[OT] What criminals really fear
Mark Reichert
which concealed carry rights were being discussed and one person said
one well documented study showed that criminals don't fear guns on
their intended victims because they don't act unless they are sure
they have the element of surprise and can prevent any gun from being
brought out.
I figure concealed carry fanatics figure they have an innate ability
to detect the criminal and will be able to whip the gun out before the
attempted crime. More power to them if so, but it is far more likely
they'll just end up escalating the encounter into serious injury or
murder. Perhaps it would end up that way anyway, but its unlikely
with any rational criminal because a property crime is not
investigated as thoroughly as those involving harm to people,
especially murder. Anything can happen in a panic though.
Which brings up what I think criminals really fear on the streets and
it is something that would give most Libertarians the hebejebees: a
video camera network like those currently being used in Great Britain.
In more general terms, criminals worry more about being caught after
the fact than the presence of a gun at the time of the crime.
The shame is that while the NRA focuses on the 2nd amendment and the
ACLU on the rest of the bill of rights, nobody is focused on making
the justice system focus on catching and convicting the actual bad
guys. The whole aim now is for the prosecution to convict somebody
and for the defense to prevent it, and actual guilt or innocence only
matters in that it is tad easier to get the actual guilty party
convicted if you can find him.
I know this because if actual guilt or innocence mattered then
1) we'd be spending a lot more money on advancing forensic science
2) we wouldn't have stonewalling on the use of DNA fingerprinting
2) we wouldn't have had the recent fiascos leading to moratoriums on
executions
Sea Wasp
> It isn't guns, at least from one source. I was watching a program in
> which concealed carry rights were being discussed and one person said
> one well documented study showed that criminals don't fear guns on
> their intended victims because they don't act unless they are sure
> they have the element of surprise and can prevent any gun from being
> brought out.
>
Criminals are dumb. This is no surprise. That's why many of them
ARE criminals. They say they don't fear them BEFORE the fact, but
their actions tend to show that when they DO encounter a gun "in the
field" they do, if not fear them, respect and avoid them.
> I figure concealed carry fanatics figure they have an innate ability
> to detect the criminal and will be able to whip the gun out before the
> attempted crime.
Nope. Just that action is faster than reaction. The criminal says
"gimme your dough". He is waiting for you to act. He EXPECTS you to
reach into your coat or whatever to get something. Few criminals
charge from concealment and knock you out, and then search your
unconscious or dying body. Most depend on threat to force YOU to do
the work of searching your body for them.
By the time he realizes that it's not a wallet you're pulling out,
it's too late for him.
This has been demonstrated many times. Just SHOWING the weapon has
been demonstrated to stop an attempted robbery in many instances.
More power to them if so, but it is far more likely
> they'll just end up escalating the encounter into serious injury or
> murder.
Not according to after-event reports of such confrontations. Many or
most were averted simply by showing the weapon; in cases where shots
were fired, the criminal was more likely to be hurt.
Perhaps it would end up that way anyway, but its unlikely
> with any rational criminal
Rational criminals are somewhat less common than honest politicians.
There are a very few, but THEY aren't the ones sticking people up in
alleys or burgling homes; they're the ones carefully planning the
once-in-a-lifetime heist that will allow them to retire to Aruba.
>
> Which brings up what I think criminals really fear on the streets and
> it is something that would give most Libertarians the hebejebees: a
> video camera network like those currently being used in Great Britain.
In my opinion, it should give just about ANYONE the heebejeebees.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Steve Coltrin
>> Which brings up what I think criminals really fear on the streets and
>> it is something that would give most Libertarians the hebejebees: a
>> video camera network like those currently being used in Great Britain.
>
> In my opinion, it should give just about ANYONE the heebejeebees.
Except prison guards and David Brin, who cream their jeans at the thought.
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org WWVBF?
"I had a very organized, Germanic preschool experience. These women
didn't take kindly to my swearing and farting and pulling chairs out
from behind people. They're dead now." -- Geoff Miller
John G. Morrison
>
> Which brings up what I think criminals really fear on the streets and
> it is something that would give most Libertarians the hebejebees: a
> video camera network like those currently being used in Great Britain.
> In more general terms, criminals worry more about being caught after
> the fact than the presence of a gun at the time of the crime.
Man, you haven't been paying attention to the reality of the world lately.
There are already 10's of thousands of video camera's out there already,
especially when you count the atm camera's, store security camera's, even
D.O.T. camera's. This doesn't include various gated communities and their
cameras who watch not only those inside but anybody going by outside.
feroce
> Which brings up what I think criminals really fear on the streets and
> it is something that would give most Libertarians the hebejebees: a
> video camera network like those currently being used in Great Britain.
Of course, it's well documented that the UK has no crime...oh wait, there
<is> crime in the UK. Another lovely theory shot to hell by those wretched
facts. What's an armchair social theorist to do?
There will always be someone willing to break the law, out of stupidity,
desperation, or just plain cussedness*. That is an inescapable,
unalterable law of human nature. You can theorize and fantasize about the
perfect society all you want, but it won't ever happen. If it did, it
would be unutterably boring...
feroce
*Sorry about that. Been reading Mark Twain lately.
SteveT
anywhere else in the western world. So much for cameras I think.
SteveT
lewy
"Mark Reichert" <Mark_R...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99e65015.04031...@posting.google.com...
> It isn't guns, at least from one source. I was watching a program in
> which concealed carry rights were being discussed and one person said
> one well documented study showed that criminals don't fear guns on
> their intended victims because they don't act unless they are sure
> they have the element of surprise and can prevent any gun from being
> brought out.
>
> I figure concealed carry fanatics figure they have an innate ability
> to detect the criminal and will be able to whip the gun out before the
> attempted crime. More power to them if so, but it is far more likely
> they'll just end up escalating the encounter into serious injury or
> murder. Perhaps it would end up that way anyway, but its unlikely
> with any rational criminal because a property crime is not
> investigated as thoroughly as those involving harm to people,
> especially murder. Anything can happen in a panic though.
>
> Which brings up what I think criminals really fear on the streets and
> it is something that would give most Libertarians the hebejebees: a
> video camera network like those currently being used in Great Britain.
> In more general terms, criminals worry more about being caught after
> the fact than the presence of a gun at the time of the crime.
From what I remember Great Britain has a higher rate of assault and
property crimes than the US.
Dreamer
"SteveT" <Stephen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k1sl50ttgguvr3l96...@4ax.com...
> Our newspapers tell us that there is more crime in the UK than almost
> anywhere else in the western world. So much for cameras I think.
No, no, no, no. You don't understand. The solution is always *more* of
whatever they like and *less* of whatever they don't. It makes no difference
if there's any *actual* connection so long as there is some *rational*[1]
connection. People commit crimes with guns, and they don't like guns. So
even though studies show that when more good guys have guns fewer crimes are
committed, the solution is obviously to make sure that only bad guys have
guns by keeping good guys from having them. Video cameras turn out not to be
very efficient for lowering crime rates after the "honeymoon" period,[2] so
the solution is obviously to keep putting up more and more cameras.
See how this works?
D
[1] Guess who gets to define rational?
[2] ISTR a study many years ago where researchers put video cameras on top
of people's TV sets and taped their behavior while watching TV. The cameras
were placed with the knowledge and permission of the family. At first,
everybody was on their best behavior, but then they got used to the cameras
and went right back to picking their noses, smacking the kids, and adjusting
their privates on tapes they *knew,* for a fact, that people were going to
watch.
Dreamer
"Sea Wasp" <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
news:405A5A6A...@wizvax.net...
> Mark Reichert wrote:
> Perhaps it would end up that way anyway, but its unlikely
> > with any rational criminal
>
> Rational criminals are somewhat less common than honest politicians.
> There are a very few, but THEY aren't the ones sticking people up in
> alleys or burgling homes; they're the ones carefully planning the
> once-in-a-lifetime heist that will allow them to retire to Aruba.
I worked in a bank as a teller the first two summers I was in college. By
the time I left, I was absolutely convinced that I could easily have cleaned
out either of the banks I worked for and gotten away clean. That was fifteen
years ago: perhaps their security procedures have improved. But I doubt it.
Furthermore, huge sums of cash move around all the time - the manager of a
local credit union would come in every Friday, withdraw five digits in cash
to cash paychecks with, and drive it off in his Ford Escort. He wasn't even
packing, as far as I could tell. A rational, and more importantly, patient,
criminal could easily identify a target which would allow him to live quite
well for a year or more between crimes. Six months off, identify new target,
plan and execute plan, repeat.
The FBI likes to talk about how high their capture rate for bank robbers is
(>90%) and how the average bank robber gets away with a few thousand dollars
or less. What they don't go out of their way to discuss is that it seems
likely that the remaining robberies - which include most of the ones where
the robbers make big scores - are comitted by a very small set of repeat
offenders who are very, very good at robbing banks and who are better at
evading capture than the FBI is at capturing.
ObSFWritten: These are almost, but not quite, Stainless Steel Rats we're
talking about here.
D
SteveT
that you are correct.
SteveT
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
"lewy" <le...@dim.com> wrote in message
news:405af2a2$1...@omega.dimensional.com...
