Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:49 pm

"JACKSONVILLE, NC (AP) - Prosecutors say they won't file charges against two Marines and a friend who killed two men trying to burglarize their Jacksonville home earlier this month."

http://www.wect.com/story/17896415/pros ... -justified

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 22611
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:54 am

The fine line between self-defense and murder

...Daniel [Adkins] Jr., who was 29 but had the mental capacity of a 13-year-old, had been shot and killed. The shooter said he acted in self-defense. He has not been charged.
...
Is the use of deadly force justified when the attacker has no weapon and doesn't touch the person who feels threatened? If an intruder has been subdued, is shooting him or her justified? Can a person chase someone down and then claim self-defense? Are Stand Your Ground laws necessary or were existing laws enough?
...
The shooter told police that Adkins "air swung" his hands in the direction of the SUV, but acknowledged he never hit him or his vehicle. Still, he said, he was afraid of what Adkins might do with the weapon he believed he was carrying. Although a weapon was never found, the shooter described it as a 3-foot metal pipe or bat.

When Adkins lifted his hands in the air again, the driver drew his Smith and Wesson .40-caliber handgun from his sweatpants. He pointed the barrel at Adkins from inside his car and racked the slide of the gun, putting a bullet in the chamber. Then he pulled the trigger.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Stebben84 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:26 pm

From the above article:

He told police he had no choice but to shoot. He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way and he "thought he had no other options," according to the police report.


Uh, the dog was in the way so the only thing left to do was kill someone. Yippee Ki Yay muthafucker. He should have shot the dog while he was at it. That thing was probably gonna hurt him too.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:34 pm

There's a subtle bit of deception in that article insofar as it uses the phrase "the fine line between self-defense and murder" implying that there is always a fine line. In fact, by far in most actual instances the line is probably HUGE and clearly defined. But it is certainly true that in certain scenarios the decision to defend yourself through the use of violence hangs on a thread. Anyone who has undergone shoot/don't shoot training understands that the decision to shoot can be very easy or very difficult, depending upon the circumstances. The difficult circumstances are the reason for the training, because the easy cases are no-brainers. We need to ask, should we change self-defense laws based on the occasional "gray area" cases? What could be the consequences of doing so? Do you think most people have the time to consider the finer points of self-defense law while being attacked? I doubt it.

The "role your eyes" moment in the article has to be this:

But the expanded self-defense laws worry police and prosecutors, according to the study. Chief among their concerns: Could the laws lead to what the study called "an increasingly armed and trigger-happy citizenry?"

Because if any segment of society has become "increasingly armed" in the past decade it is the police-- who are more likely to get off the hook whenever they shoot someone than any non-LEO, even though they operate (theoretically) under the exact same laws of self-defense as anyone else.

Finally, stand your ground and other self-defense laws have nothing to do with guns really. Those laws apply to self-defense by any means, armed or unarmed. If one uses their hands, feet, a length of pipe or a shotgun it matters not-- the law by which they are judged applies equally to each instance. I know someone here will want to respond "but guns are more deadly." Well, not necessarily. Dead is dead regardless of the method used.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3974
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby jman111 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:52 pm

Dangerousman wrote:Finally, stand your ground and other self-defense laws have nothing to do with guns really. Those laws apply to self-defense by any means, armed or unarmed. If one uses their hands, feet, a length of pipe or a shotgun it matters not-- the law by which they are judged applies equally to each instance. I know someone here will want to respond "but guns are more deadly." Well, not necessarily. Dead is dead regardless of the method used.

And grenades aren't necessarily more deadly than bubble gum, but ymmv.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Stebben84 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:12 pm

Dangerousman wrote:Finally, stand your ground and other self-defense laws have nothing to do with guns really. Those laws apply to self-defense by any means, armed or unarmed. If one uses their hands, feet, a length of pipe or a shotgun it matters not-- the law by which they are judged applies equally to each instance. I know someone here will want to respond "but guns are more deadly." Well, not necessarily. Dead is dead regardless of the method used.


If you don' think they were written with guns in mind, then you're fooling yourself. True, there are many ways to defend yourself, but I wonder how many people have killed a criminal without a gun.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:14 pm

jman111 wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:Finally, stand your ground and other self-defense laws have nothing to do with guns really. Those laws apply to self-defense by any means, armed or unarmed. If one uses their hands, feet, a length of pipe or a shotgun it matters not-- the law by which they are judged applies equally to each instance. I know someone here will want to respond "but guns are more deadly." Well, not necessarily. Dead is dead regardless of the method used.

And grenades aren't necessarily more deadly than bubble gum, but ymmv.


