Author Topic: More "self-defense" nonsense  (Read 6985 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 26217
  • Gender: Male
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #70 on: May 08, 2014, 02:07:23 PM »
I'd still love to know where this idea came from that most burglars are looking to steal to feed their families.  I mean, I can't remember the last time I heard about a home invasion where the refrigerator was emptied out. :lol :lol

It is a rather pleasant fiction, isn't it?

Pretty much.

Commenting on something Schaevo said earlier, and probably for another thread, I don't think it is fair to say society 'fails' people. Where did it fail them? What did it owe them? At what point did that failure turn them to criminal beheavior? People are born in to different environments, cultures, circumstances.  But we are all accountable for our own actions.

By and large, I agree with you, but if someone is born in a poor neighborhood and grows up constantly surrounded by crime and whatnot, I can see how it would be difficult to not think of that as normal.  If no one is ever teaching you what's right and what's wrong, how are you ever to know?  And if one of those people ends up being one of those criminals/home invaders we have talked about in this thread, sure, it seems kind of awful on the surface and morally to take out, say, a 16-year old kid who has never had a good role model and was taught that crime is the way to go, but if he directly threatens the lives of me or those close to me, like pulling a gun on us in my house, it's still better him than me that ends up in the morgue.  That probably sounds harsh, but those type of people who have no moral compass whatsoever, once they reach a certain age, the odds of them ever developing one are slim to none.  And I don't think that is me being a cynic; it's just me being a realist.  It's sad and unfortunate, for sure, but that is how I see it.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #71 on: May 08, 2014, 03:15:16 PM »
Quote from: scheavo
I'm sorry, but how is breaking into a house and stealing property a violent crime against another person?


It depends on circumstances, the outcome of the event, and the jurisdiction in which it occurs, but make no mistake, under the correct circumstances home invasion can be prosecuted as a violent crime. 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_invasion


 
You asked "how" it could be a violent crime, and well, there it is.  In fact, I was bunk mates with a dude back in the late 80's who was doing a 30 year stretch for two home invasions in which he brandished a weapon (a kitchen knife) when he was confronted by the home owner. 


Anyway, some of you will get a kick out of how this one ended up - in his second home invasion, the one that actually ended up getting him busted, the homeowner shot him then called the police.


Homeowner definitely identified his target before pulling the trigger, though.  And he shot the dude....


Right.
In.
The.
Balls.


Yep, turned him into a Eunuch right there on the living room floor.   :eek


And they STILL gave him 30 fucking years  :lol    What a jackass!








Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5196
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #72 on: May 08, 2014, 03:35:39 PM »
Ideal kind of celly.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #73 on: May 08, 2014, 03:52:11 PM »
Right.
In.
The.
Balls.
You missed out on a golden opportunity to cite Aerosmith.

And I was wondering where you were. This is normally where you make your presence known.

Anyhoo, burglary in and of itself isn't usually considered a violent crime. Barging in and commandeering a family (home invasion) certainly is, and using a weapon (as you pointed out) is as well. While I would agree that a simple burglary is threatening, as GMD pointed out, I also have to concede that it isn't threatening enough to shoot somebody over. What it does do is lend credence to my benefit of the doubt point.


Ideal kind of celly.
Indeed.
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: 26217
  • Gender: Male
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #74 on: May 08, 2014, 05:15:52 PM »
Because we live in a sue-happy day and age, as well as one where criminals somehow turn themselves into victims, I've heard people say before that if you are forced to shoot someone who breaks into your house, you are better off making sure you kill them, that way they can't come back and sue you.  An example like the story KNH is a good one, as that is a situation where the robber could have easily sued the homeowner for intentionally shooting him in a place that, well, stripped him of his manhood. :lol

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #75 on: May 08, 2014, 05:35:06 PM »
Because we live in a sue-happy day and age, as well as one where criminals somehow turn themselves into victims, I've heard people say before that if you are forced to shoot someone who breaks into your house, you are better off making sure you kill them, that way they can't come back and sue you.  An example like the story KNH is a good one, as that is a situation where the robber could have easily sued the homeowner for intentionally shooting him in a place that, well, stripped him of his manhood. :lol
Ironically, I'd have to give some merit to that argument. If you decide to shoot someone, it had better be because you need to stop him immediately. You don't do that by shooting him in the balls. If I were on the jury I'd have to consider the shooter's intent. If the the homeowner was trying to shoot him up high and just missed (lucky shot, I suppose), then I'd be fine with it. If I felt that the homeowner did it intentionally I'd have to question whether he was faced with a threat of injury or just wanted to maim the guy out of spite. As per the subject of this thread I'd be inclined to give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt, but if I felt he was just looking to be vindictive I'd have a real problem with it.
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: 2739
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #76 on: May 08, 2014, 06:00:54 PM »
Well, but what better way to make sure you are stopping the guy without killing him?  :)
"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 El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #77 on: May 08, 2014, 06:20:12 PM »
Well, but what better way to make sure you are stopping the guy without killing him?  :)
I'm puzzled by the emote. Am I supposed to answer that or was it humor? I suspect you already know the explanation as well as I do.
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: 2739
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #78 on: May 08, 2014, 06:37:20 PM »
Sorry.  Let me try again...

