Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

[Kerberos]

Well--Luke did make it clear that he did nothing violent--even after a drunken stranger struck his son. I think he showed more restraint than many others would.

I think he was trying to make that point that if the threat level ESCALATED beyond that point---he would assume the man posed a clear threat to his family and he would stop it by whatever means possible..........including killing him.

And what I'm questioning is whether the situation was so dangerous as to justify lethal force. I would incidentally not necessarily have had a problem with Luke hitting him without further warning; my objection was to the "kill him" part. If you feel that the situation does justify lethal force, then I’d say you’re coming very close to granting a general right to kill, in just about any case of self-defence.

I think AUPs original intent in this post was to infer that this law was a licence for our "violent gun-crazed citizens" to kill people at will.

If that was his intend then I don't agree.

I think the law is just an attempt to allow a little more leeway towards the victim and away from the criminal in some of the grey areas like Lukes situation.

Well since the dispute in Luke's case is about whether the amount of force he said he was going to use rather than retreating the law actually wouldn't have made a difference for the purposes of this discussion (though it might have in a hypothetical prosecution if the situation had escalated).

As someone mentioned---there are many examples of injustices being done against people who were just defending themselves and behaved as any rational person would under the given circumstances.

I'm sure there are though there are also examples of the opposite. As a matter of fact the only stories of self-defence I know are horror stories either way. I could tell some of them, but half might be urban myths.

 

[Kerberos]

Did you read anything?

Sight! Why don't you quit trolling, and quote whatever I said that lead you to those highly "interesting" conclusions about my opinions on rape?

 

[Kerberos]

How do we know the criminal's intention is to steal?

That's the most common reason for burglaries, If it makes you happier you can mentally ad "in almost all cases" after purpose.

 

[merphie]

Sight! Why don't you quit trolling, and quote whatever I said that lead you to those highly "interesting" conclusions about my opinions on rape?

I said nothing about your opinion. I had commented on your ad-hominem. Which you still persist on doing.

 

[merphie]

That's the most common reason for burglaries, If it makes you happier you can mentally ad "in almost all cases" after purpose.

Is it? The definition from the FBI doesn't make this distinction. What evidence do you have for the motive behind the burglary?

 

[crimresearch]

Shanek:
"...Burglaries are in a class of crime where "there is no
force or threat of force against the victims." So burglary doesn't apply to the point being made.

Why do you keep ignoring these points?"

Because as repeatedly explained to you, burglaries are *placed* in that category for bureaucratic, not legal purposes...which does NOT mean that any event involving force or threat against a victim can't be a burglary. Burglary does apply, when a person is injured...if all the elements are met.
I've already given one common example, with the punch through the car window...

Shanek is using supertitious thinking like someone who, upon being shown a television for the first time, decides that there must be little people inside that box.

He sees the word 'burglary' in the UCR filing system, and decides that it is the only definition that can ever be used...as I predicted he would.

It would be an easy mistake for anyone to make...but not just anyone would go through all the contortions to defend their superstitions and refuse to hear the reaility that Shanek does...a true woo-woo in action.

 

[Kerberos]

I said nothing about your opinion.
right, cause it's not as if this sentence implies anything: "So it would be perfectly OK for a woman to become a unwilling sperm recipient and then just report it to police. She should have ran faster?"

I had commented on your ad-hominem. Which you still persist on doing.

Well when people persist in asking idiotic questions I tend to assume that they're either trolling or not very bright, I'm funny that way. I suppose it's also possible that just arrived from Mars in which case I offer my most sincere apologies. You next post is incidentally a case of point. To question that the purpose of most burglaries is to steal stuff rather than to kill people is patently ridiculous. Considering that you have stated that "you know that" to Shaneks assertion that 90% of all burglaries happen when nobody is home, one wonders what you think the burglars are doing, sightseeing perhaps?

 

[merphie]

Well when people persist in asking idiotic questions I tend to assume that they're either trolling or not very bright, I'm funny that way. I suppose it's also possible that just arrived from Mars in which case I offer my most sincere apologies. You next post is incidentally a case of point. To question that the purpose of most burglaries is to steal stuff rather than to kill people is patently ridiculous. Considering that you have stated that "you know that" to Shaneks assertion that 90% of all burglaries happen when nobody is home, one wonders what you think the burglars are doing, sightseeing perhaps?

