Family calls shooting of car thief ‘senseless’

[daviddem]

Their purpose is not to prevent crime or make people safer. People have a fundamental right to protect themselves and an obligation to resist the government when necessary.

protect themselves = make themselves safer or am I missing something?

In a way, whether it's a right or not is a moot point. If I thought my LE (life expectancy) was higher with a gun, I would have one, legal or not. The real reason I don't want one is because it is a -LE move. If I had a contract on my head or in a world were most thieves kill you first and rob you after, it'd be a +LE move so I would have one, regardless of what the law says.

The problem I have though is that the people who fool themselves thinking otherwise or just owe/carry guns "because it's their right" also decrease my LE and the one of others. Think accident, road rage, domestic dispute, bar fight, civilians in shootouts with robbers who would not otherwise have fired a shot, people killed because they are wrongly thought of trying to break in, loonies or unstables who can just walk into a shop, buy a gun and shoot whoever, etc

So the question becomes whether people should have a right to do something that endangers other people's life without actually protecting theirs, and I think the answer is no. As was said above though, the most important thing is not to remove their right but show them how to calculate their LE equation, and the rest will follow suit.

Far less people would get unduly shot (and, more importantly, my family and I would have less chance to get unduly shot) if only some hardcore criminals and the cops had firearms, as opposed to everyone including me having one.

As for the argument about resisting the government, it is downright ridiculous in today's America. There is zero reason to think that it will ever come to that, and if it did the citizens wouldn't stand a damn chance anyway, unless the army sided with them, in which case civilians still wouldn't need weapons.

[Lukie]

protect themselves = make themselves safer or am I missing something?

In a way, whether it's a right or not is a moot point. If I thought my LE (life expectancy) was higher with a gun, I would have one, legal or not. The real reason I don't want one is because it is a -LE move. If I had a contract on my head or in a world were most thieves kill you first and rob you after, it'd be a +LE move so I would have one, regardless of what the law says.

The problem I have though is that the people who fool themselves thinking otherwise or just owe/carry guns "because it's their right" also decrease my LE and the one of others. Think accident, road rage, domestic dispute, bar fight, civilians in shootouts with robbers who would not otherwise have fired a shot, people killed because they are wrongly thought of trying to break in, loonies or unstables who can just walk into a shop, buy a gun and shoot whoever, etc

So the question becomes whether people should have a right to do something that endangers other people's life without actually protecting theirs, and I think the answer is no. As was said above though, the most important thing is not to remove their right but show them how to calculate their LE equation, and the rest will follow suit.

Far less people would get unduly shot (and, more importantly, my family and I would have less chance to get unduly shot) if only some hardcore criminals and the cops had firearms, as opposed to everyone including me having one.

As for the argument about resisting the government, it is downright ridiculous in today's America. There is zero reason to think that it will ever come to that, and if it did the citizens wouldn't stand a damn chance anyway, unless the army sided with them, in which case civilians still wouldn't need weapons.

Some of these are good points. Some of it is speculative and may not actually be the case.

I made the point earlier in the thread that some concealed carry folks take things too far, meaning that they want to be armed as well as a uniformed police officer (perhaps not completely unreasonable), or (much worse) have an itchy trigger finger and seem to be waiting for someone to cross the line on what would allow deadly force. These attitudes are common on gun boards, and frankly, rather scary.

The actual statistics on CCW states and permit holders is much more friendly. States than enact CCW licenses usually see a decrease in violent crime, and CCW holders as a whole are much less likely to committ any crime than non-holders. So the idea that society turns into the wild west with the allowance of CCW isn't reality.

I personally have a CCW license. I don't often carry a gun, despite the urging of some people that I should. If I ever have to go into very bad neighborhoods like East Cleveland (and I do have a close family member who works in the area), the question isn't whether I am bringing a concealed gun, it's whether or not I am also going to bring a backup gun. Actually that's not really true; I have never carried 2 guns and unless my career path takes an unexpected turn into military or law enforcement, I likely never will. But I'm also not going to rely on pepper spray lol.

Which brings me to another point. Most women are bigger targets than men and inherently have less of an ability to defend themselves if for no other reason than physical size and strength. Many women recognize this and do carry something, but it's often some 5 year old dinky mace on a keychain buried in a purse. It is interesting that arguably the demograph who would benefit more from carrying a gun is actually far less likely to have one in practice.

There have been accidents, road rage incidents etc. that have been needlessly escalated due to presence of firearms, but that is a tiny percentage of overall violence. Also I will say that I am not a vigilante hero, I'm not a police officer, and I'm not going to run to try to save the day. If somebody were to stick a gun in my face or there was another similarly hopeless situation or one that technically I could draw and it just wouldn't be smart, of course I wouldn't. I would much, much rather de-escalate the situation than the reverse.

I agree that the notion that someone's cache of small arms has even the slightest hope or prayer against a well-equipped, modern army is ridiculous. At that point we are getting into the fringes of fantasy and I can't help but question the logical decision making ability of people who think that.

[kiwiMark]

An armed [firearm] response by police to an incident will often be considered a newsworthy event by the media.

From the wikipedia page on the New Zealand Police.

[spoonitnow]

protect themselves = make themselves safer or am I missing something?

In a way, whether it's a right or not is a moot point. If I thought my LE (life expectancy) was higher with a gun, I would have one, legal or not. The real reason I don't want one is because it is a -LE move. If I had a contract on my head or in a world were most thieves kill you first and rob you after, it'd be a +LE move so I would have one, regardless of what the law says.

The problem I have though is that the people who fool themselves thinking otherwise or just owe/carry guns "because it's their right" also decrease my LE and the one of others. Think accident, road rage, domestic dispute, bar fight, civilians in shootouts with robbers who would not otherwise have fired a shot, people killed because they are wrongly thought of trying to break in, loonies or unstables who can just walk into a shop, buy a gun and shoot whoever, etc

So the question becomes whether people should have a right to do something that endangers other people's life without actually protecting theirs, and I think the answer is no. As was said above though, the most important thing is not to remove their right but show them how to calculate their LE equation, and the rest will follow suit.

