# Man shoots armed intruders



## KenpoTex (Oct 16, 2004)

It's nice to occasionally see a situation where the homeowner is not treated like a criminal and the criminals like victims.  

http://www.shelbycountyreporter.com/articles/2004/10/14/news/news03.txt



> Shelby resident shoots intruder - Three Georgia prison escapees still on loose.
> 
> By Patrick Crotty/Reporter Staff Writer
> Tuesday, October 12, 2004 2:09 PM CDT
> ...


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 16, 2004)

I'm lovin' it!


----------



## 8253 (Oct 18, 2004)

finally, a person protects himself and his property and dosent get in trouble.


----------



## Gary Crawford (Oct 18, 2004)

That's the great thing about escaped fugitives..they are always "in season"


----------



## Bammx2 (Oct 19, 2004)

Gary Crawford said:
			
		

> That's the great thing about escaped fugitives..they are always "in season"


I'm using that one!


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 20, 2004)

This is also a good case for advocating concealed carry--this was a home invasion the homeowner walked into rather than being inside as it happened. If, like most gun owners, he left all his guns in his home when he stepped out the door, he wouldn't have been able to protect his property upon returning.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 20, 2004)

> Four men *left the home quickly* as the homeowner fired several shots from a handgun.


Thoughts on this sentence? 

It seems that the homeowner was not in jeopardy of life or limb. Later in the report 'Curry', apparently the Shelby County Sherrif, is quoted as saying the intentions were "unknown", although the District Attorney reports the intentions were a "robbery".

Also, where in the report does it indicate the intruders were 'Armed'? ... which is how this thread is titled.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 20, 2004)

The key in this kind of case is too establish the intent of the four men in going into the home and the intent of the homeowner in his actions. 

The home did have firearms inside due to the owner getting a weapon I assume and being in that part of the country and outside of the city that would be a safe assumption. Then he had the possiblity of facing four armed intruders and now that the owner came home it becomes a felony and I assume the convicts are aware the law just as we are and burglarizing a occupied dwelling is a serious felony. 

He had every right to protect his life.


----------



## dearnis.com (Oct 20, 2004)

> At presstime, Tracy O. Mullins, 30, who was serving at least three years in a Georgia state prison for firearms possession and other offenses, was in the intensive care unit at UAB Hospital.
> 
> The three remaining fugitives were also Georgia state inmates and included: Joshua J. Thompson, 19, who was serving an 18-year sentence for voluntary manslaughter; Joseph M. Lee Jr., 21, who was serving at least 12 years for armed robbery and other offenses; and Micah D. Sheer, 22, who was serving 17 years for aggravated assault and burglary.




No mention was made of them being armed...or not being armed.  However, do you seriously believe that the homeowner was at no risk from this crew??  And yes, career criminals do frequently flee from "victims" directing fire at them.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 20, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> The key in this kind of case is too establish the intent of the four men in going into the home and the intent of the homeowner in his actions.
> 
> The home did have firearms inside due to the owner getting a weapon *I assume* and being in that part of the country and outside of the city that would be *a safe assumption*. Then he had the possiblity of facing four armed intruders and now that the owner came home it becomes a felony and I assume the convicts are aware the law just as we are and burglarizing a occupied dwelling is a serious felony.
> 
> He had every right to protect his life.


1) The District Attorney indicated the 'intent' was 'robbery'.
2) It is unclear if the home had firearms inside, or if the homeowner was carrying the weapon with him, or both. It is not safe to make an assumption that because a weapon is in the home that the intruders have access to the weapon. Don't you all keep your firearms in a gun safe? Do you keep your stored weapons loaded? It does not follow that the intruders had firearms.
3) Of course the Homeowner has every right to protect his life. The report seems to  indicate that his life was not in danger; the intruders "left the home quickly".



			
				dearnis.com said:
			
		

> No mention was made of them being armed...or not being armed. However, do you seriously believe that the homeowner was at no risk from this crew?? And yes, career criminals do frequently flee from "victims" directing fire at them.


From the article, it appears the intruders were fleeing before the victim began directing fire at them. I will grant you that the article does not state the homeowner shot the intruder in the back, but that is the way I read it.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 20, 2004)

In his civic duty as a citzen he had every right to stop a fleeing felony since they were just in his home committing a felony. 

There is no mention of what was being or even if any property was taken such as firearms, cash, or other valuables.


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 20, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> 1)
> 
> From the article, it appears the intruders were fleeing before the victim began directing fire at them. I will grant you that the article does not state the homeowner shot the intruder in the back, but that is the way I read it.



The perpetrator who was shot was wounded in the left side of his face, which means he was either looking over his shoulder while fleeing or facing the homeowner. There's a chance it entered his neck and exited his face, but I think they would have mentioned that. 

I think it's pretty clear that these guys were a threat to the homeowner. What would your reaction be to coming home and finding at least a few menacing guys rooting around in your house? Would they have fled if the homeowner brandished a fireplace poker at them? Probably not. He was perfectly justified in using the firearm as he saw fit. I'm sure the fugitives knew they were running that risk when they entered his home uninvited. Heck, they've been risking a violent end since they escaped from prison.   

Btw--here in Colorado this shooting would be considered justified under the "make my day" laws.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 20, 2004)

psi_radar, thank you for point out the injury was to the face. That is mentioned twice in the article, but I read right past it a couple of times.

I do question whether the intruders were any threat. I have read three other articles concerning this incident. All of them say the intruders were fleeing. I do not believe, from what I can read, that the homeowner was in any danger.

This is not to say that the intruders were boy scouts (or girl scouts). All four intruders have apparently escaped from a medium security prison. While it is unclear if the escapees are armed, currently, they are considered dangerous. 

At the time of the shooting, it appears that there was no way for the homeowner to know that these were escapees, or that they would be considered dangerous.

It seems that some are reading more facts in this story than actually presented in the article(s). At no point does the reporting indicate that the homeowner brandishing a weapon was the reason the intruders fled;  be that weapon a gun or a fireplace poker.

Mark_Weiser .... civic duty to shoot someone?


----------



## dearnis.com (Oct 20, 2004)

Michael;

I mean this question seriously; I'm not trying to pick a fight.
Why so concerned about a career criminal who picked the wrong house and got shot?  He made choices, they had consequences.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 20, 2004)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Michael;
> Why so concerned about a career criminal who picked the wrong house and got shot?


 



I am not concered about the career criminal who picked the wrong house. I am concerned about, and frankly a bit scared by, the response of the people who posted to this thread before me.Intruders are "in season" ? (at the time, the homeowner could not have known these were 'escaped fugitives'). 


Ronald McDonald with a gun?


​
It seems that there is little concern among the gun owners for "proportional response". The theory of proportional response comes from the ethical discussion of a 'Just War'; violence used must be in proportion to the injury suffered. 

Some have put forth the argument that the intruders were or could be assumed to be armed, because the homeowner was a gun owner, and could be assumed that guns are kept in the house. Of course, these assumptions are not backed up with facts. 

The county district attorney stated the invasion was a robbery, but there is no list of stolen goods. These guys could have been stealing Corn Flakes. For this, they get shot?

There is no report that the homeowner was threatened in any way. The report states the intruders were fleeing the scene. 

I was told it is a 'civic duty' to stop them. I don't own a gun, how would I, in a similar circumstance perform my civic duty?

Even the title of this thread is mis-labeled. There is no report that the intruders were armed. 

Of course, I know that walking into this Forum that the Gun Owners don't want my opinion. You aren't interested in an anti-gun position. But it seems that the posters to this thread are cheering the fact that someone got shot.

I went to a gathering recently. I spoke with a 16 year soldier, working toward his 20 years. He stated very clearly, that after having served in a live-fire situation, where people were shooting at him to kill, he would never raise his weapon toward a civilian. If an intruder came into his house, he would ask for a time-out to get himself and his family out of the house, and let the intruder take anything he wanted. This gentleman owns an Assault Weapon, which he purchased *just because* the Government had told him he wasn't going to be able to buy one. This gentleman is currently in an Army training center which will put him in charge of 500 soldiers on the battlefields of Iraq, planning all aspects of their duties. Seems to me his point of view was very reasonable (even if you think mine isn't). 

Said more simply, I believe the response of the homeowner was not in proportion to the actions of the intruder. I remain open to new facts. But until such facts make themselves known, I find his actions morally reprehensible.

Michael


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 20, 2004)

Well here in Kansas. Us country folk do not take kindly to people in our homes that are not invited by me or one of my family members. You as a criminal have a choice or risk to walk into anyone's house in Kansas and take the risk of being shot. That is a fact!

No one has the right to come into my house and steal my stuff I worked hard for and my wife as well. Saying that I would just walk out of my house and let them have free reign to pick over my stuff is immoral from my point of view.

The anti gun people would have us lay down like sheep and let the criminal element have free reign to run amok among the populace. I for one would rather have a few armed citzens and let the criminal elements roll the dice if they wish to commit crimes and take thier chances. Of course this is just an ole country boy from the sticks here in Kansas opinion and fact of life here.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 20, 2004)

> Said more simply, I believe the response of the homeowner was not in proportion to the actions of the intruder. I remain open to new facts. But until such facts make themselves known, I find his actions morally reprehensible.


 Mike, are you unconvinced that the authorities working the case are able to determine the justifiablity of the shoot?  

I think it's mighty difficult to glean the nuggets of absolute fact from the article, or any article for that matter.  I also tend to take the decision of the LEOs to charge or not as being something rooted in available evidence, likely seasoned with a bit of judgement based on the available information.  I think that statistically, they are usually on the mark as to whether or not to press charges in these circumstances.

I think that the crux of the thread is to celebrate the fact that for once, as it is rare, a homeowner was able to justifiably defend their home without being treated as a criminal.  That's a happy ending, if you ask me.

The reason I personally have any response to this at all is as a result of my NOT being able to make the choice of whether or not to carry.  Here, there is no such thing as a justifiable civilian shooting.  They may not get me for homicide, but they'll get me for reckless endangerment, manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death, and any weapons offenses they figure will stick.  For defending myself and my family in my home.  

If I am able to trust that the LEOs involved have done their job correctly (which I do), then I applaud the man for keeping his wits, not panicking, and making a clean shoot.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 20, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> No one has the right to come into my house and steal my stuff I worked hard for and my wife as well. Saying that I would just walk out of my house and let them have free reign to pick over my stuff is immoral from my point of view.


As factual as you deem it to be, Mark, theft, IMO, is not justification for ending a man's life.  That's why prisons were created.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 20, 2004)

Okay here is the main problem if you and your family are in your house and someone comes into your home while you are there. They hear voices, the car is in the drive, kids are laughing and the TV is on. 

Then you have to make the decision that they the criminal has the intent to do you harm due to the facts of you being home at the time. Then you have the right to defend yourself, your family and your property with all means at your disposal. Under Kansas Statues the Home Invasion is consider a felony and the home being occuiped implies intent of doing bodily harm. Therefore lethal force can be used in this kind of situation.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 20, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> No one has the right to come into my house and steal my stuff


And where, exactly, did you see me arguing that such activity was acceptable?



			
				Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> The anti gun people would have us lay down like sheep and let the criminal element have free reign to run amok among the populace


I don't know who you are discussing this with, because I certainly made no claim that the criminal element should be free to 'run amok'. I am quite certain I said no such thing. 



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> Mike, are you unconvinced that the authorities working the case are able to determine the justifiablity of the shoot?
> 
> I think it's mighty difficult to glean the nuggets of absolute fact from the article, or any article for that matter. I also tend to take the decision of the LEOs to charge or not as being something rooted in available evidence, likely seasoned with a bit of judgement based on the available information. I think that statistically, they are usually on the mark as to whether or not to press charges in these circumstances.


I am convinced of nothing and I am unconvinced of nothing. The district attorney has stated that he is not going to bring charges against the homeowner. Of course, with full knowledge, we know the intruder was an escaped convict. At the time of the shooting, the homeowner did not have that piece of information. Would the DA react the same if it was some indigent citizen who was shot? A returning Iraq Veteran? 

Yes, it is difficult to determine facts from three or four newspaper articles. But many in this thread are drawing as conclusion, facts that are not in evidence. (i.e. that the homeowner was defending himself, that the intruders were armed.)



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> I think that the crux of the thread is to celebrate the fact that for once, as it is rare, a homeowner was able to justifiably defend their home without being treated as a criminal. That's a happy ending, if you ask me.


With the evidence we have, we can be certain the homeowner did "defend" his home. But are we certain it his actions were 'justifiably' appropriate? 

The argument I am reading is that the homeowner was justified in shooting someone because: a) the person was in his house without permission, and b) the person was fleeing

I posit that the use of a firearm, with the intent to kill, was not "justified". That action was not warranted based on the theory of proportionality. This is a different argument than is the use of the weapon legal or not.



