Guns save lives?

[mvccd1000]

I ended with a question mark because we don't know what WOULD have happened if the lady had not had a gun. Maybe the guy just would have asked for her money and left peacefully (yeah, right).

At any rate, she didn't have to shoot anyone; simply having a pistol in her possession and displaying it at the right time saved her from being the victim of a crime. It's difficult to quantify how many times per year this happens, as many people do not report such instances to the police. (My father, for example.)

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/21/20080521abrk-trespassing0521.html

----------
Mesa woman pulls gun on intruder

by Kendall Wright - May. 21, 2008 03:46 PM
The Arizona Republic

A prowler received an unexpected shock late Tuesday when police said the resident of the apartment he broke into threatened to shoot him with a handgun if he didn't leave.

The woman, who lives in the 1300 block of West Guadalupe Road, told police she heard somebody jump onto her patio just before 11 p.m. She ran into her bedroom to retrieve her gun, police said. When a man entered through the back door, he followed her down the hallway until he realized she had a gun, according to police. He fled.
----------

The suspect was arrested, still in the apartment complex.

[slackmaster]

1. A gun is a tool so powerful that it can only be used for good or evil

Apologies to the Firesign Theatre.

[krispos42]

2. This is how 99.9%+ of defensive gun uses end up

The perp sees the gun and vacates the area soonest.

[Wcross]

3. I believe the anti's need dead bodies to prove the usefulness of guns in self defense.

It seems that unless there is a dead criminal on the ground then a crime wasn't averted.

[krispos42]

5. Yeah, that was billbuckhead's screaming point

Pointing out that less than 400 people a year were killed by law enforcement seemed to take care of that talking point, though.

[nichomachus]

4. Stupid assumptions

She pulled a gun. He apparently didn't have one. What would have happened if he had a piece in his pocket and pulled it out?

Most likely, she would have hesitated before shooting another person -- it's a very hard thing to do. He most likely wouldn't have hesitated and she'd be dead. Never ever pull a gun unless you are ready and able to use it. Most ordinary citizens are not.

It's like the bank teller who tells the robber "NO -get out" and he runs away. Sometimes that works. However, there's a good chance the robber will just shoot the teller. It's a gamble on the part of the person being robbed.

How lucky do you feel?

[mitchleary]

6. And

You, uh had to shoot quite a few people? That comment from experience?

what if she would have shot him? What if she had a concealed carry permit and took classes on how to use a weapon?

What if he would have went for his gun and shot himself in the scrotum?

What if he had pulled out his gun and the ceiling fan fell on him?


The thing is for you antis, none of those what ifs happened. The situation ended peacefully with a gun and that burns you up that no one got shot, right?

[nichomachus]

7. The fact remains

that for normal, law-abiding citizens who've never had to shoot another person, it's a difficult thing to do. For a bad guy who has popped a few caps in his lifetime, it comes a lot easier. That's all.

[mitchleary]

17. again

how would you know? you ever been or were going to the victim of a violent crime?

You ever had to shoot someone?

[Dean Martin]

71. b.s.

I've talked to ex convicts and read books from ex convicts including gang members. Almost every one of them say their greatest fear when breaking into a home or committing a crime was being shot by the intended victim or home owner, and they almost to the person said they would flee if their intended victim pulled a gun. No one wants to get shot.

[benEzra]

8. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey,

victims who resisted criminal attack using guns were less likely to be injured than victims who used any other response, including passive compliance. No cases were identified in which victims' guns were used against them, and all injuries suffered by gun-using victims were incurred before they accessed the firearm.

The claim that ordinary people are psychologically unable to use potentially lethal force to defend themselves in extremis without extensive conditioning beforehand has been almost completely discredited. The chief advocate of that hypothesis is Dave Grossman (who calls the field of study "killology"), but the evidence he marshals has been largely discredited.

I also believe you probably underestimate the training and skill set of the average CHL holder. CHL holders are not a random sampling of the population.

[maxidivine]

12. "killology"

I've got a video we put together of a seminar he put on for members of one of our smaller units that were going to be deploying, I've been meaning to watch it for months, but just haven't gotten around to it.

Good to know the subject matter is worthless. His website sure was, a giant homage to himself!

[benEzra]

14. Here's a critical review of Grossman's arguments, from a LEO trainer.

http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/Main-R.htm

[maxidivine]

16. Thanks! NT

[gorfle]

22. WOOOMP!

The sound of another anti-gun argument being stomped by data.

Well done again, BenEzra!

You have a link for your sources so I can cite the, too?

[krispos42]

9. But we need even more assumptions

Most criminals have never killed anybody. There are millions of robberies a year in this country, hundreds of times more than the number of murders a year. It's also likely that he would hesitate as well.

Furthermore, he knows that gunfire attracks unwanted attention, like 911 calls and armed policeman. This is a hundred times truer in an apartment building. He knows that if a shot is fired there will be an IMMEDIATE response, and that his odds of escape are much higher if he flees rather than fight.

[spin]

10. You do have a point...

Most rational people have a natural inhibition against killing another human. This is probably the reason that concealed weapons permits haven't resulted in turning most of the U.S. into the Old West. Professional criminals may have had the opportunity to have overcome this hesitation.

A trained person can react and disarm another person who has a gun pointed at him. He can also draw and fire his own weapon before the other individual can shoot.

Many self defense courses teach that you should only draw your weapon if you intend to shoot it.

If more people followed this advice there would be a lot more bad guys injured or dead. Also, there would be a lot more honest citizens suffering the psychological problems that result from the act of killing another person.

I heard that if you survive your first gun fight, you will never hesitate again.

[jmg257]

11. I feel ALOT luckier if I have the gun to begin with, then if I don't.

Though it helps, I tend not to rely on luck when I CAN help it, because I want it to be the criminal's gamble - not mine.


Besides, why assume she COULDN'T shoot if she had to? She certainly seems to have prepared/done everything right up until that point, seems good she MAY also have been prepared to follow through if necessary.

[maxidivine]

13. Jim Cirillo

Certainly didn't have any trouble shooting other humans during his first firefight. It wasn't much of a firefight though, because he made a headshot on the first criminal who happened to be moving around and at a good distance, and lit up the other two something fierce.

