Good guy with an AK47 ...

[laughing dog]

1. Murdering someone for picking up a television is not self-defense.

If someone is going to throw the TV at you and you have no way to avoid it, it could be self-defense. I doubt that was the case in this instance.

 

[Derec]

What happens when a 7.62 FMJ round from an AK47 rifle traveling at 2,300 ft/sec penetrates the wall of your house and the wall of your neighbor and kills his 3-year old?

Possible, but unlikely. A round going through two walls may still have enough kinetic energy to be lethal - depending on the material of the siding and what it hits along the way (electric conduits/boxes, studs, etc.) but the chances of hitting such a small target wildly are rather small.

But let's say it happens. The homeowner might face some charges for being reckless, but in any case the robber - if he survives - should be facing felony murder charges.

 

[Derec]

For some reason, that question does not vex people like Derec. They assign the responsibility and legal blame on the original target (the housebreaker) and absolve the actual shooter of any responsibility for their action. Apparently, they feel that the cry of "self defense" allows just about reaction.

I definitely think the home invader has the biggest share of responsibility here. I do not think the homeowner should be shooting wildly, like that guy in Texas though.

Let me ask you and attrib something. Do you guys know of any actual, not theoretical, home self defense cases where a round went through one exterior wall, between houses, and entered another house with enough speed to be lethal? Much less that it actually killed a three year old. I would think the confluence of variables to allow that would make something like that incredibly rare.

All I can recall are people drive-by shooting from the outside, but that is just one exterior wall. And I do not mean apartments either.

 

[Derec]

What about people who steals millions from pension funds? Is it ok to kill them too?

There is a huge, and qualitative difference between violent crime such as home invasion and non-violent crime like Bernie making off with your money.
There is a threat to your life and well-being from somebody breaking into your house while you are in it. There is no such threat if somebody swindles you into buying into his Ponzi scheme. So while the latter should be (and are) prosecuted and imprisoned, there is no grounds for self-defense. Bernie Madoff is not coming into your house with a 9mm when emptying your retirement fund.

 

[Derec]

Then why are you holding up the actions of the homeowners' as some kind of example of things going right? Why the fuck would any sane person discharge a high-powered rifle in a residential neighborhood, knowing fully well that a shotgun would be just as effective at detering or even bringing down a home invader without putting the lives of your neighbors at significant risk?

Well the homeowner did right. It was not optimum, perhaps, but he did well ending the threat. There is also no mention of rounds he discharged hitting any other houses for that matter, unless I missed it. It is probably the case of using whatever loaded gun you have when you have to defend yourself.

There was another case of an homeowner using a rifle to defend his property, this time in Conyers (an outer suburb of Atlanta along I-20).
A Georgia man shot and killed 3 masked teens as they tried to rob him at his home, police say
Too bad, so sad.
Again, no reports of other houses being hit.

 

[Derec]

1. Murdering someone for picking up a television is not self-defense.

In some states it is, if that person is inside your home.

I would think that would be the case in all states. While laws on allowable self defense vary, I do not know of any where you shooting a home invader would count as anything but self-defense.
Now, other countries make take a more dim view toward people defending themselves, but in the US the castle doctrine is afaik universally accepted.

 

[Derec]

If the Florida or Texas state legislature passes a law saying that black is white, it doesn't make it so; It just illustrates the insanity of the people voting in those legislatures.

That's what I think of legislatures that make it a crime to defend yourself against intruders.

You already quoted Solzhenitsyn above, so let me give you another quote, more apropos of the discussion at hand.

In the Criminal Code of 1926 there was a most stupid Article 139 – “on the limits of necessary self-defense” —according to which you had the right to unsheath your knife only after the criminal’s knife was hovering over you. And you could stab him only after he had stabbed you. And otherwise you would be the one put on trial. (And there was no article in our legislation saying that the greater criminal was the one who attacked someone weaker than himself.) This fear of exceeding the measure of necessary self-defense lead to total spinelessness as a national characteristic. A hoodlum once began to beat up the Red Army man Aleksandr Zakharov outside a club. Zakharov took out a folding penknife and killed the hoodlum. And for this he got….ten years for plain murder! “And what was I supposed to do?” he asked, astonished. Prosecutor Artsishevsky replied: “You should have fled!” So tell me, who creates hoodlums?