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> The reason I personally have any response to this at all is as a result of my NOT being able to make the choice .... For defending myself and my family in my home.
> 
> If I am able to trust that the LEOs involved have done their job correctly (which I do), then I applaud the man for keeping his wits, not panicking, and making a clean shoot.


There is no evidence that the homeowner was 'defending' anything. I am open to new facts. But according to the reporting, the intruders were fleeing the scene. There was no reported threat to the homeowner. The use of deadly force was not required.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 20, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> Okay here is the main problem if you and your family are in your house and someone comes into your home while you are there. They hear voices, the car is in the drive, kids are laughing and the TV is on.
> 
> Then you have to make the decision that they the criminal has the intent to do you harm due to the facts of you being home at the time. Then you have the right to defend yourself, your family and your property with all means at your disposal. Under Kansas Statues the Home Invasion is consider a felony and the home being occuiped implies intent of doing bodily harm. Therefore lethal force can be used in this kind of situation.


No argument from me.

However, in this case, the facts do not play out as you describe. The intruders were in the home. The homeowner came home. The intruders attempted to flee the scene. From these facts (or statements) can you draw the conclusion there was an "intent of doing bodily harm"?


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 20, 2004)

Well more educated and trained people are in power in that county and we or the homeowner have to rely on those same people to make those judgements.


----------



## Sharp702 (Oct 20, 2004)

Wish to respectfully add my two cents.

I am a gun owner, and largely support gun ownership. I also do not feel that normal citizens owe any explanation or duty to a criminal (and by invading a home you are a criminal). 

That said the law does not fully agree with my opinion. On the other hand you have to judge what is a resonable action when you are out numbered in your own home. I don't think you can just ask them to leave, and you cannot be sure they are armed. I think it is resonable to conclude that if someone is breaking into a house that they are armed in some way.


----------



## Van Kuen (Oct 20, 2004)

Something my stepdad used to tell me when I was a teenager...
was that when someone breaks into your home and has the intent to commit a crime, it's very likely that if he were to be caught in the act, that he would do everything in his power to get away with it and not be caught or identified.   

This means at any given moment he can go from being a theif, to a murderer.  If you fail to act (IE shoot the guy) you may be the one who was shot and killed and your family as well.  He always told me to shoot to kill...not injure, and that the very fact they're in your home is justification .  IF you shoot and injure you may be sued by that very indiviual and found liable, and in addition, you run the risk of the same guy coming back in retaliation.  

Personally, I don't feel sorry for any criminal that gets killed.  You act, and you reap the consequences.   Vet or homeless guy or ex con...if he wasnt there he wouldn't have been shot.  Bottom line.  Screw the liberal attitude.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 20, 2004)

> Personally, I don't feel sorry for any criminal that gets killed. You act, and you reap the consequences. Vet or homeless guy or ex con...if he wasnt there he wouldn't have been shot. Bottom line. Screw the liberal attitude.


Wow.  I'm going to have to totally disagree with you on this one.  We should try, as a society, to make a punishment/retribution fit the crime.  If someone is breaking into my home when I am there and I am cornered, or seem to be threatening me, that is the same to you as entering an empty house to rob, but not to attack someone?

Another instance: a woman I know has been having a problem with her neighbors.  They fight, the kids run wild, etc.  The kids, who seem to have a very crappy home environment, have surprised her by wandering through her house at odd hours - sometimes to get a drink of water out of her tap (?!?!).

If I'm startled in my home, and I shoot at a perceived intruder, is it OK to wing (or kill) anyone, or do they have to look like criminals?  If she heard someone messing around in her house, should she have grabbed her gun and shot?


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 20, 2004)

You have to use reasonable judgement and security measures to ensure your safety. 


Post on the Entrances that you have weapons in the home and you have used the weapon before. You can even make fake newspaper stories about homeowner kills burglar, etc....
Lights on over the doors and in the area of ground floor windows. 
Lock your doors and if needed place a 2 inch roofing nail into the Window frames of all ground floor windows. 
Place a dowel or broom stick in the Sliding doorframe.
Get a dog that barks at the slightest outside noise.  
She needs to keep her house secure from intruders no matter whom they are. People have been killed just doing the same thing those kids are doing and no criminal charges aganist the home owner or renter.


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 20, 2004)

I'm a liberal and owner of many, many guns. I think the issue's getting a little blurred here. Let me tell you a story that helps to enlighten my pespective.

I went to high school with a terrific girl whose father was killed on New Year's eve, 1985. Two men had entered their home, probably expecting the family to be out enjoying a party. Instead, they surprised the parents in bed, and probably themselves as well. The father, naturally, tried to defend himself, his home, and his family. While struggling with one of the intruders, he was shot by the other and died on his own bed. He was a brown belt in Kenpo at the time of his death. I dated the daughter after college; she still hadn't recovered from the loss. Last I heard the perps were both on death row. I imagine they're gone now, too. 

Those intruders probably didn't go into their house with the intent to kill the occupants, but they were prepared to do so if things went bad. The thing about home invasion is, there probably isn't a whole lot of time for negotiation. If my friend's father had a gun nearby rather than just his Kenpo skills, it could have made all the difference in their lives. If someone comes into my house, I will assume the worst, and act accordingly. That does not mean wanton spraying of lead at strange noises, but the elimination of confirmed threats to my and my family's safety. That doesn't include 10-year olds looking for a glass of water (has that woman ever heard of locks? or how about telling the kids they can't do that), or a kid jumping my fence to retrieve a ball. I mean, c'mon. It's not a contradiction to be a moral person and still be willing to deliver whatever force necessary in the event of a breach to you and yours' safety.  

As for the case in question, I don't really see how the intruders could not be seen as a threat. Put yourself in the homeowner's position, Micheal. You don't know how many people are in your home, but there's more than a couple. If I came home and found this crew in my home, I would have reacted in exactly the same way. The way I look at it, the other three were lucky they weren't shot as well.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 21, 2004)

Good points. I used to have firearms in my home due to my work as a Deputy Sheriff but now I keep non firearm weapons in my home. Kama's, Chinese Broad Sword, Escrima Sticks, Bo Staff keep in locations around my home currently. As well as a few knifes. However the Neighborhood knows I am an Instructor of MA so I am safe unless a idot breaks in.


----------



## GAB (Oct 21, 2004)

Michael,

I know that you are a fisherman from the Avatar and the various comments you have given. When you mentioned in this post you don't own a gun I was surprised.
When out fishing the back woods no gun, nada???

Just curious, no need in your mind, or you are against firearms in general?

Regards, Gary


----------



## dearnis.com (Oct 21, 2004)

Proportionality is an issue of punishment vs. retribution; this is a case of neither.  The homeowner (presumably) shot out of fear for his safety.  Be aware that in Louisiana it is legal to fire through a locked exterior door to prevent an individual from making entry into one's dwelling.

Also note that robbery is not defined in terms of property taken, that is theft.  Robbery, by definition, is the use of force, or threatened use of force (including the implication of weapon whether or not one is displayed), to overcome resistance to the taking or attempted taking of property.  Critical differences: Robbery is a person to person encounter based on violence by the offender.  Note that the men were also committing a burglary (entry into a residence or dwelling with the intent to commit a crime therein).  Combine the two and you get the beloved home invasion, or the often tragic "homeowner returns and suprises burglar."
All these me had records of violent and weapons offences; it is a shame anyone got shot, but this headline is far preferable to "Homeowner assaulted; 4 escaped cons remain at large....victim remains in ICU following a sustained beating....."
Michael- Thank you for the answers; I dis-agree with you but I do now see where you are coming from.


----------



## KenpoTex (Oct 21, 2004)

Boy, I forget to check for a couple of days and this thread goes nuts...

I'm not going to address specific comments/posts because I don't have time right now but I will make a couple of points.

1.  I apologize for the misleading thread title (armed intruders), I just copied the article and title from another forum without carefully reading the article.  

2.  To those that think "gun-people" are happy with incidents like this because someone was shot, you are wrong.  In my case at least, it is becuase this case represents one of the increasingly rare times that the homeowner/victim was not subjected to more "post-incident" legal hassle than the slime that perpetrated the crime.

3.  Does a situation of this nature justify [potentially] deadly force?  In my opinion, Yes.  Is killing someone over a wallet or a t.v. set "appropriate to the crime?" IMO that shouldn't be an issue.  When someone commits a crime of this nature (or any other) they aren't saying "give me your wallet or t.v."  they're saying that "_my_ desires supercede your right to _your_ life or _your_ property"  I'm not saying that capital punishment should be the penalty burglary or robbery but that the whole "you weren't justified in shooting/stabbing him because your life wasn't threatend" idea is bogus.  As some of you have said, how many times to we hear of someone getting killed because they walked in on a burglar, or some dirtbag killing someone after robbing them so there would be no one to identify them.  If someone commits a crime against a person I think that there is always implied if not explicit threat of violence.  For example, someone walks up to you and demands your wallet.  He doesn't have any weapons but it is safe to assume that should you refuse to comply with his demands he will use force to impose his will.  He's not just going to say "Oh okay, I'll try someone else, sorry to bother you" when you refuse.      
  I read an article somewhere that stated that most burglaries occur during the day as there is less chance of the criminal encountering a homeowner.  In other words, the criminals that don't want, or are unwilling to use force prefer to avoid the homeowners entirely.  On the other hand, when a criminal enters a house he knows to be occupied he is probably prepared and certainly much more willing/likely to resort to violence. Therefore, if someone breaks into your home while you are there it is safe to assume that he is a threat and should be dealt with accordingly.  In the situation dicussed in the article, armed or not, 4 men definately pose a threat that justifies the use of deadly force.  The article said that *"Four men left the home quickly as the homeowner fired several shots from a handgun."*  Did they act in a threatinging manner prior to him opening fire? Who knows.  All I know is that I would probably have done the same thing the homeowner did.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 21, 2004)

GAB said:
			
		

> Michael,
> 
> I know that you are a fisherman from the Avatar and the various comments you have given. When you mentioned in this post you don't own a gun I was surprised.
> When out fishing the back woods no gun, nada???
> ...


No Gun. No Need. And I am against firearms in general. In North America, Homo Sapiens are the top of the food chain. The only two critters we need to be concerned with are Sharks (I don't go in the water) and Grizzly Bears (saw a nasty story recently). In all cases, attacks on humans are very rare from these animals.  We probably have more need to be cautious around dogs.

Although, in late August, I was walking through the woods and damned near tripped over a Moose ... having a moose stand up in front of you in the woods at dawn will certainly get your pulse going ... Moose are BIG! But I wasn't in any danger.

The statistics show that guns are dangerous. People get shot, intentionally and otherswise. And I just don't think society is nearly as scary as some describe it.

****

Again, in this thread, it seems people are arguing that the homeowner was justified in the shooting. But the bad guy was running away (according to the news report). 

So, let's look at this hypothetical, a group of intruders are in my home, I drive up my driveway and they flee ..... How far can I chase them and still be justified in using a weapon?


----------



## Sharp702 (Oct 21, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Wow. I'm going to have to totally disagree with you on this one. We should try, as a society, to make a punishment/retribution fit the crime.


Punishment will never fit the crime. Look at lethal injection and compare to how the person killed someone to end up there.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 21, 2004)

> So, let's look at this hypothetical, a group of intruders are in my home, I drive up my driveway and they flee ..... How far can I chase them and still be justified in using a weapon?


 I don't think that you're ever justified in shooting someone who is trying to run away from you.


----------



## GAB (Oct 21, 2004)

Hi Michael and Flatlander,

I agree. In California we had the fleeing felon stat. I have not checked the penal code in years, probably not in it anymore, or rewritten as I remember it.

Regards, Gary


----------



## GAB (Oct 21, 2004)

Hi Michael,

I see your side of the story, very common thought pattern.

While on the job years ago, Laws different and all that. I have been close to many many shootings after the fact. One thing I am grateful for while on the job, I was fortunate not to have to take someones life. I was willing but only under the proper code of law and morality/ethics within me...

I knew and worked with a guy if I mentioned who it was everyone would know him for his role in a series years ago. Very good man and a real good person...But, he was in numerous shootings and never returned fire, hit several times(saved by vest and belt buckle). Minor injuries. Partners always got the guy. They pensioned him off the job because he was unable to do the job and I think it finally got to him, being shot at so many times in a very short career.

When asked, he said I will not take someones life or shoot someone...
He may have felt he could have done it when he came on, but after years of seeing the trajedy of death etc. he was not able to make that commitment.

Partners would not work with him, rightfully so I think, but they offered him a pension and he took it. 

Now he was a person some admired and others felt very different, especially when the bullets were flying...

Back to the thread, I very much understand your position, I think...therefore I am able, experience has helped. 30 years ago I would have been less inclined to agree.

This one is a no brainer though.

