How he gonna get his money?

[JonA]

What you call civilized I call regressive barbarism.

I addressed this in my post - although you chose to ignore it in your response.

People who think it's acceptable kill because they assume the worst, are suffering from dangerous paranoia, and should seek psychiatric assistance before they hurt someone (and have to live with that for the rest of their lives).

Yes I know, you categorized people wishing to defend their own safety and security as paranoid.

The person breaking in might just be there for a really good reason; but anyone thinking they might be there to hurt them and wishing to defend themselves from that person is clearly nuts.

The placement of your priorities is clear and, as I already said, disgusting.

How would you feel if you shot an intruder dead, for fear that he would murder your family; only to find out that his car had broken down, and he was in fact seeking your help?

Terrible. But not nearly as terrible as if I left my family die believing the person in my living room just needed a lift.

And who the fuck breaks into someone's house when their car breaks down?

Obviously anyone who responds to a flat tire by breaking and entering is unpredictable and on the fringe of society's norms. We shouldn't make any assumptions about what they are or aren't doing (or might do) and all our judgement calls should reasonably relate to protecting the safety of ourselves and loved ones - no matter what that requires.

 

[laughing dog]

#3 is simply throwing out something for which there is no evidence to try to muddy the waters.

Actually, there is no evidence at this point for any of the three. Which is exactly my point - you have no business making pronouncements about whether the shoot was legal or good without more information. Not that it will stop you.

 

[laughing dog]

It's all nonsense. It is plain unreasonable to expect anyone to perform some ridiculous in-depth analysis of a situation before making a decision to defend themselves against someone they have sufficient reason to believe will cause them harm.

In the obvious context, those 3 points were aimed at people who were making judgments about the outcome, not the actual shooter. BTW, the shooter would know the answer to all 3 points.

 

[JonA]

BTW, the shooter would know the answer to all 3 points.

Not necessarily.

Nor is it a reasonable expectation that they should take the time to find those answers.

 

[RavenSky]

People who think it's acceptable kill because they assume the worst, are suffering from dangerous paranoia, and should seek psychiatric assistance before they hurt someone (and have to live with that for the rest of their lives).

On this point - at least as to the U.S.A. - you are unfortunately wrong. Because of the gun culture in this country, if someone breaks into your home while you are there, you really do have to assume they intend to kill or severely harm you. We even have a name for it - "home invasion" - which is defined as "an illegal and usually forceful entry to an occupied, private dwelling with intent to commit a violent crime against the occupants, such as robbery, assault, rape, murder, or kidnapping."

I personally still do not see this as justification for owning a gun. As you noted, it is far more likely that it will be an innocent person shot and killed. I prefer to live in a secure building to minimize (to almost nil) the chances of anyone breaking in at all, much less when I am there. I also think there should be a duty to retreat. But I would not call anyone in this country "paranoid" for believing that a burglar entering an occupied home is a threat to the homeowner.

Now having said all of that, even though the "United States leads the world in occurrence of burglaries and about four burglaries occur every minute" - the majority of burglaries do happen when the house is empty. Most burglars specific seek out empty houses. They really are just there to steal stuff. They aren't killers, and are usually unarmed... like the guy in the OP.

 

[RavenSky]

While I would not say it with that attitude, I would agree that she likely didn't break any laws in this hypothetical

With the shot being in the chest I find it very unlikely he was trying to get away at that point.

I disagree completely. He was obviously trying to get away given that he exited the house.

If he had been trying to get away why was he facing her? The initial news reports at least said there was a confrontation before the shooting--that would have been time for him to turn tail and run.

As I said in the first place, if he was dashing out of the house with the intention of running away just as she was coming towards the house, they would be facing each other without it being any sort of 'attack' on his part - and I think that is exactly what happened. She characterized it as a "confrontation" (He didn't. He's dead) but we have no details on what that means. It could very easily (and probably does) mean that she told him to stop where he was, and he didn't. Had she had no gun, I suspect he would have simply run straight past her and hauled his ass home.

If it was a case of bad luck, him exiting and running at her without knowing she was there, too bad. She walks. With the shot being in the chest I find it very unlikely he was trying to get away at that point.

One would think before anyone interested in making a relatively disinterested assessment of a likelihood, one would want to know
1) how far away the victim was from the shooter,
2) was the victim approaching the shooter or not, and
3) did the shooter entice the victim to turn around.

#3 is simply throwing out something for which there is no evidence to try to muddy the waters.

exactly what you are doing with your unsupported and illogical assumption that he was not trying to get away

 

[DBT]

A basic course in gun safety teaches that you should always identify your target before firing. Not only that, but be aware of the trajectory of the projectile if it happens to exit the target or if it happen to miss so that your shot does not have unintended consequences like hitting a bystander or someone in the distance. Just common sense.

 

[RavenSky]

A basic course in gun safety teaches that you should always identify your target before firing. Not only that, but be aware of the trajectory of the projectile if it happens to exit the target or if it happen to miss so that your shot does not have unintended consequences like hitting a bystander or someone in the distance. Just common sense.

Too bad our resident police-defenders don't hold police to that sort of common sense

 

[DBT]

A basic course in gun safety teaches that you should always identify your target before firing. Not only that, but be aware of the trajectory of the projectile if it happens to exit the target or if it happen to miss so that your shot does not have unintended consequences like hitting a bystander or someone in the distance. Just common sense.

