Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground

[Giz]

Alright the raping your wife part is stupid and you shouldn't try to play with that loaded scenario. "He could be a rapist, better shoot now and not find out". Again killing because of your imagination is insane. You cannot expect to weasel out of that.

As for the risk/benefits thing that's also ridiculous. Shooting now because you have no idea what to expect so expecting the worst...you're going to kill someone because of that? Sir, this ship doesn't float.

How about... normally expect the best of everyone but at 3 in the morning, when your bedroom window is kicked in... expect the worst.

 

[Lowpro]

How about... normally expect the best of everyone but at 3 in the morning, when your bedroom window is kicked in... expect the worst.

Because you're doing more than just expecting the worst, you're using that expectation to just kill somebody. There is just no good argument you are making here that justifies killing because you expect the worst. You're not supposed to kill someone just because you expect the worst from them. There's no crime in this that warrants killing for. How can you actually say these things and be serious about it and avoid the fact that you're KILLING SOMEONE who hasn't done anything worth killing for(...yet*)

*I wanted to put that in there before anyone with half a witty brain beat me to it, but I don't subscribe to the thought of killing before a crime worth killing for occurs. That's a preemptive strike that's not defense.

 

[Meadmaker]

If a person breaks into my house it is entirely his responsibility to convince me to my satisfaction that he means my family no harm - it is not my job to give him the benefit of any doubt. I have every right to assume the worst until and unless the intruder can convince me otherwise. I cannot read his mind; I cannot know his intent.

Good luck with that in court.

Mr. Sailors thought that applied to his driveway as well. He's charged with murder. Under Georgia law, that carries a penalty of death or life in prison.

I'll bet he plea bargains manslaughter, and they let him.

 

[triforcharity]

Well, yes. It is quite unlikely your TV or jewelry would be used in the commission of another crime. It would be unsurprising if a gun stolen from you is used in such a manner, so the standard for securing the gun should be greater than for most other types of property since the potential danger from a stolen gun is greater.

ETA: In TX for example if a firearm is not reasonably secured and your child grabs it and fires, accidentally shooting the neighbor kid, there is a potential criminal charge against you. There is no such criminal charge if your kid grabs a bat and swings it, accidentally bashing the neighbor kid. Guns are held to a stricter standard in this instance than other kinds of property.

Of course if you leave a firearm in the reach of a child you're going to be charged with a crime, and subject to civil damages.

We're not arguing that.

We're arguing against people who legitimately have their weapons stolen, and being held responsible for the thief's actions beyond that.

 

[Lowpro]

Good luck with that in court.

Mr. Sailors thought that applied to his driveway as well. He's charged with murder. Under Georgia law, that carries a penalty of death or life in prison.

I'll bet he plea bargains manslaughter, and they let him.

It depends on what he's charged with. He didn't just murder Diaz but he also held the group up at gunpoint and prevented them from calling the paramedics. I don't know if that gets lumped in with the murder charge though.

 

[triforcharity]

In terms of the gun, it depends whether reasonable steps have been taken to secure it.

If the gun has been taken from a secure gun storage device then the homeowner has taken reasonable steps to secure it. If it has been taken from a desk drawer or picked up from an open surface then it has not.

How do you figure? It in MY LOCKED HOUSE?????

So if someone breaks into your house, and takes your car keys, your insurance company shouldn't have to pay for a new car???? Same retarded logic.

 

[Belz...]

But this one is insane to make their LIFE forfeit and just kill them. Yes an owner may not have all the information they need but THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Yes, that's what I've been saying. In the absence of a flight alternative and in the absence of assurance that no harm will come to me and my family, I will kill the intruder if I can. I don't think this is insane.

In NO OTHER WAY would we allow that kind of thought where you can kill someone BECAUSE you don't know enough.

Yes, because the situation is entirely different. You do know that the law makes provisions for different situations, right ?

The punishment has to fit the crime and an owner (A) doesn't even know of any crime OTHER than the break-in, something you shouldn't kill a person for and (B) the owner is not the arbiter of justice ANYWAYS.

Irrelevant. If you have reason to believe your life may be in danger, you need no other justification.

