Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

[Skeptic]

As I read it, the law does not remove the requirement for appropriate level of force.

Intentionally extreme and silly hypothetical example:

A frail, 100 year old woman weighing no more than 75 pounds stands poised to push the red button marked "Kill Garrette's family." She looks at me, smiles, and says: "I'm going to push the button."

Well, how fast will it take her to push the button--that is, how immediate and severe is the threat, and how likely is it to actually kill your family?

If her finger is on it, or she could press it in a second, you are probably justified in shooting her instantly. If she is merely holding a dull knife and your family is behind a closed door, she is not a real threat and you can't shoot her.

 

[Ian Osborne]

You'd lose. Again, as I have already pointed out, 90% of burglaries in the US take place when there is nobody home.

I thought you hadn't quoted burglary statistics?

Completely contradicting the evidence, especially when that evidence has already been provided in the thread, only makes you look foolish. But then, you're good at that.

After four pages of watching you trying to make up your mind and denying clear inferences in what you said, a degree of confusion is inevitable.

 

[shanek]

I thought you hadn't quoted burglary statistics?

Either you're lying or you're not reading the thread. Which is it?

I brought up the 90% statistic AFTER other people brought up the burglary statistics. I did it to show why burglary statistics do not help them here.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Shane, is there any hair so fine you can't split it several ways? You're turning into WMT1...

 

[shanek]

Shane, is there any hair so fine you can't split it several ways? You're turning into WMT1...

Do you have anything of value to contribute to this thread? Or is it just yet another attempt to try and twist any possible thing into another attack on my character?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Do you have anything of value to contribute to this thread? Or is it just yet another attempt to try and twist any possible thing into another attack on my character?

This thread ceased to be of any value when you started splitting hairs.

 

[shanek]

This thread ceased to be of any value when you started splitting hairs.

Let's try the direct approach:

Can you explain how burglaries, 90% of which occur when no one's home, can be used as a metric of how effective an armed population allowed to defend themselves can be, whereas robberies, aggravated assaults, murders, and other crimes committed specifically against a person cannot?

 

[crimresearch]

Mission creep.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Can you explain how burglaries, 90% of which occur when no one's home, can be used as a metric of how effective an armed population allowed to defend themselves can be, whereas robberies, aggravated assaults, murders, and other crimes committed specifically against a person cannot?

You've completely lost track of the thread. You said 'no one in their right mind would break into a house in Mississippi', then disputed that burglary statistics could contradict this assertion. It was YOU who said housebreaking (and I consider 'burglary' a fair synonym here) was deterred by an armed population (well, specifically a sympathetic judicial system, but from what you said we can safely assume the armed population). Now you're saying 90% of burglaries (your word) happen when the householder is out, and burglary stats are irrelevent. Can you really not see the contradiction here?

I can't answer your question in a direct way, as assumes a position I don't hold. I contested your backtracking on housebreaking/burglary, not your stats on other crimes, though in bringing them up you certainly moved the goalposts.

 

[shanek]

OK, some supporting statements from the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report (2003):

"Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. According to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program’s definition, violent crimes involve force or threat of force." (Section II page 3)

Note: this doesn't include burglaries. And, in fact, they were the crimes I gave statistics for.

"In the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, property crime includes the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The object of the theft-type offenses is the taking of money or property, but there is no force or threat of force against the victims. The property crime category includes arson because the offense involves the destruction of property; however, arson victims may be subjected to force. Because of limited participation and varying collection procedures by local agencies, only limited data are available for arson. Arson statistics are included in trend, clearance, and arrest tables throughout Crime in the United States, but they are not included in any estimated volume data. The arson section in this report provides more information on that offense." (Section II p 33)

Note: "THERE IS NO FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE AGAINST THE VICTIMS." So it's ridiculous to use these crimes to try and examine the effects of an armed population defending itself. Note: this does include burglaries.

"Burglary is defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or a theft. The use of force to gain entry is not required to classify an offense as a burglary. Burglary in the UCR Program is categorized into three subclassifications: forcible entry, unlawful entry where no force is used, and attempted forcible entry." (Section II p 37)

So, how is it justified to use burglary to examine the effects of armed people in Mississippi defending themselves, and not to use murder/nonnegligent manslaighter, forceable rape, robbery, and aggravated assault?

Are any of you harping on and on about burglaries going to justify your position on this?

 

[crimresearch]

Gee, what an amazing coincidence...Shanek has managed to dig up a definition of burglary that matches the one I posted how many posts ago?

And still get it wrong.

Time for a Shanek treat soon I suspect.

