Wrong door shootings.

[jeremyp]

All of these shootings would still have taken place if stand your ground laws were abolished. These shootings took place under the castle doctrine, which says you have no duty to retreat from your home or place of business when faced with a violent threat.

A boy walking up to the wrong door is not a violent threat.

A woman driving into the wrong drive is not a violent threat.

A cheerleader getting into the wrong car is not a violent threat.

The people that shot them had no duty to retreat. But there's a lot of space between not retreating and attempting to kill somebody.

 

[jimbob]

A boy walking up to the wrong door is not a violent threat.

A woman driving into the wrong drive is not a violent threat.

A cheerleader getting into the wrong car is not a violent threat.

The people that shot them had no duty to retreat. But there's a lot of space between not retreating and attempting to kill somebody.

See also newyorkguy's anecdote, which ended OK for him and his wife.

A nearly hypothermic girl, thrown out of a car by an abusive boyfriend is not a threat.

 

[Architect]

Police being (usually) unarmed is the outlier, even countries with strict gun controls like the UK still have armed police.

Just to clarify for our US posters, whilst ordinary Police in the mainland UK are not armed there are specialist Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs) for each force or division who are placed such as to meet response target times. These times are not published, for obvious reasons, but in the large cities will be just a few minutes whilst in rural areas it is a little longer.

In addition each Police Station (sometimes called a Police Office in Scotland) will have secured firearms and additional authorised firearm officers (AFOs), who may have normal duties but are able to assist.


You really don't want to go waving a gun around assuming the Police won't be able to respond in kind - it doesn't end well.

 

[jimbob]

Just to clarify for our US posters, whilst ordinary Police in the mainland UK are not armed there are specialist Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs) for each force or division who are placed such as to meet response target times. These times are not published, for obvious reasons, but in the large cities will be just a few minutes whilst in rural areas it is a little longer.

In addition each Police Station (sometimes called a Police Office in Scotland) will have secured firearms and additional authorised firearm officers (AFOs), who may have normal duties but are able to assist.


You really don't want to go waving a gun around assuming the Police won't be able to respond in kind - it doesn't end well.

And those policing likely terrorist targets are often routinely armed

 

[Norman Alexander]

Police being (usually) unarmed is the outlier, even countries with strict gun controls like the UK still have armed police.

All Australian uniformed officers are armed when on patrol. Plain clothes cops may or may not be armed, depending on the situation. And we have heavily-armed police SWAT teams like other countries, who "arrive" on especially bad guys.

 

[Hercules56]

A boy walking up to the wrong door is not a violent threat.

A woman driving into the wrong drive is not a violent threat.

A cheerleader getting into the wrong car is not a violent threat.

The people that shot them had no duty to retreat. But there's a lot of space between not retreating and attempting to kill somebody.

Still has nothing to do with the fact that Stand Your Ground laws are about interactions in public while Castle Doctrine is about interactions at your home or workplace. Even the most Liberal of states have Castle Doctrine laws.

Plus Stand Your Ground laws do not allow the use of deadly force unless there is a reasonable fear that deadly force is being used against you.

 

[bruto]

A boy walking up to the wrong door is not a violent threat.

A woman driving into the wrong drive is not a violent threat.

A cheerleader getting into the wrong car is not a violent threat.

The people that shot them had no duty to retreat. But there's a lot of space between not retreating and attempting to kill somebody.

Indeed, there's a huge difference between retreating from your home and simply shutting the damned door. The law that allows you to protect yourself from someone committing a crime is not a law that allows you to kill anyone you think might be going to. I think these cases come less under the heading of castle doctrine and more under that of lethal booby traps.

 

[JoeMorgue]

All Australian uniformed officers are armed when on patrol. Plain clothes cops may or may not be armed, depending on the situation. And we have heavily-armed police SWAT teams like other countries, who "arrive" on especially bad guys.

I don't think a lot of foreign peeps "get" just HOW armed American police can be. It's not at all uncommon to see a highway patrol man kitted out with an AR-15 and body armor to do traffic stops.

Our SWAT teams are paramilitary units in everything but name a lot of the time.

Aranas Pass, Texas has a population of 7,941 people and an area of 52 square miles.

It also has an ******* Police MRAP.

https://i0.wp.com/police.aptx.gov/w...G_0833.jpeg?resize=1024,768&quality=100&ssl=1

An MRAP. A goddamn MRAP. A Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Armored Truck. I rode one of these in Afghanistan.

THIS IS NOT NORMAL.

 

[Darat]

I don't think a lot of foreign peeps "get" just HOW armed American police can be. It's not at all uncommon to see a highway patrol man kitted out with an AR-15 and body armor to do traffic stops.

Our SWAT teams are paramilitary units in everything but name a lot of the time.

Aranas Pass, Texas has a population of 7,941 people and an area of 52 square miles.

It also has an ******* Police MRAP.
https://i0.wp.com/police.aptx.gov/w...G_0833.jpeg?resize=1024,768&quality=100&ssl=1

An MRAP. A goddamn MRAP. A Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Armored Truck. I rode one of these in Afghanistan.

