arma virumque cano (et alia)
Ah yes. Blame the castle doctrine that isn't protecting this guy from arrest and probably won't protect him from conviction seeing as it sounds like he set a trap, verified only that someone was in his garage, and swept the garage with fire--a set of facts that is pretty clearly outside the realm of self defense and "castle doctrine"/SYG.With or without those laws, it sounds like this guy laid in wait for blood and should get what's coming to him.Sad that the kid died, but WTF was he thinking? There are things you just don't do if you don't want to risk getting shot, attacked by dogs, arrested by cops, etc. Doesn't justify killing him, but his own bad behavior did play a role in putting him in this situation.
But the kid is dead, you fucking stupid moron. The kid is dead. He is dead, and all due to some dumbfuck NRA loser, like other NRA losers. And what was the kid thinking? Like in my example, he possibly got mixed up and went to the wrong house...
And no you fucking moron it was not the kid's fault. He made a mistake, and that is not a sentence of death, except when a NRA loser lives next door.
Actually Lib, I think Simon covered it pretty well when he said the kid didn't deserve to be killed.Simon, the castle doctrine mentality is what's to blame. The fact that some of these idiots don't get away with it doesn't diminish the disastrous results one damn bit.
Mike: Simon is still justifying the mindless NRA paranoid loser mentality by blaming the victim. What should have happened? The loser killer should have said "Hey, guys, what's up? Can I help you?" Instead, he killed one, and tried to kill the other. This is not the "castle doctrine". This is cold-blooded murder, and is caused by the NRA mentality.
Mike,Thanks for the rational response to POed's freak out.Regarding your comment to me:You say that it's a "castle doctrine" mentality that leads to this kind of thing and suggest that this is just one of a few cases where they didn't get away with murder the way they do other times.The problem I have with this analysis is that in this case and others we've seen where the person "doesn't get away with it" it's because the fact pattern is not something that the "castle doctrine" laws are intended to protect, and so they aren't protecting the person.The mentality that leads us to support castle doctrine laws is that a person should be able to defend themself in their home--not have to try to flee from it, and that we don't want a person to face prosecution unless the D.A. thinks he can prove that it wasn't self defense.In this case, the mentality was "I have been stolen from, and I'm going to kill the SOB that disrespected me."The homeowner wasn't defending himself against a home invasion--he wasn't standing his ground inside the home rather than fleeing an invader, or anything like that. Instead, he was laying a trap, running outside to hem the victim in, and then sweeping the area with fire to try and kill whoever was in his trap.The mentality here is more akin to a mobster or gang member killing an opponent who disrespected them, and not something that would be affected by the presence or absence of the state's "castle doctrine" law.As I've said before, I'd be interested in hearing suggestions for how to amend these laws or replace them with something better to try and meet the same goals--not requiring someone to try to flee their home which could cause them to run into the burglar/burglars and not have unnecessary prosecutions when there isn't evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the defender (saving the defender money if they're innocent and saving the state's money for prosecution in cases where the purported defender did wrong).
Your attempt at finessing it into something other than what I said is a testament to your talent as a word smith, but I see the castle doctrine mentality underlying many of these shootings. As Lib said, these guys shoot first and ask questions later. It's not a question of fleeing or not and it's not a question of fearing for their lives either. The castle doctrine and SYG laws empower these trigger happy lunatics.
"This is not the 'castle doctrine'. This is cold-blooded murder..."POed,Have you still not read what I wrote? I'm agreeing with you on this point!You seem to be taking issue with the last part of my first comment. Read it again. I'm saying that the kid was responsible for his own actions and shouldn't have been snooping around other people's garages, but I also said that this was not something worthy of death.The point was that yes, the kid shouldn't have been there, but that did not justify the murderous actions of the shooter in this case.Either you're not reading what I wrote completely or you are telling a bald faced lie when you claim that I'm justifying the actions of this murderer.
Mike,As I said, the intent behind those of us supporting these laws is dealing with the issue of fleeing and needless prosecutions. We do not want to empower the shoot first types--we want them to get their just deserts.So again, I'm ready to hear suggestions on how to better deal with the issues we raise while not empowering the "trigger happy."
What the NRA has done, over and over and over, is tell people that you are the only one who can help yourself, that a cop is 10 minutes away, that you need to shoot first and ask questions later. That IS the castle doctrine. And it is restated over and over, and kids are getting killed by cowardly loser NRA thugs.
"We do not want to empower the shoot first types--we want them to get their just deserts."But, in many cases that's exactly what happens, you empower them.
Ah yes. It's so empowering to convict the person of first degree murder.You keep insisting that the laws are a problem, but you keep refusing to suggest an alternative or improved fix for our concerns.
