How he gonna get his money?

[laughing dog]

Gunshot mortality rate: ~28%, meaning a majority, 78%, survive.

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/news_releases/2014/01/band/

The notion that the homeowner in this situation was handing him a death sentence, akin to a summary execution, by firing the weapon, ex-ante, is completely void of fact.

Let me get this straight. According to you, 26% of the burglaries result in injuries to the residents, so that justifies arming them. But since the mortality rate from gunshots is a measly 28% (which is more than 26%), it is no big deal.

You are not even bothering to hide your bias now.

 

[Axulus]

No, it was not. There was no burglary, and the suspect was leaving the house.

Your notion that she instigated the confrontation despite that not being in evidence really exposes your bias here.

He was leaving - according to her. There are no reports at this time that she said she was attacked or that she feared an attack. It is your biases that are exposed here, not mine.

The reports said "a confrontation occurred", which could easily be them running into each other as opposed to her instigating it (your bias).

It is pretty damn blindingly obvious she feared an attack. The alternative is the idea that she just wanted to execute him. If that's the case, which I find extremely unlikely, especially considering the fact that she only shot him ONCE, and in the front at that, then I condemn it and she should be prosecuted.

 

[bilby]

Ah, yes; but if she hadn't shot him dead, she would have had no option but to strip off her clothes, spread her legs, and wait for him to finish raping her. Because those are the only two possible outcomes.

Apparently.

WTF are you going on about? You sound completely incoherent and unable to comprenend the various risks.

I am satirising your apparent belief that shooting someone is the only option other than capitulation.

It is not.

No its not "10% chance that she might be injured", whatever the fuck that means, it is 26% chance of an injury, and 9% chance that, when injured, it will be life threatening. And these are obviously situations where the household member FAILED to defend themselves.

There you go again with your failure of imagination. That is FAR from obvious. It seems very plausible that many of these situations are where the household member CHOSE to confront the burglar - a choice that may well be based on the fact that they had a gun. A person who is unarmed is less likely to make a reckless decision to confront somebody.

How many more would've been seriously injuried had they not stopped the threat?

How many wouldn't have been injured at all if they hadn't tried to stop the threat? How many wouldn't have been injured if guns were not present? How many middle-aged suburbanites got overconfident because they had a gun, and tried to be action heroes, when they should have simply called 911?

Why the hell should a person have to take that risk anyway? If you want to slit your own wrists so that a burgler may go free of injury, go right ahead.

Why do you insist that not shooting someone is 'taking a risk'?


All of these statistics are meaningless, because they are only taken from the USA, where guns are commonplace; and they make no mention of what proportion of injuries, rapes etc. occurred when guns were present, nor whether those guns were possessed by the burglar, the home-owner, or both. Does the presence of guns make people safer during a burglary? There is NOTHING in these statistics to indicate either way.

For all we know, serious injuries may be common during burglaries in the US because home-owners who hear an intruder are likely to shoot themselves in the foot, while trying to handle a firearm that they rarely use; or because armed home-owners often shoot other family members through walls in such scenarios. The stats simply don't tell the story - we need either a breakdown of the detailed causes for these injuries; or a comparison with data from a place where guns are rare.

By the way, the homeowner in this sitation shot the gun ONCE. If she wanted to kill him she would've kept shooting. One shot usually doesn't kill someone, so your notion that we are saying they have to be shot dead is a complete figment of your imagination.

The homeowner in this situation didn't need to be there AT ALL. She was at zero risk of any kind of injury, until she decided to play Rambo - presumably a decision she would have thought twice about had she not been in possession of a gun.

 

[Axulus]

Gunshot mortality rate: ~28%, meaning a majority, 78%, survive.

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/news_releases/2014/01/band/

The notion that the homeowner in this situation was handing him a death sentence, akin to a summary execution, by firing the weapon, ex-ante, is completely void of fact.

Let me get this straight. According to you, 26% of the burglaries result in injuries to the residents, so that justifies arming them. But since the mortality rate from gunshots is a measly 28% (which is more than 26%), it is no big deal.

You are not even bothering to hide your bias now.

Where are you getting this assinine notion that a 28% mortality rate is no big deal? Reading comprehension is your friend.