Certainly higher "hot" burglaries but IRC the assualt rate is skewed in an
apples and oranges kind of way, because certain crimes which are pointless
in the US count as assault in the UK. Cellphone thefts from people are the
one usually cited.
Now they've got all the Operators to work together to block phones at the
HLRs I'm interested in seeing if there's a dramatic drop in personal
assault.
There's also a problem with fights in city centres between drunk males aged
16-24 which I understand isn't a problem in the US.
The murder rate remains a lot lower.
Dave
Keith Morrison
> The FBI likes to talk about how high their capture rate for bank robbers is
> (>90%) and how the average bank robber gets away with a few thousand dollars
> or less. What they don't go out of their way to discuss is that it seems
> likely that the remaining robberies - which include most of the ones where
> the robbers make big scores - are comitted by a very small set of repeat
> offenders who are very, very good at robbing banks and who are better at
> evading capture than the FBI is at capturing.
The Stopwatch Gang was a classic example. Band of Canadians who robbed
banks in the US Southwest for years, using careful planning, flawless
execution and care to make a score and then live off the proceeds until
it came time to do another one. In the end what nailed them was a
combination of laziness (they didn't destroy the evidence right away) and
bad luck (one of them was spotted by cops when tossing the evidence instead
of burning it, like they normally did, and panicked, allowing the police
to recover the gear).
--
Keith
lewy
> In the UK we've started putting the victims in prison, which proves
> that you are correct.
>
> SteveT
The next step is to charge them for room and board.
Beeblebear
http://www.sundayherald.com/40592
Though if the OP was referring to Tony Martin, he should remember that
shooting a teenage boy - who is running away from you - in the back does not
count as self defense.
--
--
Chris Lyth (CLyt...@ifis.org.ukshoot the president to reply)
Save energy - be apathetic.
Craig Richardson
>
>"SteveT" <Stephen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4q3m50120ukg2f720...@4ax.com...
>> In the UK we've started putting the victims in prison, which proves
>> that you are correct.
>
>The next step is to charge them for room and board.
Just in case this isn't extremely dry humour,
<http://www.sundayherald.com/40592>.
--Craig
--
Craig Richardson (Homepage <http://crichard-tacoma.home.att.net>)
"Rapid prototyping has enormous, obvious advantages beyond destroying
humanity as we know it" -Michal Ash in rec.arts.sf.written [04/1/26]
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> Which brings up what I think criminals really fear on the streets and
> it is something that would give most Libertarians the hebejebees: a
> video camera network like those currently being used in Great Britain.
> In more general terms, criminals worry more about being caught after
> the fact than the presence of a gun at the time of the crime.
>
I'm sure criminals also fear the police being granted the unlimited
right to search homes and vehicles without probable cause.
Just because criminals fear something doesn't make it a good idea.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Doctor: First things first, but not necessarily in that order
-Doctor Who
Beeblebear
"Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com> wrote in message
news:_7I6c.20890$MZ1.46...@news-text.cableinet.net...
An interesting statistic I found the other day.
People who have a gun in their house are 22 times more likely to be shot or
have a loved one shot at home than if there is no gun.
Of cases where guns are fired in the home, only 2% are where the homeowner
is shooting a burglar. It is far more common for the burglar to shoot the
homeowner with the gun the burglar just found.
--
--
Chris Lyth (CLyt...@ifis.org.ukshoot the president to reply)
Computer possessed? Try DEVICE=C:\EXOR.SYS
Wayne Throop
: Just because criminals fear something doesn't make it a good idea.
True. Equally true that just because most folks fear guns
doesn't make it a good idea to ban them.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Mark Reichert
> ARE criminals. They say they don't fear them BEFORE the fact, but
> their actions tend to show that when they DO encounter a gun "in the
> field" they do, if not fear them, respect and avoid them.
Is this an opinion or do you know this to be a fact? I acknowledge
there are a great many dumb criminals, but can you support your view
that this is universal.
> This has been demonstrated many times. Just SHOWING the weapon has
> been demonstrated to stop an attempted robbery in many instances.
>
> More power to them if so, but it is far more likely
> > they'll just end up escalating the encounter into serious injury or
> > murder.
>
> Not according to after-event reports of such confrontations. Many or
> most were averted simply by showing the weapon; in cases where shots
> were fired, the criminal was more likely to be hurt.
Would you like to cite dependable sources? I can see why people would
like to believe the above to be the case.
> > Which brings up what I think criminals really fear on the streets and
> > it is something that would give most Libertarians the hebejebees: a
> > video camera network like those currently being used in Great Britain.
>
> In my opinion, it should give just about ANYONE the heebejeebees.
Well, there's certainly a lot of people arguing against it and
maintaining that it has had no benefits and plenty of bad points.
The problem with that is that all arguments nowadays take that tack:
admit nothing positive from the opposition, emphasize every possible
negative. No wonder nobody ever meets in the middle anymore. This
thread is shaping up to be a fine example as have been all the other
political threads in this newsgroup.
I do have to say that the video cameras never will have any effect if
they aren't actually used in the investigation and prosecution of
criminals which hasn't happened of yet. At best at this point,
they've kept crimes from happening in the actual coverage areas.
I also notice everyone of you has attacked only this point and have
said nothing about the rest of my post, which more or less proved my
case. Nobody gives a shit about the actual guilt or innocence of
people being prosecuted unless they are a friend or relative of said
person.
Dreamer
"Beeblebear" <ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> An interesting statistic I found the other day.
> People who have a gun in their house are 22 times more likely to be shot or
> have a loved one shot at home than if there is no gun.
> Of cases where guns are fired in the home, only 2% are where the homeowner
> is shooting a burglar. It is far more common for the burglar to shoot the
> homeowner with the gun the burglar just found.
Congratulations. You've demonstrated that you can quote complete
fabrications. Even enlightened anti-gunners don't cite those old chestnuts
any more. They're all bunk. Google them and you will find two basic sorts of
hits: Blindly quoting them with no supporting references, and refutations.
D
Dreamer
"Beeblebear" <ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "lewy" <le...@dim.com> wrote in message
> news:405b78ec$1...@omega.dimensional.com...
>>
>> "SteveT" <Stephen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4q3m50120ukg2f720...@4ax.com...
>>> In the UK we've started putting the victims in prison, which proves
>>> that you are correct.
>>>
>>> SteveT
>>
>> The next step is to charge them for room and board.
>>
>>
> Already being done.
>
> http://www.sundayherald.com/40592
>
> Though if the OP was referring to Tony Martin, he should remember that
> shooting a teenage boy - who is running away from you - in the back does not
> count as self defense.
It does if you reasonably fear that he will return and offer you violence
when you are not prepared to defend yourself.
D
lewy
"Beeblebear" <ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c3g0a8$tbm$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
I also understand that if you have a pool in your backyard people in your
household are more likely to drown than people living in a household with
no pool.
> Of cases where guns are fired in the home, only 2% are where the
homeowner
> is shooting a burglar. It is far more common for the burglar to shoot
the
> homeowner with the gun the burglar just found.
What's the rate of individuals scaring off burglars by simply brandishing
the weapon?
David Dyer-Bennet
>> Though if the OP was referring to Tony Martin, he should remember that
>> shooting a teenage boy - who is running away from you - in the back does not
>> count as self defense.
>
> It does if you reasonably fear that he will return and offer you violence
> when you are not prepared to defend yourself.
Not in Minnesota, for example. In Minnesota you must be reasonably in
immediate fear of death or great bodily harm. In the case you
describe, the fear isn't *immediate*. If a guy in a bar says he's
going to go home, get his shotgun, come back, and shoot you, you can't
shoot *him* right then, either, for the same reason.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Wayne Throop
:: gun in their house are 22 times more likely to be shot or have a
:: loved one shot at home than if there is no gun.
: "lewy" <le...@dim.com>
: I also understand that if you have a pool in your backyard people in
: your household are more likely to drown than people living in a
: household with no pool.
Curse you, depraved DHMO merchants!
Sean O'Hara
declared:
>>>it is something that would give most Libertarians the hebejebees: a
>>>video camera network like those currently being used in Great Britain.
>>
>> In my opinion, it should give just about ANYONE the heebejeebees.
>
> Well, there's certainly a lot of people arguing against it and
> maintaining that it has had no benefits and plenty of bad points.
>
I've certainly never met anyone who's claimed that surveillance
cameras couldn't be helpful in catching criminals. The argument is
that there are many things that would be useful to law enforcement,
but they aren't things that people in free societies should accept,
not even in the name of public safety.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Harry: Changing your mind is a Canadian custom that we hold quite dear.
-South Park
Dreamer
Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Dreamer <dre...@dreamstrike.com> writes:
>
>>> Though if the OP was referring to Tony Martin, he should remember that
>>> shooting a teenage boy - who is running away from you - in the back does not
>>> count as self defense.
>>
>> It does if you reasonably fear that he will return and offer you violence
>> when you are not prepared to defend yourself.
>
> Not in Minnesota, for example. In Minnesota you must be reasonably in
> immediate fear of death or great bodily harm. In the case you
> describe, the fear isn't *immediate*. If a guy in a bar says he's
> going to go home, get his shotgun, come back, and shoot you, you can't
> shoot *him* right then, either, for the same reason.
I misspoke, and the original poster is right and I am wrong.
It does not *count* as self-defense.