 

[Derec]

You are allowed to kill someone who breaks into your home to steal a $500 tv. But you can't shoot the assholes who made your life savings vanish? Life is not fair.

The point is that deadly force is used not for revenge, but because people breaking into your house present a clear and present danger to you or other people in the house.
Now, Texas permits you to shoot fleeing thieves at night. That law goes too far I think, but even there the goal is not revenge, but to recover the stolen property. Not even in Texas is it permissible to track down the thieves, go to their lair and just shoot them. And neither is it permissible to shoot Bernie Madoff for the same reason.
That said, dying in prison as one of the most hated men in America is not an enviable fate either, so I think there is some fairness there.

 

[Derec]

I agree with you that it is insane for the law to allow the use of lethal force against people who do not pose a threat to your life or the lives of others in the house. But that is how the law is written.

Home invaders do pose such a threat. White collar criminals do not.

 

[Derec]

It cannot be defined as such in any meaningful moral or ethical way.

Why not? I mean if you could know for sure your TV is all they want, it could be argued that lethal force is not permissible (unless they pull out a weapon or otherwise attack you if you confront them). But people are not omniscient. If a person or several people break into your home, you do not know the extent of their intentions. And you are neither morally nor legally required to wait and find out if they just want your TV or if they want to bind you, rape your wife and kill you both. Which is a scenario that has sadly happened repeatedly in home invasion cases.

A group of teens murdered three people in a home invasion:
14-year-old ‘getaway driver’ among 4 Jacksonville teens charged in triple murder

Another case of a home invasion with a female getaway driver, but with a happier ending.
Woman Charged With Three Shooting Murders Never Fired A Shot

Bonus point for there being a good guy with an AR-15.
The three knuckleheads brought a gun and brass knuckles and a knife to a gunfight ...

 

[Derec]

1. Murdering someone for picking up a television is not self-defense.

Killing somebody in self defense is not murder.

2. You pulled that completely out of your ass without any justification or evidence and as such it is so pathetically weak as an argument it shall be summarily dismissed entirely.

I did not and it is not. It is the reality. There are many cases of home invasions where occupants have been harmed (including rapes) or killed.
So no, shooting intruders is not about the TV. Although obviously these scumbags do not have the right to steal people's TVs either.

 

[Derec]

I'm pretty certain the AR-15 shares 95% of its parts with the XM-177, M-16, M-16A1, M-16A2 and M-4.

I would think the full auto version would be more than 5% different, as you do not only need a selector, but various mechanical components would have to be different too.

There's also the added wrinkle that Eugene Stoner never thought such a weapon should be readily available for civilian use.

It seems to me that this quote referred to the original, military (selective fire), version of the rifle.

 

[Derec]

Semi-automatic rifles were featured in four of the five deadliest mass shootings, being used in the Orlando nightclub massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary massacre and Texas First Baptist Church massacre, not to mention Parkland and the Las Vegas bloodbath..

Why do you only care about these high profile cases? They constitute a small fraction of homicide victims. They are not even all "mass shootings", since those are defined by number of people shot, not how much time media is spending covering them.
Also, it has not been shown that similar body counts would not have been obtained if the shooters used handguns (like the VT shooter who killed 32) or other types of rifles instead.

I couldn't find stats on the percentage of mass shooting deaths attributable to AR-style semi auto rifles. Almost as if nobody wants to talk about that.

I think Dems do want to talk about that, since banning "assault weapons" is one of their obsessions. That they are not touting the numbers you seek most likely means they are not favorable to their idée fixe.
In any case, I found this.

From here.
I know, not the most disinterested source, but do you have better data?

But I'm quite sure that Derec would be hard pressed to tell the difference between an AR-15 from the local gun shop and a military issue .223 assault rifle.