So we have one man on trial for first degree murder, and other arrested for 'deliberate homicide', and you find this to be the fault of castle doctrine?
The kid is dead. So, after the trial and this NRA loser is guilty of murder, we will have 2 dead people, one NRA loser, one confused kid. In addition, this kind of stupidity does not go unremarked in Europe, where people think "Go to the USA for vacation and get killed? No thanks" So they go somewhere safe like Iraq. As Rick Steves says, the safest thing you can do with your family is go to Europe for vacation. Much safer than going to Florida or Arizona, where the gunsuck NRA morons kill tourists all the time.
Yes, TS, it's crazy laws like that which inspire these nuts to kill people unnecessarily. Some get away with it, some don't. But there all tragic.
Who says you can kill people and get away with it because of these laws?
I've posted several of them. Were you kidding?
Mikeb, you've posted a couple of cases of people using excessive force and not getting away with it, and you've posted cases of home owners legitimately defending themselves.
See what I said below, Mike. The people who “get away with” defending themselves are because the case fits the guideline for lawful self-defense. You can’t just murder people and be protected by these laws, and time and time again cases like this one, and the Byron Smith case, the Michael Dunn case, the popcorn one, etc. show that you are dead wrong. But you guys bring up self-defense laws as soon as these shooting happen as if it’s covered by the law. If these guys had the idea that they could get away with it- they didn’t get it from me, or Simon, or Greg, or Massad Ayoob, or Andrew Branca (people who know what they are talking about). They got it from people like you, Japete, Laci, Jadegold, Al Sharpton, Lawrence O’Donnell, etc.
TS, for every one of those you mentioned, guys who DIDN'T get away with it, there is at least one in which an obvious injustice has taken place. I post them when I see them. The Alzheimer's sufferer comes to mind, but there have been a number of them in recent months.As far as blaming gun control folks for the abuses that happen, that's just ridiculous. Say it if you want, but it makes you sound like a petty baby, no it's your fault, no it's yours.
Mikeb, what's obvious to you isn't necessarily true. But in this case, your side needs to take responsibility for making hyperbolic statements and twisting words that create the impression that any shooting will be given a pass as long as the shooter claims self-defense.
I’m not into the blame thing the way you are. I want to qualify that I said IF these guys committed murder because they heard from the media that they could get away with it because of misrepresentation of what the law protects, then that would be blood on your hands. I haven’t heard any evidence to that effect, but this possibility doesn’t concern you at all?
No, because there are about 100 pro-gun blogs for every one of ours. On every one of them they're waving the flag of castle-doctrine-type self-defense. Doesn't that concern you?
No, because they're honest about what it protects and doesn't protect. They are not saying you can get away with murder just by saying you felt threatened the way you guys are.
Not really, because the ones I've seen always properly defined "castle-doctrine-type self-defense" such that nobody would think that this situation would qualify.
On The Truth About Guns there have been dozens of posts offering advice to self-defense shooters. Simply put it's "STFU." I've pointed out many times to them that this advice, in some cases, is assisting people in getting away with murder. So, I don't really buy your black and white view of things. Many pro gun folks are indeed assisting in the abuse of these laws supposedly put in place to protect legitimate shooters.
So you're adding the 5th amendment to your list of rights you don't like?
This might have happened at my house, if I were the kind of cowardly stupid loser who keeps a gun. 2 years ago, some kids were staying at a neighbor's house. At 2 AM, they returned home. But they got the houses mixed up. They went into my garage. My daughter heard them, and told me. I don't have a gun, so I got a big crowbar. But they were gone from the garage. Cowardly NRA losers shoot first and look stupid later when the "intruder" is a confused foreign exchange student. Assholes like Greg Camp defend the use of force against students, because he is a cowardly loser. You do not use force with a gun in any case except where it is needed. Of course, cowardly losers from the NRA are too stupid to think and ask questions. I have true contempt for them.
Seriously? You're going to post this shit after we've already been identifying why this guy seems to have rightfully been charged with First Degree murder?Loser.
I'm continually amused by these anonymous commenters who call me a coward. You know my name. You can find my digital footprint. And you hide behind the anonymity of the Internet and label me afraid. Do you even know the meaning of the word, irony?But let's considerthe story you told. Since you hide behind the anonymity of the Internet, we can't verify your claim, and your word is worth precisely nothing, but let's take what you wrote as written for sake of the discussion. You picked up a weapon. You didn't call the police, and you didn't attempt to confront the intruders with a kind word. You picked up a weapon. The fact that you choose a less effective weapon than I choose only shows that you're not as smart as I am.