It *is* self-defense, but it does not *count* as self-defense.
D
Lee DeRaud
wrote:
Blindly *mis*quoting them to boot: IIRC, the study in question claimed
the multiplier to be 42, not 22.
ObSF: Or maybe it was six times nine.
Lee
lewy
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:10797...@sheol.org...
> :: An interesting statistic I found the other day. People who have a
> :: gun in their house are 22 times more likely to be shot or have a
> :: loved one shot at home than if there is no gun.
>
> : "lewy" <le...@dim.com>
> : I also understand that if you have a pool in your backyard people in
> : your household are more likely to drown than people living in a
> : household with no pool.
>
> Curse you, depraved DHMO merchants!
In other shocking news, people who own their homes and mow their own yards
are far more likely to suffer lawn mower related injuries than people who
lives in apartments and don't own mowers. My guess is the same holds true
for chain saws. Sounds like some kind of conspiracy to me.
Beeblebear
"Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote in message
news:BC813710.2E933%dre...@dreamstrike.com...
It is self defense only if you are in immediate danger.
You are not in any danger whatsoever from a teenager running away.
It is murder to shoot a teenager in the back while he is running away from
you.
--
--
Chris Lyth (CLyt...@ifis.org.ukshoot the president to reply)
The woods would be a very silent place if no birds sang except
the best -- Dyke
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
Technically it was and should be manslaughter.
Dave
Dreamer
"Beeblebear" <ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
What we have here is a difference of opinion.
It is your opinion (and the law's) that somebody who does not present a
danger to you *right this minute* cannot be acted against in self-defense.
It is my opinion that someone who presents a credible threat of later
violence has waived his right to the benefit of the doubt, and may be dealt
with as seems best to the person threatened. It is also my opinion that if
you enter my dwelling without my permission, while I or my family are in it,
it is ethical for me to deal with you in any manner I see fit.[1]
Right now your opinion is the law of the land in most places. This does not
affect my opinion as to the ethics of the situation.
D
[1] More than likely, I would simply apprehend you. If I didn't think I
could do this without undue risk, I'd kill you or let you go, depending on
my appraisal of the individual situation.
Mike Schilling
"Lee DeRaud" <lee.d...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:jbsn50tu38ok3tdhr...@4ax.com...
>
> Blindly *mis*quoting them to boot: IIRC, the study in question claimed
> the multiplier to be 42, not 22.
>
> ObSF: Or maybe it was six times nine.
obBaseball: the year Rickey Henderson broke the single-season record for
stolen bases, how many times was he thrown out trying to steal? The answer
is The Answer.
Steve Moss
snip
> > > Not in Minnesota, for example. In Minnesota you must be reasonably in
> > > immediate fear of death or great bodily harm. In the case you
> > > describe, the fear isn't *immediate*. If a guy in a bar says he's
> > > going to go home, get his shotgun, come back, and shoot you, you can't
> > > shoot *him* right then, either, for the same reason.
> >
> > I misspoke, and the original poster is right and I am wrong.
> >
> > It does not *count* as self-defense.
> >
> > It *is* self-defense, but it does not *count* as self-defense.
>
> It is self defense only if you are in immediate danger.
> You are not in any danger whatsoever from a teenager running away.
> It is murder to shoot a teenager in the back while he is running away from
> you.
It is not self-defense as defined by the law. I also beleive the
legal definition is appropriate as it prevents a whole slew of
killings which could otherwise be avoided by simply calling the police
after the fact.
On the other hand, if there is a reasonable beleif that the teenager
will return and do you harm (i.e., stereotypical pseudo-nazi gang
leader type), then it was *practical* self-defense. Its not legal
self-defense, but self-defense nonetheless.
As to the unfortunate person who was placed in the position of having
to make this judgement call, it was appropriate to imprison him. From
his perspective, better to be jailed for a time than dead. From a
public perspective, better to jail him than to condone an avoidable
death.
Steve Moss
Beeblebear
22 was what I read. 22 is what I quoted.
--
--
Chris Lyth (CLyt...@ifis.org.ukshoot the president to reply)
Make input easy to proofread.
Steve Moss
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message news:<405A5A6A...@wizvax.net>...
> > Criminals are dumb. This is no surprise. That's why many of them
> > ARE criminals. They say they don't fear them BEFORE the fact, but
> > their actions tend to show that when they DO encounter a gun "in the
> > field" they do, if not fear them, respect and avoid them.
>
> Is this an opinion or do you know this to be a fact? I acknowledge
> there are a great many dumb criminals, but can you support your view
> that this is universal.
I am an Arizona attorney of almost nine years experience. My firm
does a range of work, including criminal defense ranging from speeding
tickets to capital cases, either private pay or county contract (if
the various defenders offices have a conflict). Having said that, I
have not compiled statistics, do not do work on the criminal cases
directly (handling the civil side of problems, one of my partners does
the actual criminal case) and so am only supplying my impressions.
Most criminals are stupid. By this I mean not that their actions are
stupid (though they are) but that their IQs are not normally in the
high range. In addition, they tend to be lazy and a very high
percentage (I'm guessing well in excess of 50%) have substance abuse
problems.
There are exceptions but these tend to be rather rare.
When they commit crimes, they tend to be impulse crimes. Planning is
usually minimal, and poorly done at that. They don't "case" a
business or individual for days and apply a high level of training and
discipline to the task.
They also tend to have accomplices and/or talk about the crime, either
to their girlfriends, wanna-be macho buddies, or, if apprehended, to
the cops. The cardinal rules (1. Do it alone;, 2. Don't talk about
it, to anyone; and 3. If caught, immediately lawyer up, don't even try
to talk your way out of it with the cops) of succesful criminal
activity are rarely followed.
As to whether guns deter crime, I think they do. Even stupid, lazy
and drugged out criminals are risk adverse. They don't want to get
hurt and they don't want to get caught. An armed "victim" greatly
increases the chance of this happening. There is always another
vicitim right around the corner. They'd much rather break it to a
deaf, senior citizen living alone or maybe with a spouse in similar
circumstances, clean out the house and force them to an ATM machine to
clean out the cash, kill them and flee, than deal with a healthy armed
adult who might, even if struck from suprise, get a shot off.
By the way, the senoir citizen vicitim is distressingly common in this
area, both in the extreme that I just described above or, as might be
more common, simply tricking or intimidating their money out of them.
Like animals, criminals tend to prey on the weak, whether the very
young or unprotected, single females (both usually the target of sex
offenders) or very old (usually property crimes with a violent
component). Healthy adult males are not usually the victims, unless
they were involved in drugs or other criminal activity and got
crosswise with their fellow criminals.
All the above is a generalization but I think it is more or less
accurate.
Steve Moss
Lee DeRaud
<shrug>So you read one of the misquotes. The "study" in question is by
A.L.Kellerman in the New England Journal of Medicine, 314;1557-1560.
The full text isn't available online but the abstract is. In part:
"For every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept
in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides,
and 37 suicides involving firearms."
So the "magic number" is 1.3+4.6+37 = 42.9, so I guess I misquoted as
well...my bad.
(In any case, whether it's 22, 42, 43, or 3.14159, it's bullshit. Note
the term "self-protection homicide": by its own admission, it
restricted defensive usage of firearms to cases where the homeowner
*killed* the attacker.)
Lee
David Dyer-Bennet
It's self-defense, or an over-reaction to an excessively harsh
statement, or a really easy opportunity to get away with murder, or
something. Which is why, in many jurisdictions, the law is unlikely
to recognize it as legitemate self-defense. Mostly our laws don't
support killing people for what they've *said*.
SteveT
No. I wasn't referring to any specific case. Just a general trend to
lock up the victim.
SteveT
Keith Morrison
>>>>Though if the OP was referring to Tony Martin, he should remember that
>>>>shooting a teenage boy - who is running away from you - in the back does not
>>>>count as self defense.
>>>
>>>It does if you reasonably fear that he will return and offer you violence
>>>when you are not prepared to defend yourself.
>>
>>Not in Minnesota, for example. In Minnesota you must be reasonably in
>>immediate fear of death or great bodily harm. In the case you
>>describe, the fear isn't *immediate*. If a guy in a bar says he's
>>going to go home, get his shotgun, come back, and shoot you, you can't
>>shoot *him* right then, either, for the same reason.
>
> I misspoke, and the original poster is right and I am wrong.
>
> It does not *count* as self-defense.
>
> It *is* self-defense, but it does not *count* as self-defense.
Would it be self defense if, instead of shooting the person in the
back as he fled, you tracked him down and shot him in the back? After
all, he could come back when your back was turned.
Would it be self defense if you engaged in a doctrine of pre-emption
and actively tracked down and shot people who lived around you with
a history of B&E? After all, burglary has one of the highest rates
of recidivism of any crime, and if they are in the area you may
reasonably expect there's a chance they will target your home.
--
Keith
Kevin Robinson
"The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5
million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the
1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate.."
"As previously noted, less than one in a thousand defensive gun uses
involves a criminal being killed." Gary Kleck
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html
Kevin
Dreamer
Morrison" <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote:
Sometimes yes to the first: Always no to the second.
The criminal in the first example has crossed a line between "theoretically
dangerous to somebody" and "demonstrably dangerous to me and my family."
