WV man standing his ground, except it wasn't his

[RenaissanceBiker]

It's got nothing to do with planning to be a victim. It is planning to get away with murder. I once had a long argument with a gun enthusiast who was actually better at making the argment than those on this forum. After we had exhausted our arguments and no one had moved on the issue, he gave himself away by fantasizing out loud about an attacker in his home and how he would stop him (dead). There was a blissful smile on his face while imagining the situation. That is when I finally understood the gun nuts.

IXP

I'm picturing you with a blissful smile as you tell that story. As long as you are willing to demonize all gun owners as "gun nuts" I'm going to have to consider your posts on this subject to be unreliable. I'm not denying that there are gun nuts, but compared to regular gun owners, they really aren't as prevalent as you believe.

 

[Cainkane1]

Responsible guns owners have been murdering a lot of people lately.

No they haven't. A responsible gun owner wouldn't shoot someone unless their lives were in danger. The man who shot those guys probably showed signs of lunacy and he should have had his weapons taken from him.

 

[Cainkane1]

As a responsible gun owner in the truest definition of the term I would never shoot a person who was on my property unless they were threatening me or my family with deadly violence. At age 67 I have never had to use my weapons in self defense although I have murdered a few tin cans and some plastic bottles.

 

[The Don]

Except the big call in the US is to ban the AR-15, not any handguns, or any bolt action rifles, or any shotguns.

IMO two things significantly influence pressure to ban things, the utility they possess and the risk they pose. You may be correct that AR-15s may present little risk (though I'm not familiar enough with model-specific gun deaths and injuries to know whether they are low risk) but somehow the perceived risk is high.

The other factor, utility, may be coming into effect with calls to ban AR15s, they are simply deemed unnecessary by those calling to ban them. They seem to be overkill for a hunting weapon and unwieldy for a personal protection weapon, they represent low-hanging fruit.

The big call in the US is to ban guns that are rarely used in crimes.

From this distance, I'm not sure where the big call is. There seems to be a vocal minority in favour of significant restrictions on handgun ownership but then again that seems to be a hot-button issues for second amendment supporters and any attempt to significantly restrict handgun ownership is simply dead in the water due to the support that the NRA manage to get.

Most burglars in the US are unarmed. Most states in the US do not allow you to kill a burglar over property alone.

But there is a clear perception of risk among people like my brother-in-law that his house is likely be stormed by multiple armed people at any time and that he and his family are permanently at risk of being attacked. This despite living and working in a nice upscale Denver suburb where, according to the local newspapers, violent crime is an exceptional occurrence which attracts lots of column inches of coverage.

Even if these two victims had been burglars, the charges would be the same, imo. The shooter had no justification to shoot burglars at a shed far away from his house.

As I've said, in this case the shooter's motives aren't clear, there is suspicion that the decision to shoot was motivated by a desire to kill two people who had bought "his" land rather than fear of an intruder.

More generally however we have people who are sufficiently frightened of armed intruders to open fire on their own family, neighbours or strangers seeking help. They too may have had no justification but fear and the ability and desire to protect themselves with deadly force led to unnecessary deaths.

Here in the UK people may be just as frightened (though I suspect on average they are not but have no figures to back this up) but because we are more prepared for the Police to maintain our safety and we are much less likely to have a firearm accessible (the few we have tend to be securely stored) then we are less likely to shoot, with tragic consequences - and yet are no more at risk from the dreaded armed marauders.

 

[Cainkane1]

Addressing IXP whose conversation with a gun owner elicited a smile from the gun owner. The thought of eliminating some home invader, rapist, thief or murderer just might bring a smile to the face of a relieved gun owner who just saved his life or the life of an innocent person.

There was a man in Texas who beat a man to death when he caught him molesting his five year old daughter. I kinda sorta smiled after hearing that story on the news. One less scumbag on the earth.

 

[The Don]

Addressing IXP whose conversation with a gun owner elicited a smile from the gun owner. The thought of eliminating some home invader, rapost, thief or murderer just might bring a smile to the face of a relieved gun owner who just saved his life or the life of an innocent person.