Too bad our resident police-defenders don't hold police to that sort of common sense

Perhaps too many gun owners in America, including some police officers, have a Cowboy mentality towards firearms and the way they used, which is something that should be urgently addressed?

 

[RavenSky]

Too bad our resident police-defenders don't hold police to that sort of common sense

Perhaps too many gun owners in America, including some police officers, have a Cowboy mentality towards firearms and the way they used, which is something that should be urgently addressed?

Yes, I like to dream, too.

Honestly, I gave up hope when this country couldn't get its act together to do something about gun violence after Sandy Hook

 

[Kusa]

Honestly, I gave up hope when this country couldn't get its act together to do something about gun violence after Sandy Hook

What do you suppose they could have done about the gun violence?

 

[DBT]

Perhaps too many gun owners in America, including some police officers, have a Cowboy mentality towards firearms and the way they used, which is something that should be urgently addressed?

Yes, I like to dream, too.

Honestly, I gave up hope when this country couldn't get its act together to do something about gun violence after Sandy Hook

Government sponsored public education programs - gun shops, on the range and a variety of media, TV, newspapers, magazines, hardcopy, online, etc - to educate people on legitimate firearm use and safety and alter attitude is quite achievable. It only needs the will and the funds to implement.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There is another aspect to all of this, adrenaline. When it hits the fan, we act differently when the adrenaline hits. The shooter in this case may very well have been in a rather altered state of mind that may not have even planned or noticed the shooting as it occurred. One more reason an armed society may not be a polite society.

And this is not something that is unknown to experts. When a fool like this kid pulls a stunt like this, he cannot expect that anybody he runs across will act carefully and with great forethought in such a situation. It is easy to armchair quarterback such a situation, but in reality, things are different when the adrenaline hits.

This is just the way things are, and in the US with its large number of gun crimes, potential shooters like burglars, or others may well get shot because their victims react in an manner that is fuelled by a heavy adrenaline rush. Any stupid kid who does not realize this is unfortunately taking a big chance with his or her life.

 

[laughing dog]

BTW, the shooter would know the answer to all 3 points.

Not necessarily.

Nor is it a reasonable expectation that they should take the time to find those answers.

In order for your response to be taken seriously, you need to explain why a shooter would not able to determine how close the target is and whether the target is facing him/her.

 

[JonA]

... even though the "United States leads the world in occurrence of burglaries and about four burglaries occur every minute"

Please provide your source for this.

- - - Updated - - -

Not necessarily.

Nor is it a reasonable expectation that they should take the time to find those answers.

In order for your response to be taken seriously, you need to explain why a shooter would not able to determine how close the target is and whether the target is facing him/her.

Sorry, but no. I do not need to explain to a group of adults the occasional failings of human perception and judgement, especially under great stress.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A basic course in gun safety teaches that you should always identify your target before firing. Not only that, but be aware of the trajectory of the projectile if it happens to exit the target or if it happen to miss so that your shot does not have unintended consequences like hitting a bystander or someone in the distance. Just common sense.

And we have some evidence she didn't?

It appears that the target was someone in the act of committing burglary who headed towards her, apparently knowing she was there. Target properly IDed.

The round hit him, obviously what's behind him is the house. Backstop identified. (Admittedly, a non-brick house isn't a perfect backstop unless you're firing frangible ammunition but if you don't accept that as a backstop then self defense in suburban location becomes basically impossible.

 

[laughing dog]

Sorry, but no. I do not need to explain to a group of adults the occasional failings of human perception and judgement, especially under great stress.

No one is requiring pinpoint precision here. But any person whose eyes are open and functioning would be able to see how close their target is and whether the target is facing them. Sorry, but your vapid and evasive responses continue to be unconvincing.

 

[JonA]

But any person whose eyes are open and functioning would be able to see how close their target is and whether the target is facing them.

• Seeing is not the same as perceiving and certainly not the same as judging.
• 'whether the target is facing them' wasn't one of your original three points.

 

[laughing dog]

But any person whose eyes are open and functioning would be able to see how close their target is and whether the target is facing them.

Seeing is not the same as perceiving and certainly not the same as judging.

If the shooter cannot perceive nor judge how close their target is, the shooter has no business whatsoever shooting a gun.

whether the target is facing them' wasn't one of your original three points.

Unless you think that the targets are walking backwards, "was the victim approaching the shooter or not" requires the victim to face the shooter. In fact, seeing/perceiving that the victim is facing the shooter is an easier standard for the shooter, than seeing/perceive whether or not the victim is approaching.

With every response, you make your position appear even more untenable.

 

[JonA]

Seeing is not the same as perceiving and certainly not the same as judging.

If the shooter cannot perceive nor judge how close their target is, the shooter has no business whatsoever shooting a gun.

whether the target is facing them' wasn't one of your original three points.

Unless you think that the targets are walking backwards, "was the victim approaching the shooter or not" requires the victim to face the shooter. In fact, seeing/perceiving that the victim is facing the shooter is an easier standard for the shooter, than seeing/perceive whether or not the victim is approaching.

That's nice. But others can read and see you are just armchair quarterbacking - hounding people for their responses in a situation the hellishness and stressfulness of which you simply cannot imagine because you are not them and were not there.

While you may feel more alive when you lord your self-righteous judgement over others, I personally get more excited about some good ol' fashioned empathy.