Now, if he fled, and moved to another state, and joined a Buddhist
monastery, and five years later I recalled that he had once broken into my
house, I probably wouldn't be justified in tracking him down and killing
him. I am willing to accept some reasonable version of the "Hot Pursuit"
rule here. "Tracking him down" is a little vague. My first interpretation
was "following him as he fled." If he keeps fleeing and I keep tracking, I
am still in hot pursuit. If you meant something a little more Les Miserables
in nature, then no, that's probably not reasonable.
D
Dreamer
Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Dreamer <dre...@dreamstrike.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/19/04 9:47 PM, in article m2u10kw...@gw.dd-b.net, "David
>> Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Dreamer <dre...@dreamstrike.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> Though if the OP was referring to Tony Martin, he should remember that
>>>>> shooting a teenage boy - who is running away from you - in the back does
>>>>> not
>>>>> count as self defense.
>>>>
>>>> It does if you reasonably fear that he will return and offer you violence
>>>> when you are not prepared to defend yourself.
>>>
>>> Not in Minnesota, for example. In Minnesota you must be reasonably in
>>> immediate fear of death or great bodily harm. In the case you
>>> describe, the fear isn't *immediate*. If a guy in a bar says he's
>>> going to go home, get his shotgun, come back, and shoot you, you can't
>>> shoot *him* right then, either, for the same reason.
>>
>> I misspoke, and the original poster is right and I am wrong.
>>
>> It does not *count* as self-defense.
>>
>> It *is* self-defense, but it does not *count* as self-defense.
>
> It's self-defense, or an over-reaction to an excessively harsh
> statement, or a really easy opportunity to get away with murder, or
> something. Which is why, in many jurisdictions, the law is unlikely
> to recognize it as legitemate self-defense. Mostly our laws don't
> support killing people for what they've *said*.
In the Martin example, there was the additional element of what he had
*done.*
D
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>Dreamer <dre...@dreamstrike.com> writes:
>
>>> Though if the OP was referring to Tony Martin, he should remember that
>>> shooting a teenage boy - who is running away from you - in the back does not
>>> count as self defense.
>>
>> It does if you reasonably fear that he will return and offer you violence
>> when you are not prepared to defend yourself.
>
>Not in Minnesota, for example. In Minnesota you must be reasonably in
>immediate fear of death or great bodily harm. In the case you
>describe, the fear isn't *immediate*. If a guy in a bar says he's
>going to go home, get his shotgun, come back, and shoot you, you can't
>shoot *him* right then, either, for the same reason.
I just googled up a few stories on the Martin case. It would appear
that the "teenage boy" was shot in the back. But he was shot in the
back inside Martin's home. It's possible that he was fleeing at the
time, but that's just an inference. What's indisputable is that he
had broken into an occupied dwelling place at night. I honestly don't
care that much if he got scared and fled. Being shot is an
occupational hazard for burglars, or at least it ought to be.
The Martin case may well have been borderline. But this "teenage boy"
was in fact a strapping young man with a long record of past
criminality. Furthermore, I seem to recall that his relatives were a
bunch of thugs who intimidated the authorities during the
investigation. And that Mr. Martin had been subjected to prior
attacks previously, even as the police did nothing.
--
Pete McCutchen
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
That worked both ways - Martin's track record with shit guns didn't help.
Dave
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
> wrote:
>
> >Dreamer <dre...@dreamstrike.com> writes:
> >
> >>> Though if the OP was referring to Tony Martin, he should remember that
> >>> shooting a teenage boy - who is running away from you - in the back
does not
> >>> count as self defense.
> >>
> >> It does if you reasonably fear that he will return and offer you
violence
> >> when you are not prepared to defend yourself.
> >
> >Not in Minnesota, for example. In Minnesota you must be reasonably in
> >immediate fear of death or great bodily harm. In the case you
> >describe, the fear isn't *immediate*. If a guy in a bar says he's
> >going to go home, get his shotgun, come back, and shoot you, you can't
> >shoot *him* right then, either, for the same reason.
>
> I just googled up a few stories on the Martin case. It would appear
> that the "teenage boy" was shot in the back. But he was shot in the
> back inside Martin's home.
The forensics suggested that Martin shot from the stairs while the "boy" was
probably climbing out of the window. He was found dead in the yard outside
the house.
It's possible that he was fleeing at the
> time, but that's just an inference.
No, there were 2 of them and the first was already in the yard running
having been caught in the leg by Martin's first shots.
What's indisputable is that he
> had broken into an occupied dwelling place at night. I honestly don't
> care that much if he got scared and fled. Being shot is an
> occupational hazard for burglars, or at least it ought to be.
Possibly. There are complicating factors - these 2 had broken into Martin's
place before and seemed to treat it as a big joke. Martin had a reputation
for being loud mouthed about things and had, on several occasions, gone home
to get his shotgun to threaten people.
> The Martin case may well have been borderline. But this "teenage boy"
> was in fact a strapping young man with a long record of past
> criminality. Furthermore, I seem to recall that his relatives were a
> bunch of thugs who intimidated the authorities during the
> investigation.
They are.
And that Mr. Martin had been subjected to prior
> attacks previously, even as the police did nothing.
He was, however, he was also the instigator of several violent incidents,
including shooting at a man and boy on his land, shooting out the windows of
a family member's car in a dispute and a bunch of stuff like that.
Under typical firearms license rules he should not have had a gun license.
As it was, the weapon he used was a sawn off pump action shotgun, not
something legal in the UK.
I'm told by friends that in many US states he'd have probably got
manslaughter under the circumstances.
There are better examples - for example, a week after Martin was sent to
prison a sub-postmaster killed an armed robber with a shotgun. The police
congratulated him for that one.
Dave
Beeblebear
Last time I checked, burglary did not deserve the death penalty.
--
--
Chris Lyth (CLyt...@ifis.org.ukshoot the president to reply)
Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein
Beeblebear
"Kevin Robinson" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3be3f335.04032...@posting.google.com...
When I originally came across that one, I backtracked it to see how they
worked that one out.
They based those figures on a survey of 100 gun owners.
Not really very reliable estimate. Not very scientifically arrived at.
--
--
Chris Lyth (CLyt...@ifis.org.ukshoot the president to reply)
May Euell Gibbons eat your only copy of the manual!
Mark Atwood
>
> Last time I checked, burglary did not deserve the death penalty.
Oh? What database did you check to look up the "deserve" factor for
it? Does it have a URL? Is it something worth citing?
I'm very excited, you seem to be saying you have normative source for
calculating "oughts"!
I get ripped on in these newsgroups when I make that mistake, why
do you think you "deserve" to get away with it clean?
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right,
m...@pobox.com | people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Paul F Austin
In Tony Martin's case, he was reportedly victimized repeatedly and the local
police had been explicitly dismissive when he called them. If the local
police had in fact refused to respond to his calls for help and he had been
often burglarized then that changes things a bit.
Rex F. May
p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net wrote on 3/20/04 10:00 PM:
> The Martin case may well have been borderline. But this "teenage boy"
> was in fact a strapping young man with a long record of past
> criminality. Furthermore, I seem to recall that his relatives were a
> bunch of thugs who intimidated the authorities during the
> investigation. And that Mr. Martin had been subjected to prior
> attacks previously, even as the police did nothing.
And you can be sure, when the gungrabbers compile the statistics, that this
will be listed as the death of a 'child.'
Rex F. May
ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk wrote on 3/21/04 3:09 AM:
>
> Last time I checked, burglary did not deserve the death penalty.
This is just the kind of moronic statement the defines liberalism as it is
today. I'm sure you feel the same way about rape, eh?
Dreamer
"Beeblebear" <ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Kevin Robinson" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:3be3f335.04032...@posting.google.com...
>> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in message
> news:<10797...@sheol.org>...
>>> : Sean O'Hara <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com>
>>> : Just because criminals fear something doesn't make it a good idea.
>>>
>>> True. Equally true that just because most folks fear guns
>>> doesn't make it a good idea to ban them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
>>
>> "The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5
>> million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the
>> 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate.."
>>
>> "As previously noted, less than one in a thousand defensive gun uses
>> involves a criminal being killed." Gary Kleck
>>
>> http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html
>>
>
> When I originally came across that one, I backtracked it to see how they
> worked that one out.
> They based those figures on a survey of 100 gun owners.
> Not really very reliable estimate. Not very scientifically arrived at.
Try the FBI's Uniform Criminal Justice Reports. Although they disagree with
the number, they reach the same conclusion - defensive uses of firearms far
outnumber criminal ones. You can link to them from http://www.fbi.gov .
D
Dreamer
"Beeblebear" <ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> It's self-defense, or an over-reaction to an excessively harsh
>>> statement, or a really easy opportunity to get away with murder, or
>>> something. Which is why, in many jurisdictions, the law is unlikely
>>> to recognize it as legitemate self-defense. Mostly our laws don't
>>> support killing people for what they've *said*.
>>
>> In the Martin example, there was the additional element of what he had
>> *done.*
>>
>
> Last time I checked, burglary did not deserve the death penalty.
Perhaps you mean the death penalty is not currently one of the sentences one
can legally receive as punishment for it. No argument there.