Regards, Gary


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 21, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> In North America, Homo Sapiens are the top of the food chain. The only two critters we need to be concerned with are Sharks (I don't go in the water) and Grizzly Bears (saw a nasty story recently)
> 
> Although, in late August, I was walking through the woods and damned near tripped over a Moose ... having a moose stand up in front of you in the woods at dawn will certainly get your pulse going ... Moose are BIG! But I wasn't in any danger.



Hi Michael,
Top of the food chain, yes we are. But spend some time camping in northern Montana, you might be convinced to pack some heat. And don't go running at dawn or dusk in the mountains near me, you'll look awfully tempting to a mountain lion. You probably don't need a gun against animals where you live. Do you advocate gun ownership for hunting? Btw, be careful around Moose, they can be dangerous if they feel like messing with you. Impressive animals.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> The statistics show that guns are dangerous. People get shot, intentionally and otherswise. And I just don't think society is nearly as scary as some describe it.



Perhaps true, but scary things do happen. Read the story from my last post. And accidental shootings can be mitigated by proper safety, care and training.

Y'know, I just don't understand how a martial artist can be anti-gun. In the end it's just another tool in the toolbox for the same means. I'm liberal in every other regard but this one. I just don't get it.

****


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Again, in this thread, it seems people are arguing that the homeowner was justified in the shooting. But the bad guy was running away (according to the news report).


 We don't know what was happening when the shooting began. We do know one intruder was shot in the face, which means at least his face was turned in the direction of the shooter.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, let's look at this hypothetical, a group of intruders are in my home, I drive up my driveway and they flee ..... How far can I chase them and still be justified in using a weapon?


 I don't know the legal answer to this question, but I would think you could threaten with the use of force to detain the criminals, and then use it if they don't comply, tempered with the severity of their offense, of course. That's what the police do, no? Me, personally, I wouldn't shoot anyone in the back--unless they did something truly horrible back in my home.

I didn't infer this "running away" scenario from the story in question. From the ballistic evidence we can assume the burglar/invader/perp was facing him. If the homeowner was using a pistol, which we don't know for sure, he would have had to been pretty close to a relatively stationary target to make this as an aimed shot.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 21, 2004)

*This thread got me to think and research my States Statues on this topic and here are the Kansas Statues pertaining to this story. *

*22-2403*

*Chapter 22.--CRIMINAL PROCEDURE**KANSAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE**Article 24.--ARREST*

 *22-2403.* *Arrest by private person.* A person who is not a law enforcement officer may arrest another person when: 

      (1)   A felony has been or is being committed and the person making the arrest has probable cause to believe that the arrested person is guilty thereof; or       (2)   any crime, other than a traffic infraction or a cigarette or tobacco infraction, has been or is being committed by the arrested person in the view of the person making the arrest. 

21-3216​​*Chapter 21.--CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS**PART I.--GENERAL PROVISIONS**Part 2.--Prohibited Conduct**Article 32.--PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINALLIABILITY*

 *21-3216.* *Private person's use of force in making arrest.* (1) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a law enforcement officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.       (2)   A private person who is summoned or directed by a law enforcement officer to assist in making an arrest which is unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful. 
*21-3211*

*Chapter 21.--CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS**PART I.--GENERAL PROVISIONS**Part 1.--GENERAL PROVISIONS**Article 32.--PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINALLIABILITY* *21-3211.* *Use of force in defense of a person.* A person is justified in the use of force against an aggressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such aggressor's imminent use of unlawful force.

*21-3212*

*Chapter 21.--CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS**PART I.--GENERAL PROVISIONS**Part 1.--GENERAL PROVISIONS**Article 32.--PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINALLIABILITY* *21-3212.* *Use of force in defense of dwelling.* A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his dwelling.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 21, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Hi Michael,
> Top of the food chain, yes we are. But spend some time camping in northern Montana, you might be convinced to pack some heat. And don't go running at dawn or dusk in the mountains near me, you'll look awfully tempting to a mountain lion. You probably don't need a gun against animals where you live. Do you advocate gun ownership for hunting? Btw, be careful around Moose, they can be dangerous if they feel like messing with you. Impressive animals.


Guns are fine for hunting. Guns are fine for target shooting. 
They are not welcome in my home.

Most animals want to be left alone. With just a bit of awareness as to where you are, there is seldom any danger in the wild. 




			
				psi_radar said:
			
		

> Perhaps true, but scary things do happen. Read the story from my last post. And accidental shootings can be mitigated by proper safety, care and training.


And yet, in this country, accidental shootings are not mitigated. They occur every day, many times over. 



			
				psi_radar said:
			
		

> Y'know, I just don't understand how a martial artist can be anti-gun. In the end it's just another tool in the toolbox for the same means. I'm liberal in every other regard but this one. I just don't get it.


I doubt that I will ever be called upon to actually use the kenpo tools in the toolbox. I am studying kenpo to learn patience and self-discipline, to keep physically fit and mentally alert. If faced with danger of the human kind, I would run away.




			
				psi_radar said:
			
		

> We don't know what was happening when the shooting began. We do know one intruder was shot in the face, which means at least his face was turned in the direction of the shooter.
> 
> I don't know the legal answer to this question, but I would think you could threaten with the use of force to detain the criminals, and then use it if they don't comply, tempered with the severity of their offense, of course. That's what the police do, no? Me, personally, I wouldn't shoot anyone in the back--unless they did something truly horrible back in my home.
> 
> I didn't infer this "running away" scenario from the story in question. From the ballistic evidence we can assume the burglar/invader/perp was facing him. If the homeowner was using a pistol, which we don't know for sure, he would have had to been pretty close to a relatively stationary target to make this as an aimed shot.


We do know what the report tells us. But we can not infer that the homeowner was threatened because the report doesn't mention it. 

And it is not appropriate to compare the actions of a homeowner with those of a law enforcement officer. Law enforcement officers are given rights that citizens are not given in order to carry out their jobs.

Looking quickly are Mark Weisers definitions below, I read it fairly clearly that the homeowner does not have the use of force unless there is a threat against him or another that is likely to cause 'death or great bodily harm'. If the intruders were running away (and you can argue that they were not, but in four articles I read, not one mentioned any threat to the homeowner), they are not likely to cause 'death or great bodily harm'.

I know I am a peace-nik, and out of place in this swimming pool. But I think an honest review of the first 6 or 8 posts in this thread does show enthusiasm for the shooting.

Thanks - Mike


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 21, 2004)

One of my points went unaddressed, and I'm curious about what you think.  I had said that I am prone to accept the police's decision whether or not to press charges on the homeowner.  Here, they don't seem to find it necessary.  Do you not trust they would apply the law fairly in this circumstance?

I make no secret that I trust the police to do the right thing most of the time - it is in my nature.  I'm wondering where you are with that, Mike.  Perhaps it is there that we'll find where our philosophies deviate.  I believe that for the most part, we're fairly parallel.


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 21, 2004)

Nothing wrong with being a peacenik, Mike. I've been shooting since I was eight, so guns have always been there with me. I know they make some people uncomfortable. I could debate gun ethics with you forever. Let's agree to disagree. Personally, I have a safe for my guns and handle them with extreme respect.



> Most animals want to be left alone.


And some are good with ketchup. Sorry, couldn't resist. 



> With just a bit of awareness as to where you are, there is seldom any danger in the wild.



Agreed, yet I reiterate, if you're in the Bob Marshall wilderness and hear a grizzly crashing around your campsite, a firearm is comforting. I'm talking about the exception, not the rule, but it's naive to think it never happens. Recently I was backcountry canoeing in Yellowstone and a ranger cautioned us to look out for moose--one had torn up a campsite next to ours less than a week before and chased the occupants.



> We do know what the report tells us. But we can not infer that the homeowner was threatened because the report doesn't mention it.



Having four unwelcomed strangers in your house IS a threat to your safety. It is an initiation of a criminal act upon you. If I was attacked on the street by four unarmed men, I'd be justified in using a gun to defend myself according to most violence continuums.

Michael, I agree with you on most points, but we simply diverge on this one. I don't find any glee in a man being shot, but I find it justified in this instance, from the evidence we know.


----------



## Sharp702 (Oct 21, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And it is not appropriate to compare the actions of a homeowner with those of a law enforcement officer. Law enforcement officers are given rights that citizens are not given in order to carry out their jobs.
> 
> I know I am a peace-nik, and out of place in this swimming pool. But I think an honest review of the first 6 or 8 posts in this thread does show enthusiasm for the shooting.
> 
> Thanks - Mike


I think we should be able to compare actions of law enforcement to citizens. Citizens have a right to defend both themselves and their property. 

We are talking about productive citizens being disrupted by criminals. As for the law, prison is a failure at curbing crime. Over 70% of prisoners get out and turn around and commit crime and end up back in. Productive citizens should not have to suffer criminal behavior.

As for determing if someone is in danger or not, how much more proof do you need of being in danger than when another person invades your very home.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 21, 2004)

Sharp702 said:
			
		

> I think we should be able to compare actions of law enforcement to citizens. Citizens have a right to defend both themselves and their property.


This must be American.  Here in Canada, the only justifiable defense is when personal safety is an issue.  We value human life over TVs and stereos. 



			
				Sharp702 said:
			
		

> We are talking about productive citizens being disrupted by criminals.


You don't know how productive these particular citizens are.  These aren't facts.  And "disruption" is not a defensible position either.





			
				Sharp702 said:
			
		

> As for the law, prison is a failure at curbing crime. Over 70% of prisoners get out and turn around and commit crime and end up back in. Productive citizens should not have to suffer criminal behavior.


With execution?  That's pretty hardline... sounds like Islamic Law to me.



			
				Sharp702 said:
			
		

> As for determing if someone is in danger or not, how much more proof do you need of being in danger than when another person invades your very home.


 Intent to commit bodily harm.  Threatening gestures or speech.  Brandishing a weapon.


----------



## Van Kuen (Oct 21, 2004)

I believe I've seen a couple of instances in these last few posts that are basically talking about threat assessment during the event.  OF course this is a necessity, (all LE officers go through shoot-don't shoot scenarios) and to me that is inherent.  But also keep in mind that if you find someone in your home at night and visibility is low and you can't tell if that person has a weapon or not, you can only assume that they do given the nature of the crime.  To tell someone to wait till you can confirm that a weapon is "without a doubt" there could also mean the end of your life.  That's like telling a soldier in the middle east right now to wait till the suicide bomber blows up next to you before you start firing.   I'm not saying shoot at every sound and moving shadow, but there is a limit in addressing this issue.   IF someone presents themselves as a threat, your damn right they are going to be treated that way.  

There is a saying - "you will never see the knife that kills you."  This is something that assassins and criminals all over the world adhere by.  So do you want to risk you or your family's lives by taking that extra chance?


----------



## Sharp702 (Oct 21, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> This must be American. Here in Canada, the only justifiable defense is when personal safety is an issue. We value human life over TVs and stereos.


 You do realize that some human life is completely worthless, and in some cases hazardous to prosperous human life? 



> You don't know how productive these particular citizens are. These aren't facts. And "disruption" is not a defensible position either.With execution? That's pretty hardline... sounds like Islamic Law to me.


 I know for a fact that criminals are unproductive, and have no place in society. The prison system in its current form is a failure, and the law cannot do anything until a crime is commited. The only way to not become a victim is to take action. You cannot reason with a criminal. A popular saying among inmates is that if they break into a house to steal something, and there is a female there as well then they will "Steal" that to. 

An old friends cousin was a peacefull person until he got robbed and shot in the neck over $20, now he is a dead person. You are not dealing with reasonable people.



> Intent to commit bodily harm. Threatening gestures or speech. Brandishing a weapon.


 So breaking into someones home is not a threatening gesture?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 21, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> One of my points went unaddressed, and I'm curious about what you think. I had said that I am prone to accept the police's decision whether or not to press charges on the homeowner. Here, they don't seem to find it necessary. Do you not trust they would apply the law fairly in this circumstance?


Sorry for leaving something out ... I put 500 miles on my car today, and 4 hours or training ... I got to make a quick post between miles 231 and 232.

I have always had the highest level of trust in Law Enforcement. The only exception is in one of the threads on this board, some of the Law Enforcement Officers made statements that have me worried. I hope those statements are outside the mainstream. I continue to place uniformed officers in the realm of high respect.

This particular incident is quite unique, I think. The police officers and the district attorney have a different set of facts than were available to the homeowner. With the facts they have, it seems completely reasonable to not press charges for the discharge of the weapon, they are escaped convicts, after all. In Georgia, the homeowner could very well be elected Mayor. 

On the other hand, does the American Civil Liberties Union have the potential for a suit against the homeowner, or the county officials? Currently, I do not think there are enough facts in evidence. I have said before, I remain open to new information. But, let's look at the article.

