Author Topic: Why do people do this? (Read 2505 times)

Marnoot · « **on:** October 30, 2015, 12:32:45 PM »

Attempted home invasion, revolver-armed home-owner successfully repels boarder, but then leaves his house to chase said criminal down the street. During chase, said criminal turns and fires sawed-off shotgun, mortally wounding home-owner, home-owner fires revolver mortally wounding criminal.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/3113953-155/father-would-be-home-invader-die-in

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37146102&nid=148&title=2-dead-in-attempted-home-invasion

I've never understood people that chase burglars/home-invaders, out down the street. Shoot them in your house, detain them in your house, chase them out sure, but chasing them once they're out just always seems like a bad idea (barring them having kidnapped somebody or something), specifically for the reason of what happened in this case.

Unclear from the articles whether the homeowner was aware the criminal was armed.

TommyGunn · « **Reply #1 on:** October 30, 2015, 12:37:31 PM »

I dunno ......

I suspect the homeowner is angry, his sense of "offense" has been sent into over-gear (adrenalin) and perhaps overwhelms his sense of judgement.

A good reason to KEEP YOUR HEAD during these events. Try thinking out in advance what you would do in the remote event something like this happened (keeping the macho and chest-beating knob turned waaaaay down ....)
I would do a lot in the name of self defense in my house .... but once the villian departs, he becomes a target to be left for the police department; NO WAY am I going out at zero dark thirty chasing some idiot goon. I'll give the police a good description.

HeroHog · « **Reply #2 on:** October 30, 2015, 01:06:37 PM »

I chased one out of my house once. He dropped my guns when he jumped off my second story balcony (they were in a pillowcase) and I ran down the stairs after him. Had I caught him I would have done my best to beat him senseless (I HATE a thief!). He outran me laughing all the way. I was madder than hell. I left my .38 in the car when I got out and started up the stairs. Had I not, who knows...

vaskidmark · « **Reply #3 on:** October 30, 2015, 01:20:26 PM »

Ego sends homeowner from innocent victim who, had he killed the home invader inside would get off on excusable/justified homicide finding, to aggressor who would face a first degree murder charge if he survived.

On top of which no life insurance policy will pay off when you die as the result of committing a crime, so your family is screwed one more time.

Thieves, be they politician, stock manipulators, or home invaders, are well within the bottom five of crooks on my list. But I hope I will have the ability to retain reason when dealing with them once they get outside again.

stay safe.

roo_ster · « **Reply #4 on:** October 30, 2015, 01:56:38 PM »

Quote from: vaskidmark on October 30, 2015, 01:20:26 PM

Ego sends homeowner from innocent victim who, had he killed the home invader inside would get off on excusable/justified homicide finding, to aggressor who would face a first degree murder charge if he survived.

The moral calculus does not change when the victim turns the table on the criminal and chases the criminal. The criminal initiated immoral and unjustified violence and bears the blame if the object of his immoral violence gives him violence back. I am about fed up with the lawyerly parsing of our lives, to include head-on-a-pin discussions of just where >right here!< someone who is victimized becomes a criminal according to some damnable talmudic reading of the law. To Hell with that and laws that run counter to basic morality.

Marnoot · « **Reply #5 on:** October 30, 2015, 03:12:00 PM »

I'm sure in this case the homeowner wasn't thinking he was going to go kill the guy (he would have just gunned him down if that were the case). Seems more like an attempt to prevent the criminal from escaping. But the risk is so high to go chasing a home invader after they're already out of your house.

Reward (slightly more assured justice?) just isn't worth the risk (you ded).

RoadKingLarry · « **Reply #6 on:** October 30, 2015, 03:18:43 PM »

Quote from: roo_ster on October 30, 2015, 01:56:38 PM

The moral calculus does not change when the victim turns the table on the criminal and chases the criminal. The criminal initiated immoral and unjustified violence and bears the blame if the object of his immoral violence gives him violence back. I am about fed up with the lawyerly parsing of our lives, to include head-on-a-pin discussions of just where >right here!< someone who is victimized becomes a criminal according to some damnable talmudic reading of the law. To Hell with that and laws that run counter to basic morality.

Preach it brother!

lee n. field · « **Reply #7 on:** October 30, 2015, 03:55:29 PM »

Just saw this. Apropos, even given the source.