THIS IS NOT NORMAL.

What happens if they have to go to a hostile site, like say a school with armed 6 year olds? How do they know they won't be ambushed by the 5 year olds or travel over landmines planted by the kindergarten kids?

 

[Hercules56]

Indeed, there's a huge difference between retreating from your home and simply shutting the damned door. The law that allows you to protect yourself from someone committing a crime is not a law that allows you to kill anyone you think might be going to. I think these cases come less under the heading of castle doctrine and more under that of lethal booby traps.

Castle Doctrine says you have no duty to retreat from your home or place of work, when faced with violence. You are also allowed to use deadly violence to stop a criminal but ONLY if you have a reasonable fear that deadly violence is about to be used against you or another.

If your fear of deadly violence is ridiculous or absurd, your use of deadly violence is criminal.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What happens if they have to go to a hostile site, like say a school with armed 6 year olds? How do they know they won't be ambushed by the 5 year olds or travel over landmines planted by the kindergarten kids?

Or bombarded by lethal basketballs.

Dave

 

[Hercules56]

What happens if they have to go to a hostile site, like say a school with armed 6 year olds? How do they know they won't be ambushed by the 5 year olds or travel over landmines planted by the kindergarten kids?

Nothing wrong with police being heavily armed and protected when responding to a criminal with a gun.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Nothing wrong with police being heavily armed and protected when responding to a criminal with a gun.

"Sounds of children screaming removed."

 

[Steve]

Nothing wrong with police being heavily armed and protected when responding to a criminal with a gun.

Of course. An MRAP is always appropriate if there might be a gun involved.

 

[lobosrul5]

I don't think a lot of foreign peeps "get" just HOW armed American police can be. It's not at all uncommon to see a highway patrol man kitted out with an AR-15 and body armor to do traffic stops.

Our SWAT teams are paramilitary units in everything but name a lot of the time.

Aranas Pass, Texas has a population of 7,941 people and an area of 52 square miles.

It also has an ******* Police MRAP.

https://i0.wp.com/police.aptx.gov/w...G_0833.jpeg?resize=1024,768&quality=100&ssl=1

An MRAP. A goddamn MRAP. A Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Armored Truck. I rode one of these in Afghanistan.

THIS IS NOT NORMAL.

When people say "defund the police" this... THIS is what is meant, at least what I mean. <checks notes> An MRAP costs about $500,000. 500k for a town that size is a huge chunk of their budget. And yes, I do realize that the town probably got it from the federal government for free. But... that capital could've been better used in another manner... give it to ******* Ukraine(?!). Instead the local PD gets a cool ride, thats all it will ever be used for.

 

[Hercules56]

Of course. An MRAP is always appropriate if there might be a gun involved.

Naa, that's overkill.

 

[jeremyp]

Still has nothing to do with the fact that Stand Your Ground laws are about interactions in public while Castle Doctrine is about interactions at your home or workplace. Even the most Liberal of states have Castle Doctrine laws.

I didn't say it had anything to do with stand your ground laws. I was responding to this:

These shootings took place under the castle doctrine, which says you have no duty to retreat from your home or place of business when faced with a violent threat.

I was pointing out that there was no violent threat in any of these cases. Neither the SYG law nor the "castle doctrine" apply.

So why did these people shoot other people that were no threat to them? A man decided that a teenage boy approaching his front door was a bigger threat to him than the potential consequences of a murder charge. Why is that? Somehow they have got the impression that it's acceptable to shoot people that invade your space. It isn't acceptable. SYG laws and the castle doctrine send the wrong message. Even if they don't explicitly make it legal, they still send a message to certain people that it is OK.

 

[jeremyp]

Naa, that's overkill.

Literally.

 

[Hercules56]

I didn't say it had anything to do with stand your ground laws. I was responding to this:



I was pointing out that there was no violent threat in any of these cases. Neither the SYG law nor the "castle doctrine" apply.

So why did these people shoot other people that were no threat to them? A man decided that a teenage boy approaching his front door was a bigger threat to him than the potential consequences of a murder charge. Why is that? Somehow they have got the impression that it's acceptable to shoot people that invade your space. It isn't acceptable. SYG laws and the castle doctrine send the wrong message. Even if they don't explicitly make it legal, they still send a message to certain people that it is OK.

I definitely disagree that CD laws send the wrong message. Even the most Liberal states have them. Its not our fault that some people are trigger-happy maniacs who dont understand the law.

Why should I not have the right to use deadly force against an intruder with a gun or knife in my home?

If you have both illegally entered my home so as to commit a crime AND you are threatening me or someone else with a deadly weapon, you're kinda asking to get shot.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Of course. An MRAP is always appropriate if there might be a gun involved.

Yeahbut, the bad guys will be up in a tower block with anti-tank missiles and will blast it, just before being defeated by a bloke in a mucky vest and bleeding bare feet.

I saw that in a documentary.

"Just be careful out there!"