Well, but what better way to make sure you are stopping the guy without killing him?  :metal
"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 El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #79 on: May 08, 2014, 06:48:11 PM »
It sure as hell stopped Zed dead in his tracks.
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 #80 on: May 08, 2014, 11:09:44 PM »
The benefit of doubt wsa already given to homeowners before the law was changed in such a way as to give homeowners damn near any justification they wanted. As I said, it changed from requiring objective or substantive reasons, to an emotion. Feeling threatened is now enough, instead of being threatened.

This completely incorrect.

Quote
(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:
    (a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or
    (b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

For me, it's very easy to argue that many things are "reasonable" to "believe" because to "believe" something doesn't require proof, evidence or fact. In fact, to some degree, it's the absence of such. What someone believes is entirely too subjective, and it shouldn't be codified into law. I've even read one of the main proponents of the law, and who helped get it passed, essentially argue this subjectivity.

The "reasonable" just seems to lose all relevance next to "believing." If I was a defense lawyer, I would just harp upon this the entire trial. How it's "reasonable" to be afraid of someone on your property. It'll play well in Montana, and by the looks of things, it would play very well in this thread. Then bam. He's reasonably believing he's threatened and is preventing an assault.

Not long ago, another case in Montana was rather noteworthy. Guy went to another guys house, cause he was having an affair with his wife. He was unarmed. He ended up getting shot, died, and the man having the affair with his wife doesn't even face charges. Why? Because it's reasonable for a man having an affair with another mans wife to think he was going to get punched in the face. That gave him the legal ability to grab his gun and shoot this man.

This has been a growing issue for some time in Montana. And there are plenty of lawyers and legal persons who think this law has gone too far, and does permit too much.



Assholes are people, the last time I checked. People is a pretty generic term, and it doesn't mean everybody. Also, please appreciate the fact that you just responded to my analogy with the equivalent of, "but 0 mph is ridiculous."

Except what we have argued over isn't policy or where the line should be, but the judgement and tone of the conversation. Like calling Obama and his "goons." So I really don't see where you're coming from in this regards, or how this is relevant at all.
When I hear "people" used in a context such as what you used, I don't normally infer it to mean "a few people," which is what we're discussing here. Also, it also suggests normal, everyday type people, who aren't the people setting traps and ambushing robbers.

I guess I just read it differently, so hopefully now you know my point. I won't bother trying to defend what I think the meaning should be, as that's a rather moot point.

Quote
And while it isn't relevant, I do recall the two of us discussing policy and me having to make the exact same argument about expecting law enforcement to exceed their authority and to set the rules accordingly (beneath what they seek).

And I've also said, on at least one occasion, that as part of their voluntary duty as officers, officers should assume more risk. Which is pretty much saying the line should be drawn farther back. I've also rarely defended where law enforcement wants to draw the line (there are some cases, especially in concerns to the internet and technology, where I think we don't go far enough). I mean, if we want to start discussing what can and can't be allowed, I just don't think we'd be that far off from each other. I just don't call the guy who disagrees with me a goon, or some dastardly villain. And I think that's very appropriate for this thread and part of the discussion I'm actually pleased with. Which is why someone in your house is automatically a threat, and what the best outcome is for such situations.

Quote
Quote
Stand your grand laws had been modified in Florida, had they not? And specifically, it changed jury instructions and what they were to consider. I didn't say it was the Castle Doctrine per say, but it is part of this gun attitude and general paranoia I've been wanting to discuss.
The issue with the jury charge (if there in fact was one) wasn't the result of the castle doctrine, but the prosecutors over-reaching. Furthermore, his being armed and choosing to defend himself isn't a part of any new, so-called gun culture. Lots of people arm themselves that aren't part of the mentality you're concerned about.
Quote

No, but his getting off is - and his getting off probably helped influence this guys Kaarma's thought processes. And again, I've never said this is true for everyone. In fact, I've even gone as far as to say it's the extremities - just that the law has become more lenient towards those extreme's, and that I find it troubling that it's done so.

[quote\
Quote
See, for me, that "if they take our guns, they'll turn us into commies," is indicative of the kind of attitude I'm bringing up. Any discussion around guns turns into some gut-reaction.
Any discussion around a politically charged issue turns into gut-reactions and hyperbole. I get what you're saying about a spooky attitude and I agree. I just don't see it as a culture based on guns. There will always be extremists with any political hot-button issue, and the extremists are becoming more common place, as we're seeing. It's just not about or caused by guns.

I'm not saying, nor ever have said, it's caused by guns. Why is it that I say that like in post one, and have spent the majority of this thread explaining how that's not my position? I don't think I've ever been pigeonholed so often, and so stubbornly, in my life. I'd like you to point out where in this thread I have ever said guns are the problem. I'd like you to point out one time in this thread where I have said the majority of people use guns inappropriately.