There is no justice in killing that intruder.

Nobody is talking about a vague concept like "justice", here.

You can't just kill people who have broken your security. You don't have to ignore them, but I mean aren't you listening to Sabretooth?! He's so ready to KILL that person instead of finding a nonlethal method.

Because he's being pragmatic and you are being idealistic. Pray tell, how would you "find" a nonlethal method, in the absence of the ability to flee ?

Alright the raping your wife part is stupid and you shouldn't try to play with that loaded scenario.

"Play" ? Are you trying to tell me that I shouldn't entertain the idea because it makes you uncomfortable to discuss it ?

"He could be a rapist, better shoot now and not find out".

Indeed. Your solution, "He could have broken into my house by accident" is much less rational.

Again killing because of your imagination is insane.

Your continued insistence to phrase it this way to make it seem more ridiculous is dishonest.

As for the risk/benefits thing that's also ridiculous.

Ridiculous as in "all human actions are based on it" ? You seem to knee-jerk against the idea at all costs, making your posts appear without substance. You're just nay-saying what others are posting. "You can't do that" is not an argument.

I mean if we swapped scenarios and put it to a burglar shooting a homeowner because the homeowner came at him in a threatening manner he'd be just as right as you think it is, and don't pretend that the whole homeowner thing nullifies a burglar's ability to consider his options JUST LIKE that homeowner does.

Yes, it does, because the burglar has commited a crime and initiated the situation in the first place. He doesn't get the same treatment. Your equivocation is devoid of sense.

 

[Belz...]

It depends on what he's charged with. He didn't just murder Diaz but he also held the group up at gunpoint and prevented them from calling the paramedics. I don't know if that gets lumped in with the murder charge though.

In Sailors' case, of course, there was no threat to his safety and no break-in, no crime, etc. Therefore his fear, and his actions, were unjustified.

 

[triforcharity]

The getaway driver probably had no intent for the clerk to be killed. They figured it was a simple stick up, but something goes wrong. The law view that this person should have foreseen that possible outcome.

If a firearm is hanging over the fireplace in your living room, or leaning in the corner of a hallway, or laying on a bedside table, it's certainly possible to foresee how that could go wrong whether by falling into the hands of a child or the hands of a criminal. It follows to me that there should be legal consequences if either of those things happen to an improperly secured firearm.

It still seems like the best of both worlds to be able to blame illegally obtained weapons for gun violence but then eschew any responsibility for one of the ways that can happen.

So, if someone breaks into your house, then your insurance company should not have to pay for any damages, because it is reasonable to conclude that having valuables inside your home, might lead to them being stolen.

Also, the stereo in your car? Yep, if it's ever stolen, you're responsible for the broken window, and the missing stereo. Not your insurance company.

Do you people all eat "Retard-O-Logic" for breakfast? Holy ****.

 

[Meadmaker]

It depends on what he's charged with.

You mean ultimately? Right now he is charged with murder. In Georgia, there's no distinction between first degree murder and second degree murder. It's just murder.

There's a lesser crime of manslaughter available.



That whole business of not allowing paramedics to be called might play a big role in whether or not they allow him to plead, I must agree. I've read a couple of different versions of the story, but if the kid he shot was bleeding in front of him, and he wouldn't let his friends use their cell phones to call 9-1-1, that's the sort of thing prosecutors and juries really might get all bent out of shape about.

And, if accounts are to be believed, he was just protecting his family. That kid was on his property and was unable to convince Mr. Sailors that he meant no harm. That defence won't work worth a darn in court.

On the other hand, if a person actually invades your home, most juries will be more sympathetic. It's a reasonable presumption that someone inside your locked house means you harm. However, all this chest thumping about how it is his job to convince me that he means no harm, and if he fails to do so I have a right to shoot him, could end up with a murder charge on you. Whether or not you are convinced is not particularly relevant. The issue would be whether a reasonable person would have felt his life was in danger, and therefore would be justified using deadly force.

 

[triforcharity]

5) This one will get panned, but abolish CCW permits. If you want to defend you home, keep your weapons there. I don't want people bringing their guns to places that I'm at. Keep them away from me and we'll be fine. Your right to carry is running into my right to be away from your weapons.