However, that doesn't have much bearing on what a person "deserves." Would
you agree that a person deserves to be sent to jail for growing a medicinal
plant in their own house for their own use? And quite possibly die there for
lack of said medicinal plant? Because that is most certainly a sentence one
can legally receive for doing so. Be careful when you equate "deserve" with
"legally approved."
D
Beeblebear
"Rex F. May" <rex...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BC82EB59.13A7F%rex...@comcast.net...
less replacable.
Burglary does not receive the death penalty in law, neither does it deserve
the death penalty.
--
--
Chris Lyth (CLyt...@ifis.org.ukshoot the president to reply)
Beeblebear
--
--
Chris Lyth (CLyt...@ifis.org.ukshoot the president to reply)
No one is listening until you make a mistake.
lewy
>
> "Kevin Robinson" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:3be3f335.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in message
> news:<10797...@sheol.org>...
> > > : Sean O'Hara <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com>
> > > : Just because criminals fear something doesn't make it a good idea.
> > >
> > > True. Equally true that just because most folks fear guns
> > > doesn't make it a good idea to ban them.
> > >
> > >
> > > Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
> >
> > "The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5
> > million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the
> > 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate.."
> >
> > "As previously noted, less than one in a thousand defensive gun uses
> > involves a criminal being killed." Gary Kleck
> >
> > http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html
> >
>
> When I originally came across that one, I backtracked it to see how they
> worked that one out.
> They based those figures on a survey of 100 gun owners.
> Not really very reliable estimate. Not very scientifically arrived at.
That is completely incorrect. Do you actually have a cite for that
assertion? Kleck reports a sample size of 4,977 cases with 222 sample
cases of defensive gun use. Of those 222 cases, 9 refused to discuss the
incident in detail leaving 213 cases with "fairly complete information".
Kleck himself states that "While estimates of DGU frequency are reliable
because they are based on a very large sample of 4,977 cases, results
pertaining to the details of DGU incidents are based on 213 or fewer
sample cases, and readers should treat these results with appropriate
caution."
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
Dwight Thieme
> I am an Arizona attorney of almost nine years experience. My firm
> does a range of work, including criminal defense ranging from speeding
> tickets to capital cases, either private pay or county contract (if
> the various defenders offices have a conflict). Having said that, I
> have not compiled statistics, do not do work on the criminal cases
> directly (handling the civil side of problems, one of my partners does
> the actual criminal case) and so am only supplying my impressions.
>
> Most criminals are stupid. By this I mean not that their actions are
> stupid (though they are) but that their IQs are not normally in the
> high range. In addition, they tend to be lazy and a very high
> percentage (I'm guessing well in excess of 50%) have substance abuse
> problems.
>
> There are exceptions but these tend to be rather rare.
>
> When they commit crimes, they tend to be impulse crimes.
Interesting. As part of my good samaritan persona, I used to
occasionally spell someone who taught in state prison at Jefferson
City, MO. Now, these guys were real cases for the most part, violent
felons. Yet my one-on-one experience with these guys, some of them
well past forty, was that they acted about nine years old.
I'm not saying that they weren't fullly responsible for their actions,
or that they didn't deserve to be where they were (I'm rather thankful
that they are, quite frankly), but these were not consiously evil guys
at all. What they were were extremely immature people, impulsive, and
apparently unable to figure out the long-term consequences of their
actions, in mature bodies with all of an adult's experiences.
Sean O'Hara
> "Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote in message
> news:BC82FCA9.2EB21%dre...@dreamstrike.com...
>
>>On 3/21/04 4:09 AM, in article c3jphn$rub$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk,
>>"Beeblebear" <ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>Last time I checked, burglary did not deserve the death penalty.
>>
>>Perhaps you mean the death penalty is not currently one of the sentences
> one
>>can legally receive as punishment for it. No argument there.
>>
>>However, that doesn't have much bearing on what a person "deserves."
[...]
> I used the wrong word. You know what I meant.
>
Why would you assume that people who don't know you can read your mind?
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Harry: Changing your mind is a Canadian custom that we hold quite dear.
-South Park
Lee DeRaud
<darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>In the Year of the Monkey, the Great and Powerful Beeblebear declared:
>
>> I used the wrong word. You know what I meant.
>>
>Why would you assume that people who don't know you can read your mind?
Or want to.
Lee
Mark Atwood
> A human life is worth a hell of a lot more than a video player, and is far
> less replacable.
How do you calculate that? You are aware, of course, that "worth"
has no universal meaning, but instead means only what a given
person is willing to trade for something, and is different for
every different person who looks at a given particular thing to
to be valued.
> Burglary does not receive the death penalty in law, neither does it deserve
> the death penalty.
You are leaving off a clause in that second part, which is glaringly
obvious given that you filled it in in the first part.
Said who, and why is their opinion a completely universalizing deal?
Mark Atwood
No, I don't.
What is the "right" word?
I'm waiting...
John Schilling
>"Kevin Robinson" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:3be3f335.04032...@posting.google.com...
>> "The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5
>> million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the
>> 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate.."
>> "As previously noted, less than one in a thousand defensive gun uses
>> involves a criminal being killed." Gary Kleck
>> http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html
>When I originally came across that one, I backtracked it to see how they
>worked that one out. They based those figures on a survey of 100 gun
>owners.
Please tell us exactly where you backtracked it *to*. If the answer is
other than, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of
Self-Defense With a Gun", G. Kleck and M. Gertz, Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology 86 (1995), pp: 150-187, you made a wrong turn or stopped
short somewhere.
I don't have a copy of the journal at hand, but I have a summary from the
first author's _Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control_, 2001, Prometheus
Books, pp. 215-225.
They based their figures on a survey of 4,977 households, which would
be expected to include well over two thousand gun owners. With that
sample size, expected statistical error for the reported results would
be +/-6%.
>Not really very reliable estimate. Not very scientifically arrived at.
Far more reliable and far more scientifically arrived at than your critique
here.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Pete McCutchen
<ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Last time I checked, burglary did not deserve the death penalty.
I wouldn't support the death penalty for burglars who are apprehended
in the course of law enforcement and convicted in the normal course of
affairs.
But I'm not sure that this necessarily means that I'm logically
required to oppose shooting burglars while they're in the act of
committing burglary.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> This is just the kind of moronic statement the defines liberalism as it is
>> today. I'm sure you feel the same way about rape, eh?
>>
>A human life is worth a hell of a lot more than a video player, and is far
>less replacable.
In the abstract, sure, a generic "human life" is worth more than a
"video player." If I were to find myself in a burning building able
to rescue either an unidentified human or a video game, I'd take the
human. But if it were Saddam Hussein, I'd grab the Playstation and be
out of there.
I think that humans who make their way in the world by hurting other
humans deserve less consideration than the generic human. Burglars do
this. They break into people's homes and take stuff. If losses are
covered by insurance, they cost all of us; if losses aren't covered,
well, the victims have to make it up. And it's worth noting that many
crime victims aren't particularly wealthy. Suppose a working mother
worked overtime for a month so as to be able to afford the Playstation
for her children. I'd say that, in that case, the Playstation is
indeed worth more than J. Random Burglar's life.
Furthermore, by breaking into people's homes, burglars increase the
general social level of insecurity. It's a serious violation, having
your home broken into. It increases one's sense of vulnerability,
regardless of what's taken. Plus, it's worth noting that many
burglars engage in opportunistic crimes, such as rape. (Delany's
ex-lover often comes up in this context.)
>Burglary does not receive the death penalty in law, neither does it deserve
>the death penalty.
I think it's quite enough for the state to take away the freedom of
burglars for a set period if the burglar is apprehended and convicted.
I wouldn't support a state-imposed death penalty for burglary. But
I'm not sure why that precludes also supporting the right of
homeowners to dispatch burglars caught in the act. I suppose we might
allow homeowners to lock burglars in a cage in the basement for a few
years, but that doesn't really strike me as being practical.
--
Pete McCutchen
Dreamer
"Beeblebear" <ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
No, I don't. All I know is what you say.
If you meant that you don't think breaking into someone's house to steal
their stuff merits being killed, then that's simply a matter of opinion. I
am not a resource for burglars and I will not be harvested by them.
That's the government's job.
In any event, feel free to explain yourself again. If you have something
different to say, I'm willing to listen.
D
Dreamer
"Beeblebear" <ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Rex F. May" <rex...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:BC82EB59.13A7F%rex...@comcast.net...
>> in article c3jphn$rub$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk, Beeblebear at
>> ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk wrote on 3/21/04 3:09 AM:
>>
>>>
>>> Last time I checked, burglary did not deserve the death penalty.
>>
>> This is just the kind of moronic statement the defines liberalism as it is
>> today. I'm sure you feel the same way about rape, eh?
>>
> A human life is worth a hell of a lot more than a video player, and is far
> less replacable.
> Burglary does not receive the death penalty in law, neither does it deserve
> the death penalty.
My VCR is not worth anybody's life, but my dignity is. I've said it before -
in response to *exactly* the same assertion in another place - and I'll say
it again:
"And here we come to the crux of our debate. I do not want to kill anybody.
But I will not hesitate. If you enter my dwelling, uninvited, for unknown
purposes, you are basically, as I said, claiming the right to treat me as
chattel. To "harvest" me like a farmer shears wool from his sheep. I am not
a slave and I am not a sheep and I will not be harvested. We fought a war
here to end non-consensual slavery (as opposed to the consensual kind, which
is a whole other argument I'd be glad to have somewhere else) and neither
the government or the criminals are going to reimpose it on me.
