Basically what happened is this. A homeowner/gunowner takes off sick with the flu. A burglar enters the house and upon hearing someone moving around, took off running out through the front yard. The homeowner, not wanting the bad guy to get away, fired a warning shot, which presumably convinced the guy to stop running, and then pistol-whipped him, just to keep him around for the police.
All that's bad enough, not bad enough to be charged with anything, but plenty bad enough in my opinion. But, what's worse is his overall attitude as expressed in these two quotes.
Every day we read on the pro-gun blogs about how responsible they are and how they would never use their guns unnecessarily. They all claim to hope they'll never need to use the gun."Actually couldn't believe it was happening at first," McCauley said. "Then I got dressed as quietly as I could, grabbed my pistol.""It was the best sick day I've probably had," he said.
I don't buy it. I believe many gun owners are like this guy, just itching for a chance to use it, just waiting for a "bad guy" to cross their path.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Who among us wouldn't enjoy the satisfaction of catching a criminal? Enforcing the law is actually supposed to be ALL of our responsibilities, not just deferred to the police department.
ReplyDeleteThis homeowner did do some things very wrong, "warning shots" are a no-no, and using a pistol as a well-machined club to strike a compliant criminal is flat-out assault. This homeowner DID break some laws, I don't know if he should be charged, but at least severely reprimanded and take a real self-defense course to learn what's legal and what's not.
...Orygunner...
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteHaven't you said before that the end result justifies breaking the law sometimes?
I realize when you said it your were defending notorious straw purchaser and gun trafficker Colin Goddard but wouldn't the same apply here? The bad guy was caught. Maybe the method was technically wrong but the end was good. Or is that defense only reserved for Brady backed criminals?
I agree Orygunner, sort of - this guy needs another gun safety class big time. Or maybe not to be allowed to have a gun at all if this is the kind of judgement he uses. I'm not sure this kind of gun fetishist stupid is something that a gun class could fix. There is arguably a larger fundamental value system that has failed here - notably the one that should place human life above property. (Like the reason man traps are illegal to catch burglars.)
ReplyDeleteWarning shots? God god, unless this guy lives out in the country where there is absolutely no chance of hitting anything, especially what he can't see (or a person he can't see) this man is a damn menace.
I hope that when the authorities are done with him he is a less smug bastard.
Now this is where a large, well trained do is superior to a gun. They can run down the bad guy, and sit on him (with perforations provided to the bad guy as necessary), they can go around corners, over barriers, and track the villain as necessary, if you're hell bent on restraining him. And they have greater speed than a human.
I've trained a few who could do a credible job of fetch when directed.
The right tool for each job.
Yes, Mike, this is a perfect example of why some people who think they are good gun owners sholdn't be allowed near them, much less own or handle them.
Fat White Man, there is a tremendous difference between what Colin Goddard did and this guy. Goddard was demonstrating flaws and failures in the law, and did not put anyone in danger of death or physical harm doing it - quite the opposite. This idiot who did the warning shot put not only the bad guy in danger, but anyone else in the vicinity, and clearly failed to follow the principle that the least amount of force should ever be used. Pistol whipping? This guy was stuck in a bad video game or the trying to live out the fiction of a bad action movie. There is no comparison.
There's a famous case they teach about in Law 101 aclled Katko v. Briney. In this case, the owner of a vacation cabin was tired of having his cabin broken into and rigged a spring gun. When an intruder tried to break in, the gun severely injured his legs.
ReplyDeleteThe intruder won the case. The money quote from the ruling was "the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property"
I am not in the “Colin Goddard should be arrested camp”, but I found this line striking:
ReplyDeleteDog gone: “Goddard was demonstrating flaws and failures in the law, and did not put anyone in danger of death or physical harm doing it - quite the opposite.”
So as long as I am “demonstrating flaws” and don’t put anyone in physical harm, I should be allowed to do what I want with impunity? Like having a pistol grip on a rifle.
"I don't buy it. I believe many gun owners are like this guy, just itching for a chance to use it, just waiting for a "bad guy" to cross their path."
ReplyDeleteI've read hundreds of self defense stories. This is the only one where the gun owning defender committed one or more crimes.
The only gun owner I've met who was itching to use it was a cop.
The distinction in the case Jade brought up is that the man who set the trap was not present to have his life in danger. In cases where a criminal is running away, there is at lease some gray area.
ReplyDelete"The money quote from the ruling was 'the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property'"
ReplyDeleteThat depends upon the jurisdiction though. Some areas allow the use of deadly force to protect property. I don't agree but there are some areas where that is okay. I'm not sure using an indiscriminate trap would be allowed anywhere though.
Remind me again why we want students bringing guns to campus?
ReplyDeleteMURFREESBORO, Tenn. – Middle Tennessee State University police confirm there has been a shooting reported on campus.
An MTSU alert said the shooting was reported just before noon at the Business and Aerospace Building.
According to the alert, two men were arguing when one man brandished a firearm and shot the other in the hand. Officials said the victim was being treated for an injured thumb.
Police were on campus searching for the suspect. MTSU campus police, deputies from the Rutherford County Sheriff's Office and U.S. Marshals were participating in the search.
The area around the building was placed on lock-down. Officials have asked everyone on campus to stay inside buildings as secured as possible.
One of the difficulties of debating assault weapons with gunloons is that gunloons insist their definition of "assault weapon" is used. This spurs the whole "it's all cosmetic" fallacy.
ReplyDeleteLike most gunloon talking points, the "it's cosmetic" argument is complete and utter nonsense.
TS wrote: "So as long as I am “demonstrating flaws” and don’t put anyone in physical harm, I should be allowed to do what I want with impunity? Like having a pistol grip on a rifle."
ReplyDeleteTS, there is no court in this country which would fail to note the distinction between vigilante justice as in the case of the Seattle gun owner's conduct, and civil disobedience of Colin Goddard. As an example, I was under the impression that Goddard for example did not keep the guns he purchased - it was much more of a sting operation pointing out how guns shows sell guns illegally.
This isn't even a comparison between apples and oranges, mor like apples and oh, say andirons, or asphalt.
Off topic, but happy valentine's day all. It's kind of nice to be celebrating a holiday where the only weapon involved is Cupid's bow and arrow.
ReplyDeleteDog gone, I was not equating Colin Goddard with the case in this post. I was equating his “doing no harm” with gun laws that punish owners while also “doing no harm”. He broke the law to prove a point. Can I break the law to prove a point as well, so long as I am not hurting anyone?
ReplyDeleteJade, I was going by how THE LAW defines “assault weapons”. But I am more than willing to discuss the merits of your definition. So let’s hear it, Jadegold. How do you define an “assault weapon”?
First of all. "Best sick day ever" might mean " I didn't come home from work and discover tens of thousands of dollars of my property stolen", instead of "I got to beat on some crook".
ReplyDeleteSecondly. In some jurisdictions and some locations firing a warning shot is perfectly legal and safe.
Third. So he smacked the guy? He broke into his house and was going to rob him. BFD. Get over it, do you think burglar would have skipped the chance to beat on the homeowner had he found him sleeping?
For all we know the suspect attempted to run away a couple of times while he was being detained by the homeowner. Our laws won't let the HO tie up the suspect or put him in cuffs. Letting him go is counter productive.
Why is you have such a problem with a person defending his own property or life?
The aforementioned death trap or booby trap case ONLY applied to methods of securing property which were not designed to kill or mutilate in the absence of a operator. There was never a ruling in that case said violent response was not allowed in protecting your property if you were around. In almost everystate it is assumed that if you are in your residence and someone breaks in to rob it, that your life is predictably at risk as well and that you may use deadly force to respond.
TS: I'm aware of how the law defines an AR. What I take issue with is the premise of gunloons that what does not directly contribute to lethality is "cosmetic."
ReplyDeleteThis is a mistake made by those whose sole military experience is "Red Dawn."
Jade: “What I take issue with is the premise of gunloons that what does not directly contribute to lethality is "cosmetic."