Where did you find that right? Can you elaborate where you found that? Because if so, it cuts both ways. I don't want people who are against guns, being near me. Since it's my RIGHT (as you claim) you'll now be banned from many places.

And......go!

 

[Xulld]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqIUGGQz2wM

 

[triforcharity]

See, this is what I'm getting at. Why is the sight of a gun so inherently frightening? This is what drives politicos into bad laws.

Yes, it's silly, and maybe irresponsible if the idiot has it loaded. But frightening? C'mon. Would you feel the same if it was just a regular old rifle?

It is very, very, very (did I say very) rare for a gun to just "go off". And even then, it because it's very old ammunition. Bullets don't have an infinite shelf life if not cared for properly. You'd still have a better chance of winning the lottery and being struck by lightening in the same day...twice.

I believe that everyone should be educated with the operation and use of firearms. Maybe we'd have a lot less fear-mongering and we could get to solving the real problems of society.

I wonder if he feels the same way about a cop? I mean, he's carrying a gun, and even driving around with it.

"Oh, but he's received training" will be the response.

Ok, so if I go through similar or comparable training, I should be allowed to, right?

He won't like this of course. Why, not sure. But it will be entertaining to watch either way.

 

[triforcharity]

Seeing as it takes a jury of peers who aren't biased by immediate fear and a defendant who has a case reasoned out by a capable lawyer (usually) in due process in order to legally kill someone I don't think you should have the right or the tool to bypass all that in the name of self defense. You shouldn't have the right to choose to kill on your own. We don't tolerate it when attackers do it and that should extend to defenders as well. Guns should absolutely be off the table in that choice of how you want to defend yourself. Your ability to leverage lethal force should not be made by just you unless you think summary execution is a good defense.

Wait, so, going along those same lines, when police are clearly threatened, and use a gun to defend their life, you're against that too? Same thing.

Face it. You probably suck at assessing when you can kill someone even in defense. Sailors definitely did.

Sailors did, I agree there. However, not everyone falls into that category.

 

[Unabogie]

Do you people all eat "Retard-O-Logic" for breakfast? Holy ****.

Seriously, do you have any desire to engage in dialogue? Because running around calling everyone a "retard" is not really showing it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

ETA: Actually, I'd think you'd become safer. Who the hell is going to mess with a guy carrying a AR15 down a neighborhood street?

Okay this has to be one of the dumbest thing I have seen in these threads considering that there are people in them that think it is perfectly acceptable to shoot a complete stranger through your door because they were banging on it loudly early in the morning. You really think that people who are terrified that a person knocking on the door is trying to break in would not assume that said AR-15 carrying person is a loonie about to start shooting up the street and decide that the best idea is to open fire first?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yea I did break into your house. That doesn't mean you get to shoot me. That kind of crime doesn't mean my life is forfeited, that's ridiculous. The fact that you may even THINK that you're justified to kill me is sickening. That's why kill or be killed doesn't even make sense. You would have to be in a situation that you could not escape from and you'd have to have either precognition and see the freakin' future or have the attackers intent telegraphed in such as a way that it's demonstrable that he/she was going to kill you. And you think you're able to just do that. You didn't even try earlier you just think you can shoot who breaks into your home. That's not kill or be killed, that's "trespass and die"

But it's actually worse than this, it's not even "break into my house and die" it's actually "if I think you are planning to break into my house, you die." We have seen numerous cases where home owners haven't even waited to see if the person they shot was in fact going to break in, they merely decided that they were and opened fire, and more often than not, it seems that the law backs them up. It seems that all you have to do is claim that you believed that they were going to break in and you feared for you life and you have licence to shoot anyone you want. I find it hard to believe that this is considered acceptable behaviour is a civilised society, I find it even harder that people are cheering on those sort of actions.

Seriously. I have seen people on this board claim that if someone is following you then it is acceptable to attack them. I have seen people claim that if you feel threatened by someone and they reach for their pocket, you can attack them. It seems to me that it is considered by some that if someone is walking behind you, or walks up your driveway and then reaches into his pocket, you have the right to unleash a hail of lead on them.

