Man in Wheelchair Kills Home Intruder

[moroni]

By Austin L. Miller
Staff Reporter

Published: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 10:44 a.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 10:44 a.m.

SILVER SPRINGS SHORES — Wrapped in a purple blanket and sitting in his wheelchair behind the yellow crime scene tape that surrounded his Silver Springs Shores home, Gary Wroblewski chatted with deputies as he sipped water from a bottle.

Just yards away by his front door, Medical Examiner's officials, detectives and crime scene technicians took pictures and examined a body that lay on the ground.

“I always try to do the right thing,” said the 62-year-old man.

Gainesville Sun

<snip>

Wroblewski said he noticed a masked man emerge from the shrubs in his front yard, plow through the front door and knock him over. As he was going down, Wroblewski said he fired at least three shots from his gun.

The masked intruder was killed, while the second man ran away. According to Wroblewski, he believes two of the three shots fired struck the intruder's upper torso. Officials don't know if the third shot hit the second man.

[SB37]

1. I'm glad that we live in a country

where a man can defend his home...

[JonQ]

2. Good thing he was armed

for some reason I doubt he could have (as our grabbers always suggest) engaged the intruders successfully in hand to hand combat.

[cognoscere]

47. Or as one of them insisted,

he would rely on his wit and martial arts skills to take care of the situation. I will consider that an option when a punch can move faster than a thousand feet per second.

[davepc]

3. He should of just ran away...

[TPaine7]

39. Excellent!!!! LOL n/t

[eqfan592]

4. He should have been smart enough not to own a home that was going to get broken into!!

And he should also have the decency of being able to use his legs so that he could run away!

:sarcasm:

Sorry, but I just couldn't help myself today. :P

[taurus145]

5. Oops! The crook got rolled

I like it.

[iverglas]

6. just think, if he hadn't had a gun

He'd be dead.

Oops, hang on. My crystal ball seems to be experiencing some interference here. Too much right-wing gun militant chatter going on in the ether ...

Maybe if I wait a bit it will clear up, and it will be able to tell me how many people in wheelchairs were killed by burglars in the last few years.

I mean, this can't just happen to people in wheelchairs with guns. It must sometimes happen to people in wheelchairs without guns. And they must all be dead.

Anybody got a body count, or shall I just wait patiently for the noise in the crystal ball to clear?

And I'll wonder why somebody would bother wearing a mask when they decided to rob somebody else, if they were planning to kill them. I mean, surely the mask wasn't just a fashion accessory they put on when they get up in the morning.

But maybe I've got something wrong here. Maybe I've missed the bit where it's right and good to kill somebody for trying to steal your stereo ... that death penalty stuff, I do just have a hard time getting my head around it ...




typo, typo, typo

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Hmm.

"And I'll wonder why somebody would bother wearing a mask when they decided to rob somebody else, if they were planning to kill them."

This has happened in service stations, person walks in, demands money, gets money, shoots teller anyway. As for homes, my house has several cameras, if I am killed by some intruder, the police will still have SOME footage of the perp. Last but not least, someone might wear a mask anyway, in case some bystander spots them during ingress/egress.

If the perp in this case was willing to break down the door anyway, I think it's reasonable to assume he didn't just want the stereo, or he could have just broken down the door while no one was home at all.

If he came home, and the guy was already in, taking stuff, I might be more inclined to assume a non-violent burglary. Once he made physical contact with the victim, I'm giving the victim the benefit of the doubt on his judgment of whether or not he was in serious danger.

[SB37]

10. Good luck with trying to use logic and reason -

He was much too enamored with his own cleverness for any of that to take hold....

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Lurk more.

[SB37]

13. That wasn't a slight against you....

I was saying that your logic was going to fall on deaf ears.

Does my low post count disqualify me from even being able to agree with someone?!

[AtheistCrusader]

15. You took liberty to interrupt a conversation to insult the person I was conversing with.

Thus, I am offended. Where I come from, people have manners.

[SB37]

16. Wait..... "the person you were conversing with"...

Am I wrong, or is this a public forum. Did I miss something? Did you and your buddy have this thread set aside for your private discussion?

Didn't you interrupt his discussion with the op?!

Wow... this is the craziest friggin' "discussion" board I've ever seen....

[AtheistCrusader]

17. If you have a problem with someone

Address them directly, do not pull a backhanded insult while addressing someone else. Let's say you're at a public place, and two people are conversing. If you walk up and say to person B "hey, person A is full of shit" and walk away, you are an asshole.

If you have a problem with Iverglas, address her directly, do not insult her, to me. I am not impressed.

So, how's assuming gender types working out for you, anyway?

[GreenStormCloud]

18. No. It was a kind of joke that he meant.

Please stay around, and you will catch on to it. You don't have a big enough post count yet, so I can't send you a private message to explain it. I don't want to explain it on the open forum because it will start a huge fight.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. I like fights.

Let's do that. I choose 'big fight' option.

[SB37]

20. Thanks GSC....

I guess I missed the joke.

That was just the oddest set of responses that I had ever received in a posting on any public discussion board. I was thinking that I would get flamed for disagreeing with people.

I'm not here to fight, but I'm guessing that is the temperament on these boards....

[AtheistCrusader]

22. "I'm not here to fight"

"He was much too enamored with his own cleverness for any of that to take hold"


*bitches about temperament of the denizens of this board*

You will go far here.

[eqfan592]

26. I don't think that was "bitching about temperment.."

so much as a statement of fact. But that's just my humble opinion after all. ;)

[iverglas]

23. missed lots, you did

Interesting that this discussion has turned to assumptions ...

AC went and spoiled the fun on that particular one though. ;)

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Sorry

Last thing you probably need is an internet white knight and all, but he did address my post while insulting you, so I feel obligated. obliged.

[iverglas]

70. meant to say

You be white knight for civil discourse any time you like. ;)

[eqfan592]

24. FAIL

Don't worry, it happens sometimes SB37 ;)

[SB37]

29. Yeah, I think that I know EXACTLY how little Fluffy the pooch feels up there...

[rd_kent]

86. Wow, that sounds VERY familiar. Is someone posting under a new username?

[iverglas]

98. haha

Well that would hardly be a new trick!

Perhaps s/he intentionally referred to me in the male person to look like a newby ...



aaargh, so few words and still a typo

[AtheistCrusader]

99. Few of them today.

Scroll down, Logjon appears to be a parachute account as well.


I hope they like pizza.

Two several-month-old accounts, each with exactly 23 posts, empty profiles.. Hmm.

[iverglas]

21. ah, random thoughts

Masks: I may be wrong, but I'm assuming that all the good folks in this thread who think the individual in question deserved killing think that because they've decided the victim of the original crime was at definite risk of serious bodily harm. I like to think they don't think that because they believe people who steal things should be killed. (I know I'm wrong on that, but it's an assumption for the purposes of our discussion.)

There are reasons to think this was not the case. A mask may be one such reason. The fact that they knocked the victim of the original crime over and kept going may be another.


If the perp in this case was willing to break down the door anyway, I think it's reasonable to assume he didn't just want the stereo, or he could have just broken down the door while no one was home at all.

Uh, why is that reasonable to assume? Why are we assuming that they didn't know someone was home?

Why not assume that they lived in the neighbourhood and wore the masks so the occupant wouldn't recognize them? That they'd heard stories about the old guy in the wheelchair keeping large amounts of money under his mattress? That they knew he never went anywhere?


Certainly is interesting to examine the assumptions, and play with different sets of them, hm?

[AtheistCrusader]

28. True

I cannot know that the victim even gets out of his home, and goes about, where the house might be more vulnerable to burglary.

The mask concerns me though. To me it makes a statement. Something along the lines of 'I'm going to do anything up to unlimited bad because my identity is hidden'. Sure, I'm making assumptions at this point, but in situations like this profiling is a survival mechanism.



'Oh, no, it's just that they're terribly comfortable. I think in the future, everyone will be wearing them'.

[iverglas]

30. you've been reading Heinlein again :(

'Oh, no, it's just that they're terribly comfortable. I think in the future, everyone will be wearing them'.

Which one was that, Stranger? A particularly icky -- forgive me here -- male fantasy. Women with faces covered and the much more interesting body parts exposed. Sort of like living in a porn mag ...

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Princess Bride.

Oh my, that went strange places, didn't it

[iverglas]

34. tell me not

Princess Bride, as in the charming movie with Val Kilmer, was old Bob?

:( indeed.

Nah, that's gotta be different. I don't recall any women in cages in the movie ...

