Defensive use of a firearm and the Castle Doctrine.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch

An intended rape victim shot and killed her attacker this morning in Cape Girardeau when he broke into her home to rape her a second time, police said.

The 57-year-old woman shot Ronnie W. Preyer, 47, a registered sex offender, in the chest with a shotgun when he broke through her locked basement door.

The woman told police he was the same man who raped her several days earlier. Officials do not intend to seek charges against her.




She tried to call 911, but couldn't because the power was off. She got a shotgun and waited as the man began banging on the basement door. She fired when Preyer came crashing through the door. When Preyer collapsed, the woman escaped and went to a neighbor's home, where she called police. Officers, who arrived within a minute, found a bleeding Preyer stumbling away from the house. He was taken to St. Francis Medical Center, where he died several hours later


http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/9C58494B45470714862574F3006D0CA6?OpenDocument


In states that don't have the Castle Doctrine would she face charges because she didn't attempt to escape? I wonder if she acquired the shotgun after the rape? I personally am very happy that justice was done so quickly in this case.


David

[cliffordu]

1. Should have used a bigger shotgun so he couldn't get up again.

I'd send her roses and a card and some vouchers for therapy down the road if I could.

Too bad it had to go that far for her, but I am glad she killed that motherfucker.

[tburnsten]

19. I'd have sent her a few boxes of my favorite shells

Winchester Ranger Reduced Recoil 9-pellet 00 Buck. That and a Pachmayr Decelerator buttpad for her shotgun, when switching from my stock Mossberg hard rubber pad and Remington regular 9-pellet to that combination, my shoulder felt like I had gone down in caliber. Superb, and the Ranger is Winchester's Law Enforcement line, so it has been designed with defensive shooting in mind.

Greta combination for putting 130-250 pound animals out of their misery.

[flvegan]

2. If true, nice fucking shot!

Shotgun, baby.

Bet it was a Mossberg.

[spin]

3. An explanation of castle doctrine...

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force - including deadly force - against an invader of the home.<1> The law's nickname is a reference to the famous line uttered by Clint Eastwood's character Dirty Harry in the 1983 film Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day."

This legal doctrine is often linked to the rights of homeowners to bear arms, as defined in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Visit the above link for a discussion of Duty-to-retreat and Stand-your-ground as well as a list of states with castle doctrine laws.

[iverglas]

9. and as we all know perfectly well

The only connection between the so-called castle doctrine in US states and English common law is that the former is a grotesque perversion of the latter and the advocates of the former chose to engage in 1984-speak in order to disguise the real nature of their revolting project.

The use of force for self-defence has nothing to do with that perversion. To claim the excuse of self-defence for assaulting or killing another person, at common law and in the laws of civilized societies, the person who uses the force must have had a reasonable apprehension of serious injury or death, and no reasonable alternative to using force.

The so-called castle doctrine in certain US states has nothing to do with self-defence. It prohibits prosecution where the person who used force to assault or kill another person meets certain conditions, which do NOT reflect the common law standard for self-defence.

The statement in the wiki article:

It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack.

is completely false in that it is so incomplete a representation of these laws as to be simply deceptive.


Under genuine self-defence law, the woman would indeed have needed to establish that she had no reasonable alternative but to use the force she used. The test for that depends heavily on the individual's own perceptions and reasonable belief based on his/her perceptions. Under genuine self-defence law, the individual who uses force in self-defence must not have intended the other person's death, and must have used only the force necessary to avert injury or death.


All I would say in relation to this particular case is that if I were at home and heard someone trying to break in the basement door at night, I'd be going out another door or window of the house in a big hurry, not sticking around to wait and see what might happen if the door-breaking was successful. I have no idea what the situation was in the house in question.



Edit -- from the article:

In the first incident, the woman heard glass breaking in her basement about midnight on Saturday. She went to leave the house, and the man attacked when she opened the front door. He punched her in the face and then forced her into a bedroom, where he raped her, said H. Morley Swingle, prosecuting attorney in Cape Girardeau County.

... She was home alone again Friday about 2:15 a.m. when Preyer broke the same basement window. The victim was awake watching television, when Preyer switched off the electricity to her house.

She tried to call 911, but couldn't because the power was off. She got a shotgun and waited as the man began banging on the basement door. She fired when Preyer came crashing through the door.

She acted very sensibly the first time by trying to leave. The second time she undoubtedly feared the same result if she did that. I think I would have wanted the basement window replaced with something other than glass, myself.

Based on the apparent facts, I would not likely question a claim of self-defence myself.

Now shall I go find a few hundred examples of women shot to death by their intimate partners and we can all chat about how lucky they were to have firearms in their homes?

[spin]

12. By your standards the first time she was attacked...

she acted very sensibly by trying to leave and ended up raped.

I would say she learned a lesson from the first incident and acted extremely sensibly the second time. The result was that she was not raped again, and the rapist will never try to rape her again.

You stated:

I think I would have wanted the basement window replaced with something other than glass, myself.

Did you note that the intruder didn't gain entry through the basement window on either occasion? The first time he punched her in the face when she tried to escape by leaving the house through the front door, the second time he made entry by breaking down the basement door. Please explain how something other than glass in the basement window would have deterred this man.

And you state:
All I would say in relation to this particular case is that if I were at home and heard someone trying to break in the basement door at night, I'd be going out another door or window of the house in a big hurry, not sticking around to wait and see what might happen if the door-breaking was successful. I have no idea what the situation was in the house in question.

All I can say is she tried this the first time. I suspect he anticipated that she would flee, which was why he was waiting by the front door on the first occasion. When he broke the basement window during the second incident and she didn't flee, he decided to break down the basement door. True she might have tried a different exit, but why should she. She had committed no wrong. She had every right to be safe and secure in her own home. He had every intention of causing her bodily harm. She had every right to use a firearm to defend herself. And having met every requirement for the use of deadly force, she should not fear facing prosecution or any civil lawsuit. This is the reason for Castle Doctrine laws.

In her position, you would have made a different decision and might have escaped by using a different exit. But you would live in fear of a third or fourth attempt by this individual. Maybe he would not only rape you but kill you. She chose to use deadly force to deter him. True, killing another person is not something to be viewed lightly. It can cause many psychological problems, and it will haunt you for the rest of your life. But in this woman's case, while she has to deal with the trauma of the first rape, and the fact that she killed another person, she at least is still alive and not a two time rape victim.

But you do say "Based on the apparent facts, I would not likely question a claim of self-defense myself." At least on that point we agree.

From the story, it's hard to tell if the woman had an intimate partner. If so the partner was not present. True, women are too often shot by their partners. Men are sometimes shot by their partners. This subject might be the basis for an interesting discussion here in the Gungeon. But it isn't truly pertinent to this discussion.

As for the castle doctrine:

Castle Doctrine refers to a legal concept derived from English Common Law as it is presently applied in sections of the United States of America. It designates one's home (or any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protections from both prying and violent attack. In the United States, laws informally referred to as 'castle laws' can sometimes impose an obligation to retreat before using force to defend oneself. The Castle Doctrine provides for an exception to this duty. Provided one is attacked in their own home, vehicle, or place of business, in jurisdictions where 'castle laws' are in force, one may stand their ground against an assailant without fear of prosecution.

***********snip************

In Florida, Castle Doctrine applies to any place where a person has a legal right to be, not just their own home. Opponents of this Castle Doctrine law have referred to it as a "shoot first" law, implying that it allows people to "shoot first, ask questions later" any time they are frightened<4>. However, all laws pertaining to the use of deadly force still apply. The law still requires citizens to articulate the ability, opportunity and intent of an attacker to do grave bodily harm to a person exercising his or her right to self-defense. Since the passing of this law, several other states have enacted similar legislation.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Castle-Doctrine note: added underlining mine

You state:

The only connection between the so-called castle doctrine in US states and English common law is that the former is a grotesque perversion of the latter and the advocates of the former chose to engage in 1984-speak in order to disguise the real nature of their revolting project.

The use of force for self-defense has nothing to do with that perversion. To claim the excuse of self-defense for assaulting or killing another person, at common law and in the laws of civilized societies, the person who uses the force must have had a reasonable apprehension of serious injury or death, and no reasonable alternative to using force.

The so-called castle doctrine in certain US states has nothing to do with self-defense. It prohibits prosecution where the person who used force to assault or kill another person meets certain conditions, which do NOT reflect the common law standard for self-defence.

I would describe the Castle Doctrine laws as an evolution of the English Common Law. It prohibits prosecution and immunity from civil lawsuit for people who do indeed follow the accepted standards for self defense. To you it's a "grotesque perversion". To me it's common sense.

[iverglas]

20. you know that's false

I would describe the Castle Doctrine laws as an evolution of the English Common Law. It prohibits prosecution and immunity from civil lawsuit for people who do indeed follow the accepted standards for self defense.

You know it's false. There really isn't anything more needs saying. But what the hell.

A PRESUMPTION that someone who assaults a person whom s/he believes to be unlawfully in his/her residence feared assault or death, and a PROHIBITION on prosecution of anyone who assaults or KILLS that person, i.e. an elimination of the requirement that that person make out the basis of a self-defence excuse, IS NOT "evolution" from the common law. It is a perversion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=125237

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jol/vol43_1/michael.pdf

While removing the duty to retreat brings Florida in line with the majority rule, the conclusive presumption sets Florida apart from all other states because it contravenes an ancient and universally adopted principle that restricts the use of deadly force to an actual or threatened harm to persons. It does so not by eliminating the requirement of reasonable apprehension but through a conclusive presumption that automatically establishes it, regardless of whether it actually existed. On this point, Professor Fleming James notes:

The conclusive presumption is not really a procedural device at all. Rather it is a process of concealing by fiction a change in the substantive law. When the law conclusively presumes the presence of B from A, this means that the substantive law no longer requires the existence of B in cases where A is present, although it hesitates as yet to say so forthrightly.

See also:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x127275

[spin]

24. Interest reading, however...

at the end of the article I found this section:

The bill’s conclusivepresumption states that reasonable apprehension sufficient to warrant
deadly force per se exists if an intruder unlawfully and forcibly enters
a dwelling or vehicle.105 In doing so, it transgresses the universally
adopted common law rule that deadly force may not be used in defense
of personal property.106 Over two centuries ago, Blackstone observed that
“many learned and scrupulous men have questioned the propriety, if not
lawfulness, of inficting capital punishment for simple theft.”107 Converting
the lesser crime of trespassing into a capital offense raises the same
concern.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jol/vol43_1/michael.pdf

I will point out that it is fairly easy to determine if someone is home although it might take a little effort. If I woke up in the middle of the night, and found an intruder in my house that it is very probable that he knew the home was occupied and having no fear decided to make entry. I would consider such an intruder very dangerous. When a burglar enters an occupied residence it's often called a "hot" burglary. Most professional burglars will avoid entering a occupied home in the States as they fear an armed homeowner.

But of course, the intruder I'm facing might be an amateur burglar. Let me assure you that I have absolutely no desire to use deadly force to injure or kill anyone, let alone a stupid teenager on his first attempt learn the skills of a cat burglar. I have just a few seconds to determine what danger I face. The intruder knows who he is and has planned his response to facing a homeowner. Advantage intruder.

