad ravings.

There are plenty of rational reasons why advocating violence against criminals are bad. The first is one MobySeven has suggested, and that's that criminals aren't actually any different from you or I.

Except that they're serious criminals. I'm not one and nor do I plan to be. On that logic we should let all offenders, no matter how violent, out of jail. After all, they're no different from you and I, right?

People is people. I don't think anyone deserves the right to take the life of another human being.

Oh ya, that's a real rational arguement "It is because I think so"

The second is that advocating violent responses to wrongs breeds a culture of violence and revenge and anger

We're not talking about going across the street and blowing off someone's head because you suspect them of swiping your favorite CD. We're talking about stopping a known, 100% certain criminal in situations that have been specifically approved by the proccess of law.

The third is that lots of rapists are mentally ill, and I think that advocating the killing of mentally ill people, even in the process of crime, is quite hard to justify.

You're switching the burden of proof irrationally. Why shouldn't I kill mentally ill people in the process of crime? Is it okay to kidnap and assult mentally ill people? If not you're going to have a hard time finding a way to stop them at all. By your standards I'm mentally ill so how do you expect to stop me from killing other mentally ill people?

The forth is that sanctioning this type of behaviour encourages the carrying of offensive weapons

They're not by their nature offensive weapons.

which seems to do little act as a deterrent

You don't know that. And besides, now you're just argueing the issue of gun control, which is a seperate issue. Would you be fine then if I stabbed a rapist to death?


In short, a society which sanctions murder is no kind of society at all.

There was not even a quasi-rational arguement in that entire mess. Try again.

[volatile]

I was going to reply, but then you said "They're not by their nature offensive weapons", which just proves how far from reality you actually are.

[CaptainManacles]

I was going to reply, but then you said "They're not by their nature offensive weapons", which just proves how far from reality you actually are.

I was wondering what excuse you were going to come up with.

So are you denying that guns can be used in defense?

[gumboot]

*backs out of thread slowly*

[Crazycowbob]

You don't think a society which values human life, encourages communality and relies on the rule of law rather than the heated decisions of armed vigilantes isn't better than the alternative you're proposing?

What you're advocating here is a regression of society to the 18th century. You realise the Enlightenment happened, right?

There are plenty of rational reasons why advocating violence against criminals are bad. The first is one MobySeven has suggested, and that's that criminals aren't actually any different from you or I. People is people. I don't think anyone deserves the right to take the life of another human being. The second is that advocating violent responses to wrongs breeds a culture of violence and revenge and anger which does nothing to address the root causes of the problem and possibly serves to makes them worse. The third is that lots of rapists are mentally ill, and I think that advocating the killing of mentally ill people, even in the process of crime, is quite hard to justify. The forth is that sanctioning this type of behaviour encourages the carrying of offensive weapons, which seems to do little act as a deterrent, but actually increases the rate of gun deaths in the wider population.

In short, a society which sanctions murder is no kind of society at all.

You make a good argument, but I'm going to have to disagree. In an idealic society, sure, we can dream that everyone be rehabilitated (perhaps even before commiting a crime, in utopia), that everyone grows up in a good environment, and that a good environment is all it took to make people "good" citizens. But that's a dream world. Environment may influence criminal behavior, but it doesn't force the choice anymore than being a teenager forces you to be reckless. Not every criminal can be rehabilitated (though, admittedly, our rehabilitation system needs work). Despite that, we do live in society that values human life, encourages communality, and relies on the rule of law. Vigilante justice is punished, executions are in decline, society is constantly trying to improve itself. But society also has to take into account the right of those being victimized to defend themselves. You say a rapist is mentally ill, and that it's wrong to kill the mentaly ill, but isn't it also wrong to hit them as well? And if so, is it wrong for the woman to struggle? If someone attacks you, is it wrong for you to fight back? What if they're no match for you physically, is it then wrong, because you're stronger? Fist, club, knife, gun, these are all tools, all designed to cause injury, and all lethal. Of course with greater lethality comes greater responsibility, but I feel it is not the tool, but the intent that matters. The intent should be to stop the criminal behavior, be it robbery or rape, and you use the tools available to ensure that you are stronger than your foe. One should do their best to choose the appropriate tool for the situation, but sometimes in the heat of things that is dfficult. If someone loses their life, it's sad, but in my opinion, no more so than dying while skydiving or bungee jumping.

[Autolite]

In an idealic society, sure, we can dream that everyone be rehabilitated (perhaps even before commiting a crime, in utopia), that everyone grows up in a good environment, and that a good environment is all it took to make people "good" citizens. But that's a dream world.

Actually Crazycowbob might not be so crazy. That's pretty much how I see it also and it's why these anti-gun-pro-gun discussions are futile. One side bases their opinions on how they observe the real world while the other side lives in some self delusional imaginary utopia. Never-the-less, the posts are entertaining. Keep-em coming...

[volatile]

Did you mean "One side bases their opinions on how they observe the real world while the other side lives in some self delusional imaginary distopia"?

[Gate2501]

In a world with no guns... There would be a lot of ninjas.

[Drudgewire]

Acting in the way sanctioned by the 'Castle Doctrine' would most likely have you up on a murder charge in my country. So yes, you are.

We define "murder" differently. So no, we're not.

[volatile]

We define "murder" differently. So no, we're not.

You sanction killing people. Your legal system allows people to deliberately kill other people and get off scot free. That, sir, is sanctioning murder.

[Drudgewire]

You sanction killing people. Your legal system allows people to deliberately kill other people and get off scot free. That, sir, is sanctioning murder.

We allow people to defend themselves with equal perceived force. I can't shoot a kid who breaks into my house just because he's there... even in Texas as the OP shows.

From Miriam Webster:

Murder: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: \ˈmər-dər\
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
Date: before 12th century

1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

2 a: something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b: something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

Since it is LAWFUL to defend oneself with lethal force here, as long as you stay within the law it's not murder... even if you really, really think it makes you a better person to believe it is.

[volatile]

We have a justification in law of "reasonable force", justifiable in that you are able to respond to an intruder in kind (though of course, we don't have guns). If you deliberately try and kill an intruder, you're a murder.

What you have, on the other hand, is legal space for the home-owner to respond with more force than he himself faces. In the statutes, this is referred to as "defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death", ergo, "with malice", ergo murder by the definition you provided.

The Castle Doctrine, as far as I can tell, legitimises the use of deadly force in order to be "better safe than sorry", at least in some States. Wiki says:

"Other states have a stand-your-ground clause, or no duty to retreat policy which expressly relieves the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves" Stand-your-ground laws (sometimes called shoot-first laws by critics) are statutes that allow the use of deadly force to defend against forcible unlawful entry or attack. These bills significantly expand the boundaries of legal self-defense by eliminating a person's duty to retreat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat) from an invader or assailant in certain cases before resorting to the use of "defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another."

Sorry if that makes you feel a little uncomfortable (and so it should), but that's how it is. Shooting people dead when they present no direct threat is murder.

[Drudgewire]

"Duty to retreat" gets innocent people MURDERED. The Castle Doctrine simply means "they don't have to shoot first before you can defend yourself."

If it was as broad as you imagine it to be we wouldn't have this thread in the first place because the guy in Laredo lives in a state with a castle doctrine... and what do you know? He's being charged for killing someone in his own home.

[Gate2501]

"Duty to retreat" gets innocent people MURDERED. The Castle Doctrine simply means "they don't have to shoot first before you can defend yourself."

If it was as broad as you imagine it to be we wouldn't have this thread in the first place because the guy in Laredo lives in a state with a castle doctrine... and what do you know? He's being charged for killing someone in his own home.

My opinion is that "Duty to Retreat" is stupid, and could get you killed when you could otherwise defend yourself.

My opinion is that "The Castle Doctrine" is also rather stupid, and could allow for many situations where you end up killing someone needlessly.

It seems to me that any real "meet in the middle" kind of solution is going to have to be vastly complicated and will probably require 1500 pages of "gray area" rules.

[Drudgewire]

My opinion is that "Duty to Retreat" is stupid, and could get you killed when you could otherwise defend yourself.

My opinion is that "The Castle Doctrine" is also rather stupid, and could allow for many situations where you end up killing someone needlessly.

It seems to me that any real "meet in the middle" kind of solution is going to have to be vastly complicated and will probably require 1500 pages of "gray area" rules.

I'm not arguing any part of that, except to say in a perfect world there'd be no gray area about anything. But in the real world I'd much rather the law remain broad enough to protect the people who never wanted to have to make such a choice.

For the most part even the tough talkers who are law abiding don't really want to kill anyone if they don't have to. I'd imagine most burglars don't either, but they're the ones who forced someone else into making that split-second call.

[Gate2501]

I'm not arguing any part of that, except to say in a perfect world there'd be no gray area about anything. But in the real world I'd much rather the law remain broad enough to protect the people who never wanted to have to make such a choice.

For the most part even the tough talkers who are law abiding don't really want to kill anyone if they don't have to. I'd imagine most burglars don't either, but they're the ones who forced someone else into making that split-second call.

I can agree with this.

In my own personal case, if I heard someone coming in a window/door in the middle of the night, I would probably grab my carbon recon tanto (instead of my 45). I live with my girlfriend and son, so I would never want to accidentally shoot one of them, or even have a bullet pass through a wall and hit one of them (or god forbid one of my kitties).

I figure that in an unlit house that I can navigate blindfolded, I will definitely be able to own someone in melee combat with that dagger, even if they do have a gun.