These things are being assumed of me for the mere fact that I'm generally rather liberal on issues. Me pointing out that bear spray works just fine doesn't change policy positions or what I consider the problem to be.

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10558
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #81 on: May 09, 2014, 07:45:07 AM »
Me pointing out that bear spray works just fine doesn't change policy positions or what I consider the problem to be.

I"ve yet to say something about this repeated assumption that Bear or Pepper spray is a better option. Have you ever used Pepper or Bear spray? I only ask because if you have then you know that anyone within the 15-20 radius of that burst of spray when it's used is feeling the effects. Police routinely have their riot gear and masks on when they use the stuff because of how indiscriminant that spray is.....and that is in outside conditions. There is no way I'm 'spraying' that stuff in confined quarters because I'd be incapacitated immediately as well and would be left vulnerable to a potential criminal to assault me or my family in some way......I may not know specific stats but I'd be willing to bet that over half of the criminals who break in to homes are high on something or jonesing needing to get high on something and that spray wouldn't affect them in the same manner it would me.

There are some inherant dangers with having a weapon as well...I know that. There is the potential for me to accidentally shoot a family member from a misguided shot or even if I didn't identify what I was shooting at. The criminal could overpower me before I was able to shoot and take the weapon and use it on me...I understand there are two sides to the coin. But for me, I'll take my chances with my weapon, not a spray that would cripple me as well the moment I used it and would do little for me when I pulled out a can of 'OFF' and he pulled out a GLOCK.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #82 on: May 09, 2014, 08:15:09 AM »
The benefit of doubt wsa already given to homeowners before the law was changed in such a way as to give homeowners damn near any justification they wanted. As I said, it changed from requiring objective or substantive reasons, to an emotion. Feeling threatened is now enough, instead of being threatened.

This completely incorrect.

Quote
(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:
    (a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or
    (b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

For me, it's very easy to argue that many things are "reasonable" to "believe" because to "believe" something doesn't require proof, evidence or fact.

Okay, but your personal belief is irrelevant.  "Reasonable belief" is an objective standard, whereas an individual's personal belief is not.  Under the law, those are two completely different concepts.  Your assertion is still 100% false.  The law is not doing what you seem so afraid it will do.
"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 Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #83 on: May 09, 2014, 08:44:12 AM »
Then explain to me that second case example I gave.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #84 on: May 09, 2014, 08:48:41 AM »
Hard to do that when I don't know the case other than your biased and likely selective description of the facts and reasoning.
"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 Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #85 on: May 09, 2014, 08:54:01 AM »
Me pointing out that bear spray works just fine doesn't change policy positions or what I consider the problem to be.

I"ve yet to say something about this repeated assumption that Bear or Pepper spray is a better option. Have you ever used Pepper or Bear spray? I only ask because if you have then you know that anyone within the 15-20 radius of that burst of spray when it's used is feeling the effects. Police routinely have their riot gear and masks on when they use the stuff because of how indiscriminant that spray is.....and that is in outside conditions. There is no way I'm 'spraying' that stuff in confined quarters because I'd be incapacitated immediately as well and would be left vulnerable to a potential criminal to assault me or my family in some way......I may not know specific stats but I'd be willing to bet that over half of the criminals who break in to homes are high on something or jonesing needing to get high on something and that spray wouldn't affect them in the same manner it would me.

There are some inherant dangers with having a weapon as well...I know that. There is the potential for me to accidentally shoot a family member from a misguided shot or even if I didn't identify what I was shooting at. The criminal could overpower me before I was able to shoot and take the weapon and use it on me...I understand there are two sides to the coin. But for me, I'll take my chances with my weapon, not a spray that would cripple me as well the moment I used it and would do little for me when I pulled out a can of 'OFF' and he pulled out a GLOCK.

Ya, I've used bear spray. And ya, it sprays. Have you seen what it does to a grizzly bear, that isn't something you can just ignore. It's not a minor inconvenience and it's not something a cracked out person can simply deal with. They'd be in a massive amount of pain, and would have trouble seeing. Gonna be hard for them to pull out a gun and bit you with it. It's more reliable when dealing with a charging bear than a gun, and I'm much more scared of a charging bear than a random person in my house.

And no, it wouldn't always work. But as you point out, there's always a flip side. And my point is that other things can protect you from an intruder, and bear spray is something a significant portion of Montanans have lying around.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #86 on: May 09, 2014, 08:58:36 AM »
And that's great.  But your average citizen of, say, New York City does not even have access to bear spray.  And when you stop and think about it, that is probably a very good thing.  If the general population had access to bear spray, I can only imagine the havoc that would ensue.  :lol
"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 Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #87 on: May 09, 2014, 09:10:54 AM »
Hard to do that when I don't know the case other than your biased and likely selective description of the facts and reasoning.

Nice ad hom.