 

[shanek]

You've completely lost track of the thread.

No, I haven't. This thread is about the effect of people using guns to defend themselves, how it's used, is it justified, etc. I made the point that

then disputed that burglary statistics could contradict this assertion.

Look at my above post. How do burglary statistics contradict this assertion, given that with burglary "there is no force or threat of force against the victims"?

It was YOU who said housebreaking (and I consider 'burglary' a fair synonym here)

I don't care what you consider fair. What about what the people who compiled the statistics contend it to be? With burglary, "there is no force or threat of force against the victims." When there is, it's robbery, rape, or whatever.

Can you really not see the contradiction here?

No, I can't. I see you desperately clinging to an invalid point because you don't want to face the issue. I see you ignoring explanations, clarifications, supporting evidence, and even direct questions to avoid this.

I can't answer your question in a direct way, as assumes a position I don't hold.

You have been making the position the whole time that burglaries involve the use of force or threat of force against a victim. You must hold that position, or else your entire position is meaningless. You must hold that position because that's the only circumstance where the armed victim can defend himself in the manner I described.

I specifically didn't use the word "burglary."

In a burglary, as defined by the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, "there is no force or threat of force against the victims."

There is with robbery, rape, etc., which are all things someone can break into a home to do other than burglary.

How are you at all justified in your line of attack against me?

 

[shanek]

Gee, what an amazing coincidence...Shanek has managed to dig up a definition of burglary that matches the one I posted how many posts ago?

And still get it wrong.

Amazing the dishonesty here...

Way back on page 2, I said, "Burglary is taking from a structure; robbery is taking from a person." The above definitions support that.

You simply said, "Entering with the intent to commit a crime." But the FBI specifically classifies burglaries in the class of crimes where "there is no force or threat of force against the victims." You specifically included "reaching in through an open window and punching an occupant," which doesn't qualify as a burglary under the FBI's definition as there is force against the victim; this would be aggravated assault.

You really can't see the difference?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Do you have any housebreaking statistics, and anything to differentiate the FBI's defenition of housebreaking and burglary?

 

[shanek]

Do you have any housebreaking statistics, and anything to differentiate the FBI's defenition of housebreaking and burglary?

The FBI doesn't have a definition of housebreaking.

Stop evading the issue and respond to the points I've raised.

 

[Ian Osborne]

The FBI doesn't have a definition of housebreaking.

Do you have anything at all to justify your statement that 'no one in his right mind breaks into a house in Mississippi', now you've rejected burglary statistics in this respect?

 

[shanek]

Ian, I have brought up numerous points, pieces of evidence, etc. I have clarified my original statement again and again and again. Do you not have any responses for that, or is all you can do is reiterate the same erroneous interpretation with no regard for any of that?

I mean, really...you're behaving like Claus Lite here.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Do you have anything at all to justify your statement that 'no one in his right mind breaks into a house in Mississippi', now you've rejected burglary statistics in this respect?

 

[crimresearch]

Amazing the dishonesty here...

Way back on page 2, I said, "Burglary is taking from a structure; robbery is taking from a person." The above definitions support that.

You simply said, "Entering with the intent to commit a crime." But the FBI specifically classifies burglaries in the class of crimes where "there is no force or threat of force against the victims." You specifically included "reaching in through an open window and punching an occupant," which doesn't qualify as a burglary under the FBI's definition as there is force against the victim; this would be aggravated assault.

You really can't see the difference?

The FBI isn't in the business of defining crimes...

They are in the business of coming up with a bureaucratic filing system to present a quantified picture to politicians and the media. (The UCR...and as I've pointed out in the past 'Uniform' has nothing to do with what cops wear).
Their classification of crimes against property and crimes against persons, has absolutely zero statutory authority...just like Black's law dictionary.

And their abbreviated filing system in no way, shape, or form, limits the legal elements of crime, which are what I actually posted:
--------------------------------------------------------
"Entering with the intent to commit a crime.

As in an unlawful or unprivileged entry into a building or other structure, with intent to commit a crime."
--------------------------------------------------------
Notice that when you read the original, instead of Shanek's altered partial quote, there is nothing about whether or not a person is present.

Bottom line, it can be a burglary when a person is present inside the structure, and the crime committed after the entry doesn't have to be limited to theft.

 

[shanek]

Bottom line, it can be a burglary when a person is present inside the structure, and the crime committed after the entry doesn't have to be limited to theft.

I never said it couldn't, and I never said it had to be. Once again, you're laboring for criticisms, and you can only do it by putting words in my mouth.