[Drudgewire]

Part of being responsible with firearms is imaging scenarios where you'd actually fire. Speaking personally, if I feel there's time to yell "I'VE GOT A GUN" I'll do so and if he runs out with my TV on his shoulder he's welcome to it.

Whether that's because of compassion for my fellow man or because I don't want the hassle or guilt that comes with a justified shooting, I honestly can't answer that because I honestly don't know for sure... even though I ask myself that very question all the time.

[Bikewer]

Drudgewire: that's pretty much the standard that's applied generally. In a situation where you are in your home and, lets say, hear a burglar prying your back door open, an announcement of "I'm armed and I'm calling police" should be sufficient to discourage most.

Should the individual continue his activities despite your announcement, you would be justified in using deadly force.

[Drudgewire]

Drudgewire: that's pretty much the standard that's applied generally. In a situation where you are in your home and, lets say, hear a burglar prying your back door open, an announcement of "I'm armed and I'm calling police" should be sufficient to discourage most.

Should the individual continue his activities despite your announcement, you would be justified in using deadly force.

Oh once I make the announcement I better hear footsteps heading in the other direction IMMEDIATELY. Because otherwise the next (and likely last) sounds he'll hear are at least three very loud ones.

[leonAzul]

It's high time we outlaw guns. While we're at it, let's outlaw any weapon that can be used to kill someone (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=%22stabbing+death%22).

:boxedin: Oh hell. I sense a gun thread coming on. I swear, if I ever see someone engaged in a gun debate, I'll shoot 'em.

That means we'll need to outlaw hands, feet, elbows, knees, heads and shoulders as well...

[leonAzul]

For the most part even the tough talkers who are law abiding don't really want to kill anyone if they don't have to. I'd imagine most burglars don't either, but they're the ones who forced someone else into making that split-second call.

That sums it up quite nicely for me.

Violate my space, then suffer the consequences.

For the record, I do not own a gun. I know of no instance where a gun can stop a bullet. There are many examples of how tactical awareness can avoid a bullet. ;) Yet I would never infringe another person's ability to acquire a gun, nor their motive for so doing. Note well, licensing is not infringement, rather it is a tool for accountability.

[Architect]

Drudgewire: that's pretty much the standard that's applied generally. In a situation where you are in your home and, lets say, hear a burglar prying your back door open, an announcement of "I'm armed and I'm calling police" should be sufficient to discourage most.

Should the individual continue his activities despite your announcement, you would be justified in using deadly force.

Well, perhaps in America. Try it in Western Europe, Cananda, and the Antipodes then you're going to find yourself as a guest of the Goverment for a considerable period. Life, usually.

[Drudgewire]

While I'm not completely opposed to gun registration, I'm happy to live in a state where it isn't a requirement.

I'll never forget buying my first handgun from a friend, then going to Wal-Mart and asking the clerk if he knew where I went to register it. Oh how he laughed. :D

[Architect]

Those who support the concept of firearm defence of a home in a burglary seem to work on the assumption that deadly force is justified on the basis that there is such a threat against the occupants. There seems to be little consideration as to the legal principal of proportionality, for example, or whether inter alia the risk posted to the occupants was sufficient to merit deadly force.

The difference in the other mature Western democracies, which one might suggest are broadly comparable, seems simply to be that the law (and society in general) does expect the occupant to make such a decision. Our laws do allow us to defend ourselves, but not at any cost. If he comes at you with a knife or a gun, then the police aren't going to get unduly upset if you clobber him with a golf club. But if someone comes at us with fists raised, you're not allowed to blow him away on the infinitesimal off-chance he might be a drug-crazed nutter out to do a Manson.

And no, there is no "right" to protect your property at all costs and against all comers here. A home is not your castle. Well, unless you live in a castle of course. In Scotland we don't even have a law of tresspass, there is a de facto right to roam, and Scandanavia isn't hugely different. If a landowner tries to escort you off his property under threates of force or threaten you for ambling across his garden/field/whatever then he will get a rapid visit from the boys in blue together with some time in a special kind of hotel.

[Drudgewire]

But if someone comes at us with fists raised, you're not allowed to blow him away on the infinitesimal off-chance he might be a drug-crazed nutter out to do a Manson.

Here the basic rule is one of equal or greater force. If an unarmed child comes into your house and you're an able-bodied adult, the shooting is very unlikely to be considered justified.

Conversely if an unarmed able-bodied male breaks into an elderly couple's home and is approaching them, it can be argued without the gun they were at a distinct enough disadvantage to make a shooting justified.

Again, my first response is to give a warning. If someone approaches me after that, weapon or not, I've been trained with the understanding a person can travel 21 feet in less than two seconds AFTER they've been mortally wounded... and will fire and keep firing until he's no longer a threat.

[leonAzul]

proportionality

WTF?

Violate my home, then suffer the consequences.

No truer law was ever written!

[Ranb]

.....And no, there is no "right" to protect your property at all costs and against all comers here....

As far as I know, there is no such right in the USA either. A private citizen can only protect a person (or themselves) from threats of violence. If an intruder is trespassing or steeling, then the victim can only use deadly force if the intruder turns upon them and threatens or actually assaults the victim.

Ranb

[Drudgewire]

Violate my home, then suffer the consequences.

No truer law was ever written!

Um... I'm pretty sure that law hasn't been written.

You might be able to convince a jury in your case it had to be that way, but you'll certainly at least be going before a jury.

[leonAzul]

Um... I'm pretty sure that law hasn't been written.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


(Emphasis added)

Link (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html)

[Drudgewire]

(Emphasis added)

Link (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html)


Am I the only one who can't recite that without singing it in Schoolhouse Rock fashion? :o

[Gurdur]

(Emphasis added)

Link (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html)

Helllloooooo, Planet Earth to leonAzul, you can't interpret the Constitution as you yourself see fit, you have to abide by the actual laws instead. And Drudgewire was completely correct.

Try actually putting actions behind your words, and you will very likely be quite, quite surprised how many years in prison you get.

[CaptainManacles]

Those who support the concept of firearm defence of a home in a burglary seem to work on the assumption that deadly force is justified on the basis that there is such a threat against the occupants. There seems to be little consideration as to the legal principal of proportionality, for example, or whether inter alia the risk posted to the occupants was sufficient to merit deadly force.

Of course there is consideration of it. No one is saying that you should shoot someone if they slap you in the face on a public sidewalk. There's simply disagreement about what constitutes a significant enough risk. I'm of the opinion that by the time someone breaks into your house, there's a significant enough of a risk to warrent deadly force. No one has yet provided any good reasons why there should not be.

The difference in the other mature Western democracies, which one might suggest are broadly comparable, seems simply to be that the law (and society in general) does expect the occupant to make such a decision. Our laws do allow us to defend ourselves, but not at any cost. If he comes at you with a knife or a gun, then the police aren't going to get unduly upset if you clobber him with a golf club. But if someone comes at us with fists raised, you're not allowed to blow him away on the infinitesimal off-chance he might be a drug-crazed nutter out to do a Manson.

It's not hard to kill someone accidently in a fist fight or to imagine they might kill you with something else once you are incapacitated from losing a fist fight. And that entire logic as a whole seems bizzare and irrational to me. Though I see how this logic refects in many of Europes general opinions in international politics. If Israel is hit with 12 rockets, and they respond with 13, then Israel is the one who should be condemed.

And no, there is no "right" to protect your property at all costs and against all comers here. A home is not your castle.

Why shouldn't I be able to shoot someone who breaks into my house? That question still has not been answered.

In Scotland we don't even have a law of tresspass, there is a de facto right to roam, and Scandanavia isn't hugely different. If a landowner tries to escort you off his property under threates of force or threaten you for ambling across his garden/field/whatever then he will get a rapid visit from the boys in blue together with some time in a special kind of hotel.

Maybe it's partially a practical issue of numbers. If we did that we'd have no gardens or fields.

[Drudgewire]

And Drudgewire was completely correct.


Oh, what else is new?


:duck:

[RandFan]

The first is one MobySeven has suggested, and that's that criminals aren't actually any different from you or I. Nonsense. I'm NOT the same as BTK (http://www.altereddimensions.net/crime/btkbindtorturekill.htm). I'm not a sociopath. I'm capable of empathy. I care about other people. I care more about people who are also capable of caring about other people than those who couldn't care less. I do so because of my sense of morality (evolution) and the fact that there is utility in doing so.

I believe in the rule of law. I'm against cruel and unusual punishment. I'm against the death penalty. I don't think that just because a person commits a crime that he is forever beyond redemption and I think it is in societies best interest to reform to the extent that reform is possible. I'm not advocating "castle..." whatever it is.

That said, the notion that all people are all the same is pure and simple BS.

[PhantomWolf]

Much as I hate to derail the topic back to well the original topic....

The Grand Jury was obviously convinced that there was serious wrong doing on the part of the home owner.

If the facts as given are correct, then he's in the gun (so to speak.)

While the teens were guilty of a crime, their crime ended at the point in time of them being apprehended. He effectively made a citizen's arrest by having them at gunpoint and kneeling. His next legal move was to call the police and wait. He didn't, he commissioned his own crime and started to assault them with the gun. The Law states that self defence does not apply if the killing occurs during the commision of a crime. His assulting them was a crime and so even if the gun went off accidently rather then as an execution, he is still guilty.

It really doesn't matter what your personal belief on shooting criminals is, the facts (as given and if assumed true) stand out.