I live on the bottom floor of the two story house that's also the home to my daughter, her husband and my two grandchildren. They sleep upstairs, my bedroom is located on the bottom floor. As the oldest and least valuable member of the family, I have assumed the role of the first defense. The duty to retreat is not an option to me, as that would expose the other members of my family to danger.

I realize that the Florida Castle Doctrine does not offer me the freedom to just shoot anyone who happens to be in the house without fear of legal repercussions.

The new Florida legislation creates a presumption, with certain exceptions, that a person having a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to him/herself or to another person, may use force, up to and including deadly force, in response if:

* the person against whom the force was used (the attacker) was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, and
* the person who uses defensive force (the victim) knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or an unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

The Florida law provides that a person, not themselves engaged in an unlawful activity, who is attacked in a place where they have the legal right to be (i.e. a dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle or public place) does not have an obligation to retreat and may meet force with matching comparable force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to him/herself or to another person or to prevent a forcible felony.

Once the incident has been investigated by the police, the Florida law provides immunity from criminal prosecution of, and civil action against, the victim who has used justifiable force in the defence of him/herself or another person. It does not provide immunity where excessive force was used or the victim was in fact lying in wait for his/her attacker.
http://www.snowbirds.org/html/gunlaw.html

So if I use good judgment to determine if the intruder does present a real danger to myself and my family, I have no duty to retreat to my bedroom while he attacks my family. Also I need have no fear of some overzealous prosecutor harassing me for not retreating or for the family of the intruder suing me for the fact that he died or was injured while committing a crime.

I have described my own situation, and if I used justified deadly force against an intruder without retreating I doubt that I would face legal problems. To be fair, any citizen who justifiably fears imminent bodily harm or death should be able to chose between retreating or using deadly force without fearing legal repercussions. Note: I said "legal".


A duty-to-retreat law is the ultimate debasement of man.

It means that your life is not worth protecting except as a last resort. It also means that your intruder's life is worth protecting except as a last resort. You are little better than your tormentor.

The Castle Doctrine rightly says that your bricks and mortar are sacrosanct. But is there an equivalent doctrine for your flesh and blood?

You have no "duty" to retreat when threatened in your house, car or anywhere else. Your life is no less precious when you are outdoors. A man's home is his castle. A man's duty is to himself.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_420318.html

And I could point out that Florida is not the only state to enact the Castle Doctrine" law.

Since the enactment of the Florida legislation, Alabama,<8> Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas have adopted similar statutes, and other states (Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wyoming) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.<9>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#States_with_a_Stand-your-ground_Law

While it's too early to judge the effects of the Castle Doctrine laws in the various states that have chosen to enact it, it's obvious that it hasn't turned the United States into a killing ground.

We've all heard the rhetoric. In fact, when Florida passed a Castle Doctrine bill, the Brady bunch erected billboards and passed out flyers in airports warning tourists about angry locals.

"This," Brady said of the new Florida measure, "will be the thing that will awaken the sleeping great number of Middle Americans who will think this is so absurd." In Texas, they claimed the law only makes things better for criminals.

Two years later, of course, all is well in Florida. Capt. Mark Strobridge of the Orange County, Fla., Sheriff's Department recently told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that "locally there's been no impact."
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/3886

Also:
Interesting data released today. Florida is, of course, the inventor of liberalized handgun concealed carry permits, of "castle doctrine" laws that allow lethal force in self defense without having to retreat, and a few other such measures.

Naturally, the Brady Campaign used Florida as their poster child for a gun-crazy state. Brady began an advertising campaign to warn tourists against entering this dangerous state. "The Shoot First law is a new law in Florida that police, prosecuting attorneys and gun violence prevention advocates worry may lead to the reckless use of guns on the streets of Florida cities." Sarah Brady intoned, ""The net effect of the new 'Shoot First' law in Florida is, unfortunately, precisely what we feared. People are dying who did not deserve to die." Just for good measure, Brady added "Gun violence in Florida could increase in 2005 because Congress failed to renew the federal assault weapon ban, which expired last fall, and Florida has no state law restricting assault weapons or rapid-fire ammunition magazines. Florida also does not require background checks at gun shows, does not require child-safety locks to be sold with guns, does not have any handgun safety standards to limit Saturday night specials and even forces police to let people carry hidden handguns in public."

Well, the Palm Beach Post reports that Florida's crime rates have fallen to the lowest level since 1971. "A telephone message left for comment after hours with the The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, D.C. was not immediately returned."
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/07/florida_crime_r.php

[iverglas]

33. ... however ... we'll just ignore it?

I would consider such an intruder very dangerous.

And if you have no actual grounds for that consideration, then you would not meet the common law test for self-defence. Seeing the point?

The duty to retreat is not an option to me, as that would expose the other members of my family to danger.

Ah, those buzz phrases. I think you meant "retreat is not an option", not "the duty to retreat is not an option", which doesn't make a stitch of sense.

Once again, do your homework. If "defence of others" is available as an excuse for the use of force, then leaving the scene would not be a reasonable alternative to defending the others in your situation. As long as there was a reasonable belief that harm would come to them otherwise.

I realize that the Florida Castle Doctrine does not offer me the freedom to just shoot anyone who happens to be in the house without fear of legal repercussions.

Really? Unless you intended to leave out the "unlawfully" in "unlawfully in the house", I don't know how you could realize this. Since it's not true. Florida law DOES do exactly that.

If you intended to leave out the "unlawfully" bit, I don't know what your point is.

Why are you citing http://www.snowbirds.org/html/gunlaw.html
as if it were some sort of authority??

This statement from that source:

The Florida law provides that a person, not themselves engaged in an unlawful activity, who is attacked in a place where they have the legal right to be (i.e. a dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle or public place) does not have an obligation to retreat and may meet force with matching comparable force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to him/herself or to another person or to prevent a forcible felony.

is FLAT OUT FALSE.

How many times?

Florida law DOES NOT include any requirement of a reasonable belief that the use of force is necessary, etc. That is THE ENTIRE POINT of the law, and the subject of the various commentary on it I have referred to.

One. More. Time. With my emphases:

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

That IS NOT a requirement of a reasonable belief that the use of force is necessary, etc. It is a NON-REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION that a person had such a belief, and that presumption may be relied on by anyone who meets the conditions in (a) or (b) even where s/he had NO SUCH BELIEF AT ALL.


And I could point out that Florida is not the only state to enact the Castle Doctrine" law.

You could indeed. Just as I had already pointed out exactly what a Kentucky judge and a Kentucky legal expert thought about the law there.


As for your "Interesting data released today", I have cited a number of cases in the past, in this forum, in which it appeared that the presumption incorporated in Florida and other states' law would make it impossible to prosecute individuals who apparently had no genuine self-defence claim at all. Feel free to look them up.

Here's another expert opinion that reiterates what I have repeatedly said, in quite unmistakable terms (emphases in the original):

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html

Under the old law, a person who killed someone in their home had the burden of proof to show that they were in fear for their safety. Now, all a person has to do is establish that the person they killed was "unlawfully" and "forcibly" entering their home when they shot the victim.

That is because the new creates a presumption that anyone who forcibly and illegally enters a home is intent on threatening the lives of the people within. And, at least according to a report written for the Judiciary Committee of the Florida Senate, that presumption is conclusive; it cannot be rebutted with contrary evidence.

... Under the old law, Lisa would have had to prove not only that Bob was in her home, but also that she was afraid for her life (or the lives of others in the house). In reality, that was often easy to do -- usually juries would take the word of a living homeowner over a dead burglar (even if the burglar was unarmed). But now Lisa, in theory, has a free hand to shoot even a plainly unarmed burglar as to whom he or she, in fact, felt no fear at all.

... It's Not True that the New Law Merely Aligns Florida with Other States

... That is probably more or less true when it comes to the legal standard governing use of deadly force outside the house. But it is very inaccurate when it comes to the legal standard governing killings inside of homes ... . Here, the new law has truly radical effects.

Why? Because the new law bulks up the old "castle" doctrine -- once a reasonable rule of law -- until it is a legal monstrosity: a legal Incredible Hulk.

"A legal monstrosity" ... "a legal Incredible Hulk". I'll bet that author would agree with my characterization as well. "A perversion."

[spin]

62. What would you suggest I do...

The Castle Doctrine is now part of the state law of Florida So the highly esteemed opinion of the Harvard Journal on Legislation is not really relevant to the citizens in this state.

Since I believe the Castle Doctrine is a good law, I have no intentions of starting or joining a movement to change this law. Since so far there hasn't been a rash of people murdered because of this law, I doubt that any attempt to overturn the law would succeed.

As I've explained, I feel an intruder who breaks into my home is a serious threat and may be in my home to do harm. If I do choose to use force up and including deadly force and the police authorities that investigate the incident agree that my actions were reasonable, I no longer have to fear being badgered by the justice system. Also, I no longer have to fear a civil lawsuit.

Before this law passed, many knowledgeable shooters would say, "If you do shoot an intruder in your house, make sure you kill him. Dead men don't sue." While this advice might be questionable, it was common. I would never use force to kill, I would use force to stop an attack that I honestly felt would cause me or those I love bodily harm or possible death. If the force I used stopped the attack, I would go no further unless necessary.

Under the Castle Doctrine, I have no duty to retreat. If I choose, I can stand my ground. Again, this is my choice. In some circumstances, attempting to flee might be a rational decision.

What this law does is grant rights to the victim of a criminal. True, the criminal loses some protection. Perhaps the wise criminal will avoid breaking into occupied houses or for that matter attempting a car jacking or accosting a citizen on the street.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

People who oppose gun ownership, especially for self defense, frequently claim if gun owner friendly legislation such as concealed carry, castle doctrine or "bring your guns to work" becomes law, there will be bloodshed in the streets and the state will turn into the "Wild West". Their predictions never seem to come true. (By the way, the Wild West was fairly peaceful compared to some of the big cities of the East.)

As the mythology of the American West began to develop, the image of the ‘Wild West’ became greatly exaggerated. The stories began almost immediately with the appearance of dime novels - cheap books published in the Eastern cities of the USA in the latter part of the 19th century. Dime novels sought to attract and interest their readers by either magnifying the crimes of outlaws such as Billy the Kid, or by inventing lurid stories of criminality. Tales of the frontier spirit fed the American desire for a bold and exciting history, and with the advent of cinema and Hollywood in the 1920s, the exaggeration of the untamed nature of the West continued to grow. Scenes of gunfights and lawlessness made for exciting cinema, and soon became the standard fare of films about the West. Some of Hollywood's most celebrated actors, such as John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, made their names in Westerns.
http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Wild+West

I can find papers posted by the Harvard Journal of Law that you might disagree with or choose to ignore. This paper for example backs up most of my arguments about gun ownership and crime:

WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE
MURDER AND SUICIDE?

]The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible
only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly involve
ordinary people who kill because they have access to a
firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might
well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but
the available data provides no such correlation. Nations and
areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder
rates than those with fewer guns per capita.

***************snip*****************

The results discussed earlier contradict those expectations. On
the one hand, despite constant and substantially increasing gun
ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions
in criminal violence in the 1990s. On the other hand, the
same time period in the United Kingdom saw a constant and
dramatic increase in violent crime to which England’s response
was ever‐more drastic gun control including, eventually, banning
and confiscating all handguns and many types of long guns.
Nevertheless, criminal violence rampantly increased so that by
2000 England surpassed the United States to become one of the
developed world’s most violence‐ridden nations.