[AtheistCrusader]

35. 6:00 minutes in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFDfc5OyKr4

I don't think Val Kilmer is in this one...

[iverglas]

37. hmmmmmmmmm

I'm going to have to go home and study the movie book. The one I'm thinking of I think had Val Kilmer, and a very short person for a sidekick, and, like, elves and a wicked queen or something. I'm lost. Heinlein didn't write a Princess Bride - ? ... and I don't know what I was supposed to see at 6 minutes in ... and I think I really should finish that job that was due at 9 a.m. ...


edit - I really do have to sleep occasionally - that was Willow. Now where does Princess Bride come into this??

[AtheistCrusader]

38. It's the line.

About the masks. This movie is one giant quote factory.

"You mean you'll put down your rock, and I'll put down my sword, and we'll try to kill each other like civilized people?"

I think you would really enjoy the whole movie.

[iverglas]

41. actually

it's one I have meant to see. Onto the list it goes for the co-vivant to go lift off the net somewhere. He's become a downloading fool, which is good now that we're in mid-season reruns.

Any recommendations for a 20-something nephew? 11- and 13-yr-old nieces? They're fond of old sitcoms. Bewitched. Ew. I gave them some Flying Nun, and I've got him looking for Patty Duke. Gotta go feed the squirrel at my window.

[SteveM]

141. Elizabeth Montgomery of "Bewitched" was quite the lefty...

She was not only involved with various gay rights campaigns, but was the narrator of at least two documentaries, one about the Iran-Contra affair (I saw this one). Her feature-length movies since Bewitched were often dark, but quite current with social affairs. Who'd thunk?

[GreenStormCloud]

52. Once the perps started the violence, no further assumptions are needed.

My reason for approving the shooting is that I believe the individual had excellent reason to fear for his life, or great bodily harm.

The presence or lack of a mask means very little. It was probably just his standard crime outfit. Once a felon establishes an MO, they tend to use it for all their crimes. They don't plan crimes out with precision like a TV movie casino heist.

Criminals are often irrational. To expect rational behavior from a violent felon during a crime is to expect way too much.

I will engage in some specualtion on the motive for this crime. Often people who are confined to wheelchairs have chronic pain and have prescription pain medications. It may be that he was targeted because he was in a wheelchair and believed to have drugs available.

BTW - There is a likely reporter error in the story. The story claims that he calls his gun, "Judge". I doubt that. Taurus make a .45/.410 revolver that is marketed under the name, "The Judge". Since he used a .45 to shoot the felon, I suspect that he was using that make of gun.

[iverglas]

54. not to someone with no regard for facts and no moral compass

Criminals are often irrational. To expect rational behavior from a violent felon during a crime is to expect way too much.

Ah.

This is undoubtedly why things like mandatory minimum sentences and three-strikes laws work so well to deter them from committing crimes.


Taurus make a .45/.410 revolver that is marketed under the name, "The Judge".

Charming.

I'll bet we're not supposed to get that allusion.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Oddly enough.

"It got its name "The Judge" in 2006 when Bob Morrison, Executive Vice President, learned that judges in high-crime areas of Miami, Florida were purchasing the revolver for personal defense in their courtrooms, and after Morrison investigated further, the model designation was changed from 4410 to 4510 to more accurately reflect the revolver's versatility (.45 Colt + 410 shot -> "4510")"

Which is probably not what you expected. In addition to it's target market, the Judge is particularly useful against poisonous snakes, since it uses a shotgun shell, which can fire small pellets, making for an easier shot, and a more lethal (less suffering) hit on a snake. (Cottonmouths for instance)

Its a good 'trail' gun, but not useful against bears or humans in that configuration.

[iverglas]

67. Heh

Yeah, but how many people actually know that, eh?

;)

I gotta say, though, the image of judges carrying firearms in courtrooms ... phew.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[PavePusher]

105. Wow. Very inclusive of you. Sheesh. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

107. I actually don't think much of the whole eastern seaboard.

Anyplace that rolls up the sidewalks at 6pm is indistinguishable from purgatory.

[AtheistCrusader]

124. Hahaha wow

That was deleted but so much other shit in this thread remains?

Amazing. Heaven forfend I offend an entire state by calling it wierd.

[PavePusher]

133. While I didn't think much of your comment...

I certainly wish it hadn't been deleted especially, as you say, so much other crap gets a pass. Sorry about that.

P.S. There are lots of places that don't "roll up the streets at 6pm" in the east. Florida, most nightclubs I went to were open until 4am. (Aaaaahhhh, I miss Destin/Ft. Walton/Panama City/Pensacola....)

[AtheistCrusader]

135. I imagine most of the coastal touristy cities in Florida

would be quite to my liking. I love the nightlife, but it helps that I only need about 4 hours of sleep each night.

[SteveM]

142. I grew up in Florida and visit family regularly. I eschewed the touristy stuff...

in favor of the back woods, lakes and rivers of the interior. A few of these places are still "untouched." There is little more wild and remote than the "Big Bend" of Florida, stretching from below Cedar Key to around Port St. Joe. The condos are encroaching like zombies, but there are some places in this vast area you would not want to be lost in.

[taurus145]

136. Side bet

I'm guessing it was a 1911. You know us old guys and our slabsides.

[GreenStormCloud]

143. You Win. .45 Colt.

http://www.ocala.com/article/20091216/ARTICLES/912161011/1402/NEWS?Title=Update-3rd-suspect-arrested-after-fatal-home-invasion&tc=ar

Wroblewski said he grabbed his gun, a .45 Colt handgun he calls "Judge,"...

[rd_kent]

85. Good luck, man, you are fighting a losing battle with this one. No matter what you say, it will

never be good enough. It will always turn into how YOU should have said this instead of that, or how you cannot spell or how your argument, while sound, does not makes sense.
Just walk away from this man, save yourself the headache.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. And yet

I am able to hold civil conversations with people of opposing viewpoints.


Imagine that.

[eqfan592]

113. Iver doesn't just have an "opposing viewpoint."

It's not so simple. Sure, I'm capable of having civil conversations with people of opposing viewpoints as well. But some folks take it to an overly insulting extreme. Iver has done so with many of us around here. Maybe you've just managed to avoid it for some time now. She's not in the least bit pleasant to converse with in any way in my previous experience.

Somehow you've managed to keep things civil with her. My money is on it not lasting. There's a reason why many of us have her on ignore.

[iverglas]

101. now are you not grateful for all the sage advice you're getting here??

Say 'thank you'!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. I'll leave it to you, to put your own safety in the good will of a criminal.

In your experience is that wise to do or should one try to fight back when violently attacked?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

9. Only if your purse is at risk of being taken... (n/t)

[TPaine7]

91. Not to nitpick, but I think it's only exceptional if HER purse is at risk of being taken.

No one else's purse counts:

For those of you who don’t already know iverglas,
TPaine7 Thu Jun-18-09 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #37

I thought I'd help with the introductions:

Individual has obligation -- "moral" and, in civilized societies, legal -- to exercise whatever reasonable option is available, to avoid an assault, before choosing to use force...{--iverglas}

Civilized, isn't it? Highly evolved. Refined. Doubtless iverglas is a fine example of what we should all strive to be.

Compare from yesterday (or so):

And no, I wouldn't rule out grabbing the person trying to make off with the purse from my shopping cart. ... And I wouldn't have ruled out beating up the person who did it, if I'd found him/her, frankly, but I'd recognize I was committing a crime ...{--iverglas}

Source.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x230249#230697

One "principle" of gun control and other pseudo pacifist BS is that it's always for the other guy. She can rule out violence for us in standing our ground in our own homes. That is perfectly proper, civilized, and evolved. Her defending her purse in public? Now that's different.

Your home. Her purse. Can you see the difference? Can you tell why one is worth defending with force and the other is not?

Sadly, many gun control advocates are like that. Your life, your children, your husband or wife, and your property are in one category--theirs in another. That is why, for instance, Mayor Bloomberg can wonder--with his bullet-proof limo and 24 hr armed detail--why anyone would want a gun. "Guns kill people." Gasp.

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=230532&mesg_id=230923

That would be comic gold if it weren't meant to be taken "seriously." It's still quite potent BS, scentwise.

And it will help the newcomers follow the conversation.

[proteus_lives]

14. fighting back?

FMD don't you realize to ol'glas that's the greatest sin of all? No matter what the felon is doing to you, your family or your home if you fight back, well then you're worse then Hitler.