1) He was outside the trailer home and entered it.
2) He had them subdued and under citizen's arrest
3) They were kneeling
4) Likely facing away from him (the shot was in the back indicating he was behind them)
5) He began assaulting them
6) He shot one
7) He continued the beating dispite the shooting
8) He still showed no remorse at the shooting even as the injured party was removed.

(1) would indicate that he was lying in wait, he appears to have been deliberately outside with a gun waiting for them to return.

(2) through (4) shows they were no longer a threat to him, and were no longer engaged in a criminal activity.

(5) shows him acting in an illegal manner and commiting a crime himself.

(6) is undisputed

(7) - (8) would show that the shooting was either not accidental or if it was that he didn't care about it. He still failed to stop beating the teens, call for help, and render assistance to the injuried party.

If these facts are correct, and the Grand Jury appears to have accepted them, then he only has himself to blame and he better start praying the Jury doesn't come back with a short stay on Death Row for him (which they might if they decide it was an execution style killing rather than an accidental shooting during the commision of a crime.)

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

In the state of Indiana:
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2.
(a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/curtilage), or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/curtilage), or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).


So, yes: Lots and LOTS of, "reasonable force," and, "reasonably believes that the force is necessary." All the, "does not have a duty to retreat," does is make it so I'm not REQUIRED to attempt to run away.

As an example worst-case scenario: I come up to visit a friend, and discover a guy in his house threatening him with with a baseball bat. If things were to degenerate to the point that I had that, "reasonable expectation of death or serious injury," to either myself or my friend, if I had a, "DUTY to retreat," the only way I could do that is to abandon my friend to the mook with the bat.

There's also a kicker in the Indiana laws:
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.


As such, I think that being on one's knees CLEARLY shows that the, "person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so," thing was going on.

I also think that the shooter, if the stories are straight, is a classic demonstration of that, "nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action," bit.

If the kid was on his knees, and the shooter was beating him, in Indiana, the shooter would be committing a crime, probably, and due all the legal weight he can bear...

maybe a BIT more. (See: Felony Murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule))

[Architect]

Why shouldn't I be able to shoot someone who breaks into my house? That question still has not been answered.


Are you seriously suggesting that there should be a right for you to fire a gun - with the presumable intent of death or at least severe bodily injury - at a domestic intruder regardless of the extent of threat actually posed by said intruder to the occupant?

:confused:

[Architect]

If Israel is hit with 12 rockets, and they respond with 13, then Israel is the one who should be condemed.


You will observe that we did not drop bombs on West Belfast after the IRA blew up the Cabinet at Brighton or took out central Manchester. The last time I looked, the Spanish air force was not bombing Vitoria after yet another an ETA outrage.

So really, not more than a glib soundbite, eh? Interesting too that you chose the Israelis, given the British government's traditional diplomatic support for said state.



Maybe it's partially a practical issue of numbers. If we did that we'd have no gardens or fields.


More than half of our population of 5 million is crammed into the central belt, an area some 90 miles wide by 30-40 miles north-south. The Glasgow conurbation (sp?) has well over 1.25m inhabitants on its own. The last time I noticed, there was a surfeit of fields and I haven't noticed too many people camping in my back garden. But the point is that in Scotland and Scandanavia, and probably other countries, there is no cultural perception of absolutely superiority and control over property owned such as to exclude others or, indeed, exercise force to remove them.

Doubless some clown will now accuse us of being rampant communists or somesuch.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

... clip ...

Why shouldn't I be able to shoot someone who breaks into my house? That question still has not been answered.


In what state do you live?

Maybe it's partially a practical issue of numbers. If we did that we'd have no gardens or fields.


...or maybe the Scots and Scandinavians are just less nuts than us 'Mericans and wouldn't wreck the place up.

I worked on a farm for years. There was a nice little fishing pond on a piece of land my boss rented, and the owner of the pond and field had a crossing stile over the fence for the fishermen to get to the pond without breaking down the wire fence.

I STILL had to mend that entire stretch of fence line about once a week because people would rather bust down the fence climbing over it than walk about 50 feet to the stile.
:eye-poppi :confused: :covereyes :mad:

[Architect]

Hi

...or maybe the Scots and Scandinavians are just less nuts than us 'Mericans and wouldn't wreck the place up.

Clearly you've never encountered the Tartan Army in full swing.

I worked on a farm for years. There was a nice little fishing pond on a piece of land my boss rented, and the owner of the pond and field had a crossing stile over the fence for the fishermen to get to the pond without breaking down the wire fence.

Interestingly, the fish would belong to the landowner so whilst you might be able to walk up to the pond here, you're not allowed to go fishing without a permit. And you'll get into trouble with the police if you're caught poaching.

I STILL had to mend that entire stretch of fence line about once a week because people would rather bust down the fence climbing over it than walk about 50 feet to the stile.

There's lazy sods everywhere, mate.

[Gravy]

(Emphasis added)

Link (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html)That's a preamble, not a law, and anyway it doesn't address the issue at hand.

[Gravy]

Clearly you've never encountered the Tartan Army in full swing.Ach! Not the Tartan Army again!

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

... clip ...

Interestingly, the fish would belong to the landowner so whilst you might be able to walk up to the pond here, you're not allowed to go fishing without a permit. And you'll get into trouble with the police if you're caught poaching.

There's lazy sods everywhere, mate.


The owner had a, "Fishermen Welcome - Please Cross at Stile," sign on the fence. Fishermen still needed to have fishing licenses, I believe, but I was too busy to fish.

The were murder on the fence line, but in all fairness, they kept the pond and the surroundings tidy.

[CaptainManacles]

Are you seriously suggesting that there should be a right for you to fire a gun - with the presumable intent of death or at least severe bodily injury - at a domestic intruder regardless of the extent of threat actually posed by said intruder to the occupant?

:confused:

Yes.

So if I pulled a machine gun out, and said I was about to lay waste to as many people as I could, do you think you would be wrong in shooting me? The gun could be fake. What if there was no real threat posed by me to anyone? At some point a reasonable perception of an intentional threat has to enter the picture.

[CaptainManacles]

...or maybe the Scots and Scandinavians are just less nuts than us 'Mericans and wouldn't wreck the place up.

I worked on a farm for years. There was a nice little fishing pond on a piece of land my boss rented, and the owner of the pond and field had a crossing stile over the fence for the fishermen to get to the pond without breaking down the wire fence.

I STILL had to mend that entire stretch of fence line about once a week because people would rather bust down the fence climbing over it than walk about 50 feet to the stile.
:eye-poppi :confused: :covereyes :mad:

Maybe so, it's an interesting question one way or another.

[volatile]

Yes.


Capital punishment is legitimate for property crime?

[leonAzul]

Helllloooooo, Planet Earth to leonAzul, you can't interpret the Constitution as you yourself see fit, you have to abide by the actual laws instead. And Drudgewire was completely correct.

Try actually putting actions behind your words, and you will very likely be quite, quite surprised how many years in prison you get.

Helllloooooo, Planet Earth to Gurdur, not all of us travel on the Good Ship Lollipop. I've been doing it all my life and I come out grinning. ;)

[Drudgewire]

Capital punishment is legitimate for property crime?

Not so much "legitimate punishment" as "job hazard."

[CaptainManacles]

Capital punishment is legitimate for property crime?

Why don't you finish the debate you ran away from before you start another one with me?

[MarkCorrigan]

Of course there is consideration of it. No one is saying that you should shoot someone if they slap you in the face on a public sidewalk. There's simply disagreement about what constitutes a significant enough risk. I'm of the opinion that by the time someone breaks into your house, there's a significant enough of a risk to warrent deadly force. No one has yet provided any good reasons why there should not be.


Are you kidding? Someone breaks into your house, therefore it's ok to use deadly force?

Man, I'm glad I don't live where you do.

[PhantomWolf]

Are you kidding? Someone breaks into your house, therefore it's ok to use deadly force?

Man, I'm glad I don't live where you do.

Me too, not because I think it should be safe to break into houses, (I have previously used a cricket bat on a burgler) but rather because the next step is "It's okay to use deadly force because he was on my property and I thought he was going to break in" followed by "He was on the sidewalk and I thought he was going to come onto my property and break in."

[CaptainManacles]

Are you kidding? Someone breaks into your house, therefore it's ok to use deadly force?

Man, I'm glad I don't live where you do.

That doesn't answer the question of why.

[CaptainManacles]

Me too, not because I think it should be safe to break into houses, (I have previously used a cricket bat on a burgler) but rather because the next step is "It's okay to use deadly force because he was on my property and I thought he was going to break in" followed by "He was on the sidewalk and I thought he was going to come onto my property and break in."

slipery slope fallacy.

[Gravy]

Me too, not because I think it should be safe to break into houses, (I have previously used a cricket bat on a burgler) but rather because the next step is "It's okay to use deadly force because he was on my property and I thought he was going to break in" followed by "He was on the sidewalk and I thought he was going to come onto my property and break in."I don't think it's reasonable to argue that a deadly force law applying to an intruder inside someone's home would be a slippery slope that leads to a free-fire zone outside the home. There's a qualitative difference. I suppose there's a gray area concerning someone who's trying – or appearing to try – to illegally gain entry to an occupied residence. I wonder what various state laws say about the use of force in that circumstance, if anything.

ETA: what CaptainManacles said. I knew there was a phrase for that!

