Author Topic: More "self-defense" nonsense  (Read 6675 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
More "self-defense" nonsense
« on: May 02, 2014, 12:02:04 AM »
http://missoulian.com/news/local/charging-document-missoula-man-waited-up-to-shoot-kid/article_f7551102-cf0e-11e3-9619-001a4bcf887a.html


I'm just curious to see if anyone cares to justify or stand by this guys decision. I don't know how you can't see this as a direct result of the gun culture of this country, and the belief that you have the right to "stand your ground" or "defend your castle" from everything and anything. This guy obviously thought he was legally in his right to shoot someone invading his property, regardless of circumstances, and the fact that he practically set up a bait and trap for anyone who might walk by. This is quite clearly deliberate, and the fact that we even allow for a legal excuse of this is digusting.

Seriously, go buy a can of bear spray. That shit stops a grizzly bear, I think it's more than enough to defend yourself from any crazy, burglar or just hormonal teenager who wants to cause a little mischief. There are plenty of non lethal ways of protecting yourself, and the culture we have in this country just leads to senseless deaths and the sick mentality displayed by Kaarma. This doesn't even really have anything to do with guns, gun ownership or anything like that - but rather the culture we have and spread in this country whereby things like this happen.

And frankly, I don't see how the kid has any place in this discussion. This isn't about his poor decision making or what kind of punishment he should have recieved. It's about Kaarma and his perverted sense of vigilantism and trying to take the law into his own hands. That debate can be had without discussing Dede, which is essentially blaming the victim, and as far as I'm concerned, has no place in this discussion. I'd appreciate it if Dede, good, bad, etc., we left out of this debate, so that we could simply debate Kaarma, his decision making, and what led him to the decisions he made.



Online orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9306
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2014, 05:54:11 AM »
I don't know what the kid was doing there but the whole luring a potential burglar into their house screams intent to harm. The fact that he fired 4 shots without even checking to see what was going on pushes aside any notion that they were simply trying to see who was attempting to rob them and then calling the cops.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Gender: Male
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2014, 07:14:33 AM »
I don't want to click that link at work, so I don't know exactly which story it is, but here are two comments I made yesterday on other sites;

Quote
“"Brady descended the basement stairs first, and Smith shot him three times, saying "You're dead." He dragged the body to another room and waited until Kifer followed, and he shot her. "You're dying," he told her, according to the audio recording."

This isn't defense. This is the fulfillment of the sick desire to kill someone and be a self proclaimed hero that our founding fathers would have been proud of.

Absolutely disgusting.”


Quote
“If you have time to set a trap and patiently wait for KIDS (we all did stupid stuff in our teen years), then you have plenty of time to alert authorities before hand and have them arrested instead.”

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18872
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #3 on: May 02, 2014, 08:17:26 AM »
Well, let's wait and see if and when they charge the guy for this before railing about his right to defend himself. Like the article said, you have to know what your target is and what's behind it, and unless you're an FBI sniper they're going to string you up if you kill somebody without knowing those two things. Just because the media and the guy's lawyer want to start throwing around the castle doctrine doesn't mean that it actually applies here.

And let's be clear, so-called castle doctrines don't give you the right to shoot somebody in your home; this isn't Springfield. They instill a presumption of innocence in such cases which I have no problem with. While I've said all along that I don't think a person should be killed for burglary, I still have a hard time faulting the homeowner rather than the burglar. My guess is that the guy gets charged and a jury determines his fate. I have no problem with that. Personally, I hope he goes away for a while.

And never take a can of bear spray to a gunfight.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25841
  • Gender: Male
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #4 on: May 02, 2014, 09:39:28 AM »
The problem here is that there is no way of knowing what someone's intent is when they enter your house and prepare to rob you.  It's easy to write it off as mischief, but what if someone does this with a loaded gun and is prepared to shoot anyone who tries to stop him?  Again, if someone is willing to rob you, God knows what else they are willing to do.  What if Kaarma, instead of shooting first and asking questions later, had ordered the guy to stop immediately and a packing Dede opened fire on him?  Then we'd be talking about what a shame it is that a homeowner lost his life while simply trying to protect his home from a criminal. 

Having said all of that, I won't be surprised if he does some time, and I won't have a problem with it if he does. 

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10381
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #5 on: May 02, 2014, 12:56:25 PM »
Most of you who frequent P/R know that I'm about as big of "gun rights" supporter there is. I don't see the need for me to state 'my' argument for again...it's probably know.

That being said, if what is reported in this article is true then there are a couple things that are deeply disturbing. The first one that disturbes me the most is that this guy would be firing a gun into a 'dark' garage without knowing who/what was in there. That is just outright highly irresponsible. Any responsible, diligent gun owner knows that outside of the first 'rule' of firearm ownership (always have your weapon pointed in a 'safe' direction)...the second most important rule to follow is ALWAYS verify your target! You NEVER fire your weapon without knowing what you are firing at. It should be fairly simple to understand why you don't, but judging from the details of this report this man doesn't sound like he's a responsible gun owner.

 Secondly, if these two indeed did 'set a trap'...that is concerning as well. That is some twisted state of mind to do such a thing. I'd never gamble with any of my family members lives like that and take a chance on luring the 'wrong' person. Again, I can only go off the article but if what is reported is true.....I'd find it difficult to argue the Castle Doctrine defense. I don't know how 'scared for your life' you can be when you're the one who essentially "called" the intruder in. Unfortunately, its instances like this that makes those of us who are responsible gun owners cringe because of how it makes the whole of us look.