 

[Jayjay]

No, it was not. There was no burglary, and the suspect was leaving the house.

How can you say that there was no burglary? He was obviously burglarizing the house, and while there is no word from police whether anything was taken, even if if assume there wasn't that was most likely due to him being interrupted and having to leave early because she showed up.

Your notion that she instigated the confrontation despite that not being in evidence really exposes your bias here.

He was leaving - according to her. There are no reports at this time that she said she was attacked or that she feared an attack. It is your biases that are exposed here, not mine.

There are no reports that she wasn't attacked or fearing an attack. All we know is that there was a confrontation. Assuming she instigated instead of him is not supported by any evidence that we know of right now. The legal system though has to assume that she is innocent unless proven guilty.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But no care for the lives of crime victims. They're just supposed to die.

Who said anything about crime victims DYING? This is a thread about a BURGLARY.

Homicide is much, much, less common than burglary. Oh, wait - EXCEPT in the USA, where they occur at comparatively similar rates. I wonder what could cause that?

The lives of crime victims are very important. But as they are not typically at risk at all during a burglary, it seems pointless to introduce lethal force into a situation where it would otherwise not be present - and no matter how little you care for the lives of the perpetrators of crime, there is no such excuse when it comes to the lives of innocent bystanders.

Self defence does NOT need to mean 'use of a gun'; and when use of a gun is "basically impossible" without endangering innocent third-parties, a person who is being assaulted needs to find an alternative means of defence.

Having guns does not appear to make people safer from burglars. Take a look at the graph I presented earlier:

View attachment 6484

The burglary rate shows no significant difference between the 'gun' and 'no-gun' jurisdictions here. But there is one other notable difference between the two countries - in the UK, robbery is far more common; while in the USA, those robberies are substituted with homicides.

I am not at all sure how you can consider it to be better for someone to kill you, than it is for him to merely steal your wallet; But I have every faith that you can come up with some kind of apologetic for this - or with a bullshit reason why we should disregard the actual data in favour of your wild imaginings.

That graph is deceptive--the homicide scale is per 100,000, the burglary and robbery scales are per 1,000.

Also, what it doesn't show is that most of those homicides are criminals killing other criminals--something the average American doesn't consider to be a great problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bilby, your logic and phrasing of these sitations as "paranoid" is just flat out ignorant.

26% of burglaries result in a member of the household being violently victimized when a member of the household is present.

Of those cases, 9% result in serious injury and 3% result in rape.

Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...pigPc-tjZb5xeRipg&sig2=vYZ5UAAAG4yPbfyCEbNRSg

How you call someone in that sitation to be paranoid and in a barbaric country and criticizing them for assuming the worst and therefore nutralizing theat serious threat, given those statistics, is just bonkers.

Not at all. For a start, those stats are seriously twisted - Most burglaries don't even result in a confrontation of any kind, because the only person in the building is the perpetrator. And many of the burglaries that include confrontations involve a burglar who knows his victims - I am prepared to bet that the incidence of rape is massively skewed towards such situations, so if a stranger is in your home, you are really not likely to be raped by him.

It is dangerously paranoid to KILL a person based on a less than 10% chance that he might injure you. And of course that chance is massively greater in a jurisdiction where guns are likely to be present.

'Neutralizing the threat' sounds like a good idea; but 'killing a person' sounds considerably less desirable; and it is this idea that the only defence is a lethal defence that is the one that I am saying is deeply paranoid and slightly deranged.

There is a MASSIVE world of possible responses to an intruder that lie between 'Let him do whatever he pleases' and 'Shoot him dead'. But apparently, Americans simply cannot imagine a single one.

Here's where we differ. 10% chance of serious injury vs killing a criminal? There's no reason we should be expected to take that risk, pull the trigger.

And you've got it backwards--guns actually reduce the injuries! The thing is a gun is enough of a threat that usually no actual force is used, the threat is enough. When things are more equal there's more of a tendency to start out with actual force.

 

[RavenSky]

But no care for the lives of crime victims. They're just supposed to die.

did you just say that seriously?

 

[RavenSky]

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.

The shot was in the chest. He very well might have been trying to assault her.

