In Louisiana, If Someone Appears To Be Trying To Rob Your Home, Be Sure You Can Read Their Thoughts
A homeowner with a pregnant wife and baby was arrested for attempted second-degree murder after shooting a teenager who had climbed over his fence in the middle of the night, writes Jacob Sullum at reason:
Merritt Landry, who works as a building inspector for the city's Historic District Landmarks Commission, said he believed Marshall Coulter, a 14-year-old with a history of burglary arrests, was about to break into his home. Awakened by his dog's barking, Landry went outside to see what was going on and saw Coulter in his driveway a few feet from his back door. Landry said that as he approached Coulter the teenager made a "move, as if to reach for something." Landry said he fired at that point, fearing that Coulter had a weapon. But police said Coulter, who was struck in the head and critically wounded, was unarmed and did not pose the sort of "imminent threat" that would justify the use of deadly force. Based on where they found blood and a shell casing, they estimated that Landry shot Coulter from a distance of about 30 feet.Coulter's 23-year-old brother, David Coulter, admitted that Marshall had a history of "stealing stuff," calling him a "professional thief." But he said Marshall "would never pick up a gun, not in a million years." He added:
He's still a little boy. Who pulls a trigger on a 14-year-old? What if it was your little brother or your sister? How would you feel?
I would feel that it is not only wildly unethical to break into people's homes but wildly dangerous. Some of those people don't just lie in bed hoping you won't take too much. They grab a gun and defend themselves, their loved ones and their property.
More from Sullum:
So why was Landry arrested? Det. Nicholas Williams asserted in the arrest warrant that Coulter was not trying to enter Landry's house when he was shot. But this "professional thief" had hopped Landry's fence at 2 a.m. and was a few feet from the back door. If he had closed that distance and put his hand on the door knob before being shot, would that have made Landry's use of force justified?
21 feet is considered the personal danger range in a well lighted environment. So 30 feet at night is something I would do to.
Jim P. at July 28, 2013 9:08 PM
Yet another argument for gun control.
This guy now has to forever live with the fact that he killed a kid. A kid destined for prison eventually, but still a kid.
If you really must have a gun for other than hunting purposes,(which is a non argument, cause ya know, bows and arrows much?) what's wrong with rubber bullets? Works for the cops....
Tasers? Big Scary lookin dogs?
Question: If he was thirty feet away at night, he must have been a pretty damn good shot.
Why aim for the head?
wtf at July 28, 2013 9:28 PM
My answer to Sollum: MY younger siblings and children do not break into peoples homes and rob them. I don't care if the thieving trash doesn't make it to 15.
My little boy spent half of all of his christmas, birthday, and allowance money on himself...the other half, he donated to anti-death penalty causes. It was a stance I disagreed with him about, but it was a moral stance nonetheless, and one that he took action on, putting his money where his mouth was.
Never did he steal, never did he break into another's home or deny them what was theirs.
He passed away quite suddenly a few months ago, a little after his 13th birthday.
That the little shitbag thief in this story made it to 14, makes my blood boil. Let the trash die, before he robs somebody else, not of mere possessions, but of the feeling that their home is a place of safety and security against a world that does not always have either of those things.
Robert at July 28, 2013 9:30 PM
DO you really think he AIMED for the head from 30 feet, in the dark? No one does that, thanks for showing your ignorance of firearms (or was this satire??). When you aim, you aim for center of mass-basically the chest.
I really don't see why him being "a kid" matters. Do you think kids ought to get a pass no matter what they do? Kids his age and younger have killed, raped, tortured. You choose to commit felonies, you might pay the price. You get no sympathy from me.
momof4 at July 28, 2013 9:35 PM
Not to mention, 30 feet is not far if someone decides they want to tackle you. I'm further from my front door than that right now, and I have a small house. Had he decided to charge, he could have closed that distance before the gun was raised and fired.
momof4 at July 28, 2013 9:36 PM
"When you aim, you aim for center of mass-basically the chest."
Up here, cops are trained to shoot for non-vital areas, unless forced to do otherwise.
And of COURSE I've never fired a gun! Illegal up here for the most part, and if you want one, you gotta want it REAL bad to get it. No 72 hour wait here. Checks, checks, more checks, FAC's, gun registries, and weapons legislation.
Either way, 30 ft in the dark, the guy knew what the hell he was doing, otherwise he most likely would have missed. You yourself say no-one aims for the head at 30 ft in the dark, why does the chest change it? We're talking a matter of at most 18 inches. Tops. On a kid, probably less.
The fact that you purposely "aim for center of mass-basically the chest" doesn't change the fact that he was TRYING to kill him. It bolsters it.
He has a right to defend his home, but I don't know that I support lethal force to do it. You can't take it back. Whether or not the kid was going to burglarize his home, can now never be proven cause the kid is dead. The cops are probably wrong, but what if they aren't?
Same reasoning for the death penalty. What if you're wrong?
No child decides by themselves to be a criminal. How many children do you know grow up thinking "Gee, I think I'll be a rapist when I grow up!"?They've been shown this life by people in their lives, by having the wrong friends, etc etc etc.
The fact that he was a kid matters because the kid still had a chance. Not much of one, but still a chance. Who knows if he would have changed his ways? We can't say now, cause he's dead.
Bleeding heart? Probably. However, I don't believe the price you pay should be the ultimate one. Especially as a child.
Especially because they robbed you of some delusional sense of non existent security.
That being said, Robert, I am very sorry for your loss.
wtf at July 28, 2013 10:06 PM
It is so easy to not get shot while burglarizing someone's home: Don't burglarize someone's home. It's no harder than not jumping off a bridge or not standing in front of a train.
Of course there was no evidence that this young black child had any intent to burglarize that white man's home. He was just innocently hanging out in the white man's backyard, in the narrow space between his parked car and the back door to his home at 2 o'clock in the morning. The only reason that racist white man shot that poor child is he wanted to. Another Trayvon Martin.
Ken R at July 28, 2013 10:07 PM
"Of course there was no evidence that this young black child had any intent to burglarize that white man's home."
You're the one bringing the race card into it. Nobody else did.
Very telling.
wtf at July 28, 2013 10:25 PM
Yes, the kid is 14. But I highly doubt his age and birthdate is on his T-shirt or hovering over him like a SIMS diamond. This is 2am at night with either low or no lighting. The home owner likely saw this him and thought basic thoughts. Male. Black. Age larger then a preteen, tall enough for a short adult.
Heck take any of my Korean teen students and you could sometimes not guess their age. Some are taller then their parents. Heck I have difficulty at times in normal light with a minute to thing. I bet nobody would like to have one of my taller boys hanging around their door late a night.
I was wondering about if he had family. Saw some toys out in the yard on a video about this. Take a man who is in his house at night likely sleeping, in an area with recent burglaries, add in young child and a pregnant wife. What do you think a man would do. Talk about is feeling. Do you think a normal man would ask for ID. Those who wait and see can often be the ones who get in serious trouble.
The man went caveman, warrior, viking, all the way up to cowboy. Threat in area, dog is barking, threat still around. Take out threat.
John Paulson at July 28, 2013 10:56 PM
A couple of points to consider:
1. A fenced in yard is different than being inside the house. Inside the house at 2 a.m. is much more of a threat than in the yard. In the yard, he's probably up to no good. In the house, he's definitely up to no good. He shouldn't have been in the yard, but it's different than having broken into the house.
2. I think the police have to arrest him. Get his story down. Both sides agree that he shot him, and you have to figure out if it's justified. I'm a big believer in the presumption of innocence, but once you shoot someone, at least some of the burden shifts to you to prove it was self-defense. Get a statement right away, then the police can see if it matches the physical evidence. If it does, then it helps prove your story.
This is a tough case. The kid may have brought it on, but I'm not sure if I think death is an appropriate punishment for trespassing.
clinky at July 28, 2013 11:12 PM
Don't care about the race of the boy. Not relevant.
There's some stranger in your yard, in the wee hours of the morning.
When confronted, said stranger makes a threatening move (or at least one that could be construed as threatening).
Stranger gets shot.
Sad and tragic, to be sure, but it is still entirely the fault of the stranger in the yard (at that time of night, there are precious few innocent reasons to be there).
And, just to toss a little fuel on whether this might be legitimate or not, how many times has a police officer chosen to shoot someone with even less actual perception of harm?
And how many times do they get away with it?
If a bunch of cops can shoot someone pulling a wallet in daylight and claim they felt at risk, why cannot an average person protect themselves from what appears to be a much more credible threat?
In practice, police are given more latitude, but in principle, they should be held even more accountable. Because of their position and the powers we grant to them, the bar should be *far* higher than for a civilian.
Now, back to this event, and the kid in question.
Bad decisions lead to bad outcomes.
From the information given to us about this incident, there is no indication that this kids intent was innocent.
If you're lost, and trying to cut across a yard, you might actually say so when confronted, rather than make a gesture that could be considered threatening (if you're doing this at 2am, that's pretty close to epic failure to start with, but you should still say so).
Too many people are in the business of devaluing personal responsibility.
It's always the fault of someone else.
(Bullshit, of course).
If you make the conscious decision to do something stupid, and if that decision gets you hurt or killed, you (and only you) are to blame.
And, for the parents moaning about their child, why weren't they being parents before their child did something so grossly stupid?
You don't get to be some kind of half assed parent, then claim some kind of victimhood when your crotchdropping suffers the fruits of their actions. If you were doing your job, that outcome would be much less likely.
there are some who call me 'Tim?' at July 28, 2013 11:34 PM
The kid's alive, by the way.
I wonder, had it been the pregnant wife home alone with the baby who shot him, if she would have faced charges.
I'm sorry a 14-year-old was shot, but I'd be sorrier if it were the baby daughter or the pregnant wife who were hurt.
The headlines make a big deal of the fact that the kid was unarmed. I'm not sure how Merritt Landry was supposed to know his age and unarmed status when he found him prowling in his yard.
Kimberly at July 29, 2013 2:18 AM
Deadly force is only justified to protect against real and present threats to life and limb - not mere property.
If Mr Landry is claiming that he felt threatened by the actions of Mr Coulter, it is only right that his claim be exmained to see whether it holds water. I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, and especially homeowners in a case like this - but with great power comes great responsibility, and there is grave danger in allowing people some sort of carte blanche to claim self-defense.
This looks very much like one of those cases where the prosecutor had issues with the sincerity or believability of Mr Landry's claims, and felt (quite properly) that the best thing to do is to let him tell it to a petit jury and let them decide. That's what we have juries for - so that your fate is not left up the opinions and prejuduces of an elected official and his/her staff.
'There are some who call me Tim' makes the excellent point that police officers are often given the benefit of the doubt in cases like this, and so why should this homeowner not receive the benefit of the doubt also? But I'd ask the opposite question, and suggest that we should not be too quick to give the benefit of the doubt to anybody, and especially not to police officers, who are supposed to be more-trained and more-experienced in these matters.
llater,
llamas
llamas at July 29, 2013 2:42 AM
Way to go, Louisiana. You've just empowered burglars in your state.
Patrick at July 29, 2013 3:51 AM
The laws of Louisiana come from the Code Napoleon unlike the other 49 states. The basis of Napoleonic law is protection of the whole community.
It can be interpreted a lot different than the English common law you may be used to. The concept of a man's home being his castle comes from the English common law.
Fred Mallison at July 29, 2013 4:01 AM
wtf- You absolutely have the right to use lethal force to defend your home, life, or property.
There is no right to safety in the course of perpetrating criminal acts.
Did he aim for the head, probably not. I don't know any shooting course that trains people to aim for the head, even in the army its 'center mass'. Chances are he just wasn't that good a shot, and hit the head instead of the chest.
But whether he was trying for a one shot kill or not, doesn't matter. He came upon an intruder that had already broken in to several homes, the intruder had to climb a fence to get into the man's yard, so there was no accident where a person was just cutting through a yard on the way home.
The little thieving fuck was going to break into that house, he got what he deserved.
And wtf…that you missed Ken R's OBVIOUS SARCASM, was telling.
Fuck the criminals. He said the little shit made a gesture as if he was reaching for something, good enough for me.
You are NOT entitled to a safe working environment when your profession is 'criminal'.
Robert at July 29, 2013 4:24 AM
One thing to consider is that the neighborhood in question has had a massive uptick in violence (drugs, rape, robbery) in the past three months.
wct at July 29, 2013 4:30 AM
My house got broken into last Thursday. Bastard cut the screen on the bedroom window and made off with my jewelry, gold chains and a diamond ring. I wasn't home when he broke in but the cops think he heard me open the garage door (remotely) and bolted out the back door. I have a loaded shot gun by my bed, a loaded .22 hand gun on a shelf under one of my kitchen cabinets, and 3 swords and a battle axe on the wall in the hallway. None of those were missing, but had I seen that bastard, I would have shot first and asked questions later. Then I would have called the cops. The detective told me I would have been well within my rights to shoot the bastard, with no penalty on my part.
Robert, SO sorry for your loss. I'm sure your boy was an outstanding young man. I cannot even begin to imagine your paid.
Flynne at July 29, 2013 5:19 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/07/29/in_louisiana_if.html#comment-3824371">comment from wctThere's a high fence (with a locking gate) around my house. A person would not climb it to "cut through a yard." This is not a shortcut like cutting through a yard is in the suburbs where I grew up, before people had fences. They're there to rob you.
Amy Alkon at July 29, 2013 5:20 AM
PaiN, not paid, Robert. I'm still enraged about the break in, not paying much attention to my typing. Damn spellcheck.
F at July 29, 2013 5:21 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/07/29/in_louisiana_if.html#comment-3824376">comment from FlynneFlynne, and especially Robert, so sorry to hear about your losses.
Amy Alkon at July 29, 2013 5:21 AM
Thanks, Amy, I'm just grateful no one was home; my daughter was away at the cabin with her father, thank the gods.
Flynne at July 29, 2013 5:23 AM
Robert, I'm so sorry for your loss. The loss of loved one is tragic, but the loss of an offspring must be devastating. Flynne sorry about the theft, and it's a shame it was never recovered.
Patrick at July 29, 2013 5:54 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/07/29/in_louisiana_if.html#comment-3824427">comment from FlynneVery, very lucky. It's awful to have your home violated and your stuff stolen, but it's good that there wasn't a violent confrontation in the process. (I do love that you have a battle-ax!)
Amy Alkon at July 29, 2013 5:55 AM
@Robert, who wrote:
'You absolutely have the right to use lethal force to defend your home, life, or property.'
You obviously believe you have that moral right. However, you should most-definitely not believe that you have that legal right.
Generally speaking, in the US, you have the right to use force, including deadly force, only to defend yourself or another against a real and present threat to life or limb.
Not to defend mere property.
To claim otherwise is to institute and justify the death penalty for what may be nothing more than a civil trespass.
Now, in certain backward Southern states, the law does permit the use of force, including deadly force, in certain circumstances to defend property (both real property and otherwise). But even in those places, the use of force is subject to a 'reasonable man' standard. In other words, you may well have to prove to a prosecutor and/or a grand or petit jury that your use of force to repel a thief or trespasser was 'reasonable'.
It is in those states that we see the horrible cases where homeowners (for example) shot and killed a man who was knocking on the door of the wrong house by mistake, or where (for example) a property-owner shot and killed a 13-year-old boy execution-style for stealing candy - and then claimed 'the absolute right to use lethal force to defend . . . . property.'
The great danger of error, the impossibility of redress and the disproportion between the (possible) offense and the response, means that most places do not recognize (in law) the 'absolute right' you claim, and never have.
llater,
llamas
llamas at July 29, 2013 6:03 AM
Robert,
I am so sorry to hear about your loss. My daughter is the same age age as your son and I cannot even begin to imagine what you and your family are going through.