Simon J is anonymous, so I guess he is a coward and everything he says is worthless. Thanks for warning me that Simon J's opinions and statements are worth nothing, but I knew that from his words regardless who he actually is. You seem to claim knowing who you are makes your opinions and statements more credible, but you have been proven a liar and promoter of criminal activities by your own words regardless of who you really are.
Simon, you're the only one who condemned the actions of this particular guy, but even you have defended others in cases which were not quite so obvious. So, I have to say, POed Lib is absolutely right in assigning the blame to all of you.
Yes, Mike, I made my condemnation of the guy explicit. I was assuming TS was also in agreement that what this guy did was wrong based on his statement. TS can correct me if I'm wrong.In many of the other cases I have pointed out that the person may not have been in the wrong--my reason for doing this is that in these less obvious cases your tactic has been to say that they were definitely in the wrong. None of us know all of the details, so my goal has been to point out the opposite possibility.If you changed tactics, reported on the shootings, and said, "Was this really necessary?" you might find more reactions saying "It may not have been" and more discussions of the appropriate use of force.Look, for example, at the courtroom shooting post where you started off with the statement that the Marshals used excessive force, and then after a discussion with Mikez you declared acknowledged the possibility that the guy was still a danger on the ground and asked him if he'd acknowledge that the guy may not have been and that the Marshals may have gone too far. This was a far cry from your opener which stated they were definitely in the wrong.If you want to discuss proper use of force, we can discuss that. However, when you say someone is definitely in the wrong, I'm only going to agree if I see that they definitely were. If I see some doubt in the case, I'm going to point out where I see the doubt and withhold judgment until I see more evidence.As for my harsh statement to POed, it was because of his assertion that we are incapable of analyzing situations to determine if force is needed or not--something obviously wrong and unhelpful for discussion just as his comments above were where he totally missed that I said that the shooter here was wrong.
Anonymous, Simon is a lawyer in Tennessee. He's provided enough evidence to support that assertion, given his legal arguments here, and he backs up what he says with proof. You, by contrast, never prove anything.Oh, and Simon doesn't toss around accusations of cowardice without proof, either.
You totally dodged the anon question, hypocrite. As usual your criteria only defines one "side" and you don't apply the same criteria for your "side."
You are correct, Simon, it looks to me like this case and the MN case are both murder. We've been saying for years what Castle doctrine and SYG protects and doesn't protect, and these cases prove we were right all along. But some people have been dangerously mischaracterizing these laws by saying you can murder anyone you want by saying "you felt threatened", and they have the gall to blame our "mentality" when cases like this prove we were right.
TS,You bring up something that I've wondered and worried about watching the description of SYG and Castle Doctrine laws in the media.When these laws were being pushed and passed, I remember that the emphasis of the laws proponents, including the emphasis in NRA publications, was that the goal was to remove the idea of a duty of retreat that was entering the common law in some states, and not to open up self defense to a bunch of new situations.Meanwhile, in carry courses here in Tennessee, where we had these laws for many years, you have to (or at least had to a few years ago when I took it) watch a state produced video with a couple of lawyers explaining the rules of self defense and explaining all the things you can do wrong (excessive use of force, starting a fight before claiming defense, etc.) and how these will land you in jail for manslaughter or murder. Even with these laws, the rules were the same--think about what you're doing, only use force if you have to, don't start a fight and then try to claim self defense, etc.However, now we have this loud debate and people calling these "get away with murder laws," and I wonder how much of this politically motivated spin is sinking into people's minds. How many people now think that these laws will let them get away with something that it will not, and thus break the law, kill somebody, and then discover that the media lied to them.I hope that the misrepresentation of these laws is not actually creating the mentality Mike keeps ascribing to us, creating a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
Yeah, you phonies are trying to pull the old switcheroo - blame the other side for pointing out the problems with the policy you support. It's total bullshit.No one says that the castle doctrine or SYG defense works in every case of illicit shootings, but it has worked in some. On the other hand, the age-old rules of legitimate self-defense have always worked to protect truly legitimate gun owners who act in righteous self defense. It was gun-rights folks who pushed and pushed for more leeway. The result was not that legitimate shooters have been better protected, but that some have gotten away with murder and manslaughter. Our decrying this situation does not make us responsible for it. It's your baby.
That is disingenuous on so many levels, Mike."No one says that the castle doctrine or SYG defense works in every case of illicit shootings, but it has worked in some."And regular self defense hasn't worked that way in some cases?"On the other hand, the age-old rules of legitimate self-defense have always worked to protect truly legitimate gun owners who act in righteous self defense."Seriously? Always worked? Nobody ever got away with something? Nobody who truly was justified was ever wrongfully convicted? Such claims are ludicrous, and easily disproved by digging up some of the cases where people were convicted solely because they didn't "retreat" before defending themself.Legitimate defenders are better protected by these laws, and these laws were written in such a way as to try not to allow people to get away with murder. If you have suggestions to improve the laws, bring them. Thus far, I've heard no suggestions--nothing but complaining and misrepresentations.