Unless you live in a frighteningly dangerous area, this very unlikely to happen. IMO there is an element of fantasist about the man protecting his family with his gun. In real life there are many other outcomes including the situation escalating and the homeowner or his family ending up needlessly dead, the homeowner failing to come to terms with taking a person's life (even one who was breaking into their home) or indeed a torturous legal process like poor George Zimmerman had to go through.

There was a man in Texas who beat a man to death when he caught him molesting his five year old daughter. I kinda sorta smiled after hearing that story on the news. One less scumbag on the earth.

Because vigilante justice is the right kind of justice

 

[ponderingturtle]

What bizarre logic. It seems to me that if you taught people to use the advantage of escaping when it exists, rather than deliberately ignoring it and even intentionally steering the situation toward an inescapable one, they'd never have to worry about being maliciously prosecuted by "politically motivated" DAs because they would have escaped without killing anyone.

This is allowing of course that politically-motivated prosecutors going around laying malicious charges of the sort you claim they do is actually a thing, a claim of which I'm personally rather skeptical. It smacks of the "make sure you drag him inside your house" bravado I've occasionally heard from people talking to each other about ways to kill folks they're not entirely justified in killing.

But then they would be backing down and not get the joy of ending someones life. What is the point in carrying a gun if you go out of your way to avoid using it?

 

[Checkmite]

check the recent case of the Florida woman who fired a warning shot instead of SYGing- I mentioned above. Just the latest I know of.

I think you miss the point of why a person firing a "warning shot" tends to be a prosecutable thing. The fact is that if you have the luxury of firing a warning shot - pulling the trigger solely to make noise, typically as part of a challenge, and not intending to kill or injure an alleged attacker, that indicates that you're not actively under attack and that you personally don't consider yourself at imminent risk of death where use of deadly force is necessary (because someone who really felt that way would just shoot the guy).

Hopefully you've taught your students to never fire "warning shots".

You also are (not purposively I trust) missing the advice thing. The advice is if you can't safely get past them you should (in a place with the idiot duty to retreat law and criminal penalties attached) move in a way that they move to a position that cannot possibly be said to be one a prosecutor could get away with saying would still allow you an escape (corners for you are excellent) before you shoot them. Since it needs to be VERY clear you could not get out and the prosecutor's hand ARE THEN TIED.

This is the first time I've seen the "if you can't safely get past them" part; it seems to have been left off your earlier explanations, and your last post seemed to indicate that you don't believe there's any such thing as the ability to get "safely past" an attacker - you seemed to indicate that you felt running away when given the opportunity is just too risky. If true, that would make this "if you can't safely get past them" addendum to be kind of a prevarication, wouldn't it? But whether or not, it's still problematic - if you can't safely get past them, obviously the situation is already inescapable and there's no need to waste time trying to steer the situation into an even-more-inescapable one. Every second you spend trying to somehow get the attacker to back you into a corner is a second you could be taking out your gun and shooting if a threat really exists, and a second the attacker can decide to pull out his own weapon or otherwise overpower you while you're wasting time.

Hypothetical scenario: suppose the attacker will not cooperate with the manipulation, and instead insists on deliberately leaving you an avenue of escape, or at the very least refuses to make any move to block any such avenues. Then what do you do?

The whole idea just seems like the exact opposite of self defense, deliberately increasing the danger to oneself in the actual positive hope of creating a situation where deadly force can be justified. The idea of these mysterious "politically-motivated" prosecutors who will try to convict blatant violent home-invasion victims of murder seems to me like a rationalization.

 

[Mudcat]

Wow, just wow! 2 people assasinated long distance, without warning is a minor mistake to you!? I suppuse in your world the Holocaust was just a faux pas or is this just another example of the mindset that is the"responsible" gun owner.

No, it is not just your imagination. Most gun owners I personally know cultivate a mindset of unreasonable paranoia. I go to school in a crime-ridden neighborhood known for the gangs and I'm nowhere near as uncomfortable there as when I'm around them.