Flynn,
Glad to hear that you are okay . I am with you, I wouldn't aim for the legs either! Take them out. In fact, I don't what WTF is talking about when she says cops in her area are trained to hit non vital portions of the body. I have had many opportunities to work with law enforcement in the past and they will all tell you that you don't fire to wound, you fire to kill. A guy with a bullet in his leg can still shoot you back. Duh. This "kid" got what he deserved. Like someone else said, there is no guarantee of work place safety when you are a thief.
Sheep mommy at July 29, 2013 6:04 AM
I notice that a lot of comments are acting as if the shooter was "punishing" the guy by "killing" him. More likely, the shooter was freaked out and trying to scare the guy off. He may be a wonderful shot, or he may have been aiming two feet to the left to frighten the guy away and been a terrible shot. It's wrong to assume that the shooter was trying to kill - or even trying to aim at center mass. We don't know.
As to the rights to defend property, that (legally speaking) depends upon the jurisdiction - and we all probably have different legal rights in that respect.
I lived in a not-so-good area and then got some ne'er-do-well neighbors who had one of their "friends" try to break into our apartment at 2 AM - most likely high. Didn't have a gun, but I can tell you the panic it involved. He wasn't in the place, but just a door between me and a strange guy trying to break in and I was more than panicked.
I have to say I have empathy for the shooter. When panicked we aren't thinking "well, maybe this is an innocent mistake," our brains shut down and we go all "fight or flight." Being that when it's in or right near your house - flight isn't that much of an option (where would you go?). You don't know if there's others in front/etc.
That the unknown guy was still there after the dog barked & the shooter got up & to the door to investigate suggests that this isn't somebody who's gonna be told off & leave. In the, maybe 10 seconds or so, would I have done any better? I doubt it. Not that I necessarily would have shot the guy, but any of us who insist we would have made better choices is ignoring the fact that when people feel threatened, they get a massive rush of adrenaline and their thinking basically shuts off. They aren't making choices so much as reacting to protect themselves (even if the adrenaline is because of public speaking). Note that it isn't always a good result, but non-thinking can only get a good result by chance, not by choice.
Just for an unrelated example, in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, there was a video of a "suspect" (not a police suspect, but a internet one) who ran away from the explosion with a speed and agility that made it look like he knew what the hell he was doing. More likely, most people's shock shut them down, but his sent him into a frantic flight... where he wasn't actually processing where he was going, but just GOING with his body adjusting for him (to get around people/obstacles) in a nearly reflexive manner. Sort of like how people walking in a mall usually unconsciously adjust for other's movements and don't collide, but at a much faster pace. In this example, most people shut down, but that ONE guy had a totally normal, but different reaction.
If we weren't there, we have no business saying we would have reacted differently because we - who sit here and know all the facts and get to contemplate it slowly and without our hearts hammering so loud we can't hear - didn't live it and while we can know the facts, that's not the same as experiencing it. Like hearing somebody tell the basic plot of Jurassic Park isn't the same as watching it in the theater - which wouldn't be the same as living it.
Shannon M. Howell at July 29, 2013 6:28 AM
"I don't what WTF is talking about"
A)Canadian
B)I said unless forced to do otherwise. They'll still kill you up here if they have to, but only if they have absolutely no other choice.
wtf at July 29, 2013 6:44 AM
Does a person who breaks into someone's house while people are present deserve to die?
Perhaps not, or at least not always, in some absolutist moral sense.
But then neither does the person who drives at excessive speed on a twisty mountain road "deserve" to run off a cliff and fall to his death. But when you do the action, that's the chance you take, knowingly and willfully and I don't have a lot of sympathy for the result. "If you hadn't gone down that path, you wouldn't have found that trap."
I feel much the same about people who break into other people's homes while people are present, or who commit other violent crimes.
David L. Burkhead at July 29, 2013 7:04 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/07/29/in_louisiana_if.html#comment-3824559">comment from David L. BurkheadWell-put, David Burkhead.
I don't want to hurt anyone, including a burglar, but I care less about their welfare than my own.
Also, a friend of mine who's a police officer says that trained police officers, who practice at a shooting range, often miss in a stressful situation. If you're a homeowner who maybe has some training on a shooting range, you aren't exactly Marksman #1. So maybe it makes sense to take any shot as soon as you perceive danger, which is reason for people to raise their children to be good citizens instead of criminals, not to tell homeowners to not defend themselves with a firearm if they choose.
Amy Alkon at July 29, 2013 7:09 AM
Det. Nicholas Williams asserted in the arrest warrant that Coulter was not trying to enter Landry's house when he was shot.
Who's this detective, another cousin? How did HE know what the kid's intentions were?
Chris Nelson at July 29, 2013 7:15 AM
At 14 years old my parents knew where the hell I was at all times. Where the hell were the caregivers to this "child" who was "known to steal things"? He jumped a fence at 2am he wasn't going to do some late night gardening for them... He didnt have an innocent purpose for being there. It is sad some people even at a young age make tragically bad choices however like a Previous poster said the easiest way to not get shot for burglarizing someones home is not doing it. My husband would have done the same thing ,but we are in Texas and you better not pull the "I was just taking a stroll through your 8 foot fenced yard in the middle of the night" garbage because the cops will look at it like money saved for the criminal justice system
Lrj at July 29, 2013 7:19 AM
If you're the parent of a teen boy of any race--impress upon him that breaking into somneone's house or car is a bad idea. Taking other people's stuff is a bad idea. Harassing women is a bad idea. This kids parents failed at their job.
KateC at July 29, 2013 7:19 AM
Up here, cops are trained to shoot for non-vital areas
That's not the police force you need. Whoever came up with that idea is an idiot, likely one who never carried a weapon, or had to use one. Center. Of. Mass. Even wearing body armor, that will slow you down.
Rule to live by: never point a gun at anything unless you intend to shoot it. Never ever point a gun at someone unless you intend to kill them. "Shooting to injure" is likely to get the wrong people killed.
Also, many intruders will not carry weapons, as a weapon charge is more serious than a breaking and entering or theft charges. But don't be surprised if they stop in your kitchen to pick up a knife or three.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 29, 2013 7:31 AM
@WTF - "Yet another argument for gun control."
I'd say this is a textbook example of gun control.
One controlled shot, one out-of-control thuglet down, family safe, community spared years of criminal nuisance and danger.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 29, 2013 7:35 AM
A couple of those "kids" were playing a game here a few months ago where they would sucker punch people. Their victim, a shopkeeper, is dead, and they are years younger than Trayvon Martin, or this burglar. I'm sure his family is not consoled by their youth, or their belief that it was a game.
So the would-be burglar was about twenty feet away? Someone with a knife can cover that distance and kill a man with a holstered gun before he can draw and fire. In a fenced yard at two a.m.? If I were on the jury, he'd be acquitted.
MarkD at July 29, 2013 7:42 AM
Robert, I am so sorry. I can't imagine what you're going through.
momof4 at July 29, 2013 7:52 AM
Well I happily live in this backward southern state where I do have the right to defend the property I have worked hard for, from people who would rather take it by force than work themselves. I would take that any day over "progressive" places up north that think you have the right to do nothing but cower in fear no matter WHAT a person wants to do to you.
And strangely enough, for this backward way of life that we have that is so clearly inferior to the enlightened north, we don't feel we have to lock our doors at night. Silly us, what if all these guns grow legs and come molest us in our sleep!
momof4 at July 29, 2013 8:07 AM
Do you folks really think he could accurately tell how old the kid was in the dark?
Do any of you think he was there in the dark collecting for charity?
Baggie at July 29, 2013 8:47 AM
That "mere property" is the product of someone's life's work. That "mere property" will have to be replaced - at the cost of being able to save that money for retirement, medical emergency, job loss, or any of the other vagaries of fate that life throws at you; at the cost of being able to donate it to charity to help another who has fallen upon hard times.
That "mere property" represents a communal feeling of security and safety. A neighborhood experiencing a rash of break-ins is no longer a safe neighborhood; no longer inhabited by people feeling secure in their homes and persons. It has become a neighborhood of fortresses as people barricade themselves inside, hoping the barbarians pillage the neighbors instead. Civilization is undone by the theft of property - and by such casual attitudes in response to it.
"He who steals my purse steals my right to live," was the reply, "old saws to the contrary. For he steals my bread and meat and bed, and in doing so imperils my life." ~ Jack London (The Sea Wolf)
Conan the Grammarian at July 29, 2013 8:55 AM
"That's not the police force you need."
Many criminals are criminals due to circumstance, and simply make the wrong decision due to desperation.
So anyone who makes the wrong decision deserves to die? That might be your stance, I however believe that the ultimate price is too high a price to pay for a wrong decision.
What about the mentally ill?
While I respect your police force, I'd rather have mine. You obviously didn't read the third post, in which I stated that our force WILL shoot to kill,(you either M4) but only as a last resort, only when absolutely no other choice presents itself.
Up here, even drawing your fire-arm necessitates reams and reams of paperwork, inquiries, and the like.
It might not be ideal, but if I were this kid's mother, I'd be thankful he only lost an arm.
"And strangely enough, for this backward way of life that we have that is so clearly inferior to the enlightened north,"
I didn't say that, you did. Also, I haven't locked my door at night since I was a child, and I'm still here. Never once had a break in either.
I said that lethal force is only acceptable for police.
Anything else is playing God.
As for this whole shoot to kill thing, he had many other options. Like locking the doors, pointing the gun AT the door, and calling the police. Who are trained to use weapons and have ready access to counselling should they be forced to kill.
While I respect your belief in the right to defend your home, weapons aren't solely being used for self defense.
In addition, if you look at the numbers, they speak for themselves. In Ontario in 2011, there were 161 murders. In L.A., 316. Almost double. (Source-LA times and Ottawa Citizen)
Also, check the StatsCan website. As our firearm laws have gotten stricter, murder by fire-arm has rapidly declined.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11738-eng.htm
wtf at July 29, 2013 9:03 AM
18" over 30' = 18/360 = 3/60 = 1/20. The difference in height for a head shot v center mass at the point of the muzzle roughly the size of your thumbnail
Also when did crime stop being about the intent of the defendant and become about the supposedly intentional refusal of the defendant to use his telepathy to magically divine the intentions of the criminal victimizing him?
lujlp at July 29, 2013 9:04 AM
I should also point out M4, that in Canada, your are allowed the right to self defense, but only using equal force, and not to defend property.
Guns are legal in locked cabinets, with ammunition removed in a separate locked cabinet. With proper licensing and registry.
Therefore, if someone breaks into your house with a gun or knife, and poses an immediate threat to life and limb, and the perp is shot, the most you would be charged with would be illegal storage of a fire-arm, which is a minor charge.
wtf at July 29, 2013 9:17 AM
I stand by what I said. Had I been home, that bastard that robbed me wouldn't have had a prayer. I was taught to shoot at center mass, and if my shot goes a little higher, ohfrigginwell. Stay the fuck off of my property, unless I invite you to come on it or come in my house. Otherwise, all damn bets are off. Don't TOUCH any of my things that I WORKED MY ASS OFF for. Get a fucking job and get your OWN shit. PERIOD.
Flynne at July 29, 2013 9:20 AM
In Alabama and some other states, anyone who breaks into an occupied dwelling at night, may be legally met with deadly force. If it happens in the the daytime, this is not true except in cases of valid self defense. This distinction comes from the Old Testament, Exodus ch 22, v 4.
Previous posting of this seems to have disappeared.
ken in sc at July 29, 2013 9:22 AM
I should also point out that thinking you wouldn't have a problem killing someone, and the reality of killing someone, especially a child, are two very different things.
Alot of brave talk in this thread, but I find it very hard to believe that if forced to kill, not one person would have problems in dealing with it. This is why so many soldiers and police have PTSD.
How many people have you shot? (Police and Forces excluded.)
wtf at July 29, 2013 9:23 AM
As for this whole shoot to kill thing, he had many other options.
Like locking the doors,
Well wouldnt that violate the criminals right to commit crimes without being impeded by his victims?
pointing the gun AT the door,
That would be a crime threatening someone with a gun
and calling the police. Who are trained to use weapons and have ready access to counselling should they be forced to kill.
Ever hear of Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, or Miriam Douglas?
lujlp at July 29, 2013 9:25 AM
"In practice, police are given more latitude, but in principle, they should be held even more accountable. Because of their position and the powers we grant to them, the bar should be *far* higher than for a civilian."
Good Point!
wtf at July 29, 2013 9:30 AM
"Ever hear of Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, or Miriam Douglas?"
Well no, this happened before I was even a happy thought.
I did follow the link, and am unsure as to your point.
wtf at July 29, 2013 9:33 AM
Follow the link should say googled it.
wtf at July 29, 2013 9:34 AM
Wtf, really? WTF?? I haven't shot ANYone. EVER. But rest assured, if someone were to threaten me and mine, and try to rob me, there would be no hesitation whatsoever. None. Would I feel remorse? Maybe. But if the joker I shoot was intending to rob and shoot me, fuck him. Fuck HIM.
I don't care anymore. I used to, but no more. I'm tired of all the shits out there who think they have a RIGHT to steal from me!! They DON'T. And I will drive that point home by any means necessary.
PERIOD.
Flynne at July 29, 2013 9:34 AM
Lots of talk here about aiming a weapon.
Under some circumstances, you don't have time to aim. You must point and fire. Sometimes you miss; other times you hit your target.
I,too, live in a backward southern state where you can shoot to protect property. You can also shoot if someone is fleeing away from you with property he has just stolen from you.
Nick at July 29, 2013 9:34 AM
@WTF - "So anyone who makes the wrong decision deserves to die?"
That's funny.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 29, 2013 9:36 AM
I did follow the link, and am unsure as to your point.
My point, wtf, was they did call the police. Do you get it yet?
lujlp at July 29, 2013 9:49 AM
Gog for the thread win.
Flynne at July 29, 2013 10:00 AM
"Up here, cops are trained to shoot for non-vital areas, unless forced to do otherwise."
Horseshit.
The RCMP is trained to shoot at the center of mass, same as any other force.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2012/03/15/rcmp-yellowknife-woman-shot-killed-march15.html
Although, technically, no cops are trained to shoot to kill. They are all trained however to shoot for the center of mass. They don't shoot to kill, they shoot to stop. Hitting someone in the vital organs, all of which are kept in a human's center of mass, stops them most effectively.
Part of this is common sense with regards to target selection: a shot to the vital areas, even if it proves non-lethal is the most effective. Largely it's common sense with regards to the shooter. With adrenaline coursing through your muscles, in a situation where you have to make a decision and take action in a fraction of a second, you want to aim at the easiest, largest target possible - the center of mass. Not the head, not the wiggling and narrow arms and legs.
Police are notoriously bad shots,during the Empire State shooting last year *all* of the injured bystanders were caused by the police shooting at the suspect (who was armed). Three bystanders were directly shot by the police.
Elle at July 29, 2013 10:13 AM
"Gog for the thread win."
Validated! Woo-hoo! Mondays can just suck it from now on!
Thanks Flynne.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 29, 2013 10:20 AM
@ Ken in SC, who wrote:
'In Alabama and some other states, anyone who breaks into an occupied dwelling at night, may be legally met with deadly force.'
Not to single you out, specifically, but your statement is typical of many that cause people to believe, what ain't actually so.
Not that it's wrong - what it is is incomplete - and these things matter. Yes, in Alabama, under certain circumstances, you may use deadly force against a burglar. For an exact listing of what those circumstances are, here is the relevant part of Alabama statute
http://law.onecle.com/alabama/criminal-code/13A-3-23.html
As you will see, it's not quite as simple as 'see burglar = shoot burglar.' There must be a reasonable knowledge that it is, in fact, a burglar, and a reasonable belief that the burglar is about to commit some further act of violence against a person - IOW, just what I said. Not in defense of mere property.
Many people honestly believe that they are completely 100% justified in shooting dead any intruder they find, and that the police will show up, pat them on the back and congratulate them for a job well done. However, it definitely is not so - which is only right and proper. Killing a person is a very serious business and society will only excuse it if it was done for valid reasons and on reasonable belief.