"_he came home_"
"_the owner of the residence encountered several people inside when he came up on the porch_"
"_Four men left the home quickly as the homeowner fired several shots from a handgun._"
"_He said the white Jeep Cherokee was parked around the back of the home._"

OK ... Let's assume that we are not talking about escaped convicts, but rather some high school kids crankin' the neighborhood nightshift guy. The guy comes home early, the kids run away and one gets shot. 

Would the *kid* have the right to sue for recklessness? 
Would it be OK if the county officials said to the kid, tough luck, stay out of his property?
Would you be upset if the county officials *took no action* against the homeowner for shooting a prank kid? 

Having the hindsight that the intruders were escaped convicts doesn't mediate these questions. In my hypothetical, the kid would certainly have the right to sue, although he might very well lose. If the county officials were so callous, I think some might be upset. Certianly, some action against the home owner would be appropriate, if only a gun safety course, to perhaps review the 'shoot-don't shoot' topic listed above.

None of the articles I have seen on this topic indicate that the homeowner was in any danger. I have listed two links to news reports on this story. They essentially say the same thing as the one starting this thread. I read at least one more that was as comprehensive. But, as they are news paper articles, they have a limited shelf-life on the internet. Most of the stuff I was finding were abbreviated reports, cheering the use of the firearm, with out including the information I listed above in italics.

Again, as I read these stories .... THEY WERE RUNNING AWAY. He was coming up the front door, they were going out the back door. (Yes, I know the shot in the face ... but, could he have been entering the vehicle from the far side ... forcing him to face the shooter?).

So, Flatlander, it really is less about the law and more about the ethics.

Thanks for listening. Mike

Incidently, the three remaining fugatives have been apprehended. This is reported in the first link.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6235940/

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=70321
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/109757252233170.xml


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 21, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Having four unwelcomed strangers in your house IS a threat to your safety. It is an initiation of a criminal act upon you.


Even if you are not at home? How can your safety be threatened if you are not present? 



			
				psi_radar said:
			
		

> If I was attacked on the street by four unarmed men, I'd be justified in using a gun to defend myself according to most violence continuums.


Of course you would be justified in that circumstance. But, there was no attack going on, at least according to the reporting. What was going on was 'Running Away'.




			
				Sharp702 said:
			
		

> We are talking about productive citizens being disrupted by criminals. . . .


Actually, according to the report, the productive citizen disrupted the criminals. They were in his un-occupied house. Yes, that's bad. He came home. They ran away. He shot them.  

It's a bit semantic, I know. But, what might have happened if the homeowner stopped for a cup of coffee at the diner before going home after work ... the criminals might have gotten a hot meal, maybe some spare change and been on their way. Is that good or bad ... who's to say?



			
				Sharp702 said:
			
		

> As for determing if someone is in danger or not, how much more proof do you need of being in danger than when another person invades your very home.


Again, You* kind of have to be there* to be in danger. The homeowner wasn't home ... how could he be in danger? 
In the words of Homer Simpson  "Doh!".


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 21, 2004)

Sharp702 said:
			
		

> You do realize that some human life is completely worthless, and in some cases hazardous to prosperous human life?


 Hazardous?  Yes.  All criminals?  No, that would be a hasty generalization.  There are some for whom rehabilitation works, unless of course they're dead.
Worthless?  No.  I am neither sufficiently poisoned by cynicism nor biased enough to agree with this.



			
				Sharp702 said:
			
		

> I know for a fact that criminals are unproductive, and have no place in society.


What is the source for this "fact"?  Define unproductive in your context, please.  I am certain that there are people out there who commit crimes to feed their families.  In a way, this is productive, though unlawful.





			
				Sharp702 said:
			
		

> The prison system in its current form is a failure, and the law cannot do anything until a crime is commited.


If the prison system is a failure, perhaps reforming it may be a more humane way of dealing with the problem, as opposed to gunning down the people it was established to rehabilitate.  What would you have the law do as opposed to respond to crime?





			
				Sharp702 said:
			
		

> The only way to not become a victim is to take action.  You cannot reason with a criminal.


This reads a lot like "You can only shoot and kill criminals.  There is no alternative."  Please tell me you don't really believe this stuff.  That would make YOU criminal.  At the very least a human rights violator, were you ever to "take action" based on this premise. 





			
				Sharp702 said:
			
		

> A popular saying among inmates is that if they break into a house to steal something, and there is a female there as well then they will "Steal" that to.


Really?  How popular is this "saying"?  Because you heard it somewhere it instantly applies to all criminals?  Once again, this is the logical fallacy of hasty generalization.





			
				Sharp702 said:
			
		

> An old friends cousin was a peacefull person until he got robbed and shot in the neck over $20, now he is a dead person. You are not dealing with reasonable people.


I'm sorry for your friend's loss.  However this is one incident, and it would be fallacious to assume that no person who has committed a crime is either a) unable to reason, or b) unable to be rehabilitated. 


			
				Sharp702 said:
			
		

> So breaking into someones home is not a threatening gesture.


Threatening toward property, yes.  Toward someone's personal safety?  That would depend upon a) whether someone was there to be a victim, and b) what type of threatening behaviour was exhibited.  

Anyone who is carrying a sidearm who is unable to assess the situation that they are in ought not be carrying that sidearm.  If they are not able to deploy the sidearm in an extremely quick fashion, in all likelyhood that sidearm will never save them.

People who do not know how, when, and why to use their sidearms ought ot disarm.  They are both a danger to the public, and by being the "bad statistic", a detriment to the people who legitimately fight to protect their right to carry.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 21, 2004)

Had a guy here in my area disarm an armed robber. The robber ran away and the victim chased him down the street firing away. Hit the robber in the arm. Robber arrested. Victim was arrested too.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 21, 2004)

Flatlander I have to agree with you that those whom take upon the responsiblity of carrying a firearm should have the reasoning capcity to evale and assess the danger he or she is in and take the action neccessary. 

I have said to my family and friends that for those wishing to carry a firearm such as a pistol the following should be considered.


Military and or LEO experience 
Training course on shooting, cleaning and care of a weapon of choice
Course on Shoot or Dont Shoot 
Videos and Pictures of shooting victims incorporated into the program or even watching a autospy of a shooting victim. This way the person knows what will happen when the bullet hits a human target.


----------



## Sharp702 (Oct 21, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Actually, according to the report, the productive citizen disrupted the criminals. They were in his un-occupied house. Yes, that's bad. He came home. They ran away. He shot them.
> 
> It's a bit semantic, I know. But, what might have happened if the homeowner stopped for a cup of coffee at the diner before going home after work ... the criminals might have gotten a hot meal, maybe some spare change and been on their way. Is that good or bad ... who's to say?


I am going to guess that most of this was a joke?

If not I will still reply. 

I don't think you can disrupt someone in your own home. If it doesn't belong to them they shouldn't be there, and they should be ready to face whatever consequences come from invading another persons living space.

What do you mean "Whos to say?"  How is a criminal getting a hot meal, and spare change good? To what right did the criminals have getting a hot meal and spare change out of someones property?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 21, 2004)

Sharp702 said:
			
		

> I am going to guess that most of this was a joke?
> 
> If not I will still reply.
> 
> ...


It is in no way whatsoever a joke.

I am making the argument that not all 'wrongs' are equal. Your posts concerning criminals indicates that you believe this is not a valid argument. Please feel free to hold that opinion. I believe you are wrong.

Throughout this thread, I have been attempting to address the actions of the homeowner. I am not trying to discuss what the local sherriff or district attorney have done. Nor am I trying to discuss the actions of the intruders.

From the articles, the intruders were running away. Because of this fact, I do not believe the homeowner was justified in his use of a firearm.

I am not trying to justify the actions of the intruders. They were wrong to be in the house. They did not have the 'right' to be in the house. Bad Criminals. But are you arguing that because they were *in the house*, the use of deadly force was ethical?

Let's suppose, Homeowner came home to find escaped convict sleeping peacefully on his couch. Would the homeowner be justified in shooting the escaped convict in the head while he slept? (Bad Criminal - In house without permission)


----------



## Sharp702 (Oct 21, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Hazardous? Yes. All criminals? No, that would be a hasty generalization. There are some for whom rehabilitation works, unless of course they're dead.
> Worthless? No. I am neither sufficiently poisoned by cynicism nor biased enough to agree with this.
> What is the source for this "fact"? Define unproductive in your context, please. I am certain that there are people out there who commit crimes to feed their families. In a way, this is productive, though unlawful.


By productive, I define as a contributing(pays taxes, owns property..ect) to society in positive ways. Upholding laws are vital to this or society is pointless. Criminal behavior is both unlawfull and unproductive.




> If the prison system is a failure, perhaps reforming it may be a more humane way of dealing with the problem, as opposed to gunning down the people it was established to rehabilitate.


 Right now the prison system is based apon rehabillitation, not punishment. Rehabillitation does not work in the vast majority of cases. I think it is time to give a system of punishment a try to test results.




> This reads a lot like "You can only shoot and kill criminals. There is no alternative." Please tell me you don't really believe this stuff. That would make YOU criminal. At the very least a human rights violator, were you ever to "take action" based on this premise.


I don't think people should blast away at everything. If someone runs, or gives up then thats the end of using force. If someone becomes combative or does not comply then force should be used. 



> Really? How popular is this "saying"? Because you heard it somewhere it instantly applies to all criminals? Once again, this is the logical fallacy of hasty generalization.


 I did not simply hear it somewhere. I have experience  with criminals. A friend is also a criminal psychologist. Thinking that criminals are reasonable people, or that because they broke into steal dosn't mean that they won't harm you or your family is a dangerous hasty generalization.





> I'm sorry for your friend's loss. However this is one incident, and it would be fallacious to assume that no person who has committed a crime is either a) unable to reason, or b) unable to be rehabilitated.
> Threatening toward property, yes. Toward someone's personal safety? That would depend upon a) whether someone was there to be a victim, and b) what type of threatening behaviour was exhibited.


 By the time you find out if they can be reasoned with it will very likely be too late if you are incorrect. Also, not everyone deserves the chance of rehabilitation. 



> Anyone who is carrying a sidearm who is unable to assess the situation that they are in ought not be carrying that sidearm. If they are not able to deploy the sidearm in an extremely quick fashion, in all likelyhood that sidearm will never save them.


 I agree.



> People who do not know how, when, and why to use their sidearms ought ot disarm. They are both a danger to the public, and by being the "bad statistic", a detriment to the people who legitimately fight to protect their right to carry.


 I very much agree.


----------



## Sharp702 (Oct 21, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It is in no way whatsoever a joke.
> 
> I am making the argument that not all 'wrongs' are equal. Your posts concerning criminals indicates that you believe this is not a valid argument. Please feel free to hold that opinion. I believe you are wrong.
> 
> ...


I am afraid I did not fully understand the point you were attempting to make at first. 

I agree with you that if the criminals were leaving the home(and not regrouping or going to the truck for a weapon) then deadly force(a shot to a lethal area) should not have been used. 

Situations are not black and white. A criminal asleep in my house would not be shot, but would be restrained until police came to take the situation.


----------



## Sharp702 (Oct 21, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> Flatlander I have to agree with you that those whom take upon the responsiblity of carrying a firearm should have the reasoning capcity to evale and assess the danger he or she is in and take the action neccessary.
> 
> I have said to my family and friends that for those wishing to carry a firearm such as a pistol the following should be considered.
> 
> ...


Military or LEO experience is not really a good requirement. If you attend any firearm competitions you will find a large majority of your best shots are not wearing badges or camo.

I think that to carry a weapon into public we need more requirements. I would like to see the person have to qualify with the specific weapon they intend to carry into public. It scares me that some people will carry a gun that have only fire a handfull of times before into a public area.

As for the video and picture idea, I don't think it is necessary. There usually is nothing to see from a bullet wound. 
 This idea could be better applied to showing car accident victims to novice drivers, because now those can be quite the sight.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 22, 2004)

Sharp702 said:
			
		

> Military or LEO experience is not really a good requirement. If you attend any firearm competitions you will find a large majority of your best shots are not wearing badges or camo.



In a situation where nobody is shooting back at them. They dont have to worry about killing innocent bystanders. They arent getting ambushed as they drive up to the competition etc....put your best competition shooter into a situation where he gets jumped by an armed assailent at 7 feet while hes still in the holster and I believe you will see the same hit stats as you do LEO's in the same situation.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 22, 2004)

Sharp702 said:
			
		

> Right now the prison system is based apon rehabillitation, not punishment. Rehabillitation does not work in the vast majority of cases. I think it is time to give a system of punishment a try to test results.


This is perhaps a topic for a different thread. But I disagree with the premise you put forth, as do conservative commentators, such as George Will.

Society can inflict 'punishment' on criminals in one of two ways: Loss of Property. Loss of Freedom. By restraining the activities of a convicted person, i.e. placing them in jail, society is punishing the offender with Loss of Freedom. In combination with this punishment, society has decided that it might be a good idea to transfer some skills to the convicted, so that when they are no longer subject to restricted freedom, they have the opportunity to participate in society.