  Sheavo, I can't agree with you on the 'non lethal' approach when/if I were to confront an intruder in my home. Like Kev brought up....there's just no way to know if they'd have a gun or any other weapon and could get to me before I get to them. Besides, if after I rack a shell into my 12 gauge (that's an intimidating sound).....and whomever has broken in to my house hears that from the top of my steps along with me yelling down to them that I have a gun and will protect my family.....and still thinks it's a good idea to stick around, well.....I will protect my family. I know I've had some poor choice of wording from time to time in these type of debates....but contrary to what I may have led any of you to believe I really don't want to ever have to shoot and kill anyone. I think that'd be a very last resort where either my life or my wife or kids lives were at stake.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18872
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #6 on: May 02, 2014, 01:37:04 PM »
Well, that's three of the four pro-gun posters on this forum calling the guy an ass-hat, and I don't see Bosk defending the guy, so that's pretty much that.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #7 on: May 02, 2014, 01:58:23 PM »
Well, that's three of the four pro-gun posters on this forum calling the guy an ass-hat, and I don't see Bosk defending the guy, so that's pretty much that.

That article appears to be pretty biased in terms of facts and assumptions presented, so who knows what will surface later.  But based on whta is written, you won't see me defending him anytime soon.  My feelings on the matter pretty much mirror Gary's.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25841
  • Gender: Male
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #8 on: May 02, 2014, 02:00:26 PM »
Wait, what?  Who are these four supposed pro-gun posters?

Anyway, Gary, you made a lot of good points there. :tup :tup

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18872
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #9 on: May 02, 2014, 02:30:32 PM »
Wait, what?  Who are these four supposed pro-gun posters?

Anyway, Gary, you made a lot of good points there. :tup :tup
Guess that was a bad assumption on my part. Sort of inferred it based on your post defending the right to shoot somebody in your home and your general leanings in P/R matters. Doesn't alter my point, though. The people who will generally support somebody for using deadly force when necessary won't be defending this guy, so it's really a non-issue.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #10 on: May 02, 2014, 11:34:06 PM »
Well, let's wait and see if and when they charge the guy for this before railing about his right to defend himself. Like the article said, you have to know what your target is and what's behind it, and unless you're an FBI sniper they're going to string you up if you kill somebody without knowing those two things. Just because the media and the guy's lawyer want to start throwing around the castle doctrine doesn't mean that it actually applies here.

And let's be clear, so-called castle doctrines don't give you the right to shoot somebody in your home; this isn't Springfield. They instill a presumption of innocence in such cases which I have no problem with. While I've said all along that I don't think a person should be killed for burglary, I still have a hard time faulting the homeowner rather than the burglar. My guess is that the guy gets charged and a jury determines his fate. I have no problem with that. Personally, I hope he goes away for a while.

And never take a can of bear spray to a gunfight.

I don't think you're delving deep enough into what I'm asking. Sure, this guy may end up going to prison (though that's certainly to be seen). But clearly, the guy thought he was in his legal right to do what he did. And why is that? Becuase of the way the law is written and the way recent national shootings has gone. The law was changed from saying you are within your right to legally defend yourself when the other person was being visibly and noticeably violent. An explicit threat had to be made. Now, the shooter just has to be "reasonably certain" he was threatened. That seemingly simple change hides a huge difference in how to answer that question. It makes it a matter of perspective. "I felt threatened" is enough, and not "this guy had a gun," which is backed up by evidence.

Ya, I hope this asshat goes to prison for a long time. He's the kind of person I really think deserve to be in prison. But what I'd much rather prefer is prevent this entire situation from happening again, as it has so many times over the past several years as less restrictive self-defense laws have come into the books. And the response to complaining about this growing extreme is to always point to sensible examples and reasons why we have self defense laws. Which is a complete red herring has nothing to do, as far as I'm concerned, with the issue at hand.

Except in this situation, you don't know it's a gun fight, it's a situation you're walking into, knowingly, and have set up. And in general, if bear spray is more often successful in stopping a charging grizzly bear than a gun, it's going to be more than enough to stop any human from doing, well, just about anything, for quite some time. The idea that only a gun can keep you safe from a gun is absurd.

Secondly, if these two indeed did 'set a trap'...that is concerning as well. That is some twisted state of mind to do such a thing. I'd never gamble with any of my family members lives like that and take a chance on luring the 'wrong' person. Again, I can only go off the article but if what is reported is true.....I'd find it difficult to argue the Castle Doctrine defense. I don't know how 'scared for your life' you can be when you're the one who essentially "called" the intruder in. Unfortunately, its instances like this that makes those of us who are responsible gun owners cringe because of how it makes the whole of us look.

I think some crazier things have happened in the legal system surrounding this issue in the past two years.


Quote
  Sheavo, I can't agree with you on the 'non lethal' approach when/if I were to confront an intruder in my home. Like Kev brought up....there's just no way to know if they'd have a gun or any other weapon and could get to me before I get to them. Besides, if after I rack a shell into my 12 gauge (that's an intimidating sound).....and whomever has broken in to my house hears that from the top of my steps along with me yelling down to them that I have a gun and will protect my family.....and still thinks it's a good idea to stick around, well.....I will protect my family. I know I've had some poor choice of wording from time to time in these type of debates....but contrary to what I may have led any of you to believe I really don't want to ever have to shoot and kill anyone. I think that'd be a very last resort where either my life or my wife or kids lives were at stake.