*****************snip******************

Guns are just one among numerous available deadly instruments.
Thus, banning guns cannot reduce the amount of suicides.
Such measures only reduce the number of suicides by
firearms. Suicides committed in other ways increase to make
up the difference. People do not commit suicide because they
have guns available. They kill themselves for reasons they
deem sufficient, and in the absence of firearms they just kill
themselves in some other way.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

[iverglas]

74. uh .... how about fix that big line in your post? ;)

What this law does is grant rights to the victim of a criminal.

Hey. Allowing shopkeepers to shoot suspected shoplifters in the back as they amble out the door would "grant rights to the victim of a criminal".


So the highly esteemed opinion of the Harvard Journal on Legislation is not really relevant to the citizens in this state.

Yup. Just as the opinion of the legal experts paid to advise the public's representatives wasn't.


As I've explained, I feel an intruder who breaks into my home is a serious threat and may be in my home to do harm. If I do choose to use force up and including deadly force and the police authorities that investigate the incident agree that my actions were reasonable, I no longer have to fear being badgered by the justice system.

It's so much fun how you keep pretending not to know that what you're saying is not accurate.

If you are in Florida or a state with equivalent legislation, and if you meet the conditions in the statute, THERE WILL BE NO POLICE INVESTIGATION beyond that point. I have to believe that you understand this, really I do.

THERE WILL BE NO DETERMINATION as to the reasonableness of your actions. NONE. Not by the police. Not by a jury. The only determination to be made is WHETHER YOU MEET THE CONDITIONS IN THE STATUTE.

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

Feel free to read that sometime.


http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Lord jayzus. It's Kates and Mauser. Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more.

[spin]

79. So I talked to a local police officer...

and if I do shoot an intruder in my house, there will be a thorough crime scene investigation. Since I live in a small town with limited police resources, a unit from the FDLE from a nearby larger city will be called in to conduct the investigation.

If at the end of that investigation, it is determined that I used justifiable force, I have no fear of some opportunistic prosecutor attempting using the incident to further his political career. Nor do I have to fear that the person I shot or his family will sue me.

You can argue that I should be held to a higher standard and my actions should judged by a jury. A glib prosecuting attorney might argue that I really didn't have to shoot the intruder as he was twenty feet from me. A jury unfamiliar with the fact that a trained person can attack you from that distance before you can react and pull the trigger on your weapon, might well find that I was in the wrong. My life is ruined because a criminal made entry into my home and I shot him. I face incarceration and a lawsuit by the intruder or his family. Even if I win, I face tremendous legal expense.

What exactly did I do wrong? I was in my home bothering no one and doing nothing illegal. An intruder can easily determine if a house is occupied. Since he decided to make entry while I was in the home, it's no distortion of logic that I would presume that he is dangerous and intends to harm me or those I love. (If I were to break into an occupied home, rest assured that I would be armed and would have made plans on what to do if I encountered the homeowner.)

Therefore, in my opinion the following statements are logical. The crime scene investigation will determine if the homeowner met the requirements.

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

The following excerpt from an interview with Marion Hammer a former NRA President and the lady who is responsible for many of the gun laws in Florida including the Castle Doctrine or "Stand Your Ground" law should infuriate you. If you read the entire transcript, you might need a potent tranquilizer.

GIACHINO: One thing that is a little bit confusing – well, actually a lot of things are confusing about this law, particularly because of the misinformation that is being given by the Brady group, but one thing that confused me, and I read the law several times myself and would consider myself qualified to read it and understand it with my legal background, but nonetheless someone who is retreating, a perpetrator who is retreating, what happens then? If they had entered the person’s home unlawfully and the person felt that their life or someone in their family’s life was in danger, even if at some point the perpetrator turns to retreat, if deadly force is used against them would this law still apply?

HAMMER: The law is designed to allow you to use deadly force against an individual who breaks into your home. If someone turns around, you have no way of knowing whether or not they are retreating or whether or not they are going for a gun or something else. So yes, if someone breaks into your home they are at your mercy. Once they get outside your home – if they turn around and run and get outside your home, then you cannot take action against them.{/b}
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/marion-hammer-nra-interview.htm

[frank4570]

95. This all seems very reasonable.

If you are in your home at night and a criminal chooses to break in to your occupied house you have no idea how bad things will get before he leaves. Maybe he will take your wallet and leave. Maybe he is there to rape your wife while you watch then murder you both.
Maybe he isn't the only one in your house, he is just the one you have seen.(Very likely actually).
This isn't the time to have him fill out a questionnaire on what his intentions were when he made the decision to break into your dwelling.
If he has evil intentions, the life of you and your family will end horribly unless you stop him very quickly.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrCory]

40. I Have An Idea...

"Now shall I go find a few hundred examples of women shot to death by their intimate partners and we can all chat about how lucky they were to have firearms in their homes?"

Or, I can find a few hundred examples of people killed by reckless driving and we can all chat about how lucky they were that motor vehicles can be operated by drivers who willfully ignore traffic safety laws. Drivers such as yourself:

"I speed every time I'm on a highway and my speed has never killed anyone, including myself...My speeding is still illegal though. "Law-abiding citizens" don't get to speed. No matter how safely they can do it. They're subject to the same laws as everybody else."

[iverglas]

41. Nah. You don't.

Nobody with a "Dr." in front of his name would call that bibblebabble "an idea". Nobody with two brain cells to rub together would call it that.

People who kill people with firearms don't "wilfully ignore safety laws". They commit crimes. They wilfully kill people.

I commit the highway traffic infraction of speeding. I am using my motor vehicle for the purpose for which I purchased it and for which everyone else on the highway (mostly travelling at the same speed as I am) is using his/her vehicle: to get from here to there. (And "reckless driving" actually means something, and "driving at a speed over the limit" ain't it.)

People who kill people with firearms generally don't actually own the firearms for any purpose other than to shoot them at people. Except for maybe men who kill their wives with their hunting weapons, for instance, as does happen, in Canada at least, from time to time.

Of course, people who kill people with firearms may own them for the purpose of threatening to kill other people, thus intimidating those people -- be they their intimate female partners or random strangers with stuff they want or anybody else -- into doing what they say.

I didn't purchase my motor vehicle for the purpose of intimidating or killing, and I don't use it for that purpose.

I didn't purchase my house for that purpose either, but there's always the possibility that a big icicle will fall off the roof and kill somebody. (That happens from time to time where I'm at.) But maybe you'd like to attempt some specious analogy between my house and a handgun too, hm?

I'll bet everybody here can see the distinctions perfectly well, even without my generous assistance.


You people can cite a case now and again where someone used a firearm to defend him/herself against harm that was very likely to occur otherwise.

We all know perfectly well that there are multiple daily instances in the US where someone used a firearm to kill an intimate partner or a total bystander or a victim of a crime like robbery or an adversary in an organized crime endeavour. Of course, I don't like to limit my field of vision to killings only; there are thousands upon thousands of injuries (like the two family members injured when the trick-or-treating kid was murdered) that need to be included in the calculations.

And I can demonstrate that virtually all of those killings and injuries would not have occurred if there were no firearm in the equation. Bystanders are not killed by stray baseball bats. Classrooms full of children are not suffocated with pillows. Or run down by cars. Murder-suicides are virtually never committed, and are not likely to be committed, without a firearm being used. Anyone shot from a distance of more than a few feet would be very unlikely to be dead if no firearm had been present. Robbery victims are very unlikely to die if a firearm is not used to commit the robbery (and the robbery might well not even be attempted without the firearm).

You people, on the other hand, have yet to come up with even a few of those killings and injuries that would NOT have occurred had the victim had a firearm. That's what we need -- not insanely laughable telephone surveys in which two million people report that they are pretty sure someone would have ended up dead in some situation in which they claim their trusty firearm prevented it from happening.

The firearms are the factors, in these hundreds and thousands of situations, that are necessary links in the causal chain leading to death (or injury). You have one instance here where a firearm may have been a necessary element in the prevention of a serious assault or possible death.

Congratulations.

[DrCory]

43. In Other Words...

"I commit the highway traffic infraction of speeding. I am using my motor vehicle for the purpose for which I purchased it"

You purchased a motor vehicle for the purpose of endangering the lives of other drivers?

DO YOU DENY THAT EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT INCREASES THE POSSIBILITY OF DEATH AND/OR INJURY?

"I didn't purchase my motor vehicle for the purpose of intimidating or killing, and I don't use it for that purpose"

Doesn't matter. You object to persons continuously possessing handguns in the home on the grounds that they may be stolen and used in a criminal act. I can assure you that in my case, that is not my intent. Intent, by you standard, doesn't matter, does it? The fact is, you ARE endangering other people on the road. Therefore, just as you believe I and others should not continuously possess a handgun in the home because of the criminal acts of OTHERS, I think you should not be permitted to operate a motor vehicle because of YOUR OWN admittedly illegal and potentially life-threatening behavior.

"People who kill people with firearms don't "willfully ignore safety laws". They commit crimes. They willfully kill people."

You are willfully committing an act which endangers others, just as you accuse me of doing by keeping a handgun in the home.

Why should we not expect you to live by your own standards?

[iverglas]

49. ... in intentionally false words

That's all I'm seeing when I see things like:

"I commit the highway traffic infraction of speeding. I am using my motor vehicle for the purpose for which I purchased it"
You purchased a motor vehicle for the purpose of endangering the lives of other drivers?

Notice how there's no period at the end of the sentence fragment you put in quotation marks?

That would be because it is a sentence fragment. The complete sentence ended thus:

: to get from here to there.

Now, when I have stated that the purpose for which I purchased and use my vehicle was "to get from here to there", why would you assert that I purchased it for the purpose of endangering the lives of other drivers (followed with a cute little curly bit of punctuation)?

You intentionally misrepresent what people say? Obviously: yes.


DO YOU DENY THAT EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT INCREASES THE POSSIBILITY OF DEATH AND/OR INJURY?

Actually, yes. Speeding is a factor in a rather low percentage of crashes in which death or injury occurs. I'm not aware of speeding absent any other factor increasing that risk.

Speeding in combination with unsafe or illegal practices can undoubtedly raise the risk in some situations. Speeding while driving inattentively, definitely. Driving at a speed that is actually inappropriate for road conditions (visibility, state of repair, precipitation, etc.), sure. Racing, absolutely. But it is pretty universally recognized that speed limits on multi-lane highways, in particular, are essentially arbitrary. Sometimes they have nothing to do with safety considerations (weren't speed limits lowered in the US to conserve fuel at one time?).

Your "idea" remains as incoherent as it started.

I juxtaposed ONE incident in which use of a firearm MAY HAVE averted a woman being seriously injured or killed by a violent man against THOUSANDS of incidents in which women ARE injured or killed by violent men with firearms.

You decided to drag in my practice of exceeding the speed limit when I drive. (Oh, btw: I gave up driving some 18 months ago, having decided that the cost of repairing / licensing / insuring the vehicle was not justified by the convenience of having it available for grocery shopping. Just so's you know.)