"might" being the operative word there. Or he "might" have simply been trying to run away. And from everything reported thus far, I think he was simply trying to run away. Had she (1) not had a gun, and (2) not had the fool's courage possession of a gun brings, I think both the homeowner and the burglar would have lived with no injuries to either of them. Why is that not a better outcome than what happened?

- - - Updated - - -

You don't need to - it already IS in the USA.

No. It is not. In no place in the U.S. are you 'entitled to kill someone without sanction, just because you are scared of them'..

That is exactly what "stand your ground" is

 

[bilby]

Not at all. For a start, those stats are seriously twisted - Most burglaries don't even result in a confrontation of any kind, because the only person in the building is the perpetrator. And many of the burglaries that include confrontations involve a burglar who knows his victims - I am prepared to bet that the incidence of rape is massively skewed towards such situations, so if a stranger is in your home, you are really not likely to be raped by him.

It is dangerously paranoid to KILL a person based on a less than 10% chance that he might injure you. And of course that chance is massively greater in a jurisdiction where guns are likely to be present.

'Neutralizing the threat' sounds like a good idea; but 'killing a person' sounds considerably less desirable; and it is this idea that the only defence is a lethal defence that is the one that I am saying is deeply paranoid and slightly deranged.

There is a MASSIVE world of possible responses to an intruder that lie between 'Let him do whatever he pleases' and 'Shoot him dead'. But apparently, Americans simply cannot imagine a single one.

Here's where we differ. 10% chance of serious injury vs killing a criminal? There's no reason we should be expected to take that risk, pull the trigger.

You may be surprised to learn this, but petty criminals are human beings. Indeed, there is a very good chance that you or some of your close family and friends (if you have any) are petty criminals. Not giving a shit about the lives of 'them' is a common trait amongst humans; and it is that trait that leads directly to the crematoria of the extermination camps. You really should reconsider the value you place on human lives.

If you had a 10% chance of serious injury while trying to save a stranger from being killed, would you refuse to take the risk? Would such a refusal be something you would expect of a 'good' person? Why is a random stranger's life suddenly less important if he is a petty criminal? Indeed, given that professors of law agree that more than 70% of Americans have likely committed a jail-able offence (source), a random stranger probably IS a petty criminal. But you won't attempt to save a life, if there is a 10% chance you will get hurt? That's despicable.

And you've got it backwards--guns actually reduce the injuries! The thing is a gun is enough of a threat that usually no actual force is used, the threat is enough. When things are more equal there's more of a tendency to start out with actual force.

I will just be over here turning blue while I hold my breath waiting for your evidence for any of this horseshit.

When home-owners have guns, the criminals get guns too; rendering things far more equal - and, according to this guy:

When things are more equal there's more of a tendency to start out with actual force.

But what would he know?

 

[laughing dog]

There are no reports that she wasn't attacked or fearing an attack. All we know is that there was a confrontation. Assuming she instigated instead of him is not supported by any evidence that we know of right now.

No, he was leaving the home while she was returning. If she does not go looking for him or her stuff, there is no confrontation. A

The legal system though has to assume that she is innocent unless proven guilty.

An internet forum is not the legal system. And the police do not assume anyone is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it was not. There was no burglary, and the suspect was leaving the house.
He was leaving - according to her. There are no reports at this time that she said she was attacked or that she feared an attack. It is your biases that are exposed here, not mine.

The reports said "a confrontation occurred", which could easily be them running into each other as opposed to her instigating it (your bias).

Faulty reasoning. He is leaving the rear of the house. She is not home. How does he "run into her" by chance?

It is pretty damn blindingly obvious she feared an attack.

More faulty reasoning. If she really feared an attack, she would not have returned home so quickly have her security system sent an alarm.

The alternative is the idea that she just wanted to execute him. If that's the case, which I find extremely unlikely, especially considering the fact that she only shot him ONCE, and in the front at that, then I condemn it and she should be prosecuted.

More faulty reasoning: the excluded middle. How about the possibility she went around, stumbled upon him leaving her home, and then she either got in front of him or got his attention so that he turned around, then got scared and fired?