MikeB: “No one says that the castle doctrine or SYG defense works in every case of illicit shootings”Actually, Mike, there are people on your side that do say just that. Laci, for one, always calls it a “get away with murder law”. He doesn’t qualify it by saying *some* murder, and you never hear him speak to what it doesn’t protect. He presents it as making murder legal. And he’s a lawyer. Japete also does the same. She explicitly and repeatedly says “all you have to do is say you felt threatened” and you’ll get away with it. Byron Smith used that as a defense, and look what happened to him.But, here, let’s test what I just said. Let’s put this question to Laci: what about the castle doctrine law allowed Byron Smith to be found guilty? What details of the case meant he was not protected? He’s a lawyer, he should be able to answer this, but you won’t see him do that, or anyone who disparages these law ever talk about what it doesn’t protect. You can answer too, Mike. Why was he not protected? When you talk about how some people don’t get away with murder, you make it sound like it is random. It’s not.We prove you wrong, and then you fall back on saying it’s still our fault because of “shoot first mentality” (which is actually you guys spreading this mentality). But still, we see that the law does not protect setting traps, baiting burglars, and finishing people off- but you want to see it repealed anyway because you say these people *thought* it was protected. You’re unbelievable sometimes. That’s like saying we should make consensual sex between adults a crime because a rapist used the excuse “I heard her say ‘yes’”.
TS, I don't think Laci or japete think every single idiot who shoots someone and cries castle doctrine gets away with murder. For you to take their perhaps exaggerated quotes out of context and claim that's what they believe is extremely dishonest of you.
If I come back with a bunch of "gotcha quotes", you'll just say I'm being tedious. There's a ton of them out there. And neither of them EVER speak to what the law doesn't protect. I don't think you have either. Again, you make it seem like those who got convicted were random and had nothing to do with the way the law is written and the facts of the case.Aside from that, you admit that they "exaggerate" but you are calling me "extremely dishonest" for pointing it out. That's a hoot.
Dodging the bulk of what's been said to zoom in on defending Laci's exaggerations since he won't do it himself and refuses to argue without hyperbole--hyperbole he maintains is true.
I don't give a flying FUCK what the guy is charged with. It's the NRA loser mentality which is on trial here, and the NRA losers are DEFENDING the position of "shoot first, kill the guy, and then get charged with murder". Losers, that still results in MORE DEAD INNOCENT STUDENTS. Your mindless bloodlust and endless paranoia produce the climate of fear of bunnies and dustmites which results in the death of innocents. I am NOT molified by the charge against the shooter. The German kid is STILL dead.It's also interesting that the name of the shooter is German or Dutch also. "Markus Hendrik Kaarma" - German or Dutch.You NRA losers are destroying the reputation of the United States internationally.
"The NRA losers are DEFENDING the position of 'shoot first, kill the guy, and then get charged with murder'."WTF? Seriously, Anonymous? What are you trying to get across here?Are you suggesting we think the guy should have shot?How does our saying "Charge Him" not translate to "He shouldn't have shot the kid" in your mind?If anything is scaring me here it's your inability to reason logically and discuss this rationally.
* Should have said "Seriously POed"Guess I forgot which person's skreed I was responding to.
It may not be cold blooded murder. Many times a person pulls in to their garage and enters their home only to find out the garage door they thought closed had lifted back up again. Happens all the time. No one has the right to enter just because the door is up. An uninvited person poses a threat to a person living there. This "child" as they call him burglarized the home twice before. Just because he is visiting he doesn't have the right to tour other peoples homes uninvited. He/they would have moved on to bolder crimes. Often when they get in college they see themselves as spies and go onto reducing the quality of life for Americans by constantly robbing them and starting their own like-media spotz for their criminal activities under the Freedom of Speech-often baiting unsuspecting Americans and helping to entrap them for prison. Then they can move into the home they started burglarizing.We have several college students in my area that do that for their causes and agendas. Often it is politically motivated as they aren't educated enough and do not have enough life experience to make wise choices. They will invite their friends over to other peoples' homes in the dead of night hoping they will be shot. They will steal items from cars, shine lights in windows, go through trash, and put names on a list in which the victim gets bombarded with junk mail, harassing calls, and generalized medical information. They will often enter the home and place objects in peoples wallets, steal mail, and threaten the lives of anyone in their path. They will vandalize and then go after the places that fix the objects they have vandalized. They call it research. They get the approval of the authorities by renaming it in such a way.People who think the world should take care of their kids are in for a sad awakening. They don't want to wait until they are in their 40s to grow up!