The only acceptable response in iverglas playbook is to collapse to the ground, close your eyes and think of Canada.

[iverglas]

33. telling the truth?

FFS, don't you realize that to old proteus* that's the greatest sin of all? No matter what was said, to him or anyone else, if you tell the truth about it, well then you're worse than Sarah Brady.

The only acceptable response in the proteus playbook is to rewrite it, pretend it was something else, and polish your gun.

[gorfle]

59. That's what I do.

The only acceptable response in iverglas playbook is to collapse to the ground, close your eyes and think of Canada.

That's what I do every time my wife yells at me.

Of course, she's from Canada. :)

[TPaine7]

88. Oops

[GreenStormCloud]

11. Could you have guaranteed Mr. Wroblewski that he wouldn't be killed or severly injured?

That was the question facing Mr.W. What was about to happen in his immediate future? Would he be only bruised, or badly injured, or dead? The criminal, Kenney, had already iniated violence against Mr.W. Let's look closely at the situation.

Insistent banging on the door at 11PM. Claiming that they need a jump start. So far that sounds very suspicious to me.

After Mr.W opened the door slightly, the home invaders violently pushed the door open, knocking Mr.W down. The hime invaders initiated the violence.

At this point, Mr.W has no idea what their intentions are and is reasonably in fear of his life, or of great bodily harm. You don't have to wait until after you are mortally injured to defend yourself.

Does your crystal ball tell you that Kenney only wanted his stereo? You just said it wasn't working that well. But you want Mr.W to bet his life that you are correct in what Kenney wanted.

Although Mr.W couldn't know it at the time, let's take a closer look at Kenney. From the article:

Marion County Jail records show Kenney was arrested Oct. 9 and charged with grand theft, battery on an officer/firefighter EMT, burglary unoccupied dwelling unarmed. At the time, he was on probation for criminal mischief. He was released on Oct. 15.

It wasn't his first arrest. In December 2006, Kenney was arrested for driving while license is suspended or revoked, possession of drug paraphernalia, petit theft and violation of probation for cannabis. He was released May 2007. He also has other arrest to include drug possession and petit theft.

Has anything similar happened? Let's go to google news. Lookie, Lookie. Dec 7, 2009. There is a story of a man in a wheelchair whose home was invaded and the invaders tied the man up in his wheelchair and set him on fire. http://newsok.com/man-in-wheelchair-set-on-fire-in-oklahoma-city-home-invasion/article/3423240

How could that be? We all know that home invaders only want stereos.

[iverglas]

43. you guys are a gas

Sorry I'd missed your post when I posted the same excerpt down below. Odd that I saw it as saying something quite different, hm?

Your emphasis:

Marion County Jail records show Kenney was arrested Oct. 9 and charged with grand theft, battery on an officer/firefighter EMT, burglary unoccupied dwelling unarmed. At the time, he was on probation for criminal mischief. He was released on Oct. 15.

It wasn't his first arrest. In December 2006, Kenney was arrested for driving while license is suspended or revoked, possession of drug paraphernalia, petit theft and violation of probation for cannabis. He was released May 2007. He also has other arrest to include drug possession and petit theft.

My emphasis:

Marion County Jail records show Kenney was arrested Oct. 9 and charged with grand theft, battery on an officer/firefighter EMT, burglary unoccupied dwelling unarmed. At the time, he was on probation for criminal mischief. He was released on Oct. 15.

It wasn't his first arrest. In December 2006, Kenney was arrested for driving while license is suspended or revoked, possession of drug paraphernalia, petit theft and violation of probation for cannabis. He was released May 2007. He also has other arrest to include drug possession and petit theft.

Myself, I could have emphasized all the rest of it too -- a short string of non-violent offences. Nothing whatsoever from which it could be deduced that he entered the house in this incident with the intent of causing bodily harm -- or that he was armed in any way.

You, you chose to emphasize the one where ordinarily everybody here would be baying about how cops lay charges like this to protect themselves, to harass, yada yada. Funny.

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. Eliding assault and battery upon an elederly disabled person? For shame!

Nothing whatsoever from which it could be deduced that he entered the house in this incident with the intent of causing bodily harm...

Must not have noticed this bit from the article in the OP, eh? (Emphasis added).

Wroblewski said he noticed a masked man emerge from the shrubs in his front yard, plow through the front door and knock him over. As he was going down, Wroblewski said he fired at least three shots from his gun.

Looks like the late Mr. Kenney decided to add "assault and battery" and "strongarm robbery" to his CV.
Unfortunately for him, he chose the wrong person to do it with.

[iverglas]

50. for fuck's sake

When I speak, I am actually talking ABOUT SOMETHING.

In this case, I was talking ABOUT the passage two of us had quoted from the news article.

That passage was ABOUT the individual's previous criminal record (in some cases, charges, not convictions - that being something some here have been fond of shouting out about in different circumstances in the past, circumstances involving holders of permits to carry concealed firearms, I believe).


Looks like the late Mr. Kenney decided to add "assault and battery" and "strongarm robbery" to his CV.

Actually, it looks like he knocked the other individual over as the other individual was answering the door and he ploughed through it. Since what he was doing was illegal, that would be an assault. If you were breaking down your door because you'd lost your key and your spouse, unbeknownst to you, was behind the door about to open it for you and you knocked him/her over, would that be an assault? So, let's think now. Have you come up with something demonstrating INTENTION of causing bodily harm? The INTENTION kinda being the subject here? Or would your spouse be justified in shooting you if you did it?

Do not cite Florida law in your response. I'm asking your opinion, based on whatever you consider justification to be.

Non-legally speaking, the two situations are identical.

The individual in the incident would certainly have more grounds to apprehend injury than your spouse in that situation would, but reasonable grounds for a reasonable belief that there was no way to avert serious bodily harm than by shooting and killing? You know; that's the standard that decent, rational people apply.




edited to insert missing word

[GreenStormCloud]

63. The two situations are NOT identical.

Kenney didn't live at the residence, Mr.W did. Mr.W made an attempt to establish who was at the door, and Kenney sought to conceal his identity. Kenney entered violently.

If your rather silly scenario of a husband breaking in he lives there. That does make a huge difference. If the wife makes an attempt to establish who is at the door, she will discover it is her husband. If the husband, seeing his wife behind the barely opened door then pushed the door open with such force that she is knocked down, then I would consider him to be guilty of some sort of domestic violence charge toward his wife. Whether the situation would rise to the level for the wife to defend herself with deadly force would depend upon other factors.

Once a violent attack has begun, there is usually no way to determine how far the attacker is willing to go. One does not have to wait until one is dead before establishing the need to defend themselves. The level of force used for defense would depend upon the disparity of force between the attacker and the defender. In this case, two able-bodied young men against a wheelchair-bound person is a huge disparity of force. Mr.W was under direct attack and needed to defend himself. He did.

[iverglas]

68. well, we've both mistook a thing or two

I'd been taking the repeated references to breaking down the door to be accurate, and on reading see that it was not. The door was open.

You seem to think that the would-be intruder was wearing a mask, and since he was asking the occupant to give him a boost, I think that's unlikely to the point of not.

So I guess we both need to read better, hm?


Once a violent attack has begun, there is usually no way to determine how far the attacker is willing to go.

You can keep calling knocking someone over while pushing a door in a "violent attack", and a basis for fearing an actual life-threatening attack, if you want. I'm sure someone's listening.


In this case, two able-bodied young men against a wheelchair-bound person is a huge disparity of force.

Indeed! And it kind of suggests that in carrying out their intent -- which we know was obviously to steal stuff -- it would have been perfectly unnecessary for them to cause any harm at all to the occupant.

So at the end of it all, he would have been maybe a little bruised from the fall, and they would have been gone with some of his stuff. If you want my theory.

His apprehensions and beliefs and actions in the situation may have been reasonable, but that doesn't make what he apprehended and believed REAL, or what he did NECESSARY.

There is just no reason for US to believe that if he had not had a firearm he would now be dead or seriously injured.

[GreenStormCloud]

72. Have you gotten that crystal ball tuned up?

You don't know what the ultimate intent of the felon was, yet you default to the least violent intent and expect Mr.W to bet his LIFE that you are correct.

On Dec 7, 2009, in Oklahoma City, some home invaders tied a wheelchair bound man in his chair and set him on fire.

Yet you claim to be able to predict the end result of a violent attack from the start?

Even Schrodinger's Cat only offers probability states, and you claim certainty?

