Gun owner kills intruder, faces prison

[Alric]

As usual Stephen Colbert puts it best:

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=168449

 

[Gravy]

U.S. battle deaths, World War II: 291,557
U.S. handgun murders, 1976-2005: 292,688

Why is that so significant.

Checking into this thread for the first time in quite a while. RandFan, if you don't see that as significant, there's nothing I can say that would change your mind. I'm truly speechless.

 

[RandFan]

Checking into this thread for the first time in quite a while. RandFan, if you don't see that as significant, there's nothing I can say that would change your mind. I'm truly speechless.

This is rhetorical. It's not an argument. Gravy, I'm someone who can and does change his opinion. BTW, did you even bother to read my post?

You present a raw number of deaths as if it alone is significant. How many people have died in automobile accidents since WWII? Is that number alone significant?

U.S. battle deaths, World War II: 291,557
U.S. fatal crashes, 1994-2006: 491,200

I thought the point of skepticism was to question such things. Am I actually supposed to simply acquiesce to your world view? Really?

 

[Alric]

The callousness behind your argument is that any death is tragic. Trying to justify deaths by comparison to others is just depraved.

 

[RandFan]

The callousness behind your argument is that any death is tragic. Trying to justify deaths by comparison to others is just depraved.

Who is trying to justify deaths? Where? Are you talking to me or Gravy? If you are talking to me then let me note that I'm not the one who first made the comparison and it is not my intent to justify anything. I'm pointing out the absurdity of looking at statistics in a vacuum. We should consider these issues with context, don't you agree?

 

[Autolite]

The matter of whether or not the threat of deadly force is justifiable for the protection of property seems to be never ending. What about a solution that would satisfy both sides of the issue? Let's assume that no one desires to kill or wound to protect their property (I know that I most certainly don't). We will assume that the majority of folks simply don't want their belongings stolen.

This being the case, why not each state initiate a monetary fund to reimburse the victims of property theft? Every tax payer would sign a statutory declaration to pronounce their status reference the "deadly force/property protection" issue. Folks opposed to the use of deadly force or the threat of deadly force, would be subject to a surtax in order to sustain the reimbursement fund and victims of property crime could make claims against the fund for compensation.

Has something like this ever been proposed or effected before? It would seem to be a "win-win" situation all around. Victims would have no legal right or moral impetus to employ deadly force, or the threat of deadly force, to protect property and folks opposed to the concept will have won a victory of sorts. I really don't understand why such an idea wouldn't work...

 

[GreyICE]

The callousness behind your argument is that any death is tragic. Trying to justify deaths by comparison to others is just depraved.

With all due respect, why? We do it all the time. We know for a fact that there are many things we could do to prevent hundreds, if not thousands of deaths each year. Why don't we? Too expensive.

And this is logical. We cannot spend $500 million on a policy that will save 19 people. There are things we could do with the money that could save more lives. Or, in other words, we can compare deaths. We decide those 19 people, whoever they are, deserve to die for the sin of being reasonably unique.

Other things we don't do because we feel they are too restrictive. We could save tens of thousands of lives by putting an electrical interlock in the seat belt that prevents the car from being active when the belt was not in the buckle. We could augment it with a belt-loop wire system and a tension gage to ensure people weren't cheating it (or at least make it difficult). According to the NHTSA we're running 55% of fatalities involve no seatbelt, 60-70% preventable with seatbelt. That's 33% of fatalities overall could be mitigated or prevented with such a system. And we could extend it to passenger and back seats with weight sensors, etc.

This would prevent at least as many deaths as any of the proposed handgun legislation. And yet somehow advocates always seem to float away from this point with emotional appeals. Some freedoms, it seems, are more worthy than others.

 

[Architect]

And yet strangely (a) we introduced legislation requiring set belts to be worn, (b) in the UK at least slap a hefty fine on anyone not wearing one or putting their kids in a child seat, and (c) didn't hear bleating about people having the "right" to decide not to wear seatbelts.

It appears that some freedoms are more worthy than others. Shooting dead a burglar seems to be one of them as far as some of you are concerned.

 

[CaptainManacles]

And yet strangely (a) we introduced legislation requiring set belts to be worn, (b) in the UK at least slap a hefty fine on anyone not wearing one or putting their kids in a child seat, and (c) didn't hear bleating about people having the "right" to decide not to wear seatbelts..

Obviously you weren't listening very closely. A large number of people take issue with seat belt and helmet laws.

 

[nightwind]

Jury

Well, periodically something like this happens. It is very easy to get an incompetent jury, since about the only qualification is the ability to breath.

I would say this is certainly the exception than the rule. This happened a couple of years ago in a town where i live. Some teens were caught rummaging around in a owners house, and he killed one of the scumbags, and wounded a couple of more.

It was taken care of efficiently and quickly, there was no prosecution, and the scum that escaped had to face charges.

Sad any time this happens, where the victim, then becomes the victim of an incompetent justice system but the justice system.

 

[JoeEllison]

So, is this murderer behind bars yet?

 

[Architect]

Obviously you weren't listening very closely. A large number of people take issue with seat belt and helmet laws.

Speak for your own country.

 

[ServiceSoon]

This being the case, why not each state initiate a monetary fund to reimburse the victims of property theft? Every tax payer would sign a statutory declaration to pronounce their status reference the "deadly force/property protection" issue. Folks opposed to the use of deadly force or the threat of deadly force, would be subject to a surtax in order to sustain the reimbursement fund and victims of property crime could make claims against the fund for compensation.

