arma virumque cano (et alia)
Lets see, kick in the ex's door, ignore verbal warnings, get shot. How would this be surprising? Certainly an ex-GF would know of him keeping a gun handy. Here's a question, would we be questioning this if it were a woman who shot an ex-boyfriend who kicked in the door? I'm sure the police are working at verifying his story with physical evidence. Seeing that busted in door in the video lends some credibility.
"Certainly an ex-GF would know of him keeping a gun handy."How come you're so quick to blame the victim in this case? I realize the poor persecuted gun owner was the victim of having his door kicked in, but she was the victim of being shot. Why does his victimhood take precedence?If the genders were reversed, I'd be questioning the righteousness of shooting an unarmed person just the same.
When one kicks down someone's door to gain admission, one had better expect a response driven by fear of death or great bodily harm.
In some cases that's definitely true, but not in every one. In this case the possibility that he did not know it was his girlfriend and was truly in fear for his life seem pretty unlikely. Of course you always give the benefit of the doubt to the gun owner, I know this.
In this case the possibility that he did not know it was his girlfriend and was truly in fear for his life seem pretty unlikely.Why?Of course you always give the benefit of the doubt to the gun owner . . . No--I always give the benefit of the doubt to the one and only victim, and tend to be highly suspicious of the alleged perpetrator of the only crime described in the article (home invasion). . . . I know this.The above is what you should know.
Is the woman not the victim of a gunshot? Does her questionable behavior cause her to not count is some way?You know what probably happened as well as I do. The woman was banging on the door screaming to be let in. He know who it was and refused to open up. She started kicking in the door all the time yelling at him, probably calling him a mother fucker and a dirty bastard. He was so pissed off he shot her. Then came the tears and the fake justification. That makes them both victims. He, the victim of a broken door, she, the victim of a bullet at point blank range.
You know what probably happened as well as I do.I "know" nothing of the sort.This may seem off topic, but bear with me. My favorite Robert Heinlein book is not, as perhaps you suspect, "An Armed Society is a Polite Society." Instead, I've read "Stranger in a Strange Land" more times than I've bothered to count, starting in my formative years. One thing that really grabbed my imagination is the concept of the Fair Witness:Fair Witness is a fictional profession invented for the novel. A Fair Witness is an individual trained to observe events and report exactly what he or she sees and hears, making no extrapolations or assumptions. An eidetic memory is a prerequisite for the job, although this may be attainable with suitable training.In Heinlein’s society, a Fair Witness is a highly reputable source of information. By custom, a Fair Witness acting professionally, generally wearing distinctive white robes, is never addressed directly, and is never acknowledged by anyone present.A Fair Witness is prohibited from drawing conclusions about what they observe. For example, a character in the book is asked to describe the color of a house seen in the distance. The character responds, “It’s white on this side”; whereupon it is explained that one would not assume knowledge of the color of the other sides of the house without being able to see them. Furthermore, after observing another side of the house one should not then assume that any previously seen side was still the same color as last reported, even if only minutes before.This, combined with my love of science, and reverence for the scientific method's inherent skepticism, have combined to make me quite cautious about jumping to conclusions, and certainly about stating an inferred conclusion as fact.Now granted, for most practical purposes, it doesn't make sense to insist that strongly on such absolute certainty. There is generally a risk/reward calculation to be made, based on how likely it is that the assumption is true, what is to be gained by acting on the assumption if it's true, vs. what is put at risk by acting on an assumption that turns out to be false; and conversely, what is to be gained by not acting on the assumption if it's false, vs. what is put at risk by failing to act on the assumption if it's true.The answers I arrive at when making those calculations tend, I suspect, to be far more cautious than yours, given your belief that "it's fun" to rush to judgments without adequate information. I think that speaks well of me, although I'm not exactly setting the bar very high for myself there.
Have it your way then, Kurt. There was only one victim and it was not the bullet-riddled unarmed girl.
. . . the bullet-riddled unarmed girl.Or, as honest people say, the alleged criminal home invader.
Oh, and about the "bullet-riddled" part, Mikeb. The story says Schaus fired one shot. What's the dictionary definition of "riddle," I wonder. Oh--here we go:to pierce with many holes: "riddled the car with bullets"Hmm--"to pierce with many holes."For someone who so loves throwing around accusations of "lying," you certainly seem to also quite enjoy playing fast and loose with the truth.Some might say that makes you both a liar and a hypocrite.
Take us on another tangent, why don't you, Kurt. The point is she was a victim of being shot. The fact that she was doing something wrong at the time doesn't change the fact.
The fact that she was doing something wrong at the time doesn't change the fact.The "something wrong" she was doing is precisely the kind of behavior to make a reasonable person believe he or she is in danger of death or great bodily harm. Keep in mind that shooting and killing cops as they serve a legitimate warrant is sometimes judged to be legitimate self-defense.She was a "victim" of her own abysmal judgment.I'd say your argument is "riddled" with illogic ;-).
A basic gun safety mistake. He did not know who, or what he was shooting at before he fired, which resulted in shooting someone he did not want to. Just another example of gun loon behavior.
Exactly right.Ha! Anon, "exactly right"? I don't care who you are, that's some funny shit. Anon being "exactly right" would be a first, and I'm afraid that first is still off in the distant (never to be seen?) future.Mr. Schaus knew exactly what he was shooting at--a criminal home invader. It's not your contention, is it, Mikeb, that one must refrain from defending oneself from home invaders until one knows the invader's name? What happens when the home invader is a stranger?
"He did not know who, or what he was shooting at before he fired, which resulted in shooting someone he did not want to." I'd like to expand on Kurt's very good point. Mike and surprisingly Anon would have a justifiable bitch if for example, they hadn't split up. In that case, there would be an obligation or expectation for the boyfriend to insure the person he's shooting isn't someone else authorized to be there. However, they split up, he got his key back and then changed the locks, just to be sure. There was no one else besides him authorized to be in his house. We then have the ex-girlfriend getting legal advice from a cop. Wonder how that cop is feeling right now knowing he had a hand in this event. And then somehow deciding that it not being illegal, somehow makes it a good idea. She kicks in the front door of an armed ex-boyfriend and instead of saying something like "its me" to when he asked who it was, she didn't and got shot. Very poor decision making skills.
I have proven you and SS to be consistent liars. I'll settle for that.