Point is that when you are in extreme circumstances you would really be surprised at the way you can rise to the occasion. I don't think a woman who clearly has her head about her would hesitate if the home invader who was following her down her hallway made the wrong move while she had her pistol trained on him. The wrong move is any move other than to prone out face down and pray she doesn't get antsy waiting for the police.

[mvccd1000]

15. No assumptions there....

The FACTS are that she had a gun and did not become the victim of a crime.

You may choose to assume whatever you'd like; I've shown you the reality of the situation.

[Turbo Teg]

18. .

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe she would have shot him dead. You can't armchair quarterback stuff like this. To many variables. I believe when push comes to shove, the ordinary citizens will to live will be the determining factor in a situation like this.

[Howzit]

34. Consider the fact that she had a gun and the fact that she retrieved it when threatened.

Both facts suggest she intended to use it in defending herself.

What is with the anti-gun logic that people with guns will shoot others who are not criminals, but won't be able to shoot criminals?

[old mark]

19. "maybe he just would have taken your money and left peacefully"

If you feel you can trust your well being, your life or that of your family to a drug addicted idiot whose great idea for making a living (or scoring more dope) is armed robbery, if you trust your life to this individual's sense of fair play, common decency and human kindness, please do so.
I will not.

I prefer to shoot him.

mark

[radioburning]

20. Where are all the anti's now? Chirp chirp. If the victim was a man though...n/t

[iverglas]

21. okay

What kind of an idiot doesn't leave out the other door of a dwelling when s/he thinks someone potentially dangerous is about to enter the first door? and yell for the neighbours? and thus virtually assuredly scare the bad guy back out the door he came in?

Who would intentionally move closer to the potential intruder (as it seems she did, since he followed her *back* down the hall) and risk death? He was following her -- if he'd had a gun too, what's to say he wouldn't have shot her first?

The moral of the story seems to me to be that owning firearms turns people into reckless morons. But that's just me.

[gorfle]

23. Hmm. Which way to run?

I could run to my bedroom and grab a gun with which I am fairly certain I have a good chance of defending myself, or I could run to my front door and scream and hope my neighbors both hear and are motivated to help me, so I don't become another Kitty Genovese.

I know which one I'm picking.

[iverglas]

24. there ya go

Like I wuz saying ...

[gorfle]

25. Well...

I just hope you are more popular in your neighborhood than you seem to be around here.

Really, though, it just goes to once again demonstrate the absolutely fundamental difference in anti-gun vs. pro-gun stances. Pro-gun folks are about taking personal responsibility for trying to ensure their own safety and security. Anti-gun folks abdicate this responsibility to others, and demand that everyone else do likewise.

[radioburning]

26. Those are a lot of What if's that have to fall into place to not get stabbed, shot, or raped,

"yell for the neighbors, and thus virtually assuredly scare the bad guy back"? Well, if I would have known that all it takes to stop crime is to yell for your neighbors I would have gotten rid of my guns a long time ago! Well, actually I wouldn't, but what kind of a fantasy world do you live in? You should be barred from the gungeon just for having such laughably naive opinions! Having people like you decide proper gun control is like putting deadheads in charge of national security.

[iverglas]

28. I'm so glad I live where I live

If I went out on the street and yelled for my neighbours, the street would be full of 'em in no time flat. Gino in his boxer shorts, Sandra in her fuzzy bathrobe, the new Chinese couple next door whose names I haven't quite figured out yet, the self-impressed lesbian entymologist across the street who grew up here but is too good for us ...

Gino told me one time about how he had spotted somebody lurking the shadow out of the streetlight in my driveway the night before. He'd sauntered over and inquired as to the chap's business in my driveway. Turned out the chap was undercover and was standing under the cover of my shadow to watch Gino's tenant across the street, whose dwelling was being used by some local dealers. The night I went and rousted Dom to have a chat with the triad lurking around his driveway, they were just pimps and a hooker who apparently thought we were gonna believe the tale of them waiting for a friend.

In any event, the main thing would be that I would be out of the house, not trapped by someone who may not have intended to do harm, but might have changed his mind.

Speaking of which, if the woman in that tale didn't want someone entering her house, why didn't she just say so? HEY YOU, GET THE FUCK OFF MY PATIO OR YOU'LL REGRET IT, would be pretty much my words. Maybe followed by HEY BILLY BOB, JIMBO, THERE'S SOME ASSHOLE TRYING TO GET INTO THE HOUSE. Imaginary friends can come in handy. Not that it would stop me from also heading for the front door - or the back window, if I were upstairs - and getting out.

Seriously. If having a firearm in the house means that someone decides to stay in the house when an unknown person enters it uninvited and take his/her chances, rather than getting the hell out to safety, I really do have to believe that firearms ownership brings about a 20-point reduction in IQ. At least.

Either that or it is either a symptom or a cause of mind-dulling blood lust.

[radioburning]

31. That sounds like a nice way to live. Unfortunately the whole world is not exactly...

...like your neighborhood. Have there been many shootings in your neighborhood lately? It doesn't sound like it. If that is the environment you live in I could see not understanding why anybody would need a gun. There are so many other situations people live that differ from yours though. Literally millions. What if you live in an apartment with only one door and bars on the bedroom windows? I have. I've had my house broken into many times, and violent brutal crimes are not uncommon in my neighborhood. Most of the time not with firearms. A good friend of mine was beaten with a pipe into a state of permanent mental retardation by two ex-linebackers. 3 weeks ago, within 5 nights 1 mugger robbed and then stabbed and sliced up 4 women with a knife. You don't have to be in the horrible position of having to decide whether or not to end a life to protect your own, but it's not fair for you to make that decision for other people who aren't as fortunate as you to just "yell for help". You'd rather show the world your moral superiority by pointing out that anything associated with guns, in any way, is a sign of, or creator of a low I.Q., racism, sexism, and George Bush republicans. I'm not saying guns are always the answer, but there are many cases where they saved lives and you can laugh, guffaw, and sneer at that statement but you can't call yourself sane while denying that it happens and is a good thing. There are roughly 300 million Americans IIRC. How many people are killed each year by legal gun owners? Compare that number to 300 million, and you can see that the odds of a non-criminal dying from gunfire is astronomically low. The world is not a perfect place, and never will be. Criminals will always have guns. Period.