 

[Lowpro]

There's a lot of crap in that Belz... and you're smart enough to know that. A home invasion is not a special case or unique in any other way in that we treat it for some reason and that special treatment is not ethical. Killing someone because they're in your home against your will and you don't know the future should have massive cognitive dissonance for you but what you're doing is pretending that for some reason your home means you can just kill those people if they meet the extremely weak requirements (they're in your house against your will and you think your life is in danger). Thinking that your life is in danger isn't the same as your life being in danger and when Sabretooth said he'd just shoot the guy if he didn't leave after the count of 5 or if he reached into his pocket because that's just enough. You're going to kill someone for a possibility. Nowhere is that ethical except for this special case on self defense which isn't even defense. This special case treatment needs to stop if you're going to use it to justify killing.

As for this gem:

"Play" ? Are you trying to tell me that I shouldn't entertain the idea because it makes you uncomfortable to discuss it ?

Your rape comment was begging the question it wasn't a scenario. Rather than actually address my point that you can't kill on a hunch you instead threw in....a hunch. And you made sure it was extra classy. And if I tried to agree then that means I'd be forced to make a caveat to killing on a hunch and if I argued that would be then turned on me to say that I think you really should wait for your wife to get raped before you can actually kill him. You completely sidestep the issue of nonlethal means and resorted to that cute little ditty. That's pathetic.

And your mention that Sabretooth was being pragmatic and I'm being idealistic is complete crap. There is a certain pragmatism in killing an intruder because now he can't do anything (and I mean anything, he's dead) but there needs to be a reason to kill somebody. Sabretooth demonstrated that the idea of "Kill or be killed" is crap because he could never argue it (it's inherently illogical) and what he means is "Kill and ensure that you don't die" without actually demonstrated that he was in real danger (believing you are in danger is easy to do, hard to quantify and the guy who probably has a LOT to say on it is dead now. That's injustice. That's not even an vague understanding dude. There needs to be a lot of demonstrably proof that your life IS in danger, not that you feel it but that it IS. If the intruder came in WITH a gun damn straight shoot. But instead Sabretooth makes sure he brings his gun with him and doesn't even need tangible danger to his life, just the feeling of it, before he will kill somebody. There is dissonance in that.

The risk/benefit analysis you are caricaturing is also pathetic. That homeowner doesn't even HAVE an assessment of risk but instead opts for high risk (enough risk to warrant killing). If I am stealing your TV when I break into your house you have no assessment of physical harm to you at all, instead you decide that the situation WILL BE at the highest risk and kill me. That is not how a good risk/benefit analysis works. That is worst-case scenario and you're putting stock into it and justifying killing someone.

And you haven't demonstrated that my equivocation is devoid of sense because you didn't discuss everything in that quote. There is no magical law fairy that makes the burglar absolutely unable to react as that homeowner does when HIS life is in danger. If you think the homeowner gets a free pass on killing somebody in self defense by preemptive strike based again on a worst-case scenario imagination then that burglar is probably going to be thinking the same damned thing and the only reason we treat them differently is because we inherently design law to disenfranchise the burglar. But now we also make sure that the homeowner gets to kill him. Hell we can't even do that in a courtroom easily but you get a free pass because you've got your life on the line...maybe. You don't really know that but you feel it. I mean hell every death row inmate should be justified in killing the doctor before he pushes in the syringe, it's self defense. But I guess that guy isn't a homeowner with those kind of scruples.

Oh and ask police how they handle perps without killing them, that's nonviolent. Not freakin' rocket science.

 

[Lowpro]

Wait, so, going along those same lines, when police are clearly threatened, and use a gun to defend their life, you're against that too? Same thing.



Sailors did, I agree there. However, not everyone falls into that category.

It depends on what clearly threatened means and it's not really the same thing anyways. For example there's a fundamental difference in law on burglars robbing a store or a house. The law assumes the store burglar is only stealing and you cannot shoot them. For a home invasion the burglar is assumed to be pretty much the most murdery murderer in all of murderdome and is treated like such in defense for the homeowner. We should not foster that as an idea because it's not defense when there's so much uncertainty.