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

95. So you think there is no chance they hurt him or kill him to keep from being identified? mmmkay.

You sure are a trusting soul. My advice to a woman who was about to be kidnapped would be to fight back right then and there because the chances are that if she is taken to a secondary crime scene she will likely be raped and murdered. I would no more tell a woman to trust her potential kidnappers than I would tell a man in a wheelchair during a home invasion to not defend himself.

[iverglas]

100. so you're seeing things that aren't there still? sooooo sorry.

You sure are a trusting soul.

Maybe I would be, if I thought/said what you allege I did.


My advice to a woman who was about to be kidnapped would be to fight back right then and there because the chances are that if she is taken to a secondary crime scene she will likely be raped and murdered. I would no more tell a woman to trust her potential kidnappers than I would tell a man in a wheelchair during a home invasion to not defend himself.

Uh ... and this is à propos of ... what?

Interesting choice of words and scenarios though.

A woman who is "about to be kidnapped". What's that? A woman looking at a stranger in a black van? Or a woman who has been grabbed by a stranger with a black van?

A woman looking at a stranger in a black van may indeed be about to be kidnapped. She just would have no reason to think that, generally. So it wouldn't occur to her to defend herself.

The biggie, though: what would she defend herself against? Nothing has happened.

Similarly, what was the individual in the wheelchair defending himself against? He had been knocked over BY SOMEONE TRYING TO FORCE A DOOR OPEN, **NOT** by someone trying to do him an injury.

Self-defence requires an assault to be defended against. (Threats are an assault.)

I'm not talking about bullshit legislation in backwater states of the US. I'm talking about self-defence the real thing. You know: defence of self.

We'll spell it your way, for handy reference. (Or should that be referenSe??)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defense

"resistance against attack; protection"

If you ain't being attacked, you ain't defending.

So you know, the more I think about it, yeah, the more I question this individual's actions.

He was knocked over by someone pushing past him.

He shot and killed that person as he was falling down (by his own account).

What assault was he defending himself against?

Or was he committing pre-emptive homicide?

[friendly_iconoclast]

108. How ableist of you. Falling (or being pushed) from a wheelchair risks serious injury

I know personally four wheelchair users who have fallen from their chairs (including my ex).

Three of them suffered broken bones. The fourth had a sprained wrist and bruises.

The "pushing past' you've been chattering on so ignorantly about was a serious, VIOLENT assault
(intentional or not) that you seem eager to minimize because the victim of said assault defended himself with a gun.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

109. I was more thinking about a friend who was attacked and almost kidnapped.

She was in a parking lot when she was run over from behind with a shopping cart, grabbed and was fighting to keep from being thrown in a grey van. Fortunately she fought long enough for someone to recognize the commotion and scare the perpetrator into leaving. So should we believe the man just wanted her credit card or perhaps to chat? She went and bought a handgun and get her concealed carry permit and defensive pistol training. I don't have a CCW permit nor do I carry a firearm, I won't fault her choice though. Personally I think it's a bad idea to trust in the goodness of those who make a point of victimizing people.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

110. Knocking a man out of a wheelchair to the ground during a home invasion would clearly be assault.

I would find it hard to believe it wouldn't qualify as an assault even in Canada.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

144. Yes he was committing pre-emptive justifiable homicide. How's that?

[GreenStormCloud]

55. Because we are talking about a violent crime.

Of course I emphasized his violent past.

[iverglas]

57. so how's that innocent until proved guilty thang working for you?

I think it only applies to people you like. Kinda like how dissing cops is good and cops are all stupid and evil until somebody is charged with assaulting one.

[GreenStormCloud]

58. I haven't dissed cops in this forum.

I am very law-abiding and respectful in my dealing with LEOs and in conversations with them on this board.

[beevul]

119. Legally applicable in a court of law...

As you well know.

[iverglas]

123. yuppers

And the individual in question had never been convicted of a crime of violence in a court of law (or a court of equity ...).

And we do all know what charges of assaulting a peace officer are often all about. And they really do have nothing to do with crimes of violence.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

145. Kenney's accomplice has been charged with 2nd degree murder. You still sure he posed no danger.

[TPaine7]

94. You are forgetting one of the fundamental laws of anti-gun BS:

EVIDENCE WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT A GUN CONTROL ARGUMENT OR TENET IS VOID AND INADMISSIBLE IN DEBATE OR LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

Come on people, let's not forget the basics!

Your story also makes the self-evidently bogus point that criminals can horribly abuse (and by implication kill) you without having, using, or being "festooned" in firearms. It is thus doubly inadmissible. At least.

[pipoman]

44. You can assume

someone coming into your house just wants your stereo and means you no harm. I will assume he does mean me harm. If you are wrong, you are dead, If I am wrong I am still alive. Help yourself, leave my choices alone.

[mrbarber]

139. Yes iverglas, how dare the handicapped man defend his house and home.

Why even bother locking his doors than?

[iverglas]

27. so, about those assumptions ... and once again, some facts

http://www.ocala.com/article/20091215/ARTICLES/912159998?Title=Man-shot-dead-while-another-flees-in-the-Shores

Kenney joined the U.S. Army when he turned 18 <he was 24 when he was killed>. He received a general discharge from the service after a year after because of alcohol, she said.

... Marion County Jail records show Kenney had been arrested Oct. 9 and charged with grand theft, battery on an officer/firefighter EMT and burglary unoccupied dwelling unarmed. He was released Oct. 15 and was on probation for criminal mischief.

In December 2006, he was arrested for driving while license is suspended or revoked, possession of drug paraphernalia, petit theft and violation of probation for cannabis. He was released in May 2007. He also has other arrests, including drug possession and petit theft.

(Once again, those "root causes" come to mind. Stop killing the burgling drug addicts, and legalize pot! do something about poverty! create jobs!)

Anyhow. Doesn't look like the profile of a murderer to me. Looks like somebody looking for easy to sell stuff.


(edited to add emphasis)

[spin]

31. If you want to steal my stuff and sell it...

you can break into my home when I'm not there.

If I'm home, I will assume that you intend to harm me or those I love. I will use whatever level of force is necessary to stop you.

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

[iverglas]

36. what was your point?

The Florida castle doctrine? Who gives a fuck?

Shall I call for the killing of runaway slaves, and quote Confederate law at you to back it up?

Florida law is proof of Florida law, and of what Florida legislators are willing to put in their laws (in spite of the contrary advice of their legislative counsel, in this particular case).

Big whup.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. A citation of applicable law is only germane if *you* approve?

I would say it's more relevant than citing, say, Canadian immigration law in a discussion about incorporation of US Constitutional rights:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x274568#274696


Physician, heal thyself.

[iverglas]

42. can anyone here really think I don't know what that fucking law is??

I can recite it chapter and verse, along with the opinions of jurists, legal scholars and, as I said, the Florida state legislature's own legal counsel. I have a thread on this board about it, and multiple posts in other threads about it and its ugly cousins.

The question is: what is its relevance to anything I said?

It's a law. Big fucking deal. So were laws permitting the killing of escaped slaves. So were laws that provided that men could not be convicted of raping their wives even if they did.

So this one prohibits prosecutions for homicide that would be culpable but for the law, and is culpable in any civilized part of the world.

What's your point?



typo .........

[mrbarber]

140. "Can anyone here really think I don't know what the fucking law is"

Wow, someones awfully full of themselves.

[spin]

79. People in Florida care and so should criminals in Florida...

People in Canada and England don't give a shit about Florida law. And Floridians don't give a shit about their laws, except as a example why it was a damn good thing that we broke away from the British empire.

[iverglas]

81. it was such a simple question

What element of my post 27 was your reply a reply to?

Maybe you could copy and paste.

[spin]

92. O.K.

"Anyhow. Doesn't look like the profile of a murderer to me. Looks like somebody looking for easy to sell stuff."

People who plan to steal and sell stuff would be wise to not break into occupied dwellings in Florida. The incident happened in Silver Springs Shores Florida. Therefore, Florida law is of some importance.

[iverglas]

97. nope, sorry, non-responsive

I sometimes wonder what affliction or addiction I'm dealing with in this place ...

Either one could make these bizarre connections between such unconnected thoughts, I guess.

Just musing aloud.

[TPaine7]

45. The only relevant facts

are those available AT THE TIME to the victim of a violent attack--at least the only facts relevant to assessing his response.

If the wheelchair bound victim knew about Kenney's record then, and only then, that record might have a very slight relevance to his reaction. Somehow I doubt that he did, though you are free to post evidence. LOL

In the absence of such evidence, Kenney's record is about as relevant as the current temperature in Moscow. And even if you could prove that he knew Kenney's record, it would not ensure that this attack wouldn't be Kenney's first murder or serious assault.