 

[IXP]

People killing each other for spurious reasons with monotonous regularity is hardly a trait unique to Americans.

No not unique, but we are exceptional at it.

IXP

 

[IXP]

I'm picturing you with a blissful smile as you tell that story. As long as you are willing to demonize all gun owners as "gun nuts" I'm going to have to consider your posts on this subject to be unreliable. I'm not denying that there are gun nuts, but compared to regular gun owners, they really aren't as prevalent as you believe.

Nope, no smile at all. It saddens me that people would take pleasure in killing. And no, I don't think all gun owners are gun nuts.

Edited to add: And I do think all gun owners are at risk of taking a life unnecessarily.

IXP

 

[LTC8K6]

IMO two things significantly influence pressure to ban things, the utility they possess and the risk they pose. You may be correct that AR-15s may present little risk (though I'm not familiar enough with model-specific gun deaths and injuries to know whether they are low risk) but somehow the perceived risk is high.

The other factor, utility, may be coming into effect with calls to ban AR15s, they are simply deemed unnecessary by those calling to ban them. They seem to be overkill for a hunting weapon and unwieldy for a personal protection weapon, they represent low-hanging fruit.



From this distance, I'm not sure where the big call is. There seems to be a vocal minority in favour of significant restrictions on handgun ownership but then again that seems to be a hot-button issues for second amendment supporters and any attempt to significantly restrict handgun ownership is simply dead in the water due to the support that the NRA manage to get.



But there is a clear perception of risk among people like my brother-in-law that his house is likely be stormed by multiple armed people at any time and that he and his family are permanently at risk of being attacked. This despite living and working in a nice upscale Denver suburb where, according to the local newspapers, violent crime is an exceptional occurrence which attracts lots of column inches of coverage.



As I've said, in this case the shooter's motives aren't clear, there is suspicion that the decision to shoot was motivated by a desire to kill two people who had bought "his" land rather than fear of an intruder.

More generally however we have people who are sufficiently frightened of armed intruders to open fire on their own family, neighbours or strangers seeking help. They too may have had no justification but fear and the ability and desire to protect themselves with deadly force led to unnecessary deaths.

Here in the UK people may be just as frightened (though I suspect on average they are not but have no figures to back this up) but because we are more prepared for the Police to maintain our safety and we are much less likely to have a firearm accessible (the few we have tend to be securely stored) then we are less likely to shoot, with tragic consequences - and yet are no more at risk from the dreaded armed marauders.

There's been a large and long lasting call here in the US to ban "assault weapons" as defined by those who want them banned. The AR-15 is one such weapon. This effort is ongoing. These weapons are rarely used in crimes.

I think this guy shot two black "robbers", and wouldn't have shot two white men. I think this guy is mentally disturbed, possibly triggered by the argument over the estate.

I think we will hear more about this guy being a problem.

You have to be mentally ill to do what he did. Just like the theater murder.

I own several guns and shoot them as often as I can. Both pistols and rifles. I feel no threat from any dreaded armed marauders. Such claims are silly to me. The idea of carrying a handgun around with me is also silly to me. The idea of keeping a gun ready in my house is also silly to me. I have never done either.

I do know people who carry, and I do know people who have a gun ready in case of an intruder in their house.

I also know other gun owners like myself, who shoot as a hobby, and have no ideas of self defense with their guns.

I will say that the US is big and mostly spread out and people are often far from police help in both distance and time. There is a feeling of being on your own as far as dealing with criminals. The area that has to be covered by each county deputy is often huge.

 

[Suddenly]

I don't recall any calls to ban your basic bolt action rifles. Not sure what gun law anywhere, other than a total ban on firearms, would have prevented this guy from shooting the black "robbers" with his bolt action rifle.

If we are still with the narrative that this guy thought it was fine to shoot someone because that person was on his property, I agree the issue is not "where did that gun come from" as much as "where did that idea come from."