If you think making a wild imaginative comparison proves some (unstated) point, think what you want. Don't expect anyone else to fall for it.

Shall we make two lists? One comparing actual results of guns versus fists, knives, clubs, etc.... and a second list that compares the lethality of grenades and bubble gum, and see whose list is more realistic and empirically based? Which list do you think will be plausible?

Welcome to the real world.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3974
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby jman111 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:22 pm

Dangerousman wrote:Welcome to the real world.

wish you could join us

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:25 pm

Stebben84 wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:Finally, stand your ground and other self-defense laws have nothing to do with guns really. Those laws apply to self-defense by any means, armed or unarmed. If one uses their hands, feet, a length of pipe or a shotgun it matters not-- the law by which they are judged applies equally to each instance. I know someone here will want to respond "but guns are more deadly." Well, not necessarily. Dead is dead regardless of the method used.


If you don' think they were written with guns in mind, then you're fooling yourself. True, there are many ways to defend yourself, but I wonder how many people have killed a criminal without a gun.


Yeah, we know criminals were never killed prior to the invention of firearms.
I'll wait for you to find and cite references to firearms in the self-defense statutes. Here's Wisconsin self-defense law, I don't notice the words "firearm" or "gun" or even "weapon" in there.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m) 
(a) In this subsection:
1. "Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. "Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:26 pm

jman111 wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:Welcome to the real world.

wish you could join us


Says the "bubble gum vs grenades" guy. :lol:

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:38 pm

Fer fuckssake, D-Man -- "More deadly" doesn't mean "more dead", it means "more likely to cause death". You know this, of course, but would obviously rather argue against a position nobody's ever taken.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3974
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby jman111 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:54 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:Fer fuckssake, D-Man -- "More deadly" doesn't mean "more dead", it means "more likely to cause death".

Dammit, wags.
Now ya dun gone and stated my "(unstated) point".

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 13511
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby snoqueen » Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:02 pm

Let's frame this as a discussion of guns and the stand-your-ground laws and their ilk, then.

To take the last example offered by Dman, a guy chose to kill a human (using his gun) instead of maybe kill a dog (using his car, and assuming the dog didn't move out of the way). I'm the biggest defender of animals you'll find, but I call this poor judgment on the part of the shooter.

And what ever happened to a sense of proportion? We're supposed to empathize with a couple of Marines and their friend (and it doesn't say they weren't able-bodied) shooting some dudes who broke into their house looking for, maybe, money? The Marine got the burglars' gun. Why not just hold them and let the cops take them away, if for no other reason you don't want to spend the rest of your life remembering two people writhing to death on your livingroom floor after you shot them? That can't make your life better.

I think I liked it better when people who kept a gun in the house had used it a few times to shoot a deer before turning it on a person.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:48 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:Fer fuckssake, D-Man -- "More deadly" doesn't mean "more dead", it means "more likely to cause death". You know this, of course, but would obviously rather argue against a position nobody's ever taken.


And I meant it in the sense of "more likely to cause death."

Don't know what your "professorship" is in, but I'm assuming it isn't lexicography, because I question your understanding of the word "necessarily." But more importantly, I'm quite sure your area of expertise isn't the dynamics of armed and unarmed violent encounters between people. You hold the gun on too high of a pedestal if you believe that a gun is necessarily more likely to cause death than other possible means of attacking another person face-to-face. What is more likely to cause death depends upon the situation, and there is absolutely nothing about a gun that makes it always, and therefore, necessarily, the more deadly means of attack. At 20 feet, a man with a gun versus an identical man with a knife, my money is on the man holding the gun. At two feet the safer bet is on the guy with a knife. That is not simply my opinion, but an opinion shared by many well-regarded experts in the field.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:03 pm

snoqueen wrote:Why not just hold them and let the cops take them away, if for no other reason you don't want to spend the rest of your life remembering two people writhing to death on your livingroom floor after you shot them? That can't make your life better.

I think I liked it better when people who kept a gun in the house had used it a few times to shoot a deer before turning it on a person.


Why not just hold them and let the cops take them away? Well one good reason would be when the bad guys don't agree to do that. Perhaps they continued to attack. We weren't there to know, but it's not a safe assumption that people will simply surrender at gunpoint. Sometimes they run, sometimes they surrender and comply and sometimes they continue to attack. Each option is possible and each has happened many times.

Why do you like people shooting deer, dear? What makes it better to you if one adds a few dead dear to score? Dead guy = score of 50 and, dead guy + dead dear = a score of 75 points? Is that how it works? Jeremy Bentham is rolling in his grave (well, if he had a grave) at your calculus ma'am.


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests