via TTAG where of course they had nothing but praise for the shooter and nothing but criticism for the cops who expressed concern about civilians defending themselves.
My opinion is, although wild shooting in defense of oneself is not recommended, and chasing after the fleeing bad guys is wrong, this was a legitimate DGU.
Did it save a life, though? Had it not been for her defensive action, would she have ended up dead?
No one could know the answer to those questions, but as was mentioned in our other discussion, most encounters do not end up with dead people, so it's not right to claim that Defensive Gun Uses save as many lives as some people like to say.
let's concentrate on educating all kids on citizenship/earning a living instead of gun use.....tom webber
ReplyDeleteWas her life or the lives of the others in that store in danger? That's the standard. We don't have to guarantee that they would have died if she hadn't acted. There has to be a reasonable fear of death or serious injury. When someone has that reasonable fear, there's no more time to debate the matter. Anyone who lives through the incident without acting just gets lucky.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly is the standard for Frail Liberty's argument that more people are saved through DGUs than are lost to gun violence. haven't you been following that one?
DeleteFor a defensive gun use to be legitimate, a bad guy has to threaten a good guy with death or injury. The bad guy doesn't have to guarantee death--just threaten it in a credible way. Some thug runs in and waves a gun around, and that meets the standard. But I don't have to look into the thug's mind to decide if there is danger.
DeleteWhat you're trying to do is set an impossible standard. You want us to wait until we are certain that a thug intends to kill. Fortunately, the law doesn't require that.
I agree with Mike. If she didn't have a gun, we would know whether or not he intended to kill her. I am glad we didn't get to find out.
ReplyDeleteOh, I read about this DGU and thought of you, Mike. Can we get your take? I am pretty sure you would advocate that this man should not have been allowed to own a gun, yet also approve of his occupation. Yes? There is also the fascinating aspect of neither the dog saving him, nor having *all* the cops only two blocks away.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Intruder-shot-dead-at-Oakland-grow-house-3765851.php
Wrong, TS. I don't advocate that people should not be allowed to own guns. How long have you been reading my stuff? I advocate for better screening and qualifying before gun ownership is allowed.
DeleteThe story did not have any details about the shooting, so I don't know if it was necessary and therefore legit. The bad guy's shooting of the dog does lean me towards the justified side.
Mikeb, you keep thinking that we're going to take your word for it. The fact is, when you hang out with dirty people, you get dirty. You associate with control freaks. You participate in their efforts. Is it any wonder that we lump you all in together?
DeleteGreg, actually I "hang out" more with you guys than I do with my own, if by that you mean time spent reading and writing.
DeleteAnd yet, you learn nothing. I used to believe that everyone could be taught, but after more than a decade in the field, I've come to accept that some people simply cannot learn.
DeleteI suggested that you wouldn't allow this guy to own guns because he grows pot. Haven't I read something along those lines in your stuff? Do you think someone who grows pot in their house should be allowed to own guns?
DeleteNow I get you. I think what I've said in the past is someone who SMOKES pot should not own guns. Gun owners should be clean and sober 100%.
Delete