If you really, truly believe that life is more important than freedom, I
admire you. More than that, I empathize, because believe it or not not so
long ago I believed EXACTLY the same thing. When I was younger, I had rather
have died than carry a gun or kill a person. But then I made a fatal
mistake. I started reading and I started thinking and I realized that in the
long run that sort of attitude lets the barbarians, or the tyrants, walk off
with the game. Maybe I fell from grace. It's quite possible you are more
Evolved than I. But you do NOT have the right to make me go to your Church,
whether your Holy of Holies is the Great God Jehovah or The Sacredness of
Human Life, and I decline to do so."
D
Pete McCutchen
<ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Blindly *mis*quoting them to boot: IIRC, the study in question claimed
>> the multiplier to be 42, not 22.
>>
>>
>
>22 was what I read. 22 is what I quoted.
But the Dreamer's point is still valid. Quite a few of the oft-quoted
statistics on this issue turn out to be based on junk science studies
of various sorts. Just googling up a few anti-gun sites and then
mindlessly repeating their allegations isn't sufficient. If you want
to be informed, you actually have to study the issue in some depth.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> "The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5
>> million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the
>> 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate.."
>>
>> "As previously noted, less than one in a thousand defensive gun uses
>> involves a criminal being killed." Gary Kleck
>>
>> http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html
>>
>
>When I originally came across that one, I backtracked it to see how they
>worked that one out.
>They based those figures on a survey of 100 gun owners.
>Not really very reliable estimate. Not very scientifically arrived at.
Other people have already pointed out that you're wrong, by more than
an order of magnitude, about the sample size.
But this does raise a question. When you came upon an (inaccurate)
description of Kellerman's conclusion, which has been pretty
thoroughly debunked, you cited it without even checking. Kleck's
conclusions struck you as wrong, so you looked around, found an
inaccurate refutation of his work, and cited that.
It strikes me that you're a victim of confirmation bias. Factual
claims which support your preexisting views you take at face value,
while other factual claims you dismiss because they don't support your
preexisting views. This is common on all issues upon which people are
emotionally invested. I have to watch out for it in my own thinking,
and it might very well behoove you to do the same.
--
Pete McCutchen
Lee DeRaud
wrote:
>I am not a resource for burglars and I will not be harvested by them.
>
>That's the government's job.
There are several ways to read that...and they're all hilarious. :-)
Lee
Kevin Robinson
> "Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote in message
> news:BC82FCA9.2EB21%dre...@dreamstrike.com...
> > On 3/21/04 4:09 AM, in article c3jphn$rub$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk,
> > "Beeblebear" <ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >>> It's self-defense, or an over-reaction to an excessively harsh
> > >>> statement, or a really easy opportunity to get away with murder, or
> > >>> something. Which is why, in many jurisdictions, the law is unlikely
> > >>> to recognize it as legitemate self-defense. Mostly our laws don't
> > >>> support killing people for what they've *said*.
> > >>
> > >> In the Martin example, there was the additional element of what he had
> > >> *done.*
> > >>
> > >
> > > Last time I checked, burglary did not deserve the death penalty.
> >
I oppose the death penalty. Once we have even the most horrible
criminals locked up, we can keep them until either they die, or
in a few instances, have their convictions overturned. We preclude
that last bit when we execute people. This has no bearing on whether
a man, surprised by a home invader, has the right in some situations
to use deadly force to deal with said invader. Apparently the Martin
case is a bad example to generalize from, due to the court-recognized
paranoia of Mr. Martin, which got his sentence reduced, and the
habitual criminality of the burglars.
In a case where Joe Smith is burgled by John Jones, a complete
stranger to him, that Smith could assume that Jones, entering an
inhabited house at night, is likely to be a threat to him is
an argument, in the U.S., anyway, for justified self-defense.
You still can't shoot the bugger if he's climbing out the window,
unless a strong breeze blows him back in. :)
Using deadly force for the defense of property alone is not
allowed in my state, Wisconsin. The shooter has to be
defending a life, his own or someone else's.
Kevin
Mark Atwood
>>Last time I checked, burglary did not deserve the death penalty.
>
> I wouldn't support the death penalty for burglars who are apprehended
> in the course of law enforcement and convicted in the normal course of
> affairs.
Me neither, but that is mainly because I don't trust the cops and the
courts enough to get the apprehending and convicting ABSOLUTELY right,
with a small serving of avoiding "might as well be in for a sheep as
in for a lamb" on the part of burglers.
It has nothing to do with "deserve".
Keith Morrison
>>The Martin case may well have been borderline. But this "teenage boy"
>>was in fact a strapping young man with a long record of past
>>criminality. Furthermore, I seem to recall that his relatives were a
>>bunch of thugs who intimidated the authorities during the
>>investigation. And that Mr. Martin had been subjected to prior
>>attacks previously, even as the police did nothing.
>
> And you can be sure, when the gungrabbers compile the statistics, that this
> will be listed as the death of a 'child.'
Just like the pro-gun folks will fail to note that Martin had
a reported history of firing at people who he saw on his land
and one of his motions to get his sentence reduced was based on
diminished responsibility due to paranoia.
Just as gun control folks probably shouldn't use a repeat
offending criminal as a poster child, neither should pro-
gun people want much to do with a paranoid with previous
incidents of dangerous firearm use.
--
Keith
Keith Morrison
> Please tell us exactly where you backtracked it *to*. If the answer is
> other than, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of
> Self-Defense With a Gun", G. Kleck and M. Gertz, Journal of Criminal Law
> and Criminology 86 (1995), pp: 150-187, you made a wrong turn or stopped
> short somewhere.
>
> I don't have a copy of the journal at hand, but I have a summary from the
> first author's _Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control_, 2001, Prometheus
> Books, pp. 215-225.
>
> They based their figures on a survey of 4,977 households, which would
> be expected to include well over two thousand gun owners. With that
> sample size, expected statistical error for the reported results would
> be +/-6%.
There's some reasonable evidence that the Kleck number may be up to
twice as high as it really is. The data is based on survey in which
people were asked about incidents that happened in the period under
study, but there's a strong possibility that telescoping of the
data occurred: people may unintentionally have included incidents
that predate the period of the study. While this doesn't invalidate
that said incidents happened, it throws the rate said incidents
happen into question.
That said, there's perfectly acceptable evidence that there are a
large number of defensive uses every year. Whether it's really
two million or more is a reasonable question.
--
Keith
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:47:18 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Dreamer <dre...@dreamstrike.com> writes:
>>
>>>> Though if the OP was referring to Tony Martin, he should remember that
>>>> shooting a teenage boy - who is running away from you - in the back does not
>>>> count as self defense.
>>>
>>> It does if you reasonably fear that he will return and offer you violence
>>> when you are not prepared to defend yourself.
>>
>>Not in Minnesota, for example. In Minnesota you must be reasonably in
>>immediate fear of death or great bodily harm. In the case you
>>describe, the fear isn't *immediate*. If a guy in a bar says he's
>>going to go home, get his shotgun, come back, and shoot you, you can't
>>shoot *him* right then, either, for the same reason.
>
> I just googled up a few stories on the Martin case. It would appear
> that the "teenage boy" was shot in the back. But he was shot in the
> back inside Martin's home. It's possible that he was fleeing at the
> time, but that's just an inference. What's indisputable is that he
> had broken into an occupied dwelling place at night. I honestly don't
> care that much if he got scared and fled. Being shot is an
> occupational hazard for burglars, or at least it ought to be.
>
> The Martin case may well have been borderline. But this "teenage boy"
> was in fact a strapping young man with a long record of past
> criminality. Furthermore, I seem to recall that his relatives were a
> bunch of thugs who intimidated the authorities during the
> investigation. And that Mr. Martin had been subjected to prior
> attacks previously, even as the police did nothing.
The laws change inside your house, some. But not enough for this. In
Minnesota, you can use deadly force to prevent the commission of a
felony. But you must still use the minimum necessary force. The odds
that the minimum necessary force includes shooting somebody in the
back are not good.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Rex F. May
ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk wrote on 3/21/04 8:29 AM:
>
> "Rex F. May" <rex...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:BC82EB59.13A7F%rex...@comcast.net...
>> in article c3jphn$rub$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk, Beeblebear at
>> ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk wrote on 3/21/04 3:09 AM:
>>
>>>
>>> Last time I checked, burglary did not deserve the death penalty.
>>
>> This is just the kind of moronic statement the defines liberalism as it is
>> today. I'm sure you feel the same way about rape, eh?
>>
> A human life is worth a hell of a lot more than a video player, and is far
> less replacable.
> Burglary does not receive the death penalty in law, neither does it deserve
> the death penalty.
> --
Then you definitely need a 'DON'T WORRY - NO GUNS HERE' prominently
displayed on your dwelling, so burglars know where it's safe.
Rex F. May
p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net wrote on 3/21/04 11:38 AM:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 15:29:21 -0000, "Beeblebear"
> <ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> This is just the kind of moronic statement the defines liberalism as it is
>>> today. I'm sure you feel the same way about rape, eh?
>>>
>> A human life is worth a hell of a lot more than a video player, and is far
>> less replacable.