Far less people would get unduly shot (and, more importantly, my family and I would have less chance to get unduly shot) if only some hardcore criminals and the cops had firearms, as opposed to everyone including me having one.

As for the argument about resisting the government, it is downright ridiculous in today's America. There is zero reason to think that it will ever come to that, and if it did the citizens wouldn't stand a damn chance anyway, unless the army sided with them, in which case civilians still wouldn't need weapons.

Far fewer people would get AIDS if nobody had sex. Same pointless logic that you're using.

[seven-deuce]

This shooting was indisputably 'senseless'. Homeowner should get 25 with an L.

[daviddem]

Far fewer people would get AIDS if nobody had sex. Same pointless logic that you're using.

Yeah but putting a condom on your gun barrel won't make it less dangerous.

And then sex is nice and useful, worth taking a chance for.

[Jack Sawyer]

As usually Europe goes too far. Killing someone who's busted into your place who might have all sorts of machinations for hurting you or your family is an altogether separate thing from what this case was: deadly retribution for theft.

Like Notorious Pistorious

[JKDS]

I cant tell if spoon is legit trying to argue with davendem, or if hes just trolling.

[Lukie]

any updates on the story in the OP? this is one that I pulled up but still from back in March:

http://www.krem.com/news/local/Spoka...200308001.html

SPOKANE, Wash. -- A man who admits to shooting the suspect accused of stealing his SUV could face second-degree murder charges.
Gail Gerlach, 56, says he shot at his 1997 Chevrolet Suburban just once after seeing 25-year-old Brendon T. Kaluza-Graham taking the vehicle.
Gerlach told police he saw the suspect pull out of his driveway. He followed Kaluza-Graham on foot and allegedly saw the suspect raise his arm. Gerlach says he fired when he thought he saw a gun. The suspect died instantly when a bullet hit him in the head.
Investigators finished searching the SUV Tuesday night and did not recover any weapons from the car.
Gerlach does not have a criminal history and was legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Kaluza-Graham had several run-ins with the law before his death. Police say they found two sets of shaved keys, a flashlight and a screw driver on his body.
“I don’t think what he was doing was right. He shouldn’t have been taking people’s vehicles but he didn’t deserve a death sentence,” Brendon’s uncle Pat Kaluza said. “I think he was shooting to kill. He obviously knew what he was doing and aimed to where he’d kill Brendon. He should be charged I think.”
Police say the case is classified as a second-degree murder rather than manslaughter because of intent. They say this was no accident.
“We investigate crimes as police, and the most appropriate crime would be murder. Not to say he did commit murder, but that’s the closest crime,” Lt. Mark Griffiths of the Major Crimes unit said. “Manslaughter is accidental or reckless.”
No one has been arrested or charged yet in this case.

[spoonitnow]

This shooting was indisputably 'senseless'. Homeowner should get 25 with an L.

Not if he thought he was threatened by the guy in the car raising a weapon, which is not unlikely.

[spoonitnow]

I cant tell if spoon is legit trying to argue with davendem, or if hes just trolling.

Good, that means my range is pretty well-balanced.

In all seriousness, some people believe different things than I do, and that's fine. I'm just trying to get closer to 10,000.

[spoonitnow]

any updates on the story in the OP? this is one that I pulled up but still from back in March:

http://www.krem.com/news/local/Spoka...200308001.html

Interesting legal possibility is discussed here: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...re-of-the-law/

[Lukie]

Not if he thought he was threatened by the guy in the car raising a weapon, which is not unlikely.

I'm just the messenger on that one. I don't know anything about the case except for reading a few articles on it.

Too many people start with their conclusion and then search for the evidence. Just saying that as a general political comment.

[daviddem]

Some of these are good points. Some of it is speculative and may not actually be the case.

I made the point earlier in the thread that some concealed carry folks take things too far, meaning that they want to be armed as well as a uniformed police officer (perhaps not completely unreasonable), or (much worse) have an itchy trigger finger and seem to be waiting for someone to cross the line on what would allow deadly force. These attitudes are common on gun boards, and frankly, rather scary.

The actual statistics on CCW states and permit holders is much more friendly. States than enact CCW licenses usually see a decrease in violent crime, and CCW holders as a whole are much less likely to committ any crime than non-holders. So the idea that society turns into the wild west with the allowance of CCW isn't reality.

I personally have a CCW license. I don't often carry a gun, despite the urging of some people that I should. If I ever have to go into very bad neighborhoods like East Cleveland (and I do have a close family member who works in the area), the question isn't whether I am bringing a concealed gun, it's whether or not I am also going to bring a backup gun. Actually that's not really true; I have never carried 2 guns and unless my career path takes an unexpected turn into military or law enforcement, I likely never will. But I'm also not going to rely on pepper spray lol.

Which brings me to another point. Most women are bigger targets than men and inherently have less of an ability to defend themselves if for no other reason than physical size and strength. Many women recognize this and do carry something, but it's often some 5 year old dinky mace on a keychain buried in a purse. It is interesting that arguably the demograph who would benefit more from carrying a gun is actually far less likely to have one in practice.

There have been accidents, road rage incidents etc. that have been needlessly escalated due to presence of firearms, but that is a tiny percentage of overall violence. Also I will say that I am not a vigilante hero, I'm not a police officer, and I'm not going to run to try to save the day. If somebody were to stick a gun in my face or there was another similarly hopeless situation or one that technically I could draw and it just wouldn't be smart, of course I wouldn't. I would much, much rather de-escalate the situation than the reverse.

I agree that the notion that someone's cache of small arms has even the slightest hope or prayer against a well-equipped, modern army is ridiculous. At that point we are getting into the fringes of fantasy and I can't help but question the logical decision making ability of people who think that.