You assume buglaries are mostly for the intent of stealing. What evidence do you have to support this? I am curious because it is not in the FBI definition of Burglary/Breaking and Entering. I never made any claim as to the purpose of burglaries.

I guess the idea of a criminal in the process of a bruglary with the intent on stealing would not commit any other crime while in the house.

 

[shanek]

So would I, but that is in no way inconsistent with what I said. If burglars make a successful getaway in 90% of all cases, it is still possible that any gun he might carry is 3 times more likely to be used in the remaining 10%, if the homeowner is armed (numbers are of course picked entirely at random).

I see. Thank you for clarifying. I thought you were saying across all burglaries...so it's not 3x the number of burglaries, it's 3x the number of burglaries where the burglar encountered the victim at home, right?

EDIT: it occurs to me that, if that were the case, we would see the number of murders/manslaughters go up to reflect that. In the Mississippi statistics, the murder/manslaughter rate was still much lower than the national average. So I think it's fair to say that there's no evidence that however many lives are taken by the burglar being armed are not outweighed by the lives saved by the victims being armed.

Still just speculating .

Fair enough.

 

[shanek]

I've already given one common example, with the punch through the car window...

The problem with your example is that the perpetrator in that case committed aggravated assault along with burglary. And again, the number of aggravated assaults in MI are well below the national average.

[personal insults deleted]

 

[Kerberos]

I see. Thank you for clarifying. I thought you were saying across all burglaries...so it's not 3x the number of burglaries, it's 3x the number of burglaries where the burglar encountered the victim at home, right?

Yes.

EDIT: it occurs to me that, if that were the case, we would see the number of murders/manslaughters go up to reflect that. In the Mississippi statistics, the murder/manslaughter rate was still much lower than the national average. So I think it's fair to say that there's no evidence that however many lives are taken by the burglar being armed are not outweighed by the lives saved by the victims being armed.

The data isn’t really relevant for several reasons. First of all I said that I'd expect that the weapon would be more likely to be used if the victim of the burglary was armed, but that he would be more likely to survive any fire fight that did ensue if he was armed. I didn't say whether I thought this would lead to a net increase in mortality since I really don't have any idea.
Also you statistic concerns itself with all murders, rather than just the burglary related ones. AFAIK only a very small portion of murders are burglary-related. It is entirely conceivable that there actually are more burglary related murders in Mississippi, but that this is more than outweighed by less being killed in other situations.
Also Mississippi is a single state. You pointing out that a single state with presumably looser gun laws has less murders, proves no more than me pointing out that Denmark with stricter gun laws has far less murders than either the US average or Mississippi.

 

[crimresearch]

The problem with your example is that the perpetrator in that case committed aggravated assault along with burglary. And again, the number of aggravated assaults in MI are well below the national average.

[personal insults deleted]

You don't have the faintest clue what aggravated assault is Shanek,you have just found another shiny word, and are going to use it, whether it fits or not.

Aggravated assault, involves the element of 'serious bodily injury' not found in the example given...(or do you fancy yourself to be Claus now, capable of dealing death and destruction to armed airline passengers with a single blow?).

And simple assault wouldn't get reported in the UCR over the burglary charge in the above example...but then, you have no idea how the UCR works, do you?

Got your UCR Handbook in front of you Shanek? OK, now open it to page 33...what does it say there?

The Hierarchy Rule: "In a multiple-offense situation (i.e., one where several offenses are committed at the same time and place), after classifying all Part I offenses, score only the highest ranking offense, and ignore all others, regardless of the number of offenders and victims."

You once again prove yourself utterly ignorant of the topic at hand, and perfectly willing to promote your superstitions as facts.

 

[a_unique_person]

So let's see. Someone is coming at me with brass knuckles. I have a baseball bat and a disintegration ray.

Pray tell me why I should only be allowed by prosecutors sitting in a safe building somewhere to only use the bat and not the disintegration ray?

Disintegration ray = 100% certainty I come out safely (or very close to that)

Baseball bat = 70% certainty I come out safely


In any case, let's suppose the difference was 100% for disintegration ray, and 99% for baseball bat. Why should I risk that 1% just to avoid the death of my assailant?

Come on now, I have a much more interesting scenario than that.

