Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: 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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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!
-
Just saw this. Apropos, even given the source.
We gun owners don't carry for you
(http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/we-gun-owners-dont-carry-for-you/#CB7jRxGcf9JqM3Mb.01)
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.”
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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, :rofl:, 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/
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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)
-
Sympathetic is not the same thing as advocating or condoning.
-
Hey, if we're going to pull WA hypotheticals out of our fourth point.... Then how's about this one.
Someone attempts to break into your home. Hearing the noise of the goblin IN your house, you grab your heater and head off to position yourself between the goblin and your loved ones. Goblin sees/hears you and bolts for the door, exiting your home. You don't have a good shot, so you check fire, getting off zero shots. You also do not pursue but call 911 to report the incident. A squad arrives, takes your report, tells you you can pick up a copy for you insurance in a few days and departs.
The next morning you notice the swarm of police and other first responders at the nice widow lady's house two doors down. She was always a little hard of hearing and you find out from an officer manning the scene that someone broke in, brutally beat her and raped her for hours before finally killing her.
How many neighbors do you gather together for the Lynch Mob for the resident local criminal defense lawyer ??
-
Unless they are running for cover, once they are out of my house the cops can run after them. I have better things to do than go running nekkid down the street waving a gun trying to catch some thieving little bastard just because he kicked my door in at 3am.
-
.
How many neighbors do you gather together for the Lynch Mob for the resident local criminal defense lawyer ??
Not a damn one.
I'll feel sorry that the widow lady got treated badly (that's newspeak for raped, probably beat to hell, and then gruesomely killed).
But so far the local criminal defense attorney does not have a client, if I'm reading your scenario properly. Nor do we know if it was one of his former clients that was busy out and about last night.
But most of all - have any of you ever been a criminal defendant? It's a completely different ball game when you are an otherwise law-abiding citizen as opposed to someone who spends a significant part of their life intentionally being a criminal. And as such I want that low-life slimeball tilecrawler doing their damnedest to make sure that I am not railroaded and that each and every single one of my rights are protected by using every technicality anybody can dream of.
There seems to be a metric [expletive]it-ton of blood lust around this subject. I really wonder why, unless it is a sense of frustration that what your fellow citizens and neighbors are not willing to pay for is not stopping people from committing crimes.
For years I have advocated for a method of permanently just about stopping criminal behavior in its tracks and eliminating it in the future. When I explain what will be involved in dealing with the criminal and his/her extended family out at least six degrees people run away, looking over their shoulder to see if the crazy man is following after them.
So unless all y'all are willing to sign on to my plan, or come up with an even better one, you are going to have to live with the fact that criminals, and thus criminality, exist and will continue to exist. How many of them do you think you can find and hang/shoot/draw and quarter before someone gets tired of how you are behaving and hangs/shoots/draws and quarters you?
stay ssafe.
-
Not a damn one.
I'll feel sorry that the widow lady got treated badly (that's newspeak for raped, probably beat to hell, and then gruesomely killed).
But so far the local criminal defense attorney does not have a client, if I'm reading your scenario properly. Nor do we know if it was one of his former clients that was busy out and about last night.
But most of all - have any of you ever been a criminal defendant? It's a completely different ball game when you are an otherwise law-abiding citizen as opposed to someone who spends a significant part of their life intentionally being a criminal. And as such I want that low-life slimeball tilecrawler doing their damnedest to make sure that I am not railroaded and that each and every single one of my rights are protected by using every technicality anybody can dream of.
There seems to be a metric [expletive]it-ton of blood lust around this subject. I really wonder why, unless it is a sense of frustration that what your fellow citizens and neighbors are not willing to pay for is not stopping people from committing crimes.
For years I have advocated for a method of permanently just about stopping criminal behavior in its tracks and eliminating it in the future. When I explain what will be involved in dealing with the criminal and his/her extended family out at least six degrees people run away, looking over their shoulder to see if the crazy man is following after them.
So unless all y'all are willing to sign on to my plan, or come up with an even better one, you are going to have to live with the fact that criminals, and thus criminality, exist and will continue to exist. How many of them do you think you can find and hang/shoot/draw and quarter before someone gets tired of how you are behaving and hangs/shoots/draws and quarters you?
stay ssafe.
Sorry, I thought the Bazinga was implied. I will provide many more smilies next time.... :P
-
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.
How about this:
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 shoot him.
Someone witnesses you shooting someone who appears to be unarmed, and an angry lynch mob quickly forms. The mob hangs you for shooting someone for no apparent reason, giving you no opportunity to speak.
Or how about this:
Someone starts shooting up a mall that you are in. You draw and fire. Someone else who is CCWing see's you shoot someone and believes you to be the shooter and they then shoot you.
Or how about this:
The criminal just takes your gun from you as they rob your house.
It will be like the wild west out there with blood running in the streets!!1!!
;/
My personal opinion, I know its's "stupid" to go chasing after a criminal like that but that's because of all these BS laws. I believe you should be allowed to. This person is willing to do that to you do you really think they will stop with you? I believe I would have a moral duty to stop them. I think fistful's example shows that exact thing happening, right after one failed attempt the would be criminal went straight to trying it at some other place.