Many of the responses here aren't really worthy of a response - if you really think your $200 BluRay player is worth killing someone for, you're likely not open to many reasoned arguments to the contrary - so I would simply suggest that, while you can believe whatever you want, you may not want to put your beliefs to the test. You don't have to believe me, in fact I suggest you don't. Just consult with a criminal defense attorney who's licensed in your state, and have him explain to you how where you live.
llater,
llamas
llamas at July 29, 2013 11:12 AM
"My point, wtf, was they did call the police. Do you get it yet?"
No. What you seem to be suggesting is vigilante justice, which just creates a bigger problem.
"And I will drive that point home by any means necessary."
Saying and doing are two different things.
"Horseshit."
You will note, AGAIN, that I said unless they have no other choice. Which in the case you cite, was clearly the case.
http://www.leaderpost.com/news/story.html?id=8303188
Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Sheriff_Service
And by the by, those are the Feds, not municipal or even provincial police. Just because they are the most visible doesn't mean they are the only. The RCMP are actually kind of a joke up here.
"if you really think your $200 BluRay player is worth killing someone for, you're likely not open to many reasoned arguments to the contrary"
Very true, as demonstrated above. Good point llamas.
wtf at July 29, 2013 11:25 AM
Ilamas said :"Not that it's wrong - what it is is incomplete - and these things matter."
So true. Amy once posted a video about how you should talk to your lawyer, not the police. In carry classes we are taught that the last thing we would want to do is shoot someone. However, if we do shoot someone, talk to your lawyer first before, if ever, talking to the police. It matters, a lot.
Dave B at July 29, 2013 11:26 AM
" if you really think your $200 BluRay player is worth killing someone for"
Exactly.
Open your doors and let the criminals in, regardless of intent or outcome.
You can always have another kid/marry another woman/buy another entertainment device/have the lab grow you another eyeball.
Either that or stand the fuck up for the value of your own existence and the fruits of your labor.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 29, 2013 11:31 AM
As Crid so eloquently noted, paraphrasing since I am not as eloquent as Crid, wtf is a Canadian who insists on lecturing us how we should behave. You know, like Canadians. Well wtf gfy.
Dave B at July 29, 2013 11:34 AM
"Not in defense of mere property."
How does one go about making that determination Ilamas when someone is breaking down your door or crawling through a window? I've yet to learn how to mind read. I have learned to get my gun ready asap, not after the fact.
Dave B at July 29, 2013 11:47 AM
What llamas and wtf don't seem to understand is that it isn't about the blue ray player. It is about the sanctity of your home and personal space. Once we decide that we will no longer protect that space it will be open season on law abiding citizens. Nobody here is excited at the prospect of shooting or killing someone (well, except maybe Flynn, but she has good reason to be angry)but I will defend my space and my child with deadly force if necessary. It isn't about my stuff, it is about my safety and the safety of my family. I am just remembering the video of that woman who was beaten in her own home in front of her child. How do I know that they want just my dvd player and not my 13 year old daughter? You can't know what their true intentions are in that moment.
In fact, if this kid was willing to break in while people were home, that is even worse. Most criminals don't want to tangle with you. They want your stuff and to get out, that's why most break-ins occur during the day. This kid's behavior was clearly escalating and this was bound to happen to him eventually.
sheepmommy at July 29, 2013 12:06 PM
Very sorry for your loss, Robert.
Flynne, I'm glad to hear you still have your swords and battle axe, so you won't be empty-handed at the next Renn Faire.
"Up here, cops are trained to shoot for non-vital areas, unless forced to do otherwise...They'll still kill you up here if they have to, but only if they have absolutely no other choice"
What utter crap. Fresh from the headlines:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/28/toronto-police-criticized-for-shooting-of-cornered-man-brandishing-a-knife-on-empty-streetcar/
A whole squad of pigs had this guy cornered on an empty streetcar, and they shot him dead dead dead. Nine fucking times. They didn't even try any of the nonlethal options available, and they tasered his corpse AFTER they shot him!
Martin at July 29, 2013 12:08 PM
Maybe I should be more-clear about some things.
- I used to be a LEO in a large US police department.
- I have a CPL in the state in which I live (nb and NOT based on my past status as a LEO), and I am a strong and consistent proponent of CCW by every qualified citizen. I carry a pistol everywhere in my state that the law allows, and invariably in my home. And so does mrs llamas.
- I am a rock-ribbed absolutist in the matter of the use of force, including deadly force, in the face of any threat to life or limb. It equalizes the physically weak, including women and the elderly, against the predations of criminals of every stripe. CCW by a large number of citizens, and a CJS that generally supports the concept of the use of force to protect life and limb, make for a healthy society in which violence against the person is positively discouraged. If you are threatened with physical violence in any degree, I will pass you a pistol and hold your coat while you use it.
- Would I shoot an intruder that I found in my home? How would I know whether I was justified to do so? The answer for me is the same as it is for anybody else - I can't know for sure. But at least I would not be laboring under the misapprehension that I somehow have carte-blanche to do so.
- One thing's for sure - no TV or DVD player is worth killing somebody for. Society doesn't hang petty thieves even after they are tried and convicted, and no individual is justified in applying the death penalty to them solely on his own authority.
llater,
llamas
llamas at July 29, 2013 12:14 PM
"A whole squad of pigs had this guy cornered on an empty streetcar, and they shot him dead dead dead"
And are now up for an inquiry, and most likely will be kicked off the force. If you follow the link, THEY ARE ALREADY BEING INVESTIGATED.
These guys are likely to be kicked off the force too.
http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/07/29/man-shot-by-opp-near-sharbot-lake-dies-in-hospital
Dirty cops happen down there, too.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/may_2011/law_enforcement_professionalism
"You can't know what their true intentions are in that moment."
Exactly. You don't know. Assuming that he is going to hurt/rape/kill you is just that. An assumption.
If you value property more than human life, I feel sorry for you.
wtf at July 29, 2013 12:36 PM
I find myself partially in agreement with llamas.
I probably would not shoot someone who was merely in my yard, and not actively breaking into my house.
However, if someone was fifty feet away and charging me, I WOULD start pulling the trigger.
As a woman in my fifties I can't afford to let the situation deteriorate into hand to hand combat.
In this particular incidence there seems to be a question of fact, as to what exactly the teenager was doing, when he was shot by the homeowner.
But realize that a lot of these "homeowner shoots unarmed teen " stories have been so twisted by the media for political purposes, it is difficult to tell what the facts are.
My advice; , know the law, in your state, and proceed accordingly.
Isab at July 29, 2013 12:36 PM
"There must be a reasonable knowledge that it is, in fact, a burglar, and a reasonable belief that the burglar is about to commit some further act of violence against a person - IOW, just what I said. Not in defense of mere property."
No. No. No. Someone breaks through my door, or I hear glass break and someone is coming through my window. That is reasonable knowledge to shoot, center mass, until the threat stops moving. I do not need to know why he/she entered in such a manner. You are confusing the whole issue just because you do not like someone talking macho.
"- I used to be a LEO in a large US police department."
There are some who would say that is not a qualified to discuss the issue as presented here. Me included. I would have a different opinion if you were an attorney.
"- Would I shoot an intruder that I found in my home? How would I know whether I was justified to do so? The answer for me is the same as it is for anybody else - I can't know for sure."
Well, duh.
"But at least I would not be laboring under the misapprehension that I somehow have carte-blanche to do so."
Self-defense = carte-blanche. That is what most, other than you, are talking about here. It's anyone's guess what wtf is talking about.
"- One thing's for sure - no TV or DVD player is worth killing somebody for."
Well, duh. Unless, of course, we are utilizing the concept that all looters will be shot.
"and no individual is justified in applying the death penalty to them solely on his own authority."
Not true. Self defense is justified and sufficient authority.
Dave B at July 29, 2013 12:45 PM
@ Cousin Dave;
What you and Crid fail to understand, is that I, unlike you, make no assumptions about country and supposed superiority or inferiority.
I simply cite Canada due to the fact that we have strict gun control laws, which is in total opposition to American law.
I can cite other countries, like Japan for instance, if it makes you feel better.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
England maybe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
Cousin Dave, I think you're overcompensating for an inferiority complex entirely of your own making.
wtf at July 29, 2013 12:50 PM
"Not true. Self defense is justified and sufficient authority."
Equal force is justified.
By your logic, a punch in the head justifies a stabbing.
wtf at July 29, 2013 12:52 PM
"Equal force is justified"
Prove it.
Dave B at July 29, 2013 12:57 PM
"By your logic, a punch in the head justifies a stabbing."
Also, shooting. You don't seem to understand the concept of self-defense.
Dave B at July 29, 2013 12:59 PM
"@ Cousin Dave;"
Wrong. I'm not. Wish I was in his league, or Crid's.
Dave B at July 29, 2013 1:01 PM
"Horseshit."
You will note, AGAIN, that I said unless they have no other choice. Which in the case you cite, was clearly the case.
-----
Well of course law enforcement - at every level - are trained to go for non-lethal options (batons, tasers, beanbag rounds, pepperspray, etc) when that will handle the situation. But when guns are drawn and shot then *nobody* is trained to shoot non-vital areas - federal to local to civilian.
Elle at July 29, 2013 1:04 PM
"What you and Crid fail to understand, is that I, unlike you, make no assumptions about country and supposed superiority or inferiority."
You must not read what you write.
"I simply cite Canada due to the fact that we have strict gun control laws, which is in total opposition to American law."
Why do you care what Americans' do. And, I bet you think Canadian laws are right and American laws are wrong. No?
"Cousin Dave, I think you're overcompensating for an inferiority complex entirely of your own making."
I think he would resent your idiotic remark. Maybe not. Did I upset the thin skinned Canadian?
If so, not sorry.
Dave B at July 29, 2013 1:09 PM
Canadian police don't shoot and kill unarmed citizens except when they do. Just like American police.
Hey, that's what I'm talking about Jack (sorry Si).
Dave B at July 29, 2013 1:44 PM
wtf, as you say you can not see my point let me give you the cheat codes.
Douglas was being raped, Warren called the cops, cops showed up, thing got quiet so they went down stairs.
The cops responding to a B&E&Rape politely knocked on the door and left when no one answered.
The three women were taken to a new location and raped for hours.
The cops response?
Its one argued by police departments in court all the time - even in your country.
Police have no duty to protect you from a crime, whether in progress or a threat of future harm
Do you get my point now?
lujlp at July 29, 2013 1:47 PM
When you look at homicides and gun violence state by state, you can see right away that many states with the least gun control also have the lowest murder rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
Idaho 1.3 homicides per 100k population in 2010
Montana 2.1
New Hampshire 1.0
North Dakota 1.3
Wyoming 1.4
etc.
Good luck trying to persuade anyone living in these states they'd be safer if only they had strict gun control like their neighbors up north. A look at Canadian homicide rates by province shows otherwise:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal12b-eng.htm
Manitoba 3.65 (4.24 in 2011)
Saskatchewan 3.26 (3.59 in 2011)
Alberta 2.07 (2.88 in 2011)
BC 1.83 (1.9 in 2011)
Our gun laws are uniform - the Firearms Act applies to the whole country. American gun laws vary greatly from state to state, and more gun control does not equal more safety.
Martin at July 29, 2013 2:00 PM
Agreed on the shooting center of mass is what is trained for by everyone. Even snipers generally will shoot center of mass if possible.
As for using less than lethal rounds or similar items in self-defense, especially in a home, it is discouraged. That is why the warning shot is also discouraged for civilians. If you first try incapacitate before using lethal force, the prosecution can use that against you that you weren't in sufficient fear of your life or the life of others to shoot them dead.
Law enforcement has a different standard, and the badge behind them.
For me, I live off the unbeaten path. If you are coming onto my property, unannounced, after dark expect me to be carrying a shotgun at the least. If it's daytime, I'm only a little less suspicious unless I recognize you as one of my neighbor's vehicles, a USPS or power company vehicle. I've met the JW's at the door with a shotgun near at hand. They saw me set it down on my dryer by the door. For some reason they left quickly. :-D
In this case it probably was justified. But the first thing you tell the cops is "I'll give you a statement after I talk to my lawyer," and then shut up.
Jim P. at July 29, 2013 4:35 PM
huh. this must be what they call trolling.
"Equal force is justified." wtf
allow me to set your strawman on fire.
in the course of human events YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT FORCE AN ATTACKER WILL USE.
That's part of that whole attacker, offense, surprise dynamic.
a punch in the head doesn't normally* kill, but it is an opening salvo, to what could be a drawn out attack.
When you are DEFENDING yourself against someone, you've NO IDEA what their intentions are, or what LEVEL of violence they are willing to go to.
The only safe assumption is that YOU, must deal with the attack immediately, and with a suitable finality. That may mean the followup to the suckerpunch is a knee to the face. It may mean that you will need to dispatch several people in order to get away.
It may mean that you defend with a knife if they throw the first punch, because you DON'T KNOW if the second is coming. It may mean that you defend with a gun if they have a weapon, or if you aren't sure they have one.
Homeowner prolly came out yelling, and a dog too. Is the kid running away? If he doesn't, THAT is a provocative act. It means he isn't backing down on discovery.
What happens next is a reaction to that, and every person will be different.
MAXIMUM force is justified... When the defender doesn't know what force his attacker will bring to bear.
The equal force idea was made up by someone who has never been mugged, attacked, or cannot imagine it. One who has never feared for their lives.
SwissArmyD at July 29, 2013 5:26 PM
(Thanks all for your kind commentary, his loss has wrought havoc on our lives, and he was the best, kindest teenage boy I've ever seen. He was a better kid than I was at his age.)
Now, on to the subject of the use of force...Gradual escalation of force or 'equal force to the threat' is ridiculous. You do NOT give the criminal element the right to set the boundries of conflict with the law abiding.
Look if I see someone cut across my lawn, I'm not going for my gun.
If I see somebody climbing the fence I've put up, I am.
They will then be on their knees, or on their back. What family I have left is in this house, anybody who says I have to let the shit get that close to them before I take decisive action for their protection, can go straight to bloody hell with the guy I'd be shooting.
Does somebody deserve to die for making a bad decision?
Well...lets be real here...you know what a bad decision is?
A bad decision is smoking a cigar BEFORE dinner.
A bad decision is not wrapping your tool before you have sex with a fool.
A bad decision is going to an ivy league college to be an art history major, and taking student loans out to pay for it.
THOSE are bad decisions.
Climbing somebody's fence at two in the damn morning, robbing houses, stealing or assaulting...those are CRIMINAL decisions.
And while the crime might not merit a death sentence under the law, if you choose to make crime your profession, then you forfeit the right to safe working conditions to which all other citizens are entitled.
That isn't a death sentence, that is a job hazard. And as for whether or not it is deserved, property is a product of labor, work, sweat, blood, tears, dedication, sacrifice, and the house is the secure and safe place from the hazards of the world, invasion of that space with intent to defile it, merits whatever consequences occur as a result of that choice.
Robert at July 29, 2013 6:01 PM
"That isn't a death sentence, that is a job hazard"
So true Robert, and the countries who have taken the danger element of getting your ass shot off in a home invasion, or a burglary have reaped the whirlwind in the form of sky rocketing crime rates by criminals who have little to fear, even when they are caught.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/u-k-crime-statistics-hit-record-high/
if you read the link, be sure to note the data on Canada.
Isab at July 29, 2013 6:22 PM
Let's have a break after all the shoot for center mass stuff.
http://knuckledraggin.com/2013/07/tactissy/#comments
Do not let wtf see this. She won't be able to handle it.
Dave B at July 29, 2013 6:55 PM
Flynne talked about his or her experience of getting broken into and about the guns in the house. Thankfully, there wasn't a violent exchange. Even more thankful because guess who was in the house with all those weapons and who was driving into the garage? It wouldn't have going well for our friend Flynne.
