A failure of the closet-selection process

[Perd Hapley]

Home invaders stuck the victim in a closet, not knowing that is where he kept his gats.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9102486

[MillCreek]

Lulz

[230RN]

Swift and terrible justice.

LMTO

("T" for "Tush.")

Terry, 230RN

[Ben]

Excellent.

To be a Debbie Downer to the thread, does it ever bother anyone else when you read a story like this and see the line, "No charges are expected to be filed against the homeowner."? It always irks me when I see that because my first thought is that they're coming into it predisposed to thinking that the homeowner did something wrong. It's probably just me being overly sensitive to the perspective of gun owners and home defense, but nevertheless, it still puts a burr under my saddle.

[Perd Hapley]

Yes, it bothered me, too.

[geronimotwo]

to me that just serves as a reminder to the masses (who have forgotten) that it's okay to defend oneself.  i don't have any problem with it.

[freakazoid]

It has always bothered me too, but I do like geronimotwos take on it. I think it's sad that it even has to be said.

[TommyGunn]

Excellent.

To be a Debbie Downer to the thread, does it ever bother anyone else when you read a story like this and see the line, "No charges are expected to be filed against the homeowner."? It always irks me when I see that because my first thought is that they're coming into it predisposed to thinking that the homeowner did something wrong. It's probably just me being overly sensitive to the perspective of gun owners and home defense, but nevertheless, it still puts a burr under my saddle.

I take your point but it may reflect the reporter's querying the police about how the matter will be resolved and ..."police ignorance."   Most of the lamestream media is pretty liberal these days and don't really understand self-defense, even in the confines of one's own home.
I live in a very conservative area yet our local rag qualifies as "flaming liberal" by official San Francisco® standards.  I wouldn't use it for fishwrap.

[SteveS]

I take your point but it may reflect the reporter's querying the police about how the matter will be resolved and ..."police ignorance."   Most of the lamestream media is pretty liberal these days and don't really understand self-defense, even in the confines of one's own home.
I live in a very conservative area yet our local rag qualifies as "flaming liberal" by official San Francisco® standards.  I wouldn't use it for fishwrap.

I think it has less to do with ideology and more to do with laziness/stupidity.  I have seen this with a lot of reporting that deals with the legal system.

[Ben]

I take your point but it may reflect the reporter's querying the police about how the matter will be resolved and ..."police ignorance."   Most of the lamestream media is pretty liberal these days and don't really understand self-defense, even in the confines of one's own home.
I live in a very conservative area yet our local rag qualifies as "flaming liberal" by official San Francisco® standards.  I wouldn't use it for fishwrap.

Yeah, I certainly understand that point. It's just that I have a dream that one day this nation will think the phrase, "No charges will be filed against the homeowner for defending himself" is as silly as, "No charges will be filed against the homeowner for calling 911". :)

[bedlamite]

Sometimes stating the obvious is necessary.

[T.O.M.]

Yeah, I certainly understand that point. It's just that I have a dream that one day this nation will think the phrase, "No charges will be filed against the homeowner for defending himself" is as silly as, "No charges will be filed against the homeowner for calling 911". :)

Back when I was prosecuting, I pushed to take every self-defense situation through the  grand jury.  Reason?  A no bill from a grand jury means a lot more than a "charges declined" from a prosecutor, and can act as a useful weapon in the event of a civil suit. 

But you're right.  It should be a no brainer once the circumstances are known.

[Ben]

Back when I was prosecuting, I pushed to take every self-defense situation through the  grand jury.  Reason?  A no bill from a grand jury means a lot more than a "charges declined" from a prosecutor, and can act as a useful weapon in the event of a civil suit. 

Interesting. Something that as a layperson, I wouldn't have thought about. I'm guessing that also protects the person from potential future litigation?

[vaskidmark]

Interesting. Something that as a layperson, I wouldn't have thought about. I'm guessing that also protects the person from potential future litigation?

Prosecutors can indict a ham sammich, and tile crawlers can file suit against anybody for anything.  It's just hard to convince a jury that your client deserves some money because your recently deceased relative, who was just about to turn their life around while coming home to milk and cookies after choir practice with granny, when a grand jury has heard all the evidence and refused to issue a true bill.  Well, what the grand jury decided, the fact that your client may end up owing legal fees to Harry Homeowner, and the possibility of a positive outcome of the contingency-based fee arrangement is quickly approaching zero.  Sort of all combine to get to the point that even a tile crawler would not want to touch the case.

stay safe.

