How he gonna get his money?

[laughing dog]

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.

No one is hounding anyone. So what are you blathering about now?

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.

The combination of self-righteousness in that response coupled with the complete lack of empathy for the victim of the shooting in this instance, make your response a top contender for the most ironic post of the year.

 

[JonA]

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.

No one is hounding anyone. So what are you blathering about now?

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.

The combination of self-righteousness in that response coupled with the complete lack of empathy for the victim of the shooting in this instance, make your response a top contender for the most ironic post of the year.

There was no victim of a shooting.

There were two victims of a burglary.

 

[laughing dog]

There was no victim of a shooting.

From the OP - "Homeowner Shoots, Kills Teen Burglary Suspect". That means there is a shooting victim. Whether the victim merits sympathy is a different issue.

 

[bilby]

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

And that would be a terrible, terrible thing to do.

 

[bilby]

Which assumption is it more reasonable to err on the side of - that is, for an obviously innocent person wishing to enjoy the sanctity of their home ?

Both are extremely unlikely scenarios. Both have actually happened. Both lead to the decision whether or not to use lethal force; and in both scenarios one of those choices leads to a lifetime of crippling remorse. But the two scenarios advise differing and opposite choices. So, rationally, this set of scenarios doesn't provide ANY guidance about how one should respond, unless you can show that one is vastly more probable than the other - and as neither is particularly probable, that's not possible.

We aren't talking about how someone should respond.

I am.

We are talking about what responses should be reasonably legal.

Why? How can you make such a determination without first assessing what a reasonable person should do?

"Well, you should pay for stuff before walking out of a store with it; but it would be unreasonable to pass a law against shoplifting". Because that's not fucking crazy batshit nutso insane at all.

 

[bilby]

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.

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.

Look at how long it's taken us. And we still don't have a coherent answer or a clear picture of what happened.

Exactly.

Which is why people shouldn't have easy access to lethal force for home defence - it's far too final for a snap decision made with only a tiny percentage of the facts available.

"We don't have enough information, so let's just kill him now, and work out the details later" is NOT a reasonable response in any situation.

 

[fast]

There was no victim of a shooting.

From the OP - "Homeowner Shoots, Kills Teen Burglary Suspect". That means there is a shooting victim. Whether the victim merits sympathy is a different issue.

Yeah, but that's like referring to an intentional car crash as a vehicle accident. Still true, but it makes ya go, "hmmm."

 

[RavenSky]

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.

LD's rebuttals to your posts were on point, correct and certainly were not "hounding" anyone. As for any empathy you have... it certainly isn't for the dead man or his family, is it.

 

[bilby]

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.

...and if it is basically impossible to do without endangering the lives of those not involved, it should be prohibited for their protection.

Finished your train of logic there for you Loren.

 

[JonA]

As for any empathy you have... it certainly isn't for the dead man or his family, is it.

Course not. I empathize with the innocent people who are every day assaulted and robbed, who have the essence of their security in this world ripped from beneath them in an instant while the people who perform these disgusting acts are idolized on crap NPR talkshows for the 'tough life' they had to lead when they 'turned to crime'.

I empathize with the real victims - no the people who victimize them.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is why people shouldn't have easy access to lethal force for home defence - it's far too final for a snap decision made with only a tiny percentage of the facts available.

I really can't respond to you. At some point - now - the logic trails end and we're left arguing over moral values.

Some moral values say the law shouldn't obligate you to be bludgeoned to death in your own home by a crook.

Other moral values disagree.

It is what it is. I suppose the only other thing to point out is that in the real world one system works and the other doesn't.

 

[JonA]

Which assumption is it more reasonable to err on the side of - that is, for an obviously innocent person wishing to enjoy the sanctity of their home ?



We aren't talking about how someone should respond.

I am.

We are talking about what responses should be reasonably legal.

Why? How can you make such a determination without first assessing what a reasonable person should do?

"Well, you should pay for stuff before walking out of a store with it; but it would be unreasonable to pass a law against shoplifting". Because that's not fucking crazy batshit nutso insane at all.

'Should' implies a sense of idealism. The law understandably allows for less than ideal responses to many situations.