We gun owners don't carry for you

Quote

Unless you live in one of the extremely restrictive states like New York, New Jersey, or Massachusetts, any time you are on the street or anywhere that does not have controlled access, with metal detectors and bag searches, etc., there is a fairly high probability that someone nearby is legally carrying a gun. But they are not carrying that gun to protect you.

A popular essay from Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, divided humans into three categories: “Sheep,” “Wolves” and “Sheepdogs.” I would suggest that Lt. Col. Grossman left out an important fourth category: “Porcupines.”

...Our nation’s convoluted laws on self-defense and liability also force all but the most dedicated “sheepdogs” into the role of “porcupine” as well, making “porcupines” the most prevalent variety of armed citizen. We won’t passively stand by while the wolves have their way with us or our families, but neither can we take responsibility for protecting the “sheep” from the “wolves.”

BlueStarLizzard · « **Reply #8 on:** October 30, 2015, 05:31:12 PM »

I have a feeling that people who do that do so in a heat of the moment type mindset. I can't see any other rational reason to follow the criminal out the door, unless your property is a farm or something and you have outbuildings and stock to protect (in which case, the property line is the your "front door")

As far as I'm concerned, any home intruder needs to either get out or die. There is no middle option and I have no interest in detaining anyone. I pay people (taxes) to catch criminals for a reason. If I'm going to be catching them, the local PD better be cutting me a check.

zxcvbob · « **Reply #9 on:** October 30, 2015, 06:34:02 PM »

Quote from: bluestarlizzard on October 30, 2015, 05:31:12 PM

I have a feeling that people who do that do so in a heat of the moment type mindset. I can't see any other rational reason to follow the criminal out the door, unless your property is a farm or something and you have outbuildings and stock to protect (in which case, the property line is the your "front door")

As far as I'm concerned, any home intruder needs to either get out or die. There is no middle option and I have no interest in detaining anyone. I pay people (taxes) to catch criminals for a reason. If I'm going to be catching them, the local PD better be cutting me a check.

Incapacitated, anyway. If they die that's their problem. I wouldn't say outloud that it was my goal.

vaskidmark · « **Reply #10 on:** October 30, 2015, 06:36:36 PM »

Quote from: roo_ster on October 30, 2015, 01:56:38 PM

The moral calculus does not change when the victim turns the table on the criminal and chases the criminal. The criminal initiated immoral and unjustified violence and bears the blame if the object of his immoral violence gives him violence back. I am about fed up with the lawyerly parsing of our lives, to include head-on-a-pin discussions of just where >right here!< someone who is victimized becomes a criminal according to some damnable talmudic reading of the law. To Hell with that and laws that run counter to basic morality.

Be as fed up as you would like to be. I'll see you on visiting day.

BTW - I disagree with you that it is counter to basic morality that the justification for use of deadly force ends when the aggressor ceases to be a threat and retreats. The distinction between "Thou shalt not Murder" and "you shall not kill" is anything but Talmudic parsing. The Old Testament is full of G*d exhorting the Israelites to kill, as well as expositions on the impropriety of murder.

stay safe.

BlueStarLizzard · « **Reply #11 on:** October 30, 2015, 07:36:05 PM »

Quote from: zxcvbob on October 30, 2015, 06:34:02 PM

Incapacitated, anyway. If they die that's their problem. I wouldn't say outloud that it was my goal.

Whatever. I have the same mentality when it comes to bugs that sting and snakes. Basically, get it the *expletive deleted*ck away from me!

Fly320s · « **Reply #12 on:** October 30, 2015, 08:15:17 PM »

Quote from: vaskidmark on October 30, 2015, 01:20:26 PM

Ego sends homeowner from innocent victim who, had he killed the home invader inside would get off on excusable/justified homicide finding, to aggressor who would face a first degree murder charge if he survived.

I don't think it is an ego issue, but a lack of education/training issue. On top of that is some good, old, instinctual attack-the-fleeing-prey type of caveman feelings. I imagine that these instances are less common than the instances where the home owner stops the attack but doesn't chase the fleeing felon down the driveway. I say that because we don't hear/read about these cases very often.

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #13 on:** October 30, 2015, 08:21:05 PM »

Several years back there was an armed robbery at a store in Menomonee Falls, WI. The store owner pulled a gun, and the robber took off. The store owner chased the robber out of the parking lot and down the sidewalk along the street, where he shot the robber. The district attorney didn't press charges and called it self defense.