Also, punishment as 'Loss of Property' ... have you ever paid a fine for a traffic violation? The society takes some of your money. That is not rehabilitation.

Mike


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 22, 2004)

Honestly I have worked inside the wall in a both Female and Male Correctional Institutes and I found that many inmates actually like being inside for the following reasons. 

Networking with like minded people 
No Rent or bills to pay 
Three Hots and a Cot 
Door to Door services for meals, books
Free Cable TV 
Free Education 
Computer Access for Free 
No worries about Knowing who the Criminals are they are all around you.
Friends for Life good social network. 
Free Laundry service
No Phone Bills Call Collect 
Once an Inmate is acculmated to the enviroment he or she adapts and actually is comfortable and the other key to Human Survivual is Sex. Yes Virginia sex occurs in Prison everyday. Free and Purchased.


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Even if you are not at home? How can your safety be threatened if you are not present?
> 
> Actually, according to the report, the productive citizen disrupted the criminals. They were in his un-occupied house. Yes, that's bad. He came home. They ran away. He shot them.



He came home. People were in his house. He didn't know how many or what they were doing.

I think we've got a fundamental disconnect here. I read the story "he shot at them, and they ran away" (firearm saving homeowner from harm) and you're reading it as "they ran away, and homeowner shot at them" (homeowner using excessive force.) Truth is, we don't know, though your hypothetical for why the guy was shot in the face instead of the back is reaching a bit. I trust the police got the whole story, and they were satisfied. 

I agree that every use of deadly force has to be tempered with compassion for your fellow man and a dollop of logic for the situation. These weren't kids with toilet paper. They were a bunch of salty dudes rifling through his house, organized enough to have an escape vehicle out back of the house.  




> It's a bit semantic, I know. But, what might have happened if the homeowner stopped for a cup of coffee at the diner before going home after work ... the criminals might have gotten a hot meal, maybe some spare change and been on their way. Is that good or bad ... who's to say?



If, say he was clairvoyant and knew what was happening and allowed it continue without notifying the authorities, that's called aiding and abetting. "And then been on their way"...to where? Rob someone else? Personally, I only like to provide to the charities of my choice, not the charities that pick me. Hey! Gimme a donation, now!



> Again, You* kind of have to be there* to be in danger. The homeowner wasn't home ... how could he be in danger?
> In the words of Homer Simpson  "Doh!".



Not there...hmmm yet he was close enough to shoot somebody in the face with a pistol. That's quite a trick.

Another point...Property is an extension of the person, and a fundamental principle behind our country's laws...life...liberty...property. When someone steals from you, they are taking some of your life away, in terms of the work you've done to earn that property. If you don't feel that way, I'll be over shortly to help parse out your stuff to me and my friends. Do you have a big screen tv? Doh!


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 22, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> I think we've got a fundamental disconnect here. I read the story "he shot at them, and they ran away" (firearm saving homeowner from harm) and you're reading it as "they ran away, and homeowner shot at them" (homeowner using excessive force.) Truth is, we don't know, though your hypothetical for why the guy was shot in the face instead of the back is reaching a bit. I trust the police got the whole story, and they were satisfied.


Of course, the hypothetical I posed about the wound to the face and neck is a stretch. But, with the evidence we have from the reports (which is _no evidence at all_ concerning the shooting), it is every bit as likely as any other scenario put forth.

Why is it that you read the article that 'He Shot - They Ran'? 

There is no evidence in the articles to show that the intruders posed any harm to the homewner. You are correct that that is the disconnect. In the three articles available (two hyperlinks in my post, and the original article in Post#1) there is no reference to the homeowner being threatened. There are references to the intruders 'Fleeing'. All three stories state that the homeowner *came home*, which means he was not there when the intrusions began. And while I can offer no evidence to prove my point, I posit it is much more likely that four fugitives would run away when discovered, rather than stick around and pick a fight.

Again, I am not discussing the actions of the police. Although, I think the police would not be very diligent in getting the 'whole story', once the identity of the gunshot victim was known; an escaped convict, who was intruding in a house, with prior weapons convictions, got shot; don't we all think that is poetic justice? 

How much 'digging' do you think anyone is going to do concerning the shooting, honestly?


Post Script ..
http://www.shelbycountyreporter.com/articles/2004/10/14/news/news03.txt



> ...On Higgins Road, the owner of the residence encountered several people inside when he came up on the porch, sheriff's reports stated.
> Four men left the home quickly as the homeowner fired several shots from a handgun. One of the shots struck the gunshot victim ...


From the Shelby Country Register *Opinion *page.
http://www.shelbycountyreporter.com/articles/2004/10/20/opinion/opin01.txt

Post Post Script.

From the web site of the Shelby, Alabama County Sherrif

http://www.shelbyso.com/news.php

[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Burglary / Shooting Incident*
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_10/11/2004 3:10pm_[/font][/font] 
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]At approximately 7:08 am this morning, Shelby County 911 was notified of a gunshot victim in a convenience store located at the intersection of county highway 47 and 71.  This is in the Shelby community south of Columbiana.  First on the scene was a Sheriffs deputy who found a male subject lying on the floor who was shot in the head or neck area.  A customer and the store employee were administering aid.  Southeast Shelby Rescue arrived quickly, as did RPS ambulance, and continued medical treatment.  Lifesaver helicopter arrived and the victim was transported to University Hospital. 



The information we now have is that this young man was brought to the store and let out by three other persons driving a white Jeep Cherokee with a Shelby County license tag.  At the almost identical time that this call came in to 911, another call was received reporting a burglary in progress in the 100 block of Higgins Road which is a short distance from this store. The suspects in the burglary left in a white Jeep.  As this gunshot victim had no identification on him, and we could not learn his name from him, I am asking anyone who has knowledge of this incident to call our office and tell us who he is so his family can be contacted.  His injury is very serious and it is important that contact be made with family as soon as possible,  says Sheriff Chris Curry.



On Higgins Road, the owner of the residence encountered several people inside when he came up on the porch.  Four people exited the residence rapidly and shots were fired.  At this time, the investigation continues but it appears that one of those shots struck the victim found at the nearby store.  The vehicle descriptions match.



The owner of the property found himself in a dangerous and difficult situation, outnumbered four to one, while trying to protect himself and his property from this group whose intentions were unknown.  He fired several shots from a handgun* in an attempt to stop the suspects*, adds Sheriff Curry.



In the past two weeks, Shelby County has had a senior citizen awake to find burglars inside her home, and now a dedicated husband and father who works many hours to provide for his family, comes home to find intruders inside and stealing his hard earned property.  All of law enforcement needs the help of the community to prevent these very scary and dangerous acts.  Call your local law enforcement with any suspicious persons or vehicles seen in your neighborhood.[/QUOTE]

In an attempt to STOP THE SUSPECTS ...Not to protect himself or his property.
[/font]


----------



## GAB (Oct 22, 2004)

Mark,

I think your last post is very good and an honest evaluation.

I have felt that way for 30 years, we have a small percentage of people in the prison system, part of them are habitual and the others are there because they want to be, plus your recidivest (different than habitual).

Throw in conjugal visits, family taken care of by government agencies, and you have a perfect situation for some in our socity or on the skirts of it. 
Regards, Gary


----------



## GAB (Oct 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Of
> Again, I am not discussing the actions of the police. Although, I think the police would not be very diligent in getting the 'whole story', once the identity of the gunshot victim was known; an escaped convict, who was intruding in a house, with prior weapons convictions, got shot; don't we all think that is poetic justice?
> 
> How much 'digging' do you think anyone is going to do concerning the shooting, honestly?


Hi Michael,

I believe we need to add in the factor that the DA is the one who makes the decision to prosecute, the police,investigators, media and public all have a voice, then the DA (political person generally) makes the decision based on the information and prejudice in the community to prosecute or not.

Something people have a tendency to forget.

Regards, Gary


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Of course, the hypothetical I posed about the wound to the face and neck is a stretch. But, with the evidence we have from the reports (which is _no evidence at all_ concerning the shooting), it is every bit as likely as any other scenario put forth.



No, some scenarios are more likely than others, especially when you're talking about handguns, which are only accurate for marksmen up to about 25 yards on a stationary target, depending on the variety of weapon. Under high levels of stress, this range decreases due to adrenal dump, and drops much more if the target is moving. To hit him in the face, the homeowner most likely was a) very close to target b) facing him c) stationary, as was the target (i.e. not chasing him) d) or just "lucky". 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Why is it that you read the article that 'He Shot - They Ran'?



Here's some excerpts from the press release:

"Four men left the home quickly as the homeowner fired several shots from a handgun..."

The men left AS he fired the shots. Wise move. It doesn't say the intruders were fleeing and he shot at them. It seems to me that the fleeing is a reaction to the shooting. You may choose to interpret it differently, but we both know what the word "as" means--it indicates simultaneous or causal action.

"He (local LEO) described the situation at the Shelby home as a home-invasion and robbery attempt. The homeowner found several men inside of his home and some outside. He said the white Jeep Cherokee was parked around the back of the home.

..."He became suspicious and decided he better protect himself," Owens said.

Curry defended the homeowner's actions.

"The owner of the property found himself in a dangerous and difficult situation, outnumbered four-to-one while trying to protect himself and his property from this group whose intentions were unknown. He fired several shots from a handgun in an attempt to stop the suspects," Curry said."--

Please allow me to emphasize._ "The owner of the property found himself in a dangerous and difficult situation, outnumbered four-to-one while trying to protect himself and his property."_



> There is no evidence in the articles to show that the intruders posed any harm to the homewner. You are correct that that is the disconnect. In the three articles available (two hyperlinks in my post, and the original article in Post#1) there is no reference to the homeowner being threatened. There are references to the intruders 'Fleeing'. All three stories state that the homeowner *came home*, which means he was not there when the intrusions began. And while I can offer no evidence to prove my point, I posit it is much more likely that four fugitives would run away when discovered, rather than stick around and pick a fight.



These statements show to me that we are on different spectrums of acceptance toward criminal behavior. I believe that home invasion even if you are not there when it is initiated IS a threat. So you come home, find these guys rooting through your house. I would want them out immediately and would kick them out with whatever force necessary. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you would prefer to let them leave at their own convenience or wait for law enforcement to arrive. To me, personally, this smacks of the woeful advice formerly given to potential rape victims, "Don't fight back, just let them finish, it will be over quickly, and we can catch them later." You obviously see it differently, but when people steal from me, I feel very violated and am inclined to take action. 




> Again, I am not discussing the actions of the police. Although, I think the police would not be very diligent in getting the 'whole story', once the identity of the gunshot victim was known; an escaped convict, who was intruding in a house, with prior weapons convictions, got shot; don't we all think that is poetic justice?
> 
> How much 'digging' do you think anyone is going to do concerning the shooting, honestly?



Probably not much. Does it deserve much digging? Sorry, but these guys don't give me a real warm and fuzzy feeling. Poor widdle career criminals getting shot at after breaking out of prison and burglarizing a home. Awww.

C'mon, they knew the risks.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 22, 2004)

psi_radar, 

Please review the article at the bottom of post #60 in this thread. It was an addendum to the original post, and may not have been there when you created your most recent post.

The Sherriff clearly states the weapon was fired in order 'TO STOP THE SUSPECTS'. The did not say the weapon was fired in self-defense or to prevent any action.

Drawing conclusions about where I stand on criminal behavior is kind of strange thing to do because I am not posting in this thread about the behavior of the escaped convicts. I am posting in this thread to discuss the use of a firearm.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 22, 2004)

Here is a real kick in the pants for everyone. When I was going thur the Academy my Instructor told us something that shocked me. 

"The only difference between you and a citzen in making an arrest is that the City has better Insurace policies."

Here in Kansas a Private Citzen a Non-LEO has as much authority in stopping fleeing felons after they have committed a felony in that citzen's persence. The only problem is due to the court systems we have most citzens are not aware of the legal aspects of use of force and apprehension or taking someone into custody.

The Residents of Kansas need to use only ENOUGH force to detain or arrest(stop) a felon.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 22, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> Here is a real kick in the pants for everyone. When I was going thur the Academy my Instructor told us something that shocked me.
> 
> "The only difference between you and a citzen in making an arrest is that the City has better Insurace policies."
> 
> ...


And ... While this activity took place in Alabama, not Kansas, (and not Georgia as I have said once or twice in other posts) ... what do you think about this incident?

The homeowner was not successful at detaining or arresting the alledged felon. Did he not use enough force? Are there not enough bodies in this story for your satisfaction?