Another way to put it is that liberals are always saying things that seem to
mean something, but don't. As above.
Keith Morrison
> I oppose the death penalty. Once we have even the most horrible
> criminals locked up, we can keep them until either they die, or
> in a few instances, have their convictions overturned. We preclude
> that last bit when we execute people. This has no bearing on whether
> a man, surprised by a home invader, has the right in some situations
> to use deadly force to deal with said invader. Apparently the Martin
> case is a bad example to generalize from, due to the court-recognized
> paranoia of Mr. Martin, which got his sentence reduced, and the
> habitual criminality of the burglars.
Tough cases make bad law; the corollary is that some cases that
involve a subject for debate are best left alone by both sides.
--
Keith
Rex F. May
>
> Using deadly force for the defense of property alone is not
> allowed in my state, Wisconsin. The shooter has to be
> defending a life, his own or someone else's.
>
David Dyer-Bennet
> In a case where Joe Smith is burgled by John Jones, a complete
> stranger to him, that Smith could assume that Jones, entering an
> inhabited house at night, is likely to be a threat to him is
> an argument, in the U.S., anyway, for justified self-defense.
> You still can't shoot the bugger if he's climbing out the window,
> unless a strong breeze blows him back in. :)
>
> Using deadly force for the defense of property alone is not
> allowed in my state, Wisconsin. The shooter has to be
> defending a life, his own or someone else's.
As you suggest in the second quoted paragraph, this is mostly a matter
of state law. In both Minnesota and Utah (which I happen to know
about because I teach carry permit classes for both states), you *can*
use deadly force in defense of property in certain situations
(generally in your own home, and for felony-level crimes, but the
details are different for the two, and complicated enough that I
wouldn't want to try to be a lot more specific).
There's a fascinating question, to which I know no definitive answer
(like appellate-level court cases), near this. If a burglar is
climbing out the window with enough of your jewelry in his pocket to
make it a felony, will you be acquitted for shooting him on his way
out the window? In Minnesota, in your own home, you may legally use
deadly force to prevent the commission of a felony. As a practical
matter, I strongly recommend against shooting in this situation in
carry permit classes.
Keith Morrison
>>>>This is just the kind of moronic statement the defines liberalism as it is
>>>>today. I'm sure you feel the same way about rape, eh?
>>>
>>>A human life is worth a hell of a lot more than a video player, and is far
>>>less replacable.
>
> Another way to put it is that liberals are always saying things that seem to
> mean something, but don't. As above.
Yeah. Why can't they get on with screwing up the economy,
pissing on the US Constitution, engaging in widespread
corruption, getting people killed in unnecessary wars and
trying to relegate people to second class status like the
real conservatives are?
--
Keith
Mark Atwood
>
> That said, there's perfectly acceptable evidence that there are a
> large number of defensive uses every year. Whether it's really
> two million or more is a reasonable question.
So cut it in half. And then compare it to the number
murders-by-firearm per year...
Hell, even if you weigh it against the sum of murder-by-firearm,
accidental shootings, and assault-with-a-deadly-weapon-(firearm),
it *still* wins.
Mark Atwood
>>>>A human life is worth a hell of a lot more than a video player, and is far
>>>>less replacable.
>> Another way to put it is that liberals are always saying things
>> that seem to mean something, but don't. As above.
>
> Yeah. Why can't they get on with screwing up the economy,
> pissing on the US Constitution, engaging in widespread
> corruption, getting people killed in unnecessary wars and
> trying to relegate people to second class status like the
> real conservatives are?
Both of you have changed the subject, to a null subject.
John Schilling
>It isn't guns, at least from one source. I was watching a program in
>which concealed carry rights were being discussed and one person said
>one well documented study showed that criminals don't fear guns on
>their intended victims because they don't act unless they are sure
>they have the element of surprise and can prevent any gun from being
>brought out.
I don't suppose you could identify the program, or the study? Because
all the documentation in the world, is wasted if it can't be cited.
I, however, will cite J. Wright and P. Rossi, "Armed Criminals in
America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons, 1983", Inter-University
Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI, 1986,
as reported in G. Kleck and D. Kates, "Armed: New Perspectives on
Gun Control", Prometheus Books, 2001.
From a survey of 1,874 incarcerated felons:
42% had encountered a victim armed by a gun at least
once in their career.
90% of those had been scared off, shot at, wounded,
or captured by an armed victim.
43% had decided not to commit a particular crime because
they knew or believed the victim was armed with a gun.
56% agreed with the statement, "most criminals are more
worried about meeting an armed victim than about
running into the police".
58% agreed with the statement, "a store owner who is
known to keep a gun on the premises is not going
to get robbed very often".
52% agreed with the statement, "a criminal is not going
to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with
a gun.
And this from a biased sample in that the respondents were all,
by definition, not generally deterred from committing serious
crimes. But even among that group, about half found the concept
of an armed victim to be a substantial deterrent in theory, and
when faced with the real thing in pratice nine-tenths decided to
cut and run.
>I figure concealed carry fanatics figure they have an innate ability
>to detect the criminal and will be able to whip the gun out before the
>attempted crime.
This may be true as written, but the much larger number of concealed
carry non-fanatical proponents I think have a more realistic understanding
of how crimes are actually carried out and where the opportunities for
self-defense occur. Hint #1, most violent criminals don't use guns,
even in areas where guns are readily available. Hint #2, most violent
crimes require the criminal to at some point surrender the initiative
to the intended victim. A criminal could almost certainly win a gunfight
with a typical crime victim, if that's *all* he wanted to do. But why
would he want to do that? He wants money, or sex, or power, or some other
end orthogonal to victory. The victim's motives, by contrast, are simple
and unconflicted.
Which is why, nine times out of ten, the criminal runs, surrenders, or
gets shot.
>Which brings up what I think criminals really fear on the streets and
>it is something that would give most Libertarians the hebejebees: a
>video camera network like those currently being used in Great Britain.
> In more general terms, criminals worry more about being caught after
>the fact than the presence of a gun at the time of the crime.
This would be why Great Britain, with the video cameras, has a *higher*
rate of violent street crime than America, with the guns?
John Schilling
>"lewy" <le...@dim.com> wrote in message
>news:405b78ec$1...@omega.dimensional.com...
>> "SteveT" <Stephen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4q3m50120ukg2f720...@4ax.com...
>> > In the UK we've started putting the victims in prison, which proves
>> > that you are correct.
>> > SteveT
>> The next step is to charge them for room and board.
>Already being done.
>http://www.sundayherald.com/40592
>Though if the OP was referring to Tony Martin, he should remember that
>shooting a teenage boy - who is running away from you - in the back does not
>count as self defense.
Without commenting on the Tony Martin case in particular, the simple fact
that someone was shot in the back is almost entirely irrelevant to the
question of self-defense. Very often, the victim's reasonable assessment,
"This criminal is behaving in a murderously aggressive fashion, and I will
very likely die unless I shoot him Right Now", and the criminal's equally
reasonable assessment, "Oh, Shit, he has a gun. I will very likely die
unless I run away Right Now", are concurrent within an average human
decision cycle.
A Jedi Knight might reasonably be expected to base his decisions on the
observed actions of his adversary a second and a half in the future, but
ordinary humans cannot be held to that standard.
John Schilling
>"Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote in message
>news:BC8263C9.2EA60%dre...@dreamstrike.com...
>> > It's self-defense, or an over-reaction to an excessively harsh
>> > statement, or a really easy opportunity to get away with murder, or
>> > something. Which is why, in many jurisdictions, the law is unlikely
>> > to recognize it as legitemate self-defense. Mostly our laws don't
>> > support killing people for what they've *said*.
>> In the Martin example, there was the additional element of what he had
>> *done.*
>Last time I checked, burglary did not deserve the death penalty.
As the man said, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it".
Self-defense is not a penalty imposed to punish the criminal, but a
means of protecting the victim. Who doesn't deserve even to be
burglarized, much less killed at the hands of a burglar. No penalty
imposed by a court of law at a later date can rectify that wrong,
and so we allow then and there means of preventing the wrong that
would be excessive if imposed at a later time merely to punish it.
Whether an action constitutes self-defense depends entirely and only
on the extent to which it actually defends the self in question from
harm, and not at all on the extent to which the aggressor "deserves"
it or on what punitive measures may be taken later.
John Schilling
>John Schilling wrote:
>> Please tell us exactly where you backtracked it *to*. If the answer is
>> other than, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of
>> Self-Defense With a Gun", G. Kleck and M. Gertz, Journal of Criminal Law
>> and Criminology 86 (1995), pp: 150-187, you made a wrong turn or stopped
>> short somewhere.
>> I don't have a copy of the journal at hand, but I have a summary from the
>> first author's _Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control_, 2001, Prometheus
>> Books, pp. 215-225.
>> They based their figures on a survey of 4,977 households, which would
>> be expected to include well over two thousand gun owners. With that
>> sample size, expected statistical error for the reported results would
>> be +/-6%.
>There's some reasonable evidence that the Kleck number may be up to
>twice as high as it really is. The data is based on survey in which
>people were asked about incidents that happened in the period under
>study, but there's a strong possibility that telescoping of the
>data occurred: people may unintentionally have included incidents
>that predate the period of the study. While this doesn't invalidate
>that said incidents happened, it throws the rate said incidents
>happen into question.