To be clear, I don't really have a legal problem with the castle doctrine, per say. If you did what you did, and you still had to shoot someone, I don't think you should be charged with a crime. But you're supposed to follow a series of steps, which you pretty much lined out, and it's something we seem to be doing away with in the legal system in this country. At least in how it's worded. Someone just has to perceive threat for it to be legal. But that's entirely too subjective and doesn't require much actual, evidence based reasons for feeling such a way. Because ya, if you yell at someone that you have a gun, and then audibly cock a shotgun, and they still come up after you (going after them is not only potentially hazardous, but I don't care what it is that you own downstairs, it's not more valuable than a persons life), that's a fairly damn threatening action. But such should always be the exception, and not the rule, so we shouldn't be writing the rules around those exceptions.


Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18872
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #11 on: May 03, 2014, 09:58:59 AM »
You raise some good points. Two things, though. Castle doctrine laws aren't there to protect asshats from doing silly things like this. They're their to protect homeowners who react justly. Remember that these laws are a response to people who acted in justifiable self defense who got hauled before juries because the law said that their obligation was to haul ass out the back door rather than to defend themselves or their family. Not sure what the civil aspect is, but there are also plenty of people who got sued by the burglars they shot for injuries suffered during their break-ins. I think you'd agree that both of these scenarios are problematic, and that's the reason why these laws exist. Not to protect crazoids. Now, if people are misinterpreting the law to act such as this guy did, well, as the old adage goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse and that's something he'll pay for.  If the law is poorly written, then that's something that can be addressed. In any case, I agree with the idea of a law that id designed to protect the "good guys" from prosecution or civil suits from the "bad guys." I also agree with punishing people who bungle the whole thing trying to be the "good guy."

And again, this case really has nothing to do with the castle doctrine. If he's going to try and hang his defense on that, then he's going to lose and rightly so.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25841
  • Gender: Male
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #12 on: May 03, 2014, 10:09:23 AM »
Wait, what?  Who are these four supposed pro-gun posters?

Anyway, Gary, you made a lot of good points there. :tup :tup
Guess that was a bad assumption on my part. Sort of inferred it based on your post defending the right to shoot somebody in your home and your general leanings in P/R matters.

Supporting someone's right to defend to themselves in their own home doesn't automatically make someone pro-gun. 

For the record, I am in favor of stricter gun laws, but don't have that kneejerk "OMG, GUNS ARE BAD! BAM THEM ALL!" reaction every time there is a gun crime, unlike a lot of people nowadays.

To be clear, I don't really have a legal problem with the castle doctrine, per say. If you did what you did, and you still had to shoot someone, I don't think you should be charged with a crime. But you're supposed to follow a series of steps, which you pretty much lined out, and it's something we seem to be doing away with in the legal system in this country. At least in how it's worded. Someone just has to perceive threat for it to be legal. But that's entirely too subjective and doesn't require much actual, evidence based reasons for feeling such a way. Because ya, if you yell at someone that you have a gun, and then audibly cock a shotgun, and they still come up after you (going after them is not only potentially hazardous, but I don't care what it is that you own downstairs, it's not more valuable than a persons life), that's a fairly damn threatening action. But such should always be the exception, and not the rule, so we shouldn't be writing the rules around those exceptions.

I would argue that a person who recklessly commits the type of crimes we are talking about - breaking into someone's home to do God knows what - doesn't value their own life very much, so why should the homeowner, who is probably looking to protect him/herself and his/her family, value it?  Again, there is no way to know what the intent is of someone who breaks into your home, so if you are upstairs and you hear home invaders downstairs, I have no problem with them doing whatever they have to do to protect themselves and their family.  And I don't think they should have to sit around and wait for the home invaders to make an aggressive move towards them to do anything.  Breaking into the house is already an aggressive move, towards the home and the people who live in it, so that ship has already sailed.  And, no, that doesn't mean I think homeowners should jump out of the shadows with guns a-blazing and start blasting at anyone and anything that moves, but they should absolutely have the right to protect themselves from anyone who has made the aggressive move of breaking into their home. 
« Last Edit: May 03, 2014, 10:15:12 AM by KevShmev »

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 7977
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #13 on: May 03, 2014, 10:21:29 AM »

I would argue that a person who recklessly commits the type of crimes we are talking about - breaking into someone's home to do God knows what - doesn't value their own life very much, so why should the homeowner, who is probably looking to protect him/herself and his/her family, value it?  Again, there is no way to know what the intent is of someone who breaks into your home, so if you are upstairs and you hear home invaders downstairs, I have no problem with them doing whatever they have to do to protect themselves and their family.  And I don't think they should have to sit around and wait for the home invaders to make an aggressive move towards them to do anything.  Breaking into the house is already an aggressive move, towards the home and the people who live in it, so that ship has already sailed.  And, no, that doesn't mean I think homeowners should jump out of the shadows with guns a-blazing and start blasting at anyone and anything that moves, but they should absolutely have the right to protect themselves from anyone who has made the aggressive move of breaking into their home.