I half wouldn't mind people having guns if everyone was as reasonable and responsible as you seem to be. Sadly, that's far from being the case.

Also I still think that in most cases you would not have an opportunity to use one really efficiently (particularly outside your home). Mostly, either the guy(s) who attack you also has a gun and it is already pointed at you and you can't do anything, or he doesn't have a gun but then you can't use yours because it would not be self defense proportionate to the attack anymore. Examples:
- guy comes out of a side street with a gun pointed at your head and demands your money and your car keys. Can't use your gun.
- guy walks up to you with his hands in his jacket pockets and demands your money. Do you want to take the chance that he is not aiming at you through his pocket and try to draw out?
- guy jumps on you from behind and starts punching you. You're now in a fist fight with him and there is a gun in the middle of the fist fight. Is this a positive? If you have a chance to draw out and shoot him, can you answer a punch with a bullet?

I cant tell if spoon is legit trying to argue with davendem, or if hes just trolling.

I don't know if spoon is trolling or not. He has not yet said that the only thing that can stop a bad student with a gun is a good teacher with a gun, or that Japan would invade America if he surrendered his weapon.

[Lukie]

Interesting legal possibility is discussed here: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...re-of-the-law/

See to me that is manslaughter or murder (of course, I am assuming that a 2 paragraph entry on a website is accurate, and they often aren't) and falls well outside the scope of any reasonable self-defense or even castle doctrine law.

It is always a good idea to know the law. A mistake can cost someone's life and land an otherwise decent person in jail for a long time. As well there are seemingly innocent violations of the law (where to carry, protocol, etc.) that might be perfectly legal in one state but a felony in another.

I will add that it really isn't possible to know every law. Some common sense, decency, and acting in good faith will usually go a long way, considering that the gray area in the law can ultimately be decided by prosecutorial discretion and a jury. It seems like what you linked was a very favorable decision by the former, even if it really wasn't deserved. That's how it goes sometimes. just my opinion of course

[Lukie]

I half wouldn't mind people having guns if everyone was as reasonable and responsible as you seem to be. Sadly, that's far from being the case.

Also I still think that in most cases you would not have an opportunity to use one really efficiently (particularly outside your home). Mostly, either the guy(s) who attack you also has a gun and it is already pointed at you and you can't do anything, or he doesn't have a gun but then you can't use yours because it would not be self defense proportionate to the attack anymore. Examples:
- guy comes out of a side street with a gun pointed at your head and demands your money and your car keys. Can't use your gun.
- guy walks up to you with his hands in his jacket pockets and demands your money. Do you want to take the chance that he is not aiming at you through his pocket and try to draw out?
- guy jumps on you from behind and starts punching you. You're now in a fist fight with him and there is a gun in the middle of the fist fight. Is this a positive? If you have a chance to draw out and shoot him, can you answer a punch with a bullet?


I don't know if spoon is trolling or not. He has not yet said that the only thing that can stop a bad student with a gun is a good teacher with a gun, or that Japan would invade America if he surrendered his weapon.

I can give you some of my thoughts on this. Keep in mind that this is just one guy's opinion, and as I alluded to before, it is uncommon that I have a gun on me. Given the seriousness of the issue however, it is something I have thought about considerably.

There are a issues on a personal level with concealed carry. There are immediate physical considerations (that is, where do you put all your sheeeeit), restrictions on where and in what physical state you can carry (think alcohol), potentially enormous legal and civil consequences even in the case of a justifiable shot, and other considerations. Given my very low risk lifestyle it doesn't often seem to be worth the hastle in my estimation.

I also don't really think the movement as a whole is a strong net negative or net positive. As noted before (would probably have to do more strenuous research, but I'm lazy), states that enact CCW tend to see a decrease in violent crime, though there are potentially enormous amounts of confounding variables. Permit holders also seem to be a very law abiding bunch. I also like the fact that there is a strong deterrent effect on some types of violent/aggressive crime, and just a general expression of rights and freedom, even if you don't particularly think that should be a freedom.

Some of the negatives are the overly militant types that we have talked about before. Another are the direct personal issues noted above, and that I personally don't want to necessarily get caught up in the crossfire so to speak, even if that means just being in the same room as some asshat who feels the need to load up full house .357s in a 2 inch barreled revolver. There is also one of the points that Renton made about the general proliferation of guns and those brought up thinking they are 'cool' and that sort of thing. Hey I admit that there is a certain 'coolness' factor involved, but I recognize utterly tragic effects that they can bring, and (not to sound like a douche), you can't expect everyone to have the same calm, cool, rational thought process that I do. I am not blind to what I see happen around me. That is why I say that I am pro-gun, most people including just about everybody in other countries would say that I would be pro-gun, but that has clear limits and that I can't support some agendas that are pushed in this country.

Anyway, enough with the generalities

Also I still think that in most cases you would not have an opportunity to use one really efficiently (particularly outside your home). Mostly, either the guy(s) who attack you also has a gun and it is already pointed at you and you can't do anything, or he doesn't have a gun but then you can't use yours because it would not be self defense proportionate to the attack anymore.

Speaking from Ohio law perspective here. It seems to be a pretty common model to follow, even if the specifics aren't always identical. Self defense does not have to be proportionate to the attack. There are certain elements that need to be satisfied to allow lethal force (i.e. use of a firearm), but basically it comes down to preventing an attack that would immediately cause loss of life or limb. This would mean that you could respond to a knife attack by using a gun.

---
In Ohio, deadly force can be used only to prevent serious bodily harm or death. Deadly force can never be used to protect property only. Depending on the specific facts and circumstances of the situation, use of deadly force may lead to criminal charges and/or civil liability.---



Here is a more comprehensive read if you are interested:
http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/O...a0a294f589.pdf

Examples:
- guy comes out of a side street with a gun pointed at your head and demands your money and your car keys. Can't use your gun.

yeah, pulling out a gun in that situation is suicidal. better hope that if you are indeed carrying a gun, it is concealed on your hip or elsewhere and not in your pocket. I have decided that I will, barring unforeseen circumstances, not give my gun to anyone for any reason except to be disarmed as per a police officer's instructions (that being both reasonable and required by law.) If I get shot it won't be with my own gun.