Has something like this ever been proposed or effected before? It would seem to be a "win-win" situation all around. Victims would have no legal right or moral impetus to employ deadly force, or the threat of deadly force, to protect property and folks opposed to the concept will have won a victory of sorts. I really don't understand why such an idea wouldn't work...

How does this deter the assailant from committing a crime? Besides, most people already have personal property insurance. Why tie insurance to the possession of guns? What if somebody is poor and they can't afford insurance? Then that person has a choice 1) Right to bear arms denied by government bureaucracy 2) break the law and hope you don't get caught without mandantory government firearm insurance.

Speak for your own country.

And that is a very important difference between our two countries.

Freedom is great. You should try it sometime.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Freedom is great. You should try it sometime.

I too demand the right to die of massive head trauma.

Let freedom ring!

Super-seekrit point below:

Some freedoms aren't worth having.

 

[Ranb]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6155956 It appears the grand jury will hear the case against him this month.

Ranb

 

[Autolite]

How does this deter the assailant from committing a crime? Besides, most people already have personal property insurance. Why tie insurance to the possession of guns? What if somebody is poor and they can't afford insurance? Then that person has a choice 1) Right to bear arms denied by government bureaucracy 2) break the law and hope you don't get caught without mandantory government firearm insurance.
And that is a very important difference between our two countries.

Of course it doesn't offer any deterrent to property crime, in fact it would most likely seem to encourage theft and burglary. But creating a deterrent isn't the purpose of the concept. The idea would be to rid any notion of employing deadly force, or the threat of deadly force, to protect property.

Folks in support of the use of deadly force, signing a declaration to proclaim such, would not need to purchase theft insurance as the state would be liable to reimburse claimants using the victim's fund. The fund would be sustained by a surtax (based on income) placed on folks who sign a declaration that they do not support the use of deadly force, or the threat of deadly force, for the protection of property.

Everybody wins. People who would employ deadly force for the protection of property would no longer be justified in doing so as they would be compensated for their loss using state funds. People who are against the use of deadly force can take satisfaction in the knowledge that their taxes will prevent the potential loss of (a criminal's) life. Problem solved...

 

[Tippit]

In Laredo, a man has shot and killed an intruder and winds up indicted for 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.

How did police or the media know the thieves were only after "drinks and snacks"? Or is that all they had time to nearly get away with? How did the man defending his home know that they weren't prepared to kill him or his family? How do you know the robber wasn't running back to take a better position, or to find a weapon? How do you know the homeowner could see clearly what was going on with three intruders in his house? I guess he should be charged for first degree murder. After all, we all know that teenagers are harmless and incapable of murder.

 

[fuelair]

The matter of whether or not the threat of deadly force is justifiable for the protection of property seems to be never ending. What about a solution that would satisfy both sides of the issue? Let's assume that no one desires to kill or wound to protect their property (I know that I most certainly don't). We will assume that the majority of folks simply don't want their belongings stolen.

This being the case, why not each state initiate a monetary fund to reimburse the victims of property theft? Every tax payer would sign a statutory declaration to pronounce their status reference the "deadly force/property protection" issue. Folks opposed to the use of deadly force or the threat of deadly force, would be subject to a surtax in order to sustain the reimbursement fund and victims of property crime could make claims against the fund for compensation.

Has something like this ever been proposed or effected before? It would seem to be a "win-win" situation all around. Victims would have no legal right or moral impetus to employ deadly force, or the threat of deadly force, to protect property and folks opposed to the concept will have won a victory of sorts. I really don't understand why such an idea wouldn't work...

Actually, and with no reference to the gun thing (I doubt my views could be any clearer), the problem with that is it assumes the material stolen is replaceable. My problem is that many people have items that may actually not be replaceable (original art, materials signed by someone who is A)no longer alive and /or B) massively more expensive to get signed articles from now, items that are no longer produced - many VHS/Beta/DVD's, Books, prints, posters, etc., items that were legal (grandfathered) but can no longer be legally obtained - just as a small set of the large numbers of possibilities.) so how would your plan address that ? I do not really care (insurance is a Good Thing) if someone steals my big screen tvs, but I would blow them away over many of the items in my data collection - which I have worked long and hard to get for research - which I hope to hit really hard when I retire. I have a large number of items in the truly not replaceable category.

 

[Autolite]

My problem is that many people have items that may actually not be replaceable.

That's a good point! I hadn't considered that. Perhaps provisions could be made for some sort of supplementary compensation payments based on an item's intrinsic value. Hardly ideal but it might be a mitigation of sorts...

 

[Architect]

Freedom is great. You should try it sometime.

You know, there was a thread a month or two back where JdG was challenged to support the assertion that Western European democracies such as the UK were in some substantive manner "less free" than the USA.

Neither he, or any of the others who try and pull the "freedom" card, were able to substantiate their position.

So if you're up to it, and if you think you can support your glib soundbite, then start a thread.

In the interim, and for the avoidance of doubt, I would not consider the legal gunning down of a burglar when there was no real and imminent threat of physical harm to the occupant to be a meaningful or realistic mark of freedom. Rather, it suggests that proponents support the right to possess goods higher than the right to life. And that worries me.