I thought the store owner would have been charged with something, but maybe what Rooster is saying is true. Or maybe it's politics. Or a bit of both.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #14 on:** October 30, 2015, 10:39:20 PM »

We had a case, back in January, where a store owner (and carry-permit-holder) chased off a robber, and then got in his car and followed him to another store. He followed the creep inside, and then pulled out his firearm when the guy tried to rob the place. The creep produced a toy gun,

, and got shot in the shoulder. So far as I know, the shooter has not been charged.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/toy-gun-wielding-man-who-was-shot-while-trying-to/article_f15e0d52-3aaa-5a68-95ff-56d81e102aad.html
http://fox2now.com/2015/01/07/business-owner-follows-shoots-robber-in-south-city/

Marnoot · « **Reply #15 on:** October 30, 2015, 11:54:53 PM »

More details settling in, as they do:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37164364&nid=148&title=millcreek-homeowner-unaware-intruder-had-gun-until-shots-fired-police-say

Didn't go down quite like it was described in the initial articles (as it often doesn't). Still fault the guy's judgment for proactively going out and trying to find whoever had tried to kick in his door instead of waiting for the cops, then confronting the guy instead of waiting for the cops, then for following the guy instead of waiting for the cops.

I appreciate caring about the safety and security of your neighborhood, but anything more than "watch and report" (and in this case maybe sitting inside with a shotgun trained on the door) just leads to trouble.

brimic · « **Reply #16 on:** October 31, 2015, 01:58:09 PM »

Quote from: roo_ster on October 30, 2015, 01:56:38 PM

The moral calculus does not change when the victim turns the table on the criminal and chases the criminal. The criminal initiated immoral and unjustified violence and bears the blame if the object of his immoral violence gives him violence back. I am about fed up with the lawyerly parsing of our lives, to include head-on-a-pin discussions of just where >right here!< someone who is victimized becomes a criminal according to some damnable talmudic reading of the law. To Hell with that and laws that run counter to basic morality.

Yep.
Laws may say different, but I don't follow the line that someone who brings criminal violence against a person gets a 'time out' or is 'on gool' because he retreats across a threshold or an imaginary line of a political subdivision.
We have massive crime problems in certain areas because of the ROEs that favor criminals over homeowners and even police. The criminal justice system is even more broken. Horse and cattle thieves used to be hung, now someone stealing your car or looting your house will probably see minimum jail sentences, if any.

vaskidmark · « **Reply #17 on:** October 31, 2015, 04:42:44 PM »

So define the moral boundaries that would need to exist that would allow you to go after someone who threatened your life by breaking into your place even after he retreats out of your house and is no longer an active threat.

stay safe.

zxcvbob · « **Reply #18 on:** October 31, 2015, 06:06:55 PM »

Quote from: vaskidmark on October 31, 2015, 04:42:44 PM

So define the moral boundaries that would need to exist that would allow you to go after someone who threatened your life by breaking into your place even after he retreats out of your house and is no longer an active threat.

stay safe.

I'm not sure there is a bright line. The attacker could be retreating just to regroup and attack again. Or maybe he'll just firebomb your house later. The victim can't know that (unless he's psychic) and whatever split-second decision he makes will picked apart later -- and deemed to be wrong by people who weren't there. So I tend to cut him (her) a lot of slack; he didn't choose the time or the place of the attack. With notions like that, I'll also never be on a jury...

I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to that shopkeeper in Oklahoma who executed a wounded armed robber a year or two ago. (He was convicted of murder)

roo_ster · « **Reply #19 on:** October 31, 2015, 07:22:12 PM »

Quote from: vaskidmark on October 31, 2015, 04:42:44 PM

So define the moral boundaries that would need to exist that would allow you to go after someone who threatened your life by breaking into your place even after he retreats out of your house and is no longer an active threat.

stay safe.

1. You have neighbors
2. You like them and are neighborly
3. You dont want them victimized either

I do not grant folk who are paid to pick up the bipedal trash any more or less moral authority than fellow citizens who make a living at other occupations. So having the victim chase down the goblin or having a leo do it is same-same. Both are taking out the trash.

Of course the law sees it different. Hopefully we can change that over time with elections juries and common practice.