How anyone who is not delusional could see a connection between the two things is absolutely beyond me.

Even if you were to come up with instances of motor vehicles being INTENTIONALLY used to cause injury or death, your "idea" would still be incoherent. You would still be struck down by the fact that NO ONE acquires a motor vehicle in order to cause injury or death, or intimidate someone else into doing what s/he is told. And that these are the ONLY reasons why anyone acquires a handgun (regardless, please note, of whether doing any of those things might be legally excusable).


You are willfully committing an act which endangers others, just as you accuse me of doing by keeping a handgun in the home.

Actually, I'm doing no such thing, while you are wilfully committing an act of misrepresentation, on both counts there.

[DrCory]

56. Yet another Gordian knot...

"You intentionally misrepresent what people say? Obviously: yes."

What is obvious is that you are committing an illegal act which you cannot deny endangers others. You have clearly admitted to such. So, no misinterpretation there.

"Now, when I have stated that the purpose for which I purchased and use my vehicle was "to get from here to there", why would you assert that I purchased it for the purpose of endangering the lives of other drivers (followed with a cute little curly bit of punctuation)?"

As you have stated in the past, intent and/or stated purpose is irrelevant. I do not intend, nor is it my stated purpose to use my handgun, or allow anyone else to use it, for criminal purposes. But, because it MAY be stolen and used in such a manner by another, you believe I shouldn't be permitted to hold it in continuous possession. So, lets apply the same standard to your motor vehicle. Because you ADMIT to operating it in an unsafe manner, you should not be permitted to possess/operate it.

"Actually, yes. Speeding is a factor in a rather low percentage of crashes in which death or injury occurs. I'm not aware of speeding absent any other factor increasing that risk. Speeding in combination with unsafe or illegal practices..."

Nice dodge. I'm sure those harmed in the "rather low percentage" of accidents caused by speeding alone are more than happy to give you a pass.

"Oh, btw: I gave up driving some 18 months ago, having decided that the cost of repairing / licensing / insuring the vehicle was not justified by the convenience of having it available for grocery shopping. Just so's you know.)"

Irrelevant. I will continue to bring this to your attention as long as you suggest that those of us who possess firearms in our home and intend no harm are somehow immoral and selfish.

How anyone who is not delusional could see a connection between the two things is absolutely beyond me.

Connection? Apparently credibility is a novel concept to you.

"Even if you were to come up with instances of motor vehicles being INTENTIONALLY used to cause injury or death, your "idea" would still be incoherent. You would still be struck down by the fact that NO ONE acquires a motor vehicle in order to cause injury or death, or intimidate someone else into doing what s/he is told. And that these are the ONLY reasons why anyone acquires a handgun

Technically, no. It is a mechanism design to deliver a projectile to a target accurately and reliably.

Actually, I'm doing no such thing, while you are willfully committing an act of misrepresentation, on both counts there.

To which I counter with a quote from you: "Speeding is a factor in a rather low percentage of crashes in which death or injury occurs."

Yes, you have conceded that you were indeed endangering others by speeding.

[iverglas]

58. got some money to back up the mouth?

Actually, yes. Speeding is a factor in a rather low percentage of crashes in which death or injury occurs. I'm not aware of speeding absent any other factor increasing that risk. Speeding in combination with unsafe or illegal practices...

Nice dodge. I'm sure those harmed in the "rather low percentage" of accidents caused by speeding alone are more than happy to give you a pass.

What "rather low percentage" is that? Did someone say that a rather low percentage of accidents was caused by speeding alone?

Not I. Perhaps you? Got some data for the claim?

I said that speeding is a factor (that really does not mean "causes") in a rather low percentage of crashes. And I said that I AM NOT AWARE OF SPEEDING ABSENT ANY OTHER FACTOR INCREASING THAT RISK.

Maybe you have something to back up a claim to the contrary. Maybe you'll say what it is.

You might want to consider the meaning of the concept "is a factor in". And learn to distinguish it from "causes". There are probably things on the internet that can help you with that.

Then maybe you'll offer something to demonstrate that there is even a slight connection between all this noise and a subject of discussion in this thread. I haven't found it yet myself.


Irrelevant. I will continue to bring this to your attention as long as you suggest that those of us who possess firearms in our home and intend no harm are somehow immoral and selfish.

And I'll continue to bring it to your attention that you are intentionally misrepresenting anything and everything I have ever said, since I have never suggested any such fucking thing and only someone bent on misrepresenting what I have said would assert that I have.


Connection? Apparently credibility is a novel concept to you.

Ah. I see. If I am called to testify about an event I witnessed, you, as defence counsel, will ask me whether I have ever driven over the speed limit. And the jury will then discount everything I say. Okay.

Apparently relevance is the novel concept here.


And that these are the ONLY reasons why anyone acquires a handgun.

Technically, no. It is a mechanism design to deliver a projectile to a target accurately and reliably.

Uh, "technically", the term for your statement, and your entire series of posts here, is "incoherent".


Yes, you have conceded that you were indeed endangering others by speeding.

Well, no, that's just another in your series of false statements, by which you plainly concede any claim to decency or reason.

[DrCory]

60. The Money from Your Mouth...

My Question to You:

DO YOU DENY THAT EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT INCREASES THE POSSIBILITY OF DEATH AND/OR INJURY?

Your answer:

Actually, yes. Speeding is a factor in a rather low percentage of crashes in which death or injury occurs.

And than this:

I said that speeding is a factor (that really does not mean "causes") in a rather low percentage of crashes. And I said that I AM NOT AWARE OF SPEEDING ABSENT ANY OTHER FACTOR INCREASING THAT RISK.

You admit that speeding is a factor, cause or not, that factor is an active component of the result. Therefore, speeding DOES increase the possibility. You speed, you produce an active component, you endanger others.

I AM NOT AWARE OF SPEEDING ABSENT ANY OTHER FACTOR INCREASING THAT RISK.

So, we can really on your word of honor that you create NO other factors?

Anyway, I challange you to provide stats that speed is NOT a cause or even a primary factor in traffic accidents.

Then maybe you'll offer something to demonstrate that there is even a slight connection between all this noise and a subject of discussion in this thread. I haven't found it yet myself.

Maybe, just maybe, you will someday realize that you cannot ask of others what you will not do yourself.

"And I'll continue to bring it to your attention that you are intentionally misrepresenting anything and everything I have ever said, since I have never suggested any such fucking thing and only someone bent on misrepresenting what I have said would assert that I have."

Now you're just being disingenuous. You have said that by not agreeing with your scheme of armory/club storage of handguns that we are indeed selfish. How are we supposed to interpret that?

Ah. I see. If I am called to testify about an event I witnessed, you, as defence counsel, will ask me whether I have ever driven over the speed limit. And the jury will then discount everything I say. Okay.

Nah, just the credibility of your moral judgements of others who disagree with you.

[DrCory]

69. Perfectly Happy, Eh?

Wouldn't that be "immoral" under the conditions you establish? Yeah, I think so.

My statement:

"Irrelevant. I will continue to bring this to your attention as long as you suggest that those of us who possess firearms in our home and intend no harm are somehow immoral and selfish."

Your response:

"And I'll continue to bring it to your attention that you are intentionally misrepresenting anything and everything I have ever said, since I have never suggested any such fucking thing and only someone bent on misrepresenting what I have said would assert that I have."

As for below, nope, not a bit of moral judgement present at all.


"Hey, we don't actually look to you to do anything that would bring huge benefits to the rest of the world at small sacrifice to yourself. Or even just to refrain from raining shit on the rest of the world for no good reason at all.

You're perfectly happy to have millions and millions of firearms in the hands of criminals in your own country, and to have 10,000 residents of your country killed by firearm every year. As long as that's the case, it would be foolish to expect you to worry about a few dozen people in Canada ... or a few thousand people in Mexico ... being killed with firearms acquired in your country.

Not even if taking measures to stop the cross-border flow of those firearms would obviously beneficial effects internally in the US as well. Enlightened self-interest is plainly too much to expect."

[DrCory]

70. Better Yet...

"And I'll continue to bring it to your attention that you are intentionally misrepresenting anything and everything I have ever said, since I have never suggested any such fucking thing and only someone bent on misrepresenting what I have said would assert that I have."

Why don't you present this charge to the site admin. If this "misrepresentation" is intentional as you say, would that not be a serious violation of the COC?

[iverglas]

75. just the one thing

Why don't you present this charge to the site admin. If this "misrepresentation" is intentional as you say, would that not be a serious violation of the COC?

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

You'd be as wrong as I was.

[DrCory]

82. Sure it would be...

If such a charge were true. It would appear that no one other than you believes so.

[DrCory]

65. You've fallen on your face...

DO YOU DENY THAT EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT INCREASES THE POSSIBILITY OF DEATH AND/OR INJURY?

Actually, yes. Speeding is a factor in a rather low percentage of crashes in which death or injury occurs. I'm not aware of speeding absent any other factor increasing that risk.

You have contradicted yourself. Speeding is a contributing factor. Therefore, the presence of this factor DOES in fact INCREASE the possibility of death or injury. If one does not speed, this factor, something that "actively contributes to an accomplishment, result, or process", does not exist.

[DrCory]

44. Thank You...

"I didn't purchase my motor vehicle for the purpose of intimidating or killing, and I don't use it for that purpose."

As I didn't purchase my handgun for the explicit purpose of intimidating or killing, you may now acknowledge that I have as much MORAL right to continuously possess that firearm in my home as you do to own your motor vehicle.

[iverglas]

50. good fucking god

What are you ingesting?


As I didn't purchase my handgun for the explicit purpose of intimidating or killing, you may now acknowledge that I have as much MORAL right to continuously possess that firearm in my home as you do to own your motor vehicle.

What the christ is a "moral right" to do anything? And why would the fact that you didn't purchase your handgun for intimidating or killing give you any such thing?

(What did you purchase it for? To keep you warm at night? For company while watching teevee? I give up.)

I would maybe like to have some anthrax spores handy to throw at anyone who tries to bust down my door. I guess I have a moral right to have 'em then. Maybe to keep a few crocodiles in the moat around my house, too, just because I find them fascinating creatures, you understand.


Don't worry. Whatever it is that you're smoking / drinking, I won't be asking you to share.

[DrCory]

57. LOL!

The good stuff. You know, the moral supremacy which evaporates from your posts. Anyway, here's the deal. You don't intend to do harm with your speeding car, correct? Well, I don't intend to do harm with my handgun. How am I selfish and you are not? Just doesn't calculate. You are suggesting I am immoral for keeping a handgun for self-defense. Since I do not, just as you do not, intend to do harm, then, as the RKBA is already guaranteed by the BOR, I have the MORAL right as well for the purpose of this discussion. By operating your vehicle in an unsafe manner, you no longer have any MORAL right to accuse others of being immoral when you yourself are...at least if you hold yourself to your own standard.

But somehow, I doubt you will.

[iverglas]

59. here's a genuine idea for you

Read the post you began by replying to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=189251&mesg_id=189307

and write us a short essay on what connection you see between any of the crap you are spewing and what I said in that post.

When you've finished that, you can offer up the substantiation for all of the false statements you have made about things I have said.

And do feel free to come up with the proof of that speed kills thang.