- guy walks up to you with his hands in his jacket pockets and demands your money. Do you want to take the chance that he is not aiming at you through his pocket and try to draw out?

Honestly it's hard to say what I would do in every situation. That is one that I really haven't thought of much. Good question, but no you arguably could not draw here while still remaining on the right side of the law.

- guy jumps on you from behind and starts punching you. You're now in a fist fight with him and there is a gun in the middle of the fist fight. Is this a positive? If you have a chance to draw out and shoot him, can you answer a punch with a bullet?

Generally I would say no, this coming from a male who is roughly 1.9m/100kg. This is where gray area comes in. That situation very well might be a lethal force situation if instead I were a female, or if it was a 4 versus me pummeling where I was not the initial aggressor. But to be honest a 1 vs 1 fight isn't something I'm particularly worried about unless there is a blade or pole of some sort involved.



You bring up some good issues insomuch that there are a lot of restrictions on what an honest, law-abiding person can do with CCW. That person does have one advantage though, and it is a big one. That is the element of surprise. One could conjure up countless scenarios of why a gun isn't big enough or doesn't hold enough ammo (see gun boards for sometimes ridiculous discussion), or scenarios where an armed criminal has well thought out plans that include the possiblity of victims being armed and all that stuff. It's paralysis by analysis. Just having a gun usually trumps all of those considerations, and there are a lot of stats out there that suggest that (under 3 seconds, under 3 yards, under 3 shots)



cliffs notes: tl; dr

[daviddem]

I don't really get your "element of surprise" argument. Aren't criminals expecting citizens to be armed in CCW states, or at least very aware of the possibility? I mean if I was a criminal, I certainly would be.

You on the other hand can't be expecting to be attacked every time you get out of your house, so it seems the element of surprise is still on their side?

[seven-deuce]

Not if he thought he was threatened by the guy in the car raising a weapon, which is not unlikely.

Objection.

The guy was in the car and driving away. It seems unlikely to me that the thief would turn around and start shooting out the back window of the car while making his escape.

Also the homeowner already called the cops so why not let them do their job?

[daviddem]

Article says the guy did not have a weapon, so why in the world would he raise his arm in a mock shooting gesture while driving away? To have a better chance of getting shot?

[seven-deuce]

Turns out the guy did not have a weapon, so why in the world would he raise his arm in a mock shooting gesture while driving away? To have a better chance of getting shot?

He might not have, it's a plausible theory to suggest that the homeowner made this up to justify his actions and satisfy his own bloodlust. This whole incident clearly shows he isn't responsible enough to own a gun.

[spoonitnow]

I'm just the messenger on that one. I don't know anything about the case except for reading a few articles on it.

My understanding is that the crux of the case would rest on whether the physical evidence exposed his claim that he thought the man had a weapon wasn't possible.

See to me that is manslaughter or murder (of course, I am assuming that a 2 paragraph entry on a website is accurate, and they often aren't) and falls well outside the scope of any reasonable self-defense or even castle doctrine law.

I don't disagree at all. However, the law they are citing there has to do with an interpretation of a law on citizen's arrest that seems tricky.

Objection.

The guy was in the car and driving away. It seems unlikely to me that the thief would turn around and start shooting out the back window of the car while making his escape.

Also the homeowner already called the cops so why not let them do their job?

The owner chased after the man on foot, so the bold isn't necessarily true. As an aside, the "let the cops do their job" argument doesn't apply whenever you believe you're about to be shot at.

To prosecute under Washington State law, they have to be able to prove that the man didn't believe the guy was lifting a gun.

Article says the guy did not have a weapon, so why in the world would he raise his arm in a mock shooting gesture while driving away? To have a better chance of getting shot?

I don't think the man who was shot would have been thinking about this at the time. Someone who wants to claim that the owner is a bloodthirsty, irresponsible fucker might suggest that he would have shot regardless.

He might not have, it's a plausible theory to suggest that the homeowner made this up to justify his actions and satisfy his own bloodlust. This whole incident clearly shows he isn't responsible enough to own a gun.

I agree with the first sentence and disagree with the second. If the thief did actually appear to be pointing a weapon in the guy's direction as he chased after the car, then there is nothing proven about his lack of responsibility, and there is currently no conclusive proof to the contrary.

[seven-deuce]

As an aside, the "let the cops do their job" argument doesn't apply whenever you believe you're about to be shot at.


I agree with the first sentence and disagree with the second. If the thief did actually appear to be pointing a weapon in the guy's direction as he chased after the car, then there is nothing proven about his lack of responsibility, and there is currently no conclusive proof to the contrary.

He wouldn't have been in what appeared to be a kill or be killed situation if he had let the cops handle it.

Why ring the cops to report the crime in the first place if you intend on arming yourself and chasing the guy down on your own? Surely that's putting yourself, the thief, and innocent civilians in unnecessary danger, which is definitely irresponsible.

[spoonitnow]

He wouldn't have been in what appeared to be a kill or be killed situation if he had let the cops handle it.

Why ring the cops to report the crime in the first place if you intend on arming yourself and chasing the guy down on your own? Surely that's putting yourself, the thief, and innocent civilians in unnecessary danger, which is definitely irresponsible.

There is nothing irresponsible (or illegal) about this man being armed. There is nothing irresponsible (or illegal) about chasing after someone who has stolen your property. There is nothing irresponsible (or illegal) about shooting someone who you believe is about to shoot you. To disagree with either of these statements is absurd, and to imply that the owner was asking for it by chasing after the guy is on the same level as implying that women ask to get raped by going to parties.