Dan Fredenberg. Look it up. No bias in what I said. I simply described what happened in the most basic of ways. And without a public trial, any evidence to support this guys claims aren't really backed up by much. Apparently the wife thought Harper (the shooter) was under threat, but again, that's a subjective feeling. What's sad is looking back at the media from the time, and you see quite a few people warning how this law goes too far, it's too subjective, and how it allows people to do too much. And these are from local newspapers, not known for their liberalness in this part of the country.



Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #88 on: May 09, 2014, 09:13:08 AM »
And that's great.  But your average citizen of, say, New York City does not even have access to bear spray.  And when you stop and think about it, that is probably a very good thing.  If the general population had access to bear spray, I can only imagine the havoc that would ensue.  :lol

Um, who said I said everyone should use it? I said I was pointing out how there are alternatives to using a gun to defend yourself, which I have yet to see you disagree with.

New Yorkers could get pepper spray. They could get stun guns. Hell, just google it and you get a ton of shopping options. Not exactly hard, or out of reach of the common population.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #89 on: May 09, 2014, 09:37:24 AM »
Hard to do that when I don't know the case other than your biased and likely selective description of the facts and reasoning.

Nice ad hom.

Scheavo, that is not an ad hominem.  And if you lack the basic understanding of argumentation skills required to have civil dialog in this subforum without incorrectly mislabeling opinions you do not agree with, you will not be allowed to stay here.  You have been warned before and will be booted if I have to warn you again.

That said, okay, I looked up the case (well, couldn't quickly find the case itself, but found lots of things written about it).  Lots of editorials sensationalizing the story, as I suspected there would be.  But I managed to find one that actually discusses the relevant facts of the case.  http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331863/brice-harper-and-castle-doctrine-robert-verbruggen#!

As often happens, a lot of the other pieces I quickly skimmed leave out material facts, such as:
-Harper was being followed by Fredenberg after an altercation in which Fredenberg threatened to kill him.
-Fredenberg followed Harper to his house.
-Harper stayed in the house and announced that he was armed.
-Fredenberg broke in and charged Harper.

So, yeah, regardless of what Harper may have subjectively felt, the law applied the objective standard of whether a reasonable person in that situation would have been threatened.  It is a strange situation with lots of twists, but that is a classic application of the proper standard in self-defense cases going back to old England.  Kalispell, Montana is not an outlyer in this regard.  (nice town, by the way)

This part at the end kind of sums it up nicely:

Quote
Also, it’s worth remembering that not all home intrusions happen in the context of infidelity. For the law to impose a duty to retreat on Harper, it would have to impose a duty to retreat on everyone — meaning that home intruders create a duty on the part of their victims not to hurt them. Such laws make a mockery of self-defense and property rights, and embolden criminals.

By all accounts, Harper was on his own property, faced an imminent assault, warned his aggressor he was armed, and fired his gun only when Fredenberg refused to stop. The surrounding context makes this case difficult, but it’s hard to see how a different law could have averted this tragedy while maintaining citizens’ right to stand up to home intruders, rather than cowering from them.
"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 Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #90 on: May 09, 2014, 05:09:52 PM »
Hard to do that when I don't know the case other than your biased and likely selective description of the facts and reasoning.

Nice ad hom.

Scheavo, that is not an ad hominem.  And if you lack the basic understanding of argumentation skills required to have civil dialog in this subforum without incorrectly mislabeling opinions you do not agree with, you will not be allowed to stay here.  You have been warned before and will be booted if I have to warn you again.

Basic argumentation skills don't question the veracity of what is said simply by who said it. Your implication in your post was that I was an untrustworthy source, for reasons not given, and is a veiled ad hom. You'd probably warn people for doing something similar to what you did, but instead, you're warning me for pointing it out.

Quote
That said, okay, I looked up the case (well, couldn't quickly find the case itself, but found lots of things written about it).  Lots of editorials sensationalizing the story, as I suspected there would be.  But I managed to find one that actually discusses the relevant facts of the case.  http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331863/brice-harper-and-castle-doctrine-robert-verbruggen#!

As often happens, a lot of the other pieces I quickly skimmed leave out material facts, such as:
-Harper was being followed by Fredenberg after an altercation in which Fredenberg threatened to kill him.
-Fredenberg followed Harper to his house.
-Harper stayed in the house and announced that he was armed.
-Fredenberg broke in and charged Harper.

Ya, it was rather hard to dig up all the evidence in this case. But hey, that's part of the problem with not having a public trial.

I didn't see anything in that article about Fredenberg threatening to kill Harper. What evidence is there for such threats being made? And for how serious such threats were? If it's Harper saying this, I don't see why that should get him out of prosecution.

Fredenberg walked through an open garage door, which Harper left open. Hardlying "breaking into" his house. And it's rather interesting that Harper found the time to go grab his gun, but not to close the garage door. And the fact that the garage door was open changes a lot, and I noticed you left that out.

If Fredenberg intended to kill Harper, why didn't he bring a weapon, of any sorts? Rather odd for the suggestion to be that Fredenberg followed Harper with the intent to kill him, but not think far enough ahead as to how he was going to do it.