[DrCory]

61. Awww, wipe the tears away. It's gonna be okay. N/T

[DrCory]

72. From the Turkish Highways Traffic and Road Safety Research Institute

"And do feel free to come up with the proof of that speed kills thang."

No problem. This was easy enough to find. So tell me, is Mr. Memis lying or stupid? Notice he said CAUSE, not FACTOR

08 August 2008, Friday
TODAY'S ZAMAN WITH WIRES İSTANBUL
"A majority of traffic accidents in Turkey are caused by drivers exceeding the speed limit, data from the Turkish Highways Traffic and Road Safety Research Institute have shown. Head of the institute İhsan Memiş told the Anatolia news agency that 665,458 traffic accidents occurred in Turkey last year within urban areas, with 1,219 fatalities and 96,081 injuries, while 160,125 accidents occurred in rural areas, killing 3,785 people and injuring 92,202. He said speeding was the cause in a majority of the fatal accidents. Even though the number of accidents outside urban areas is four times less than that within urban areas, the number of fatalities is three times higher in the accidents in rural areas," where speeding is more common, he added. "

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=149660&bolum=100

[iverglas]

93. those weren't crickets, they were snickers

You misread.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

94. Hope the family is doing well Iverglas.

[DrCory]

99. Elaborate N/T

[DrCory]

101. Snickering Crickets I Suppose...

Mr.Memis says, quite plainly, that speed does in fact kill.

08 August 2008, Friday
TODAY'S ZAMAN WITH WIRES İSTANBUL
"A majority of traffic accidents in Turkey are caused by drivers exceeding the speed limit, data from the Turkish Highways Traffic and Road Safety Research Institute have shown. Head of the institute İhsan Memiş told the Anatolia news agency that 665,458 traffic accidents occurred in Turkey last year within urban areas, with 1,219 fatalities and 96,081 injuries, while 160,125 accidents occurred in rural areas, killing 3,785 people and injuring 92,202. He said speeding was the cause in a majority of the fatal accidents. Even though the number of accidents outside urban areas is four times less than that within urban areas, the number of fatalities is three times higher in the accidents in rural areas," where speeding is more common, he added. "


No, I didn't misread anything. I do, however, find it quite amusing to observe the lengths to which you will go to deny that your speeding was/is not dangerous behavior which placed others at risk.

[DrCory]

77. From SmartMotorist.com

"And do feel free to come up with the proof of that speed kills thang."


"Over 95% of motor vehicle accidents (MVAs, in the USA, or Road Traffic Accidents, RTAs, in Europe) involve some degree of driver behavior combined with one of the other three factors. Drivers always try to blame road conditions, equipment failure, or other drivers for those accidents. When the facts are truthfully presented, however, the behavior of the implicated driver is usually the primary cause. Most are caused by excessive speed or aggressive driver behavior."

"Speed Kills - The faster the speed of a vehicle, the greater the risk of an accident. The forces experienced by the human body in a collision increase exponentially as the speed increases. Smart Motorist recommends that drivers observe our 3 second rule in everyday traffic, no matter what your speed. Most people agree that going 100 mph is foolhardy and will lead to disaster. The problem is that exceeding the speed limit by only 5 mph in the wrong place can be just as dangerous."


www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/what-causes-car-accidents.html

[iverglas]

78. love your "authority"

hahaha. "Proof".

Over 95% of motor vehicle accidents ... involve some degree of driver behavior combined with one of the other three factors.

Somehow, that just isn't quite consistent with

Most are caused by excessive speed or aggressive driver behavior.

So what are these three other factors?

1. Equipment failure
2. Roadway design
3. Poor (road) maintenance

Hmm. What was I saying, then?

Consider this example: a pedestrian walks out in front of a car.

Not on a four-lane highway with the shoulders visible for a mile ahead, s/he doesn't.

And if someone does step into a lane of traffic after stopping a vehicle on the shoulder of such a highway, it is not likely going to make a pinch of difference if the traffic is driving at 100 km/h or 130 km/h (the former being the speed limit on Ontario's restricted-access highway system, the latter being cruising speed, mine and usually large proportion of other drivers', on those highways where weather, road maintenance or unusual congestion is not a factor).

Note this:

http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/maintain-a-safe-following-distance-the-3-second-rule.html

"Maintain a Safe Following Distance (The 3 Second Rule)"

The two minor accidents I have been in, both at slow speeds, were caused when someone failed to follow that rule and rear-ended me, one while aggressively and with insufficient attention pulling out to pass me as I merged into highway traffic from a ramp at a speed that didn't suit him, one who just ran into me on a dark rainy urban road when I slowed to make a left turn that I had signalled.

Speeding while tailgating is risky. Tailgating at any speed is risky. I don't do it. Even when it means I am constantly passed by people who think they will go faster if they're ahead of me, even if they are still behind 50 cars going the same speed, for example.

Speeding while playing with the radio or talking on a cell phone or eating a hamburger is risky. Speeding in rain or fog is risky.

Driving over the arbitrary speed limit in good conditions on a road whose design does not contraindicate the speed is not in itself risky.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit

Speed and crash factors

Some safety factors are not always under the full control of the driver, such as driver alertness and distractions, road conditions, weather, daylight availability, actions and alertness of other drivers, and wildlife. While these factors are not directly related to vehicle speed, the effects of these factors can be more severe with more speed. For example, a deer running across the road has no consequences to a parked vehicle but could have disastrous consequences for a vehicle traveling at 100 mph (160 km/h). This suggests that lower speeds can reduce the frequency and severity of crashes; lower speeds can give the driver more time to respond appropriately in the face of unexpected dangers, and it can reduce the severity of a crash should one happen. However, since the efficacy of speed limits in restraining driver speed is subject to debate, it is not clear how well speed limits can ameliorate these other factors.

Another view is that, while speed can play a part of the causal chain which leads to crashes, speed's role is mostly to magnify the consequences of other unsafe acts. This viewpoint is reinforced by the fact that speed is rarely the sole crash factor. In many cases, removing the other crash factors, such as a right of way violation, would have absolutely prevented the collision. While reducing the speed could have a beneficial effect on the severity and probability of the crash, it usually cannot guarantee crash prevention.

Most "speed-related" crashes involve speed too fast for conditions such as limited visibility or reduced road traction, rather than in excess of the posted speed limit. Most speed-related crashes occur on local and collector roads with relatively low speed limits. However, most speed-related traffic citations involve speeds in excess of posted maximum speed limits. Variable speed limits (q.v.) offer some potential to reduce speed-related crashes, but due to the high cost of implementation exist primarily on motorways. Speed-related crashes can occur on high speed limit roads at low speeds, e.g. below 30 mph (50 km/h); for example, truck rollovers on exit ramps.

... Prior to the (now defunct) 1974 national 55 mph (88 km/h) speed limit in the U.S., German Autobahns had a higher fatality rate than U.S. Interstates; however, a few years later, the Autobahn rate fell below that of (then) 55 mph (88 km/h) limited U.S. Interstates.

While this is entertaining, you continue to fail to have any point to argue.

[DrCory]

80. You're also traffic safety expert?

"While this is entertaining, you continue to fail to have any point to argue"

Well, the example I cite disagrees with you: "Most are caused by excessive speed or aggressive driver behavior."

Hmmm, I have an idea, why don't we involve the authors of the article in this discussion. I, for one, would enjoy their reaction to your critique. Hey, if their conclusion is erroneous, I am done a disservice as well.

Oh, and what of Mr. Memis?

[DrCory]

81. A Few More...

From the CDC:

"Speeding causes many motor vehicle crashes."
http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d001801-d001900/d001875/d001875.html

From the site of the Israeli Police:

"The effect of driving speed on traffic accidents (both their occurrence and their results) is disputed. Some claim that excessive speed does not play a key role in traffic accidents, while others hold that excessive speed is the root of all evil.
An analysis of traffic accidents yields the following two noteworthy facts:
Speed is a factor in almost every traffic accident.
Speed causes approximately 20% of fatal traffic accidents.

http://147.237.72.66/english/Traffic/Speeding_Violations/01_en_tr_speeding_accidents.asp

Why, oh why, do they insist upon using the word "cause" when it just isn't so according to you?

[DrCory]

87. Hey, crickets are gathering around post #72 N/T

[DrCory]

86. Firearms, like speeding, are factors and not causes?

The firearms are the factors, in these hundreds and thousands of situations, that are necessary links in the causal chain leading to death (or injury).

Just as your speeding is a factor in the casual chain leading to death or injury? So, tell me, what's the difference between you the speeder and I the handgun owner if both are factors.

[logjon]

89. Now and then? try 2,400,000+ times a year

<b>You people can cite a case now and again where someone used a firearm to defend him/herself against harm that was very likely to occur otherwise.</b>

According to HR 73, introduced January 2004, meh, I won't paraphrase, here's the text:

(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:

(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.

Maybe you feel just fine with all the officers ready to show up after you're dead. Or maybe you just don't comprehend the fact that a large proportion of the times that a firearm is used in a self defense situation, no shots are actually fired? Maybe you're just paranoid of the public? We're all cowboys who can't shoot straight and stagger around on whiskey firing into crowds of women and children?

<b>You people, on the other hand, have yet to come up with even a few of those killings and injuries that would NOT have occurred had the victim had a firearm. That's what we need -- not insanely laughable telephone surveys in which two million people report that they are pretty sure someone would have ended up dead in some situation in which they claim their trusty firearm prevented it from happening.</b>

Again, HR 73 puts that number closer to two and a half million, but you're clearly not interested in facts. And nobody ever gets stabbed I suppose.

<b>The firearms are the factors, in these hundreds and thousands of situations, that are necessary links in the causal chain leading to death (or injury). You have one instance here where a firearm may have been a necessary element in the prevention of a serious assault or possible death.</b>

The same point AGAIN? See above. Maybe you don't respect my right to defend myself, or maybe you're whipped into an emotional frenzy by every teary eye you see on TV. This is only speculation. The fact of the matter is that bad people will do bad things. Whether with guns or homemade explosives or knives or bats or whatever they want to do. Disarming the law-abiding only keeps us from defending ourselves from those psychopaths. You are the criminals' best friend.

[iverglas]

96. I was really hoping somebody would say that

I can use a good laugh these days.

Mother with cancer, sister with cancer ... and me, I decide to get a dental abscess ... Bring on the laughable nonsense, please.


Now you left out the part about how many of those people believed that a death would likely have ensued if they hadn't waved their popgun around.

How come -- and how come nobody will ever tell me?? -- it's only the people with pistols in their pants who ever seem to need them???

Surely, statistically speaking like, even more people who did NOT have pistols in their pants experienced similar life-threatening situations ... and are still alive. But all those pistol packers, why, if it hadn't been for their pistols, thousands and thousands and thousands more people would be dead today.

It's an amazement.

[raimius]

98. It's hard to argue about conjecture

If you want to find statistics on preventing violent crime with pencils, cars, or whatever, I'd be happy to discuss them.

You are arguing using your own assumptions against statistical evidence. Please present some evidence for your side.

[iverglas]

100. keep it going

You are arguing using your own assumptions against statistical evidence. Please present some evidence for your side.

I'm not arguing, or arguing against, anything.