[seven-deuce]

There is nothing irresponsible (or illegal) about chasing after someone who has stolen your property. To disagree with either of these statements is absurd, and to imply that the owner was asking for it by chasing after the guy is on the same level as implying that women ask to get raped by going to parties.

At bold, no it isn't the same as implying women asked to get raped by going to parties. Women go to parties to socialise and enjoy themselves, he wasn't chasing after the guy to have a chat and a joke.

The atmosphere is totally different in these two scenarios, at a party it is calm, relaxed and everyone's there to have a good time, while pursuing a thief who you believe to be armed is, i'd imagine, a very tense and hostile affair. You can't draw a parallel between these two choices the choice on whether to attend a party or whether to chase down an armed thief. One is obviously a lot riskier than the other.

Also the objectives are different, one is to reclaim stolen property and the other is to socialise. Apples and oranges.

Chasing a guy down who you believe to be armed, when you are armed yourself is asking for trouble, especially when he's fleeing the scene of a crime. While it may not be illegal, it is most definitely irresponsible in my opinion. I'm aware that what people believe to be responsible or irresponsible is subjective, but i'd still expect the overwhelming majority to agree with me that chasing they guy down was irresponsible.

[spoonitnow]

It's not irresponsible for a woman to go to a party because she is not responsible for getting raped. It's not irresponsible for a man to chase after someone who has stolen from him because he is not responsible for the thief pulling a weapon on him.

Chasing a guy down who you believe to be armed, when you are armed yourself is asking for trouble, especially when he's fleeing the scene of a crime.

He didn't have reason to believe the guy was armed whenever he made the decision to chase him. Some men were raised to be okay with just letting people steal from them, and they are the victims of the world. Others were raised to try to stop people from stealing from them. Not everyone was raised to be a pussy.

[seven-deuce]

It's not irresponsible for a woman to go to a party because she is not responsible for getting raped. It's not irresponsible for a man to chase after someone who has stolen from him because he is not responsible for the thief pulling a weapon on him.



He didn't have reason to believe the guy was armed whenever he made the decision to chase him. Some men were raised to be okay with just letting people steal from them, and they are the victims of the world. Others were raised to try to stop people from stealing from them. Not everyone was raised to be a pussy.

Oh so he conjured a gun out of thin air when he got in the car. It all makes sense now.

Yeah everyone's a tough guy when they're staring down the barrel of a gun, i guess some people need to compensate for their cowardice, soon as they're packin', instant tough guy. Sad state of affairs if you ask me.

[Lukie]

I don't really get your "element of surprise" argument. Aren't criminals expecting citizens to be armed in CCW states, or at least very aware of the possibility? I mean if I was a criminal, I certainly would be.

You on the other hand can't be expecting to be attacked every time you get out of your house, so it seems the element of surprise is still on their side?

I don't think most street criminals are particularly bright where they have thought deeply and logically about all possibilities. Otherwise it is very likely that they would have taken a very different career path. Admittedly, that is probably not the best attitude for me to have.

I'm sure they are aware of the possiblity. But even for a perfectly logical thinker, CCW really isn't that mainstream. Say 3% actually have active permits in 'shall-issue' states, and that (generously) a third are actually carrying at any given time. 1% is low enough to be a surprise, but high enough to considerably skew the risk:reward ratio in an unfavorable direction for those of us inclined to view that as a one outer with one card to come.

The percentage chance of being viciously attacked, robbed, threatened with a weapon etc. is well under 1% anytime you leave the house (otherwise you need to move ASAP!) Again you are talking about one of those CCW guys who doesn't usually carry, so we could probably stop here and at find at least some agreement. I say that for those of us who actually pay attention to our surroundings (note that situational awareness is different than being paranoid or profiling), many crude and unsophisticated attacks and what not should not come as a surprise.

If you walk around a corner and there is a gun in your face, you're right, there's not a whole hell of a lot you can do other than do exactly what that person says and hope for the best. That's life. But even in that specific case, the other person cannot be so sure that the victim will do what is in his/her overwhelming best interest. The victim may indeed pull a gun, and now the initial aggressor is between a rock and a hard place. If he now shoots and kills the victim, that is murder. If he doesn't he probably gets shot. That is one of a huge number of possible scenarios that steer sensible people away from that kind of crime.

So who does that leave?

[Lukie]

Oh so he conjured a gun out of thin air when he got in the car. It all makes sense now.

Yeah everyone's a tough guy when they're staring down the barrel of a gun, i guess some people need to compensate for their cowardice, soon as they're packin', instant tough guy. Sad state of affairs if you ask me.

Same type of reasoning for why people need to roll around with blades, clubs, and in gangs. Nobody ever picks a fair fight. Sad state of affairs indeed.

[kiwiMark]

It's not irresponsible for a woman to go to a party because she is not responsible for getting raped. It's not irresponsible for a man to chase after someone who has stolen from him because he is not responsible for the thief pulling a weapon on him.

hahahahahah

[Lukie]

My understanding is that the crux of the case would rest on whether the physical evidence exposed his claim that he thought the man had a weapon wasn't possible.



I don't disagree at all. However, the law they are citing there has to do with an interpretation of a law on citizen's arrest that seems tricky.

just to be clear to everyone I am discussing the opinion expressed in this link: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...re-of-the-law/

My opinion of citizen's arrest is that it is generally a horrible idea. It's one thing to hold up a murderer, quite another to set up a trap then use a loophole in the law to justify effectively a revenge killing. One could easily argue that lethal force was not necessary in that case to the extent that necessary really isn't defined. Necessary for what? to make the arrest or to do something that is overwhelmingly in the best interest of society? It doesn't say, at least in the section that was posted.

My first posts in this thread involved using a gun for legitimate home defense needs. That is someone smashes into your house and you are unsure of their intentions or something to that effect. I am uncomfortable with the way the thread is going and arguing over cases involving highly questionable traps, motivations, and ethics. It's not so much discussing them makes me uncomfortable, I just don't want people to come away thinking that I am some anarchist vigilante gunman. That isn't the case and I don't want to be lumped into that group.