If you were in this exact situation: 
* you come in the front of your house, 
* intruders running out the back of your house, 
* no danger to you, 
* a weapon in your belt, 
* not even knowing if anything was taken from your home, 
* and you are faced with a 'Shoot - Don't Shoot' decision 
Let's even suppose you have a very clean, text book shot. 

Do you let intruders flee go, pickup the phone and call the police?
Do you shoot out the tires of the jeep?
Do you shoot to kill?


----------



## Sharp702 (Oct 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This is perhaps a topic for a different thread. But I disagree with the premise you put forth, as do conservative commentators, such as George Will.
> 
> Society can inflict 'punishment' on criminals in one of two ways: Loss of Property. Loss of Freedom. By restraining the activities of a convicted person, i.e. placing them in jail, society is punishing the offender with Loss of Freedom. In combination with this punishment, society has decided that it might be a good idea to transfer some skills to the convicted, so that when they are no longer subject to restricted freedom, they have the opportunity to participate in society.
> 
> ...


Loss of property dosn't really have an impact on a large amount of criminals because they barely own anything. 

Paying a traffic violation fine is not prison, and prison was what I was referring to.

The fact that some people can enjoy prison life is another sure sign that it is a failure.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 22, 2004)

Sharp702 said:
			
		

> Loss of property dosn't really have an impact on a large amount of criminals because they barely own anything.
> 
> Paying a traffic violation fine is not prison, and prison was what I was referring to.
> 
> The fact that some people can enjoy prison life is another sure sign that it is a failure.


So, the Death Penalty for every violation, Ayatollah?


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 22, 2004)

Honestly Mike here is the way I was trained to respond from the Civilian and Military LEO courses I have taken. 

1.) Never entry a home you know or suspect a criminal is inside. Never! Never! go in alone good way to get ambushed and killed. John Wayne is a fictional Character and you can not be brought back to life for another movie. 

2.) Secure the Outside of the house and wait for assistance. 

3.) If the Suspects flee in the Jeep be a good observer and get the License Plate Number. 

4.) Always Call Law Enforcement while securing the outside of the home. When calling 911 give description of yourself as ID yourself as Homeowner and tell them you are armed and what type of weapon. When LEO arrive disarm yourself and lay the weapon in plain site.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 22, 2004)

I found the following wierd


> The name of the homeowner who shot the fugitive will not be released as long as the others remain at-large.



It is not like they do not know where he lives. Right? They were in his house correct?


As to using a gun against four people, well in my state   you have to leave in this situation. You do not have the right to fire like that unless they have physically threatented you, and or your family. In this case a lone male coming home to a house wiht four males. The police and court system would expect you to leave and call 911 for help and let the police handle it.

Not that I agree with this. just stating how it is to my understanding.


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> psi_radar,
> 
> Please review the article at the bottom of post #60 in this thread. It was an addendum to the original post, and may not have been there when you created your most recent post.
> 
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 22, 2004)

Mark Weiser ... 
from what I am reading then, you would agree that the home owner behaved in a way that is not consistent with the training you have received.

But what about the actual firing of the weapon? 4 'gainst 1, you don't know if they are armed? And they are apparently leaving?

Analytically, is this a good shooting? I understand that in real time, adrenaline may assist in the decision.

psi-radar ... It's OK that we disagree. And yes, with the reports available to us, we are making educated guesses at best. Of course, the police are also just able to determine what happened based on the interviews with the four involved. But that is always the case, ain't it?



> So what is this discussion about if it's not about where our moral compass stands on stopping criminal behavior or self protection? Key to my opinion in this matter is that I consider my home a sanctuary and an extension of myself, much like a citizen might consider his nation. If it's invaded, I'm not going to just hang out and watch it happen. You apparently feel differently, by not considering home invasion a "threat."


My house is really just a building. I would like my neighbors to respect it, as I respect theirs, but in the end. There is nothing in that building that is irreplacable. If someone were to enter my home and take some of my possessions, it certainly would be a violation, I would be upset and angry, but, it really is just 'stuff'. 

I hope that if I was ever forced between protecting my stuff and killing another person, I would give my stuff away. I can always get more 'stuff'.

Mike


----------



## Tgace (Oct 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And ... While this activity took place in Alabama, not Kansas, (and not Georgia as I have said once or twice in other posts) ... what do you think about this incident?



I think hes lucky he wasnt skinned and eaten...


----------



## Sharp702 (Oct 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, the Death Penalty for every violation, Ayatollah?


So, let criminals have free run of the place, Ghandi?

Prison should serve as a strong deterent and punishment. We shouldn't need a death penalty(one that is a slap on the wrist compared to what the offenders did to earn it) because prison should be bad enough that people should absolutely not want to go there.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 22, 2004)

Sharp702 said:
			
		

> So, let criminals have free run of the place, Ghandi?


You honor me with such insults, may I always deserve them. :asian:


----------



## Sharp702 (Oct 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You honor me with such insults, may I always deserve them. :asian:


Was not an insult, but a reply in similar fashion as the one you bestowed on me.

We obviously have a difference of opinion on the subject. You have not yet removed the rose colored glasses and seen the real world yet. You should consider yourself lucky that the world has let you maintain that positive outlook.


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> My house is really just a building. I would like my neighbors to respect it, as I respect theirs, but in the end. There is nothing in that building that is irreplacable. If someone were to enter my home and take some of my possessions, it certainly would be a violation, I would be upset and angry, but, it really is just 'stuff'.
> 
> I hope that if I was ever forced between protecting my stuff and killing another person, I would give my stuff away. I can always get more 'stuff'.
> 
> Mike



Yup, there's a big difference in beliefs between you and I here. It's not about "stuff" for me, it's the sanctity of the home. Breaching that sanctity is, to me, one of the most egregious crimes someone can commit. I would hope not to ever kill anyone or ever have a cause just enough to do so with that intent. As for killing someone over "stuff," well that's an interesting question. If someone attempts to rob you, that's a potential breach to safety as well as a gentle transfer of ownership of  "stuff"--a threat, even? So, say you see an opening and whip out a Kenpo technique, there's a chance you'll kill them. So would you? I would, you maybe not. That's just people and their differences. The moral as I see it:

Don't screw around with people, they're unpredictable.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 22, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Yup, there's a big difference in beliefs between you and I here. It's not about "stuff" for me, it's the sanctity of the home. Breaching that sanctity is, to me, one of the most egregious crimes someone can commit. I would hope not to ever kill anyone or ever have a cause just enough to do so. As for killing someone over "stuff," well that's an interesting question. If someone attempts to rob you, that's a potential breach to safety as well as a gentle transfer of ownership of "stuff"--a threat, even? So, say you see an opening and whip out a Kenpo technique, there's a chance you'll kill them. So would you? I would, you maybe not. That's just people and their differences.


If there was *threat to my person*, and the opportunity available, of course, I would use that which I have learned in my study of Kenpo to *defend* myself. 

I would use the skills I have learned to as effectivly as possible stop the threat; inflict pain before wound, wound before break, break before kill. I hope I would stop the escalation of violence when it has removed the threat. If the threat is not removed before the aggressor is killed, so be it.

In this instance, there was no apparent threat to the homeowner's person.


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> If there was *threat to my person*, and the opportunity available, of course, I would use that which I have learned in my study of Kenpo to *defend* myself.
> 
> I would use the skills I have learned to as effectivly as possible stop the threat; inflict pain before wound, wound before break, break before kill. I hope I would stop the escalation of violence when it has removed the threat. If the threat is not removed before the aggressor is killed, so be it.
> 
> In this instance, there was no apparent threat to the homeowner's person.




As I've stated before I believe that home invasion is a threat, and many governments and people feel as I do. Personally, without added cause, with the facts as we know them, I would not have pulled a trigger if I was in that man's shoes. But I do believe he was justified in using the level of force he chose, and his choice should be supported and upheld by the law. If someone breaks into your home, they should know they're just rolling the dice and the consequences could be grave. 

I've said my piece and then some on this. Over and out.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 22, 2004)

Sharp702 said:
			
		

> You do realize that some human life is completely worthless, and in some cases hazardous to prosperous human life?


Who gets to judge which human lives those are?



			
				Sharp702 said:
			
		

> I know for a fact that criminals are unproductive, and have no place in society.


Every criminal? Convicted of every crime? In every circumstance? You would what... eliminate every pot-smoker, jay-walker, killed-him-cuz-he-beat-me-relentlessly, stole-bread-to-feed-my-children, was-begging-on-the-corner-so-I-didn't-have-to-steal ?



> The ... the law cannot do anything until a crime is commited.


And instead of this system you would propose what? Thought police? I wouldn't claim our system is perfect - far from it. But what would be better?


This is another situation where I don't think a black vs white, us vs them mentality can apply. I think we are all only a few steps away from criminal activity ourselves. We only need to be deserate enough.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 22, 2004)

Sharp702 said:
			
		

> Right now the prison system is based apon rehabillitation, not punishment.


Does the American justice system truly claim to rehabilitate criminals? Oy! I don't think that locking someone up can count as rehab. Rehabilitation (which doesn't always work) must include interventions like addictions counselling, upgrading education, developing work skills, etc.



> Rehabillitation does not work in the vast majority of cases.


What qualifies as a vast majority? Based upon what studies? And what are you calling rehab?


----------



## raedyn (Oct 22, 2004)

Sharp702 said:
			
		

> Loss of property dosn't really have an impact on a large amount of criminals because they barely own anything.


While this is true for some criminals, it certainly doesn't apply to all of them. Some criminals live very well on the fruits of their 'labours'. Think of any major fraud artist. (There's a famous case here in Canada of a guy working at a bank that fraudulently acquired MILLIONS for himself and his family) Hell, think of Martha Stewart! She's got plenty of wealth, and she's a convicted criminal, currently serving jail time.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> My house is really just a building. I would like my neighbors to respect it, as I respect theirs, but in the end. There is nothing in that building that is irreplacable. If someone were to enter my home and take some of my possessions, it certainly would be a violation, I would be upset and angry, but, it really is just 'stuff'.
> 
> I hope that if I was ever forced between protecting my stuff and killing another person, I would give my stuff away. I can always get more 'stuff'.


My feelings exactly.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 22, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I think we are all only a few steps away from criminal activity ourselves. We only need to be deserate enough.


Reminds me of an ethics question from CJ 101

An elderly man in a wheelchair goes into a local bank and brandishes a firearm and tells the teller to give him money. After the investigation it is found the elderly man was broke and needed surgery for a heart problem. 

Question: Would you throw the book at him or show compassion in convicting him?


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 22, 2004)

Mark, I guess that would depend on whether or not someone had already shot him, wouldn't it?


----------



## Tgace (Oct 22, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Who gets to judge which human lives those are?


Governments
Judges
Juries 
Governors
Mothers


----------



## Tgace (Oct 22, 2004)

Almost every state law basically says that if you are in your house and somebody breaks/forces their way in you can use deadly force to terminate that burgulary...

My state law (NY) says..



> Art. 35.20-3 NYS Penal Law
> 
> 3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.
> 
> ...


In this case, the fact that the owner wasnt home when the burgulary was committed may throw a kink in a section like this, but as read it doesn't really state the "person in possession or control of" the dwelling actually has to be inside the dwelling at the time of the crime....dwelling meaning home, occupied building typically meaning business/office etc. that may be under guard.

This is what case law and lawyers are for....


----------



## Tgace (Oct 22, 2004)

In cases like this its "presumptive evidence" that a person forcing their way into a home or occupied building to commit a crime present a deadly threat to those people inside...


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 22, 2004)

Tgace ... (surprise) ... I agree that if you are in the home and someone enters clandestinely ... Bang Bang, He's dead. 

Although, seriously, I am still against guns. I think they harm more than they protect innocent people. But that is a different discussion.

It was the fact that the bad guys were, apparently, fleeing that poses an ethical question (not a legal one). Several posters have touched on the 'Shoot-Don't Shoot' decision that I am asking about. I was a bit surprised and quite pleased that some indicated that they would not shoot based on the evidence we have available (which I agree is incomplete).

Then again, those who thought that intruders were always "in season" have been noticably quiet.

Legally though, if the invader is fleeing, has the commission of the burgurlary already been terminated, does this present another 'kink' in the case.

And please ... in this instance ... the intruder got every bit of what he deserved, and perhaps got off easy, but I repeat, the homeowner could not have known that when he drew his weapon.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 22, 2004)

What a difference in our laws.  It's quite shocking.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 22, 2004)

> On Higgins Road, *the owner of the residence encountered several people inside when he came up on the porch, sheriff's reports stated.
> 
> Four men left the home quickly as the homeowner fired several shots from a handgun.* One of the shots struck the gunshot victim who was later left at the convenience store.


Now...were the BG's inside the house when the homeowner started shooting and they ran afterwards -OR- did the BG's run from the house and the homeowner started shooting at them as they ran??