Oh I agree that not everyone falls into Sailor's category but Sabretooth definitely does in my opinion because he'd kill somebody on a weak assumption. Like I said before if someone comes in gun in hand or makes verbal threats to actually kill you/rape your wife that's a lot more of a tangible intent. At that point the burglar wrote a check and now he's about to cash it. Breaking into a house however is not a check worth killing for. You cannot strawman their intent in other words.

 

[triforcharity]

Yea I did break into your house. That doesn't mean you get to shoot me.

Yes, it does. Even the law in your state (Alabama) agree. If the occupant fears for his safety, he has the legal right to shoot to kill.

That kind of crime doesn't mean my life is forfeited, that's ridiculous.

Alabama, and most state laws, disagree.
http://www.usacarry.com/alabama_stand_your_ground_castle_doctrine_law.html

The fact that you may even THINK that you're justified to kill me is sickening.

Well, I'd suggest writing your legislatures to have Alabama Statute Section 13A-3-23 repealed. Because under that law, if someone breaks into your house, you have every right to use force, including deadly force.

That's why kill or be killed doesn't even make sense. You would have to be in a situation that you could not escape from and you'd have to have either precognition and see the freakin' future or have the attackers intent telegraphed in such as a way that it's demonstrable that he/she was going to kill you. And you think you're able to just do that. You didn't even try earlier you just think you can shoot who breaks into your home. That's not kill or be killed, that's "trespass and die"

And you would have to do the same thing to know that he is NOT going to kill you or harm you.

Trespass is not burglary. We're talking about a forcible felony.

No you can stop him by calling the cops, but you can't just outright murder him even if he's stealing your stuff. At THAT point your life isn't even in any demonstrable danger yet so kill or be killed is not even applicable at this point. Shooting me would be murder not self defense.

Alabama Statute Section 13A-3-23 disagrees.

A) that law is dumb because again it's not kill or be killed at that point; it's kill because you're afraid. If I approached you absolutely intent on kicking you in the balls the fact that you think you can jump all the way up the self-defense ladder to straight up shooting me is ridiculous. The law keeps you from being labeled a murderer which is what you'd actually be.

Where does this ball kicking take place? In public? Then yes, you'd be right. However, in my home, no, you're wrong.

B) You again are conflating lethal force with self defense as if the two are the same thing. You can defend yourself without having to kill someone and you shouldn't be killing anyways for the same reason that person approaching you in a threatening manner shouldn't kill you. Your kill or be killed logic is still paradoxical at this point.

Yes, you're right in that someone approaching you in a threatening manner in public, is not a lethal threat, and does not justify the use of a firearm in self defense. However, if someone breaks into your house, and do the same, then of course you're justified.

No if I don't want to be arrested or thrown in jail I shouldn't break into your house. The fact you think you have the right to kill me before I've done anything more than ruin your sense of safety or take your junk is actually ridiculous. I know it's easy to see a criminal's right to life as forfeit just because they broke into your house but that's honestly just wrong and unethical. That's ridiculous cowboy logic.

Just out of curiosity, have you even had your home broken into? I have. It's humiliating, and dehumanizing. Ever have it happen while you're HOME? It's downright frightening.

I mean you're the one who says you don't want guns in the hands of irresponsible owners which can only be determined after the fact which AGAIN is hilarious that you don't see the problem there but you think it's actually responsible to let people choose when to kill so easily. You're going to have to understand that self defense doesn't translate to kill or be killed. Kill or be killed would justify any robber shooting at the cops who point their guns at them in self defense.

No, not at all. You're forgetting a small portion of the law.

It states that if you're committing the offense, or another criminal activity, then you have no right to self defense.

Specifically,
"(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.
(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.
(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law." (from the above link)

Again let's look back at Sailors. Obviously he murdered Diaz. The only thing that those kids did was harm his feeling of being safe. That's not worth killing for.

I agree there. The kids committed no crime whatsoever. None. Not even trespassing, as in most states, trespassing requires an intent to commit a crime, or refusal to leave once advised to leave. And trespassing is rarely a felony. (Trespassing in a nuclear power plant is, along with a very few others. I'd bet the vault at Ft. Knox is too, but I'm not sure.