I'm not weighing in on the gun control debate, but I will say that Flynne's story as well as the story of the young man shot in the head are part of the reasons that I'm not personally comfortable having a gun in the house. It just seems to go wrong a lot more than it goes right.
whistleDick at July 29, 2013 6:56 PM
Robert,
I'm sorry for your loss.
Thank you for not backing down from reality.
I view anyone unknown coming through the main gate of a picket fence at 2:00AM and not going to the front door and not announcing yourself to the occupants is effectively a questionable act.
Jim P. at July 29, 2013 7:02 PM
I checked Isab, and I can't say I'm surprised.
Here is what boggles my mind...so many are behaving as if we have some sort of 'social contract' with the criminal element. "If I agree not to be armed, if I agree to comply with your demands for my property, you won't do me any harm."
I'm reminded of an old comedy film, the protagonist is walking with his baby at night, and he is confronted by two thugs who demand wallet and watch, he hands both over rather indifferently, and they, frustrated by his lack of obvious fear, begin to behave more aggressively, to which he responds:
"Hey, we had a deal...you commit a felony...I go."
This seems to be how way to many people are thinking, if they just allow themselves to be robbed, their lives will not be in danger.
But the truth could not be farther away from them than it is with that way of thinking. There is no 'social contract' with the robber, the reaver, the raper, they are the ANTITHESIS of a the social contract, they stand outside of and reject the common understanding that we will live and let live, that me is mine and you is yours, and that no one will be deprived of life, liberty, or property, outside the boundaries of a commonly accepted rule of law.
There is no promise that crime will stand outside our doors and wait for us to come to it in certain 'proscribed' dangerous neighborhoods.
Crime goes where criminals walk, carried with them in evil hearts and evil intent, their bad decisions are their own, and none of us can say with certainty whether a man who draws a knife on a woman in the dark is just trying to feed himself, or whether he revels in her terror, but what we do know his that he has abandoned the common promise that civilized people agree to as part of the right to live in civilization, that we will not deprive people of their right to live, to be free, and to keep what they earn by their labor.
In abandoning that promise, in choosing to prey on their brothers and sisters, they abandon manhood and become nothing but mad dogs, and if they are dealt the same fate as mad dogs while inflicting upon us the danger of their madness, why should any citizen face a penalty for putting them down?
Is the loss of what potential those men might have had...tragic...well yes. Gone is the preacher, poet, engineer, doctor, plumber, nurse, gone is what good they might have done...a waste of life is always tragic. But whom was the one responsible for making the decisions that lead to that tragedy?
The boy that climbed that fence had made the same choice repeatedly, to deprive his neighbors of the safety of their home and the right to keep the fruits of their labor, he had chosen to be, in the words of his own family, 'A professional thief'. Nobody commanded him, "Climb my fence at 2 in the morning, break into my home, you will be safe there and may keep what you can carry out." Those choices lay with him, and the man who pulled the trigger, made a decision too, that his safety, his family's safety, and the rewards of his work, were all worth protecting from someone else intent on depriving him of any or all of it.
Robert at July 29, 2013 7:13 PM
I'm not weighing in on the gun control debate, but I will say that Flynne's story as well as the story of the young man shot in the head are part of the reasons that I'm not personally comfortable having a gun in the house. It just seems to go wrong a lot more than it goes right.
Posted by: whistleDick at July 29, 2013 6:56 PM
I think the US media has been working overtime to convince people that having a gun in the house is more dangerous to your family than to the criminal element.
The crime rates in the states with high legal gun ownership say otherwise.
A swimming pool is a greater hazard to your kids.
Of course, I was raised in a house with an unloaded gun in every corner and a loaded one in the closet. My father taught me how to shoot a rifle, and in case of a break in while I was home, alone, I knew where to get it, and how to use it from the age of 12.
My father did not teach me how to shoot a handgun until I was 19, and living on my own.
Isab at July 29, 2013 7:30 PM
"Why do you care what Americans' do"
Because what you do, at least as pertains to fire-arms, (among other issues) directly affects us.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ci-rc/reports-rapports/traf/index-eng.htm
"A look at Canadian homicide rates by province shows otherwise"
If you read your own link, those homicide figures show no differentiation between manslaugher, stabbings, fire-arm related deaths, and infanticide.
We're talking shooters, not smothering a baby in a pillow.
"I think he would resent your idiotic remark. Maybe not. Did I upset the thin skinned Canadian?"
If I were thin skinned, I wouldn't be on an American website. Many go out of their way to be insulting when disagreed with. Our rep is for politeness, if you recall.
And I do my best to offend Cousin Dave, (and Crid) as he is an idiot. If you want thin skinned, see his most recent linkie-loo post.
Why would you want to be in anyone else's league? Your own isn't satisfactory?
"The cops responding to a B&E&Rape politely knocked on the door"
So this is a call for vigilante justice? The cops in question 30 some years ago were idiots, so let's all go for our guns?
Really?
"there are 2,034 offenses per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-place Austria at 1,677. The U.S. has a rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada has 935, Australia has 92, and South Africa has 1,609."
Hmmm....
If you check, this disagrees with you....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Unless Raj got to them.
"Do not let wtf see this. She won't be able to handle it."
Why would that be exactly? Boobs don't frighten me. I have a pair.
"That may mean the followup to the sucker-punch is a knee to the face."
Not even the same argument. A knee to the face could be justified after a sucker-punch, as both are bare-handed. A knife-wound to the chest after a sucker punch isn't even in the same league.
"It just seems to go wrong a lot more than it goes right."
Exactly!
"THOSE are bad decisions....... merits whatever consequences occur as a result of that choice."
So is smoking weed. So is school yard bullying. (As the perp in this story is of that age, these are good examples. Everyone seems to forget we're talking about a child.)
So the next time there's a school yard fight, we should just tell the kids to keep beating the bully or dealer till they're dead, as it's justified.
What seems to be misunderstood, is that I am not arguing the right to self-defense in a life or death situation. I am arguing force, and property rights being more important than life, especially that of a troubled teen who could still have been rehabilitated through juvie and the like. Probably wouldn't have worked, but he still deserves the chance. If every kid that made a bad decision got shot, we'd have a lot fewer people in the world.
"This seems to be how way to many people are thinking, if they just allow themselves to be robbed, their lives will not be in danger."
Any cop worth his salt will tell you, when being mugged, hand over your fuckin wallet!!!!
And I fail to understand how a robbery deprives you of a sense of safety, any more than a tornado does. The chances that it will happen again are....
This is why they make security systems. And train big scary guard dogs.
There are other options than shooting someone. Even if you do absolutely HAVE to have your gun, the thought that someone breaking in wants your shit just that badly that he/she isn't scared off by firing into the air, is arrogant.
Your shit just ain't that valuable. If it were, you'd keep it in a safety deposit box.
wtf at July 29, 2013 8:08 PM
Property rights are often necessary to insure your survival.
This is why stealing a horse in the old west had a death sentence. Leaving someone without transportation, in a Colorado winter was effectively the same as killing them.
There was a woman in a town near where I live, that was car jacked. The thief let her out of the vehicle and drove off, leaving her to walk to town. She froze to death on the way there. But it was just theft right?
Socialists love to blur the distinction between property, and personal rights. In reality, lack of respect for property has always degenerated into no respect for your life or your personal rights either. Once the social contract is broken, all bets are off.
Only in la la land, does the government step in and make things all better, after a thief steals something that may be vital to your survival.
This is why we have property rights. Without them, we would live in a very unpleasant state of anarchy where anyone who was neither young or physically fit would be easy prey for a 17 year old thug with either a knife or just his fists.
Isab at July 29, 2013 8:32 PM
"Our rep is for politeness, if you recall."
Not yours. You have the rep for being the nastiest bitch on this board. You are also not very bright. The link was about head shots, not boobs, dipshit.
I know about Minnesota nice, but not Canadian politeness. Surely you do not think you are representative of something called a polite Canadian.
"Any cop worth his salt will tell you, when being mugged, hand over your fuckin wallet!!!!"
Oh, really?
Dave B at July 29, 2013 8:53 PM
WTF: Schoolyard bullying is not inherently criminal. Smoking weed is…in some cases, not all. But while both of those might be called 'bad decisions' neither of them are in the same league as breaking and entering. B&E is way past the 'bad decision' point. Put on a tape measure, 'school yard bullying is at the 1 inch mark, smoking weed is at about 6 inches, and burglary is at just about 45 feet. Its way past 'bad decision' there. If you are so goddamn thick that you can't tell the difference between 'bad decision' and 'robbery' that you manage to breath while unconscious is amazing to me.
-----------
"Any cop worth his salt will tell you to hand over your wallet"
And I promise you that cop won't be there to keep that wallet from being taken. You do not owe the thief your wallet. You owe it to yourself to decide whether or not you will exercise the right to defend your earnings. You are not a criminal for refusing to give in to criminal demands.
-------------------
Your argument that your property is not more important than life, is not an argument without merit. That having been said, what is without merit is the notion that a free person must give up the property he acquired, in order to preserve the life and safety of the criminal. If a man breaks into my house, am I to allow him to take what he wishes and walk out, because his life and safety are more valuable than what I worked to earn?
Property is not just 'property' it represents time, precious hours of life that were spent laboring to draw an honest salary, to give gifts to my children, to put good blankets on their beds, to give them good educations at home and to give them happiness and comfort in their daily lives. Property is what is acquired by the expenditure of the hours of your life. Do you have a right to defend that? Does the person who did not earn it get to tell me that his value in theft is greater than the value of what I have earned honestly? What lesson do we impart to the next generation when we say, "No matter how hard you work, someone else can come and take it away from you just because they want it, and you owe it to them to ensure that their lives and safety are respected as they deprive you of what is yours, because one day they may reform."
I think NOT. I cannot say 'Fuck THAT' in enough languages, and I can curse in 6.
Can some be reformed? Perhaps, but do we abjure our right to what is ours, on the notion that the criminal may one day choose to cease to be a criminal?
And a tornado is not an invader. There is no police system that can prevent it, your home is either built to withstand it, or it is not. If there were greater efforts of mankind that could eliminate the chance encounter with the forces of nature, those efforts would no doubt be undertaken, and where that is possible, that is indeed done.
But we are not talking about acts of nature, but the willful choices of men to prey on their neighbors, deprive them of the inalienable right to keep what they have earned honestly, to sleep soundly in their beds free from hostility, to find respite against evil. And that is what it is, evil. Smoking weed might be a bad decision, but robbery is a willful act of deliberate evil meant to deprive the innocent of honest earnings, to enrich the dishonest and predatory.
You say, "He was a child!" well he made the choice of an evil man. And he made it one to many times, perhaps his family failed him, perhaps his conscience did, but he could have avoided his own end, simply by choosing not to take what did not belong to him, and he will get no sympathy from me. He had his chance…he had it every day that he woke up, and every night that he went to sleep, to be honest, or to lie, to give, or to take, to respect the lives and property of others, or to disrespect it. He repeatedly made the wrong choices, and he did that on his own, absent compulsion from any source you or I can name unless you wish to name the devil a defendant. And he ran out of chances, when he chose the wrong house.
You speak of 'security systems' well, that man had one, he held it in his hand, and he used it on a rabid dog that chose the wrong house to attempt to victimize. The ultimate right of every person is the right to defend their life and property.
You say, "He could have fired into the air", that is stupid. A pipe dream by people with no real sense of what it means to be in danger. And if someone wants your shit badly enough to wait until 2 in the a.m., climb a fence, and break into your house, how well can you gauge how far they will go? With my wife and children in the house, I'm putting the bastard down where he stands and not taking that chance.
(BTW, guard dogs are expensive and have ongoing costs, bullets are cheap)
And by the way, I do keep my valuable shit in a safety deposit box. That box comes with a locked front and back door, I keep my bed, my children, and all my other stuff in it, I call that box a house. And he who violates it will get an unapologetic bullet to their throat.
Robert at July 29, 2013 9:00 PM
I, quite frankly, don't care what you want to bring to a gunfight. I will always use my best weapon at hand, be it a fist, blunt object, knife or a gun. I won't attack anyone, but I will respond with any and all force to end the argument. I don't care if you are the agrressor, you deserve to lose. End of sentence. If it is a verbal assault, I and you can walk away. Once you lay hands upon someone, you have lost your rights.
So was Trayvon Martin at 5'11" and 158 lbs (71.6KG) technically a child. The difference is that a child (under 18) in smoking weed or even a schoolyard bullying is generally they are done within some control of an adult. The kid may be sneaking weed, but is home at 2AM. Or bulliying a fellow student bullied has an option to turn to the school administration. They aren't climbing over a fence at a 2AM in the morning.
Firing into the air is illegal in most states. In addition, as I noted above, the way the U.S. jurisprudence system is set up is that the use of less than lethal first means that you weren't sufficiently threatened to use lethal force originally.
This is talking about a civilian, not LEO. You have someone approach you in the park and you have a Taser™ and a CCW firearm with you. You use the Taser™ first and it doesn't stop them. Then you shoot and kill them. The fact that the dead perpetrator has nearly lethal levels of heroin in his system cannot be used in your defense. So you weren't threatened enough to just shoot him works against you.
If that is your opinion, please go to your nearest bank and check yourself in.
My shit, my TV, my freaking carpet is valuable to me. Would you mind that I came by and burned down your house? If your house isn't of value to you then you wouldn't mind. If your house isn't of value to you then you have it locked in a safe deposit box.
Jim P. at July 29, 2013 9:09 PM
Copy and paste sucks. Edited version:
Or in other words, why don't you, your family and all your shit exist in a safe deposit box?
Jim P. at July 29, 2013 9:32 PM
What bothers me most about this discussion is the total lack of attention to the circumstances by some posters.
1) The bullet impact is rarely the point of aim. It'll be close. Just go shooting and you will find this out.
2) ID of an intruder is not possible given time constraints. Likewise personal history.
3) Intent of an intruder must be inferred. What reason is there for someone to hop your fence in the early morning?
4) There is no lower age limit to deadly force. A "child" is perfectly capable of using a knife or gun on you. There are tens of thousands of such cases on file worldwide.
To suggest that a case like this should end with milk and cookies in front of the DVD player is simple Internet trolling.
No. The burden is NOT on the homeowner in such cases. If you do not want to be killed or injured, present yourself at the front door like a rational human being.
You are NOT going to get a "do-over", no matter how badly you want one, when you appear to offer violence to an entirely law-abiding citizen at home minding his own business until you intruded.
Radwaste at July 30, 2013 3:07 AM
"There must be a reasonable knowledge that it is, in fact, a burglar, and a reasonable belief that the burglar is about to commit some further act of violence against a person - IOW, just what I said. Not in defense of mere property."
If someone breaks into an unoccupied house, they are just a thief. If someone breaks into your home while you are there, they intend you harm. They wouldn't break into an occupied house unless they had a plan for dealing with the occupants; you would be absolutely nuts to assume anything else.
"Equal force is justified." What is equal force? Am I supposed to ask the intruder "do you have a gun? No? Ok, I'll put mine down so we can have a fist fight". In what world does that make sense? Remember: your typical criminal is a young, strong, healthy male. Your typical break-in victim is not.
- - - - -
That said, this case is in a huge gray zone because the criminal was *not* in the house. It's a pretty good assumption that he was up to no good, but what kind? Would he have broken in? Would he have seen that people were home, and left for that reason?
I am generally not a fan of warnings or warning shots - there is no reason to give away the advantage of surprise. However, a warning might have been appropriate in this case. However, the only person who can make that call is the person directly involved. No one else knows what the situation was really like.
a_random_guy at July 30, 2013 3:45 AM
The impact point is an excellent...'point'.
A bullet does not fly straight. It flights at an arc.
---------
I might wonder about this case a bit myself. But the home in this case had a fence up.
Look somebody out at 2 in the a.m. might cut across a yard on the way home or something, I could buy that, I'm out late frequently these days just on a walk. The summers here are beautiful at night, and I enjoy them a great deal. I've cut across the occasional yard to get from point A to point B.