ReplyDeleteNot following. So are you agreeing that said features do not directly contribute to lethality, but your objection is the word “cosmetic”?
@Jadegold, then you tell me the functional difference between this "assault weapon"
ReplyDeletehttp://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/firearms-images-products-446l-2.jpg
and this firearm that is NOT defined as an "assault weapon"
http://mini14.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/rugermini14.jpg
The answer is: They're both the EXACT SAME FIREARM with COSMETIC differences. Pistol grip, folding stock, bayonet mounts, barrel shrouds and flash suppressors do not change the FUNCTION of a firearm. OK, maybe the bayonet mount does, but do we really have enough bayonettings to be concerned with that minor difference?
The argument that they ARE cosmetic differences between "assault weapons" and non-"assault weapons" holds more water than the argument that "assault weapons" are more dangerous. Want to see something even more dangerous that's never been on ANY "assault weapons" list? Just as "rapid firing" and fires MUCH more powerful ammunition that will go through body armor that would stop an AK-47?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_750
Or how about this ORIGINAL "assault weapon" also absent from any "assault weapon" bans?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_garand
Those calling for AWB aren't calling for bans on what's really dangerous, or what's more powerful, or even what's the real "weapon of choice" used in a majority of crimes, they want to ban "assault weapons" because they think they can as a step towards further confiscation. Maybe that's not YOUR end goal, and maybe you've just been fooled like the rest of the supporters.
...Orygunner...
TS wrote:"I was equating his “doing no harm” with gun laws that punish owners while also “doing no harm”. He broke the law to prove a point. Can I break the law to prove a point as well, so long as I am not hurting anyone?"
ReplyDeleteYou can if you are practicing some form of civil disobedience TS. I think for example that Colin Goddard could make a very plausible case that he was not profiting in any way by breaking laws, that he was in fact cooperating with authorities to have laws that were being broken enforced, and that he was willing to assume any penalties that might result from law breaking.
So long as you're willing as a gun owner to do those things.......go for it with my blessing.
P. wrote: "There was never a ruling in that case said violent response was not allowed in protecting your property if you were around. In almost everystate it is assumed that if you are in your residence and someone breaks in to rob it, that your life is predictably at risk as well and that you may use deadly force to respond."
No, P, you are wrong. If someone is trying to leave, not threatening you, you may not legally use deadly force and you DO have to let them go.
If you have someone at a physical helpless disadvantage - say you are holding them at gunpoint - you are not allowed to beat them up. Not if you are the ocps, and sure as hell not if you are a homeowner.
Sheesh, what the heck kind of legal advice were you guys given regarding guns - and by whom? While this may vary from location to location, it sure as heck doesn't sound like the 'warning shot' was fired out in a remote rural area - and even in such a location, you NEVER fire if you don't know where that bullet is going to go and what it could reasonably hit. You don't get to take a warning shot that could do damage to someone else.
These nutty ideas are exactly what is wrong with gun fetishists, versus people who have a healthier respect for the damage a weapon can do, and how to use one appropriately.
'This is a mistake made by those whose sole military experience is "Red Dawn."'
ReplyDeleteMany of the people say that "assault rifles" are defined by cosmetic features are former or current military. I'm a former infantry Marine and I would say that.
The anti-liberty extremists got one of their dreams to come true with the AWB. What happened? Manufacturers made a few cosmetic and feature set changes and kept selling the same guns. Epic failure on the part of the anti-liberty lobby. Then the AWB came to an end, and that's where the anti-liberty lobby really failed, as "high capacity" handguns and assault weapons became very very very popular. Now almost every gun owner under 60 has a "high capacity" handgun or rifle.
Does it drive you folks crazy knowing that right now when you read this post that Americans are buying these guns, loading those magazines, shooting them, et cetera all without any fear of prison time? And how does this new popularity of these weapons affect your strategy? I haven't seen any sign of incorporating this tidal wave of change into the anti-liberty lobby's talking points. I feel like I'm in 1994 reading y'all.