There may be a lot the victim should have done, but that doesn't mean that what she did do ought to be illegal.

 

[RavenSky]

Course not. I empathize with the innocent people who are every day assaulted and robbed, who have the essence of their security in this world ripped from beneath them in an instant while the people who perform these disgusting acts are idolized on crap NPR talkshows for the 'tough life' they had to lead when they 'turned to crime'.

I empathize with the real victims - no the people who victimize them.

The dead young man neither assaulted her nor robbed her. He did break into her house when she was not there. He was not armed and he did not take anything. She killed him.

I don't think she is necessarily "the real victim" here, and in any case the end result was disproportionate to the crime...

but you have zero empathy.

 

[laughing dog]

I really can't respond to you. At some point - now - the logic trails end and we're left arguing over moral values.

Some moral values say the law shouldn't obligate you to be bludgeoned to death in your own home by a crook.

Ms. Jenrette rushed home after being alerted by her security system. At some point she noticed Mr. Johnson leaving the house. She confronted him outside of her home and he ended up shot to death.

This case does not involve anyone trying to bludgeon anyone to death in their own home. WTF are you blathering on about?

 

[bilby]

Course not. I empathize with the innocent people who are every day assaulted and robbed, who have the essence of their security in this world ripped from beneath them in an instant while the people who perform these disgusting acts are idolized on crap NPR talkshows for the 'tough life' they had to lead when they 'turned to crime'.

I empathize with the real victims - no the people who victimize them.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is why people shouldn't have easy access to lethal force for home defence - it's far too final for a snap decision made with only a tiny percentage of the facts available.

I really can't respond to you. At some point - now - the logic trails end and we're left arguing over moral values.

Some moral values say the law shouldn't obligate you to be bludgeoned to death in your own home by a crook.

Other moral values disagree.

It is what it is. I suppose the only other thing to point out is that in the real world one system works and the other doesn't.

Indeed; and the one where you are entitled to kill someone without sanction, just because you are scared of them, is the one that doesn't - as the OP clearly demonstrates. Anywhere else in the developed world, that situation would not have resulted in anyone dying. And the rest of the developed world does not have a burglary rate so far above that in the USA as to justify the death as a deterrent - even if you value deterring burglars very highly, and their lives very little.

The law does not obligate me to be bludgeoned to death in my own home by a crook; It obligates me to obtain a licence and to appropriately secure any firearms I might own, and it obligates me to not use them in defence of my person or my property, but only for the lawful purposes for which my licence was issued.

That's a VERY long way short of obligating me to be bludgeoned to death in my own home. That you can't see the difference suggests that you are letting your emotions rule your intellect on this issue.

 

[JonA]

It is what it is. I suppose the only other thing to point out is that in the real world one system works and the other doesn't.

Indeed; and the one where you are entitled to kill someone without sanction, just because you are scared of them, is the one that doesn't - as the OP clearly demonstrates.

Good thing no one is advocating for that to be legal.

Anywhere else in the developed world, that situation would not have resulted in anyone dying.

You don't know that.

And the rest of the developed world does not have a burglary rate so far above that in the USA as to justify the death as a deterrent

That is false; and this is the second time I've called you on it. Time to present some evidence.

That's a VERY long way short of obligating me to be bludgeoned to death in my own home. That you can't see the difference suggests that you are letting your emotions rule your intellect on this issue.

Bullshit. If someone is beating me to fuck and there's a legal system that makes it a crime for me to defend myself by the only means I might have available to me, then that is exactly what the law is requiring.

You just said that the law obligates you, re guns, 'not use them in defence of my person'. If that is the only item available to someone for their defense, then the laws you propose are by all measures laws that obligate people to be bludgeoned to death in their own home.

 

[bilby]

Indeed; and the one where you are entitled to kill someone without sanction, just because you are scared of them, is the one that doesn't - as the OP clearly demonstrates.

Good thing no one is advocating for that to be legal.

You don't need to - it already IS in the USA. And it is EXACTLY what you are arguing for when you say:

... I am strongly in favor of the right for people to defend themselves, and that goes along with a general belief that people shouldn't have to perform in-depth analyses of people breaking into their homes to determine if they are really 'just a burglar' or are there for more violent purposes: they should rightly assume the worst and be entitled to act accordingly.