But I've never hopped somebody's fence to do it.
The moment you hop a fence at 2 a.m., you've made your intentions clear, and it does not take a genius to determine what those intentions are, and it isn't to sell newspaper subscriptions.
Would he have left if he'd thought people were not home, and found that they were...well hell, who isn't home at that hour? The way I see it, he assumed residents were present, as most residents are at that hour, even when I'm out late at night on a stroll, my wife and kids are asleep in the house.
Robert at July 30, 2013 5:12 AM
I find the idea that, if one is attacked with a fist, then responding with a weapon is somehow wrong. What if a burly 6-foot-4 guy tries to break into my house?
Now, I can't just leave & call the cops (I've got kids). But unless he pulls a knife or something I can't throw a frying pan at him because it's not "equal" force?
I'm five-foot-two. "Equal" force (as in, with an even chance of not getting beat within an inch of my life) would be no less than something potentially deadly. After all, without a blood-tox screen, the guy could be on something that simply blocks out pain.
So, "equal" shouldn't be (in my opinion) same-type weapon. That just doesn't make any sense. Should a little granny with a walker have to fist-fight to protect herself just because an intruder doesn't pull a weapon (and she can't flee very fast)? No, the granny should get to use what she has available to defend herself - heavy pan, curling iron, taser, big-old dog, or shot gun.
Shannon M. Howell at July 30, 2013 6:03 AM
I've had some time to think about this. My thoughts haven't changed much, and aren't likely to. I EARNED all of my belongings. ANYone who tries to take them from me by force WILL NOT succeed. Not if I'm home, not if they break in. NOT. EVER. AGAIN.
Going to the range after work today.
Flynne at July 30, 2013 7:35 AM
I would hand over my wallet if I thought the mugger would run off and that would be the end of it. Everything in it is easily replaceable. I'd have no LEGAL requirement to do so here in Texas, though. I could chose to defend myself and my wallet.
My house, though? Where the things most precious, and irreplaceable, reside? Nope. I get a HINT of ill intent, I'm defending as extremely as I need to to stop the threat.
Warning shots and shots into the air are the height of stupidity and that you would suggest them shows how truly ignorant you are about guns. Shots that go up must come down, and they do so at terminal velocity. It's enough to kill. Warning shots are basically unaimed shots, heading off to hit who-knows-what, unless you shoot right at your feet, and that's just going to make you look like an idiot, AND give the perp time to rush you.
momof4 at July 30, 2013 7:39 AM
Here's what can happen to you even if you hand over your stuff willingly with no resistance:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2381082/Thomas-TC-Maslin-The-high-flying-policy-analyst-left-brain-damaged-horrific-street-attack.html?ICO=most_read_module
Hmmm, guess his attackers didn't get that "equal force" memo.
Sheep mommy at July 30, 2013 7:47 AM
The location of the event that started this discussion has now been Street-Viewed all over. It's not the high-walled locked-and-gated compound that was originally suggested. It's a suburban house on a suburban street with a 3-foot ornamental wrought-iron fence and gate.
It's interesting to see how many people argue that this shooting, or other shootings under very similar circumstances, are justified because Rape and Murder! Protect my Children! When of course, in this case and so many others like it, there is only the barest suggestion (the ever-popular 'furtive movement') to suggest that the boy who was shot had any violent intent whatsoever. Many people here are asking for the right to prejudge evil or violent intent and to always be held harmless for the consequences. No surprise there - we'd all like a get-out-of-jail-free card. However, what is being asked for amounts to a murderer's charter.
Try this thought experiment.
Is it justifiable to set lethal traps inside your home or on your property - hidden, secret devices that will kill any person who comes upon them, regardless of time or circumstance?
Yes, or No?
That is what many people here are asking for, in effect - the right to kill any intruder, without consequences.
If you agree that such devices are justifiable, then what would be your reaction if such a device killed a person who manifestly has no criminal intent - let us say, a police officer responding to a call about an unidentified intruder?
llater,
llamas
llamas at July 30, 2013 8:48 AM
Property rights are necessary to insure the survival of civilization.
Economic prosperity hinges upon the right to own the fruits of one's labor and to use one's property as one sees fit.
Where land, property, and economic output is communal (or "owned" by the state), economies stagnate, productivity is low, and innovation is virtually non-existent. The style of living degenerates and brutality eventually dominates.
==============================
That property you so casually dismiss is the fruit of someone's lifetime of labor. People work hard to give themselves a better life (which includes nice things). Those things must be replaced when stolen (insurance only covers so much and cannot replace sentimental value).
In addition, a neighborhood suffering a rash of robberies is no longer that safe place people return to after a day of working hard. It's no longer the haven it used to be.
Robbers (whether 14 or 40 years old) rob people of more than things. They steal their security, their piece of mind, and leave them feeling vulnerable.
Civilization hinges upon people feeling safe in their homes and neighborhoods.
Conan the Grammarian at July 30, 2013 8:51 AM
peace of mind
Conan the Grammarian at July 30, 2013 8:55 AM
"If you read your own link, those homicide figures show no differentiation..."
The American figures I linked to also cover all homicides, not just shootings (which are listed in a separate column). So yes, there really are states with lots of guns & not much gun control where people are just as safe or safer than the folks north of the border.
Martin at July 30, 2013 9:03 AM
"Is it justifiable to set lethal traps inside your home or on your property - hidden, secret devices that will kill any person who comes upon them, regardless of time or circumstance?
Yes, or No?"
No, the law is very clear on this. You cant set lethal traps because they cannot distinguish between an innocent, and a burglar.
The kind of fence you have in your yard, or any fence at all should not matter.
His relatives already admitted he was a burglar. The only question of fact is whether in this particular instance, the homeowners response was both reasonable and within the laws of Louisana.
Isab at July 30, 2013 9:11 AM
Your shit just ain't that valuable. If it were, you'd keep it in a safety deposit box. ~ wtf
Maybe not to YOU, but it is to ME. And I shouldn't have to PAY for a safety deposit box for things I should be able to keep in my jewelry box on top of my dresser IN. MY. OWN. HOME.
That property you so casually dismiss is the fruit of someone's lifetime of labor. People work hard to give themselves a better life (which includes nice things). Those things must be replaced when stolen (insurance only covers so much and cannot replace sentimental value).
Civilization hinges upon people feeling safe in their homes and neighborhoods.
Absodamnlutely. AbsoDAMNlutely. I hope no one ever robs you, wtf. Live in oblivion the rest of your life and be happy. I hope that never gets taken away from you.
Because when it DOES get taken away, it SUCKS.
Flynne at July 30, 2013 9:13 AM
-- "That may mean the followup to the sucker-punch is a knee to the face."
Not even the same argument. A knee to the face could be justified after a sucker-punch, as both are bare-handed. A knife-wound to the chest after a sucker punch isn't even in the same league.-- wtf
um, wtf, your strawman is already on fire... you might want to step away from it.
Fights, attempted burglaries, and our lives happen over TIME.
This isn't the schoolyard, where someone punches you, and you hit them back, and then the teacher steps in.
In the real world the fight is often over for well or ill LONG BEFORE the police arrive, but it does exist across an amount of time.
WHICH MEANS that the ONE punch, may be followed by SOMETHING ELSE UNKNOWN to the defender, which is YOU.
you might know [or not] that after the first punch, the clock is ticking... if it was to the head, your bell may be rung, and you may begin to loose consciousness. If it was to someplace else, you will have injuries that your body may react to, by swelling and so forth. You start moving slower.
Somebody who is experienced at dealing out violence knows all that, and will do what they can, to accelerate it.
Which means that the force you use HAS TO BE OVERWHELMING in defense.
This applies in any defense. At a distance, your worry is that they have a ranged weapon like a gun. TIME is much more critical if this is the case. IF it appears that they are going for a weapon, the overwhelming must be immediate, because you won't get another opportunity.
Some people think a lot about these things, and some just know "you can't hold back"...
Person appears in your fenced in yard in the middle of the night, coming towards your back door. Time has already started ticking. Person has already made a NUMBER of provocative moves, JUST BEING THERE. IF they make another one like reaching for their waistband.
Did you just read that paragraph? That is the entire amount of time you have to make your decision.
Defender had NO IDEA if this was to be a burglary, or his own murder. You can't know those things until AFTER it is done.
Here is what it looks like when a burglar, is apparently interested in more than burglary [pay attention to how this played out over time, and that she DID retreat to safety, and it didn't help. But she COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN THAT AT THE TIME]:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/05/my-wife-is-a-hero-georgia-mother-shoots-home-intruder-five-times-after-being-cornered/
prolly none of this will change your mind, wtf. If you are lucky you live in a low crime area, and will never have to worry about it.
But some of the most ardent gun advocates I know, are women who thought violence was a bad thing, and you should just give them the money... RIGHT UP UNTIL THEY WERE RAPED.
At that moment their carefully nurtured illusions about how the world is supposed to work, became a very real lesson in how things ACTUALLY work.
SwissArmyD at July 30, 2013 10:00 AM
"Try this thought experiment.
Is it justifiable to set lethal traps inside your home or on your property - hidden, secret devices that will kill any person who comes upon them, regardless of time or circumstance?
Yes, or No?"
Look, over there, a squirrel. Please stay on topic.
Then Llamas says:
"That is what many people here are asking for, in effect - the right to kill any intruder, without consequences."
I call bullshit. Name them.
Again, Llamas says: "It's a suburban house on a suburban street with a 3-foot ornamental wrought-iron fence and gate."
So going over it at 2am is ok Llamas? Dude, you act like you just want to prove us wrong without regards to what we are saying. Try dealing with my comments to you above.
Dave B at July 30, 2013 10:34 AM
"Not yours. You have the rep for being the nastiest bitch on this board."
Only when required. If you wanna be nasty, I'll be nasty. You'll notice I don't go off on people who don't go off on me. When in Rome.....Don't like it, maybe learn some manners dipshit.
"My shit, my TV, my freaking carpet is valuable to me."
Yes, but is it valuable enough for a burglar to risk injury for? Personally, if I were a thief, and confronted with even an unarmed person, I'd make a break for it as fast as I possibly could.
"Or in other words, why don't you, your family and all your shit exist in a safe deposit box?"
I already do. It's called living far away from highly populated areas with a big scary dog that WILL bite if he senses the need to, and security system, complete with flood lights. Also, our cop station is down the road. Dare you to break in.
"where people are just as safe or safer than the folks north of the border."
And yet, we don't need guns to defend our homes.
"And I shouldn't have to PAY for a safety deposit box for things...."
I absolutely agree. What happened to you was horrible, despicable, unfair!!!
However, life is a bitch. You weren't born on this earth with a guarantee of safety and security at all times.
"RIGHT UP UNTIL THEY WERE RAPED."
I was previously a rape crisis counselor. I turned medical administrator when I couldn't handle it anymore.
Some of them would love to kill their attacker. Most realize this only fucks up their own lives further.
As well, most rapists don't break in to houses to do it. Some do, but most rape victims are known by their attacker. And were let in by the victim.
The ones I handled were raped by priests and family members.
wtf at July 30, 2013 10:41 AM
Robert, if a child in the school yard hits your child with a rock, the solution is not to give every other child in the school yard a rock.
"Firing into the air is illegal in most states."
So is breaking in. I'd rather shoot into the air than into a head.
wtf at July 30, 2013 10:47 AM
"Only when required. If you wanna be nasty, I'll be nasty. You'll notice I don't go off on people who don't go off on me. When in Rome.....Don't like it, maybe learn some manners dipshit."
So, wtf, you are not one of those polite Canadians that you claim exist.
I wonder why wtf doesn't want innocent people to be able to defend themselves from savages. Mystery of the mind. Pretty cruel bitch if you ask me. Cruel bitch even if you don't.
Dave B at July 30, 2013 10:55 AM
So is breaking in. I'd rather shoot into the air than into a head.
Posted by: wtf at July 30, 2013 10:47 AM
Shooting into the the air is a good indicator that you did not need to shoot at all.
The point is, that if you are not in immediate danger, you shouldn't be pulling the trigger.
So if you don't know how to use it, and are not willing to use it correctly, just leave it in the drawer.
Isab at July 30, 2013 10:59 AM
"I'd rather shoot into the air than into a head."
You are one of the idiots that do not think far enough ahead to realize bullets come down with deadly force. Somebody pointed that out above but you failed to notice. You could even research it. You do not know guns.
Dave B at July 30, 2013 11:01 AM
"You weren't born on this earth with a guarantee of safety and security at all times." wtf
this and your comment as a rape counselor show that you aren't thinking this through.
YOU AND ONLY YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN SECURITY.
The woman that buys a gun after has taken the first step in her OWN SECURITY. She isn't going to kill anyone IN REVENGE.
She is going to be secure in her own person.
There is nothing worse that feeling helpless. EVEN IF you lose to your attacker,m you put up a fight, and you were EMPOWERED to do so.
can you hear me yet?
SwissArmyD at July 30, 2013 11:08 AM
"this and your comment as a rape counselor show that you aren't thinking this through."
Now that is funny Swiss. Thinking is not one of wtf's abilities. At least not one she has shown of this subject.
Dave B at July 30, 2013 11:16 AM
"Equal force is justified."
God made men, Sam Colt made them equal.
"I was previously a rape crisis counselor."
If he's forced me down with his bare hands, I should only punch and scratch? (What's proportional response to being raped? Rape him right back?)
Look, I'm a large gal with decent strength. But I still can't hold off the average guy. I am not going to wait until I am actively in the process of being raped/ murdered/ assaulted before I use the only weapon that can effectively defend me against the average male attacker.
Stuff is stuff, but if there is an intruder *in my home* I am definitely going to assume worst case scenario - that he's there for me, not the DVD player. I could give two shits about the DVD player, hell, take my grandmother's jewelry box and my wedding ring and the stuffed toys my grandad gave me before he died. But do it when I'm not home. Because if someone breaks into an occupied home then it's safe to assume they have no qualms about hurting the people inside.
------
Thinking about the specific LA case....
Would I shoot someone for hopping a fence at 2am? I don't think I would. I grew up in a very safe suburb. Currently I live in an apartment complex (people are walking around at 2am three times a week at least) in a very safe/yuppie part of the city. There has been no rash of robberies among my neighbors (but lock your car doors because asshole kids will occasionally try the doors and steal smart phones and loose change).
So it's just not part of my life experience that "guy in my yard/ area at 2AM is an imminent threat." I would not be comfortable shooting in this particular situation.
But I would be on the phone with the cops as fast as I could dial 911. And I would be getting the revolver out of the night stand. Just in case he came through the door.
Elle at July 30, 2013 12:05 PM
wtf- You missed the point. If you shoot the air, you may be charged, if you shoot the intruder, you won't be. Also, firing into the air, you have a chance of killing someone completely innocent when the bullet comes back down. You'd rather risk injury to a completely innocent third party, than do injury to someone overtly criminal?
"Yes, but is it valuable enough for a burglar to risk injury for?"
When they break into people's homes, they risk injury or death, so yes, it must be.
Maybe you'd run away, but not all burglars do that. And you don't know which one you got.
------------
We're not talking about children in school yards with assistance close at hand to break up a tussle, we're talking about an uncontrollable criminal of uncertain intent where you and your property are ONLY protected to the extent that you are watchful over it.
Put down your cowards morality, and that is what it is, a coward's morality, so afraid of making a stand, even against undisguised evil, that you lay down for it in the hopes that it will not hurt you to much before it leaves.
Do not presume to infect the will of others who value what they have built enough to make a stand when it is threatened.
Robert at July 30, 2013 12:24 PM
One of these things is not like the other...