Besides all of this, I don't only own guns for home protection. For ten years I've have greatly enjoyed a good day at the shooting range. Just like some people enjoy an afternoon painting a portrait, tending to their garden, fishing, or any other thing people do in their "pursuit of happiness". I don't fantasize about shooting Vietcong. I don't dream of killing burgulars. I've shot ten's of thousands of rounds-not one of them at another person.

[iverglas]

32. funny thing

In the situation actually under discussion in this thread, we didn't have any of the facts to which you allude.

We had a woman who thought someone was going to try to enter her home through the back door, who obviously had access to the front door in order to leave the apartment. Unless she thought that the person trying to enter her apartment bore her ill will, there was apparently no reason for her to think that the person would follow her out the front door. But instead of exiting her home to what she could have expected to be safety (and I have no reason to think otherwise), she chose to stay in her home and take the chance of winning in any confrontation that ensued.

That's a choice she's perfectly entitled to make. It also strikes me as an incredibly stupid choice.

And where I'm at, and in any civilized society, if the result had been that she injured or killed someone, she would in all likelihood have been found to be criminally liable, since she had an alternative to using force that she had no reason to believe would not have allowed her to avoid harm. So there's yet another reason why her choice would have been incredibly stupid, again just from the standpoint of her own best interests.

And yes, a person who leaves a situation in which s/he appears to be in danger, rather than remaining in the situation and causing harm to someone else, is morally superior to a person who has an opportunity to avoid potential harm and instead uses force to avert the harm s/he apprehends.

For the rest, yada yada.

[Howzit]

33. So you would run outside if someone was trying to enter your home?

You don't know if they are coming for you or just to steal your TV. You don't know if there is more than one person out there, and having left the safety of your home, you are now at their mercy unless you can outrun them.

By all means, let them know you are home before they break in. If they are not put off by your presence they should be considered dangerous. If you have a gun, fetch it before challenging them. They don't need to know you have a gun until they actually break in.

What are you going to do if the bad guys call your bluff by insisting you introduce them to Billy-Bob and...

US cops are going to pronounce that you got what you deserved if you leave your house because Darrel was breaking down your front door while his other brother Darrel was waiting for you at the back door.

[iverglas]

35. uh, yeah

Do I look irrational?

You don't know if they are coming for you or just to steal your TV.

Well, no. But since I'm not either a paranoid loon or an undercover CSIS agent with enemies in the gunrunning trade, for instance, I think I would have a pretty good idea.

You don't know if there is more than one person out there

Hey. All the more reason not to stick around and find out, I'd say.

and having left the safety of your home

Yes ... the safety of my home with an uninvited late-night guest in it ... or seven, or fifteen, or however many of them you're imagining there.

you are now at their mercy unless you can outrun them.

Noooo ... I am now at their mercy if I happen to be an undercover CSIS agent and they're gunrunners come to get me. Otherwise, I'm a member of the public whom nobody is actually gunning for, out in PUBLIC where I am extremely unlikely to be followed by anyone who isn't looking to get into big trouble.

If they are not put off by your presence they should be considered dangerous.

Sure. They'd also be figments of my imagination, but that obviously wouldn't be dissuading me from doing what I gotta do.

If you have a gun, fetch it before challenging them.

I don't so I won't. In this imaginary world we are temporarily inhabiting.

They don't need to know you have a gun until they actually break in.

Well, there's something to that. Because even if "they" have guns themselves, the idea of getting another one might be kinda appealing, and there's no point in giving them an incentive to come on in.

Mind you, if my actual aim is to keep them out, which I was thinking it was here, telling them I had a gun might actually achieve some effects in that direction. And I mean, if I expect to be able to win whatever battle ensues if they do enter, why worry? Telling them I had a gun might keep them out, and if it didn't, I'd still have nothing to worry about.

What are you going to do if the bad guys call your bluff by insisting you introduce them to Billy-Bob and...

Well, since I'd be out on the front sidewalk by that point, I probably wouldn't hear them.

US cops are going to pronounce that you got what you deserved

Aha! God died and appointed "US cops" to take over? Jeez, up here, we don't assign the job of deciding who got what who deserved to cops. Funny way of doing things you seem to have down there.

But then, I kind of suspected that much already.

[Howzit]

41. "I'm a member of the public whom nobody is actually gunning for"

You are a female member of the public. This makes you a prime target for rape.

Criminals who break into houses for valuables and find females at home often spend a little time exploring this distraction. Ditto for criminals roaming about in the street.

At least you have a strategy, and that is the most important thing. Some people plan to stand their ground and fight and other plan to run. Those that have no idea what to do if someone kicks in their door are at most risk.

By the way, never tell a stranger loitering with intent outside your home you have a gun. The idea may chase them off for now, but they will likely come back for it later after observing when you come and go for a while. The best time to accost anyone is in their driveway as they come home or are about to leave. They may grab you and insist you show them where you keep the gun. You may insist you were bluffing the other day. They will insist that they are not bluffing.

Only bring a gun to the equation once an illegal attack on you is imminent in which you would be legally justified in shooting someone. Short of that, keep it hidden. In other words, don’t brandish a gun until they have actually broken in.

[Tejas]

40. Yep, usual senseless ASSumptions by antis

Guess every anti has a backdoor to escape through, even those on the 13th floor.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. In THIS country

Your neighbors and the Police are not legally liable for your protection in our country. Even if you give the police days worth of heads-up. In a way, you are on your own, which is why I am a tool using human.

I'm curious, if Warren v. District of Columbia - 1981, or Castle Rock v. Gonzales - 2005, would have been handled differently in a Canadian court.

If your police are actually given heads up, (in some cases, hours or days) do they actually assume responsibility for your protection? Ours do not. If yours do, how do they handle response times, etc? Is there a line where their response is ruled acceptable, or too slow, or adequate/inadequate?

[iverglas]

29. I just dunno

Are those voices of yours that loud? They completely drown out the words you see on your monitor?

Your neighbors and the Police are not legally liable for your protection in our country.

Uh ... congratulations. Any other tidbits of totally non-germane info you'd like to offer up?


If your police are actually given heads up, (in some cases, hours or days) do they actually assume responsibility for your protection?

Maybe it's me with a problem here. But I'm looking at my post, and I'm not seeing the word "police" in it. Am I missing something?

My post was about the abject stupidity of remaining in a house being entered by an uninvited stranger when one has every opportunity to exit the house. I don't know what yours is about.