Excluding any alternative possibilities other than deliberate execution or justifiable self-defense is exactly the kind of reasoning the bigots and the boot-lickers of police authority use in the absence of complete evidence. We don't know what happened. And it is likely the only evidence will be based on her story, so that we will not get the full story. I don't know what happened and neither do you. It is pretty clear at this point that Mr. Johnson invaded an empty home with the intentions of stealing something. He is certainly not an innocent victim of circumstances, but he is a victim of a shooting. But just as Mr. Johnson's choices contributed to his death, so did Ms. Jenrette's choices.
In the end, different choices by either person would have meant one less life needlessly ended. And that is real tragedy here.

 

[RavenSky]

How can you say that there was no burglary? He was obviously burglarizing the house, and while there is no word from police whether anything was taken, even if if assume there wasn't that was most likely due to him being interrupted and having to leave early because she showed up.

There are reports that nothing was taken. I posted links to at least two articles earlier. I don't disagree with you that this is likely because he was interrupted, and not any defense of him, but let's be very clear that had she let him leave at that point, she would have lost nothing.

Your notion that she instigated the confrontation despite that not being in evidence really exposes your bias here.

He was leaving - according to her. There are no reports at this time that she said she was attacked or that she feared an attack. It is your biases that are exposed here, not mine.

There are no reports that she wasn't attacked or fearing an attack. All we know is that there was a confrontation. Assuming she instigated instead of him is not supported by any evidence that we know of right now.

News reports generally say what did happen, not what didn't - saying "there are no reports that she wasn't attacked or fearing an attack" is not a valid rebuttal to the fact that no media report thus far says she was attacked or fearing an attack. Using the word "attack" in this thread is a hyperbolic device used to impugn violence onto the would-be burglar where there was none actually reported. We really don't even know that there was a "confrontation" or exactly what any "confrontation" consisted of. Some here are assuming the very worst possible meaning of that word and assigning 100% of the blame to the guy - but that is not supported by any evidence reported so far.

As to:

The legal system though has to assume that she is innocent unless proven guilty.

Doesn't that apply to the guy, too?

 

[Derec]

There are reports that nothing was taken. I posted links to at least two articles earlier. I don't disagree with you that this is likely because he was interrupted, and not any defense of him, but let's be very clear that had she let him leave at that point, she would have lost nothing.

Actually the reports I've seen (for example this) say the family is claiming he did not take anything but also that the police is not confirming that claim.

Relatives said they don’t believe Johnson stole anything from the home but detectives would not confirm that.

In any case, not even his family is denying he was a burglar.

News reports generally say what did happen, not what didn't - saying "there are no reports that she wasn't attacked or fearing an attack" is not a valid rebuttal to the fact that no media report thus far says she was attacked or fearing an attack. Using the word "attack" in this thread is a hyperbolic device used to impugn violence onto the would-be burglar where there was none actually reported. We really don't even know that there was a "confrontation" or exactly what any "confrontation" consisted of. Some here are assuming the very worst possible meaning of that word and assigning 100% of the blame to the guy - but that is not supported by any evidence reported so far.

It has been reported that there was a "confrontation" but that was early days and there has been nothing since. So we have no way of knowing one way or another.

Doesn't that apply to the guy, too?

Had he survived he'd have enjoyed presumption of innocence. Unfortunately for him, now he is beyond the criminal justice system.

 

[Jayjay]

No, he was leaving the home while she was returning. If she does not go looking for him or her stuff, there is no confrontation.

Nor would there have been a confrontation if he would not have been burlarizing her house. She had every right to be in her own yard. He did not.

The legal system though has to assume that she is innocent unless proven guilty.

An internet forum is not the legal system. And the police do not assume anyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Indeed, we can speculate and consider the evidence. The police right now knows more than the public does, and as far as I know even they have not charged her with anything. But even if she did deliberately confront him, and shot him knowing that there would be nobody to contradict her if she said he was threatening her, she ought to get away with it or we'd have to throw presumption of innocence out the window. That's the lesser evil.

 

[Jayjay]

There are reports that nothing was taken. I posted links to at least two articles earlier. I don't disagree with you that this is likely because he was interrupted, and not any defense of him, but let's be very clear that had she let him leave at that point, she would have lost nothing.

I presume you mean this post which links to the two stories. I went back and watched / read them again, and the first one says that the "relatives say that they don't beleive that Johnson stole anything from the home, but police would not confirm that" (in the video only, the text is much shorter). The Washington Post article doesn't seem to say anything about it. So basically, nothing confirmed by the police and hearsay from people sympathetic to the burglar.