BlueStarLizzard · « **Reply #20 on:** October 31, 2015, 07:33:33 PM »

Quote from: roo_ster on October 31, 2015, 07:22:12 PM

1. You have neighbors
2. You like them and are neighborly
3. You dont want them victimized either

I do not grant folk who are paid to pick up the bipedal trash any more or less moral authority than fellow citizens who make a living at other occupations. So having the victim chase down the goblin or having a leo do it is same-same. Both are taking out the trash.

Of course the law sees it different. Hopefully we can change that over time with elections juries and common practice.

rooster, I have several neighbor's who's wonderful intentions do not equal my desire to have NOT try to protect me.

This, to my mind, has nothing to do with moral authority. I have several neighbor's with firearms and a certain degree of skill. They also like bro country, cheap beer and get a little hot headed (and dumb) when angered. I absolutely do not want them "protecting" anyone more than themselves, much less running around the area with a loaded gun and itchy trigger fingers.

Now, it's not that the local LEO is all that much more skilled, but when it comes to apprehension of criminals, that's what we pay them for, right? and when it comes to the safety and well being of the neighbors... isn't that their own responsibility?

It's the thought process that you should help, without consideration of how much your help is wanted (or even needed) by those you wish to help that got this country in so much trouble in the first place.

De Selby · « **Reply #21 on:** October 31, 2015, 11:07:15 PM »

Scenario folks:

You chase down a youth who's just kicked in your door and attempted to steal a TV set, and in the process he threatened you. You didn't shoot him then.

He runs off, and you give armed chase only to shoot him around the corner. A neighbour witnesses you shooting someone who appears to be unarmed, and an angry lynch mob quickly forms. The mob hangs you for shooting someone in the street for no apparent reason, giving you no opportunity to speak.

Now try to draft a law that allows part 1 (your shooting) but prohibits part 2 (you being lynched for a shooting that someone just witnessed "in cold blood", they'd say)? That's going to be a tough one. If you don't want to be subject to execution on the spot by people who claim to have witnessed your own "crimes", you can't assert the right to execute people for crimes you claim to have witnessed.

Self-defense laws aren't designed to mete out justice, they're designed to ensure you can keep yourself safe. Anything further and you're playing the role of angry mob.

De Selby · « **Reply #22 on:** October 31, 2015, 11:11:06 PM »

Quote from: brimic on October 31, 2015, 01:58:09 PM

Yep.
Laws may say different, but I don't follow the line that someone who brings criminal violence against a person gets a 'time out' or is 'on gool' because he retreats across a threshold or an imaginary line of a political subdivision.
We have massive crime problems in certain areas because of the ROEs that favor criminals over homeowners and even police. The criminal justice system is even more broken. Horse and cattle thieves used to be hung, now someone stealing your car or looting your house will probably see minimum jail sentences, if any.

Calling self-defence laws "ROEs" belies an attitude towards your neighbours that probably could use some adjusting.

Crime used to be a lot worse when we hung horse thieves. Jail sentences are anything but light. Crime is at historic lows compared to most of America's history.

I chalk up incidents like the OP as part of the social cost of too many dirty harry movies.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #23 on:** October 31, 2015, 11:53:11 PM »

Quote from: De Selby on October 31, 2015, 11:07:15 PM

Scenario folks:

You chase down a youth who's just kicked in your door and attempted to steal a TV set, and in the process he threatened you. You didn't shoot him then.

He runs off, and you give armed chase only to shoot him around the corner. A neighbour witnesses you shooting someone who appears to be unarmed, and an angry lynch mob quickly forms. The mob hangs you for shooting someone in the street for no apparent reason, giving you no opportunity to speak.

Now try to draft a law that allows part 1 (your shooting) but prohibits part 2 (you being lynched for a shooting that someone just witnessed "in cold blood", they'd say)? That's going to be a tough one. If you don't want to be subject to execution on the spot by people who claim to have witnessed your own "crimes", you can't assert the right to execute people for crimes you claim to have witnessed.

Self-defense laws aren't designed to mete out justice, they're designed to ensure you can keep yourself safe. Anything further and you're playing the role of angry mob.

I'm not one to advocate hot pursuit of failed home invaders, but on the other hand, I don't think anyone here suggested we just go out and wantonly shoot them, either.

HankB · « **Reply #24 on:** November 01, 2015, 12:25:15 AM »

I don't see myself pursuing a fleeing thug . . . but on the other hand, if "The Authorities" decided to prosecute someone who did, the DA really wouldn't be happy with the result if I were on the jury.

News:

Author Topic: Why do people do this? (Read 2505 times)