I'm laughing at somebody calling a telephone survey "statistical evidence", and somebody who actually seems to believe that nearly 2.5 million people averted death by waving a gun around.

Where are all the people who didn't have guns and thus *must* be dead by now?? All the millions of 'em ...

[iverglas]

97. oh, forgive me, you actually went one better!

You people, on the other hand, have yet to come up with even a few of those killings and injuries that would NOT have occurred had the victim had a firearm. That's what we need -- not insanely laughable telephone surveys in which two million people report that they are pretty sure someone would have ended up dead in some situation in which they claim their trusty firearm prevented it from happening.

Again, HR 73 puts that number closer to two and a half million, but you're clearly not interested in facts. And nobody ever gets stabbed I suppose.


You actually say that in ALL of the 2,400,000 alleged instances of defensive use of firearms, somebody would have died!

Thank you -- that will last me til Sunday!

[Rancid Crabtree]

4. ...there was no room at the inn...

...so they allowed her attacker to find refuge in her basement, or wherever the SOB ended up? I wonder what the numbers are for folk who use a gun to defend themselves against other folk who should have been locked up, but weren't...yeah, okay...innocent until proven guilty and all that and the first time was a few days before...yet somehow his first alleged offense wasn't offensive enough that he apparently made bail?...Sheese!

[jody]

5. Conspicuously absent in this thread are posts from gun-grabbers who oppose the woman's action.

The way I see it, gun-grabbers have two choices (a) support the woman's right to self-defense against rape or (b) support Preyer's right to violently rape a victim.

To paraphrase Christians who often ask WWJD when facing a moral choice, I ask WWGGD?

[iverglas]

10. such an early riser is jody

Conspicuously absent in this thread are posts from gun-grabbers who oppose the woman's action.

Actually, conspicuously absent in this thread was daylight.

The thread was started in the middle of the night. By the time jody was posting, I was awake and enjoying my weekly hit of East Enders as I lay on the chesterfield drinking coffee and waiting for the later riser to descend the stairs for his weekly hit of Manchester United ...

Poor jody has nothing better to do on a Saturday morning that post bullshit on the internet.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. I'm beginning to get the feeling you don't care for Jody.

[spin]

13. "East Enders"..."chesterfield" ..."Manchester United" ?

Had to google those.

I have to admit you are entertaining.

You drink coffee. I would have suspected tea.

On Monday night, I plan to stretch out on my sofa and watch the Steelers play and enjoy a few Buds.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. Why wait till monday there is a good game on right now?

[spin]

22. I spent the majority of Saturday and Sunday...

watching both college and NFL games.

I watched several good games.

[iverglas]

23. East Enders and chesterfields -- but Manchester United??

Man U is the most famous and followed sports team in the world!

I'm an East Ender from a different London; my grandfather was an East Ender from the original. East Enders is where you'll find a geezer called Alfie Moon running a pub called the Queen Vic. And a pair of brothers named Grant (that's "Grahnt") and Phil Mitchell playing at being modern-day small-time Krays.

If you ever watched the Prime Suspect mystery series, you heard Helen Mirren say she'd asked witnesses for a description of a villain, but they all described Grant Mitchell. If you've seen Little Britain, there's an episode with the Fat Fighters meeting attended by a cast member from East Enders. He stomps out of the room after being insulted, and the exit music is the BOOM boomboom boomboom boom from the end of East Enders episodes. I always turn it up loud on Saturday morning so the Man U fan knows it's safe to come downstairs. He watches Coronation Street religiously (and has the Tshirt: "Real Men Watch Coronation Street"), but can't understand a word of the East Enders when they talk. But he got the joke on Little Britain.

Tea, moi? Yecchh. Can't stand the stuff. Only drink coffee when somebody else makes it.

But soccer, heck, even I watch a bit of that. US football comes on, I leave the room. Never seen anything as utterly boring in my life, not to mention the four hour long wall of noise that accompanies it. The English agree with me. Ever heard what the outcome of trying to export the NFL there was? For the TV airings, they edited all the dead time out. When a live game was played and the spectators realized what a tedious waste of time they were being subjected to, they booed. ... Hmm, I see they did it again last week. Wonder whether that went any better. ... Well, from what I can see,

http://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/sport/REVIEW-American-Football-at-Wembley.4639587.jp

at least the UK spectators know what to expect now. ;)

[spin]

30. Well that shows how different the cultures...

of our two countries differ.

The only time I ever heard mention of "Man U" is when the owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Malcolm Glazer, was interested in gaining control.

After Manchester United F.C. was floated on the stock market in 1990, the high value of the club made it seem unlikely that a hostile takeover would be possible. Nevertheless, in June 2005, Malcolm Glazer succeeded not only in gaining control of the club through his takeover vehicle, Red Football Ltd., but converting it into a completely private company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Glazer_takeover_of_Manchester_United

Glazer's ownership of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers was a vast improvement over the previous owner Hugh Culverhouse. The Bucs actually won a Super Bowl and still are a very competitive team

I've attempted to watch soccer, but I find it as boring as you do American football. Soccer has also attempted to attract American fans, and while there is some interest, it rates far behind football or auto racing.

Surprisingly I like tea. My favorite is Lapsong Souchong with it's light smoky flavor. I seem to remember the Brits had something to do with it's original importation to the States.

At one time I was addicted to coffee, but I worked the late night shift. My co-workers would watch me take a container of instant coffee and tap a large amount into a cup, then add hot water. I explained to them that you can only make coffee so strong, after that it just tastes the same.

The Prime Suspect mystery series is a mystery to me as is Coronation Street. Quick research showed that Coronation Street is one of the longest-running television programmes in the United Kingdom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_Street

Note: I would have spelled programmes, programs. I also spell defence, defense. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines defence as a chiefly British variant of defense

I enjoyed the review you linked to of the game between the New Orleans Saints and the San Diego Chargers in London. The final comments summed it up:

Once you get in the zone, American Football works and I for one had a cracking day.

It's easy to sniff at American sports but they're best enjoyed surrounded by the people who love them, ideally in their true American settings. You sample the game in the real atmosphere, and it all makes sense and fits.

As Stephen Fry suggested on his current TV series on the States, gridiron is preposterous and over the top, but still utterly compelling and just very, very, American.
http://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/sport/REVIEW-American-Football-at-Wembley.4639587.jp

[iverglas]

35. yes, but who is Stephen Fry?

Now don't tell me you've never watched Blackadder ... I know you've seen House. Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry were longtime comedy partners, and both were in the final series of Blackadder.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines defence as a chiefly British variant of defense

One more reason not to use US dictionaries.

"Defence" is the spelling used in every English-speaking country in the world except the US.

Googling, for instance:

Australian Government, Department of Defence
This is the main home page for the Australian Government Department of Defence.
www.defence.gov.au

New Zealand
Entry point and home page for the Ministry of Defence New Zealand website.
www.defence.govt.nz/

National Defence and Canadian Forces (DND/CF) | Défense nationale ...
www.forces.gc.ca is the official Web site of the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces. It is the best source of current and historical ...

Ministry of Defence, Government of India
Details of the ministry, links to the services and interservice organisations.
mod.nic.in

The Portal of the SA Army - Department of Defence - South Africa
The Portal of the SA Army - Department of Defence - South Africa. ... Today the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) provides much needed ...
www.dod.mil.za

Etc., etc.

You'll find the same thing for the nouns "practice" and "licence".

Now "programme", that's fallen out of favour (haha, "favour") in Canada as we absorb US idiosyncracies ...

My mum tells me the reason I don't like tea is that as a 3-yr-old drinking the sweet milky kiddie version I was once given it too hot and burned my mouth. I say the reason is that it's disgusting.


I wonder whether BBC Canada will give us Stephen Fry in America ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00f2dfv

-- two video clips there ... neither of which is accessible outside the UK.

Aha, here we go:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stephen+fry+in+america&search_type=&aq=-1&oq=

The trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnmnRmdM0Y

[spin]

51. Nope, never watched Blackadder,

However the you tube video preview on Stephen Fry in America is interesting. It might prove a popular program in the States.

I have enjoyed the Benny Hill Show and of course Monty Python's Flying Circus.

My mum tells me the reason I don't like tea is that as a 3-yr-old drinking the sweet milky kiddie version I was once given it too hot and burned my mouth. I say the reason is that it's disgusting.

That definitely would do it!

[iverglas]

53. aargh

Such cultural deprivation.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=blackadder+goes+forth

Episode one, part one, of the final season, "Blackadder Goes Forth", which has both Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie (minus the fake yankee accent). (The other parts are in the related videos list -- Stephen Fry is mostly in part 3, I think.) You might have seen Mr. Bean, maybe? He's the star.


Now, you did watch Trailer Park Boys, right ...?

[spin]

63. Yes, at your suggestion I did watch Trailer Park Boys (n/t)

[iverglas]

54. more culture for you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOdN2e5woVs

Imagine if you could get stuff like that on teevee in the you ess eh?.


... As usual, whatever clips of a show end up on youtube just aren't the good ones. Jennifer Saunders and Cyndi Lauper, together, on that show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lcO0cJMBH8

Now, please tell me you've seen Absolutely Fabulous ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgkNLHDyw9w

Eddie (Saunders) and Patsy (Joanna Lumley) are pretty good imitations of my bestest friend and me on a Friday night. Back when I permed my hair and we drank rather more red wine than we tend to these days. (You'll see the viewer comment about "Cybill", the pale US imitation of AbFab ... how anybody could compare the two ...)

[spin]

64. I did enjoy watching the clips...

I can't compare them to American TV programs, as I gave up one watching the normal drivel offer in the States years ago. Most of my friends also gave up and started watching he History, Science and Discovery Channels.

As I remember, the American TV programs were too politically correct to be funny. Recently, I have watched some of Saturday Night Live. Their political humor about the election was funny and pointed out the shortcomings of all the candidates.

[slackmaster]

6. The police arrived within a minute?!?!?!?

That's pretty amazing response, even assuming that one or more people called them when they heard a gunshot.

I can pretty much count on the San Diego PD not being here for 30-40 minutes after being called, even for a reported gunshot.

[Pavulon]

7. Self defense shootings

are complex and the FIRST response after the smoke clears is to retain counsel. Especially if the attacker lives. "I am innocent and have every intention of cooperating, but because of the serious nature of this I would like to speak to my family attorney"

If he is full of buckshot, things are easier.

In every state this would have been legal. The "i waited" part would probably not have made it to the deposition.

Dude broke down her door and got what was coming to him.

Proving once again the shotgun is THE choice for personal defense at home.

[jody]

8. What works in Cheyenne also works in Cape Girardeau. It's logical therefore that allowing

victims to defend themselves won't work in Chicago or D.C.

[spin]

14. Hopefully that will change considering the recent...

District of Columbia v. Heller ruling.

[krispos42]

15. See, now, what she should have done...

...was flee her house when the intruder began banging on the basement door and called 911 from the neighbor's house. After all, the neighbor answered the door in a reasonable amount of time, the phone worked, and the police responded quickly enough.


But no, because the woman was allowed to own a shotgun and did not have it disassembed and secured against accident and theft like some municipalities (until recently) demanded, this person got all John Wayne/vigilante justice on her alleged attacker and killed him.