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I don't think it's reasonable to argue that a deadly force law applying to an intruder inside someone's home would be a slippery slope that leads to a free-fire zone outside the home. There's a qualitative difference. I suppose there's a gray area concerning someone who's trying – or appearing to try – to illegally gain entry to an occupied residence. I wonder what various state laws say about the use of force in that circumstance, if anything.

ETA: what CaptainManacles said. I knew there was a phrase for that!


In Indiana:
1) Reasonable belief that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death, or
2) Reasonable belief that force is necessary to prevent or terminate unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle
is required, and then only reasonable force may be used.

The, "reasonable force," bit probably precludes shooting someone widgeting at your door, trying to get in. Reasonable force, in that situation, should probably be yelling, "hey you door-widgeter! get away from that door."

If the widgetation continues, or escalates, as long as the guy's outside and poses no threat, I'm pretty sure that you'd get in trouble for shooting.

If the guy grabs a baseball bat and has a go at the lock or window, though...

well....

It's probably all about what would be seen as a reasonable expectation of the outcome of whatever jackassulation is going on.

On the OTHER hand, if someone kept breaking into my house and stealing food and drink...

I'd hide in the hall and wait for them...

and when they broke in...

I'd come out and...

sit 'em down at the dinner table while I cooked 'em a nice, hot meal and talked with 'em about how very foolish it is to break into other people's houses.

:D But, hey - that's just me. :D

(I'd still keep my pistol handy, though, because things get weird and stupid whenever people are involved.)

[Mobyseven]

Nonsense. I'm NOT the same as BTK (http://www.altereddimensions.net/crime/btkbindtorturekill.htm).

And I never said you were. You're not the same as Martin Bryant either. What do you hope to point out by distinguishing yourself from such a rare subset of the criminal population?

I'm not a sociopath. I'm capable of empathy. I care about other people. I care more about people who are also capable of caring about other people than those who couldn't care less. I do so because of my sense of morality (evolution) and the fact that there is utility in doing so.

So? Are you suggesting that most criminals are sociopaths? That most criminals are incapable of empathy? Pure, unadulterated nonsense. The point I have been trying to make is that these people are not sub-human. Most of them are capable of empathy, of caring about other people, of pretty much everything you are capable of.

I believe in the rule of law. I'm against cruel and unusual punishment. I'm against the death penalty. I don't think that just because a person commits a crime that he is forever beyond redemption and I think it is in societies best interest to reform to the extent that reform is possible. I'm not advocating "castle..." whatever it is.

So? How does that differentiate you from the majority of criminals?

That said, the notion that all people are all the same is pure and simple BS.

Well then, it's a good thing that nobody has argued that position, hey? I certainly hope you weren't responding to me, because if you were, that's a strawman argument through and through.

[Gravy]

I'd come out and...

sit 'em down at the dinner table while I cooked 'em a nice, hot meal and talked with 'em about how very foolish it is to break into other people's houses.

:D But, hey - that's just me. :DHey, you'd get along with this guy: Victim takes teen mugger to dinner (http://gothamist.com/2008/03/28/victim_teaches.php).

And thanks for introducing "curtilage" to my vocabulary!

[RandFan]

And I never said you were. You're not the same as Martin Bryant either. What do you hope to point out by distinguishing yourself from such a rare subset of the criminal population? I was actually responding to volitile's "people is people" nonsense. Sorry about that. Volitile seems to think that you believe that criminals aren't actually any different from you or I.

Based on your response to me it's clear that you DON'T believe that. Which makes me wonder why you responded to me and not volitile?

That most criminals are incapable of empathy?
Obviously you didn't read my post. No, obviously not.

I certainly hope you weren't responding to me, because if you were, that's a strawman argument through and through. Let me give you a hint. When I respond to you I will quote you the way I did volitile. Fair enough?

[Architect]

Capital punishment is legitimate for property crime?

It would appear that the poster believes that his right to peaceful enjoyment of his property should quite lawfully over-ride a burglar's right to life, one of the reasons being the infinitesimally small chance that he's actually a Charles Manson type murdering loon.

:eye-poppi

[Mobyseven]

I was actually responding to volitile's "people is people" nonsense. Sorry about that. Volitile seems to think that you believe that criminals aren't actually any different from you or I.

No, most criminals aren't actually any different from you or me. Which is what I point out in my post. Which Volatile is referring to in the post you quoted.

Based on your response to me it's clear that you DON'T believe that. Which makes me wonder why you responded to me and not volitile?

Because you responded to a post where Volatile referred to a point that I had made. However, you have misrepresented the point that I had made, and I felt it necessary to point out that my position had been misrepresented. Volatile didn't misrepresent my position - you did.

Obviously you didn't read my post. No, obviously not.

Obviously you couldn't come up with an actual response to my post, else I imagine you would have posted it instead of this 'place the blame anywhere but on me' drivel.

Let me give you a hint. When I respond to you I will quote you the way I did volitile. Fair enough?

Well, excuse me for thinking that, as Volatile was talking about my post that you might go and bother to actually read the post under discussion. Apparently you find it better to analyse throwaway one-liners than a substantive post.

Tell you what, I'll give you a hint. When you respond to (and misrepresent) my argument, I'll take it as a response to me. I don't give a damn who you're quoting.

[Rolfe]

More than half of our population of 5 million is crammed into the central belt, an area some 90 miles wide by 30-40 miles north-south. The Glasgow conurbation (sp?) has well over 1.25m inhabitants on its own. The last time I noticed, there was a surfeit of fields and I haven't noticed too many people camping in my back garden. But the point is that in Scotland and Scandanavia, and probably other countries, there is no cultural perception of absolutely superiority and control over property owned such as to exclude others or, indeed, exercise force to remove them.

Doubless some clown will now accuse us of being rampant communists or somesuch.


Exactly. It's not about the total population of the country, it's about population density. Central Scotland has a much higher population density than rural America. And, frankly, at least its fair share of antisocial neds.

But to correct Architect slightly, they can't camp in our back gardens. The immediate environs of a dwelling (basically, the garden) are private. Last month there was a court case heard where a wealthy plaintiff argued for a vast area of his land to be treated as his garden, and so allow him to exclude the public. He lost, and his garden area was officially restricted to "just" a couple of acres or so.

Last Saturday I was out walking with a friend visiting from England. We took a farm track which curved round until we were close to where we'd started from (my house), but the other side of a hill. I knew that it was possible to return to the house over the hill rather than retrace our steps, but the first part of the route was unclear. I speculated that we might have to cut through the large garden of an isolated house, but as I knew the owner (I shared an office at work with him last year) I was planning on brazening this out with a cheery wave.

However, the route turned out not to involve the garden, but rather three or four hilly fields with some ponies grazing. The first gate had a sign saying "stallion". I said "Oooooh I'm so scared!" and walked on. No horse in sight in that field, in fact (though I remarked that as I thought this place bred Icelandic ponies, and that breed had been used by the vikings for the ancient sport of horse fighting, maybe they had a point). Up close to the entrance to my colleague's house, though not on his land, a couple of gate areas had been roughly fenced off with what looked like rope, with the apparent intention of preventing poaching of the gate approach. I looked for signs warning of an electric fence, but there were none. I ducked under the rope, no problem. Next thing I knew my friend was on her back on the grass, complaining loudly of having received an electric shock. Sure enough, on close inspection we could see wires running to the "rope", and hear the hum of a generator or transformer. There was a safe way through, but without any warning sign I hadn't looked closely for it.

So yesterday I phoned the cops and reported the incident, merely suggesting mildly that someone should contact the owner and ask him to put up a few warning notices. Absolutely no enquiry about what we thought we were doing there, or whether it was a "right of way" - the concept doesn't exist in Scotland. Just, "No signage, eh? We'll see to that."

I suspect the "stallion" notice was intended to deter walkers. However, the electric fencing was next to another open track approaching the fields from the road, and there really was no excuse for not having a warning of that.

I've noticed that land access in Switzerland is very free and easy too. In spite of all these guns the Swiss have in every house....

Rolfe.

[Autolite]

But the point is that in Scotland and Scandinavia, and probably other countries, there is no cultural perception of absolutely superiority and control over property owned such as to exclude others or, indeed, exercise force to remove them.

Do landowners in Scotland pay property tax???

[Architect]

Well that depends on what you mean by property tax.

Every householder in the UK pays taxes based on property values in order to support local services, and there is a broadly similar system ("business rates") for commercial properties (which might, for example, include sporting estates).

[CaptainManacles]

It would appear that the poster believes that his right to peaceful enjoyment of his property should quite lawfully over-ride a burglar's right to life, one of the reasons being the infinitesimally small chance that he's actually a Charles Manson type murdering loon.

:eye-poppi

Well, first of all, it hasn't been shown that it's an infinitesimally small chance. Statistics posted so far don't account for a number of things, such as injuries that may have been prevented by the homeowner being able to threaten leathal force or people who have broken into the house for the express purpose of causing harm. Even if you could find such numbers, the logic still doesn't wash. As pointed out by another poster, you have an infinitesimally small chance of being in a major car wreck on a short ride to the store, I would still hope you were smart enough to wear your seatbelt. And it's still possible that someone might be in an area where this risk is significantly higher, or may have other reasons for thinking the risk is higher.

The point is that they shouldn't have to be expected to take on that risk. If the burglar cares so much about his own life then he can just not break into other people's houses. I wonder the percentage of people who get injured in store robberies where the robber pulled a gun? If that number was low would it justify making it illegal to harm someone who pulled a gun in a robbery?