I ask because in the first case you could argue "there were four guys burglarizing my home...when I saw them and they saw me I reasonably believed they would harm or kill me trying to escape." The law dosent (in my example at least) state you have to be inside or on your property before the crooks try to get in.

If its the other case, its not so clear.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 22, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> What a difference in our laws. It's quite shocking.


Can you find and post yours? Just for educational purposes.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 22, 2004)

We have several news reports concerning the events. Here are the facts as I understand them.

1)The homeowner was not at home when the intrusion began.
2)The homeowner came home at approximately 7:00 AM.
3)As he walked up onto his porch, he noticed a couple of men inside the house, and a couple of men outside the house.
4)The intruders exited the building to the rear of the house, where a white jeep was parked.
5)The homeowner fired his weapon TO STOP the intruders.

Exactly where the intruder who got shot in the left side of his face was when struck with the bullet is not clear (inside the house, outside the house, in the jeep). The most clear report states: 

"Four people exited the residence rapidly and shots were fired."​

I read that sentence as the intruders ran away first, got shot at second. Others don't see that same sequence of events.​ 
As mentioned, I remain open to new facts, but we are all working with incomplete information.​


----------



## Tgace (Oct 22, 2004)

Also, dont forget...this did happen in the South. Things are different there on the topic of self-defense (person or property) than they would be in NYC, Baltimore, Boston etc.


----------



## Sharp702 (Oct 23, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Who gets to judge which human lives those are?


 Everyone can decide. Who do you think has more of a right to live, the guy in the story(a home owner, works, pays taxes, a normal productive citizen) or the criminals(felons, tax burdens by being in prison, harmfull to normal members of society..ect) ?




> Every criminal? Convicted of every crime? In every circumstance? You would what... eliminate every pot-smoker, jay-walker, killed-him-cuz-he-beat-me-relentlessly, stole-bread-to-feed-my-children, was-begging-on-the-corner-so-I-didn't-have-to-steal ?


 Obviously that is extreme, and I meant thieves, murderers, rapists...ect




> And instead of this system you would propose what? Thought police? I wouldn't claim our system is perfect - far from it. But what would be better?


 I said what I did to illistrate that people must take their protection in their own hands because the law cannot do anything until you become a victim.



> What qualifies as a vast majority? Based upon what studies? And what are you calling rehab?


 Over 70% of all prisoners released will repeat crimes and go right back into the system. As for rehab they are offered counselling, some education..ect. 



> Hell, think of Martha Stewart! She's got plenty of wealth, and she's a convicted criminal, currently serving jail time.


 That is a rare instance. Majority of criminals owned little to nothing before they commited a crime. Another percentage fall in the lower-middle class, lossing a $60,000 home is hardly payment for taking someones life or other crimes.


----------



## KenpoTex (Oct 23, 2004)

A couple of thoughts...

  We'll probably never know the exact chronology of events in this incident.  Did they run because he shot? Did he shoot to keep them from getting away? Which came first, the chicken or the egg...  The laws in most states are going to be fairly similar as far as what constitutes reasonable force in this type of situation.  By inadvertantly walking in on 4 guys in the act of burglarizing his house he was walking into a dangerous, and very possibly deadly situation and I in no way feel that the use of a firearm would be excessive in that situation.  If they immediately tried to flee when he arrived then he probably shouldn't have opened fire.  Like I said, we'll probably never know exactly how it went down.

As far as using force (lethal or not) to protect property, As I said in an earlier post, I think there are greater issues involved than a simple transfer of property and would (in most cases) resist by any means necessary and available.  If you want to roll over and surrender because of your ethical/religious/philosophical beliefs, that's your decision.  Just don't demonize those of us who adhere to a different viewpoint.

Guns: good or evil, feasible or not...We've been over this one before many times, I don't feel like going through it again.  Believe and think what you will, just leave me and my guns alone.  

Violent Criminals and the "so called" Corrections System: Murderers, Kiddnappers, Rapists, Robbers, etc. are TRASH!  They are not going to be rehabilitated no matter how many correspondence courses they take, or how many touchy-feely counseling sessions they attend while they're behind bars.  As far as I'm concerned anyone convicted of 1st degree murder, kidnapping, rape, or child-molestation should automatically get the death penalty.  The current corrections system is a failure.  Someone stated that the recidivism rate is around 70%.  I seem to remember that it was closer to 80% but whatever.  Either way, something is wrong.  When these scumbags are in prison they have access to cable TV, Internet, and workout facilities.  Furthermore, prisons are required to maintain a law-library so that these low-lifes can spend their time (when their not bulking up in the weight room or dealing drugs in the yard) screwing, oops, I mean suing the government for every reason under the sun.  Most prisons no longer have license-plate or furniture factories becuase making the poor underpriveledged babies actually do something constructive is "cruel and unusual" in these days of political correctness.  Prison is supposed to be a punishment for a crime.  That is not to say that I think the inmates should be tortured or mistreated.  I just find it disgusting that they can enjoy a better standard of living in prison than they do on the outside.  Or for that matter, a better standard of living than many hard-working, law-abiding citizens in society.
I would personally be thrilled if most (if not all) prisons resembled "Tent City" Sheriff Joe Arpaio's jail down in Maricopa County, Arizona.  Maybe then they wouldn't want to go back.

Okay, I'm done ranting for now.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 23, 2004)

You know, I always thought the english language was a pretty powerful way of describing things, able to represent accurately a vast quantity of ideas, actions and things. Seems to me that we can gain a pretty clear understanding of what happened by using our language. For instance, the conjunction 'and' not only brings together two phrases and clauses, it also indicates a sequence for those phrases and clauses. So, when a sentence says:

"Four people exited the residence rapidly and shots were fired."​ 
it is clear that the four people exited the residence rapidly *before* the shots were fired. 



			
				kenpotex said:
			
		

> If you want to roll over and surrender because of your ethical/religious/philosophical beliefs, that's your decision. Just don't demonize those of us who adhere to a different viewpoint.


Who is 'demonizing' whom? 
Using the terms 'roll over' and 'surrender' give a pretty clear connotation as to your beliefs: that your possessions are more important than a human life. Or maybe that your right to fire a weapon (the 2nd Amendment) is more important than a human life.

I hope that none of us are ever in the situation described in this article. But if the choice is between someone being on my property and someone being shot in the face, I do not think these two evils are equal.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 23, 2004)

Where are you finding the..."Four people exited the residence rapidly and shots were fired."? Ive searched for more articles on this shooting and all I can find is the same article that started this thread and it says.


> On Higgins Road, *the owner of the residence encountered several people inside when he came up on the porch, sheriff's reports stated.
> 
> Four men left the home quickly as the homeowner fired several shots from a handgun.* One of the shots struck the gunshot victim who was later left at the convenience store.


----------



## Bammx2 (Oct 23, 2004)

My 2 bits.....

 I have been reading this whole thing since it was started and have come to a conclusion....
 It doesn't matter how many times someone can quote an ammendment.
it doesn't matter if some think "some people just need killin".
 This whole thread seems to be turning into a dead-horse kickin contest.
The deed was done. its over.
We know certain people don't agree and we know certain people do.
 This is a good forum and good people are getting heated over difference of 
opinions.
 Nobody is gonna give in either way.
live with it!


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 23, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Where are you finding the..."Four people exited the residence rapidly and shots were fired."? Ive searched for more articles on this shooting and all I can find is the same article that started this thread and it says.


Tgace, thank you for asking. The link to the Shelby County Sherriff's office is here

http://www.shelbyso.com/news.php

The fourth article down the link contains that exact text. Later reports from newspaper websites don't include the same text, nor do they include the text:

"He fired several shots from a handgun in an attempt to stop the suspects"​

The complete text is quoted here. I have changed the format of the text in question.​


​


			
				Shelby County Sherriff's Office said:
			
		

> [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Burglary / Shooting Incident*
> [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_10/11/2004 3:10pm_





			
				Shelby County Sherriff's Office said:
			
		

> [/font]
> [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]At approximately 7:08 am this morning, Shelby County 911 was notified of a gunshot victim in a convenience store located at the intersection of county highway 47 and 71. This is in the Shelby community south of Columbiana. First on the scene was a Sheriffs deputy who found a male subject lying on the floor who was shot in the head or neck area. A customer and the store employee were administering aid. Southeast Shelby Rescue arrived quickly, as did RPS ambulance, and continued medical treatment. Lifesaver helicopter arrived and the victim was transported to University Hospital.
> 
> 
> ...




[/font][/font]


----------



## Tgace (Oct 23, 2004)

Appears to be a lot of burglaries and shootings in Shelby Co.

I wonder if that has an impact on how interested the DA is in pursuing a "homeowner shooter".....


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 23, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Can you find and post yours? Just for educational purposes.


This is more difficult than it sounds.  The Canadian Criminal Code does not specifically cover "location" when dealing with assault.  Essentially, protection of property can not be done using force.  The only time a civilain is able to use force is in defence of people, and usual use of force laws apply.  Anything beyond necessary is assault.  There must be a perception of threat of physical harm.

Of course, using firearms for personal defence is not intrinsically unlawful, provided it is an appropriate use of force, however, you will be dealing with whatever weapons charges can be laid, as the only people able to carry are LEOs.  

I had at one time posted the relevant bit of our Criminal Code somewhere on this board in another discussion, but I don't recall where.

Sorry guys!


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 23, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Appears to be a lot of burglaries and shootings in Shelby Co.
> I wonder if that has an impact on how interested the DA is in pursuing a "homeowner shooter".....


I doubt it. These were escaped convicts, after all. Give the guy a medal (even though he didn't know what he was doing).


----------



## Tgace (Oct 23, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I doubt it. These were escaped convicts, after all. Give the guy a medal (even though he didn't know what he was doing).


Im just speaking in the vein of DA:"Hmmm..homeowner has a questionable shoot during a burgulary involving 4 escaped convicts.....theres been a bunch of burglaries and shootings around here lately, the populace is getting angry....it may be political suicide to go after this guy."

The public is probably ready to give this guy the key to the city, if things are as rough as they seem based on some of the events that have been going on in Shelby.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 23, 2004)

And, as I think you pointed out earlier, this took place in Alabama, where attitudes about firearms are quite a bit different than my home state of Massachusetts. 

I once spent a week training some software in Mobile, Alabama; on the third day of training, I noticed that each of the five cash registers had a weapon strapped beneath the counter. I damn near fell out of my chair when a 9mm dropped in my lap (still in a holster). 

Things sure are different there.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 23, 2004)

Yep....spent some time in uniform down south. 

Its definitely a "two edged sword". While the BG's probably realize they are taking their lives in their hands (at least more so than up north), the majority of LEO's killed in the line of duty come from "Southern States" too.....


----------



## KenpoTex (Oct 24, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Using the terms 'roll over' and 'surrender' give a pretty clear connotation as to your beliefs: that your possessions are more important than a human life. Or maybe that your right to fire a weapon (the 2nd Amendment) is more important than a human life.


Did I say that I think my possessions were/are more important than someone's life?  I don't think so.  What I said was that "I think there are greater issues involved than a simple transfer of property" which is what I stated in an earlier post on this thread (#31).  To reiterate, no, my wallet or tv isn't worth killing someone over but the fact that he is threatening me with physical violence if I do not comply means that I am going to go on the offensive and neutralize the threat that he is presenting.  This serves to eliminate the all too real possibility of him deciding to shoot/stab/beat me after I gave him my wallet or whatever whether to eliminate a witness or just because he's a dope-head that woke up on the wrong side of the bed.  

At any rate, as Bammx2 so eloquently stated "this has become a dead-horse kicking contest" and I don't feel the need to spend any more time on this topic since nobody is going to sway anybody else's opinion.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 24, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> Did I say that I think my possessions were/are more important than someone's life? I don't think so. What I said was that "I think there are greater issues involved than a simple transfer of property" which is what I stated in an earlier post on this thread (#31). To reiterate, no, my wallet or tv isn't worth killing someone over but *the fact that he is threatening me with physical violence* if I do not comply means that I am going to go on the offensive and neutralize the threat that he is presenting. This serves to eliminate the all too real possibility of him deciding to shoot/stab/beat me after I gave him my wallet or whatever whether to eliminate a witness or just because he's a dope-head that woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
> 
> At any rate, as Bammx2 so eloquently stated "this has become a dead-horse kicking contest" and I don't feel the need to spend any more time on this topic since nobody is going to sway anybody else's opinion.


Objection, Your Honor!

The prosecution is arguing facts *not in evidence.*


----------



## KenpoTex (Oct 25, 2004)

I was not referring to the incident with the homeowner specifically, but to muggings/robberies in general.  I refer you once again to one of my previous posts where I said 





> If someone commits a crime against a person I think that there is always implied if not explicit threat of violence. For example, someone walks up to you and demands your wallet. He doesn't have any weapons but it is safe to assume that should you refuse to comply with his demands he will use force to impose his will. He's not just going to say "Oh okay, I'll try someone else, sorry to bother you" when you refuse.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 25, 2004)

Matt, you are free to argue from the specific to the general. But you are also alone in this. 