I'd look for the selector switch.

Also sure he has never handled either, and so doesn't know why they are under such scrutiny.

I have fired an AR15 once, at a shooting range. It has been a while though.

He has also never worked in EMS or any other field where he might have to actually see what those rifles do to human flesh.

How is "what these rifles do to human flesh" different than other rifles firing the same cartridge?

He considers those weapons "maligned" from his place of blissful ignorance, an opinion that can be safely ignored.

BS, as usual. It is the Dems that malign out of "blissful ignorance", for example by mixing up AR15 and AR50.

 

[Derec]

I have never advocated for that.

Are you denying that you advocated paying thieves and robbers a government stipend to incentivize them not to steal and rob?

 

[Derec]

People get killed by meteorite strikes.

Deadly home invasions are far more common that deadly meteorite strikes.
And if I had a way to destroy an incoming meteorite, it would be wise to do so rather than wait to see whether it lands on somebody's head.

It's not sane to give a moment of thought to this risk, though. Only paranoia can explain a person who is worried about such rare events.

Bullshit. Once somebody is breaking into your house with you inside, danger can be presumed. And the homeowner can and should act accordingly.

 

[Derec]

Yes, I am fully aware that your country is horrific and utterly uncivilised.

I think death penalty should be abolished too. That does not change the facts surrounding these cases.

 

[Derec]

How many? What proportion of break-ins do they represent?

I do not know. How high do you think it can be before you think the home-owners should be allowed to defend themselves?

 

[Derec]

Nope, burglary is of an occupied, or likely to bd occupied, dwelling. When it's likely to be unoccupied, it's housebreaking.
"Home invasion" is tabloid media propaganda, instigated because "burglary" didn't sound scary enough.

Might be a difference with Aussie English, but that is not the case here. Here, "housebreaking" is not a legal term, but home invasion is.
From Georgia Law:

2014 Georgia Code
Title 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
Chapter 7 - DAMAGE TO AND INTRUSION UPON PROPERTY
Article 1A - CRIME OF HOME INVASION
§ 16-7-5 - Home invasion in the first and second degree

(a) As used in this Code section, the term "dwelling" shall have the same meaning as provided in Code Section 16-7-1.

(b) A person commits the offense of home invasion in the first degree when, without authority and with intent to commit a forcible felony therein and while in possession of a deadly weapon or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury, he or she enters the dwelling house of another while such dwelling house is occupied by any person with authority to be present therein.

(c) A person commits the offense of home invasion in the second degree when, without authority and with intent to commit a forcible misdemeanor therein and while in possession of a deadly weapon or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury, he or she enters the dwelling house of another while such dwelling house is occupied by any person with authority to be present therein.

(d) A person convicted of the offense of home invasion in the first degree shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for life or imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years and by a fine of not more than $100,000.00. A person convicted of the offense of home invasion in the second degree shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years and by a fine of not more than $100,000.00.

(e) Adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence for home invasion in any degree may be probated at the discretion of the judge; provided, however, that such sentence shall not be suspended, deferred, or withheld.

(f) A sentence imposed under this Code section may be imposed separately from and consecutive to a sentence for any other offense related to the act or acts establishing the offense under this Code section.

It looks like that in order to qualify for the crime of home invasion, the perp must be armed. Learn something new every day. But most of these knuckleheads are armed, even if just with brass knuckles and knives.

Contrast burglary. Not gonna post it here, as it would get too long. Suffice it to say, there is no crime of "housebreaking".

 

[Patooka]

I would think the full auto version would be more than 5% different, as you do not only need a selector, but various mechanical components would have to be different too.

Not really. Any rifle that is semi auto can be fully auto. The bolt operates the same way.

 

[Derec]

Not really. Any rifle that is semi auto can be fully auto. The bolt operates the same way.

I am not saying it is not similar in operation. But that more than 5% of the parts would probably be different. The selector switch has to connect to something to change between continuous, burst and single fire. That something does not need to be there in the civilian version, and so the parts will be different, even if it is a few gears and cogs.