But this may interest you.

http://www.walnet.org/jane_doe/news/toronto_99/chatelaine-9901.html

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Well your post made some assumptions.

That the person has nearby neighbors that can call the cops for you, or maybe offer her sanctuary, that the police will respond, that the victim is in a position to flee, physically or emotionally, that the victim in this case didn't have some obligation to stand her ground, like a child in another room of the house, that the invader will be awed by the threat of outside involvement, that the invader will not pursue, etc.

I am personally opposed to fleeing a threat. Particularly if it means leaving my home. It's just not in my nature, so I can sympathize with the person in that article. If someone breaks into my home, I have no legal or moral compulsion to flee.

Your suggested course of action involves her neighbors, which could put their safety at risk.



Your manner of conversation can be highly disrespectful, by the way.

Edit: for spelling

[iverglas]

36. yeah, it did

It assumed that what we were all wanting to save was our lives, not our honour or our manhood or suchlike stuff.

As to the ones you list as "assumptions", I'd tend to think, for most of them, that if they weren't facts, the fact that they weren't facts might have been mentioned in the news report. Like if the householder was physically disabled. Not "emotionally" in a position to flee? And yet "emotionally" in a position to make a run for her bedroom -- in the direction of the approaching intruder -- and grab a firearm and be "emotionally" prepared to shoot him with it and not get harmed instead/in the process? Hmm.

As for having neighbours who will "offer her sanctuary" ... I really just can't get over these bogeyman fantasies you people have. Somebody breaks in the patio door of a dwelling, and from that we get to "big huge slavering serial rapist/killer chases little woman down residential street / through residential complex, drags her into parking garage, leaves her battered bleeding dead body there".

The odds that a burglar is not going to make a quick escape the way s/he came if the householder is out on the street / in the middle of the complex yelling blue murder ... well, they just seem slim, to me.

But to have a look at one particulary thing you curiously call an "assumption":

that the victim in this case didn't have some obligation to stand her ground

You may be aware that this is no assumption. This is a fact.

In what alternate universe would someone whose dwelling was being broken into have an OBLIGATION to "stand her ground"? An obligation TO WHOM? (The victim in this case did not have sleeping babies, so let's not get carried away.)

I am personally opposed to fleeing a threat.

Bully for you. Bully being the operative word. I am personally opposed to people causing injury or death to other people when there is no need for it. And I have the whole weight of human history and civilization on my side. And no deep-seated need to prove what a big, er, man I am by not "fleeing a threat" no matter how stupid it might be not to, or how immoral the alternative might be.

I might not choose to be "fleeing a threat" myself in some circumstances (although if the circumstance involved somebody breaking into my house at night, you can be pretty sure I would). But I would also not say that I wasn't stupid if something happened to me as a result of that decision. And if I harmed someone else in order to avoid a danger I could have avoided by removing myself from the vicinity of it, I'd expect to be prosecuted.

Your suggested course of action involves her neighbors, which could put their safety at risk.

It doesn't involve anyone who chooses not to be involved.

But I have to agree, if this were 1943 and I were living in Belgium and the people at the door were members of the SS and I were a young blonde courier for the underground engaged in returning downed Allied fliers to England (ever seen Secret Army? great series), well, yes, I might be putting my neighbours at risk.

Your manner of conversation can be highly disrespectful, by the way.

I do humbly beg your pardon. If I may, I would ever so humbly note that I find the employment of straw adversaries to stand in for myself, in speech addressed to me --

In THIS country
Your neighbors and the Police are not legally liable for your protection in our country.

-- to be, er, highly disrespectful.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. That's a big post.

You continue to make assumptions; that someone using a firearm to defend life or property actually has to pull the trigger for it to be effective. I don't see much difference between your suggested plan of action, and mine, except that if it fails, I have a better fallback option.

I'll paint a scenario using that article for you.

Someone is banging on my patio door, meaning they are on my property, and have climed up to get on it.
I head to my bedroom to retrieve a firearm. (You have mis-represented the facts stated in the article, the bedroom was AWAY from the intruder, not towards, the intruder had to pursue.)
I obtain the firearm and return to the hallway.
The hostile realized the victim in the story had a gun, so I can assume at this point I can see the bad guy.
That means I can probably identify the hostile, and give his description to the police, thereby helping prevent any future malfeasance.

Lets digress from the end result of the article, let's assume I get back to the kitchen and he's stealing my favorite coffee pot. I really love that coffee pot. That's MY coffee pot. What can I do? Exactly what the victim in the previous article did, order him to leave, or surrender. (Civilians can arrest people here, though the laws are kind of sticky, and I don't know Canadian law on this point, so I don't think it would be productive to elaborate further)
So now the hostile takes my favorite coffee pot and starts to flee. What can I do? Exactly what the victim in the previous article did, allow him to leave. If he's leaving, even with my property, I cannot shoot him. Standing your ground doesn't include shooting someone in the back that is not a threat to me. I cannot and would not kill someone, even to save my favorite coffee pot. That would be immoral.

Lets say he does not flee, does not surrender, and instead, attacks me. Now, and only now, do I have cause or legal reason to use deadly force. You cannot assume that just because someone takes up arms, they are going to kill someone. The victim in that article didn't. I wouldn't. Most people wouldn't. I would not kill for my favorite coffee pot, or my tv or anything else. However, I will stand my ground, assert my right to my property, gather evidence for the police, if possible, detain the criminal, and if pressed, protect my life, and the lives of people around me.



As for assuming intent, yes, I assume the worst. That the invader is there, not for my coffee pot, but for the absolute worst case scenario. It might just be some punk kid after my liquor cabinet, that's why I wouldn't go in guns blazing. But I have to assume it might be some deranged lunatic, after all, whoever it is is already breaking the law, invaded my property and giving me cause to fear for my safety.


Rough analogy: A fire in my house. If I smell a whiff of smoke, I don't bail immediately out the nearest window. I INVESTIGATE and if possible, combat it. I have fire extinguishers in ever major room in my house. I would get one, and go find out where the fire is, and can it be dealt with. Fires start small, but get big quick. A residential fire can double in size every minute. Something I could have dealt with myself might destroy the house before the fire department arrives, if I do not investigate it. So I have the appropriate tools, and a plan of action. I have three separate means of summoning the fire department. If I can't handle it, then I will take the appropriate next step. Same methodology, different threat.