Should I have the right to kill any intruder in my home? You do realize the definition of intruder tends to include the criminal intent bit, right? All this worry about people being killed while committing a crime. I keep thinking about something that sums things up perfectly, if you ask me:
Ah yes.. "backward" states. You know, up until basically sometime in the 20th Century, in the US nobody really batted an eye if you shot someone to protect your property. Much of the world likely still operates this way. Now we're told by our betters that the proper way of thinking is that this is wrong... and guess which areas of the US tend to have the highest rates of crime, especially robberies and assaults? People have already mentioned how the change of laws and thinking in the UK has made crime skyrocket... why not? The law essentially now protects the criminals far more than the victims. Combine that kind of law with a society and thinking that you have a "right" to a comfortable life without having to work for it, and then people act surprised at the levels of crime and demands for what isn't earned.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovwxBrIBj1w
That anyone is surprised at those outcomes is pretty telling.
Miguelitosd at July 30, 2013 12:59 PM
I'm sure if an intruder killed your dog you'd just let it go too right?
How about if the dog attacked and injured or killed the intruder? You'd give up everything you have and go to jail because it was wrong to take the life of an intruder, right? You don't know for sure if you were really in danger, and the dog can't know.
Miguelitosd at July 30, 2013 1:14 PM
Yes to Miguelitosd! And what if the burglar alarm malfunctioned and they got electrocuted to death coming in the window? Off to jail with you without a peep, right?
WTF also seems to not acknowledge that the homeowner HAD A DOG, and the barking dog didn't make the robber retreat. The homeowner exiting the house did not make the robber retreat. At that point, I'm assuming this person intends to harm me. That they aren't going to be able to commit burglary has already been made plenty obvious to them and they aren't leaving.
And if I could see well enough at 2 am to know it was a teen? I'd assume I was his ticket into "making his bones" in a gang, because what else can one assume when the robber WILL NOT RETREAT?
And, one more time so maybe wtf can comprehend it: THAT BULLET YOU SHOOT UP WILL COME DOWN WITH LETHAL VELOCITY, POSSIBLY ON A BABY IN A STROLLER OR A JOGGER OR WHO KNOWS WHERE BECAUSE YOU DID NOT AIM IT.
momof4 at July 30, 2013 3:53 PM
I shot an arrow into the air,
It fell to earth, I knew not where;
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
"The Arrow and the Song"
Conan the Grammarian at July 30, 2013 5:24 PM
>"You weren't born on this earth with a guarantee of safety and security at all times." wtf
So, why then do you argue that the law abiding citizen protecting his FUCKING PREGNANT WIFE AND CHILD must guarantee the safety and bodily security of the criminal?
lujlp at July 30, 2013 7:00 PM
"Shots that go up must come down, and they do so at terminal velocity. It's enough to kill."
Just to pick this nit: while the term, "terminal velocity" is technically correct, it's meaningless, because a bullet falling back to earth does so at greatly lesser velocity than it started with - and everything which impacts something else which brings it to a stop has achieved "terminal velocity".
The driving force for a vertical fall is only the weight of the bullet, and terminal velocity is determined by the time of flight, the ballistic coefficient of the bullet (varies with orientation to direction of flight) and its mass.
While it left the barrel, generally speaking, several times faster, a falling bullet goes about 400 fps at most. I haven't looked, but there are bound to be ballistic computers on line.
-----
Not feeding the troll.
Radwaste at July 30, 2013 7:21 PM
"The point is, that if you are not in immediate danger, you shouldn't be pulling the trigger."
Exactly! Thank you!
"Pretty cruel bitch if you ask me. Cruel bitch even if you don't."
Thank you! Coming from you I'll take that as the highest compliment! Had a problem with cruel bitches did you? Not surprised, shockingly enough.
"So, wtf, you are not one of those polite Canadians that you claim exist."
You mistake politeness for being ball-less. Debate is also a far cry from shooting someone. I suggest YOU grow a pair, and stop taking everything so personally. Since, however, you assert I fail in the politeness category, mordre la partie la plus blanche de mon cul.
Google that.
"You are one of the idiots that do not think far enough ahead to realize bullets come down with deadly force."
I do realize that. The chances of hitting someone with a falling bullet at 2am are far less (and almost non-existent) than AIMING at someone.
"She isn't going to kill anyone IN REVENGE."
Are you willing to bet on that? I remember one patient in particular who planned to wait outside the church with a knife, hoping he would come out.
"If he's forced me down with his bare hands, I should only punch and scratch?"
If he's forced you down already, chances are your gun didn't/won't do you much good anyway. And again, I'm not arguing defending personal safety. I'm arguing PROPERTY and GUN CONTROL.
"But do it when I'm not home."
Most are hoping to do exactly that.
"Put down your cowards morality, and that is what it is, a coward's morality"
Again, you must have missed it, nobody is debating your right to defend your own life. I'm debating the need to defend PROPERTY with deadly force, and the need for gun control.
"Ah yes.. "backward" states"
You guys said it, I didn't. I even included links to other countries laws. The need for gun control correlates to backwards how exactly?
"But I would be on the phone with the cops as fast as I could dial 911. And I would be getting the revolver out of the night stand."
Which, if you absolutely HAD to have a gun, would be the correct response. If I opened the door and saw a gun, chances are I wouldn't press my luck.
"So you've got yours and for those that can't afford a similar setup, or need to live closer to work, sucks to be them eh"
I didn't say that. You did. I said there are other options. Like a big scary dog and security system. Not a guarantee, but then neither is a gun. As for affording, it's cheaper to live in the boonies then the city.
"Do not presume to infect the will of others who value what they have built enough to make a stand when it is threatened."
Actually, I didn't. I made a comment. You started a debate, which others joined in. I am stating my position. You seem to be though.
"How about if the dog attacked and injured or killed the intruder?"
Injured is alot different than dead. Killed is also way outside the ballpark, considering his size. A large bunch of medium sized holes and very deep gashes, very likely.
"You don't know for sure if you were really in danger, and the dog can't know."
Neither do you. So why shoot, especially to kill? And my dog is a pretty good judge of danger. Most are.
"the homeowner exiting the house did not make the robber retreat."
WTF was he doing exiting the house instead of calling the police in the first place? If I thought someone in my yard had a gun, my first thought would not be "Hey! Let's go check!"
"and the barking dog didn't make the robber retreat."
As stated in my previous posts relating to Amy's new puppy, my dog would do alot more than bark if I wasn't assuring it. I have to introduce him to people slowly, over two or three visits. The other looks pretty scary, makes alot of noise, but she's a big pussy.
The burglar doesn't know that however, and unless you're several different kinds of stupid, you aren't going to break into a home with huge red BEWARE OF DOG signs posted all over the place, and two large dogs in the front yard.
Train your dog properly, they're an excellent deterrent.
"I'm sure if an intruder killed your dog you'd just let it go too right?"
I wouldn't kill him for it. Humans are more valuable than animals. Ask any farmer.
"That they aren't going to be able to commit burglary has already been made plenty obvious to them and they aren't leaving."
Being a child, I'm not surprised he didn't. Anyone think maybe he froze? That this was a panic reaction, and not defiance?
A child having a gun, by the by, is just one more argument for gun control.
"And, one more time so maybe...."
Again, at 2am, the chances of hitting someone with a stray bullet are far less (almost non-existent) than AIMING at someone.
How many babies in strollers do you see at 2am?
Assuming you absolutely MUST have a gun, you don't have to fire DIRECTLY UP, which you say, if you're trained with a gun, you wouldn't do. (You don't even have to fire, as pointed out above, however...)
Aim for a tree for Christ's sake.
I think a large part of the resistance to gun control is many Americans equate gun control with removal of all guns. Not a bad idea, but a pipe dream.
Gun control does not mean you may not own a gun. Gun control means proper background checks, with all appropriate regulatory bodies. Gun control means proper registration of fire arms. Gun control means proper storage of fire arms with ammunition in a separate locked cabinet.
As pointed out above, you can still get guns in Canada. You have to want it BAD, but you can still get it, assuming you have no criminal record.
wtf at July 30, 2013 7:28 PM
Anyone that hops the fence like that punk did in the middle of the night does not have benign intentions. A bad outcome for the trespasser. I suppose if you do not with to be mistaken for a burglar or something, you know, don't be acting like a burglar. My sympathies are with the homeowner.
LauraGr at July 30, 2013 7:30 PM
"So, why then do you argue that the law abiding citizen protecting his FUCKING PREGNANT WIFE AND CHILD must guarantee the safety and bodily security of the criminal?"
I'm arguing lethal force in defense of property rights. And gun control. Everyone seems to shy away from that debate, however.
As said above, this kid's intent was very much in question. He hadn't even made it to the front door.
"And what if the burglar alarm malfunctioned and they got electrocuted to death coming in the window? Off to jail with you without a peep, right?"
If he gets fried on my security system, I had absolutely nothing to do with that. If I fire at him, no matter how badly I feel, my actions caused his death.
And now you're grasping at straws.
wtf at July 30, 2013 7:43 PM
""If he's forced me down with his bare hands, I should only punch and scratch?"
If he's forced you down already, chances are your gun didn't/won't do you much good anyway."
You've argued that a gun should not be drawn on someone who is only using their fists or a knife. I present the (quite possible) hypothetical that a malefactor does not need to use a gun or a knife to overpower me. You don't get to use it as an argument that a gun has failed me. As I said, in the real world, I'm not going to wait until I'm actively in the process of being assaulted to do something about it because by then it is far too late.
You were the one who said that we should respond to an attacker with proportionate force. So what is proportionate force for a 150lb woman being attacked by a 200lb man?
Elle at July 30, 2013 8:18 PM
Your version of gun control is useless. That means that a law abiding citizen will have to jump through many hoops, pay many dollars, to finally get a firearm that will never be used by the owner for criminal intent.
In the distant past I experimented with making suppressors. I have the plans to turn an AR-15 to full auto. I have never gone out and shot, killed or used a firearm in a malicious manner against a human. That is because I'm a civilized human being.
By your standards there should be zero shootings in Canada because everyone is law abiding. But there were 161 in Ontario. Were all those firearms registered, properly stored, registered, and used by their owners? If so then that scares the fuck out of me.
Again -- firing a warning shot means that you weren't in immediate danger and shouldn't be firing in the first place.
No the operative word in gun control is control. I should not have to ask the government for permission to hunt, sport shoot, or defend my life. I should be allowed to do that with limited restrictions as to how.
BTW, if gun registration works so well, why are so many Canadian politicians working to get rid of it.
Jim P. at July 30, 2013 8:37 PM
And you are hopefully a "sober", relatively rational, law abiding person. You aren't using anything from pot to heroin or any hallucinogenic. You aren't smoking crack and need anything even semi-valuable you can get your hands on to get your next meth or crack fix.
You also aren't a 14 year old trying to get into the local gang either.
You prism of reality is skewed by not wanting to admit not everything is rainbows and unicorns.
Jim P. at July 30, 2013 8:47 PM
"Had a problem with cruel bitches did you?"
You missed it. By a lot. Oh well.
"You mistake politeness for being ball-less."
?
"stop taking everything so personally."
?
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Must be a Canadian thing since you seem to be the only one not getting it.
"I'm arguing lethal force in defense of property rights. And gun control. Everyone seems to shy away from that debate, however."
That was answered above. Not by me but by a few others. You must not have read their posts. I did and I agree with them. You have gun control at home in Canada but you want it here in America also. We don't agree with you. We (Americans) believe in lethal force in defense of property rights. Just try and take our property rights and you will find out.
Dave B at July 30, 2013 9:42 PM
As you seemed to miss it before let me share it again wtf
THE
POLICE
HAVE
NO
DUTY
TO
PROTECT
YOU
OR
COME
TO
YOUR
AID
IF
YOU
ARE
BEING
VICTIMIZED
Have you got this now?
And even if they do come as fast as possible unless they are already parked in front of your home it will take at least 10 minutes under the best circumstances for them to come.
Also, cal the cops, tell them your dog is barking but you dont know why and you want them to come check it out for you. See how quickly that call gets prioritized over murders and attack
lujlp at July 30, 2013 10:24 PM
"I'm arguing lethal force in defense of property rights. And gun control. Everyone seems to shy away from that debate, however." - WTF
Which as many of us have suggested, is an invalid argument.
Here it is explicitly:
YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT THE PERSON BEING AGGRESSIVE IN YOUR FENCED YARD AT 2am IS AFTER YOUR PROPERTY AND NOT YOUR LIFE.
Nobody knows what the guys purpose was, because he was prevented from carrying it out by an armed homeowner.
Maybe he wasn't at the front door ringing the bell at 2am looking for help, because he was sneaking up to the back door at 2am looking to do bad.
When you attack a house in the middle of the night when all the cars are there and the dog is barking YOU KNOW THE PEOPLE ARE THERE.
By what logic do you insist that this guy who already has an extensive rapsheet was only there to burgle a few trinkets?
As with the link I posted about the mother defending her children above, many criminals escalate their crimes over time. If there might be a gang connection, this is certainly the case.
You guys don't have many gangs, do ya? This is also where your gun control strawman burns to the ground. What percentage of the shooters every day in Chicago own their guns legally? None. Until recently you couldn't buy a gun in the city, and even now it is ridiculously difficult to actually get one.
So how is it that they have one of the highest gun violence rates in the US? While places that have standard background checks and waiting periods, have much lower rates? coinkydink?
SwissArmyD at July 30, 2013 10:46 PM
Radwaste was a bit high on terminal velocity. For most objects it's about 295 fps (unless you start way, way high). Projected area, drag coefficent (object dependent), and fluid density (that way, way high part) play a larger part than mass. Terminal velocity has a very specific definition: drag force equals gravitational force so acceleration equals zero. (Did some looking.)
295 fps = 201 mph, so there is ample energy in a bullet to injure or kill if it hits someone. Off vertical it's even greater...
Because, all this only applies to the vertical; firing at any angle off vertical leaves resolving intial velocity, with drag force and gravitational at each angle. Impact velocity isn't terminal velocity at all.
Bottom line: don't do shoot into the air. It's a felony in my state. As for protecting property with deadly force, while I agree they are stealing part of your life, I'm still with the crowd that your life, or others, has to be threatened. "Equal force" is crap though; my daughter's boyfriend is my size, height and weight, twice as fast, well over twice as strong, and better trained. Won't even go into her 6'3" to 6'5" friends, who are only children after all. Legally, though, the system will try to hang you.
Robert, I'm so very sorry for the loss of your son. I know no words suffice.
Ariel at July 31, 2013 10:01 AM
"You've argued that a gun should not be drawn on someone who is only using their fists or a knife."
You've skewed it, actually.
Equal force is just that. Equal. If you had a knife, and buddy had a knife, by all means use it. I never asserted anything over personal safety. PROPERTY is my argument.
Huge difference between a 250 lb man trying to rape you, and a kid looking for a new stereo.
"By your standards there should be zero shootings in Canada because everyone is law abiding."
Not once did I ever assert that everyone in Canada is a law abiding citizen. Were that true, we wouldn't need cops or prisons. We also wouldn't have legislation governing the use of knives. I said that very few people in Canada have them, compared with the US, and yet the vast majority of the time, we are safe, without them.
"Again -- firing a warning shot means that you weren't in immediate danger and shouldn't be firing in the first place."
I said that, and used it in my argument.
wtf at July 31, 2013 11:13 AM
"Your version of gun control is useless. That means that a law abiding citizen will have to jump through many hoops, pay many dollars, to finally get a firearm that will never be used by the owner for criminal intent."
Gun control is not aimed at making it hard for law abiding citizens to obtain guns, though it does.If you're a law abiding citizen, you shouldn't have a problem with the checks, wait times, or cost.(Guns can get pretty damn expensive too.)
It is about making sure that guns do not fall into the hands of unsupervised children and criminals. It's also about making sure we are able to track the weapons that do get stolen, making convictions easier.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/online_en-ligne/reg_enr-eng.htm
wtf at July 31, 2013 11:15 AM
It is also about making sure fully automatic weapons are not available.
http://www.firearmstraining.ca/classes.htm
wtf at July 31, 2013 11:16 AM
It is also about making sure silencers aren't used.
http://www.ehow.com/list_6802569_canada_s-silencer-laws.html
wtf at July 31, 2013 11:17 AM
If the real worry about gun control in the US were self defense, instead of the government taking away a right that was no longer needed, (which is not what gun control aims to do...) Americans would be satisfied with handguns. Silencers and automatic weapons wouldn't even be an issue.