People do believe things like this, and the beliefs generally come mostly from the Libertarian fringe. These core beliefs are helped along a bit by media that poorly describes what things like "stand your ground" mean, and that give a sense of reality that suggests that owning a firearm is anywhere near a statistical net positive as to personal safety. It might make one feel safe, there might even be rare people in rare situations where it might be true. Usually though, if someone gets shot it is you or someone innocent by accident

On top of that unfortunate language by certain politicians, calling for "second amendment solutions" and less malignant language just trying to scare people about the government and sorry people coming to take their stuff, especially their guns.

I have no solution to any of this. No magic solution. It is an unfortunate culture of fear. I've been shot at once, had guns stuck in my face a number of times, and have had three credible death threats. I used to have an interesting job. I've never considered buying a gun, and I don't see how it would have made me any safer. I do see how it would have had made it more likely for me to kill an innocent by accident though...

 

[LTC8K6]

They seem to be overkill for a hunting weapon and unwieldy for a personal protection weapon, they represent low-hanging fruit.

An AR-15 is actually underkill in most cases for a hunting weapon. Don't know why people think it's some super power rifle.

It's actually pretty handy for a home defense weapon. It's very good in close quarters.

The shooter in this case owned an AR-15.

I carried an M16 in the Army, basically an AR-15 with select-fire.

 

[squealpiggy]

It easier perhaps to understand the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude if you're in a high crime area or rural location especially if law enforcement response isn't as quick or effective as it might be.

One of the most controversial cases in recent decades was the shooting of a burglar by a English farmer who claimed there'd been a history of robbery and that the police weren't up to scratch. Trouble was, the burglar had been shot in the back and the farmer had had his shotgun licence revoked for an earlier shooting incident.

But I think in this instance the shooter would have difficulty justifying his actions even if it were the Wild West.

Tony Martin shot the young burglar in the back as he attempted to climb a fence to escape and he used a shotgun for which he had no license, had not registered, and had bought, so he told his friends, for the express purpose of killing gypsies. It was fairly indefensible.

Yes. The fact that these people are charged and tried negates the claim of impunity.

Again it's not the law as it is applied, but the perception of what the law means. SYG was not invoked in the Trayvon Martin case but the idea that you can legally and with impunity challenge somebody safe in the knowledge that you're packing heat in case things get hairy surely had an impact on Mr Zimmerman's actions that day.

I don't recall any calls to ban your basic bolt action rifles. Not sure what gun law anywhere, other than a total ban on firearms, would have prevented this guy from shooting the black "robbers" with his bolt action rifle.

If this person had a history of psychiatric problems or violence then a Canadian style licensing system would have prevented him from being able to be armed. Canada by no means has a complete ban on guns. It just requires a license to purchase long guns and a more stringent form of license to purchase handguns and other restricted weapons. Checks are made into the applicant's background and medical history, and people close to the applicant such as their spouse or parents are asked whether the application is a concern to them. This doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of legally owned guns being misused but it does give the authorities a legal recourse against owners who display non-criminal but unstable tendencies.

There are plenty of guns in Canada but the rate of gun violence is significantly lower. Partly it's the licensing system but partly it's because Canada simply doesn't have the same gun culture as the US.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

I will say that the US is big and mostly spread out and people are often far from police help in both distance and time. There is a feeling of being on your own as far as dealing with criminals. The area that has to be covered by each county deputy is often huge.

.
Yeah, but this argument is pretty specious.

Canada and Australia both have population densities around 1/10th that of the US plus fewer police per capita. And yet you don't see too many Aussies crying about bans on semi-auto rifles or Canucks wigging out over limited-capacity magazines.

There's just a mindset in the US - more than partially reinforced by the media - that EVERYBODY will someday be the victim of a violent attack despite all evidence to the contrary. People in other countries who are even more isolated and have even less police protection don't seem to feel the same pressure to defend themselves against attack.

If Americans worried as much about heart disease and stroke as they worry about random violence we'd have a constitutional right to salad and laws permitting concealed carry of citrus fruit.

We spend 100X effort on things that might kill us versus things that actually will.

 

[LTC8K6]

.
Yeah, but this argument is pretty specious.

Canada and Australia both have population densities around 1/10th that of the US plus fewer police per capita. And yet you don't see too many Aussies crying about bans on semi-auto rifles or Canucks wigging out over limited-capacity magazines.