Besides, is it worth killing somebody who's attacking you? Odds are very good that your attacker/rapist isn't going to kill you! Aren't you willing to take a few broken bones, contract veneral disease, some vaginal bruising, an abortion, a couple of years of therapy, and the duress of a trial to save a life?


Another life senselessly lost to gun violence... :cry:






:sarcasm:

[iverglas]

42. since you asked

Odds are very good that your attacker/rapist isn't going to kill you! Aren't you willing to take a few broken bones, contract veneral disease, some vaginal bruising, an abortion, a couple of years of therapy, and the duress of a trial to save a life?

Yeah. I was. I calculated the odds at the time, as a matter of fact, and figured I'd managed to hit the jackpot. And still I escaped without killing anybody.

Broken bones, or any injury, and pregnancy, and even disease, are actually pretty rare too. I got the trial and therapy. I much prefer that to the therapy I would have needed if I'd killed somebody, ta.

Had I had a firearm, brandishing it and/or shooting out the car window to escape might have done the trick where my fists and plastic-sandalled foot didn't.

But then if I'd had a firearm, I'd think it rather likely he would have had too, instead of the wrench he used for intimidation in another incident earlier that weekend, if it had been that easy to get a firearm (i.e. a handgun, the only kind that would have been useful in the situation). In the second earlier incident, he was sufficiently intimidated by three teenaged girls with a hairbrush to abandon his plan. I doubt that the hairbrush would have been very effective, even with three teenaged girls behind it, if he'd had a firearm.

[tburnsten]

45. You think an absolutely legitimate shooting

would require more therapy than the successful attack would? I certainly wouldn't since it would not have been my actions and decisions that created the situation where my attacker needed to be shot or given what he wanted. I just don't understand the level of animosity you have towards others who have successfully driven off attackers, using a weapon.

[iverglas]

52. congratulations

I just don't understand the level of animosity you have towards others who have successfully driven off attackers, using a weapon.

And I just don't understand why people like you can't make your own points without making false statements about someone else.


You think an absolutely legitimate shooting would require more therapy than the successful attack would?

I sure do. "Legitimate" has fuck all to do with it. "Legitimate" is based on an external evaluation of the grounds for the action. I don't tend to rely too much on anybody else's value judgments when it comes to my own actions. I very often apply a higher standard to my own actions than, say, the law does. And I would live my life second-guessing the necessity of any action like that, I assure you. "Legitimacy" doesn't come into it.


I certainly wouldn't since it would not have been my actions and decisions that created the situation where my attacker needed to be shot or given what he wanted.

Er, what? What does "given what he wanted" have to do with anything? We're talking about self-defence here, I thought. Not, like, robbery.

If you are certain you would have no second thoughts about whether someone "needed" to be killed, after you did it, well, there you are. One hopes you never have to test the theory. I would especially hope that someone as certain as you purport to be never has to test it -- not for your own sake, but because that certainty kinda makes me think there's a good chance you simply wouldn't feel any compunctions about, essentially, extrajudicially executing someone who you thought deserved it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. You would second guess shooting a man who attempted to rape you a second time in a matter of days?

Really? You may actually be the only person I know who would actually question that decision? You really do hold yourself to a different standard.

David

[tburnsten]

66. We certainly are talking about self defense

In this case, the attacker did not want material goods. So try again.

[tburnsten]

18. Escape from her own home?

Where would she be expected to go? What if the man breaking in was part of a kidnapping team, and was trying to either snag her or drive her out of the home to his waiting partner? What if she had been surprised by him in her sleep?


I am not sure there is any real need for the Castle Doctrine in regards to a person's own home, except that I know that many unscrupulous prosecutors would gladly prosecute someone for protecting themself from an attacker in their own home.


I say good for her, she removed a multiple, persistent sexual predator from the earth in the most decisive way possible, and prevented herself from being sexually assaulted yet again by the animal. As far as I am concerned, that gunshot wound he received was self-inflicted.

[iverglas]

21. escape from assault/death

Only an idiot takes a chance on being able to defend against an assault when there is an apparent escape route.

Well, an idiot ... or someone with something to prove ...


I say good for her, she removed a multiple, persistent sexual predator from the earth in the most decisive way possible, and prevented herself from being sexually assaulted yet again by the animal. As far as I am concerned, that gunshot wound he received was self-inflicted.

I wonder how many people would be saying the same thing in a case where it turned out the assault report was fabricated.

I do believe that has been known to happen.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. I'm amazed that you actually went there.

He had broken into her house and was in the process of breaking down a door inside her house when she shot and killed him. I'm doubting he was there because she over paid for her girl scout cookies and he wanted to return her money. Who cares what excuses liars make up to cover up other crimes? That's not what happened here. I have to thank her for saving the tax payers the money for a trial and a lifetime of incarceration. His dumbass got what he deserved.

David

[HiDemGunOwner]

26. Idiot or tactically superior judgement?

"Only an idiot takes a chance on being able to defend against an assault when there is an apparent escape route."

Her attempt to utilize her "apparent escape route" the first time he was there resulted in her physical and sexual assault. Seems that if one were to judge the idoticity of her choices in the two attacks based on the results, the attempt to leave the house was by far the less wise of the two....

And, the only thing she had to prove was that she wasn't going to be a victim a second time! Supposing, even for a moment, that the report of the initial assault was false, why was the guy breaking into her house? As far as I am concerned, based on the circumstances as detailed in the news story of this break in, she was entirely justified in her use of deadly force even if he didn't assault her previously.

[iverglas]

28. nice try

What I was responding to was the question: "Escape from her own home?"

The emphasis was very obviously on her own home, as it why should anyone have to escape from her own home to avoid an assault?

The answer is twofold:

- because human beings have a universally recognized obligation not to assault or kill other human beings unless there is no reasonable alternative in order to avoid injury or death

- because a sensible person avoids the possibility of injury or death where that is an option


I was not responding to the specifics of this case, much as you have attempted some fine diversionary grooming in that direction.


And, the only thing she had to prove was that she wasn't going to be a victim a second time!

Uh, yes. That would indeed be one of those "something to prove" thingies, wouldn't it? Which, as was my point, has bugger all to do with avoiding assault/death or the justification for committing assault/death.


As far as I am concerned, based on the circumstances as detailed in the news story of this break in, she was entirely justified in her use of deadly force even if he didn't assault her previously.

Good for you!

Has anyone suggested otherwise?

[HiDemGunOwner]

34. Thanks...

I was well aware to what question you were responding. You seem to think that escape from the security and familarity of your home is a good choice is such situations and went so far as to call anyone who might choose to remain in a tactically superior position an "idiot."

Your "twofold" answer offers little clarity as to the "reasonable alternatives" afforded one when a criminal with ill intent breaks into your home. As is obvious in the first assault, the seemingly "reasonable alternative" of leaving the house resulted in more harm to the homeowner than if she had stayed and defended herself as she did in the second attack. The reason the Castle Doctrine has evolved (yeah, I know you disagree with that concept...) is because folks who propose this type of Monday morning quarterbacking are apt to impose their own misguided interpretations of "reasonable alternatives" based on the clarity gained after the circumstances are known. I am quite sure that had the first event not taken place, which clearly demonstrated the dangers associated with leaving your house under those circumstances, and the woman had simply stayed put and defended herself, they would have been severely critical of her not attempting such an escape. After all, it would have been reasonable to try to escape, right?

[raimius]

67. Not quite

"human beings have a universally recognized obligation not to assault or kill other human beings unless there is no reasonable alternative in order to avoid injury or death"

This is NOT a universally recognized obligation. Even the Bible/Torah does not. (Exodus 22 verses 2-3) If holy texts, written several thousand years ago and still believed by over 1 billion followers today, do not recognize this, it is certainly not universally recognized.

I fully realize Exodus is not a legal standard in the US or Canada, which is why there is so much debate over the supposed duty to retreat from one's own home. (This "duty" also brings up the question of where a reasonable person should retreat to when awakened in the middle of the night, if their own home is no longer permissible.)

[iverglas]

76. yer a card

This is NOT a universally recognized obligation. Even the Bible/Torah does not. (Exodus 22 verses 2-3) If holy texts, written several thousand years ago and still believed by over 1 billion followers today, do not recognize this, it is certainly not universally recognized.

Exodus 22
Protection of Property

1 "If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.

2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;

3 but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.
"A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft. ...

I like that "sold to pay for his theft bit". You too?

Here ya go.

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim

Now, anytime you want to join the modern age, well, feel free to catch up!

Here's some help.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

1948 -- the 60th anniversary is coming up. Signficant contributions were made by people from both Canada and the US.

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, ...

... Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

[raimius]

84. Nice diversion

I NEVER stated Exodus is a legal standard, or whether it is a good or bad standard. In fact, I specifically mentioned it is not a legal standard in either of our nations.

I DID point out that your assertion was demonstrably false. Your rebuttal was against something I was not even advocating.

Your UN citation does not specify anything for the type of situation the Castle Doctrine addresses, unless I am missing something.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. I agree with the latter part

and that has always troubled me about the Castle Doctrine. I prefer what we have in Washington State, we have no 'duty to retreat'. I prefer that to a presumption that the defender was in danger. I expect any homicide, justifiable or not, be investigated objectively. Not with a checkbox 'was the shooter within his/her own home', and an affirmitive is good to go. As you say, sometimes there is malfeasance afoot. I do not support further strengthening our state self-defense laws with something like Florida's Castle Doctrine laws.

However.

I personally object to the thought that an avenue of escape is always preferred to standing your ground. Fleeing puts your back to your pursuer. It removes you from your most intimately familiar territory. It pits your raw physical mobility against that of your attacker, a primitive, and frankly unsettling contest for survival. It also means you will probably not be where the police are looking for you, if you manage to notify them, and as you flee, you are leading your pursuer away from the location the police are speeding to.

I prefer the idea of notifying the police if possible, choosing the most defensible location in my home possible, and utilizing the best tools at my disposal to protect myself. If I'm bunkered down in my bedroom, and some yahoo wants to access my liquor cabinet, or make off with my TV, fine. He can compete with the arrival of the police for it. I'm not going to sweep my house hunting him or her down. But if the intruder means me harm, I have a rather large capacity for inflicting harm in self defense, and can think of no better or more justifiable motivation to use it.

If you choose to flee, that's your choice. Not my preferred mode of defense. Posessions I can replace, my life, I cannot.

[iverglas]

29. forgive me

but I'm failing to take your point.

I agree with the latter part and that has always troubled me about the Castle Doctrine. I prefer what we have in Washington State, we have no 'duty to retreat'.

I don't understand what troubles you about the (so-called, presumably) castle doctrine. Under that doctrine, there is no "duty to retreat". So I don't understand what you are differentiating from what.

"Duty to retreat." It sounds so ... unmanly, doesn't it?

What it actually is, is the duty to avoid causing injury or death to another human being, unless there is no reasonable alternative available, in order to avoid injury or death to one's self. Put it that way, and it sounds kinda, oh, I dunno, reasonable. Christian, even. Also Jewish and Hindu and Muslim and just about anything else you could think of, as in universally recognized principle of human conduct.

I personally object to the thought that an avenue of escape is always preferred to standing your ground. etc. etc.

How many times does this have to be gone over? Can everyone not do his/her own homework?