The point I made about legal liability is not a straw man, and certainly not meant to offend. If she ran, without arming herself, and the hostile was more worst-case-scenario, she might have been killed. Yelling for neighbors and police may not awe the intruder, and those 3rd parties may not save her. They have no legal obligation to. I can certainly cite some instances here in the US where neighbors completely ignored people in need. Hell, last week, people ignored an injured man lying in the street, after being run over by a hit-and-run. A couple witnesses called the cops and then did nothing. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume you are on your own, and do what you can to prepare yourself for 'bad things', whatever they may be.

I realize there are some people in this forum that will resort to direct personal attacks at the drop of a hat. I don't intend to 'white knight' for you, you seem fully capable of handling the problem yourself. Just want you to understand, I will not treat you that way, no matter how much I may disagree with your position. I'm not trying to score points, 'own someone' or any of that silly debate crap, I'm trying to have a rational conversation with another human being. Who knows, I might learn something from you.

[iverglas]

43. you continue to substitute straw for me

Maybe if you learned that copy and paste thing, you wouldn't have this problem.

You continue to make assumptions; that someone using a firearm to defend life or property actually has to pull the trigger for it to be effective.

What I said that you were presumably replying to:

And if I harmed someone else in order to avoid a danger I could have avoided by removing myself from the vicinity of it, I'd expect to be prosecuted.

You may see a connection between the two. I don't.

I don't see much difference between your suggested plan of action, and mine, except that if it fails, I have a better fallback option.

Sez you. Your fallback option may fail and you may be injured or killed, or may result in the injury or death of another human being, when the entire sequence of events leading to any of those could have been avoided by you leaving the scene. There is a big difference. They are completely different.

(You have mis-represented the facts stated in the article, the bedroom was AWAY from the intruder, not towards, the intruder had to pursue.)

You think? And this would be why the article said that he followed her BACK down the hall after she went to the bedroom to get the firearm? Interesting, er, interpretation.

By your interpretation, he was pursuing her BEFORE she had the firearm. Odd how that makes no sense.


The hostile realized the victim in the story had a gun, so I can assume at this point I can see the bad guy.
That means I can probably identify the hostile, and give his description to the police, thereby helping prevent any future malfeasance.

Good god, you seem to be having flashbacks. These hostiles, are they all around, and do they drop out of trees and bayonet your good buddies?


(Civilians can arrest people here, though the laws are kind of sticky, and I don't know Canadian law on this point, so I don't think it would be productive to elaborate further)

MEMBERS OF THE FUCKING GENERAL PUBLIC may arrest people here, and it matters not a pinch of shit if they are members of the armed forces and thus not "civilians" at all; they are members of the public for all purposes not relating to their military duties. (Obviously, the police, not being military, are also "civilians".) Members of the general public may also not KILL OR INJURE people to prevent the commission of a property offence any more than the police may.


The point I made about legal liability is not a straw man, and certainly not meant to offend. If she ran, without arming herself, and the hostile was more worst-case-scenario, she might have been killed. Yelling for neighbors and police may not awe the intruder, and those 3rd parties may not save her. They have no legal obligation to.

And the absence of legal obligation is just as totally and completely IRRELEVANT as it was the first time. Even if they DID have a legal obligation to do something, they might not do it, for pity's sake. So then she could sue them. Not, I think, a meaningful distinction from your perspective.


Rough analogy: A fire in my house. If I smell a whiff of smoke, I don't bail immediately out the nearest window. I INVESTIGATE and if possible, combat it.

Yeah. Rough to the point of nothing like, eh? Mind you, I'm not the one scared out of my wits by the thought of what a "hostile" in my home might do to me, so maybe your analogy holds some water for me. It doesn't for you, unless you're ascribing animus to fire. I think I would still be surprised, if so.


Bottom line is that I do not have so much invested in my belief in my own importance that I imagine "hostiles" with animus against me breaking into my home, and I am not so insecure in my knowledge of my own worth that I need to prove it to myself or the world by making sure that nobody ever gets the better of me, even when attempting the proof could get me hurt.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Fight or flight.

Yeah. Rough to the point of nothing like, eh? Mind you, I'm not the one scared out of my wits by the thought of what a "hostile" in my home might do to me, so maybe your analogy holds some water for me. It doesn't for you, unless you're ascribing animus to fire. I think I would still be surprised, if so.
What gave you the impression I'm scared out of my wits? After all, I'm not the one who's apparent chosen option is to run away. To arm myself and investigate matters doesn't sound like being 'scared out of my wits'.

MEMBERS OF THE FUCKING GENERAL PUBLIC may arrest people here, and it matters not a pinch of shit if they are members of the armed forces and thus not "civilians" at all; they are members of the public for all purposes not relating to their military duties. (Obviously, the police, not being military, are also "civilians".) Members of the general public may also not KILL OR INJURE people to prevent the commission of a property offence any more than the police may.
Most people here never make the distinction between military and peace officers. Here, in my state, non-peace-officers also have the right to arrest someone. In fact, we are able to intervene, if we witness any form of felony in progress. Granted, that's not always a wise choice.

What I said that you were presumably replying to:

And if I harmed someone else in order to avoid a danger I could have avoided by removing myself from the vicinity of it, I'd expect to be prosecuted.

You may see a connection between the two. I don't.
That wasn't the only comment I was replying to, but that will do. Here, you would not be prosecuted. Possible culture difference between Canada and the United States. There are a couple states here that don't have the 'castle doctrine' yet, but in most states, mine included, we have no duty to retreat. Whether you committed a crime or not is dependent on whether you were justified in shooting someone. There are very specific criteria for that, that boil down to you fearing for your life, or that of another person. You can't shoot someone over personal property, but you can to protect your life.

And the absence of legal obligation is just as totally and completely IRRELEVANT as it was the first time. Even if they DID have a legal obligation to do something, they might not do it, for pity's sake. So then she could sue them. Not, I think, a meaningful distinction from your perspective.
I don't think you are understanding me.

1. Neither your neighbors or the police have any legal compulsion to protect you.
2. If your neighbors also don't have a firearm, what good is it going to do you for them to come running if you yell for them? What can they do, that you can't, aside from perhaps numerical superiority. (Meaningless if the intruder has a weapon, knife or otherwise)
3. If you run to your neighbors, and some scumbag follows you, you may be endangering them.