There's just a mindset in the US - more than partially reinforced by the media - that EVERYBODY will someday be the victim of a violent attack despite all evidence to the contrary. People in other countries who are even more isolated and have even less police protection don't seem to feel the same pressure to defend themselves against attack.

If Americans worried as much about heart disease and stroke as they worry about random violence we'd have a constitutional right to salad and laws permitting concealed carry of citrus fruit.

We spend 100X effort on things that might kill us versus things that actually will.

I wasn't actually making the argument. There are a lot more guns in the hands of criminals in the US, though. So the argument wouldn't be entirely specious and the comparisons wouldn't necessarily be valid.

I hang around a lot of gun owners and I have never felt any overall fear of crime among the group. Most of us are just target shooters.

I think it's more related to our independent streak. We don't like to be told what we can and can't do.

As stated before, it wouldn't be that simple to take people's legally owned property in the US.

Not that it wouldn't be tried, mind you.

 

[LTC8K6]

Tony Martin shot the young burglar in the back as he attempted to climb a fence to escape and he used a shotgun for which he had no license, had not registered, and had bought, so he told his friends, for the express purpose of killing gypsies. It was fairly indefensible.



Again it's not the law as it is applied, but the perception of what the law means. SYG was not invoked in the Trayvon Martin case but the idea that you can legally and with impunity challenge somebody safe in the knowledge that you're packing heat in case things get hairy surely had an impact on Mr Zimmerman's actions that day.



If this person had a history of psychiatric problems or violence then a Canadian style licensing system would have prevented him from being able to be armed. Canada by no means has a complete ban on guns. It just requires a license to purchase long guns and a more stringent form of license to purchase handguns and other restricted weapons. Checks are made into the applicant's background and medical history, and people close to the applicant such as their spouse or parents are asked whether the application is a concern to them. This doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of legally owned guns being misused but it does give the authorities a legal recourse against owners who display non-criminal but unstable tendencies.

There are plenty of guns in Canada but the rate of gun violence is significantly lower. Partly it's the licensing system but partly it's because Canada simply doesn't have the same gun culture as the US.

This isn't Canada though, as you pointed out.

You can't legally and with impunity challenge anyone under SYG as far as I know. And SYG is hardly the law of the land.

If people don't have a regular doctor, as is the the case often, what would be in a medical background check related to a firearm purchase? I see my doctor once a year for a physical. Who would know if I were mentally ill?

If I haven't seen a psychiatrist or such, what would my medical records have to do with a gun purchase?

If I take zoloft, will the purchase be denied? I doubt it.

Why would my regular doctor know anything about my secret obsessions?

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

As stated before, it wouldn't be that simple to take people's legally owned property in the US.

.
It's actually very simple. You just tax it out of existence.

Witness the relative scarcity of short barrelled shotguns now that a tax stamp is required. Don't want people having .50-cal long guns? Put a $25/round tax on the ammo and forbid reloading by anyone without an FFL. Don't like removable stocks? Just add a $500 stamp per receiver so equipped. That won't completely get rid of those weapons, but it'll drop the ownership rate pretty dramatically.

The taxing authority of Congress is its most powerful hammer. It's easy for Congress to effectively eliminate almost anything it wants to just by making such things too expensive for almost anybody to own. It's not about method, it's about political will.

And just to make clear, I'm actually a supporter of Second Amendment rights for philosophical reasons but I also think we're a long, long way from anything even approaching reasonable gun policy in the US.

(*And now cue counter-argument strawman about how taxing certain guns means only criminals will have certain guns, etc, etc, etc.)

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://gawker.com/man-shoots-new-neighbors-he-thought-were-stealing-from-1509601587

A West Virginia man faces two counts of murder for killing a pair of men from a distance with a rifle after he wrongly assumed they were on his land. The victims, it turns out, were his new neighbors, checking out their property for the first time.

He's being charged with 1st degree murder. Lesson here: Know your property lines!

Those other people should have been armed. They could have defended themselves.