Friday, March 15, 2013
A Questionable Defensive Gun Use in Alabama
The Blaze
Many of these so-called legitimate defensive shootings are nothing of the kind. They are executions of criminals by home owners who are angry and outraged. That's different than a home owner who really thinks his life is in danger or believes the only way to prevent the theft of his property is to kill the intruder.
The idea that as soon as a thief crosses a certain line you can fire at will is a distortion of the self-defense ethic. All the sarcastic justifications notwithstanding, this is a criminal act in and of itself.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The article doesn't give facts about the shooting, but apparently that means that there are no other facts, and Mike the all knowing can declare this a criminal act.
ReplyDeleteIf you break into someone's home and punch out, it's on your head. It's a simple rule. Don't burglarize and you don't run the risk of death. Become a burglar, and risk getting what you deserve.
No it's not a simple rule. The rule is lethal force should be reserved for those cases in which it is absolutely necessary. Shooting the junkie who's climbing in your window at night doesn't count morally even though in Alabama it does legally.
DeleteAnd what, pray tell, is that junkie coming in to do? Mikeb, you'd get more support for your ideas if you were for good citizens and against criminals.
DeleteThe proverbial junkie climbing in the window is looking to steal the laptop or TV. That does not merit death. The fact that you tough-guy gun owners can't, or don't want to determine real threat from imagined and prefer to kill anybody who dares to violate your boundaries doesn't make it right.
DeleteMaybe that's all he wants. Then again, maybe he's a junkie with a gun or a knife and plans to use that to hold me up for my laptop and tv as some of them do, threatening my life to steal my property.
DeleteBut I guess I should just give it to him then too, because his threat to kill me doesn't justify my killing him when I can just buy him off.
The simple rule I stated is something everyone knows. If you break in to someone's home--especially at night when they are there, you're liable to get shot. Without even getting into the morality of it, everyone knows this, and the junkie could easily avoid getting shot by not breaking into other people's houses, so he at least contributes to the responsibility for his own blood.
There's a big gap between killing the guy immediately after he starts breaking in and "giving in to him." The simple rule is you cannot shoot unless you reasonable determine there is a threat. Not everyone who attempts to break in is a threat which requires a lethal remedy.
DeleteBreaking into someone else's home is an act of violence. The reason that the criminal is breaking in doesn't matter. An act of violence and therefore a threat already exists.
DeleteIn most home invasion cases of which I'm aware, the homeowner has a very limited amount of time in which to make a shoot/don't shoot decision. It's important to understand the psychology of criminals. In their world, people are divided into two groups, victims and predators. Because of the self centered nature of their world view, predators feel no empathy for their victims. There is only what the predator wants. Because he wants it, clearly he should have it. He is smarter, stronger and more deserving than his victim, so he has no reason to not take what he wants by whatever means he chooses. Now, given this mindset, how long do you propose a homeowner delay in making a shoot/don't shoot decision? How long should she spend debating whether or not the invader is an exception to the criminal mind? Should her default be the safety of herself and her family or that of the guy(s) coming through the busted down door?
DeleteIn other words shoot first and don't take any chances. You can justify it all you want with your pseudo-psychological profile of all criminals, but it's still wrong to kill someone unless you absolutely have to.
DeleteHere's another point to consider, Mikeb. That computer that you named as the object of the thug's desire? It's my livelihood. It's the tool that I use to make a living through honest work. I realize that people on your side have no respect for honest work, but you should understand that this is why your ideas will continue to fail.
DeleteMike, I neither said nor intimated anything of the sort. Please don't try to put words into my mouth. It lessens you as a person.
DeleteAlthough I have experience in both mental health nursing and working in prisons, those were not the sole basis for my comments about criminals. The comments were also based upon conversations I've had with multiple psychologists who focus on criminals and their behaviors as well as the research and writings of Dr. Stanton Samenow. While there are exceptions to the descriptions each of them gave me of how criminals think and perceive, those are just that, exceptions. You may not like what those with experience in these areas have to say. You may disagree. Feel free. The evidence suggests they are correct.
The use of deadly force should ALWAYS be a last resort. Unfortunately, there are cases in which that last resort can very quickly become the only viable option. The single best way to avoid being shot by a homeowner is to not commit a home invasion. Remember, home invasion is generally considered a violent crime. Given that the invader has already committed an act of violence by invading the home, there is a very real risk he will escalate the violence if he feels it necessary to get what he wants. So, again, how long should the homeowner wait before making a decision? The answer is that it just all depends on the situation. One thing I learned from all the shoot/don't shoot training I've received is that it's very easy to second guess the decision maker from the safety and comfort of a keyboard. From "if I had been there I wouldn't have let that thug have MY wallet" (I had someone tell me that after I was robbed at gunpoint) to "she should have just complied with the bad guy" (like the stalker who tried to stomp my wife to death?), we hear them pontificate in safety from both ends of the spectrum. What we seldom hear is this: "He or she was the one in the situation, not me. Unless the properly collected and analyzed evidence suggests otherwise, he or she made a legitimate call."
RM, maybe you missed it when Greg told us that breaking in is enough to require a lethal response. At lease you said it should be the last resort.
DeleteGreg, fuck you with that sarcastic shit about people on my side not respecting honest work. If you wanna continue being a welcome guest around here you better knock that shit off right now. You may find not winning this argument frustrating, but try to control yourself.
Your computer may be very valuable to you, but if to steal it is the thief's goal, killing him is wrong. Do you agree, yes or no?
Mike, given your historical tendency to insult, demonize and demean, may we take your response to Greg to mean you're going to insist on civility from all?
DeleteNo, Mike, I didn't miss Greg's words. I just don't pretend to know what Greg, you or anyone else will do in the event of a home invasion. What I do know, based upon training and experience is that each situation is different and the time to decide is short. Until and unless I have a lot of information I try to not second guess a homeowner who says she feared for her life and that of her family, leaving her little choice but to shoot. I try to do the same for the one who elects to not resist. What disgusts me is the cowardice of many that leads them to second guess the homeowner (as having done either too little or too much) while sitting safely behind a keyboard.
DeleteSorry Greg. Retired Mustang's right, I give it out plenty myself. I don't know why that one remark of yours got me so pissed. I'll try to think before I type.
DeleteThis is not questionable at all at this time. A home owner has the right to defend his property and the lives on that property. Shooting the intruder before he entered the house might have been questionable, shooting him after he entered the home is not given the information we currently have.
ReplyDeleteJim: "Shooting the intruder before he entered the house might have been questionable..."
DeleteNot according to Biden.
LOL! Too bad it won't be that idiot going to jail when someone follows his advice...
DeleteNotice how no details are given other than the assessment of the local police that this was justified? On what grounds do you commit libel against the homeowner?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, on what grounds do you justify the idea that a homeowner has to keep retreating in his own home? How far do we have to run from an evil act to satisfy you?
There's a big span of possibilities between running away from your own house and blowing the dude away.
DeleteAnd many of those possibilities lead to the injury or death of the homeowner and their family. How much of a risk would you require they take before resorting to lethal force?
DeleteNo there is not, keep your thieving ass out of my house and you won't get shot, there made it simple for you tell all your douchebag friends to keep to themselves and all will be good...
ReplyDelete