"This spurs the whole "it's all cosmetic" fallacy.
ReplyDeleteLike most gunloon talking points, the "it's cosmetic" argument is complete and utter nonsense."
You had better think again. The differences were positively, sagely, absolutely cosmetic. Mark my words.
Anon: Doesn't it drive you crazy that you've been exposed as a military wannabe?
ReplyDeleteO: You haven't served and thus can't be expected to know better.
"Not following. So are you agreeing that said features do not directly contribute to lethality, but your objection is the word “cosmetic”?"
Nope. What I mean is that the military had a laundry list of features of what made a rifle suitable for combat; suitable for being an assault weapon.
To explain, the Army's done a lot of research--and borrowed heavily from research done by other nation's militaries--into what makes for a good assault weapon. What is measured in a good assault weapon isn't lethality as much as combat effectiveness. In the military, 'efffectiveness' has a meaning that goes beyond what the civilian world thinks--it refers to its combat effectiveness. For instance, an M-14 is more lethal than an M-16--but an M-16 is more combat effective for a number of reasons.
I may sagely comment on this further.
Oh, do please sagely continue, Jade.
ReplyDeleteCareful though, you are meandering from the lockstep gun control path that these guns are “designed to kill people”. Tell us more about the military migrating from 7.62 NATO to the less lethal 5.56? There is of course a military difference between a battle rifle and an assault rifle, but gun control has never tried to draw that distinction. They want them all banned (their civilian semi-auto cousins, that is).
Dog gone, I am content with your answer. Based on that, I assume Joel Rosenberg had your blessing when he challenged MN carry laws.
TS: I'll wait while you move the goal posts.
ReplyDeleteAre you seriously suggesting that a firearm that we send troops into combat with isn't good for killing people? Especially civilians? Wow.
I see you're confused about lethality and combat effectiveness.
@Jadegold, I fail to see what my lack of military experience has to do with seeing that the description of an "assault weapon" is cosmetic.
ReplyDeleteNow actually, I will backtrack a little bit, because yes, there ARE functions to almost all of the "assault weapon" defining factors.
Carrying handle: Uhh, lets you carry it one more way.
Folding stock: Makes it easier to store.
Pistol grip: Allows a more comfortable hand position.
Barrel shroud: protects the hand from a hot barrel if you're shooting a lot.
Flash Suppressor: Suppresses the flash?
Bayonet Mount: Allows you to mount a bayonet to the rifle.
The ONLY one of those "assault weapon" defining factors that even remotely makes it more DANGEROUS is the bayonet mount, and since when has that been a problem?
The other features simply make it easier to carry, easier to use. I guess a flash suppressor is useful by helping to hide where the shooter is, but since when has THAT been a problem in the civilian world, either?
The fact remains, there's no logic behind banning these firearms that stands the test of reason. They're not more dangerous, they're not more lethal, and they're not even remotely used in a majority of crimes. Banning these is simply a baby step in the bigger plan to full confiscation of all or most firearms. Up next, "Sniper Rifles" (deer hunting rifles) "Street Sweepers" (Semi-Auto Shotguns), and Anti-Aircraft weapons (.50 Caliber scoped rifles).
...Orygunner...
Yes Jade, I am seriously suggesting that someone is more likely to survive getting shot by a 5.56 than a 7.62 NATO. Are you saying that isn’t true? Wow.
ReplyDeleteRemember, a wounded soldier is more of a burden to the enemy than a dead soldier.
"The other features simply make it easier to carry, easier to use. I guess a flash suppressor is useful by helping to hide where the shooter is, but since when has THAT been a problem in the civilian world, either?"
ReplyDeleteNot only that but most "flash suppressors" actually just direct the flash away from the front sight and the shooter's view. The "flash: can actually be more pronounced to a spectator with some models.
FWM: Actually, that's a gunloon myth as well. The primary function of a flash suppressor is to suppress muzzle flashes. Why not get a muzzle brake--if flashes were so detrimental to a shooter's vision.
ReplyDeleteP asked, I suppose seriously, "Why is you have such a problem with a person defending his own property or life?"