Both accounts of the events in question should be taken with a high degree of skepticism, and I don't see why they're being taken "as fact." Harper has a lot to gain by being misleading, and it's clear that his wife didn't hold much love for him. That, and her new lover would be endangered by saying something else.

And, I would just point out, I'm not actually making an accusation of guilt or making a statement about what the punishment should be. I'm simply pointing out a case where the same law doesn't even lead to prosecution or a public trial, and for reasons that a great many people see as flimsy. If this case went before a jury, and a collection of my peers, who had good access to relevant information (which I would also add makes all evidence public, and thus helps settle an issue) found Harper not-guilty, it wouldn't even be a question to be brought up.

But instead, it allows for some very questionable behavior to go completely unpunished. It gives more license than ever to home owners, which was in fact one of the main purposes and goals of the legislation. Leo Gallagher, President of Montana's Country Attorney Association, says that the law allows for you to threaten someone with a gun for any personal affront. And most importantly, we're taking the words of someone who killed another man as fact, as if they have no reason to lie or distort events. Harper says he warned Fredenberg, but that's a claim that can't be verified.

Quote
So, yeah, regardless of what Harper may have subjectively felt, the law applied the objective standard of whether a reasonable person in that situation would have been threatened.  It is a strange situation with lots of twists, but that is a classic application of the proper standard in self-defense cases going back to old England.  Kalispell, Montana is not an outlyer in this regard.  (nice town, by the way)

This part at the end kind of sums it up nicely:

Quote
Also, it’s worth remembering that not all home intrusions happen in the context of infidelity. For the law to impose a duty to retreat on Harper, it would have to impose a duty to retreat on everyone — meaning that home intruders create a duty on the part of their victims not to hurt them. Such laws make a mockery of self-defense and property rights, and embolden criminals.

By all accounts, Harper was on his own property, faced an imminent assault, warned his aggressor he was armed, and fired his gun only when Fredenberg refused to stop. The surrounding context makes this case difficult, but it’s hard to see how a different law could have averted this tragedy while maintaining citizens’ right to stand up to home intruders, rather than cowering from them.

I tried to find the statute which the new law replaced, and I couldn't track it down. The best I could do was find some reports about it, and the one thing I would point out that got mentioned as changing is that it allowed for deadly force to be used when there was the threat of an assault. Not a deadly assault, just an assault. I could be wrong on that though, and I'm not sure if you have any nice legal sources for such things.

And no law would have "averted" this tragedy, what's at question here is what should happen after the tragedy has already occurred. And I frankly find the lack of a public trial for such a case to be shameful.

To speak about how I think the law should be, if steps can be taken to mitigate the chance of harm, or to de-escalate the situation, those steps should be taken before anyone is killed. Call this "retreating" if you want, but I wouldn't call it that. Harper left his garage door open, instead choosing to arm himself. If he had taken the time to close the garage door, the entire situation might have been avoided. If Fredenberg still decided to confront Harper, and actually became destructive, did something violent, etc., than Harper should be within his rights to defend himself on his property. But it never got to that point, and the law, as it's currently written, has no problem with that.

Basically, the way laws are nowadays, you can just skip to the end and kill someone. No need to try and avoid a senseless death. That's what I have a problem with. That's what many people I've heard have a problem with. It has nothing to do about cowering towards an aggressor, it has nothing to do about not being able to protect yourself. It's about someone's right to life - both the "aggressor" and "defender", and what that entails.

I really wish the argument could actually be around that. Instead, and even after constantly trying to clarify and change it towards that, it always get reverted back to how ridiculous it is to say someone can't defend themselves on their own property. Which I think is ironic in your last past, warning me about mislabeling other peoples opinions, and then going on to use a quote that, for me, implies a mislabeling of my opinion.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 05:17:39 PM by Scheavo »

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #91 on: May 09, 2014, 05:35:32 PM »
Scheavo, you are being warned because you cannot make a focused argument, which is an essential skill set to participate in P/R.  No, you do not have to have mastered all the rules of rhetoric and debate to participate.  But by the same token, if you insist on misapply those rules and derailing discussion by making untrue assertions, you are taking away from the debate rather than contributing.  The above is merely one example.  An ad hominem is an attack on your person or character.  A statement that "your argument is biased" is an attack on your argument, not your person or character.  Learn the difference.  That's all I'm going to say on that.