Kleck et al attempted to control for that by using both one-year and
five-year recall periods. Telescoping, being generally nonlinear, would
have resulted in a disproportionately exaggerated five-year result, which
was not observed at a statistically significant level.
>That said, there's perfectly acceptable evidence that there are a
>large number of defensive uses every year. Whether it's really
>two million or more is a reasonable question.
I have usually discounted the Kleck study, but in spite of his generally
superior methodology rather than because of it. At the time, there were
ten or so studies in the area, with Kleck as the high outlier and the
NCVS as the low outlier, and with that much data I tend to discard the
two extremes on general principles.
However, in the years since, other researchers have attempted to replicate
or improve on Kleck, and appear have duplicated his ~2-3E6/year results.
I haven't had a chance to look seriously at the most recent work, but I
may have to go ahead and accept the higher figure.
Mark Atwood
>
> Please tell us exactly where you backtracked it *to*.
I hereby bet one real silver quarter that he won't be able actually
present the real research based citation that he claims he found.
Do you hear me Beeblebear? I'm betting real silver against your word.
Steve Coltrin
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:29:00 -0500, Sean O'Hara
> <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>>In the Year of the Monkey, the Great and Powerful Beeblebear declared:
>>
>>> I used the wrong word. You know what I meant.
>>>
>>Why would you assume that people who don't know you can read your mind?
>
> Or want to.
Objection! Counsel assumes mind not in evidence.
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org WWVBF?
"I had a very organized, Germanic preschool experience. These women
didn't take kindly to my swearing and farting and pulling chairs out
from behind people. They're dead now." -- Geoff Miller
John Schilling
>"Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com> wrote in message
>news:_7I6c.20890$MZ1.46...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>> > From what I remember Great Britain has a higher rate of assault and
>> > property crimes than the US.
>> Certainly higher "hot" burglaries but IRC the assualt rate is skewed in an
>> apples and oranges kind of way, because certain crimes which are pointless
>> in the US count as assault in the UK. Cellphone thefts from people are
>> the one usually cited.
>> Now they've got all the Operators to work together to block phones at the
>> HLRs I'm interested in seeing if there's a dramatic drop in personal
>> assault.
>> There's also a problem with fights in city centres between drunk males
>> aged 16-24 which I understand isn't a problem in the US.
>> The murder rate remains a lot lower.
>An interesting statistic I found the other day.
>People who have a gun in their house are 22 times more likely to be shot or
>have a loved one shot at home than if there is no gun.
>Of cases where guns are fired in the home, only 2% are where the homeowner
>is shooting a burglar. It is far more common for the burglar to shoot the
>homeowner with the gun the burglar just found.
An interesting statistic I found the other day.
Cigarette smoking is completely non-addictive and does not cause cancer.
No, really, there was a study and everything.
Some things, it isn't enough to just regurgitate statistics you heard
somewhere. Source and methodology *matter*, make the difference between
useful data and bullshit propaganda, and if you can't back up your claim
with a cite people will reasonably suspect bullshit propaganda.
It sounds to me as if you are repeating a mangled version of Kellerman &
Reay's "Protection or Peril: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in
the Home", New England Journal of Medicine 314 #24 (1988), pages 1557-1560.
The number they claimed was forty-two and change, not twenty-two, but
the language and conclusions were similar.
The problem, which you have to actually read the paper to recognize, is
that the only things they really "discovered" are: suicidal people who
have guns tend to select shooting as their exit strategy, criminals tend
to know and kill other criminals with great frequency, people who defend
themselves with a gun usually don't shoot or kill anyone, and people who
do have to kill in self-defense are often arrested and charged before
everything gets sorted out.
If you ignore all of those things, yes, you can paint a tale of fourteen
Ward Cleavers coming home after a bad day at work and gunning down Wally,
June, and the Beaver for every one case of Ward shooting a burglar. It
just won't be particularly accurate.
If this isn't the study you are referring to, please try to get back to
us with a cite for what you actually heard. That way, we can discuss it
in a meaningful matter and maybe learn something new.
Dreamer
<schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
> "Beeblebear" <ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>
>> "lewy" <le...@dim.com> wrote in message
>> news:405b78ec$1...@omega.dimensional.com...
>
>>> "SteveT" <Stephen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4q3m50120ukg2f720...@4ax.com...
>>>> In the UK we've started putting the victims in prison, which proves
>>>> that you are correct.
>
>>>> SteveT
>
>>> The next step is to charge them for room and board.
>
>> Already being done.
>
>> http://www.sundayherald.com/40592
>
>> Though if the OP was referring to Tony Martin, he should remember that
>> shooting a teenage boy - who is running away from you - in the back does not
>> count as self defense.
>
>
> Without commenting on the Tony Martin case in particular, the simple fact
> that someone was shot in the back is almost entirely irrelevant to the
> question of self-defense. Very often, the victim's reasonable assessment,
> "This criminal is behaving in a murderously aggressive fashion, and I will
> very likely die unless I shoot him Right Now", and the criminal's equally
> reasonable assessment, "Oh, Shit, he has a gun. I will very likely die
> unless I run away Right Now", are concurrent within an average human
> decision cycle.
Actual quote from an actual cop: "You're probably okay unless the holes in
the perp line up with the holes in the floor."
Another actual quote from an actual cop (different cop, different event:)
"Oh, jeez. Why'd you shoot him twice? Now we gotta do paperwork."
(Note: I was not involved in either of these. I've never shot at another
human being with a firearm.)
If only they were typical.
Anyway, I'd also like to add that besides the general dangerousness and
likelihood of return of the criminal, there is also the question of whether
he is likewise armed. If I think he may be, I'm *going* to shoot him,
because he may not be fleeing, but seeking cover from which to open fire.
(Or heading for my daughter's room, or any number of other things.)[1]
This assumes he's in my house, which is the scenario under discussion. If
he's in the middle of a field, I may let him run, as most criminals can't
shoot for sour owl feces and by the time he reaches cover, he'll probably no
longer be an immediate threat.
D
[1] And before some nitwit asks why he's running if he's armed: he had the
pistol in his belt and I got the drop on him. If he doesn't run, but reaches
for a weapon or already has it in his hand, he's dead. Of course, home
invaders are rarely armed. But if he's heading for my wife and/or daughter,
I don't care if he's armed or not: he's a goner.
Mark Atwood
>
> Another actual quote from an actual cop (different cop, different event:)
> "Oh, jeez. Why'd you shoot him twice? Now we gotta do paperwork."
Define "twice". The firing rules I was taught was to do a double tap
to C-O-M, then check. If he was not either falling down or running
away, repeat the double-tap and check cycle until either he *has*, or
I'm empty.
Rex F. May
kei...@polarnet.ca wrote on 3/21/04 4:50 PM:
The gang in control now are not real conservatives. They're a branch of
liberalism. As you have shown by your list above. FDR would be proud of
them.
Mark Reichert
> I think that humans who make their way in the world by hurting other
> humans deserve less consideration than the generic human.
Define hurt.
G EddieA95
>you agree that a person deserves to be sent to jail for growing a medicinal
>plant in their own house for their own use? And quite possibly die there for
>lack of said medicinal plant? Because that is most certainly a sentence one
>can legally receive for doing so.
Please state where *anyone* has died, in jail or out, for lack of marijuana.
Mark Reichert
> As to whether guns deter crime, I think they do.
If I accept that, would they deter it enough to make up for the
additional problems? If police can get guns taken away from them, I'd
imagine quite a few less trained citizens would have them taken away
as well. Then there are all the additional guns out there to be
stolen from people. Then there are all the extra accidental
shootings.
On the other hand, the usual opposition has already said in at least
one post that guns being stolen from people's homes won't be a
problem. Or at least when I pointed out that guns are useless for
home defense when people aren't home, I got all sorts of flack for it.
Led me to believe the opposition just doesn't think guns get stolen.
Perhaps I just don't have the 'proper' mental attitude. I must
remember that guns have no downside, that they are only good.
Jim Cambias
criminals are terrified! Why the police don't all wear bat costumes is a
mystery.
Cambias
Mark Reichert
> Name one.
>
> I've certainly never met anyone who's claimed that surveillance
> cameras couldn't be helpful in catching criminals.
Well, I didn't find anywhere in here where they admitted surveillance
cameras have been of any help in any criminal case:
http://archive.aclu.org/issues/privacy/CCTV_Feature.html
Perhaps I just missed it.
> The argument is
> that there are many things that would be useful to law enforcement,
Well, the rest of my original post talked about that, but because
nobody actually gives a shit about doing all we can to prosecute the
guilty parties, I haven't gotten a single response. It is very
depressing.
Mark Reichert
> Me neither, but that is mainly because I don't trust the cops and the
> courts enough to get the apprehending and convicting ABSOLUTELY right,
> with a small serving of avoiding "might as well be in for a sheep as
> in for a lamb" on the part of burglers.
>
> It has nothing to do with "deserve".
Does that mean you don't trust them to get the right person?
Mark Reichert
> From what I remember Great Britain has a higher rate of assault and
> property crimes than the US.
Perhaps it does. I think it would matter more what the rates are in
the actual areas covered by the cameras.