I realize your point is that you think yelling for them will be enough deterrence to cause whoever is breaking in to flee, but that's not always so. Some criminals have bad intentions, and a casual disregard for their own safety. If you like, I can link plenty of news articles, mostly of home invaders that were warned repeatedly they would be shot if they continued, and they did it anyway, and were shot. If someone telling them they are going to be shot if they don't knock it off isn't going to work, do you think yelling for the neighbors would help?



You think? And this would be why the article said that he followed her BACK down the hall after she went to the bedroom to get the firearm? Interesting, er, interpretation.

By your interpretation, he was pursuing her BEFORE she had the firearm. Odd how that makes no sense.
"The woman, who lives in the 1300 block of West Guadalupe Road, told police she heard somebody jump onto her patio just before 11 p.m. She ran into her bedroom to retrieve her gun, police said. When a man entered through the back door, he followed her down the hallway until he realized she had a gun, according to police. He fled."
Where in that paragraph does the word 'back' exist? (Aside from 'back door') She could have been standing in the hallway, and ran to the bedroom. She could have been anywhere, the bathroom, wherever. It doesn't say. There is insufficent detail to support your apparent interpretation.


Good god, you seem to be having flashbacks. These hostiles, are they all around, and do they drop out of trees and bayonet your good buddies?
Not at all. I apologize if my word usage somehow offends you, but if someone is breaking into my home at 11pm, I'm certainly going to assume they are 'hostile'. I wonder what the woman from that article thought of his intentions. I'll stick to 'invader' or 'intruder' from now on I guess.

[iverglas]

45. I beg your pardon

I misread this passage:

The woman, who lives in the 1300 block of West Guadalupe Road, told police she heard somebody jump onto her patio just before 11 p.m. She ran into her bedroom to retrieve her gun, police said. When a man entered through the back door, he followed her down the hallway until he realized she had a gun, according to police. He fled.

I'm not seeing any conceivable layout of a dwelling that involves someone entering through a back door *following* someone who has moved about in the dwelling, in order to retrieve an object from a bedroom, that does not involve her at least remaining within the same range of the back door as she started within, and more likely moving herself closer to the back door.

If the bedroom were at the front of the house, he would have had nowhere to follow her -- she would already have been at the front of the house when she retrieved the firearm. She must have been moving, and the only possible interpretation I see is that she was moving from the back to the front of the dwelling. She was apparently fleeing him, and brandished the firearm at the same time. If she was fleeing him anyway, I'm still failing to see the point of remaining in the dangerous situation, let alone moving closer to the source of the danger, which seems to me to be the only logical and reasonable interpretation of the facts as described.


There are a couple states here that don't have the 'castle doctrine' yet, but in most states, mine included, we have no duty to retreat.

What you're not getting is that I do not give a fucking crap whether you have a "duty to retreat" under your barbaric laws. I am not talking about laws, yours or anyone else's.

I don't have a "duty to retreat" under my laws either. I cannot claim self-defence if I failed to exercise a reasonable alternative to the use of force in order to avert injury or death when I reasonably apprehend such injury or death.

"Duty to retreat" is just a macho catchphrase invented by macho morons with a deep-seated fear of looking like pussies to the rest of the world because they "retreated" instead of "standing their ground" when faced with somebody trying to get the better of them.


Possible culture difference between Canada and the United States.

Indeed. Evidence of de-evolution. The law of self-defence in the United States started out as exactly what it is in the rest of the civilized world, and the racist / misogynist right wing has succeeded in returning large swathes of the country to a pre-civilized era.

Do you seriously believe that the Quakers, or even the Puritans, would have approved of a person killing another human being in order to prevent the theft of a coffee pot?

Well, if the thief had been a member of an indigenous people, okay, yeah, they would have.


I realize your point is that you think yelling for them will be enough deterrence to cause whoever is breaking in to flee, but that's not always so. Some criminals have bad intentions, and a casual disregard for their own safety.

Keep in mind that was just *my* plan. Another one would be to go out the front door while the bad guy is coming in the back, and go hide behind a shrub, or go mingle with the passing pedestrians, or go stand behind the neighbour's garage. For pity's sake. I really, really am not going to buy into this nonsense scenario of a burglar following me out the front door and spending the next 10 minutes tracking me and then murdering me.

Yeah, yeah. Some criminals are stupid. Stupid enough to follow me out onto the sidewalk and drag me away by the hair ... where, I don't know ... or hell, just shoot me dead ... and my neighbours too ... when all s/he really wanted was a few saleable bits of electronics and some cash, and if s/he leaves the way s/he came, s/he can go find some somewhere else.

The world is such a great big scary place. People are lurking in my back yard waiting for the chance to get in the patio door and murder me. Not. Really. Not.

Of course, there's also the fact that because I do live in a civilized society, the chance of anyone who came rattling my patio door having a firearm would be: NIL. Really. Nil. So the chance of something just dreadful happening to me if I stepped outside the front door and started hollering when I heard him/her rattling the patio door would be: NIL. Really.

And the chance of me giving a crap about the safety of someone who asserts that s/he must have firearms to hand in order to avoid death at the hands of terrible people busting in their back door, when the person asserting this does nothing to reduce the likelihood that such people will have the means to cause injury or death easily and with little personal risk, and in fact does everything possible to ensure that such people have ready access to those means, well, there again, pretty much: NIL.

[Tejas]

52. so, you care nothing if someone dies

"And the chance of me giving a crap about the safety of someone who asserts that s/he must have firearms to hand in order to avoid death at the hands of terrible people busting in their back door, when the person asserting this does nothing to reduce the likelihood that such people will have the means to cause injury or death easily and with little personal risk, and in fact does everything possible to ensure that such people have ready access to those means, well, there again, pretty much: NIL."


Nice, real nice work there.

So, the kitchen knives aren't locked up, you care not if the homeowner is killed?

[iverglas]

53. I care nothing if a gun militant dies?

Yeah, pretty much. That being what I said.

[Tejas]

56. wow, finally straight and simple, I'm impressed. n/t

iverglas (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-08-08 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. I care nothing if a gun militant dies?

Yeah, pretty much. That being what I said.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Again, building layout.