"BTW, if gun registration works so well, why are so many Canadian politicians working to get rid of it."
As you see, it states:
"arguing it exceeded the federal government's mandate and arguing that it was too expensive;"
Cost, cost, cost.
Our current administration (and the Liberal party) is a bunch of fucktards who wouldn't save a dollar to save their own lives. They've screwed it up so badly, of course it went over the projected cost.
They also screwed up a number of other initiatives, Ambulance Orange for example, going multiple billions over the projected cost, but nobody on the hill said a word about that. Well, they did, but were very quickly hushed.
The idea is sound, the implementation is fucked up. Of course, the current bunch of idiots could fuck up lunch.
If you check into it, you'll find the debate about the gun registry is similar to the Obamacare debate in your own country. A smokescreen, to distract from the very important issues.
The gun registry is far from ideal, and won't stop all gun crimes. It does however, reduce the impact, and make convictions easier. Far more, I personally think, then a 14 day wait time, with automatic weapons perfectly legal for purchase.
"You also aren't a 14 year old trying to get into the local gang either."
Yet another argument for gun control, as I said.
"You aren't using anything from pot...."
Oh REALLY! When was the last time you saw a pot head do anything more than go for the fridge? You're more likely to commit a crime while drunk.
Actually, drug addicts aren't all that likely to commit violent crimes when compared to other convicts.
http://www.ccsa.ca/2003%20and%20earlier%20CCSA%20Documents/ccsa-009105-2002.pdf
As the study states, drug use is the cause of crimes, not the motivator, at least for most.
wtf at July 31, 2013 11:18 AM
THE
POLICE
HAVE
NO
DUTY
TO
PROTECT
YOU
OR
COME
TO
YOUR
AID
IF
YOU
ARE
BEING
VICTIMIZED
That's in direct contradiction to the whole "to serve and protect thing.
And if that isn't their responsibility, wtf are they there for????
wtf at July 31, 2013 11:20 AM
Dave, you seem to not understand alot.
Common problem I'm thinking.
wtf at July 31, 2013 11:25 AM
"Won't even go into her 6'3" to 6'5" friends, who are only children after all."
Holy Crap!
wtf at July 31, 2013 11:30 AM
You debate the need to defend property with deadly force?
That isn't even a debate worth having.
The lives of those who take what does not belong to them, are not worth preserving.
You may as well argue that we should not put out a fire, because it has a right to exist, even when all it will do is destroy.
------
When someone breaks into your property, you are in danger, you are there lawfully, they are not. It is not up to you to determine how many laws they will decide to break, whether it will be a B&E, or murder, or rape, or arson, or anything else. You can go with what you know, and that is that they care nothing for your most basic and simplest of rights…the right to what you have earned.
If they do not care for that, nor for the fear, uncertainty, or loss that you will incur because of their unlawful conduct, why pray tell:
Should you give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them to make off with what is yours?
Why should you put yourself at risk to ensure their safety?
Why should you allow them to determine the rules of engagement?
Why should you have to determine their intent, when they've already made their intent to break the law and violate the sanctity of your home, quite clear?
You want to argue the value of property vs the value of life?
Fair enough, its a reasonable debate…so here we go.
Property is earned by spending your life, your energy, and the fruits of both to acquire it, that is true for your house, for your car, for your rent money and for the clothes on your children's backs.
That property represents every honest act, every drop of sweat, every hour of your life that you put into it.
When the thief comes to take what is not his, to violate your home, break your borders, and endanger your household, he is not ONLY taking property, he's taking a piece of your life, however small, however symbolic, away with him. He is also taking a piece of your spirit, the basic trust we all have with our neighbors that we will not do each other harm and that people are basically good. He's making every night time bump and creak on the floor another imaginary violation, another abuse that keeps you up late at night.
And if you catch the thief in the act, breaking into your home, you have no idea just how far he is going to go, when you find your family behind you, and an invader in front of you, we're no longer talking only about property, but about a very real danger of violence done to your person. Remember he does NOT want to be caught, and you might be able to identify him. Murder sounds like a big deal to a gentle soul, that does not wish to live by doing harm to innocent people, but how many robberies and burglaries become murders to avoid identification? Some certainly, are you going to assume that you will not fall into the 'some' category?
You do not know if they are armed, you DO know they intended to break into your home, not what they intended to do while there, are they on drugs, are they sane, are they a psychopath, a murderer, are they armed…all you know, is the fact that they blatantly disregard the rules of civilization, caring nothing for the rights of others…and now they stand in front of you.
You now have a choice, shoot, or do not shoot, and the only question you need to answer is: Do I value my life, or do I not?
Your common argument is that a burglar will be 'frightened off' or 'deterred' but punishment by society did not deter them, the fence and the door did not deter them, in this instance the presence of a dog did not deter him, and even being confronted did not prompt immediate flight. Your presumption is that the law breaker must be cowardly and fearful, is a sentiment I whole heartedly wish were true, but that is what you find in Saturday morning cartoon villains, not in real world individuals, for whom the 'rush' may be as satisfying as the crime itself.
And again, you cannot be held responsible for failing to read the mind of the violator.
-----------
Unless you are 7 different kinds of stupid, you aren't going to break into a house with beware of dog signs'
Look some criminals are smart, but a whole lot of them are 20 kinds of fucking stupid. Consider an example (this one made me laugh):
A man decided to commit a robbery (mistake 1), in Texas (mistake 2), he chose a gun store for his target (Mistake 3) walked around a parked marked police car to get into the front door (mistake 4) walked up to the counter where a cop in uniform was having coffee before starting his shift (mistake 5) pulled out his gun (mistake 6) fired a shot into the ceiling and announced it was a robbery (Mistakes 7 & 8)…whereupon he was promptly shot by the man working the counter, and the cop, while the rest of the customers drew their own guns and covered the officers.
That isn't even crime at that point, that is a goddamn suicide. You can't count on intelligent criminals, and a stupid one is even worse.
-------
Aim for a tree?
How stupid are you? I'm not looking for a goddamn tree to shoot at as a warning when a criminal is in front of me at 2 in the goddamn morning on my property.
I don't care if the thieving shit panicked or not, he broke into a man's property with intent to do what he'd done before, rob the man's home. He abandoned every right he had to safety and security the moment he hopped that goddamn fence.
----------
Its sad that the thieving shit became a thieving shit, so much is lost when a life goes wrong, maybe if he'd been taught properly, or accepted what people tried to teach him, he'd grow up to be an engineer, or a teacher or a preacher or an inventor or a chemist, but he's spent his teen years dead set on throwing his life away, and thanks to inadequate supervision, he got out at 2 in the a.m. to go do what he'd been caught and punished for before, rob honest people of their honestly obtained goods.
You reap what you sow, he lived a criminal life, and he met a criminal fate.
If he lives, perhaps this will be the thing which prompts him to reform, maybe he will change, become a good and law abiding citizen, maybe he will turn his life around and realize he wants to live past the age of 18 and not hurt any family that does care for him…
And if he does, I will celebrate that as a redemption story.
But if he dies as he is now, I won't mourn him, and neither will any but a scant few, certainly none of his victims.
And if he lives, and just continues as he is, robbing the honest, breaking into houses, being a plague on whatever place he lives, will any of us be surprised?
Robert at July 31, 2013 11:35 AM
"That's in direct contradiction to the whole "to serve and protect thing.
And if that isn't their responsibility, wtf are they there for????"
Police have no legal duty to prevent a crime, protect your property, or protect your person. This has been established by legal precedents. Multiple legal precedents. And the rulings have been explicit and unambiguous: "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public." (Lynch vs NC DoJ)
(Realistically, a police force or police officer that was legally responsible for not stopping a crime couldn't function effectively. Sucky but true.)
"Protect and serve" is a PR statement, not a mission statement.
Police exist to *enforce laws* by determining who committed an act and to arrest/ ticket them. All of this takes place after the fact. They protect and serve the community at large, not an individual in particular. If I call 911 and say "There's a guy in my yard and he looks suspicious and I'm scared," the police have no legal responsibility to actually respond.
(Now, a caveat: This is *definitely* the case in America. I don't know if it is the case in Canada, but it would surprise me if it weren't. However, this should give you an idea of what most of us have in our mind during this debate.)
------
"You've skewed it, actually.
Equal force is just that. Equal. If you had a knife, and buddy had a knife, by all means use it."
Ok, fair enough that I misinterpreted what you've said.
However, my point is that using equal weaponry, up until the point we both have guns - is *always* going to place me at a significant disadvantage. There *is no* equal force between me and someone willing to do me harm short of a gun. And if that means I'm using overwhelming force to defend myself or defend my home then I have no qualms about it (as I have said, if someone comes into my home while I am there I am going to assume worst case scenario).
"I never asserted anything over personal safety. PROPERTY is my argument.
Huge difference between a 250 lb man trying to rape you, and a kid looking for a new stereo."
And at what point can I tell that difference for 100% sure? I'm not exactly going to wait to see until he puts his hands on me or the stereo. Some "just a kid"s are still big enough to play college ball. Some "Just a kid"s are gang members who have no qualms about getting violent. The difference from 30 feet and closing is not that huge, and I'm not going to give the benefit of the doubt when my or my family's safety is potentially on the line.
In an armchair situation, no, I'm not going to shoot a kid for stealing my stereo. But in a real life situation, I have no way of knowing the reason he is trespassing. I have to make a judgement call based on observable facts. And when it comes to observable facts, there's not such a huge difference between a would-be rapist and just a kid who comes to my house looking for a stereo at 2am.
And if it is some dumb, scrawny, suburban 14 year old who was looking for a thrill by stealing things? Well, dumb decision on his part to be doing so. He put himself in a dangerous situation. Generally, otherwise harmless American teens looking for a thrill don't break into people's homes while the homeowners are around. Because it is generally known that's a good way to get shot.
""Again -- firing a warning shot means that you weren't in immediate danger and shouldn't be firing in the first place."
I said that, and used it in my argument."
I seem to recall you saying that the homeowner should shoot into the air, the ground, or a tree before shooting at the trespasser.
Elle at July 31, 2013 1:15 PM
"I never asserted anything over personal safety. PROPERTY is my argument."
and this argument PRECEDES yours:
YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT THE PERSON BEING AGGRESSIVE IN YOUR FENCED YARD AT 2am IS AFTER YOUR PROPERTY AND NOT YOUR LIFE.
your argument doesn't come into play because you CANNOT establish what the criminal will do, UNTIL they do it, and then? you may be dead.
ALL of your arguments only exist in hindsight.
Do you wear a seatbelt before you move the car, or put it on after the accident? It is reasonable for you to protect yourself Before something bad happens.
-----------------------------
as an aside... fully automatic weapons have been illegal and strictly controlled by the Federal ATF in the US since 1934. They require an in depth background check and IIRC $5k tax stamp, and they routinely deny the requests. Silencers are also controlled by the Federal ATF under the National Firearms act of 1934 [requiring taxes and registration], and are outright banned in a number of states... so they are controlled by the government.
SwissArmyD at July 31, 2013 2:17 PM
How many criminals buy their guns down at the local Cabela's, I wonder? Because I'm pretty sure we've had background checks for quite some time now, and yet the teeny-bopper wanna-be rapper thugs can still get them as easily as skittles.
Which is the absolute end of any "gun control as anti-crime aid" conversation. Criminals don't obey laws. Not the ones against stealing, not the ones against killing, not the ones requiring them to show ID and pass a background check to buy a gun. You know who DOES get screwed by that? People like my hubby, who served his country honorably, has never been arrested, bought a revolver just fine 2 years ago and got denied in January. 8 months of paperwork and fingerprints back and forth, and the fucking idiot government that runs background checks can't figure out that he is NOT the *John Smith* currently in prison.
*he has the Hispanic version of john smith, but every bit as common*
Gun control is about control, of the people, by the government. And nothing else.
momof4 at July 31, 2013 4:16 PM
I think wtf is wrong-minded about a lot of things here. I will throw her a bone though. I agree that stuff is not usually worth a life. So if the dude is breaking into my car in the front driveway or out at the curb, it is not an appropriate response to be shooting at him. However... when the dude jumps the fence or breaks in the house or other spaces where people may be, all bets are off. They can move too fast, possibly be armed or tweaking or otherwise intoxicated and unable to reason or moderate their actions. It is just too dangerous to hope they will just go away when they have crossed the threshold.into the personal area.
LauraGr at July 31, 2013 6:57 PM
The ghost of David Dinkins lives.
Apparently, the city of New York is of the opinion that it is not the job of the police to protect citizens.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/to_serve_but_not_protect_Qr3ume5gEhMhtg8LvHgzAI
Apparently, the Manhattan Suprerior Court agrees.
"A Manhattan Supreme Court Justice has ruled that the City of New York has no legal obligation to protect its citizens, even if armed police are present at the scene of a dangerous incident."
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/judge-rules-cops-can-twiddle-thumbs-watch-civilians-are-murdered
Conan the Grammarian at July 31, 2013 9:37 PM
wtf,
I'm not even going to bother to to quote you just to get to the point.
Please tell me how many of the citizens in Canada you know who was allowed to buy and posses a firearm has shot someone?
Please tell me how the background checks and the rest of the crap you listed would have prevented Sandy Hook? The perpetrator killed his law abiding mother and used her weapons,
And while Sandy Hook was happening there were over 290M+ firearms that were not used negligently or with criminal intent.
Jim P. at July 31, 2013 11:13 PM
Again I say to you, wtf, I hope you NEVER are robbed or violated by someone you don't know, or even someone you do know, because once that happens, your attitude WILL change, and the rainbows and unicorns will magically disappear.
And that will be a sad day.
Flynne at August 1, 2013 5:21 AM
Hey, it's pretty clear who has the grip on reality here.
Take This Quiz.
There are SO many who hang their hopes on someone knowing the intentions of criminals.
That's a false hope.
Radwaste at August 1, 2013 4:38 PM
You FB fans might find THIS fun...
Radwaste at August 1, 2013 5:01 PM
"That isn't even a debate worth having."
You don't even agree with that statement. If you did, you wouldn't keep coming back at me.
"The lives of those who take what does not belong to them, are not worth preserving."
That's a pretty sad view.
"Why should you put yourself at risk to ensure their safety?"
The fellow in question put himself at risk by leaving the house in the first place.
As has been pointed out above, the more logical response would have been to ensure the wife and child were well hidden, and point the gun at the door.
He made himself extremely vulnerable by leaving the house in the first place - assuming the child's intent in the first place was bodily harm, which nobody can prove, and according to the family, was out of the ballpark of possibilities.
Seeing as how he hadn't been charged with a violent crime, and 14 year old boys IN GENERAL aren't ballsy enough (or stupid) to attack a grown man, it is likely the case.
Therefore, the self-defense argument is null and void.
"He is also taking a piece of your spirit,"
Please.....
"But if he dies as he is now, I won't mourn him,"
That's pretty sad too. Any child that dies deserves to be mourned, especially a child taught to go down the wrong path.
"is a sentiment I whole heartedly wish were true, but that is what you find in Saturday morning cartoon villains,"
Which is fitting, considering the child was 14. At 14, I sincerely doubt he was just that ballsy. I realize you guys have problems with gangs, but really, at 14, I doubt he would have had the nuts to hurt anyone, considering he hadn't been convicted of violent crimes before.
"You reap what you sow, he lived a criminal life, and he met a criminal fate."
At 14, he hadn't lived life at all, which is why they have juvie in the first place.
Look Robert, I think you misinterpreted my debate of property vs. life as defense of the child. I'm not saying he was right in doing what he did, I'm not saying he should have got off. (Personally I think they should throw the little darling in juvie for the next 4 years, and big-boy jail for the next 5.) I'm saying he didn't deserve to be shot in the head for it, especially as nobody can prove his intentions.