[seven-deuce]

“The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases: (2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody.”

They should really define the word 'force'. There's a big difference between breaking someones arm and blowing their brains all over the dash board.

My interpretation is that the law is referring to 'non-lethal' force, simply because at the end it says deliver them into custody, not a morgue.

[Lukie]

Yeah, I am sure reading the section of law in its entirety would make it more clear.

In Ohio for example, lethal force and when it is acceptable to use it is fairly well defined, even if the law obviously cannot spell out every single hypothetical scenario. There are always going to be varying interpretations of what would constitute imminent and serious physical injury for example.

In regards to lethal force, pretty much everything from drawing a gun on is lethal force. You can't fire warning shots or shots to 'injure' in cases where you wouldn't be justified in shooting for center mass or the head. Doing so would fall under any number of very serious crimes like aggravated assault, [attempted] murder, etc.

[seven-deuce]

In regards to lethal force, pretty much everything from drawing a gun on is lethal force. You can't fire warning shots or shots to 'injure' in cases where you wouldn't be justified in shooting for center mass or the head. Doing so would fall under any number of very serious crimes like aggravated assault, [attempted] murder, etc.

I agree with you.

[d0zer]

flames need fanning

[spoonitnow]

Oh so he conjured a gun out of thin air when he got in the car. It all makes sense now.

To clarify for anyone reading this, there was no weapon found in the vehicle.

[daviddem]

Some men were raised to be okay with just letting people steal from them, and they are the victims of the world. Others were raised to try to stop people from stealing from them. Not everyone was raised to be a pussy.

From where I stand, I'd rather be the victim of a theft than be the victim of a murder, or be a murderer myself for that matter. But I accept that it may not be the case of everyone. It is now apparent that I forgot to include PV (property value) in my LE equation.

Let's put some numbers on all this. You have a car worth $15,000. You have no theft insurance. You see a thief driving away with it. You are coincidentally holding a loaded gun. At this point you do not know if the thief is armed or not.

Your choices are:

1) you let him get away (to simplify assume you have zero chance of recovering the car)

2) you run after him with the gun (to simplify assume that you (or your widow) always recover the car and neglect the potential cost of repairs to the car). However, with this option, you estimate there are:
- a w% chance of you getting killed
- a x% chance of an innocent bystander getting killed by your bullets
- a y% chance of an innocent bystander getting killed by the thief's bullets
- a z% chance of you killing the thief even though he was not an actual threat to you (assume you always get away with it and you won't go to jail)

Q1: what are the maximum w, x, y and z for which you take option 2? If your answer for any of these is 100%, then say for what dollar value this variable starts decreasing below 100%.

Q2: from what dollar value of the car do you always pick option 1?

Basically it is the same question as Renton's button question itt:
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...-192318-2.html

[seven-deuce]

Some men were raised to be okay with just letting people steal from them, and they are the victims of the world. Others were raised to try to stop people from stealing from them. Not everyone was raised to be a pussy.

Just to clarify for anybody reading this, if you value human life over material possessions you are a pussy.

If you feel the need to carry a gun around for a sense of security, you are actually a brave and courageous man, not a timid, meek coward.

Oh and if your willing to put a bullet in someones brain over the sake of a car you have integrity.

[spoonitnow]

Just to clarify for anybody reading this, if you value human life over material possessions you are a pussy.

If you feel the need to carry a gun around for a sense of security, you are actually a brave and courageous man, not a timid, meek coward.

Oh and if your willing to put a bullet in someones brain over the sake of a car you have integrity.

Try logic next time. You might get somewhere.

[seven-deuce]

Try logic next time. You might get somewhere.

Bickering online with randoms, solid logic.

[daviddem]

There have been accidents, road rage incidents etc. that have been needlessly escalated due to presence of firearms, but that is a tiny percentage of overall violence.

Are you so sure it's such a tiny percentage? I know we can't rely 100% on the numbers that can be found online because they are often skewed by one party or the other, but the numbers I've seen for accidental discharge related injuries or fatalities and for suicides alone were quite frightening.

It would also be interesting to see what proportion of crimes using guns were committed by first and single offenders (previously law abiding citizens who turned into felons for a reason or another).

Note sure how reliable or partisan these numbers are (the sources are at the bottom):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States

[daviddem]

flames need fanning

... responsible law abiding citizens exercising their fundamental right to bear arms and protect themselves

[spoonitnow]

flames need fanning

Leaving a loaded gun where a toddler can reach it is pretty fucking dumb.

[seven-deuce]

... responsible law abiding citizens exercising their fundamental right to bear arms and protect themselves

Logic win.

[daviddem]

Leaving a loaded gun where a toddler can reach it is pretty fucking dumb.

but... but... how come a fucking dumb could get his hands on a gun???

oh wait, I know, it's his fundamental constitutional right, and there is no need of a justification for him to exercise it.

[Lukie]

Are you so sure it's such a tiny percentage? I know we can't rely 100% on the numbers that can be found online because they are often skewed by one party or the other, but the numbers I've seen for accidental discharge related injuries or fatalities and for suicides alone were quite frightening.

It would also be interesting to see what proportion of crimes using guns were committed by first and single offenders (previously law abiding citizens who turned into felons for a reason or another).

Note sure how reliable or partisan these numbers are (the sources are at the bottom):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States

I meant that comment to be in the context of legal CCW permit holders. I would actually be curious to see reliable numbers in that regard. That is how many CCW holders 'went off the deep end' so to speak, how many CCW holders were killed while carrying a gun, ostensibly because they drew their weapon at an inopportune time, and that sort of thing.