And it's not just a matter of my right to "enjoy my stuff" overriding someone else's right to life. I'm not saying, for example, that you can murder someone so that you'll have more space.

[Morrigan]

Noone, not even crackheads, deserves to die at the hands of a gun. Even if they are robbing your house. Even if they're raping your wife. The last 200 years of human civilisation has come to understand this - that we're better off without endorsing violence or sanctioning murder. The sooner you catch up with the rest of us, the better.
Well, I'm so glad that you are the sole arbitor of what is "civilized" and that those who kill rapists in self-defense are just murdering barbarians.

Yet as much as you like to accuse everyone else's position of being irrational, you haven't offered up one rational reason why your position is better for society in the long run. There's been a lot of accusations of psychological problems and racism, but I don't see how or why, after it has been asked numerous times, should killing to stop a rapist from raping, in a situation where police cannot be expected to respond in time, be considered morally wrong?
Why are you oppressing those poor rapists? They are just unfortunate individuals with some issues. The fact that you want to preserve your own mental and physical health and well-being over his life is not only morally wrong, it's outrageously barbaric. Didn't you know that human life is sacred (tm) and that every human being is equal in every way?

You don't think a society which values human life, encourages communality and relies on the rule of law rather than the heated decisions of armed vigilantes isn't better than the alternative you're proposing?
Human life doesn't have any intrinsic value just because you say so. It just is. What I value is a society that protects the freedom and well-being of individuals who are willing to cooperate with each others by following the laws. The moment individuals spit on the laws and values of the community and become a danger to others by injuring, raping and murdering, they forfeit this protection. That's why we remove them from society. To punish, perhaps, but more importantly, to remove the danger and hopefully prevent it from happening again. The more extreme the danger, the more extreme the removal.

that criminals aren't actually any different from you or I. People is people.
What egalitarian nonsense. I'm no different than Karla Homolka or Jeffrey Dahmer? That's pretty insulting, if anything. Other than cellular composition, I'd say I'm very, very much different than they are. In fact, I have little in common with people like that beyond being an oxygen-breathing two-legged mammal.

I don't think anyone deserves the right to take the life of another human being.
You're entitled to that opinion. But please stop saying that those who disagree with you and would like the removal of dangerous individuals (I'm not talking about teens who steal snacks, btw) from society are somehow unenlightened boors.


The second is that advocating violent responses to wrongs breeds a culture of violence and revenge and anger which does nothing to address the root causes of the problem and possibly serves to makes them worse. The third is that lots of rapists are mentally ill, and I think that advocating the killing of mentally ill people, even in the process of crime, is quite hard to justify. The forth is that sanctioning this type of behaviour encourages the carrying of offensive weapons, which seems to do little act as a deterrent, but actually increases the rate of gun deaths in the wider population.

In short, a society which sanctions murder is no kind of society at all.
Boo friggin' boo. A society that allows women to kill their rapists in the act is "unkind"? I'd rather live in this society than in one that would punish me for trying to not let my whole life, or the life of my children (if I had any), get ruined. If you want to protect the dangerous psychopaths, your call, but I'd rather society protected the lawful and innocent first.

It would appear that the poster believes that his right to peaceful enjoyment of his property should quite lawfully over-ride a burglar's right to life, one of the reasons being the infinitesimally small chance that he's actually a Charles Manson type murdering loon.

Why take *any* chance, no matter how small? Now living in Montreal I don't have a gun and don't feel the need to have one. I once argued with someone, an American, who kept a shotgun with him close to his bed at all times and I thought he was paranoid. He simply said that while the chance is low, it's still there and paying for the gun and keeping it in his house (he has no children and lives alone) was a small price, and so not an excessive precaution. I can't argue with that. It's not like a burglar has a right to be in your home. For those who think that the odds of 1% or whatever is too small to worry about, a question for you: what odds would you consider as "worthy to worry about"?

[gypsey]

while I don't really have time for this thread right now I just have to respond as both a gun owner and the victim of crime,
when I was 16 living on my own in a rural part of georgia 3 guys broke into my home,
they thought it was pure serendipity to find a young girl alone so they proceeded to throw me onto my bed for what i assume would have been a good time for all but i managed to retrieve my gun and that was the end of that and yes i shot one of them
he lived and the police were very kind to me when they got there the gentlemen in question weren't treated so kindly of course this was back in the stone age so it might have been an aberration
when i was in my 20's working alone in a convenience store on the night shift i was robbed at gun point and beaten pretty badly but i still managed to fight back without a gun and the poor guy, gentleman that he was ended up unable to ever father children, again the police were very kind to me as were the emergency room staff
so sure take my guns but if someone breaks into my home no matter their motive for doing so and they will get hurt unto death if i can
it has nothing to do with the things i own,if someone needs what i have all they have to do is ask and i will give it to them but if you are breaking into my home you will be hurt or killed
the sign on the door say's never mind the dog beware the owner:D

gypsey

[RandFan]

No, most criminals aren't actually any different from you or me. Which is what I point out in my post. Which Volatile is referring to in the post you quoted. Volitile didn't use the modifier "most" which is why I responded to HIS post.

Because you responded to a post where Volatile referred to a point that I had made.Volitile didn't use the modifier "most" which is why I responded to HIS post.


However, you have misrepresented the point that I had made...Volitile didn't use the modifier "most" which is why I responded to HIS post.

...and I felt it necessary to point out that my position had been misrepresented. Volatile didn't misrepresent my position - you did.

I was responding to volitile. He didn't use the modifier "most" and the statement he made is pure BS.

Sheesh.

Obviously you couldn't come up with an actual response to my post, else I imagine you would have posted it instead of this 'place the blame anywhere but on me' drivel.?

Well, excuse me for thinking that, as Volatile was talking about my post that you might go and bother to actually read the post under discussion. Apparently you find it better to analyse throwaway one-liners than a substantive post. I could care less. I was responding to "all people are the same" and the "people is people" nonsense. I failed to quote that so sue me.

Tell you what, I'll give you a hint. When you respond to (and misrepresent) my argument, I'll take it as a response to me. I don't give a damn who you're quoting.

If you believe that ALL people are the same then you are an idiot. You DON'T believe that which is why you used the word "most".

Get off of my case.

I was right when I responded to Volitile.

Are we straight now sport?

For crying in the ****** dark.

[CosCos]

Morrigan, thank you for your measured response to volatile's elitist, condescending, oh-so-enlightened ramblings. How somebody can have such an outlook on life and actually see that as a GOOD thing and everyone else as somehow psychotic is......

volatile's tone betrays his/her obviously privileged upbringing where everything is purely an intellectual exercise. Let me guess, 9-11 was our fault (that is if it actually wasn't our own doing) and we should have responded with peace, love, and harmony rather than war. :rolleyes:

[RandFan]

The first is one MobySeven has suggested, and that's that criminals aren't actually any different from you or I. People is people. Nonsense. Many criminals are sociopaths, lack empathy and don't care about other people. Many criminals, due to abuse and neglect or other environmental factors, get pleasure from harming other people. Humans are diverse. There is a gradient of propensity for criminal, anti-social and deviant behavior. We are not all the same and it serves no purpose to suppose that we are all the same. Personally I DON'T want to hurt other people. I WOULDN'T get pleasure from harming other people.

I've got a lot of faults but at least give me that. That's not to say that given the right circumstance I wouldn't harm another person or that circumstance couldn't influence me to be cruel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)

If you want to make an argument that what we have in common is that we are humans. That it is in our best interest to see all humans as human and to treat criminals in a humane fashion and that most if not all humans have the propensity for criminal behavior then I don't have a problem with that.

[godofpie]

I wonder, what would be the results if Gonzalez, tired of constant breaks-and-entry for snacks, had poisoned some snacks and left them in his own kitchen, and the thieves then broke in, stole the snacks, consumed them, and died? Would he face a murder charge? Or is a man's home his castle, and if he likes to store his antifreeze in Little Debbie Swiss Rolls, is that his right?

After all the break ins that I have had, I seriously considered doing something similar. It is not legal.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/booby-traps/

[volatile]

Morrigan, thank you for your measured response to volatile's elitist, condescending, oh-so-enlightened ramblings. How somebody can have such an outlook on life and actually see that as a GOOD thing and everyone else as somehow psychotic is......

volatile's tone betrays his/her obviously privileged upbringing where everything is purely an intellectual exercise. Let me guess, 9-11 was our fault (that is if it actually wasn't our own doing) and we should have responded with peace, love, and harmony rather than war. :rolleyes:

Once we've got to the stage where respect for human life is "condescending" and disdain at the eager willingness to kill other people is frowned upon, I think it's clear that my presence in this thread was futile from the beginning.

As a last word though, I'll re-iterate something I said up-thread. Imagine if everyone behaved the way some of the more trigger-happy posters in this thread behaved. Imagine if the general contempt for human life, the thirst for rapid extra-judicial vengeance became the norm and society decided that all those who would do us arm hare worthy only of death. Would the world really be a better place?

If you really want the world to be that way, then I'm sorry for you and I'm sorry for your neighbours and countrymen.

[JoeEllison]

What I find interesting is the path that this thread has taken, away from a specific case of what appears likely to have been murder, to all sorts of hypotheticals that may or may not be defined as murder.

There's the one side of it, which seems to be "if someone is in my home, I am not going to take a chance that they are going to harm me or my loved ones." Fair enough, and I feel the same way. The fact that my version of self-defense comes in the way of attempted decapitation with a katana shouldn't be held against me.