[Regolith]

edit: N/M.

[T.O.M.]

Interesting. Something that as a layperson, I wouldn't have thought about. I'm guessing that also protects the person from potential future litigation?

Like skid said,, anyone can sue for anything, but having that "no bill" card in hand sure stacks the deck in your favor.

One warning, a lot of dirtbag lawyers will sue for the sole reason that they want to allege negligence/reclessness so your insurance company comes into play.  To the ambulance chaser, insurance means a cash settlement, of which 30% or more goes in their pocket.

[230RN]

A lady lawyer friend of mine and I got mutually drunk one night and had a somewhat sophomoric discussion about the legal structure in the US.

I railed about the proliferation of laws and the fact that "not knowing the law" was not a viable excuse in court --hence hiring an attorney was a necessity.  

"Well, let's face it," she said.  "We built the system."

A sobering thought that sobered me up pretty quick.

[T.O.M.]

I railed about the proliferation of laws and the fact that "not knowing the law" was not a viable excuse in court --hence hiring an attorney was a necessity.  

What's funny is that this plays out like that in the big city courts, where the judges tend to want things done and oevr with quickly.  Period.  Step out to the farming communities where the judge runs a farm on the side, or coaches Little League, or runs a Scout troop, and you'll see a whole different attitude towards people in general.  The lawyers get a raft of crap from judges for playing lawyer games, and I've seen judges bend over backwards to help a "normal person" present a case over the actions and objections of big-city lawyers.  I think that much of that has to do with being elected by a different set of voters.  In the big cities, elections are like those on the national scale...advertising and image mean everything.  Step into the smaller county, and elections are based a whole lot more on the actual person.

[230RN]

^ Jeeze, Chris, don't get me started on urban vs rural patterns of behavior...

...and voting.

And the power dominance of urban areas.  Sometimes I think we ought to have an inverse population/representation ratio --representation by square feet instead of number of dolts per square foot.

....Oh, I could go on.

But fistful will chastise me for thread veering.  Besides, my coffeepot says it's done.

[Perd Hapley]

^ Jeeze, Chris, don't get me started on urban vs rural patterns of behavior...

...and voting.

And the power dominance of urban areas.  Sometimes I think we ought to have an inverse population/representation ratio --representation by square feet instead of number of dolts per square foot.

....Oh, I could go on.

But fistful will chastise me for thread veering.  Besides, my coffeepot says it's done.

No, that sounds interesting. Do go on.

[230RN]

Heh.

[RevDisk]

Back when I was prosecuting, I pushed to take every self-defense situation through the  grand jury.  Reason?  A no bill from a grand jury means a lot more than a "charges declined" from a prosecutor, and can act as a useful weapon in the event of a civil suit. 

But you're right.  It should be a no brainer once the circumstances are known.

My state just went with the whole "civil immunity for lethal force if no criminal charges" route. Technically, they could still sue. But legally, there's no way they should get a single penny unless the person is found criminally negligant or guilty of something. I get what you mean, and I'm sure some of the brighter defendants appreciated it in the long run. Civil immunity clauses across the country are a good long term solution, though.

What's funny is that this plays out like that in the big city courts, where the judges tend to want things done and oevr with quickly.  Period.  Step out to the farming communities where the judge runs a farm on the side, or coaches Little League, or runs a Scout troop, and you'll see a whole different attitude towards people in general.  The lawyers get a raft of crap from judges for playing lawyer games, and I've seen judges bend over backwards to help a "normal person" present a case over the actions and objections of big-city lawyers.  I think that much of that has to do with being elected by a different set of voters.  In the big cities, elections are like those on the national scale...advertising and image mean everything.  Step into the smaller county, and elections are based a whole lot more on the actual person.

Eh, I suspect you are right, but the personality of the judge is probably a fairly big part as well. Some are a lot more methodical and thorough than others. Last city judge I stood before (as a witness) was extremely thorough. Victim Services lady told me not all the judges are, which is probably more efficient but perhaps not as optimal IMHO.