Wow Kev....   I mean, you sure you don't want to re-word that highlighted part?  That's pretty damn cold.    We, as a people, OFTEN value people's lives more than they value their own.   It's called "compassion" and it's kinda what makes humans special.   
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25841
  • Gender: Male
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #14 on: May 03, 2014, 11:32:35 AM »

I would argue that a person who recklessly commits the type of crimes we are talking about - breaking into someone's home to do God knows what - doesn't value their own life very much, so why should the homeowner, who is probably looking to protect him/herself and his/her family, value it?  Again, there is no way to know what the intent is of someone who breaks into your home, so if you are upstairs and you hear home invaders downstairs, I have no problem with them doing whatever they have to do to protect themselves and their family.  And I don't think they should have to sit around and wait for the home invaders to make an aggressive move towards them to do anything.  Breaking into the house is already an aggressive move, towards the home and the people who live in it, so that ship has already sailed.  And, no, that doesn't mean I think homeowners should jump out of the shadows with guns a-blazing and start blasting at anyone and anything that moves, but they should absolutely have the right to protect themselves from anyone who has made the aggressive move of breaking into their home.

Wow Kev....   I mean, you sure you don't want to re-word that highlighted part?  That's pretty damn cold.    We, as a people, OFTEN value people's lives more than they value their own.   It's called "compassion" and it's kinda what makes humans special.

You're right.  I probably should have worded that better.

What I mean is this: if I am a homeowner with a family, and someone is breaking into my house, my concern is for me and my family, not the home invader.  I have zero compassion for someone who breaks into someone's house with intention of doing them harm.  It's a tough world out there nowadays, and if nothing else, we should be able to feel safe in our homes, and someone who violates that safe feeling can piss off, for lack of a better term, for all I care.  That might sound harsh, but just don't ask me to feel sorry for home invaders.  Remember that story about the doctor and his wife and children in Connecticut? Think about that for a minute.  And sure, not every home invader is gonna be as extreme and despicable as those two pieces of shit were, but, again, it is impossible to know the intent of someone who is breaking into your home.

Note: this is meant generally, not referring to the specific incident that triggered the start of this thread.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 7977
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #15 on: May 03, 2014, 02:23:41 PM »
Fair enough...   

For me personally, I just abhore the "kill or be killed" mentality that seems to permeate some people's thinking.  (not pointed at you necessarily)    I mean, I've talked to guys who are all about "mess with my family and I WILL END YOU"...and they mean it.

For me, if something was happening to my family, my primary thought would be to MAKE IT STOP.   Now, if something happened during the course of that action, and in the course of events someone died...   I mean, IDK...you're talking about a million possible scenarios and you can't just sit down all day and think about every possibility.   But I think my point is that my focus would never be on taking the life of someone.   If something was happening to my family, my focus would be on making (whatever it was) stop.   
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18872
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #16 on: May 03, 2014, 03:09:45 PM »
Fair enough...   

For me personally, I just abhore the "kill or be killed" mentality that seems to permeate some people's thinking.  (not pointed at you necessarily)    I mean, I've talked to guys who are all about "mess with my family and I WILL END YOU"...and they mean it.

For me, if something was happening to my family, my primary thought would be to MAKE IT STOP.   Now, if something happened during the course of that action, and in the course of events someone died...   I mean, IDK...you're talking about a million possible scenarios and you can't just sit down all day and think about every possibility.   But I think my point is that my focus would never be on taking the life of someone.   If something was happening to my family, my focus would be on making (whatever it was) stop.
Make it stop is exactly what you should be thinking, but would your mindset be to do the least possible to cause the trouble to stop, or whatever is necessary to guarantee that it stop now? I'm not criticizing you for your feelings, and I'm not defending the people you refer to that seem to be describing revenge (at least as you phrased it). I'm pointing out that the second option is perfectly valid, AFAIC, in that most people don't feel inclined to take a trial and error approach when the defense of loved ones is the goal.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1432
  • Gender: Male
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #17 on: May 03, 2014, 03:24:03 PM »
when the defense of loved ones is the goal.
Just quoting this since it's the last post, but I've noticed basically all the posts refer to "a homeowner with a family", "doing what's necessary to ensure his/her and his/her family's safety", and I understand that it makes the hypothetical more poignant and the motivations seem more noble. But I'm curious - do people have a different opinion on what's right / acceptable if you are just defending yourself? What if the person lives alone - does that mean they don't have the same justification to use deadly force?

I'd assume that for most people the same logic applies for self defence as for defence of your family, I'm just curious since it seems like every scenario refers to protecting your family.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18872
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #18 on: May 03, 2014, 06:40:06 PM »
While I can certainly see some scenarios where laying down my life in exchange for a stranger's would be noble, if that stranger is committing a felonious act that jeopardizes my safety all bets are off. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Gender: Male
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #19 on: May 03, 2014, 07:01:17 PM »
So I listened to the audio of this incident. I really wish I hadn't.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #20 on: May 04, 2014, 04:25:47 PM »
I would argue that a person who recklessly commits the type of crimes we are talking about - breaking into someone's home to do God knows what - doesn't value their own life very much, so why should the homeowner, who is probably looking to protect him/herself and his/her family, value it?

I'm sorry, but this kind of thought-process deeply bothers me. It seems to ignore why many people do burglarize and steal - to feed themselves and their families. That's probably not true for this teenager, who was just up to teenager mischief, but the idea that someone who steals doesn't value their own life is completely unempathetic and misunderstanding of the context whereby people steal.

I also don't see why the assumption is that someone who breaks into a house to steal valuables is somehow out to harm someone. That's a gigantic assumpt that needs to be backed up by actions the person takes.

What disturbs me more is that some people seem to think their property is more important than someone elses life. That's a severe lack of respect for life that I think is way more problematic than someone who steals someones property in order to feed themselves and their loved ones.


Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #21 on: May 04, 2014, 04:28:49 PM »
You raise some good points. Two things, though. Castle doctrine laws aren't there to protect asshats from doing silly things like this. They're their to protect homeowners who react justly. Remember that these laws are a response to people who acted in justifiable self defense who got hauled before juries because the law said that their obligation was to haul ass out the back door rather than to defend themselves or their family. Not sure what the civil aspect is, but there are also plenty of people who got sued by the burglars they shot for injuries suffered during their break-ins. I think you'd agree that both of these scenarios are problematic, and that's the reason why these laws exist. Not to protect crazoids. Now, if people are misinterpreting the law to act such as this guy did, well, as the old adage goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse and that's something he'll pay for.  If the law is poorly written, then that's something that can be addressed. In any case, I agree with the idea of a law that id designed to protect the "good guys" from prosecution or civil suits from the "bad guys." I also agree with punishing people who bungle the whole thing trying to be the "good guy."

And again, this case really has nothing to do with the castle doctrine. If he's going to try and hang his defense on that, then he's going to lose and rightly so.

I think the fact that we've seen a recent spurt of such things in this country indicates that we're doing something wrong. Laws ahve been changed, wordings have been changed, and we've given too much power and authority to self-righteous asshats.

As far as the civil aspects, how many of those cases actually win? I've heard of a couple, but again, those are probably the exception - and at any rate, loss of property (money) is a hell of a lot more moral than the loss of life.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Gender: Male
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #22 on: May 04, 2014, 04:34:18 PM »
I would argue that a person who recklessly commits the type of crimes we are talking about - breaking into someone's home to do God knows what - doesn't value their own life very much, so why should the homeowner, who is probably looking to protect him/herself and his/her family, value it?

I'm sorry, but this kind of thought-process deeply bothers me. It seems to ignore why many people do burglarize and steal - to feed themselves and their families. That's probably not true for this teenager, who was just up to teenager mischief, but the idea that someone who steals doesn't value their own life is completely unempathetic and misunderstanding of the context whereby people steal.

I also don't see why the assumption is that someone who breaks into a house to steal valuables is somehow out to harm someone. That's a gigantic assumpt that needs to be backed up by actions the person takes.

What disturbs me more is that some people seem to think their property is more important than someone elses life. That's a severe lack of respect for life that I think is way more problematic than someone who steals someones property in order to feed themselves and their loved ones.

This and then some.

When I was a teen, we'd steal dvd's from Blockbuster, candy from Rite Aid, Hustler magazines from 7/11, or gnomes out of peoples' gardens. As illegal as it may have been, I would have never deserved being shot four times for it. That's just absolutely disgusting. Oh, someone kid is on my lawn being a teenage idiot. I better kill him.

Has anyone else heard the audio?

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18872
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #23 on: May 04, 2014, 05:15:07 PM »
When I was a teen, we'd steal dvd's from Blockbuster, candy from Rite Aid, Hustler magazines from 7/11, or gnomes out of peoples' gardens. As illegal as it may have been, I would have never deserved being shot four times for it. That's just absolutely disgusting. Oh, someone kid is on my lawn being a teenage idiot. I better kill him.
How'd ya get them from out behind the counter?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18872
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #24 on: May 04, 2014, 05:27:54 PM »
I think the fact that we've seen a recent spurt of such things in this country indicates that we're doing something wrong. Laws ahve been changed, wordings have been changed, and we've given too much power and authority to self-righteous asshats.
Have we?


And to address the point people keep making, nobody's going to shoot you for stealing from a 7/11. Most citizens aren't going to shoot you for steeling their stereo, and the few who would will likely wind up facing charges. Plenty of people will shoot you for being inside their home with unknown but almost certainly bad intentions. I can tell you with complete certainty that I'm not going to kill somebody for stealing my shit. I'm very confident that applies to the other (now) two pro-gun people here. If you wind up in any of our houses when you don't belong you'd better get plenty docile in a big freaking hurry, though. People are making it out to be that those who would shoot a burglar are doing so because they have no value for the lives of others. While that certainly applies to some people, most are approaching it from the other angle; that their own life (or those of others) is just more valuable. It really is a matter of self-defense.

To Scheavo, Chino and JD I'll pose a question. If somebody is burglarizing a house in the middle of the night, should the presumption be that he is or isn't a threat until he demonstrates either behavior?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #25 on: May 04, 2014, 05:47:40 PM »
The presumption should be that he's there to steal things until actions say otherwise. A threat made. A weapon brandished. Threats ignored. The idea that someone in your house is automatically out to get you is a tad paranoid. Either way, if such is the case, I'd say setting up on top of the stairs or behind a door is the safest thing for you to do, as well as the most fair to someone else.

And I guess I can't say for sure if there has been a surge. What there certainly has been is coverage of such events, which I would imagined emboldened Kaarma to do what he did. There's been more and more cases like this that make the news, and as shitty as the news is, it's something I would imagine would always be covered, because it's always been as shitty and sensational. It's not as if 10 years ago, the media would have just laid off this story. I think it's fair to point to the changing self-defense laws Republicans have pushed through, and the increase in number of media stories related to those laws and how batshit crazy some of them have been.


Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Gender: Male
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #26 on: May 04, 2014, 05:49:03 PM »
When I was a teen, we'd steal dvd's from Blockbuster, candy from Rite Aid, Hustler magazines from 7/11, or gnomes out of peoples' gardens. As illegal as it may have been, I would have never deserved being shot four times for it. That's just absolutely disgusting. Oh, someone kid is on my lawn being a teenage idiot. I better kill him.
How'd ya get them from out behind the counter?

They are on the same magazine rack as everything else!!

I think the fact that we've seen a recent spurt of such things in this country indicates that we're doing something wrong. Laws ahve been changed, wordings have been changed, and we've given too much power and authority to self-righteous asshats.
Have we?

To Scheavo, Chino and JD I'll pose a question. If somebody is burglarizing a house in the middle of the night, should the presumption be that he is or isn't a threat until he demonstrates either behavior?

An unannounced intruder is one thing, you have no clue what their intentions are, and you're gut reaction is to make sure you don't die. This guy had been robbed, he knew all they were after was loot. He wasn't surprised, startled, or even questioning their motive. He makes it clear in the tape that he saw them as vermin and not people. He did not feel threatened (physically anyway), he just wanted blood. Burglarizing my house in the middle of the night assumes I didn't anticipate anyone being there.

So, personally... If I had a gun and woke up in the middle of the night to an introducer I wasn't expecting, I'd grab it and try to avoid conflict at all costs. From there, it's a crap shoot as to what would happen next. If I had been previously robbed, and expected another one, I'd set a trap, but I'd set up trail cameras and let them grab something out of my garage. Or better yet, once I knew the cameras got them, I'd make a loud noise hoping they'd leave without taking anything. I'd then spam the internet with it and hand it over to authorities.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4958
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #27 on: May 04, 2014, 06:12:27 PM »
The presumption should be that he's there to steal things until actions say otherwise.

That is easier for us males to say then females. Females get their houses broken in to much more often for more than just material theft.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10381
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #28 on: May 04, 2014, 07:03:43 PM »
The presumption should be that he's there to steal things until actions say otherwise. A threat made. A weapon brandished. Threats ignored. The idea that someone in your house is automatically out to get you is a tad paranoid. Either way, if such is the case, I'd say setting up on top of the stairs or behind a door is the safest thing for you to do, as well as the most fair to someone else.

I'm not willing to risk my life/health or any of my families lives or well being presuming that someone who has illegally entered my home is there just to take my TV. I'm sorry but that's giving entirely too much trust to someone performing a criminal act. Now, there may be statistics and it may be the case that the majority of home intrusions are theft related.....but I am not going to assume and hope.

Like EB said....I'm not going to shoot someone who's trying to take my TV. I've essentially detailed my defense once I'm alerted to an intruder. I'm not charging down the steps going 'hunting' and I'm not looking to end someone's life. What I will do is loudly announce my intentions....make sure they hear the shotgun shell being chambered in the barrel with that distinctive 'rack'....and stand at the top of the stairs between them and my family. If someone decides it better not to leave the way they came and and they still decide that they want to come upstairs and stick their head around the corner.....well, I'm sorry but I think I'd have to shoot.

In a situation where they'd already made it upstairs before I was alerted....that gets dicey and dangerous because they'd be in my families 'zone' or space. It'd be close quarters and honestly there's no yelling threats and hoping they run away. If I did hear them upstairs and knew they were upstairs off the bat my shotgun stays put because that blast radius of the shotgun shell could inadvertently injure one of my kids or wife. I'm grabbing my .45 and spotlight and praying that they've ran or that they aren't violating one of my family members. Either way, I'm confident I have the safe guards in place to be alerted before they could make it upstairs.

And I guess I can't say for sure if there has been a surge. What there certainly has been is coverage of such events, which I would imagined emboldened Kaarma to do what he did. There's been more and more cases like this that make the news, and as shitty as the news is, it's something I would imagine would always be covered, because it's always been as shitty and sensational. It's not as if 10 years ago, the media would have just laid off this story. I think it's fair to point to the changing self-defense laws Republicans have pushed through, and the increase in number of media stories related to those laws and how batshit crazy some of them have been.


There are just as many instances if not more of homeowners protecting themselves within the law and they aren't reported because it's not sensational enough. No one wants to hear about the guy who shot and killed an intruder who was trying to stab him or molest his daughter. That's not a story because the guy 'deserved' it. It's only a story when some a$$hat like this does what he does.....and I know for a fact you'll disagree.....but it's a story because the network news stations are very anti gun. Anyway, I doubt there's much of a surge.....there's just a bigger deal made about it now.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #29 on: May 04, 2014, 09:43:31 PM »
GM:

I'm not sure with what lense you're reading my posts in, but it's very innaccurate. You're basically arguing against some stereotype liberal you've projected in your mind, and aren't dealing with what I'm putting forward.

So you say you're not running down the stairs going hunting, and stay at the top of hte stairs. That's great. Notice how that's exactly what I said is perfectly fine with me? Why then, are you responding as if I'm saying you're running down your stairs? Why then, are you responding as if I'm saying you, or most gun owners, are like that? I put in my first post about how this isn't about gun ownership. Fuck, I live in Montana. I think I'd live in another state if I was worried about gun ownership.

I don't know why you're creating a false dichotomy between saying our laws have gone too far, and no laws at all. I'll just quote myself, because I think I put it rather well the first time, and it doesn't appear to have been read:

Ya, I hope this asshat goes to prison for a long time. He's the kind of person I really think deserve to be in prison. But what I'd much rather prefer is prevent this entire situation from happening again, as it has so many times over the past several years as less restrictive self-defense laws have come into the books. And the response to complaining about this growing extreme is to always point to sensible examples and reasons why we have self defense laws. Which is a complete red herring has nothing to do, as far as I'm concerned, with the issue at hand.