The motives of those who, like Your Sophistry, reflexively side with the assailants and against the victims of violent crime are transparent.

Two able bodied men against a man in a wheelchair, two men breaking into his house and obviously offering him violence, will not suffice to justify deadly force with a gun. The only plausible explanation is that NOTHING WHATSOEVER WILL JUSTIFY DEADLY FORCE WITH A GUN.

That is too stupid a position for even you to take transparently, however, so you must grasp at any straw of an excuse. He should have psychically known their records and their intent and, having that psychic foreknowledge, he should have yielded peacefully.

Your other excuse is just as pathetic and transparent: If the people assaulting a handicapped man are wearing masks, that means they are harmless. Felon's honor.

You're like glass, iverglas.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. And willing to overlook Kenney's assault and battery of a disabled person, to boot.

The same person who could dig up Kenney's prior arrest record to demonstrate his harmlessness somehow missed his knocking
his victim out of their wheelchair.

Curious.

[iverglas]

51. not much curious

And willing to overlook Kenney's assault and battery of a disabled person, to boot.

The willingness of most here to lie about anything and anybody, including about what another member of this site says and thinks, doesn't surprise me at all.

That's just a general observation addressed to the atmosphere, of course.

[TPaine7]

56. And as the atmosphere knows,

if the willingness to lie surprises everyone else on this board, it should never surprise Your Sophistry.

I fully agree with you on that one.

[slutticus]

46. Sounds reasonable.

Would you give a masked intruder the benefit of the doubt? I would not.

Why do people try to make this a political issue?

[iverglas]

53. huh

Would you give a masked intruder the benefit of the doubt? I would not.


Who would? What are you on about?

The laws in civilized places provide, and thinkers of many stripes in many times and places believe, that if one wishes to avoid one's society's opprobrium and assigned consequences for killing another human being, one should be able to demonstrate that one acted out of a reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily harm and a reasonable belief that the action one took was necessary and that one had no reasonable alternative to it.

I wasn't present to witness this particular situation, and have no video recording available on which to base any assessment of anyone's actions.

I'm just not quite seeing being knocked over by someone as they break down a door, assuming that one does not have enemies one expects to come breaking down one's door in order to commit murder or kidnap one's children, as grounds for such a belief.


I'm still waiting for an answer to my original question.

How many people in wheelchairs are killed by burglars in a year in the US?

You'll forgive me if I make the assumption that the number is pretty close to zero.

It isn't all a game of odds, as I know quite well from personal experience and my very reasonable apprehensions in the situation. (I did use force, I was justified in using force, and I would have been justified, and found to be justified, in using a lot more force after that, under my local laws, as long as I didn't intentionally cause a death, because I could have shown that my apprehension of death was entirely reasonable -- even though the odds were hugely against that outcome.)

But really. Who here really believes (without completely disregarding what we know) that the individual who was killed was really going to kill the occupant of the home? who here really believes that the occupant of the home really had grounds for a reasonable apprehension of that outcome, and for a reasonable belief that there was no alternative but to kill the person who had broken down his door?

No, no, that's okay. No need to answer out loud.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. I do.

"But really. Who here really believes (without completely disregarding what we know) that the individual who was killed was really going to kill the occupant of the home? who here really believes that the occupant of the home really had grounds for a reasonable apprehension of that outcome, and for a reasonable belief that there was no alternative but to kill the person who had broken down his door?"

Even without the limited mobility, if someone forces their way through my front door with a ski mask on, to the point I am knocked down, I know for a fact I would fear for my safety. Not just in an 'oh my elbow hurts' sort of way as I hit the ground, but in a very real 'these people mean me harm' sort of way.

I would fully expect imminent physical harm, and take appropriate measures. That might include escape, I don't know. Depends on what is available. For the subject of the original article, 'escape' is pretty much not an option, and that should be considered as well.

Absolutely this incident would trigger fight or flight.

[iverglas]

65. not really answering the question

It was: do YOU believe that the occupant would have been killed?

Yes, that behaviour would cause fear.

What actually happened was that the occupant opened the door slightly, the suspicious individual at the door, obviously not in a mask, kept asking for a jump, the guy in the mask came out of the bushes, and the one at the door pushed the door open and knocked the occupant over. At that point, "as he was going down", the occupant shot the man in the house. The body was found "just inside the house". I doubt very much that this individual was wearing a mask. He was pretending to need his battery boosted, in order to get the occupant to go outside. It would be dumb beyond words to wear a mask for that purpose.

There is no suggestion that the man who was killed was himself armed. The plan looks quite obviously like: one guy knock on the door and get anyone home to come outside to give him a boost; other guy go in and boost something. Not that I would expect it was really well thought out.

The occupant (even absent the godawful Florida law that is applicable) would likely have no difficulty satisfying whatever his burden would have been to show that he met the standard for self-defence.

But if he had not shot and killed the would-be robber, would he have been more seriously injured or dead?

I just don't think so. There is nothing in the would-have-been robber's background to suggest he planned to commit a violent assault, or was likely to do so. He was an alcoholic drug user looking for convertible property.

So the thing is: if the occupant had not had a gun, it is highly unlikely that either he or anyone else would be dead now.

There really isn't just an issue of "justification" here. There is a public policy issue. There has been a death, and the death of a human being calls for serious consideration of whether there are public policies that could have reduced the risk of that happening, or that increased the risk of it happening.

I see a public policy that increased the risk of it happening -- and, interestingly, obviously did not reduce the risk of the underlying crime happening. Pretty good odds in Florida that a house you break into will have a firearm owner in it.

[X_Digger]

74. "He was an alcoholic drug user looking for convertible property."

What was that you said about a crystal ball? Or did you develop telepathic powers in your absence?

Funny, I just noticed- you went from "demonstrate that one acted out of a reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily harm" to "was really going to kill the occupant of the home".. 60-something guy in a wheelchair had a 20-something guy with a mask charging at him in an apparent robbery attempt. Are you seriously saying that were you in the same circumstances you wouldn't have an apprehension of serious bodily harm?

[iverglas]

80. brawk

60-something guy in a wheelchair had a 20-something guy with a mask charging at him in an apparent robbery attempt.

Why are you continuing to parrot this "with a mask" crap, when we know it is false?

Yes, he was charging through the door in an apparent robbery attempt.

What proportion of robbery victims are killed/seriously injured?

The odds are AGAINST that happening.

As I have already said at least once, odds are not everything.

When I had someone's hands around my throat and I was starting to lose consciousness, I actually did calculate the odds. It knew that the immediate intent was sexual assault, and the question was whether, if I resisted, I would die then and there (or maybe later).

I was at that time working on a study of the sentencing of sexual offenders. I was also a feminist well-versed in things like the incidence of sexual assault against women.

I actually thought to myself: odds of a woman being sexually assaulted - high; odds of a woman who is sexually assaulted being killed - extremely low; apparent odds that I've hit the jackpot: very high.

So I stopped using force myself, stopped resisting, and bided my time. And when I was instructed to get out of the car because we were going to go for a walk in the woods at the bottom of a deserted quarry in the middle of nowhere in farm country, I decided the odds of that last event occurring had not declined. I caused a slight distraction and took my tiny window of opportunity, and ran. And ran and ran and ran. And, fortunately, this threw the individual sufficiently that he got back in the car and hit the gas and took off like a bat out of hell.

I would have been JUSTIFIED, legally and quite arguably morally, in shooting him before he started choking me, or when he made me get out of the car, or anytime in between. My belief that I would not get out alive if I did not do something was in every way reasonable, by any legal standard I can think of. My belief, faced with an individual who had already committed a potentially fatal assault that I had managed to avert, who was telling me to do something bizarre that could really have had no innocent intent behind it, that I had no reasonable alternative to using force (since running from someone with a car, in a place where there were nowhere and no one to run to, was not really a reasonable alternative), would have justified the use of force.

But I didn't have a gun. So I ran. And I'm alive. And so was he, when he was arrested, charged, tried, convicted, sentenced, and sent to prison.

Most people who are victims of crimes, even scary, serious crimes, like robbery and abduction and sexual assault, are not killed, or seriously injured.

Yes, if two people tried to break into my house while I was there, I would have an apprehension of serious injury or death, possibly a reasonable one. But the likelihood of it actually happening would be low. So while I might be legally and even morally justified in killing one of them, in the vast majority of cases of which I would be one, it would not be NECESSARY to do that.