If avoiding death/injury by "fleeing" involves exposing one's self to danger (e.g. if one believes that the assailant is capable of outrunning one, and s/he appears to be intent on doing that), then it is not a reasonable alternative to using force in self-defence. For pity's sake.

And the common law excuse of self-defence has always included the subjective element, of what would have seemed reasonable to the person in question, in the circumstances in question. NO ONE has ever been required to do a mathematical calculation of odds, or otherwise attempt to foresee the future, when deciding whether to use force and what degree of force to use in order to avert injury or death.


I prefer the idea of notifying the police if possible, choosing the most defensible location in my home possible, and utilizing the best tools at my disposal to protect myself. If I'm bunkered down in my bedroom, and some yahoo wants to access my liquor cabinet, or make off with my TV, fine. He can compete with the arrival of the police for it. I'm not going to sweep my house hunting him or her down. But if the intruder means me harm, I have a rather large capacity for inflicting harm in self defense, and can think of no better or more justifiable motivation to use it.

If you choose to flee, that's your choice. Not my preferred mode of defense. Posessions I can replace, my life, I cannot.

That just didn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

If someone is after taking my possessions, I'd rather be outside my home while s/he does it.

If someone means me harm, I'd rather get out of the enclosed space I might otherwise be trapped, and lose the fight, in. You may well have firearms handy; why you would imagine that the intruder who means you harm doesn't have one of his/her own, or want to bet your life on getting the drop on him/her and hitting your target on your first try, I don't know.


typos fixed

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Having a Castle Doctrine, and not having a Duty to Retreat are quite different effects.

Scenario: '3am Bump in the Night'

I walk out to my living room, someone has kicked down my door, and is taking my stuff. I say 'hey man, that's my stuff'. Intruder says 'mine now'. Doesn't necessarily threaten me in any way. Just taking my stuff.

In my state, where we have no duty to retreat, I cannot legally shoot the intruder, and if I do, I might have some difficulty or would at least perjure myself trying to prove I felt some imminent threat.

In Florida, you could probably fire away, and there would be no detailed investigation. You would not have to prove any duress/fear/danger.

I prefer our method, to Florida's. (assuming I fully understand the ramifications of Florida's law. I can think of a couple anecdotal instances where this interpretation was borne out by actual events)


The reason I prefer to 'hole up' and protect myself, is I may not be aware if my intruder is alone, or accompanied. Perhaps there is another in my backyard. Perhaps he or she is a better runner. Perhaps he or she is armed with a weapon. I don't want to turn my back on someone with a weapon. My familiar surroundings give me somewhat of an advantage if it comes down to shooting it out with an armed intruder, even a competent, armed intruder. I can choose better cover/concealment. I have a better understanding of the intruder's available cover and concealment. And, time is on my side, if I have notified the police.

I cannot know, prior to fleeing, where exactly my intruder might be, how many there are, the intruders intentions, and capabilities.

[tburnsten]

46. And what happens when you tell him to get out

And he doesn't want to? As a homeowner you certainly have every right to get some stranger victimizing you out of your home, or else "ownership" and "residence" would be terms without any meaning at all.

I think someone breaking into a home that almost certainly has people inside it is showing a spectacular disregard for the law, the safety of the residents, their ability to remove him from the home which shows he is probably armed, and his own safety. I think if something unfortunate happens during the event, the person victimizing the residents is always at fault, even in the most extreme circumstances I think the person initating the event by breaking in cannot be less than eighty percent responsible for the outcome. After all, if they had just respected the rights and safety of the residents, there would have never been an incident to start with.

[spin]

83. I live in Florida and let me assure you...

that if you shoot an intruder in your home, there will indeed be a detailed crime scene investigation. The information came from a local police officer.

In Florida, if an intruder breaks into your home while you are present, you have the right to presume that he is dangerous.

It's not difficult to determine if someone is home. Let me assure you that if I decided to break into an occupied home I would be armed and have made plans on what to do if I did meet the homeowner. All the advantages are on my side. I know who I am. I know what I intend to do. I have prepared for an encounter with the homeowner. On the other hand, he knows none of these facts and has probably just woke up. If all I intended was to burglarize his home, I could have easily waited until he was not there. Therefore, the homeowner can make the presumption that I do present a imminent threat.

I'm definitely in the wrong. I'm somewhere I shouldn't be doing something illegal. My choice. If I get shot, why should the homeowner go to jail merely because he didn't retreat? Why should I be allowed to sue him for his actions, or if he kills me, why should his family be allowed to sue? Even if he wins in court, why should the homeowner face the destruction of his life and savings for the legal fees?

You state:

The reason I prefer to 'hole up' and protect myself, is I may not be aware if my intruder is alone, or accompanied. Perhaps there is another in my backyard. Perhaps he or she is a better runner. Perhaps he or she is armed with a weapon. I don't want to turn my back on someone with a weapon. My familiar surroundings give me somewhat of an advantage if it comes down to shooting it out with an armed intruder, even a competent, armed intruder. I can choose better cover/concealment. I have a better understanding of the intruder's available cover and concealment. And, time is on my side, if I have notified the police.

I cannot know, prior to fleeing, where exactly my intruder might be, how many there are, the intruders intentions, and capabilities.

I don't fault your logic. In fact, many self defense experts agree with you. Playing Wyatt Earp when you suspect an intruder is not the best decision. You walk out of your bedroom and creep slowing down the hall. The intruder hears you and seeks cover, You enter the room he is in and he shoots before you realize he's hiding behind your couch. Clearing a house is dangerous and is better preformed by professionals.

If you reverse the situation and you wait phone 911 and wait behind your bed, the advantage is yours, The intruder breaks down your bedroom door. You shoot. You win, he loses.

But not everyone is in a position to do this. For example, if you live in a two story house with children and other adults scattered throughout in different bedrooms, your option of waiting in your bedroom might prove a bad choice.

[Indy Lurker]

88. you would never shoot for stealing

AtheistCrusader
"In my state, where we have no duty to retreat, I cannot legally shoot the intruder, and if I do, I might have some difficulty or would at least perjure myself trying to prove I felt some imminent threat."

You of course would not shoot someone for stealing your stuff. That would be wrong.

You could however, (at least in Illinois) grab a phone, then point your firearm at them and yell freeze, I have a gun and you are under arrest.

Proceed to call the police. If the intruder turns and runs out the door. You obviously let them go. If they move towards you (and your less than 25' apart) or quickly reach for something that could be a weapon, you shoot them.

You would of course not be shooting them for stealing your stuff, but for attacking you in your own home.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Simpler response.

My point boils down to, in states with a Castle Doctrine, if certain criteria are met, no detailed investigation might be performed, so instances of fraud used to kill someone 'in self defense' might not be discovered.

My state has a better balance (In my opinion) of protecting the victims right to self defense, AND competently investigates all homicides, justifiable or not.

[iverglas]

36. that seems to make sense

;)

[raimius]

68. From what I have read

The Castle Doctrine is designed to protect residents when a threat might be suspected, but not proven.

(time for one of the infinite number of "what ifs")
If a groggy home-owner stumbles across a burglar at 2AM, they may have trouble clearly determining what level of threat that intruder presents. Obviously, they were able to make an illegal entry (probably through the use of force). They presumably have ill-intentions (whether those intentions include bodily harm or murder is hard to determine in the brief seconds the resident has to decide/act). Until the intruder produces a weapon or aggressively advances on the defender, it would be very difficult to gage their threat level. Most residents would prefer to not be legally forced to wait until such time. Any day a criminal points a weapon at a defender is a bad day for one or the other!

If, in the dark, the armed home-owner discovers an intruder breaking into their home, is it reasonable to require the homeowner to positively identify the intruder's threat level in the dark?

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Depends on how you frame the question.

I think some effort should be made to determine if the homeowner or resident, or whomever used a weapon of any sort in self defense actually felt some measure of danger, and that the perceived danger jives with the physical evidence.

Intentions don't leave fingerprints, no, but if the intruder is armed, or clearly facing the homeowner when shot, etc, you can corroborate some level of threat. At least get them on the record with their statement, and give the investigating officer a chance to 'gut check' the situation.

[the_real_38]

37. Finally, a story with a happy ending.

This is what should happen to every rapist who breaks into somebody's home.

Nice shooting!

[HiDemGunOwner]

38. I think most would agree with you

But how do you tell the difference between the rapist or the unarmed burglar when the intruder is attempting to gain entry, or has gained entry but has committed no other offense besides that?
I believe that is why some states have have Castle Doctrines that "presume" an individual forcefully entering, or attempting to enter, is a bad guy intent on harming you, which I believe is a reasonable conclusion.

[slackmaster]

39. In California's implementation of Castle Doctrine, the entry has to be both forceful and unlawful

If both of those conditions are true, the person is automatically assumed to be a threat. If not, e.g. a drunk stumbles in through an unlocked door, use of deadly force is not automatically assumed to be reasonsble.

See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199 and scroll down to section 195 for information on justifiable homicide in California.

I think that is a reasonable balance between self-defense, property rights, and the right of non-violent fools and drunks not to be killed.

[tburnsten]

47. It doesn't matter if they already have a weapon

What matters is there response when confronted by the person who lives in the house they are breaking into. If they flee, they are not a threat and the right action is to make sure they have actually vacated and call the police. If they don't run immediately, they need more persuasion, and if they know you are armed and still don't try to run away or surrender, they need to be stopped immediately before they can get to you and harm you. If they know they have been caught and they don't run away, what do you think they are going to try to do next?

[spin]

90. In your scenario, they will probably attempt to take your gun away...

shove it up your ass and blow you away.

While in prison, which all too often is a college for criminals, the bad guys learn how to take firearms away from people. It's not that difficult if you are reasonably close to the individual holding the weapon.

[raimius]

91. Any stats

On how often that actually happens? (successfully for the criminal)

[spin]

92. Can't find stats but....

FRANKLIN, Ind. -- He was trying to protect his family during a home invasion when a Franklin man said he was shot with his own gun Wednesday night at the family's home.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/16916240/detail.html

A Watauga homeowner was stabbed several times and shot once with his own gun during a robbery early this morning, police said.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/103008dnmetwatauga.15d488fa9.html

Sometimes it goes the other way:

DALLAS — A homeowner who answered his door to find a robber pointing a gun at him grabbed the handgun and fatally shot the man, police said.
http://www.caller.com/news/2008/nov/03/homeowner-takes-robbers-gun-kills-him/

or:

Burglar Pays for Intrusion With His Life

A Texas couple’s home was recently burglarized by a pair of armed robbers. The wife was awakened and found herself confronted by a pair of gun wielding burglars, one armed with a handgun and the other a shotgun. Warned to be quiet, she was turned into a real tigress when the man with the shotgun became distracted for a second which allowed her an opportunity to grab the muzzle and turn it away from her children’s room. Screaming for her son to grab his little brother to hide, she then began screaming for her husband (not in the room obviously) to help - never letting go of the grip that held the deadly shotgun barrel at bay.
http://www.crime-information.com/man-kills-burglar-with-his-own-gun

[spin]

48. Video news report on the indicdent...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NJQK2BscIg

[slackmaster]

71. "...a registered sex offender living in Jackson."

Not any more.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

85. Thankfully.