Quote
  Sheavo, I can't agree with you on the 'non lethal' approach when/if I were to confront an intruder in my home. Like Kev brought up....there's just no way to know if they'd have a gun or any other weapon and could get to me before I get to them. Besides, if after I rack a shell into my 12 gauge (that's an intimidating sound).....and whomever has broken in to my house hears that from the top of my steps along with me yelling down to them that I have a gun and will protect my family.....and still thinks it's a good idea to stick around, well.....I will protect my family. I know I've had some poor choice of wording from time to time in these type of debates....but contrary to what I may have led any of you to believe I really don't want to ever have to shoot and kill anyone. I think that'd be a very last resort where either my life or my wife or kids lives were at stake.

To be clear, I don't really have a legal problem with the castle doctrine, per say. If you did what you did, and you still had to shoot someone, I don't think you should be charged with a crime. But you're supposed to follow a series of steps, which you pretty much lined out, and it's something we seem to be doing away with in the legal system in this country. At least in how it's worded. Someone just has to perceive threat for it to be legal. But that's entirely too subjective and doesn't require much actual, evidence based reasons for feeling such a way. Because ya, if you yell at someone that you have a gun, and then audibly cock a shotgun, and they still come up after you (going after them is not only potentially hazardous, but I don't care what it is that you own downstairs, it's not more valuable than a persons life), that's a fairly damn threatening action. But such should always be the exception, and not the rule, so we shouldn't be writing the rules around those exceptions.





Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #30 on: May 04, 2014, 09:48:56 PM »
The presumption should be that he's there to steal things until actions say otherwise.

That is easier for us males to say then females. Females get their houses broken in to much more often for more than just material theft.

And so? Because a woman might feel more scared, she has a right to kill someone? That's a very dangerous door to open.

The presumption should still be on what is the more likley outcome and reason. The same actions should still be made. "Hey, I have a gun, and if you come in here, I'm going to use it." If someone comes in, well, feel free to shoot at him.

Though personally, I'd rather have pepper or bear spray. If I'm all jittery and scared, I'm likely to be innaccurate with the gun. Bear spray, well, sprays. It would also mean the asshat wh ocame into the room is now in a shitload of pain, and probably isn't going to be going anywhere easily. Meaning when the cops show up, they have someone they can arrest. And maybe, then, a rapist is off the streets - or if our system was ran better, an out of luck person could be rehabilitated.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25841
  • Gender: Male
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #31 on: May 04, 2014, 10:30:58 PM »
I would argue that a person who recklessly commits the type of crimes we are talking about - breaking into someone's home to do God knows what - doesn't value their own life very much, so why should the homeowner, who is probably looking to protect him/herself and his/her family, value it?

I'm sorry, but this kind of thought-process deeply bothers me. 

And I have since clarified what I really meant, so I am not sure why you felt the need to quote that post.

It seems to ignore why many people do burglarize and steal - to feed themselves and their families. 

Oh, so we are supposed to feel sorry for and take it easy on the criminals now, because they are really just good people who are trying to support their families, right?

Besides, I'd love to know what utopia you are living in where these home invading criminals are really just poor souls who are looking to feed their families.



I also don't see why the assumption is that someone who breaks into a house to steal valuables is somehow out to harm someone. That's a gigantic assumpt that needs to be backed up by actions the person takes.
 

Once they take the action of breaking into someone's home, they lose the benefit of the doubt.  Read my earlier post about how it is impossible to know the intent of a home invader.

And if you are thinking that a homeowner should wait till they do more before acting, that is absurd.  In many cases, it would be too late.  "Hey, he just pulled out a gun and shot my 9-year old daughter to death, so I guess now I'll do what I have to do to defend the rest of us who are still living." 


What disturbs me more is that some people seem to think their property is more important than someone elses life. That's a severe lack of respect for life that I think is way more problematic than someone who steals someones property in order to feed themselves and their loved ones.

If you* owned a 200K house, for example, I suspect you would consider that more important and valuable than a home invader who was gonna rob you and possibly do harm to you and your family.  I don't think it's unreasonable to think that way.

*I mean a general "you," not you specifically.

The presumption should be that he's there to steal things until actions say otherwise. A threat made. A weapon brandished. Threats ignored. The idea that someone in your house is automatically out to get you is a tad paranoid. Either way, if such is the case, I'd say setting up on top of the stairs or behind a door is the safest thing for you to do, as well as the most fair to someone else.
 

This is horse hockey. 

We are supposed to be fair now to home invaders now?  Really??  Yeah, just hide behind a door and hope to God that they leave with just some of your valuables.  Good luck with that.

Again, the minute someone breaks into your home, they lose the benefit of the doubt.  A homeowner defending their home is a job hazard home invaders should be aware of.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #32 on: May 04, 2014, 11:04:18 PM »
I love how people insist on attacking some straw man. You're response is targetted at someone who said never shoot at someone to defend yourself, which is something I have never once said. Good grief.

Quote
Oh, so we are supposed to feel sorry for and take it easy on the criminals now, because they are really just good people who are trying to support their families, right?

I didn't realize spraying someone with bear spray, and throwing them in prison, is "feeling sorry for them." Excuse me for thinking that killing someone for doing something that most of us would do in the same situation is a tad wrong.