Anyway, as people have pointed before, a burglary is not just losing some stuff. It's a violation of one's private space and it's incredibly flippant to say that she wouldn't have lost anything. She would have lost her peace of mind.

Your notion that she instigated the confrontation despite that not being in evidence really exposes your bias here.

He was leaving - according to her. There are no reports at this time that she said she was attacked or that she feared an attack. It is your biases that are exposed here, not mine.

There are no reports that she wasn't attacked or fearing an attack. All we know is that there was a confrontation. Assuming she instigated instead of him is not supported by any evidence that we know of right now.

News reports generally say what did happen, not what didn't - saying "there are no reports that she wasn't attacked or fearing an attack" is not a valid rebuttal to the fact that no media report thus far says she was attacked or fearing an attack. Using the word "attack" in this thread is a hyperbolic device used to impugn violence onto the would-be burglar where there was none actually reported. We really don't even know that there was a "confrontation" or exactly what any "confrontation" consisted of. Some here are assuming the very worst possible meaning of that word and assigning 100% of the blame to the guy - but that is not supported by any evidence reported so far.

It could be anything from 0% to 100%. Although 0% is unlikely because he was engaged in criminal activity and had a motive to not be caught. If she pulled her gun and told her to stay put, and he didn't, then it's at least partially his own fault for not waiting for the cops.

As to:

The legal system though has to assume that she is innocent unless proven guilty.

Doesn't that apply to the guy, too?

He is dead, and as such is not charged with any crime by the legal system.

 

[RavenSky]

Actually the reports I've seen (for example this) say the family is claiming he did not take anything but also that the police is not confirming that claim.

Relatives said they don’t believe Johnson stole anything from the home but detectives would not confirm that.

In any case, not even his family is denying he was a burglar.

Neither did I. My objection is to several people in this thread assuming with no evidence that he attacked the homeowner

News reports generally say what did happen, not what didn't - saying "there are no reports that she wasn't attacked or fearing an attack" is not a valid rebuttal to the fact that no media report thus far says she was attacked or fearing an attack. Using the word "attack" in this thread is a hyperbolic device used to impugn violence onto the would-be burglar where there was none actually reported. We really don't even know that there was a "confrontation" or exactly what any "confrontation" consisted of. Some here are assuming the very worst possible meaning of that word and assigning 100% of the blame to the guy - but that is not supported by any evidence reported so far.

It has been reported that there was a "confrontation" but that was early days and there has been nothing since. So we have no way of knowing one way or another.

exactly my point, so why are several people proceeding as if they know for a fact that he "attacked" her?

Doesn't that apply to the guy, too?

Unfortunately for him, now he is beyond the criminal justice system.

That's exactly the problem. He should not be dead and by ALL reports it sounds like it didn't have to happen that way.

 

[Jayjay]

The reports said "a confrontation occurred", which could easily be them running into each other as opposed to her instigating it (your bias).

Faulty reasoning. He is leaving the rear of the house. She is not home. How does he "run into her" by chance?

All she knows is that the alarm went off. She would be wise to inspect the house for signs of break-in. And it's her house.

It is pretty damn blindingly obvious she feared an attack.

More faulty reasoning. If she really feared an attack, she would not have returned home so quickly have her security system sent an alarm.

Then why did she have a gun?

The alternative is the idea that she just wanted to execute him. If that's the case, which I find extremely unlikely, especially considering the fact that she only shot him ONCE, and in the front at that, then I condemn it and she should be prosecuted.

More faulty reasoning: the excluded middle. How about the possibility she went around, stumbled upon him leaving her home, and then she either got in front of him or got his attention so that he turned around, then got scared and fired?

Excluding any alternative possibilities other than deliberate execution or justifiable self-defense is exactly the kind of reasoning the bigots and the boot-lickers of police authority use in the absence of complete evidence. We don't know what happened. And it is likely the only evidence will be based on her story, so that we will not get the full story. I don't know what happened and neither do you. It is pretty clear at this point that Mr. Johnson invaded an empty home with the intentions of stealing something. He is certainly not an innocent victim of circumstances, but he is a victim of a shooting. But just as Mr. Johnson's choices contributed to his death, so did Ms. Jenrette's choices.
In the end, different choices by either person would have meant one less life needlessly ended. And that is real tragedy here.