Back on topic, your argument is a moving target, so I am not sure what you are even arguing anymore.  But the legal standard in question in Montana is an objective standard, not a subjective one.  Sorry if you don't feel like it is objective, but it is.  And I see no problem with how it appears to have been applied in the case you cited, at least from what I can glean from the articles I read.  Based on the facts the D.A. was presented with, I think you would likely get the same outcome under most states' laws where there is some sort of "castle doctrine" law.  And while there are a lot of strange, complicating factors at play in that particular case, that does not mean the law itself is necessarily bad or that it was applied incorrectly.
"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 Lucien

  • composer
  • Posts: 4560
  • Gender: Male
    • my music
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #92 on: May 09, 2014, 05:48:29 PM »
Scheavo, you are being warned because you cannot make a focused argument, which is an essential skill set to participate in P/R.  No, you do not have to have mastered all the rules of rhetoric and debate to participate.  But by the same token, if you insist on misapply those rules and derailing discussion by making untrue assertions, you are taking away from the debate rather than contributing.  The above is merely one example.  An ad hominem is an attack on your person or character.  A statement that "your argument is biased" is an attack on your argument, not your person or character.  Learn the difference.  That's all I'm going to say on that.

Hard to do that when I don't know the case other than your biased and likely selective description of the facts and reasoning.

You're saying that what he's saying is biased or selective, that he would lie or skew facts to his own objective. I would say that is rather dishonoring to one's character.

:dunno:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves."

"The quantity of money becomes to an ever greater degree its sole effective quality. Just as it reduces everything to its abstract form, so it reduces itself in the course of its own movement to quantitative being. Excess and intemperance come to be its true norm."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #93 on: May 09, 2014, 05:50:57 PM »
Yeah, that's how I read it too.
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 #94 on: May 09, 2014, 10:34:17 PM »
Back on topic, your argument is a moving target, so I am not sure what you are even arguing anymore.  But the legal standard in question in Montana is an objective standard, not a subjective one.  Sorry if you don't feel like it is objective, but it is.  And I see no problem with how it appears to have been applied in the case you cited, at least from what I can glean from the articles I read.  Based on the facts the D.A. was presented with, I think you would likely get the same outcome under most states' laws where there is some sort of "castle doctrine" law.  And while there are a lot of strange, complicating factors at play in that particular case, that does not mean the law itself is necessarily bad or that it was applied incorrectly.

The only way I can imagine that I'm giving a moving target, is if assumption are being made about my position. Maybe I'm a little at fault for that, but let me put this sub-argument in a coherent form.

The law, as it is written, gives Harper the lee-way to do what he did, more or less. I do not argue that. I do not argue that "reasonably believes" is objective to the sense that it gives something you can look at and verify, as an outsider, objectively. What I argue is that what is being assessed has too much of a subjective measure. The qualities which make something objectively "reasonably believes" have subjective elements to it. Every single person will have a different conception of what a "reasonable" person is, and each one will imagine a different reasonable response to a series of events. "Reasonable" is not an objective thing.

*edit*
The way the law is written focues our attention to a very specific situation in a series of events which blinds us to other important information. It only asks if it's reasonable for someone to believe they are under bodily threat in a situation. It doesn't ask if it's reasonable for them to be in that situation, or what could reasonably be done to avoid that situation. In my opinion, a reasonable person, in the same situation, would either have driven to a police station when he saw he was being followed, or closed the garage door upon arriving home. In my opinion, a reasonable man would not have driven home, and ran for his gun. So in my opinion, it's the way the law is being applied, which is along the lines of the intent of the people who helped pass it.
*edit*

And I argue that the results of how this law is written, and how we apply it, are wrong.

I'm pointing to the Harper case as an example of when I think the law, as it is written, leads to a result a great many of us found unacceptable. The fact that it would pass most states ignores the fact that a great many (I believe a majority) of states have recently revised their laws the same lines, and is a form of begging the question.

And I'm pointing to the results of cases like Harper which embolden people like Kaarma to believe what he believed. What becomes legal emboldens people to go farther, ending in situations like Kaarma where almost all of us do agree that he should be in jail for what he did.

All of which goes back to the castle doctrine, the law, how it is written, and how it applies.

I just don't see how that's an incoherent argument. I'd appreciate it if you would point out any inconsistencies you do see, so that I could either clarify or amend what I think.

The only thing I can think back on and wish I hadn't said is my statement that home invaders are in it to feed their families is, well, a tad hyperbolic. Probably true for a some, but that was clearly wrong. But I will defend by the spirit of what I was going for, in that the reasons someone may be in your home don't have to be malicious, evil or represent a danger to you. Oh, and that a lot of the reasons for the invasion are economic related, so while it may not be stealing to feed their families, per say, it does arise out of the poor economic conditions in a community, and not a defect of character.


« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 10:46:54 PM by Scheavo »

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 26217
  • Gender: Male
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #95 on: June 10, 2014, 04:08:44 PM »
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/armed-parents-fire-on-men-attempting-home-invasion-st-louis/article_29109617-bc56-534f-82e6-d36ccba40c38.html

Somehow, I don't think bear spray would have worked in this case, considering the armed home invaders already had the teenage girl hostage and were leading her into the house.  If the parents hadn't been armed, I shudder to think of what might have happened to that family.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #96 on: June 10, 2014, 05:04:52 PM »
That's an interesting use of a felony murder statute. Never heard of it being used with regards to an accomplice's death. I'm not crazy about them in general, but I suppose in this case it's a reasonable use of discretion. The longer they put numbnuts away the better, honestly, and I suspect it's fairly kosher with how their law is written.