I'm not seeing any conceivable layout of a dwelling that involves someone entering through a back door *following* someone who has moved about in the dwelling, in order to retrieve an object from a bedroom, that does not involve her at least remaining within the same range of the back door as she started within, and more likely moving herself closer to the back door.

My home is laid out in such a way that if I was anywhere but the kitchen/living room, away from the intruder would be toward the bedrooms, and both the front and back doors would be toward the intruder. My first apartment was laid out the same way. My second apartment probably matches what you are thinking, where your assumption would be 100% correct, bedroom would have been about the same distance from the intruder, front door would be 'away'. 2 out of three places I have lived since moving out on my own, do not match what you seem to be picturing.

What you're not getting is that I do not give a fucking crap whether you have a "duty to retreat" under your barbaric laws. I am not talking about laws, yours or anyone else's.

I don't have a "duty to retreat" under my laws either. I cannot claim self-defense if I failed to exercise a reasonable alternative to the use of force in order to avert injury or death when I reasonably apprehend such injury or death.

"Duty to retreat" is just a macho catchphrase invented by macho morons with a deep-seated fear of looking like pussies to the rest of the world because they "retreated" instead of "standing their ground" when faced with somebody trying to get the better of them.

'Duty to retreat' is an abbreviation, there are very specific laws in certain places that describe and demand:

I cannot claim self-defence if I failed to exercise a reasonable alternative to the use of force in order to avert injury or death when I reasonably apprehend such injury or death.

Sometimes it refers to actual codified law, sometimes established court decisions. The effect is the same, in places where this exists (Pre 2004 (or thereabouts) Florida would be one case) the burden of proof was on the defense in any self-defense case to show that the defendant tried to escape, and could not, prior to using deadly force. An example of a court clarifying self-defense: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S53457.htm
Prior to that ruling, the burden of proof may have been on the defendant to show he/she had to use deadly force, instead of on the state to show the defendant used excessive force.

Here I don't believe we have a moral, or a legal duty to retreat. I see no reason to abandon my home, or turn my back on a potential threat and run, as a first line of defense. I'll run if I have to, not before.

Do you seriously believe that the Quakers, or even the Puritans, would have approved of a person killing another human being in order to prevent the theft of a coffee pot?
I stated quite clearly that I would do no such thing. I don't understand why you would type that, when you quite clearly read what I wrote, since you used 'my favorite coffee pot' as an example.

I will state it again:

"So now the hostile takes my favorite coffee pot and starts to flee. What can I do? Exactly what the victim in the previous article did, allow him to leave. If he's leaving, even with my property, I cannot shoot him. Standing your ground doesn't include shooting someone in the back that is not a threat to me. I cannot and would not kill someone, even to save my favorite coffee pot. That would be immoral."

Intruder lugging my coffee pot and tv out the door is not an imminent threat to my safety. Gather evidence (suspects description, what he took, where he went), alert the police, defend myself if necessary. That's it. 'Standing your ground' doesn't mean grabbing your body armor, fast roping up onto the roof, tossing a flashbang back in through the chimney, and shooting through the skylight at the scared teenager looking for a bottle of vodka in my kitchen, or any other wild/amusing fantasies.

Edit: for confusing spacing.

[iverglas]

60. and now for the real issue

Intruder lugging my coffee pot and tv out the door is not an imminent threat to my safety.

Intruder whom you have chosen to confront lunging at you with a knife, you shooting intruder dead.

Not that *I* think it's about to happen, but I wouldn't likely think it wise to corner an intruder anyhow. Unless I were holding a firearm and had the "fall back" plan of killing him/her, I guess.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. Intruder lunging at me with a knife

would be a grave mistake. His, not mine.

'cornering' is a somewhat malleable term. I'm not sure I like your usage of it.

Regardless, he/she should not be entering my home uninvited. He/she should not be helping him/herself to my stuff. If I say 'hey man, that's my stuff, get out of my house' he/she is not entitled to attack me with force, whether he/she felt 'cornered' or not. If the intruder does attack me I have the right to defend myself.

I did not cause, invite, or welcome this situation. In fact, I go to great lengths to ensure no such situation even arises.

If it does, running is pretty much last on my list. Hell, I'm imagining how long it would take me to release all the locking devices on my front door, just so I could run. No thank you. I'm not turning my back on a potential threat, even for a second. Let alone trying to drag my wife and kid out of the house. (kid is hypothetical at this point, but soon)

[iverglas]

63. there ya go

Stand that ground. Be a man. Nobody's gonna get your coffee pot.

Hell, I'm imagining how long it would take me to release all the locking devices on my front door, just so I could run.

Me, I'm wondering how the hell the hostile got in.


In point of fact, legally, where I'm at, one would be absolutely entitled to instruct said intruder to leave one's premises, and in fact to use reasonable force to accomplish the desired end: intruder leaving premises. One would also be entitled to use all necessary force to avert injury or death if the intruder decided to launch an assault instead -- short of using force intended to cause death.

But that wasn't what we were talking about here, of course. We were talking about the sensible thing to do when one hears someone trying to break into one's dwelling, at the point at which the person is not yet in the dwelling.

And I'll stick with the simple and safe one: leave.

And with the conclusion I drew here: someone who doesn't leave, and instead goes for a gun, choosing to take the chance of being the victor in any battle that ensues, is a moron and/or looking to bag a bad guy.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion.

And your chosen methods of self defense. I don't even think it's 'the wrong choice'. It's your life, not mine, and your choice how to protect it. Totally cool. Since, from my viewpoint, you are taking a risk to stand by your convictions, I would not call it cowardly or anything else negative. In fact, I applaud it. Hopefully, neither of us will ever have to test our response to such a situation.

Me, I'm wondering how the hell the hostile got in.
I'm guessing broke a window, or forced a window, or sliding glass door. The locks are usually pretty pathetic on those doors, and when someone is home, they often do not use a blocking bar or brace on a door they commonly use.

[rdenney]

66. You think it's bad in most US States, stay the hell out of Texas.....

Quote:

"Indeed. Evidence of de-evolution. The law of self-defense in the United States started out as exactly what it is in the rest of the civilized world, and the racist / misogynist right wing has succeeded in returning large swathes of the country to a pre-civilized era."

"Do you seriously believe that the Quakers, or even the Puritans, would have approved of a person killing another human being in order to prevent the theft of a coffee pot?""