Given that there are an estimated 8,000,000 permit holders in the country, that seems like it would be enough to establish some reliable trends. I could certainly be convinced that it is a bad idea if someone could put forth a strong enough case. I just haven't seen it yet. On the other hand, if someone could conclusively show that CCW holders are in fact much less likely to commit crimes AND much less likely to be killed, raped etc., that would be a pretty good thing to know as well. And I haven't really seen the latter part of that either.

edit: this is a little different topic than the overall gun climate and violence stats in the country. I guess what I'm asking, is CCW the best solution or at least a reasonable solution to a flawed culture? What about if having a license is in one person's best interest to have? Those are honest questions and I haven't completely made up my mind on it.

[spoonitnow]

but... but... how come a fucking dumb could get his hands on a gun???

oh wait, I know, it's his fundamental constitutional right, and there is no need of a justification for him to exercise it.

This is absolutely correct. Unfortunately the world isn't perfect, so it's a necessary evil in our value system for this kind of thing to happen from time to time (the same with school shootings). The reason for this is that both voting and owning a gun are considered rights that our country were founded on.

[Lukie]

but... but... how come a fucking dumb could get his hands on a gun???

oh wait, I know, it's his fundamental constitutional right, and there is no need of a justification for him to exercise it.

That guy was a police officer so that is plenty good reason for him to have a gun. Exceptionally bad judgement there. Alcohol and guns don't mix, and kids and guns don't mix. Obviously there are a lot of similar examples that don't involve LEO so you won't get any argument from me that idiots and firearms is a bad combination as well and altogether too common.

I have said this before but if you ever go to a gun shop or a shooting range you can expect to regularly get muzzle swept. Muzzle swept is just a fancy way of saying the gun gets accidentally pointed at you at some point, but it's a fundamental safety violation that happens wayyyyyy too often.

[spoonitnow]

Double post because the edit button won't work for some reason. I was listening to an interview earlier of a man who did security for a number of entertainers. He described his first time in England and how it took him less than an hour to find and purchase a handgun. I started reading up on the availability of guns, and it's pretty interesting what all is going on with that.

[spoonitnow]

Double post for real this time. Another mass stabbing on a college campus: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/09...ollege-campus/

I guess it's time to ban x-acto knives.

[Lukie]

0 killed. probably not the best example... just saying.

[seven-deuce]

Saying school shootings are a necessary evil is absolutely ridiculous.

Everyone having the right to own a gun is idiotic.

[daviddem]

This is absolutely correct. Unfortunately the world isn't perfect, so it's a necessary evil in our value system for this kind of thing to happen from time to time (the same with school shootings). The reason for this is that both voting and owning a gun are considered rights that our country were founded on.

Pretty sure that whoever wrote that 2nd amendment never meant it that way, and never meant to cause so much harm. If he was still around he'd probably be quick to amend or clarify his amendment to help you guys stop killing each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

As for some of the recent supreme court rulings, they couldn't be further from the original intention. Probably NRA puppets just like the House and Senate.

and school shooting = useless evil, wtf

[spoonitnow]

0 killed. probably not the best example... just saying.

But next time it could be 1, 2, 10 or 100. /sarcasm

The worst mass killing at a school didn't use guns.

Saying school shootings are a necessary evil is absolutely ridiculous.

Everyone having the right to own a gun is idiotic.

School shootings are a necessary evil in the same way that school stabbings are a necessary evil. It's not ridiculous to state a plain truth.

Simple example: Somewhere, sometime, there has been a kid who was killed by another kid at school by being beaten in the head with a rock. That killing with a rock is a necessary evil of us tolerating rocks to the point that we do not ban them.

Your second statement doesn't describe the United States.

[spoonitnow]

Pretty sure that whoever wrote that 2nd amendment never meant it that way, and never meant to cause so much harm. If he was still around he'd probably be quick to amend or clarify his amendment to help you guys stop killing each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...rly_commentary

school shooting = useless evil, wtf

The second amendment does not cause harm. To believe so is a misunderstanding of what cause is.

As an aside, compared to the number of other ridiculous things that people die from, not that many people are killed by guns each year in the United States.

[daviddem]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

- a militia is not necessary anymore because you have a permanent army
- random unrelated armed citizens shooting each other do not constitute a well organized militia and are detrimental to security

-> obsolete shit -> delete

That was copied from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, but they at least have had the sense to evolve since then.

(see Joseph Story commentary in the Wiki article, it's hilarious)

[spoonitnow]

- a militia is not necessary anymore because you have a permanent army
- random unrelated armed citizens shooting each other do not constitute a well organized militia and is detrimental to security

-> obsolete shit -> delete

That was copied from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, but them at least have had the sense to evolve since then.

(see Joseph Story commentary in the Wiki article, it's hilarious)

Drastic failure at logic in the bold parts above.

[seven-deuce]

School shootings are a necessary evil in the same way that school stabbings are a necessary evil. It's not ridiculous to state a plain truth.

Simple example: Somewhere, sometime, there has been a kid who was killed by another kid at school by being beaten in the head with a rock. That killing with a rock is a necessary evil of us tolerating rocks to the point that we do not ban them.

Your second statement doesn't describe the United States.

The only difference is rocks occur naturally, guns are man made for the sole purpose of killing.

The archaic belief that everyone has the right to own a gun is idiotic because it operates under the assumption everyone is responsible enough and stable enough to own a gun when it's blatantly obvious this isn't the case.

Everybody should not have the right to own a gun, allowing anyone and everyone access to firearms that were designed for one purpose only, to kill, is a recipe for disaster.

School shootings are a perfect example of this.

[spoonitnow]

The archaic belief that everyone has the right to own a gun is idiotic because it operates under the assumption everyone is responsible enough and stable enough to own a gun when it's blatantly obvious this isn't the case.

It does not operate under this assumption. Another logical failure.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The notion that every gun is designed with the primary intention to kill is unimaginative. But it's a silly point to make on my part.

It seems to me the holder's intent is the dangerous part, no matter the object or its manufacturer's intent.

Sad truth:
If every gun on the planet were eliminated, people would go back to crossbows and any other implementation of delivering a rock at range.