Bearspray might have worked, but he definitely took the better option (since he appears to be reasonably proficient with his gun, at least). Like I've said in the past, when you're the one defending yourself from someone elses aggression there's no obligation to take babysteps or half measures.
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 #97 on: June 10, 2014, 07:01:21 PM »
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/armed-parents-fire-on-men-attempting-home-invasion-st-louis/article_29109617-bc56-534f-82e6-d36ccba40c38.html

Somehow, I don't think bear spray would have worked in this case, considering the armed home invaders already had the teenage girl hostage and were leading her into the house.  If the parents hadn't been armed, I shudder to think of what might have happened to that family.

Think I'd rather put my daughter through a lot of pain (and potentially some harm) then potentially shoot her, trying to save her. I don't think I could live with myself if I knew I shot and killed my own kin. These parents really just got lucky.



 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #98 on: June 10, 2014, 07:23:07 PM »
That'd be a tough call for anybody to make, and in either case I'd support him wholeheartedly. If it had been a neighbor's kid or something then I'd be (somewhat) more inclined to agree with you, but in this situation he had to decide quickly and he knew the ramifications better than anybody else could. I'll also say that luck wasn't a factor in hitting his targets 4 times and the daughter 0. Just like we're not qualified to judge the decision making that went on in his head, we don't know his skill set, which undoubtedly played a big part in that process. He knew what was at stake and knew what his abilities were. I'd call it a bang-up job, rather than an act of luck.

Interestingly there was a situation a day or two ago where a neighbor shot at a dog mauling a kid. Put the dog down right fast, but shot the kid in the ass while doing so. I'm quite curious to know what the boy's parents think. At the end of the day the kid's alive with some stiches and a tale to tell, and the dog won't be mauling any other kiddos; I'd be alright with that outcome.
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 #99 on: June 10, 2014, 09:15:17 PM »
If said person was so confident in his ability, would not a taser gun work just as well? And just to be clear, I'm not arguing for legal restriction in this specific argument so much as personal choice. I don't think this is a case where the person should be charged with a crime.

Personally, I don't think we should judge an act by it's outcomes. The ends do not justify the means, in these situations. You can go out to do something incredibly stupid, ill concieved and down right wrong to do, and end up just fine. Conversely, you can go about doing something very well thought out, and right to do, and end up fucked.


Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #100 on: June 10, 2014, 09:55:19 PM »
If said person was so confident in his ability, would not a taser gun work just as well? And just to be clear, I'm not arguing for legal restriction in this specific argument so much as personal choice. I don't think this is a case where the person should be charged with a crime.

Two reasons come to mind why it wouldn't. For one thing there's accuracy. I don't know what distance this shooting took place from, but if I've only got one shot I'd rather have the ballistic stability of a bullet than a co2 fired dart trailing a wires behind it. The bigger issue is that only one shot part, though. A taser isn't going to help you against 2 attackers. No matter what you hit you're going to have 1 or 2 unaffected bad guys and you've just escallated the situation considerably. Hell, about the only advantageous outcome I can imagine is that you miss the badguys and send your daughter off to la-la land and maybe the intruders ignore her for the rest of the rampage; not the horse I'd want my money on.

Quote
Personally, I don't think we should judge an act by it's outcomes. The ends do not justify the means, in these situations. You can go out to do something incredibly stupid, ill concieved and down right wrong to do, and end up just fine. Conversely, you can go about doing something very well thought out, and right to do, and end up fucked.
I agree. In this case I support his actions because he knew better than I what the situation looked like and he was the one who knew best what the ramifications are and would have to live with them. If he'd missed and blown away his daughter I'd probably still support his actions for exactly the same reasons. I also have to consider that there's a very real possibility that the results would have been worse, as well. While he didn't know it, the guy he killed shot random strangers for shits and giggles a few years back. This time he actually had good cause to leave no witnesses behind.
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: 26217
  • Gender: Male
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #101 on: June 11, 2014, 11:56:48 AM »
That'd be a tough call for anybody to make, and in either case I'd support him wholeheartedly. If it had been a neighbor's kid or something then I'd be (somewhat) more inclined to agree with you, but in this situation he had to decide quickly and he knew the ramifications better than anybody else could. I'll also say that luck wasn't a factor in hitting his targets 4 times and the daughter 0. Just like we're not qualified to judge the decision making that went on in his head, we don't know his skill set, which undoubtedly played a big part in that process. He knew what was at stake and knew what his abilities were. I'd call it a bang-up job, rather than an act of luck.
 

Agreed.  Plus, the family is safe, one dangerous criminal is dead, and another criminal is injured and going to prison where he belongs.  Sounds like win-win to me.  Not that you like seeing anybody killed, but better him than any of the innocent family members.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #102 on: June 11, 2014, 12:20:31 PM »
It's not a very good argument because it's an anecdote. I can just easily find anecdotal cases of where events like this go horribly wrong, and where you agree that the results are immoral and wrong. Like an Alzheimer patient getting shot when he wandered off and into someone elses yard late at night. Or a hormonal kid entering an open garage door because he was, well, being a teenager. Which is why I say we judge an act not upon it's results, but by the thought process and means by which it is done. That daughter could just as easily be dead, and even the most trained and skilled shooters are not 100% accurate. And if they are, it's even less likely to be when adrenaline is rushing through their veins.

Policy is directed towards the general population, not towards each and every circumstance. I think you would agree with that. What is best for everybody may not be best for you, or for that family, or even for me. But good governance is about the general welfare, not private interests.

If said person was so confident in his ability, would not a taser gun work just as well? And just to be clear, I'm not arguing for legal restriction in this specific argument so much as personal choice. I don't think this is a case where the person should be charged with a crime.

Two reasons come to mind why it wouldn't. For one thing there's accuracy. I don't know what distance this shooting took place from, but if I've only got one shot I'd rather have the ballistic stability of a bullet than a co2 fired dart trailing a wires behind it. The bigger issue is that only one shot part, though. A taser isn't going to help you against 2 attackers. No matter what you hit you're going to have 1 or 2 unaffected bad guys and you've just escallated the situation considerably. Hell, about the only advantageous outcome I can imagine is that you miss the badguys and send your daughter off to la-la land and maybe the intruders ignore her for the rest of the rampage; not the horse I'd want my money on.

Fair enough. Still don't see why strong pepper spray or bear spray wouldn't have been just as effective, though. Like I mentioned before, bear spray is a better option for you to have in the case of a mother fucking bear attack than a gun. You don't have to be very accurate, and it's strong enough that someone sprayed with it is probably going to need medical attention.

Quote
Quote
Personally, I don't think we should judge an act by it's outcomes. The ends do not justify the means, in these situations. You can go out to do something incredibly stupid, ill concieved and down right wrong to do, and end up just fine. Conversely, you can go about doing something very well thought out, and right to do, and end up fucked.
I agree. In this case I support his actions because he knew better than I what the situation looked like and he was the one who knew best what the ramifications are and would have to live with them. If he'd missed and blown away his daughter I'd probably still support his actions for exactly the same reasons. I also have to consider that there's a very real possibility that the results would have been worse, as well. While he didn't know it, the guy he killed shot random strangers for shits and giggles a few years back. This time he actually had good cause to leave no witnesses behind.

I feel like this just completely ignores the daughter, her agency, and right to life.


Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #103 on: June 11, 2014, 01:08:11 PM »
Fair enough. Still don't see why strong pepper spray or bear spray wouldn't have been just as effective, though. Like I mentioned before, bear spray is a better option for you to have in the case of a mother fucking bear attack than a gun. You don't have to be very accurate, and it's strong enough that someone sprayed with it is probably going to need medical attention.
Bears are a different story since most guns will be largely ineffective against them. The drawback is that you're likely to be incapacitated yourself after usage. Being incap'ed rather than eaten is a fine tradeoff-don't get me wrong. In the case of a badguy threatening your daughter, the gun will be effective and you won't be incapacitated after spraying it, which is important given the two, possibly more badguys. I'm not saying it can't be a viable option. I'm just saying that in plenty of cases it will be the better of the two.

Quote
I feel like this just completely ignores the daughter, her agency, and right to life.
I don't think so, honestly. The fact is the thugs did that before dragging her inside. Her old man had a much greater concern for those things, and acted in what he believed to be the best manner. I guarantee you that he cared much more about the girl than they did. The fact is that given what we know about these assholes the situation would very likely have ended much worse had the parents acquiesced. He gauged correctly in this instance.

And as an aside, though I suppose it depends on the person, adrenaline might very well help tremendously in that situation. Anytime I've been in a "well fuck, we're gonna crash" situation while driving I became insanely focused and had all the time in the world to work things out in my head. In one such instance I calculated my current trajectory, referenced my last known recollection of the traffic conditions and knew that there was nobody near me on my current course, figured out that my landing point would be in a ditch that I might or might not be able to drive out of, and that I'd walk away unscathed. With this I decided that no further action was advised and commenced to appreciating the experience for the final 2 seconds (which seemed like 2 minutes). Adrenaline's a fucking trip.

I also know from experience that my shooting accuracy is far, far better when firing instinctively than deliberately. I've learned that sometimes the best results with regards to eye-hand coordination come from shutting down the conscious thought processes and just letting your brain take care of the hard part on it's own.
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 Lucien

  • composer
  • Posts: 4560
  • Gender: Male
    • my music
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #104 on: June 11, 2014, 01:08:45 PM »
If you use bear spray on someone, even if they're in huge pain, they can still shoot the hell out of you in anger, unless you got it into their eyes and they're blind.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves."

"The quantity of money becomes to an ever greater degree its sole effective quality. Just as it reduces everything to its abstract form, so it reduces itself in the course of its own movement to quantitative being. Excess and intemperance come to be its true norm."