Surely someone sees the distinction.

These judgments are not matters of statistics, and are not made with cool reflection. We are not in a position to judge others' judgments in many cases. (The fact that we have no record of what actually happened by which to judge someone's judgment, of course, makes it somewhat easy for someone to tailor the facts to the decision they made. I could have shot that guy just to take his money, and claimed everything I have stated above, and no one would be able to say it didn't happen like that.)

But allowing ready access to firearms so that people can act on those judgments by killing someone, as flawed as their assessment of the situation may have been, means that people are going to die UNNECESSARILY.

[X_Digger]

82. By that same token..

Denying ready access to firearms so that people can't act on those judgments by killing someone, as correct as their assessment of the situation may be, will mean that some people are going to die UNNECESSARILY.

Nobody wants to be the 'X' out of 'Y' robberies, sexual assaults, or abductions that do actually result in death or serious injury, no matter how small the ratio.

[TPaine7]

87. + 1,000,000 n/t

[TPaine7]

83. On people dying unnecessarily.

But allowing ready access to firearms so that people can act on those judgments by killing someone, as flawed as their assessment of the situation may have been, means that people are going to die UNNECESSARILY.

The exercise of many (not to say all) human freedoms leads to people dying unnecessarily, if you take specific incidents in isolation. But that leaves out the obvious:

HUMAN FREEDOM IS ITSELF NECESSARY.

The right--and therefore the means--to effective self-defense is necessary.

Furthermore, your critique of ordinary citizens having guns / handguns / weapons of lethal force is just as applicable to police officers as it is to ordinary people. It is just as certainly true that

...allowing ready access to firearms so that on-duty police officers can act on those judgments by killing someone, as flawed as their assessment of the situation may have been, means that people are going to die UNNECESSARILY.

as it is true that

...allowing ready access to firearms so that people can act on those judgments by killing someone, as flawed as their assessment of the situation may have been, means that people are going to die UNNECESSARILY.

And as I have frequency shown on this site, police officers are several times more likely (5.5 times, IIRC) to get mixed up and shoot an innocent person than are "mere" people.

The notion that society should play a game of chance on a handicapped man's life when he is put in clearly legitimate fear for life and limb is amoral in the extreme. He has the right to defend himself. He exercised that right.

No human being--indeed no combination of human beings--has the legitimate authority to make an innocent man lay down in his own home and take whatever two felonious assailants choose to dish out.

[iverglas]

104. what actually is your first language?

The dogs' breakfasts you put together in English make me seriously suspect that ain't it.


But allowing ready access to firearms so that people can act on those judgments by killing someone, as flawed as their assessment of the situation may have been, means that people are going to die UNNECESSARILY.
The exercise of many (not to say all) human freedoms leads to people dying unnecessarily, if you take specific incidents in isolation. But that leaves out the obvious:

Sorry, but the obvious is: what the fuck are you talking about?

"The exercise of freedom" doesn't lead to people dying unnecessarily.

Things people do do lead to people dying unnecessarily, sometimes.

You can call "things people do" "the exercise of freedom" if you like. You could also call them "Fred". That would be about as meaningful and relevant in this context.

"It's a freedom" isn't a response to "it is unwise".

Allowing children, people with histories of violent behaviour, people engaged in illegal commerces, people with delusionary mental illnesses, and various others, access to firearms is unwise.

The fact, although you like to turn it into my saying something I've never said, is that those inalienable rights and freedoms do belong to children, violent criminals, drug traffickers and the mentally ill, as well as to all the rest of us ordinary folks.

It is unwise to allow them access to firearms. They aren't allowed access to firearms. And you really can't pretend that they aren't human beings, ergo you can't pretend that those INHERENT rights and freedoms things aren't INHERENT in them just like they are in you and me.

They are denied access to firearms because their society believes it is UNWISE to allow them access to firearms.

I believe it is unwise to allow generalized access to handguns, for pretty much the same reason you believe it is unwise to allow people with delusionary mental illness to have access to any firearms: there is a high risk of harm being done (to put it in very abridged form).

I won't answer your advocacy of denying firearms to people with delusinary mental illness by screeching FREEEEEDUMMMMBBB!

But you go ahead and do it in answer to my advocacy of denying generalized access to handguns.

All that will show is that you're spinning really hard and getting nowhere.


And I'll still be waiting for someone to point out for me where any member of the public is MANDATED to protect the public, which police are. But don't let that stop you playing word games. I'm sure you find them amusing.

[TPaine7]

115. On wisdom

Allowing children, people with histories of violent behaviour, people engaged in illegal commerces, people with delusionary mental illnesses, and various others, access to firearms is unwise.

Be that as it may, the state's naked wisdom is not the basis for forbidding access.

It is unwise to allow them access to firearms. They aren't allowed access to firearms. And you really can't pretend that they aren't human beings, ergo you can't pretend that those INHERENT rights and freedoms things aren't INHERENT in them just like they are in you and me.

I pretend nothing; I state my point outright--CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE ALL OF THE SAME RIGHTS AS ADULTS, AND THAT APPLIES TO FUNDAMENTAL, INHERENT RIGHTS. For instance, a toddler has no right to marry--with or without her parents' consent. This is so in spite of the fact that the right to marry is a fundamental right, part of the inherent right to free association.

Even without the well understood fact that children do not have all of the same rights that adults do, there is no right to keep, bear, or use arms UNSAFELY. There is only the right to keep, bear, and use them safely.

Law abiding adult citizens, children, persons under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and persons with delusionary mental illnesses alike have no right to keep, bear or use arms unsafely. And the latter groups have no ABILITY to keep, bear or use firearms safely. Clearly then, prohibiting them from keeping, bearing, and using arms does not touch their legitimate rights.

I agree that as adult human beings, persons with delusionary mental illnesses have the right to bear arms SAFELY. But that is an academic point only, since they (like inebriated folks) lack the inherent CAPACITY. It's like saying that they have a right to absorb water using their gills or to fly by flapping their wings.

Now when their inherent disability to exercise the right disappears they can exercise their right--when they are cured of their delusionary mental illnesses or when they sober up. Not because the state grants them the privilege or thinks it wise, but because they are CAPABLE of exercising the right. Remember the right--the only right anyone ever has--is to SAFELY keep, bear and use arms.

Violent criminals fall into a different category. Unlike children and certain others, they are capable of exercising the right. But they have proven unwilling to restrict themselves to the legal use of force. Society does exercise wisdom in their cases, but not the naked discretion you suggest.

Violent felons are deprived of their liberty, and the deprivation is wise. But there is a legally defined means of depriving violent criminals of liberty, and stepping outside of that process is expressly forbidden:

No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

The state has no legitimate authority to say "we think it unwise that this or that person (or virtually the entire population) should exercise the right to {fill in the blank} so we forbid it." The state has only three legitimate approaches:

1) This person is not an adult and thus does not enjoy the full spectrum of adult rights, therefore they do not enjoy certain rights at all and other rights that they do enjoy can be constrained by the state or by their guardians acting (ostensibly at least) in their best interests.
2) This person is objectively INCAPABLE OF EXERCISING THE RIGHT and their unsuccessful attempts to exercise the right will result in danger to the public.
3) Due process of law has authorized us to deprive the person in question of their liberty.

The people, whatever their office, who act on their own "wisdom" to overrule the rights of the people are criminals and traitors. Doubly so, since they swear to uphold the Constitution.

[TPaine7]

116. Oh, I almost forgot

And I'll still be waiting for someone to point out for me where any member of the public is MANDATED to protect the public, which police are. But don't let that stop you playing word games. I'm sure you find them amusing.

Why ever would you be waiting on that?! Mandates to protect the public were not under discussion. This logical jewel was under discussion:

But allowing ready access to firearms so that people can act on those judgments by killing someone, as flawed as their assessment of the situation may have been, means that people are going to die UNNECESSARILY.

The clear implication being that since people are going to die UNNECESSARILY if this policy exists, this policy must be bad.

I accepted your flawed premise and showed where it lead.

But allowing ready access to firearms so that police officers can act on those judgments by killing someone, as flawed as their assessment of the situation may have been, means that people are going to die UNNECESSARILY.

This uses your flawed premise in an incontrovertibly accurate and logically sound parallel. You proved by your premise and logic that it is a poor policy to arm police officers, something you do not believe. You proved too much, therefore you proved nothing.