ReplyDeleteWell, if a person't life were in jeopardy, I wouldn't have any problem with it. In this case the guy was running away.
About property, I think any law that says you can kill someone for attempting to take your property is wrong. In this case though, the GUY WAS RUNNING AWAY.
Why not get a muzzle brake--if flashes were so detrimental to a shooter's vision."
ReplyDeleteBecause a muzzle brake redirects gases to reduce muzzle-movement not to suppress the flash. Regardless, none of those feature contribute to a rifle's lethality or change the way the bullet does its job in any way. You know, COSMETIC.
Man traps are not allowed, anywhere, whether lethal or non-lethal, and it is completely irrelevant if the person who sets such a trap is present or not present.
ReplyDeleteDeadly force is only permitted in very narrowly defined instances even in self-defense - and this case doesn't even come close. Therefore even pulling a gun on the bad guy was not appropriate after he was leaving. I can find no indication in any source I've seen so far (and my search has not been exhaustive, merely cursory) that suggests the burglar had any weapon whatsoever, which makes the claim that this guy was in fear of his life even more flimsy.
TS wrote
ReplyDelete"Dog gone, I am content with your answer. Based on that, I assume Joel Rosenberg had your blessing when he challenged MN carry laws."
I don't know Joel personally, although we have a number of mutual aquaintances, including my blogging mentor for whom he was a firearms instructor.
While I wish Joel well - he seems to be a very nice man - and while I generally respect and applaud civil disobedience, what Joel did appears to have been poorly conceived and have little likelihood of success as civil disobedience. We do not operate with a 'Dorsai' mentality anymore, if we ever did (the late Gordy Dickson - another Minnesotan).
I don't know of any legal precedent for 2nd Amendment rights that cover carrying knives rather than guns - and Joel was carrying both. And I don't believe he has a valid case for civil disobedience in carrying weapons in a court house. The 2nd Amendment can (and should in some cases) be restricted. That is why we agree that dangerously crazy people or convicted felons don't get to legally own weapons.
Given the number of incidents of violence breaking out in court rooms, not bringing any weapons into a court building is a reasonable, necessary, and appropriate restriction.
Joel is a nice man, but I think he has placed himself on the losing end of this, and I have mixed feelings about his actions being a legitimate example of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is appropriate when legal remedies fail; Minnesota has pretty balanced and fair gun laws, and there has been an excellent balancing of conflicting desires regarding guns in our legislation. Therefore I don't think that a legitimate case can be made that legal remedies have failed; rather one person just doesn't like the result, but arguably has not been harmed by it or treated inappropriately in a way which wrongly restricts his legal rights.
But so long as Joel hurt no one (except possibly himself) and is willing to accept the consequences - more power to him for the method, if not the cause.
Ah yes. My statement said that if you find yourself inside the home with a burglar, all states give you the benefit of the doubt that anyone brazen enough to risk entering an occupied dwelling has already presented enough evidence of their malicious intent as to cause one to be in fear of great bodily harm or fear of life. And that, in fear of great bodily harm or loss of life is the threshold fir responding with possibly lethal force.
ReplyDeleteThe court case cited regarding booby traps ONLY referred to unattended traps. Others have tried to clarify which are legal and which are illegal. Some say because an electrified fence is potentially fatal it too is a man trap.
We have no ability from the news reports to know whether his use of a warning shot was dangerous. I could be standing in the middle of Central Park and fire a safe warning shot ( pretty much straight down into planted earth), like wise I could be in the middle of an Iowa cornfield and fire one that puts people in danger.
Context is everything.
Regarding cosmetic applications and firearm types. I can easily prove that the current AR platform used by the military today is far less lethal than that used by it's predecessors. Terminal ballistics will show the .30 cal
M1 had nearly twice the effective range and put far more energy into a target than does the current military infantry rifle. And that .30 cal round is the exact same 30-06 that your Grampa or Dad hunted with. In fact, until just recently, most states would not allow the 5.56x45 NATO cartridge for big game hunting because it was too small and weak.