In this thread, I do not believe I have made any statements about "muggings/robberies in general". I did pose a couple of hypothetical questions: i.e. how far can you chase a fleeing intruder and still be acting in self-defense, what if the intruder was in your home sleeping, is a shooting justified. These questions were attempting to understand the justification *of this incident*. 

If you read my posts, you will see that I have made no claims against people owning guns (although I am against them), or carrying weapons concealed (although I am against that too), or using those weapons in self-defense (when there is an actual threat to the self).

I started posting in this thread because of the apparent enthusiams for a shooting, with little apparent regard for ethics:

I'm lovin' it.
finally, a person protects himself and his property and dosent get in trouble.
That's the great thing about escaped fugitives..they are always "in season"
This is also a good case for advocating concealed carry--
Some may feel that it is perfectly acceptable to chase an invader down the road, continuing to use deadly force all the way. I do not. My argument is that it is hard to justify the use of 'self-defense' when there is no threat, and there was no threat because the people were running away. 

For further evidence, it appears the deputies could* respond to* the call from the convienence store before the homeowner called in that there was an attempted robbery. Incidently, the homeowners street address is approximately 1.5 miles from the intersection of CR47 & CR71.

I guess, to further my question, to argue from the specific to the general, is there ever an incident when a person using a gun is wrong?


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 25, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Matt, you are free to argue from the specific to the general. But you are also alone in this.
> 
> In this thread, I do not believe I have made any statements about "muggings/robberies in general". I did pose a couple of hypothetical questions: i.e. how far can you chase a fleeing intruder and still be acting in self-defense, what if the intruder was in your home sleeping, is a shooting justified. These questions were attempting to understand the justification *of this incident*.
> 
> ...


 


Michael,
Matt's not alone in this, it's just the filibustering on this issue is getting a little thick to reply to constantly. 

Ok, granted, people here initially got a little overexuberant about the incident mentioned. As expressed in numerous posts, most of these folks posted that they were over-the-top, but that it was just nice to see a victim who wasn't being treated as a criminal for protecting themselves with a firearm. You didn't agree, and you've now been self-rightously indignant about our lack of respect for human life for quite some time now. Point taken, over and over again like some bad fondue your boss's wife made. Nobody here, with perhaps one exception, wants to see anyone die, even criminals, without just cause. We see this particular incident differently than you, ok? Case in point, I do think this incident still presents a good argument for lawful concealed or vehicular carry. I'm sure others would agree with me. You don't. You don't like guns. You don't see a need for them. WE KNOW!



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I guess, to further my question, to argue from the specific to the general, is there ever an incident when a person using a gun is wrong?



Wow, is that ever a vaguely disguised insult pawned off as a condescending question. It's also off topic and should have a new thread if you want to pursue it.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 25, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Michael,
> Matt's not alone in this, it's just the filibustering on this issue is getting a little thick to reply to constantly.
> 
> Ok, granted, people here initially got a little overexuberant about the incident mentioned. As expressed in numerous posts, most of these folks posted that they were over-the-top, but that it was just nice to see a victim who wasn't being treated as a criminal for protecting themselves with a firearm. You didn't agree, and you've now been self-rightously indignant about our lack of respect for human life for quite some time now. Point taken, over and over again like some bad fondue your boss's wife made. Nobody here, with perhaps one exception, wants to see anyone die, even criminals, without just cause. We see this particular incident differently than you, ok? Case in point, I do think this incident still presents a good argument for lawful concealed or vehicular carry. I'm sure others would agree with me. You don't. You don't like guns. You don't see a need for them. WE KNOW!


Thank you. 
Whether the thread is kicking a dead horse or not, I did not see many stating that expressions were 'over-the-top'. What I read in the responses was 'yeah, but ... ' 




			
				psi_radar said:
			
		

> Wow, is that ever a vaguely disguised insult pawned off as a condescending question. It's also off topic and should have a new thread if you want to pursue it.


It was not meant as an insult, or as condescention. In the post prior to mine, the argument was made from the 'specific to the general'. This statement takes my position (ethics of shoot-don't shoot) and changes the argument from 'specific to the general'. 

If you are reading the comment as an insult, the please try and understand how every counter argument in this thread has been read by me. I am talking a specific issue and people are responding in general, which to me is 'insulting and condescending'. 

I am glad that you see it as condescending, because it is. But it is condescending when used on the other side of the argument as well. 

Thank you. Michael


----------



## Van Kuen (Oct 25, 2004)

so umm....how 'bout those red sox?.....artyon:


----------



## KenpoTex (Oct 26, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Matt, you are free to argue from the specific to the general. But you are also alone in this.
> 
> In this thread, I do not believe I have made any statements about "muggings/robberies in general".


 what about this one (#72):





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> My house is really just a building. I would like my neighbors to respect it, as I respect theirs, but in the end. There is nothing in that building that is irreplacable. If someone were to enter my home and take some of my possessions, it certainly would be a violation, I would be upset and angry, but, it really is just 'stuff'.  I hope that if I was ever forced between protecting my stuff and killing another person, I would give my stuff away. I can always get more 'stuff'.


  This is the comment that my "muggings/robberies in general" stuff was directed at.

Just to clear the air (I think I said most of this at least once before), If the men were already fleeing then the homeowner was NOT justified in opening fire. However, if they did not immediately try to leave it is my _opinion_ that he was justified in firing at them.  If I walked into my house to find four intruders in my living room they would have however much time it takes to draw whatever I was carrying or could access, to start running or to hit the floor with their hands on their heads if they ran or surrendered I would just call the police.  If they acted in any way that I could interpret as threatening I would shoot rather than take a chance on being injured or killed myself.


----------



## ipscshooter (Oct 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You know, I always thought the english language was a pretty powerful way of describing things, able to represent accurately a vast quantity of ideas, actions and things. Seems to me that we can gain a pretty clear understanding of what happened by using our language. For instance, the conjunction 'and' not only brings together two phrases and clauses, it also indicates a sequence for those phrases and clauses. So, when a sentence says:
> 
> "Four people exited the residence rapidly and shots were fired."​
> it is clear that the four people exited the residence rapidly *before* the shots were fired.


The original article quoted in this thread said "Four men left the home quickly as the homeowner fired several shots from a handgun." The difference between "and" and "as" is pretty huge. I'm a bit curious as to which is correct. All of the quotations are a bit ambiguous, even the one from the sheriff's report saying he fired "to stop them"... stop them from what? You assume "stop them from fleeing". It could also be "stop them from robbing his home". Not everyone is sufficiently precise in their manner of writing, and that leads to discussions such as this. As the matter has been reviewed by a district attorney, who has decided not to press charges, my conclusion is that the shooting commenced prior to the fleeing...


----------



## GAB (Oct 27, 2004)

Hi all, 
As to firing shots to stop them I would have to say he was trying to stop them from burglarizing, stealing, robbing. They had already broken in to steal and ????. That is a felony right up front.

First thing that comes to my mind is in days gone by, the warning shot, across the bow or to the ground or the tree they are next to.. 

That lets them know that you are not just bluffing, you are telling them the next one will be on target...

Most police Departments don't condone the warning shots.:mp5: 

But I think if in this position, that was acceptable, (persons mind set no immidiate self defense), and you are in a position where they cannot return fire and hit you that is the best way to go, for a situation like this...

But if the man was truely in fear of his life, he yells, stop or I will shoot! They don't, well he warned them... good enough for me. Like I said, this is a no brainer...

Regards, Gary%:}


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 27, 2004)

ipscshooter said:
			
		

> The original article quoted in this thread said "Four men left the home quickly as the homeowner fired several shots from a handgun." The difference between "and" and "as" is pretty huge. I'm a bit curious as to which is correct. All of the quotations are a bit ambiguous, even the one from the sheriff's report saying he fired "to stop them"... stop them from what? You assume "stop them from fleeing". It could also be "stop them from robbing his home". Not everyone is sufficiently precise in their manner of writing, and that leads to discussions such as this. As the matter has been reviewed by a district attorney, who has decided not to press charges, my conclusion is that the shooting commenced prior to the fleeing...


Your curiousity suits you well, young padawan. Use that curiousity to read the other articles referenced throughout the thread. See if these additional sources of information begin to paint a clearer picture in your mind. 

Note the time line in the articles.
Are there changes in the reports between the first reports, and later reports?
What do you think changes in the reports over time indicate (if they exist)?
Is there any reason to believe the 'precise' nature of one report over another report (i.e. police report versus NRA news report)?
And be careful not to draw conclusions that betray your prejudices, young padawan. 

Compare these two conclusions for greater relevance: 

Shooting commmenced prior to fleeing - therefore - District attorney decides not to press charges
Home invader/gun shot victim is an escaped convict - therefore - District attorney decides not to press charges
Which is more likely do you think? Of course, these are not the only possible reasons for the District Attorney's choice.



			
				GAB said:
			
		

> As to firing shots to stop them I would have to say he was trying to stop them from burglarizing, stealing, robbing. They had already broken in to steal and ????. That is a felony right up front. First thing that comes to my mind is in days gone by, the warning shot, across the bow or to the ground or the tree they are next to..
> 
> That lets them know that you are not just bluffing, you are telling them the next one will be on target... Most police Departments don't condone the warning shots.
> 
> ...


The force is not great with this one ... review the sequence of events; to stop means to prevent, but you can not prevent after something has occurred. The homeowner returned home to find the invaders in his house ... he can not prevent that from happening. However, if the invaders turn to run away, the homeowner can attempt to prevent that by shooting, because they have not yet run away.

Concerning 'warning shots' ... remember the Master ... who for 900 years told the young to 'Do, or Do Not. There is no Try.' When an apprentice fires a warning shot, a bullet goes up, and therefore must come down. Unless you are certain where that bullet is going to land, 'warning shots' pose a great risk. If you are going to draw your light-saber, you must vanquish your enemy.

Mind your thoughts in situations like this; jealousy leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the Dark Side.


----------



## GAB (Oct 27, 2004)

Hi Michael,

I actually stated where the shots should be placed, in the air was not one of them. Across the Bow is another place and lots of free space and water.

I have come to the thought that this is one of those times the thread should just stop.

Regards, Gary


----------



## Van Kuen (Oct 27, 2004)

This gets ridiculous when people quote from star wars. This thread needs to stop. Now. People on both sides are taking things out of context, twisting words and just plain misunderstanding each other on purpose or by accident.

I think the whole point of this thread was just to spread word that a person who owns a gun and uses it isn't always going to be branded a criminal himself.   It wasnt for a anti gun activist to badger a bunch of guys who do like guns to the point were we all get nausiated and vomit.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 27, 2004)

I would agree that the thread has gotten heated and that perhaps it has lost its usefulness. However, I think it would be unfair to blame the entire thing on one individual that contributed to it. This was a joint effort.


----------



## GAB (Oct 27, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I would agree that the thread has gotten heated and that perhaps it has lost its usefulness. However, I think it would be unfair to blame the entire thing on one individual that contributed to it. This was a joint effort.


raedyn,

Yes it was, that is a very good observation, I for one thank you...

Regards, Gary


----------



## ipscshooter (Oct 28, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Your curiousity suits you well, young padawan. Use that curiousity to read the other articles referenced throughout the thread. See if these additional sources of information begin to paint a clearer picture in your mind.
> 
> Note the time line in the articles.
> Are there changes in the reports between the first reports, and later reports?
> ...


First, I am not your padawan. Never have been. Never will be. If I were, I would find another master as your pomposity and condescension are quite offensive.

I had read all of the linked articles. The only one remotely supporting your contention is the police press release. The others say things like "the homeowner opened fire during a burglary" and "the homeowner shot one in the face and the others quickly fled." I suspect the "and" in the police press release is where the "disconnect" occured, as all the other reports differ from the press release, but are consistent with each other. Further, you took the "he shot to stop them" out of the context of the paragraph. I don't think, taken in context, that your interpretation is any more likely than the interpretation of virtually every other participant in this discussion.



> Compare these two conclusions for greater relevance:
> 
> Shooting commmenced prior to fleeing - therefore - District attorney decides not to press charges
> Home invader/gun shot victim is an escaped convict - therefore - District attorney decides not to press charges
> Which is more likely do you think? Of course, these are not the only possible reasons for the District Attorney's choice.


Frankly, the prior is far more likely. You have been operating under the assumption that four escaped convicts would simply run when confronted by a homeowner returning home. I don't believe they would run at the mere sight of the homeowner. If they thought he had a wallet, with a little cash in it, they'd try to get that too. Hey, they outnumber him 4 to 1. They ran after he started firing. That's why the guy was hit in the face. Your interpretation of the events stretches credulity.


----------