There seems to be an undercurrent of something else, something that isn't noble or about defense of anything, except maybe the ego. There are some people here who appear to be saying "we can't let criminals get away with it" which goes above and beyond self-defense, and does come closer to murder, IMO. There are some people that seem to believe that once someone "breaks the plane" of your front door, it is your right and duty to shoot them down in cold blood. That's the part that I think most people object to, not the idea of self-defense.

[JoeEllison]

Once we've got to the stage where respect for human life is "condescending" and disdain at the eager willingness to kill other people is frowned upon, I think it's clear that my presence in this thread was futile from the beginning.

As a last word though, I'll re-iterate something I said up-thread. Imagine if everyone behaved the way some of the more trigger-happy posters in this thread behaved. Imagine if the general contempt for human life, the thirst for rapid extra-judicial vengeance became the norm and society decided that all those who would do us arm hare worthy only of death. Would the world really be a better place?

If you really want the world to be that way, then I'm sorry for you and I'm sorry for your neighbours and countrymen.

Yep, there are some sick, sad people out there. I think we SHOULD pity them, that their cowardice overwhelms their compassion. :(

[godofpie]

while I don't really have time for this thread right now I just have to respond as both a gun owner and the victim of crime,
when I was 16 living on my own in a rural part of georgia 3 guys broke into my home,
they thought it was pure serendipity to find a young girl alone so they proceeded to throw me onto my bed for what i assume would have been a good time for all but i managed to retrieve my gun and that was the end of that and yes i shot one of them
he lived and the police were very kind to me when they got there the gentlemen in question weren't treated so kindly of course this was back in the stone age so it might have been an aberration
when i was in my 20's working alone in a convenience store on the night shift i was robbed at gun point and beaten pretty badly but i still managed to fight back without a gun and the poor guy, gentleman that he was ended up unable to ever father children, again the police were very kind to me as were the emergency room staff
so sure take my guns but if someone breaks into my home no matter their motive for doing so and they will get hurt unto death if i can
it has nothing to do with the things i own,if someone needs what i have all they have to do is ask and i will give it to them but if you are breaking into my home you will be hurt or killed
the sign on the door say's never mind the dog beware the owner:D

gypsey

I am sorry for these things that have happened to you, Gypsey. I too have been the victim of multiple violent crimes and I too have shot at somebody (missed, but got my point across). It seems to be very difficult for people to understand that have not been the victim of crimes that without OUR guns, we are completely powerless against those that would wish to do us harm. If someone makes me fear for my life, I will take appropriate measures. I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. As far as the OP goes, if the facts bare out that the kid was beaten and shot while on his knees, then this guy should be convicted. The accomplice's story being told days after the shooting makes me suspicious.

[Alric]

In this specific case he was outside the residence out of harm's way. He shot someone else for material property. That should be murder no matter where it happened.

He could have done so many things that would not have resulted in the death of a 13 year old boy.

1. Call the police.
2. Wait till they are gone then call the police.

I would not harm anyone for a material object of mine. Only if myself or my family are endangered I would consider engaging an assailant.

[Architect]

The point is that they shouldn't have to be expected to take on that risk. If the burglar cares so much about his own life then he can just not break into other people's houses. I wonder the percentage of people who get injured in store robberies where the robber pulled a gun? If that number was low would it justify making it illegal to harm someone who pulled a gun in a robbery?


But this is the nub of it. If we apply your domestic argument , you're suggesting that it would be acceptable for the shopkeeper to shoot first on the basis that the robber might have a gun, i.e. without establishing whether the use of a firearm is proprtional to the risk posed by the assailant.

You have, in fact, set the life of the burglar at naught and I cannot help but conclude from your posts that you believe that he has waved his rights by the mere act of forced entry.

I am minded of the Billy Connolly quote about "getting your retaliation in first".

[Architect]

while I don't really have time for this thread right now I just have to respond as both a gun owner and the victim of crime,
when I was 16 living on my own in a rural part of georgia 3 guys broke into my home,
they thought it was pure serendipity to find a young girl alone so they proceeded to throw me onto my bed for what i assume would have been a good time for all but i managed to retrieve my gun and that was the end of that and yes i shot one of them
he lived and the police were very kind to me when they got there the gentlemen in question weren't treated so kindly of course this was back in the stone age so it might have been an aberration

Clearly you have been extraordinarily unfortunate, and one can but hope that there is a flip side to the coin henceforth.

However you mistake the point. In the UK, Canada, and other countries you would probably not have been prosecuted for the actions you take because they were proportionate to the risk you faced. What is being discussed here is the extent to which such a test should apply.

[Crazycowbob]

Human life doesn't have any intrinsic value just because you say so. It just is. What I value is a society that protects the freedom and well-being of individuals who are willing to cooperate with each others by following the laws. The moment individuals spit on the laws and values of the community and become a danger to others by injuring, raping and murdering, they forfeit this protection. That's why we remove them from society. To punish, perhaps, but more importantly, to remove the danger and hopefully prevent it from happening again. The more extreme the danger, the more extreme the removal.

My sentiments exactly.

Volatile, you seem to place humanity, and human life, on a pedestal it does not deserve. Humans are given certain allowances due to our position compared to other animals, but we are still animals, with all the failings associated. While we, being the empathetic creatures that we are, generally give those who act against the good of our kind some leniance, it does not change the fact that some humans are going to be "bad".

Society is fully justified in giving a victim the right to defend themselves with the best tools available. For many people, the most affordable and powerful tool is going to be a gun, which happens to have the highest lethality rate. As less lethal weapons become more effective and affordable, you will probably see a large decline in assailant deaths. If the lives of criminals are that important to you, then help us devise a better tool.

Personally, I do not consider a rapists life worth more than the damage he can do to his victim. And even so, if the victim or a good samaritan fights him off using a gun, and he happens to die, that is not a death sentence, that is the result of a fight. Due process of law comes after the crime, at which point society can say that, maybe, he didn't deserve death, but yes, the victim was justified in fighting back in such a way that his death was likely.

[Architect]

It seems to be very difficult for people to understand that have not been the victim of crimes that without OUR guns, we are completely powerless against those that would wish to do us harm.

So Canada, the UK, mainland Europe, and the Antipodes are full of maurauding gangs proceeding with their carefree mayhem in the absence of private gun ownership, eh?

[JoeEllison]

In this specific case he was outside the residence out of harm's way. He shot someone else for material property. That should be murder no matter where it happened.

He could have done so many things that would not have resulted in the death of a 13 year old boy.

1. Call the police.
2. Wait till they are gone then call the police.

I would not harm anyone for a material object of mine. Only if myself or my family are endangered I would consider engaging an assailant.

That's a reasonable and human approach to the issue... in contrast to some other approaches we've seen. The thought "I'm not going to let you hurt me or mine" is a perfectly rational and sensible thought. "I'm not going to let you get away with entering my home" is not.

[Architect]

Society is fully justified in giving a victim the right to defend themselves with the best tools available. For many people, the most affordable and powerful tool is going to be a gun, which happens to have the highest lethality rate. As less lethal weapons become more effective and affordable, you will probably see a large decline in assailant deaths. If the lives of criminals are that important to you, then help us devise a better tool.

Again you misconstrue the point put to you. No-one is suggesting that you do not have the right the defend yourself, but rather that the degree of force you employ should be proportionate to the actual risk.

If you put up you hand and say "America is different from Canada, the UK, etc." then fair enough. But the fact that these countries operate different systems without the wholesale nightmare scenario you paint suggests that you're simply proposing a false dichotomy.

[RandFan]

Once we've got to the stage where respect for human life is "condescending" and disdain at the eager willingness to kill other people is frowned upon, I think it's clear that my presence in this thread was futile from the beginning.

As a last word though, I'll re-iterate something I said up-thread. Imagine if everyone behaved the way some of the more trigger-happy posters in this thread behaved. Imagine if the general contempt for human life, the thirst for rapid extra-judicial vengeance became the norm and society decided that all those who would do us arm hare worthy only of death. Would the world really be a better place?

If you really want the world to be that way, then I'm sorry for you and I'm sorry for your neighbours and countrymen. It's fun to attack strawmen.

Most everyone, if not everyone, has said that if this guy shot these kids in the back while they were on their knees then he deserves to go to jail.

I agree.

Your tunnel vision is what doomed you in this thread. You can stuff your sanctimonious black and white thinking. The world isn't so absolute.

[fuelair]

while I don't really have time for this thread right now I just have to respond as both a gun owner and the victim of crime,
when I was 16 living on my own in a rural part of georgia 3 guys broke into my home,
they thought it was pure serendipity to find a young girl alone so they proceeded to throw me onto my bed for what i assume would have been a good time for all but i managed to retrieve my gun and that was the end of that and yes i shot one of them
he lived and the police were very kind to me when they got there the gentlemen in question weren't treated so kindly of course this was back in the stone age so it might have been an aberration
when i was in my 20's working alone in a convenience store on the night shift i was robbed at gun point and beaten pretty badly but i still managed to fight back without a gun and the poor guy, gentleman that he was ended up unable to ever father children, again the police were very kind to me as were the emergency room staff
so sure take my guns but if someone breaks into my home no matter their motive for doing so and they will get hurt unto death if i can
it has nothing to do with the things i own,if someone needs what i have all they have to do is ask and i will give it to them but if you are breaking into my home you will be hurt or killed
the sign on the door say's never mind the dog beware the owner:D

gypsey
Sorry you had to go through what you did, and very sorry you felt you had to go through it again here. Those who have not been victims or had people they loved who were simply do not understand the mindset. I have been trying very hard not to Godwin this so I will say I wonder how they would have felt as the Huns rode across their village (and I do mean rode and across) slashing and burning. Since, obviously, the Huns were people just like them, with families and needs to be met. Weirdly, it was civilization that stomped on them though- just like in another more recent case.

To you, well done and sorry it was necessary..:):):):mad::(:(

[CosCos]

Apologies in advance for the severe thread derail, although as someone mentioned this thread has gone far from its origins anyway.

I'm curious to know what someone like volatile would have done if they were in a United 93 type situation. If we accept that all life is sacred, would you have stopped the passengers from attempting to take over the jet? Let's be honest, the only way to stop these terrorists was to kill them and I imagine the passengers knew that since they had heard about what happened in NYC and DC. Would you have stood in Todd Beamer's way and said "NO, we can't sink to such depraved levels of inhumanity"? If you are willing to stand by and watch your wife get raped to uphold your twisted "moral code," why is this situation any different?

[Drudgewire]

while I don't really have time for this thread right now I just have to respond as both a gun owner and the victim of crime,
when I was 16 living on my own in a rural part of georgia 3 guys broke into my home,
they thought it was pure serendipity to find a young girl alone so they proceeded to throw me onto my bed for what i assume would have been a good time for all but i managed to retrieve my gun and that was the end of that and yes i shot one of them
he lived and the police were very kind to me when they got there the gentlemen in question weren't treated so kindly of course this was back in the stone age so it might have been an aberration
when i was in my 20's working alone in a convenience store on the night shift i was robbed at gun point and beaten pretty badly but i still managed to fight back without a gun and the poor guy, gentleman that he was ended up unable to ever father children, again the police were very kind to me as were the emergency room staff
so sure take my guns but if someone breaks into my home no matter their motive for doing so and they will get hurt unto death if i can
it has nothing to do with the things i own,if someone needs what i have all they have to do is ask and i will give it to them but if you are breaking into my home you will be hurt or killed
the sign on the door say's never mind the dog beware the owner:D

gypsey

Thank you for putting a human face on this issue. I hate what you've been through but it looks like you're a survivor and should be extrodinarily proud of that.

And I'll echo the "well done, very sorry it was necessary" sentiment. :hug2

[Architect]

Those who have not been victims or had people they loved who were simply do not understand the mindset. I have been trying very hard not to Godwin this so I will say I wonder how they would have felt as the Huns rode across their village (and I do mean rode and across) slashing and burning. Since, obviously, the Huns were people just like them, with families and needs to be met.

I've been burgled. Someone's tried to mug me. Not in the same league as attempted rape, but strop trying to press a victim card as some sort of supertrump.

Incidentally, the question of invasion as a case for domestic firearm ownership has to be one of the most humorous things ever. Wee men with shotguns vs the army with real arms. Aye, right.

[fuelair]

, I think it's clear that my presence in this thread was futile from the beginning.

As a last word though, I'll re-iterate something I said up-thread. Imagine if everyone behaved the way some of the more trigger-happy posters in this thread behaved. Imagine if the general contempt for human life, the thirst for rapid extra-judicial vengeance became the norm and society decided that all those who would do us arm hare worthy only of death. Would the world really be a better place?

If you really want the world to be that way, then I'm sorry for you and I'm sorry for your neighbours and countrymen.
Unclear thinking, -if everyone was like we are, nobody would be raping, murdering, stealing, assaulting etc. because the people who do that would have been weeded out. If no one is engaged in crime we would all be able to put down our weapons. Nothing I am saying is countered by any historical test/situation of which I am aware. If you know a situation where a group put down/did not have weapons, did not do mean things to criminals (external or internal) and treated all who came to them with loving/kindness - and existed that way for any length of time (unless geographically seperated - in which case we amend to "for any length of time after they were located by outside humanity") without being terminated or enslaved, please enlighten me.

[JoeEllison]

Apologies in advance for the severe thread derail, although as someone mentioned this thread has gone far from its origins anyway.

I'm curious to know what someone like volatile would have done if they were in a United 93 type situation. If we accept that all life is sacred, would you have stopped the passengers from attempting to take over the jet? Let's be honest, the only way to stop these terrorists was to kill them and I imagine the passengers knew that since they had heard about what happened in NYC and DC. Would you have stood in Todd Beamer's way and said "NO, we can't sink to such depraved levels of inhumanity"? If you are willing to stand by and watch your wife get raped to uphold your twisted "moral code," why is this situation any different?

Since I don't think he said anything like that, I don't think he'd find your question worth answering... I could be wrong, of course.

[Alric]

It is unfortunate the coarse thinking some people demonstrate in this thread. Most examples proposed in this thread bear no relevance to the case in the OP.

Compare:

If you are willing to stand by and watch your wife get raped to uphold your twisted "moral code,"

To:

"sleeping outside in his shed" and "shot a 13 year old boy in the back".

Completely different situation with different appropriate responses.

[Crazycowbob]

Again you misconstrue the point put to you. No-one is suggesting that you do not have the right the defend yourself, but rather that the degree of force you employ should be proportionate to the actual risk.

If you put up you hand and say "America is different from Canada, the UK, etc." then fair enough. But the fact that these countries operate different systems without the wholesale nightmare scenario you paint suggests that you're simply proposing a false dichotomy.

Well, my post was mostly directed at Volatile who seems to feel life should never be put in jeopardy... makes me wonder how he feels about extreme sports... :D

But the issue of the proporionate response you suggest, while ideal, is kind of a sticky issue, as it puts the weight on the victim to, in a crisis, try to determine the correct force to use, and when. Not to mention, the castle doctrine is not as all encompassing as many people seem to think. It just eliminates the duty to retreat, and further defines what is considered a threat (that, and extends the rights you have in your home to your vehical). Breaking into an occupied house is considered by the law, and myself, a severe threat allowing for the maximum level of deterence. The law doesn't say shoot to kill, it just says you can use force that might kill in the removal of the threat. If you empty the clip, you may see a courtroom. If every bullet in that clip hit it's mark, you'll definitely see a courtroom. If every bullet hit the guy in the head, you're probably going to jail. As for the proportinate response, that is really only going to be viable if the victim has either enough time to make that decision, or has been trained to make it in a crisis situation. That is not an easy decision to make. I'm friends with a few officers here, and those that have been in tense situations often say that it is the training that has kept them from reflexively pulling the trigger when a criminal does something really stupid.

However, all that said, while the laws are written differently here than in say, the UK, I'd be curious to know if the actual application of them is really any different.

[CosCos]

Since I don't think he said anything like that, I don't think he'd find your question worth answering... I could be wrong, of course.

ah let the pedantry and backpedaling commence. Hasn't he been arguing that all life is worthwhile no matter who is doing what? That you can't tie that absolutist position with my flight 93 hypothetical is awfully intellectually dishonest of you.

[Drudgewire]

Completely different situation with different appropriate responses.

Any Internet discussion of guns is going to wind up that way. Thing is, with maybe two exceptions even the pro-gunners in this thread think the guy in the OP committed a crime. But then someone on one side goes off on a tangent (either "this is representative of gun owners" or "you peaceniks don't think there's any reason to defend yourself" depending on who goes there first) and we're off to the races.

But it's an issue that's got so many strong opinions it's damn near impossible to stay on track, because the first time someone says anything as a generalization someone on the other side calls them out on it and then that generalization becomes the topic for the next page. And everyone, including myself, is guilty of it.

Sometimes I miss the days when you only used the Internet for porn. :o

[Crazycowbob]

Sometimes I miss the days when you only used the Internet for porn. :o

This is your own fault for not posting more naughty pictures related to the thread. I believe something with girls and guns would be appropriate, no?

[Alric]

But then someone on one side goes off on a tangent (either "this is representative of gun owners" or "you peaceniks don't think there's any reason to defend yourself" depending on who goes there first) and we're off to the races.

In the end it won't be religion and other delusions that will kill us all. It will be lack of granularity.

For some people is just too hard.

[CosCos]

?? Alric, I don't understand your point. My quote is in response to something volatile said in post number 118 in this thread.

[Drudgewire]

This is your own fault for not posting more naughty pictures related to the thread. I believe something with girls and guns would be appropriate, no?

Thing is, how do you find sites with lots of action but still provide a bevvy of beautiful girls in this .com age that can satisfy such cravings?

:whistling

[JoeEllison]

ah let the pedantry and backpedaling commence. Hasn't he been arguing that all life is worthwhile no matter who is doing what? That you can't tie that absolutist position with my flight 93 hypothetical is awfully intellectually dishonest of you.

Your lying has already commenced. You should be ashamed of yourself.

As I read it, Volatile was complaining about the apparent bloodlust shown by certain people. You'd have to ask him to know for sure, but I would say that there is a difference between saying someone "deserves to die" and saying that someone "has to die." Also, there is cause to suspect that his viewpoint is that if you can subdue someone with non-lethal force, then you should do so.

Of course, now we're getting into speculation and mind-reading, which is a waste of time. All I can do is speak for myself, and say that I am also disturbed by the display of a bloodthirsty embrace of violence in this thread. I'm sure you'll lie again, and claim that I am against self-defense, despite my very explicit statement in favor of self-defense earlier in this thread.

Please, don't surprise me by showing any integrity... my poor heart couldn't take the shock!

[Alric]

?? Alric, I don't understand your point. My quote is in response to something volatile said in post number 118 in this thread.