If people die "unnecessarily" due to a policy, that does not prove that the policy is bad. You have made two mistakes, at least. First, human freedom and the right to the means of defense of self and family are not unnecessary. Second, even though living in a free society is sometimes dangerous--it leads to apparently unnecessarily deaths--that does not make allowing the exercise of freedom poor policy.

Taking your argument apart was not a "word game", it was clear logical thinking.

You will note that there is nothing in my statement about mandates to protect the public. That is because there was nothing in your statement that I was critiquing about mandates to protect the public. Your comment about police being "MANDATED to protect the public" is an attempt to change the subject, to move the goalposts.

But since I've dealt with what was actually being discussed, I can now deal with this new subject you wish to introduce.

Ordinary civilians are not mandated to protect "the public"--the whole of society. I agree.

man⋅date
  /ˈmændeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation Show IPA noun, verb, -dat⋅ed, -dat⋅ing.
Use mandate in a Sentence
See web results for mandate
See images of mandate
–noun
1. a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative: The president had a clear mandate to end the war.
2. a command from a superior court or official to a lower one.
3. an authoritative order or command: a royal mandate.
4. (in the League of Nations) a commission given to a nation to administer the government and affairs of a former Turkish territory or German colony.
5. a mandated territory or colony.
6. Roman Catholic Church. an order issued by the pope, esp. one commanding the preferment of a certain person to a benefice.
7. Roman and Civil Law. a contract by which one engages gratuitously to perform services for another.
8. (in modern civil law) any contract by which a person undertakes to perform services for another.
9. Roman Law. an order or decree by the emperor, esp. to governors of provinces.
–verb (used with object)
10. to authorize or decree (a particular action), as by the enactment of law.
11. to order or require; make mandatory: to mandate sweeping changes in the election process.
12. to consign (a territory, colony, etc.) to the charge of a particular nation under a mandate.

Source:
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

Ordinary civilians are most definitely mandated--"authorized"--to use force, up to and including deadly force to protect members of the public they witness being threatened.

[AtheistCrusader]

125. Our police are not.

"And I'll still be waiting for someone to point out for me where any member of the public is MANDATED to protect the public, which police are. But don't let that stop you playing word games. I'm sure you find them amusing."

Well, it's thier "mission statement" and that's about it. See Gonzales vs. Castle Rock.

Not much of a mandate if they are not held liable for any failure to do so...

[GreenStormCloud]

122. You were lucky.

I can recommend a number of books on real world self-defense for you. All of them agree that the sooner and harder you fight, the better your chances for survival. Waiting for a lucky break is usually a losing bet as the criminal will take measures to increase his control over the victim and reduce the opportunity to fight or escape.

The harder you can fight, the better your chances. A gun gives you the greatest ability to fight.

The odds of being killed during a crime are quite low, but the loss if one hits the jackpot a so severe that it is worthwhile to take some preventive measures - just in case. For my wife and I, part of our protection is being armed, and a willingness to use those guns if we have to.

[iverglas]

128. I didn't ask for your advice, and I'm not interested

Particularly since, although I have described the events in greater detail in this forum in the past, you don't know what you're talking about.

[GreenStormCloud]

134. Regarding real world self-defense, I am very knowledgable.

I will admit to a huge measure of ignorance regarding events of your life. I do know enough to stand by my judgement that you were very lucky in the event you just described.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. It's impossible to know.

As far as we know, the deceased has not been linked to any murders. As far as we know.

So that would support the possibility he might not have killed or even seriously harmed the occupant.
Beyond that, I cannot say one way or another. It's impossible to know.

I know you've already acknowledged that the occupant was, per the letter of the law, justified, but the only assumption I can make, with any qualification whatsoever, is that the occupant had reason to apprehend a design of imminent harm. In fact, he was already harmed. Beyond that, I cannot guess with any certainty.


Florida's home invasion rate is debateable, drug related incidents skew it (Still a home invasion, even if you're robbing your drug dealer, etc) and reporting inconsistencies from county to county. However, it seems to be holding steady now, and no longer increasing. So.. that's 'better' I guess. The next step will have to be public awareness NOT TO ANSWER THE DOOR (as you pointed out in the other thread) when you suspect something is up.

[logjon]

90. ya see

might as well let it go really. seems reasonable enough to you or I that one would see imminent danger if a masked man were to break into our home while we were sitting there. some people are content to cower and hope. others aren't content until we are all willing to simply cower and hope. and when the victim actually gets killed, well hey, who could have known. hopefully the perp used a gun, so there's another finger we can point at guns. if the victim defends himself, how did said victim know he or she was actually in danger. you'll find that this post is pretty representative of the logic of the gun grabbers on the forum and in general. i've yet to see this iverglas feller actually do anything in this forum aside from advocate the moral superiority of the victim status.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. Lurk more.

[logjon]

96. nou

[GreenStormCloud]

121. See Post #80. Iverglas is female.

She is a Canadian Attorney. Because of her usually abrasive, often insulting, style many here have her on ignore. Whenever there is a discussion of a self-defense shooting incident, she will mormally be against the defender.

[iverglas]

127. keep on keeping on

She is a Canadian Attorney.

Nope. But feel free to keep perpetuating the bullshit you read on the net.

I was, for quite a few years, a barrister and solicitor, commonly known as a lawyer. The only Canadians who call lawyers "attorneys" are people who watch far too much yankee television. Oh, and Quebeckers, whose legislation preserves antique English.

Not is, and not attorney. But don't let it stop you.

Oh, and by no means stop with the stupid efforts at insult and the silly tittle-tattle. Be careful with the tittle-tattle, though. Somebody might mistake you for one of those cat/women things.

[GreenStormCloud]

131. I will readily admit to speaking American and not Canadian.

For us, attorney and lawyer are the same thing. I make no attempt to keep us with distinctions other countries' legal systems may make as they don't apply here.

[gorfle]

61. You're exhausting a lot of air in this thread over nothing.

You are going on and on in this thread and I can't figure out why.

The bottom line is, someone broke into someone's house, and the owner shot and killed him for it.

The particulars of who the homeowner was, his physical condition, or anything else don't really matter.

The particulars of who broke in, or why, or how, don't really matter.

Someone broke in and got killed by the homeowner. The right people lived, and the right people died, and property was protected.

It's tragic that the burglar valued his life so lowly, but that was his choice.

Why all the fuss?

[GreenStormCloud]

64. You know the answer to that.

You post is entirely correct. But you know that when iverglas jumps into a thread it always becomes an entertaining fuss. She always sides with the deceased criminal and never with the person who was defending themselves. And her sophistic gymnastics are amazing.

[iverglas]

66. so would say someone with no morals whatsoever

Thanks for the demo.

[GreenStormCloud]

69. Your're the ultimate authority on morals?

When did you get to be God? Perhaps this portion of the thread needs to be in R/T.

[iverglas]

71. some things are self-evident

[GreenStormCloud]

73. From observation of evolution, I would think that self-defense would be one of them.

Survival is the prime-directive of evolution. Someone attacking me with enough violence that I fear for my life, or serious bodily harm merits the most drastic response. I don't have the luxury of detatched reflection when under attack.

[iverglas]

77. this is how it went (edited)

I said: so would say someone with no morals whatsoever

You replied by asking whether I was an authority on morals.

I said: some things are self-evident


Get it?

Nothing to do with evolution or anything else you're burbling about now.

Everything to do with what you gorfle said that I initially replied to. No further evidence of absence of morals was required.


(forgive me, I neglected to notice that you had replied to something I said to someone else, about what that person said, which you seem to be rather pointedly ignoring)

[SteveM]

84. So, it was moral for the victim to engage in self-defense? Great! (nt)

[GreenStormCloud]

118. Try again.

I said: so would say someone with no morals whatsoever
You did say that.

You replied by asking whether I was an authority on morals. No. Not what I said. I said: "Your're the ultimate authority on morals?
When did you get to be God? Perhaps this portion of the thread needs to be in R/T. "

Your first statement is absolutist, so it is appropriate to ask if you are THE ultimate authority...


I said: some things are self-evident
Yes, you said that.

Well, since the various divinities are notably short on worldly evidence, then we turn to the one area where there is some evidence of where we get our morals from, and that is evolution. You may desire to read, "The Moral Animal" to see how our human morals are derived from evolution acting upon us. If you want, I can suggest some other reading on the subject.

So I looked at evolution to see what evidence it shows for self-defense and it happens to have a lot. It is really quite simple. When one's life is threatened, one acts. One does not sit back and contemplate multiple alternative possibilities.