Especially from 30 ft away.
"That isn't even crime at that point, that is a goddamn suicide. You can't count on intelligent criminals, and a stupid one is even worse."
These things are much more rare in Canada, which is another reason why I am a supporter of gun control. A society which accepts the average citizen having a gun breeds casual acceptance of guns, which makes violent crimes more acceptable by extension.
"Protect and serve" is a PR statement, not a mission statement.
Tell that to the 911 operators.
They might not have a LEGAL responsibility in the US to stop crimes, but they most certainly do have a moral one. In Canada, yes they do.
http://www.opp.ca/ecms/index.php?id=47
"There's a guy in my yard and he looks suspicious and I'm scared," the police have no legal responsibility to actually respond."
And next you'll tell me they won't.
"In an armchair situation,"
Which is what this is....
"And when it comes to observable facts, there's not such a huge difference between a would-be rapist"
AGAIN, (and again, and again) not arguing personal safety. AGAIN, this kid hadn't even made it to the front door. AGAIN, in that situation, hide wife and kid, call police, point gun at door. If you absolutely MUST fire, fire warning shot. (through the window would be even better.....)
"Generally, otherwise harmless American teens looking for a thrill don't break into people's homes while the homeowners are around."
No, they do it while you're gone. This kids dumb luck.
"I seem to recall you saying that the homeowner should shoot into the air, the ground, or a tree before shooting at the trespasser."
IF HE ABSOLUTELY FELT THE NEED TO SHOOT.
"YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT THE PERSON BEING AGGRESSIVE IN YOUR FENCED YARD AT 2am IS AFTER YOUR PROPERTY AND NOT YOUR LIFE."
You also don't know he's after your life and not your property. Especially at 14.
"the teeny-bopper wanna-be rapper thugs can still get them as easily as skittles."
They get them through robberies,(or buying them from people who committed robberies) which would be alot more difficult for them if kept in locked cabinets with ammunition stored in separate locked cabinets. Gun control also makes tracking these weapons easier, as well as convictions.
Again, I've already admitted gun control won't stop all gun crimes. They will make them more difficult, and make convictions easier.
as an aside... fully automatic weapons have been illegal and strictly controlled by the Federal ATF in the US since 1934..... Silencers and are outright banned in a number of states... so they are controlled by the government....
But somehow automatic weapons still get out there. And silencers should be banned country wide. Bottom line, gun laws should be uniform country wide, the fact that they aren't makes it easier for criminals.
And before you all say I have no say in the matter, remember your guns make it across the border.
"Gun control is about control, of the people, by the government. And nothing else."
Oh PLEASE!!!!! This is the problem with Americans attitude toward gun control. Everything's a conspiracy!
"It is just too dangerous to hope they will just go away when they have crossed the threshold.into the personal area."
This kid hadn't. He was in the yard. And buddy endangered his own personal safety by leaving the house.
"A Manhattan Supreme Court Justice has ruled that the City of New York has no legal obligation to protect its citizens, even if armed police are present at the scene of a dangerous incident."
That's a law that needs to be changed, then.
"Again I say to you, wtf....."
Ask yourself why, Flynne, many rape counselors do what they do, and then say that to me.
wtf at August 1, 2013 7:30 PM
Please, let me know where you get your X-Ray vision? And are you sure he was going to come through the front door, considering most fenced yards have a path leading to the front door and not to the side of the house.
In addition why should anyone have to hide in their own house?
You keep saying fire a warning shot. If you do and that doesn't scare off your attacker, firing for center of mass is then murder in most states.
In addition through the window would be even better means that I have to damage my property to scare off a criminal? Am I going to be paid for that?
Guns may be registered. But most magazines are generic as well as ammunition. So if they steal the gun and even if the magazines and ammunition is stored separately you can go online to SFRC and buy magazines and ammo have them shipped to you, in Canada.
The smart gun owner will keep his serial number when he reports his weapon stolen. But unless LEO recovers the weapon, the bullets fired into a person has no correlation to a serial number. And once a firearm has been fired and cleaned, the rifling changes subtly.
And again, so you have the original owner tied to the firearm. But then you have to prove that the owner was complicit in the sale onward and it was not "stolen". But if it is locked in a safe that isn't normally opened, would the owner know it was stolen?
They are. There is a ban for a civilian from ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986 under the NFA37. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Machine_Gun_Ban) Effectively all it did was change the price of full auto weapons from about $3k-5K to $23k-25K. It had zero effect on the amount of using full auto weapons. They went from 0.00001% to 0.000001%.
As for the silencers ban: how many times have they been used in crimes.
If a law abiding person gets their hands on on a full auto or a suppressor, they will go out and show them off a little and then put them away until they are needed.
The typical bad guy will use a potato as a suppressor.
No it's not a conspiracy. In the last few years we have had Google data absorbed by the NSA. Our cell's metadata, if not the actual calls, absorbed by the NSA. Hell just because her home was visited by six police investigators on Wednesday because of the search terms that her family has used on the Internet totally blows the conspiracy theory.
Why should I have to worry about leaving my house at night? At any hour?
It has been ruled the same way by many state courts the same way. LEO has a requirement to protect the public in an overall sense, but never required to protect you as an individual.
Jim P. at August 1, 2013 9:16 PM
"Oh PLEASE!!!!! This is the problem with Americans attitude toward gun control. Everything's a conspiracy!"
The youthful Canadian understands not only the ins and outs of gun control (but not the gun itself) but the youngster also knows Americans' attitude towards gun control. Care to enlighten this old American with your vast knowledge of said attitude?
Dave B at August 1, 2013 9:30 PM
Ask yourself why, Flynne, many rape counselors do what they do, and then say that to me.
I'm guessing you're going to tell me you've been violated (i.e., raped). And that you've still managed to keep your rainbows and unicorns and tell others that they, too, one day, will be able to forgive whoever did what to them and get their rainbows and unicorns back, eh? Horseshit. Been there, done that, and I'm still pissed as hell at the bastards (yes, bastards, because there's been more than just ONE violation of myself and my property). I've gotten on with my life, yes, indeedy, I have, but that doesn't mean I am NOT going to go blindly and blithely through life handing out candy and kisses to everyone I meet. Just because YOU do it doesn't mean it will work for EVERYone else. I've forgiven what was done to me, but I have not forgotten. I will protect myself and my belongings to the best of my ability, because it's been proven to me, in more than one instance, that the police CANNOT protect you, they can only show up AFTER something happens.
Good luck to you, wtf. It's wonderful what you're doing for others, but I have to wonder how often you have to keep replacing others' rose-colored glasses until your own finally break.
Flynne at August 2, 2013 4:54 AM
AGAIN, (and again, and again) not arguing personal safety. AGAIN, this kid hadn't even made it to the front door. AGAIN, in that situation, hide wife and kid, call police, point gun at door. If you absolutely MUST fire, fire warning shot. (through the window would be even better.....)
The point wtf, is the guy shooting argued persoanl safety, the kid had not raeched the front door cause he was skulking thru the ward, not walik upo the sidewalk. He advanced with a barking dog, he continued to advance as the man came outside, he made a threaten gesture when the man raised his weapon, as opposed to raising his hands and backing away.
"YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT THE PERSON BEING AGGRESSIVE IN YOUR FENCED YARD AT 2am IS AFTER YOUR PROPERTY AND NOT YOUR LIFE."
You also don't know he's after your life and not your property. Especially at 14.
Perhaps you live far enough north that the sun is out and shining at 2AM, Lousiana aint
lujlp at August 2, 2013 11:51 AM
"In addition why should anyone have to hide in their own house?"
Seems a better idea then getting shot, or shooting someone else.
"Am I going to be paid for that?"
Seriously?
"any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986 under the NFA37."
Not going through 150 comments plus, but I seem to recall someone saying they were working on putting on a homemade silencer.
"No it's not a conspiracy......"
That's a knee-jerk reaction to terrorism, unfortunately. We have it in Canada too. So, the best solution is an armed revolution?!?!?!
"The youthful Canadian...."
I know how distasteful you find my English, Dave, so here goes.
Ce n'est vraiment pas ma faute si tu es vieux Dave. Tout le monde vieillit, alors pourquoi s'en prennent à moi? C'est ma faute, vous avez perdu votre jeunesse et vous êtes maintenant un vieux schnock? Je sais que vous aimeriez le blâme sur moi, mais tu ne peux pas. Je vous conseille de prendre votre bigoterie et mises où il appartient, comme dans le pousser directement dans le cul.
Good luck to you.....
What you seem to miss Flynne, is that in order to get even with the bastards, you have to get EVEN, as in exactly like them. I never once said don't protect yourself. And if the police in your country are not obligated to protect you, then change the law. Not yourself.
"The point wtf, is the guy shooting argued personal safety,"
He was so worried about personal safety he endangered his own further? And left the wife and kid on their own?
wtf at August 3, 2013 10:46 AM
"I know how distasteful you find my English, Dave, so here goes."
Oh little one, I don't find your English distasteful at all. Maybe this is when you find yourself caught in the very corner you put yourself in and holler squirrel.
I find many of your opinions not just distasteful but dangerous for innocents of the world. I despise the fact that you would want someone to be defenseless in the face of savages. You are one cruel bitch and do not seem to know it.
Dave B at August 3, 2013 12:23 PM
"He was so worried about personal safety he endangered his own further? And left the wife and kid on their own?"
Wow! Just wow. Eleventy!!!! Who knew wtf, the Canadian, was a combat expert. He moved the battle away from his family. How did he endanger his own further? Do you not know the outcome? You, wtf, are a sexist. He left his child with his wife. His child was not left on his own. And please explain how he left his wife on her own you sexist. Does she need her man to stay by her side? What if she was armed?
Dave B at August 3, 2013 12:39 PM
"What you seem to miss Flynne, is that in order to get even with the bastards, you have to get EVEN, as in exactly like them."
What you miss wtf, is that Flynne would not be "exactly" like them. It is horrible that you would think that.
Dave B at August 3, 2013 12:47 PM
"Oh little one, I don't find your English distasteful at all."
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/07/30/keeping_prostit.html#comments
Seems to me you'RE wrong there.
Ce que vous semblez ne pas comprendre Dave, c'est qu'en sortant de la maison, non seulement il s'est fait plus vulnérable à une attaque ouverte, si dans le cas très peu probable que le attaquant avait un pistolet. Avez-vous cessé de penser à ce qui serait arrivé s'il y avait eu deux d'entre eux? Alors quelle serait la femme et ses enfants l'ont fait?
"I find many of your opinions not just distasteful but dangerous for innocents of the world."
Eh bien, si ce n'est pas de la charité noir ....
Je pense que vous devez se méprendre sur le sens de sexiste. Cela, venant d'un bigot qui utilise le mot «bitch» avec une régularité alarmante, est assez riche.
Il n'est pas sexiste pour affirmer qu'une femme enceinte qui, avec un petit enfant, serait incapable ou très mal à se défendre contre un agresseur.
Tête carrée, vous pouvez mordre la partie la plus blanche de mon cul.
En fait ....
Trois fois vous pouvez me mordre ...
Trois fois par jour ou de nuit ...
Pas trop doucement, pas trop à la légère ...
Trois fois vous pouvez me mordre ...
wtf at August 3, 2013 6:01 PM
For Flynne's sake, and because you're too stupid too use google translate, and for the sake of dialogue, which you seem to be incapable of, I'll now switch to my distasteful English.
I said:
"in order to GET EVEN with the bastards, you have to get EVEN, as in exactly like them."
In other words, to get them back, you have to revert to the same disrespect for basic human rights that they have.
In other words, instead of getting angry about it, which is unfortunately the basic human response that every victim must get past, you need to forgive them. Not because they deserve it, because Lord knows they don't. The victim, on the other hand, deserves peace.
As you yourself fail to understand, hate requires an awful lot of effort and energy, and you must feed it.
Here's a site that might explain it Dave.
http://www.rediff.com/getahead/report/the-aftermath-of-rape-a-counsellors-advice/20090422.htm
wtf at August 3, 2013 6:02 PM
And Flynne, I said previously. I don't do it anymore because I couldn't handle the barrage of trauma everyday. That doesn't mean I wear rose colored glasses. Just the opposite, actually. What it means is, I won't spend one more ounce of energy on them, because they don't deserve it.
Also, I think I may have had alot more time to work on it than you have. And, in helping others, it let me see exactly what happens when you spend your life hating them.
Here's the program I was involved with.
http://wherearethechildren.ca/
wtf at August 3, 2013 6:03 PM
"Seems to me you'RE wrong there."
Exaggerate much. Of course you do, or you don't know what distasteful means. That's just how you seem to roll. I'll stand by "I find many of your opinions not just distasteful but dangerous for innocents of the world." I never said I find your English distasteful.
No snotty response on your combat knowledge (lack thereof) or your sexism? I was right again.
"I'll now switch to my distasteful English."
I think it is cute of you to keep saying your English is distasteful. You are the only one saying that. I haven't. Your link does not have me saying it either. Are you delusional little girl?
"and because you're too stupid too use google translate"
Such talk little one. Your lack of skin (you seem to be far beyond thin skinned) is showing. I do not speak or read French. You know that. Why would I waste my time on Google. You are probably as ignorant in French as English. I doubt that your change in language makes you any smarter. You are one cruel bitch who desires to prevent innocents from protecting themselves against savages. Oh, and a sexist to boot.
"In other words, to get them back, you have to revert to the same disrespect for basic human rights that they have."
There is a philosophy that when one negates rights of another, he negates his own rights. That is the philosophy I follow. I believe in the death penalty. You probably, based on what you said, do not.
"and for the sake of dialogue, which you seem to be incapable of,"
Oh, so harsh young lady. Could you provide examples? You seem to have a "look at the squirrel" type of dialogue. You also stoop to calling me stupid. Do you think that helps your argument?
Dave B at August 3, 2013 10:55 PM
Just to reiterate:
wtf has demonstrated the following:
Ignorance of the Supreme Court's confirmation that police are not required to protect your person. See Warren v. DC.
Ignorance of the basics of hand/hand, hand/armed, and armed/armed confrontation.
Ignorance of the requirements of the American Dpeartment of the Treasury w/r/t firearms transactions.
And - the most astonishing naiveté: that a government which cannot provide personal safety for its citizens should be completely supported in its efforts to see that those cotizens cannot protect themselves.
wtf: if Canadians are good people, they don't become bad people because they carry a gun. A quick look at the map also reveals that maybe 99% of your country is more than an hour away from any police at all.
Fundamentally irrational, you should be ignored on this topic.
Radwaste at August 4, 2013 9:27 AM
Aside from the Quiz I linked to, above, it might be useful to get some actual information about the offensive and defensive use of weapons, so as not to rely on the editorial content of poseurs and advocacy sites largely stafed by the ignorant.
Take a look at Thunder Ranch.
Radwaste at August 4, 2013 9:31 AM
What you seem to miss Flynne, is that in order to get even with the bastards, you have to get EVEN, as in exactly like them.
No I don't wtf. I have to be better than they are. I have to live my life to the best of my ability, in spite of what those bastards did to me. I have to enjoy my life, not cower from it. I have to walk taller, with more knowledge, and part of that knowledge is to be able to protect myself from ever getting taken advantage of again. I don't have to "disrespect basic human rights" just because these bastards do. I have to live better than they do, I have to show MORE respect for basic human rights. Those animals, on the other hand, I DON'T have to respect. And never will. Forgiveness, I have in abundance. But I also have a retentive memory, and it serves me well. I will strive to NEVER be taken advantage of again. And I will protect me and mine to the best of my ability, always. That includes being armed. I'm sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities, but unfortunately, this is the world we live in. Some people think they have a right to take from others. I disagree, and will act accordingly.
Flynne at August 5, 2013 5:21 AM
Leave a comment