Look at the bright side: even if the punishment was extreme, at least he won't be burglarizing her or anyone else's home ever again. The real tragedy is not some burglars poor life choices leading to his death, it is that police are hardly ever able to catch burglars, which leads to homeowners taking law into their own hands.

 

[RavenSky]

Faulty reasoning. He is leaving the rear of the house. She is not home. How does he "run into her" by chance?

All she knows is that the alarm went off. She would be wise to inspect the house for signs of break-in. And it's her house.

No, she wasn't "wise" to do that. She put herself in potential harm's way (and clearly did so knowingly since she brought her gun). She did not have to do that. Was it illegal? No. And no one here has ever claimed what she did was illegal (and I don't think anyone here has an expectation that she will be prosecuted for it either).

But there is no denying that she inserted herself into a potentially dangerous situation armed with a gun when she did not have to do so. That alone, in my opinion, negates "self-defense" or any actual fear on her part.

It is pretty damn blindingly obvious she feared an attack.

More faulty reasoning. If she really feared an attack, she would not have returned home so quickly have her security system sent an alarm.

Then why did she have a gun?

Per articles I have posted links to, she has been burglarized before. I am very familiar with the area she lives in - it is less than 6 miles from where I live - it isn't a great area. I'm sure she is fed up with being burglarized, but none of the articles claim she was ever hurt. She took steps to protect her house - including installing alarms and security cameras. She had him on video. He lived in the neighborhood.

I'm not defending his actions (or those of his relatives), but I am not defending hers either. Had she not unnecessarily inserted herself into the situation, a young man would not be dead and she would not have to live with that fact for the rest of her life.

But who knows. Maybe she is like some of you, and she's gleeful that she killed a young man.

The alternative is the idea that she just wanted to execute him. If that's the case, which I find extremely unlikely, especially considering the fact that she only shot him ONCE, and in the front at that, then I condemn it and she should be prosecuted.

More faulty reasoning: the excluded middle. How about the possibility she went around, stumbled upon him leaving her home, and then she either got in front of him or got his attention so that he turned around, then got scared and fired?

Excluding any alternative possibilities other than deliberate execution or justifiable self-defense is exactly the kind of reasoning the bigots and the boot-lickers of police authority use in the absence of complete evidence. We don't know what happened. And it is likely the only evidence will be based on her story, so that we will not get the full story. I don't know what happened and neither do you. It is pretty clear at this point that Mr. Johnson invaded an empty home with the intentions of stealing something. He is certainly not an innocent victim of circumstances, but he is a victim of a shooting. But just as Mr. Johnson's choices contributed to his death, so did Ms. Jenrette's choices.
In the end, different choices by either person would have meant one less life needlessly ended. And that is real tragedy here.

Look at the bright side: even if the punishment was extreme, at least he won't be burglarizing her or anyone else's home ever again.

If you meant that seriously, that is just plain sickening

The real tragedy... it is that police are hardly ever able to catch burglars, which leads to homeowners taking law into their own hands.

This part I will agree with. My house was burglarized twice. It is part of what led me to sell it and now live in a building with 24-hour security.

But as Bilby wrote earlier, there is a way U.S. society could help alleviate some of this type of crime with social programs, drug treatment programs, decent entry level jobs, etc. Leave the life of crime for those who would choose that path no matter how good the other options are, and then have the justice system crack down on them. Homeowners should not be playing Dirty Harry.

 

[laughing dog]

Nor would there have been a confrontation if he would not have been burlarizing her house. She had every right to be in her own yard. He did not.

Obviously, you think this is relevant to the issue of the shooting.

Indeed, we can speculate and consider the evidence. The police right now knows more than the public does, and as far as I know even they have not charged her with anything. But even if she did deliberately confront him, and shot him knowing that there would be nobody to contradict her if she said he was threatening her, she ought to get away with it or we'd have to throw presumption of innocence out the window. That's the lesser evil.

What is this lesser evil you are babbling about? Interestingly, you have thrown out the presumption of innocence for the dead victim in making your determination about "lesser evils" (whatever they are).