Reply:

Nope, but in Texas you can shoot and kill a man trying to steal your neighbor's vehicle with a shotgun, or even shoot and kill a repo-man who is taking back the vehicle you didn't make payments on, right from your bedroom window, with a high powered hunting rifle.

Unfortunately those are just a couple of stories of "law-abiding gun-owners" who didn't receive any time behind bars for killing men for reasons other then their own safety, out in the "Lone Star State".

So much for the self-defense myth the NRA tries for foist on de-voluted American gun-nuts! :puke:

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Texas is freakin' wierd.

It is one of our states with a 'duty to retreat' when faced with violent assault BUT you can shoot people stealing your property, apparently, even if they are fleeing, and no threat to you.

Mostly, the south just seems completely broken to me. Last time I traveled there on business, I lost count of the number of Civil War statues, and dioramas in building lobbies, etc. It's like they massively resent the whole civil war thing, or worse, somehow think they actually won it.

I'm going to make a note to avoid it in the future. The whole place just gives me a bad vibe. Tennesee was just as bad.

[iverglas]

69. and it has fire ants

Forgive my digression. Fire ants in Texas (and anywhere else I've met them) are obsessed with me, and I return the favour. ;)

[AtheistCrusader]

38. One minor point

The article doesn't discuss the layout of her apartment. In my home, Towards the front door would take me right past the intruder, in the article. Toward the bedroom, would be 'away'. Not that I would be climbing out any windows. I would do what she did.

[solinvictus]

39. My apartment...

one way in, one way out. That's why I reserve the long guns for the rear bedroom in case I did have to shoot an intruder. I have no option of moving my family to safety, so I choose to be armed.

[iverglas]

47. that's nice

Apartment in the story on which comment was invited: two ways in, two ways out.

Your sounds like a highrise apartment: one way in, one way out. Have much trouble with people breaking down doors in highrises to kill the occupants, do you? Considered getting a good strong lock at all?

Just having trouble picturing this place, I'm afraid. A maisonnette, maybe? Door and windows all on one side, other units to both sides and the rear? Could be a low-rise building with just the one hallway entrance, granted. Question re lock on door continues to apply.

[iverglas]

48. and they say men have good spacial arrangement skills ...

In my home, Towards the front door would take me right past the intruder, in the article.

Uh huh. The "intruder" is rattling the BACK door, so wherever you are, heading for the FRONT door would take you past the "intruder".

Do please let's remember that when Annie Oakley here went for her piece, the "intruder" was NOT in the dwelling.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Keep making assumptions.

The room that contains the front and back door to my home is one single room, The rest of the rooms extend off a long hallway. If I am in any room but that living room, I have to go past the rear door to get to the front door. They are directly across from each other. Standard rambler.

[Tejas]

46. if all else fails, just fail some more

AtheistCrusader:
"Your neighbors and the Police are not legally liable for your protection in our country."

Iverglas:
"Uh ... congratulations. Any other tidbits of totally non-germane info you'd like to offer up?"




Way to go, you really told that poster off. Newsflash for you iverglas, others here might not know of these court decisions and their ramifications.

[iverglas]

49. great big newsflash for you

Newsflash for you iverglas, others here might not know of these court decisions and their ramifications.

They'd still be as irrelevant as they were the first and fifty-first time.



Oops -- big, not bit.

[Tejas]

51. So everyone should simply rely on you and you only

for whatever they need to know?

Your qualifications?

[iverglas]

54. hey, if you're asking for a lecture on the nature of collective rights

in the Canadian constitution, I can offer that. I can offer you lessons on all sorts of things.

All of which would be precisely as relevant to the discussion at hand as the assertion that no member of the public is legally liable for failing to come to the assistance of another member of the public.

That would be: NOT. Not relevant. Irrelevant. Not related to the discussion. Of no pertinence. Having no bearing on the discussion. IRRELEVANT.

I hope that helped.

[Tejas]

55. quit babbling, #48 had nothing to do with Canada n/t

[iverglas]

57. EXACTLY!

Just like nothing here had anything to do with anyone's legal liability for / duty to do anything.

See? It's hard work, but you get there in the end.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. You said:

What kind of an idiot doesn't leave out the other door of a dwelling when s/he thinks someone potentially dangerous is about to enter the first door? and yell for the neighbours? and thus virtually assuredly scare the bad guy back out the door he came in?

Two useful outcomes here:

1. The yelling scares the bad guy away. I think I've made it abundantly clear in the other fork of this thread, that I don't consider that a likely outcome.

2. The neighbors/police come and actually scare away or apprehend the invader, thus protecting you.


Option 1 would be a good outcome. I do like that one. Option two sucks because you cannot rely on outside help. The police where I live are anywhere from 1 minute, to 30 minutes away. My neighbors are anti-social cranks and rarely peek outside. Best I can hope for is one of them call the cops. Useless to me, since I can accomplish that with the press of one button inside my house anyway.

I was being generous and trying to explore all the positive outcomes of your apparent plan. Frankly, I think it's insufficent, for the reasons I outlined. I specified 'HERE' because I know laws and court decisions between the US and Canada may vary greatly, and my balance of risk/reward may be different than yours, just by living on opposite sides of the border. Maybe you have some minimum response goal for your police, which they are held accountable for, or more/better funded officers, etc. Maybe you live in a dense city of good samaritans. I can see that altering your risk assessment. Frankly, I think that would be cool, but I don't live in that.

[Tejas]

65. I meant #27 - ie: "this country" is not Canada, your Canada rant is moot n/t

[iverglas]

70. FUCKING DUH

#27 is about individuals' LEGAL LIABILITY or DUTY or lack thereof in relation to the safety of strangers.

THAT contribution to the discussion is what was "MOOT". Or, as I have said, and I'll say again, IRRELEVANT. Nothing I had said, to which that was offered in reply, was about the LEGAL LIABILITY or DUTY of ANYONE in relation to ANYTHING.

If one irrelevant thing is good, two irrelevant things are better, I say.

I have dozens, nay, hundreds, of irrelevant things waiting to be said. The audience seems receptive ...

[Tejas]

50. Too busy beating the snot out of their cat

Same old what-if rhetoric being used to avoid the facts of the case.

[rdenney]

68. How often do you beat your boyfriend ?