I'm agreeing with you. Its either one position or the other when it is specific cases that should be discussed.

[volatile]

Sorry, whilst I promised I was leaving, I'm not going to stand around and be accused of standing by and watching rape.

What I actually said was "Noone, not even crackheads, deserves to die at the hands of a gun. Even if they are robbing your house. Even if they're raping your wife".

You see how at no point in that sentence did I say I wouldn't intervene at all? Or that I was "willing to stand by and watch your wife get raped"? I think your post was the very definition of a strawman.

Rational people can see a world of difference between "rapists do not deserve to be shot dead" and "standing by watching your wife get raped". That you cannot speaks volumes about your mindset and your attitude.

As you were, chaps.

[godofpie]

So Canada, the UK, mainland Europe, and the Antipodes are full of maurauding gangs proceeding with their carefree mayhem in the absence of private gun ownership, eh?
I don't know. Are they? Is your question rhetorical? Have you ever been the victim of a violent crime? A crime committed against you personally that caused you physical harm?

[Drudgewire]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'd much rather live in a society where I carried a gun to protect myself from a possible situation involving other guns than live somewhere where snotty teenagers feel empowered enough to run up to you on the street and slap you in the face in order to get a cell-phone video to show their friends.

For all of America's problems, Chavs will never be one of them. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/patriot.gif

[Crazycowbob]

Sorry, whilst I promised I was leaving, I'm not going to stand around and be accused of standing by and watching rape.

What I actually said was "Noone, not even crackheads, deserves to die at the hands of a gun. Even if they are robbing your house. Even if they're raping your wife".

You see how at no point in that sentence did I say I wouldn't intervene at all? Or that I was "willing to stand by and watch your wife get raped"? I think your post was the very definition of a strawman.

Rational people can see a world of difference between "rapists do not deserve to be shot dead" and "standing by watching your wife get raped". That you cannot speaks volumes about your mindset and your attitude.

As you were, chaps.

It seems by this that you support the right to fight back, so why the issue with one's choice of tool? I'm just as likely to kill someone by using a knife or club as I am with a gun, the only difference is, with a gun, I'm at a much safer distance during the fight.

[Alric]

I think you are entirely too comfortable thinking about this subject.

[volatile]

It seems by this that you support the right to fight back, so why the issue with one's choice of tool? I'm just as likely to kill someone by using a knife or club as I am with a gun, the only difference is, with a gun, I'm at a much safer distance during the fight.

Oh! I can't help myself.

Those in favour of guns always rely on this paradoxical dual logic - on the one hand a gun is utterly the best, most effective weapon for 'stopping' the bad guys quickly and effectively, and are the best 'tool' to ensure parity with those evil men lurking round every corner. That's why we must allow private gun ownership.

On the other hand, though, guns are just the same as knives and guns (and even cars in some forms of the argument!), so why is everyone so het up about them?

You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

[CosCos]

fine then, while you twist yourself into intellectual knots trying to reconcile your "enlightened" outlook with what really needs to be done as your wife is getting raped in front of you, I will have no qualms about shooting the bastard dead. Yes, the life of a crackhead raping my wife is worth nothing to me, not a thing, zip nada, zilch. Now go off, pat yourself on the back and revel in how much of a better, more civilized person that makes you than the rest of us proles.

[JoeEllison]

It seems by this that you support the right to fight back, so why the issue with one's choice of tool? I'm just as likely to kill someone by using a knife or club as I am with a gun, the only difference is, with a gun, I'm at a much safer distance during the fight.

Maybe that "safe distance" makes it a little too easy to murder people? A little too easy to make that leap from "reasonable and proportionate response" to "lethal force"?

And, maybe we should CARE about killing someone a little more than has been displayed in this thread? It doesn't mean not defending yourself if it means killing someone, or getting all teary-eyed when some rapist or murder gets killed.... it means that killing someone MATTERS, no matter how much of a scumbag they are.

[JoeEllison]

I like the line from that one movie: "people love guns because America is a land of opportunity where a poor man can become rich and a pussy can become a tough guy, if he's got a gun in his hand." This thread brings it to mind.

[Drudgewire]

I like the line from that one movie: "people love guns because America is a land of opportunity where a poor man can become rich and a pussy can become a tough guy, if he's got a gun in his hand." This thread brings it to mind.

Well, no arguments there. That said, I'd wager most of us in my gun club could give you all you wanted and then some without any weapon at all.

We carry firearms for real threats. :p

[Crazycowbob]

Oh! I can't help myself.

Those in favour of guns always rely on this paradoxical dual logic - on the one hand a gun is utterly the best, most effective weapon for 'stopping' the bad guys quickly and effectively, and are the best 'tool' to ensure parity with those evil men lurking round every corner. That's why we must allow private gun ownership.

On the other hand, though, guns are just the same as knives and guns (and even cars in some forms of the argument!), so why is everyone so het up about them?

You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

I'm not sure I see your point here. Are you saying that, bacause it is the most powerful and coincidentally most lethal tool in a long line of other tools for self defence, it cannot be included in the list? I never said they were exactly the same, no more than a knife is the same as a club. Like I said in my first post, fist, club, knife and gun, these are all tools designed specifically to cause injury, all lethal to varying degrees, and all usefull for defence in varying degrees.

If I go into the forrest to gather firewood, is it wrong for me to pick the chainsaw over the axe or handsaw, just because I might have to cut down a tree instead of cutting up a few logs? If I don't know what I'm up against, I'd much rather have too much of a tool than too little.

[volatile]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'd much rather live in a society where I carried a gun to protect myself from a possible situation involving other guns than live somewhere where snotty teenagers feel empowered enough to run up to you on the street and slap you in the face in order to get a cell-phone video to show their friends.

For all of America's problems, Chavs will never be one of them. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/patriot.gif

Yeah! That would *never* happen in the US.

Oh, wait.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1334711
http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=news/national_world&id=6067530http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2148283,00.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10963294/online_a_neverending_supply_of_gruesome_streetfigh ting/print
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2148283,00.html

[Drudgewire]

Yeah! That would *never* happen in the US.

Oh, wait.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1334711
http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=news/national_world&id=6067530http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2148283,00.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10963294/online_a_neverending_supply_of_gruesome_streetfigh ting/print
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2148283,00.html
I see no reason to click the fourth link, considering the first three yielded one adult who did it to a teenager (the opposite of chavs), a link which doesn't work, and a story about brawling which suggests two sides going at it.

Don't worry, one of these lifetimes you'll have have an actual point about the topic being discussed and not have to rely on expanding the scope to pretend you've really proven someone wrong.

But you need practice. In the meantime, just go back to making your arguments from emotion. It's still silly, but at least you can't be proven wrong that way. :rolleyes:

[volatile]

I'm not sure I see your point here. Are you saying that, bacause it is the most powerful and coincidentally most lethal tool in a long line of other tools for self defence, it cannot be included in the list? I never said they were exactly the same, no more than a knife is the same as a club. Like I said in my first post, fist, club, knife and gun, these are all tools designed specifically to cause injury, all lethal to varying degrees, and all usefull for defence in varying degrees.

If I go into the forrest to gather firewood, is it wrong for me to pick the chainsaw over the axe or handsaw, just because I might have to cut down a tree instead of cutting up a few logs? If I don't know what I'm up against, I'd much rather have too much of a tool than too little.

On the one hand, you're arguing that you can protect yourself just as well, and that knives are as useful for defending yourself, as a gun is. On the other, you're arguing that you must be allowed a gun, because nothing else is as effective.

See the problem there? When you need to defend your gun ownership against claims that it's bloodthirsty and disproportionate, you'll say that lots of things are lethal, so why single out guns. At this point, people really do bust out the "But cars kill people too!" argument.

When you need to defend your gun ownership against claims that you can defend your home without having a lethal weapon on hand, you'll claim that guns are the only effective tool, and if you weren't allowed guns, marauding gangs will rape and murder your wife unimpeded. I'm paraphrasing, of course, and by "you" I mean those on your side of the debate, but that's the essence of it.

If we accuse you of being blood-thirsty, guns really aren't all that lethal. If we then point out there are ways of impeding crime which don't involve killing the perp, you spin increasingly unlikely scenarios where a gun, being a highly effective tool for killing things with, is the only thing that'll save the day, so you'd better have one just in case. Like a seatbelt.

Two entirely contradictory defences of the same action. Can you see why we think gun ownership is irrational now?

[Autolite]

This is your own fault for not posting more naughty pictures related to the thread. I believe something with girls and guns would be appropriate, no?

I'm still trying to find a picture of a semi nude Annette Funicello brandishing an AK47. Any help would be most appreciated. Thanks...

[volatile]

I see no reason to click the fourth link, considering the first three yielded one adult who did it to a teenager (the opposite of chavs), a link which doesn't work, and a story about brawling which suggests two sides going at it.

Don't worry, one of these lifetimes you'll have have an actual point about the topic being discussed and not have to rely on expanding the scope to pretend you've really proven someone wrong.

But you need practice. In the meantime, just go back to making your arguments from emotion. It's still silly, but at least you can't be proven wrong that way. :rolleyes:

You implied that Americans, being the fine, tooled-up citizens they are, would never be subject to random assaults for the sake of the camera phone footage. Were these cases, or were they not, cases of Americans randomly attacking people just to film the attack for bragadoccio?

I realise that the real answer makes your flag-waving up-thread seem a tad premature, but never mind. I realise you're man enough to admit when you were wrong.