[spoonitnow]

It seems to me the holder's intent is the dangerous part, no matter the object or its manufacturer's intent.

Ding ding ding.

[daviddem]

It seems to me the holder's intent is the dangerous part, no matter the object or its manufacturer's intent.

Ding ding ding.

Epic logic fail. An intent has never killed anyone.

Besides, "intent" does not take into account those victims who get shot unintentionally, or cases where the shooter did not achieve what he intended (for example killing instead of intentionally injuring).

Assuming you more correctly meant to say that it is the gun holder who could be dangerous, for example because being reckless, aggressive, irresponsible, impaired, incompetent, complacent or dumb, I would find it difficult to deny that this person represents less risk to others and himself without a gun than with one (if any: for example an otherwise normal person incompetent with firearms is only dangerous when handling a firearm).

If someone intended to kill someone else and realized his intention using a gun, he would generally have a far greater chance of success than if he acted using his bare hands (assuming reasonable basic proficiency with the gun).

In the same order of idea, the chance of success is generally far greater using a (semi-)automatic big caliber gun than with a single shot .22, a crossbow or a knife.

So having a gun gives a potential perpetrator the opportunity to realize a killing intent as fast and efficiently as can be, with very little chance of being stopped before the victim is dead, with minimal risk to his own person, and including when the intent is extremely temporary and related to a sudden impulse (see Renton's iPhone story in his posts above for an example).

Consequently, the availability or unavailability of a firearm may sway the intender between realizing his intention or not (i.e. "I'd like to kill him but, not having a gun, my chances of success are slim to none so I am not going to try").

More so, having a gun or not may very well change the intention of a person altogether in a given situation (for example flee without a gun vs fight with a gun, or run after a car thief with a gun vs staying put without a gun).

[seven-deuce]

The notion that every gun is designed with the primary intention to kill is unimaginative. But it's a silly point to make on my part.

It seems to me the holder's intent is the dangerous part, no matter the object or its manufacturer's intent.

Sad truth:
If every gun on the planet were eliminated, people would go back to crossbows and any other implementation of delivering a rock at range.

All guns that fire live ammo are designed with the primary intention of killing. They were originally developed to fight wars and kill with as much efficiency as possible constantly becoming more accurate and reliable.

They fire a bullet accurately towards whatever you aim at, at 1000ft a sec or more, tell me what else is this useful for?

Also agree with daviddem people will react differently to certain situations depending on whether they have a gun or not.

What do you think poses a greater threat to human life, crossbows and catapults, or semi-automatic handguns and fully automatic weapons?

Guns are designed to kill that's indisputable.

[WillburForce]

Guns don't kill people, rappers do.

This argument is going no where.

Most Americans like guns and don't they should be banned.

Most Europeans don't like guns and are glad they're banned.

(trying hard not to put in a sneery comment)

[eugmac]

[daviddem]

Guns don't kill people, rappers do.

This argument is going no where.

Most Americans like guns and don't they should be banned.

Most Europeans don't like guns and are glad they're banned.

(trying hard not to put in a sneery comment)

Who said we wanted it to go somewhere? If we can't argue and troll for the sake of it on the intrawebs now, what are we going to do all day?

[spoonitnow]

Who said we wanted it to go somewhere? If we can't argue and troll for the sake of it on the intrawebs now, what are we going to do all day?

See this is where you're all wrong. It's going somewhere. Toot toot, motherfucker. Here comes the spoon train, about to penetrate your candy ass.

[daviddem]

Toot toot, motherfucker. Here comes the spoon train, about to penetrate your candy ass.

hard candy itt

[Lukie]

I post on an American football board and a gun topic came up in the community. Of course there I am actually arguing more as the anti-gun or at least anti-uber powerful weapony side.

Everybody hates the moderate.

[a500lbgorilla]

hard candy itt

What went on in that pic?

[a500lbgorilla]

Everybody hates the moderate.

That's a pretty extremist view.

[Pelion]

What went on in that pic?

Traincrash

[daviddem]

What went on in that pic?

http://newshopper.sulekha.com/india-...to_1124374.htm

[Jack Sawyer]

Logic is a weapon that hits hard

Predictably, Fox News used the news of a stabbing spree at a Houston college campus yesterday to advocate for more guns on campus. Today, on America Live, Megyn Kelly hosted hero student Stephen Maida who had tackled the stabber and brought him down with “just my fists.” And for no other apparent reason than to politicize it, she included in the discussion a Texas state senator who made the ridiculous argument that the entire situation proved the need for concealed guns on campus. Unfortunately for him, Maida wasn’t buying it.

Mediaite’s Matt Wilstein caught the flaw in Republican State Senator Dan Patrick’s argument that host Megyn Kelly seemed to miss:

Heaping praise of Maida, who he called a “hero,” Patrick asked what would have happened had the assailant been carrying a gun instead of a knife. “Stephen would have been helpless. He may have tried to tackle him with a gun, but he may have been shot.” By creating this hypothetical, Patrick glossed over the two major facts about this story that make it unique precisely because there were no guns involved: no one died and students were able to take down the assailant.

But Maida got it. He totally shot down Patrick's theory:

Seeing them with a gun just would worry me more. And to know how easy they get provoked and how crazy they can be. This kid, instead of stabbing people, he could have been shooting all 14 people and all 14 people could have been dead.

Of course, Patrick tried to keep arguing, saying that Maida missed the point. But it’s hard to dispute the perspective of the kid who brought down a potential killer with his bare hands. Nor the fact that what could easily have been another mass slaughter actually resulted in no deaths.

Vid here http://youtu.be/-ntrOHj0vPo

[oskar]

That's hilarious. Yah let's start an arms race between toddlers, great thinking! XD

[spoonitnow]

But it’s hard to dispute the perspective of the kid who brought down a potential killer with his bare hands.

All people are potential killers. Excellent logic there.