[rd_kent]

89. yes, like the ass-hattery you indulge in.

[PavePusher]

106. Oh. She's mirror-gazing again.

Yawn.

[gorfle]

103. You're welcome.

I think it's highly moral to kill people who are breaking into a home.

[Indy Lurker]

111. None

"How many people in wheelchairs are killed by burglars in a year in the US?"


If they are killed, the criminal in question is a murderer, not a burglar.


A more valid question would be how many victims of murder or great bodily harm are in wheel chairs.


You seem to be splitting very fine hairs.

On one hand, you seem to believe it would be "Reasonable" to be fearful of great bodily harm or death:

"His apprehensions and beliefs and actions in the situation may have been reasonable, but that doesn't make what he apprehended and believed REAL, or what he did NECESSARY."

but on the other hand you seem to say you don't see "grounds" for the belief that what he did was necessary:

I'm just not quite seeing being knocked over by someone as they break down a door, assuming that one does not have enemies one expects to come breaking down one's door in order to commit murder or kidnap one's children, as grounds for such a belief.

You then go on to say:

"who here really believes that the occupant of the home really had grounds for a reasonable apprehension of that outcome, and for a reasonable belief that there was no alternative but to kill the person who had broken down his door?"



If a person has "reasonable" fear of great bodily harm or death from a home invader (as you appear to have stated in post 68)at what point do you believe it becomes "necessary". to act on that reasonable fear?

To me it would seem that when you are knocked from your wheel chair would be an acceptable time.

Also, the words you chose "that there was no alternative but to kill the person who had broken down his door?" indicate that you seem to believe that by firing 3 shots at the intruder(s) the homeowner was trying to cause death. This is not necessarily the case. The firearm was used to stop the invasion, which it did. Unfortunately, the invader died as a result of this defensive action. As the op noted, the homeowner was wheelchair bound, which of course limits his defensive options.

[AtheistCrusader]

112. Where's Montreal?

http://www2.canoe.com/cgi-bin/imprimer.cgi?id=391061



(Gallows humor)


Less funny, in Florida:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1218924/British-woman-93-throat-slashed-brutal-murder-Florida-home.html

[iverglas]

129. hmm

I'm assuming you read French, but for the benefit of the assembled masses:

«Il était visiblement ciblé», a indiqué Yannick Ouimet, porteparole de la police de Montréal. Les premiers éléments d'enquête laissent croire que le suspect attendait la victime, probablement pour un règlement de comptes.

"He was plainly targeted," said Yannick Ouimet, Montreal police spokesperson. The initial investigation suggests that the suspect was waiting for the victim, probably to settle a score.


The Florida story does speak to the vulnerability of older and disabled persons. It also highlights the fact that (like women) they are commonly victimized by people within their circle of family, friends and acquaintances -- in this case:

Stunned residents at the apartment complex said the accused killer had always seemed 'nice and polite'.

'He's one of our maintenance guys, and he, like everybody says, he's the friendliest guy in the world,' Ronald Haddaway told Fox News.

'He would always say good morning, or how you doing, and he would talk to you, and he just seemed like the nicest guy.

'Apparently, those are the ones you have to watch out for.'

Edit: and those are the ones that people are really just not likely to greet at the door with a firearm.

[AtheistCrusader]

132. All true.

I wonder if the victim in the OP normally greets people at the door with a firearm handy, or if maybe he was 'on edge' due to that recent murder. Same state. Of the people I know who are physically disabled, they tend to be a tight knit group, and news like that murder would have spread far and wide among them.

May have something to do with why the victim in this case answered the door with a gun nearby or ready.

[Mr Kilroi]

117. irrelevant

The answer to your original question is rather simple...it is irrelevant.

The term "reasonable apprehension" opens the use of "reasonable person defence". Which is to say, what would a reasonable person do in a similar situation.

The next question is under Florida law is there a component of retreat? If so? Was that option open to them? Being in a wheel chair renders that moot.

If it were the UK this chap would be hauled off to the nick, The Crown would howling for the full weight of the law to come down on him.

In Canada he would still have to defend his actions in court, but still have the "reasonable person" common law defence available to him.

It is irrelevant what we know, we have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight. All that is relevant is what was in the mind of the intended victim, would a reasonable person have acted differently?

Here in "civilized" Canada where CCW is a non starter a woman in Winnipeg was standing holding a bicycle on her property, she was approached by a man that commenced to grabbing her bicycle. Doing what she has been taught to do co-operated and let go..She was then savagely beaten, her assailant then left with bike in hand.

So how can you say that this poor drug addled individual was not a threat? How can you say that this poor individual who was just turning his life around would not have, just for shits and giggles beat the fellow half to death?

Fortunately living where he lives he does not have to defend a criminal charge at great expense to himself and the state.


here is a different out come from Nova Scotia CA.

17-year-old C.B. teen pleads guilty to manslaughter

Fri. Dec 19 - 5:46 AM

PORT HOOD — A 17-year-old boy pleaded guilty Tuesday to manslaughter in the death of an Inverness senior this past summer.

The youth was initially charged with first-degree murder in the June 2 death of Ivan Rorison.

Mr. Rorison, a 70-year-old retired coal miner, died in hospital of internal injuries about 36 hours after several people broke into his home, severely beat him and robbed him of liquor and money.

Six other people are still facing first-degree murder charges. The 17-year-old will be sentenced May 4.

© 2008 The Halifax Herald Limited

C.B.=Cape Breton Island

[iverglas]

130. well well, we have been joined by an, er, expert

The next question is under Florida law is there a component of retreat?

Nope. I know my Florida law, as you might have noticed. I also said I wasn't interested in it for the purposes of what I said.


If it were the UK this chap would be hauled off to the nick, The Crown would howling for the full weight of the law to come down on him.

Nope. But do feel free to spread this ignorant ethnocentric right-wing shit as far and wide as possible.


In Canada he would still have to defend his actions in court, but still have the "reasonable person" common law defence available to him.

Nope. It's common law derived, but it's statutory. And, in the current common law, i.e. the statute as interpreted and applied by the courts, it is not a "reasonable person" defence. Do study up. If you do a searchie here, you should be able to find me explaining it multiple times.


So how can you say that this poor drug addled individual was not a threat?

Oh, dear, how can you tell such porkies in public? Surely you understand that incorporating a falsehood into a sentence as its premise (making the question an unanswerable loaded one) is one of the nastiest bits of demagoguery going, and inadmissible in civil discourse.


Fortunately living where he lives he does not have to defend a criminal charge at great expense to himself and the state.

And also fortunately, no one in this discussion has suggested that he should have been charged with anything. So just think how much of how many people's time would not have been wasted if a lot of people had acknowledged that fact and not bothered pretending otherwise. Of course, you're not pretending that, are you? Oops, my apologies if that question has a false premise in it, but at least it's open-ended.


Yup, seniors and people with disabilities are vulnerable.

And some of them, unless they spend all their time sitting in their wheelchairs or lying in bed with loaded firearms in their laps or on their pillows, and very definitely even then,* some of them, like some of all of us, are going to be victims of crimes.

* I mean, we do all know that firearms aren't magic, and people with firearms in their homes do sometimes get beaten and robbed, hm?


So nice of you to drop in, eh?

[Mr Kilroi]

138. Thank you for removing all doubt

You confirmed what I suspected and what regulars to this board probably already knew.

just another progressive bully..

[slutticus]

137. That's beautiful man. Really.

But I live in reality, as do most others.

It's nice that you have this all thought out ahead of time and have planned for contingencies. Most people do not.

"But really. Who here really believes (without completely disregarding what we know) that the individual who was killed was really going to kill the occupant of the home? who here really believes that the occupant of the home really had grounds for a reasonable apprehension of that outcome, and for a reasonable belief that there was no alternative but to kill the person who had broken down his door?"

Who the fuck cares what WE believe? All that matters is that person's reaction in that 0.1 second that this event occurs. At that exact instant...it was that home owner's choice. He could choose to do nothing....or he could choose to assume the worst. It's nice to have that choice.

[Hoopla Phil]

114. K and R

[oneshooter]

120. Nobody noticed this

"Late Tuesday, Ruben James Gonzalez, 18, reportedly Kenney's accomplice, was charged with second degree murder and attempted home invasion"

If he is found guilty he could face the needle.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[AtheistCrusader]

126. Felony Murder.

If anyone dies during the commission of a felony, all parties charged with committing the felony are charged with murder, even if it was an accomplice that dies.