Monday, May 28, 2012
Two Time "Legitimate DGU" Killer
This was a gun owner with one notch on his belt already. Having a gun in hand, secure in the knowledge that he is the king of his castle, HE OPENED THE DOOR TO THE SCREAMING DRUNK MANIAC. That was his mistake.
To many gun owners, it would have been acting like a punk, or giving into the bad guys, to call 911 and wait. The macho arrogance of gun-rights advocates says that rather than do that, it's better to shoot and kill an offender, even one who is obviously not in his right mind.
What's your opinion? Can an incident that was avoidable be considered a legitimate DGU? If the gun owners makes certain decisions that are wrong but not criminal, and it results in a shooting death, can that incident be considered legit?
What do you think? Please leave a comment .
Labels: castle doctrine, dgu
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
You missed the fact that the deceased had broken into the property of the next door neighbor, then went to the house of the shooter. You also missed the statement of the officers that this was a justified shooting.ReplyDelete
What do we conclude here? Mikeb, you're on the side of criminals, thugs, drunks, and other such low-lifes. What other explanation is there?
No, Greg, and you know better than that. I'm against using a gun unnecessarily and calling it a DGU. I'm against not avoiding a conflict and then killing someone.Delete
You're the one who values life too little when that life belongs to one you determine to be worthless.
Mikeb, you don't get it. It's not a question of valuing life. I value my own life. If someone breaks into your house at night, you have seconds, if that long, to decide what to do. If someone is putting your life in danger, the same is true. In your view, we should hesitate and conversate when in danger, but that will get the good citizen dead.Delete
No, in my opinion you should adhere to Rule number 4. If you can't do that you're an irresponsible gun owner.Delete
You cannot shoot a person when no lethal threat was there and later justify it.
Why are you bringing up Rule Four? Am I supposed to ask the person's name, birth date, life history, and so forth? Anyone who breaks into my home is by definition a threat. That person has committed a violent act. What more indication should I wait for? I'm not going to wait for a bullet or knife in me or a hand around my throat to protect my life.Delete
"Anyone who breaks into my home is by definition a threat."Delete
Greg, that's not true. This story is a perfect example.
What more indication are you going to wait for, you're gonna wait to be sure that lethal threat is operative, because you value human life and you not just a blow-hard macho asshole with a gun.
How is it this guy was not a threat? Or are you confusing him with the young lady from Colorado?Delete
Lethal threat is the criterion, not just any threat.Delete
The biggest problem with this incident was that he opened the door. After that it's still difficult to see if there really was LETHAL threat, but he gets the benefit of the doubt and the support of all you gun guys. But, he fucked up by opening the door. If he was really concerned about his safety and that of his family, he shouldn't have done that.
So, why did he? Well, he probably had some distorted ideas of what it means to be a man, like Greg, about not giving in to criminals. Better to kill them.
MikeB: “Can an incident that was avoidable be considered a legitimate DGU?”ReplyDelete
Yep. That is pretty much the Zimmerman case. The thing is you can almost always make the case that a situation was “avoidable”- the question is, were they being lawful.
That's exactly what's wrong with the castle doctrine and the stand your ground laws. There should be a legal requirement to avoid.Delete
Actually, the evidence suggests that Zimmerman was "avoiding" the confrontation. Martin came after him. But you have yet to tell us why we should leave a place that we have a right to be. Why do you support surrendering to bad people?Delete
Bullshit, Greg. Are you so biased that you cannot even admit what TS said is correct. Zimmerman made the mistake of getting out of his car, just like the guy in this story made the mistake of opening the door.Delete
Those are not acts of avoidance.
That is exactly what is right about Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws. Without them someone like you makes a judgment that the victim of an attack could have avoided being attacked when they weren’t doing anything unlawful. Yes, this confrontation would have been avoided if he didn’t get out of his car. It also could have been avoided if he didn’t leave his home to get milk. It also could have been avoided if Martin didn’t double back around and allegedly assault a man who was carrying a gun. Only one of those three actions is a crime.Delete
Mikeb, look at your own words. Zimmerman was supposed to stay in his car in his own neighborhood? Your answer is that we have to hide in our homes or cars? Your answer is that we must always withdraw from public spaces? You are surrendering those spaces to thugs. You are declaring free reign to people who would use violence to drive us in hiding.Delete
What is wrong with you?
Yeah, Greg, free reign to drunken co-eds. Your solution, blow them away.Delete
TS, you're getting slippery again.Delete
"It also could have been avoided if he didn’t leave his home to get milk. "
We're not talking about going out for milk. We're talking about aggressively pursuing a confrontation, which when it turns against you, you use deadly force.
In my book that's morally wrong.
MikeB the homeowner did try to avoid the incident. He first yelled at the man through his closed front security door to go away. Then the homeowner opened his security door -- while his storm/screen door was still closed -- to tell the man to go away again.ReplyDelete
It was only after two attempts to avoid the incident ... and after the drunk man broke through the storm/screen door in a rage that the homeowner finally defended himself.
This story illustrates yet again how law enforcement were powerless to protect this homeowner's family or anyone else.
As for your comment that the offender was "obviously not in his right mind" ... no offender ever is.
Yup, in his view, we only get to defend ourselves when the attacker is a well adjusted, sane, and sober person. Not many of those, of course.Delete
You keep the door shut and locked.Delete
Your problem with that is you'd feel like a puck, afraid of a bad guy in your own home. It's macho, ego, male bullshit, nothing more. If you were really concerned for your safety and that of your family, YOU'D KEEP THE DOOR CLOSED.
I wouldn’t open the door, but you never know how these situations play out. Most importantly- opening your own door is not a crime. Just last month you posted a DGU with a homeowner who killed a guy with an AR-15 under similar circumstances. He opened the door, and the guy charged in so he shot him. You called it “clean” then. See the problem about how avoidance requirements can be inconstantly applied? But what was also going on was the dead man’s accomplice was swinging around the back of the house. So by being a little more assertive in his defensive actions, he avoided a double sided attack where it could have been more likely that he or his girlfriend may have been killed or severally injured.Delete