You are saying that it is OK to kill someone based on your assumption that they mean you harm. This is indistinguishable from saying that it is OK to kill someone who is in your home because you are scared of them.

Anywhere else in the developed world, that situation would not have resulted in anyone dying.

You don't know that.

OK, fair enough - Anywhere else in the developed world, that situation would almost certainly not have resulted in anyone dying.

And the rest of the developed world does not have a burglary rate so far above that in the USA as to justify the death as a deterrent

That is false; and this is the second time I've called you on it. Time to present some evidence.

OK; Stats on burglary are not easy to find (they tend to be rolled in to wider 'property crime' data), but there are some out there; look at pages 27 and 28 of the UN report here: https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Crime-statistics/International_Statistics_on_Crime_and_Justice.pdf

The USA doesn't stand out here as having a low burglary rate; indeed they clearly sate "No European or North American countries belong to the low crime category (below the 1st Quartile)". North America is second only to Oceania in burglary rate; the countries of West and Central Europe have lower rates than North America

The data at http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-seeing-less-and-less-crime-even-face-high-unemployment-and-economic includes this graphic:



Indicating that the burglary rate for 2010 is about 7 per 1,000 population in the USA, and about 4.5 per 1,000 in the UK - hardly a clear cut illustration that the UK gun laws are giving burglars free rein.

The rates in the USA were amongst the lowest in the OECD in the last couple of decades of the 20th Century; but the declines elsewhere have been sufficient for most countries (other than Australia and New Zealand) to overtake the USA as the least likely places to be burgled in the past decade and a half.

That's a VERY long way short of obligating me to be bludgeoned to death in my own home. That you can't see the difference suggests that you are letting your emotions rule your intellect on this issue.

Bullshit. If someone is beating me to fuck and there's a legal system that makes it a crime for me to defend myself by the only means I might have available to me, then that is exactly what the law is requiring.

The law elsewhere in the OECD does NOT makes it a crime for you to defend yourself by any means you might have available to you. The law DOES make it a crime to purchase a firearm for the purpose of having that means available for personal defence. This has the effect of dramatically reducing the likelihood that either the home-owner OR the intruder will be armed with a gun.

You just said that the law obligates you, re guns, 'not use them in defence of my person'. If that is the only item available to someone for their defense, then the laws you propose are by all measures laws that obligate people to be bludgeoned to death in their own home.

But that is NOT an item that is available for their defence. The law doesn't prohibit the use of a gun, it prohibits it from being available in the first place.

Only an American would be so unimaginative as to imagine that the ONLY way to defend oneself is with a gun.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The hit was in the chest--he was facing her. The only real question is if he was moving or stationary.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There was no victim of a shooting.

From the OP - "Homeowner Shoots, Kills Teen Burglary Suspect". That means there is a shooting victim. Whether the victim merits sympathy is a different issue.

Some of us do not consider the perpetrator a victim even if it goes badly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

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.

Look at how long it's taken us. And we still don't have a coherent answer or a clear picture of what happened.

Exactly.

Which is why people shouldn't have easy access to lethal force for home defence - it's far too final for a snap decision made with only a tiny percentage of the facts available.

"We don't have enough information, so let's just kill him now, and work out the details later" is NOT a reasonable response in any situation.

Its for personal defense.

And the alternative is that the big, tough guy can do pretty much what he wants with impunity.

The question comes down to are more people errantly killed in mistaken self defense vs the number saved by being able to protect themselves against real aggressors.

The number of the former appears to be pretty low and many of us don't feel too badly if a bad guy simply looked too threatening while committing a crime.

 

[bilby]

From the OP - "Homeowner Shoots, Kills Teen Burglary Suspect". That means there is a shooting victim. Whether the victim merits sympathy is a different issue.

Some of us do not consider the perpetrator a victim even if it goes badly.

Yeah, that's pretty vile.

I would not consider the perpetrator a victim if it goes badly and he winds up under arrest and going to jail for breaking and entering. I most assuredly would consider him a victim of an unjust system if he was to be arrested and then executed for such a minor offence; and that consideration goes double if he is summarily executed by the home-owner, as is clearly the case here.