Quote
Besides, I'd love to know what utopia you are living in where these home invading criminals are really just poor souls who are looking to feed their families.

It's not a utopia, it's the real world. Which is such a non-utopia, that many people are left with no real options, no way out, and are funneled towards life of crime. There's a ton of other reasons, but you should really check it out before you judge someone too harshly. Empathy, it's a helluva thing.

Quote

And if you are thinking that a homeowner should wait till they do more before acting, that is absurd.  In many cases, it would be too late.  "Hey, he just pulled out a gun and shot my 9-year old daughter to death, so I guess now I'll do what I have to do to defend the rest of us who are still living." 

I like how you somehow started with him already being within range of your 9 year old daughter. Does he have magical teleportation technology?


Quote
If you* owned a 200K house, for example, I suspect you would consider that more important and valuable than a home invader who was gonna rob you and possibly do harm to you and your family.  I don't think it's unreasonable to think that way.

Is this home invader going to somehow walk away with the whole house (including property, which is probably just as valuable as all the construction)? Do I somehow not have cell phone available to call the police to come and break up the events? Plus, a 200k house, at least around here, is basically anything that stands. You could own a 200k house and still be rather poor and not have a whole lot worth stealing. Not to mention you would be smart to have insurance to insure those valuables, so it's not really much of a loss to you if he does steal the TV.

And I still don't see how increasing the value of property makes it more valuable than human life. You're just doubling down on what I'm objecting to.

Quote
We are supposed to be fair now to home invaders now?  Really??  Yeah, just hide behind a door and hope to God that they leave with just some of your valuables.  Good luck with that.

As before, I really can't read this sentence and imagine you're reading what I post. Stay somewhere where you are safe. If said invader ignores threats and still goes into said space, then you have every right to defend yourself. I have never said otherwise.

*edit*

The one thing I will say that I haven't been clear on, is that I would include the safety of any other person. If someone elses safety is being threatened, you have the right to defend them as well. If this were a rational debate, I don't think I'd have to clarify this, but so far this debate has been rather emotional. 

But please, enjoy beating that straw man of yours.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2014, 11:11:52 PM by Scheavo »

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4588
  • Gender: Male
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #33 on: May 04, 2014, 11:14:03 PM »
Out of curiosity, does anyone here condone what this particular man did in this particular case? 
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25841
  • Gender: Male
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #34 on: May 05, 2014, 12:06:32 AM »
Out of curiosity, does anyone here condone what this particular man did in this particular case?

I seriously doubt it.



Quote
Oh, so we are supposed to feel sorry for and take it easy on the criminals now, because they are really just good people who are trying to support their families, right?

I didn't realize spraying someone with bear spray, and throwing them in prison, is "feeling sorry for them." Excuse me for thinking that killing someone for doing something that most of us would do in the same situation is a tad wrong.

 


Most of us would rob?  Really?  Jeez, you must not think much of humanity.

And don't give me the "Most of us would rob if we needed stuff for our families" line, since your assertion that many robbers do it merely to feed their families is baseless.



Quote
Besides, I'd love to know what utopia you are living in where these home invading criminals are really just poor souls who are looking to feed their families.

It's not a utopia, it's the real world. Which is such a non-utopia, that many people are left with no real options, no way out, and are funneled towards life of crime. There's a ton of other reasons, but you should really check it out before you judge someone too harshly. Empathy, it's a helluva thing.

 

If I am guilty of judging those who commit serious crimes, there are worse things of which to be guilty.  I tend to not give anyone the benefit of the doubt once they've committed serious, violent crimes against other persons. 

As for empathy, do not assume that I do not have that for some criminals, just because of what I am saying here. 

 

Quote

And if you are thinking that a homeowner should wait till they do more before acting, that is absurd.  In many cases, it would be too late.  "Hey, he just pulled out a gun and shot my 9-year old daughter to death, so I guess now I'll do what I have to do to defend the rest of us who are still living." 

I like how you somehow started with him already being within range of your 9 year old daughter. Does he have magical teleportation technology?


 

Your sarcasm demonstrates that you completely missed my point, or more likely, simply dodged it.



Quote
If you* owned a 200K house, for example, I suspect you would consider that more important and valuable than a home invader who was gonna rob you and possibly do harm to you and your family.  I don't think it's unreasonable to think that way.

Is this home invader going to somehow walk away with the whole house (including property, which is probably just as valuable as all the construction)? Do I somehow not have cell phone available to call the police to come and break up the events? Plus, a 200k house, at least around here, is basically anything that stands. You could own a 200k house and still be rather poor and not have a whole lot worth stealing. Not to mention you would be smart to have insurance to insure those valuables, so it's not really much of a loss to you if he does steal the TV.

How long does it take the police to respond to a 911 to a house?  Depending on if one just happens to be nearby, I gotta think it's several minutes, and a lot can happen in several minutes. 

Not really a loss?  How about the hassle in dealing with insurance companies, your rates possibly going up, the violation you feel from having your home broken into, etc.?  Are we just supposed to ignore those things because certain items are easily replaceable?  Besides, I am talking more about people who are trying to protect their family, not things like a TV or stereo.


 

The one thing I will say that I haven't been clear on, is that I would include the safety of any other person. If someone elses safety is being threatened, you have the right to defend them as well.
 

And this is where we disagree. The minute someone breaks into your house, your safety has been threatened.