Someone is coming at me with a baseball bat with a geranium painted on it. I am a black belt in tai kwon doe, but my thumb is very painful due to the splinter in it. I know the mother-in-law of this person, she works as a chiropodist to the McDonalds employee at the take away place I go to every Friday evening. If I order the large fries, she makes a joke about my weight, which makes me order the diet coke. When I dring the diet coke, I throw my dog into my neighbours house, where he gets bitten on the balls, and fires his magnum .45, killing the horse that was holding the ten tonne weight which is suspended above my head.

My question is, should I go on Jerry Springer? Does he pay enough for this type of story?

 

[Jocko]

My question is, should I go on Jerry Springer? Does he pay enough for this type of story?

Sure, I think he's taping a show next week entitled, "Cross-dressing question dodgers." You'll be a star.

 

[shanek]

You pointing out that a single state with presumably looser gun laws has less murders, proves no more than me pointing out that Denmark with stricter gun laws has far less murders than either the US average or Mississippi.

Well, John Lott did the same thing across the country, in states and even municipalities. The result is that people on this forum insult him but don't do the first thing to refute his data.

But anyway, that wasn't the point. The point is that criminals themselves say that you're an idiot to commit a crime against a person in his own home in a state where no jury will convict him for shooting you. That stands unrefuted.

 

[shanek]

You don't have the faintest clue what aggravated assault is Shanek,you have just found another shiny word, and are going to use it, whether it fits or not.

Does the FBI? "An aggravated assault is an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempts involving the display or threat of a gun, knife, or other weapon are included because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed." From page 27 of Section II.

Aggravated assault, involves the element of 'serious bodily injury'

Severe or aggravated bodily injury, or the threat of it.

If you honestly do work in this area, you should switch jobs immediately.

[dishonest handwaving deleted]

 

[crimresearch]

Getting desparate Shanek? You are in mid flip-flop...going from claiming that a punch in the nose is 'aggravated assault', to quoting my own definition back to me, and pretending that you came up with it. Your complete ignorance of the FBI's Heirarchy rule, and your dismissal of my catching you in that mistake as 'handwaving' is also noted.

(And 'assault' is the offer, 'battery' is the completion of the offer...do try to get a clue).

If there were anything wrong with my work in this area, my employers, or the courts would tell me, not some superstitious woo-woo on the internet, who can't even tell the difference between a law dictionary, and the legal code, or a police officer and a sheriff.

Here is another Shanek treat for you... maybe you should wash this one down with a nice big glass of COLLOIDAL SILVER?

 

[Bjorn]

The point is that criminals themselves say that you're an idiot to commit a crime against a person in his own home in a state where no jury will convict him for shooting you. That stands unrefuted.

It stands "unrefuted" because that's not what they said, according to you. They said:

One of those is that, no criminal in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi, because no jury there would ever convict a homeowner of shooting them, regardless of what circumstances surround this.

I can hardly believe what I'm reading - you're actually cheating when quoting yourself ....

And the real claim has been refuted long ago ... they break into houses in Mississippi at a higher rate than in the nation in general.

 

[Kerberos]

Well, John Lott did the same thing across the country, in states and even municipalities. The result is that people on this forum insult him but don't do the first thing to refute his data.

Since you didn't object to the first two reasons why your data is invalid, can I presume you agree to them? As for Lott's survey wasn't that about the number of defensive gun uses, rather than cross-state comparisons of homicides?

But anyway, that wasn't the point. The point is that criminals themselves say that you're an idiot to commit a crime against a person in his own home in a state where no jury will convict him for shooting you. That stands unrefuted.

No it wasn't - that might have been the point of your discussion with Bjorn, but it is not the point of this discussion. When you comment on something I say, the issue is what I said; not what you think you've been debating with other people on the same thread.

 

[Kerberos]

It stands "unrefuted" because that's not what they said, according to you. They said:

I can hardly believe what I'm reading - you're actually cheating when quoting yourself ....

And the real claim has been refuted long ago ... they break into houses in Mississippi at a higher rate than in the nation in general.

BTW am I the only person who noticed that Shanek claims that he did not include burglary because: "Burglaries are in a class of crime where "there is no force or threat of force against the victims." So burglary doesn't apply to the point being made."" Yet he included motor vehicle theft? This is despite the fact that the part of the FBI crime report he himself quotes to justify no including burglary clearly says ""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. " Emphasis added. So Shanek, could you tell us again why you did not report Burglary numbers but did include motor vehicle theft?