Oakland Man Fatally Shoots Intruder

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

OAKLAND, Tenn. - An Oakland, Tennessee man fatally shot an intruder trying to climb in his window early Monday morning.

The incident occurred on the 400-block of Bell Grove Road. The homeowner heard what sounded like a knock on his window around 12:30am. When the noise grew, the homeowner found a neighbor, 32-year old Anthony Webb, breaking through his window with a rake.

The homeowner tells FOX13 that he told the man repeatedly to stop, but Webb's reply was "What are you going to do?"

The intruder was shot three times, and was declared dead upon arrival by local police.


http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpp/news/local/060109_Oakland_Man_Fatally_Shoots_Intruder

Very sad for all involved.

[Endangered Specie]

1. Those might have to go down on the famous-last-words list...

[madeline_con]

2. "What are you going to do?"

:rofl:

[krispos42]

13. "You ain't got the guts!"

"After all, what's the worst that can happen?"

"Here, hold my beer and watch this!"

[rrneck]

16. And his buddy's last words:

Shit, I can do that!

[SlipperySlope]

3. Declared dead by local police?

I thought only a medical examiner or coroner could make an official declaration of death (no matter how obvious it was). Strange that the article says it was done by the police in this case.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. That's not exactly true.

Paramedics and EMT's in my state can declare people dead where signs of death are obvious. That would include decapitation, rigor mortis, lividity, exposed brain matter with no vital signs, etc. Paramedics have more leeway than EMT's. The cops have always asked us to do it here, not sure how they do it there. Of course a doctor can always declare someone dead if they are willing to sign the death certificate, they would almost never do that in a trauma case though.

David

[SlipperySlope]

6. Interesting...

I learn something new everyday.

[paulsby]

11. depends on the jurisdiction

where i used to work i was a deputy coroner. all cops were, under the law.

we had specific guidelines to go with where we could do this without a medical professional.

[lapfog_1]

5. Drunk and trying to get into the house without waking the wife... got the wrong house?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. So when he saw the man with the gun telling him to stop, he thought his wife was cheating?

Then of course there is the problem of breaking out the window.

David

[lapfog_1]

8. "Who the fuck locked this window... it was unlocked last time!"

followed by the "Why is someone trying to stop me? It's my f'ing house!"

Or do you think he just decided to go to the neighbors home at break a window and

1) kill the neighbor

2) rape someone

3) rob the neighbor

(pick one)

No matter what, you have to wonder about breaking the window at that hour of the night/morning. If sober and not thinking it's his house, did he seriously think he wouldn't wake up anyone? If not sober... is it more likely he got the wrong house or that he just decided to rob the neighbors home?

Anyway, I hope there was a toxicology done at the autopsy.

And I am thinking that this could have been handled with a lot less than lethal force.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. Who knows?

Let's see an older mans house is broken into by a younger neighbor. That younger neighbor has a rake in his hand and sees his victim with a gun and when told to stop says, "What are you going to do?" Given that the victim and the perpetrators father were high school classmates I doubt that the decision to shoot him was easy. Given that the perpetrator would have been easily identified by the victim there is a decent chance that the victim would have been killed to prevent that ID. The presence of drugs or alcohol if anything would have increased the chances of the victims death. I just posted another story about 2 teenagers that broke into a neighbors home. Many people break in to the homes of victims that are known to them, those robberies often result in murder.

David

[proteus_lives]

10. But why should the man have put himself in more danger?

"And I am thinking that this could have been handled with a lot less than lethal force."

Perhaps but my train of thought goes, "Why should the man put himself in extra danger if the man is violent or entering without permission?"

[paulsby]

12. despite the well known phrase

"don't p00p in your own backyard", in my experience as a LEO ... LOTS of criminals victimize neighbors.

it's not uncommon at all. stupid, but not uncommon

[iverglas]

14. and my own train of thought goes

Hmm, this guy is busy trying to climb in a window while holding a garden rake.

I think I'll go scoot out the front (back) door and get the hell out of his way.

Why can't I ever figure out where I'm going wrong?

[Merchant Marine]

17. That's fine

If you're living alone. But I'll be damned if I run with my family in the house. I'm not gonna leave them to the unknown intentions of an intruder.

[iverglas]

18. well, it wasn't really all about you

It's about the case in the OP.

There's no mention of anyone else being in the house, so we don't know.

But the occupier was a classmate of the father of a 32-year-old. So I suspect there weren't actually children there.

[Scout]

20. where do all these frail, weak, wispy women come from that gunners

are so worried about? can't women take care of themselves? are they all children that need a daddy to look after them? they can't think for themselves, they couldn't possibly outwit an attacker, they can't possibly learn self-defense, they are constantly afraid of rape...

i'm glad i don't know any women like that. the ones i know have a good head on their shoulders, and don't NEED a daddy protecting them all the time. they are confident, capable, adult women.

[iverglas]

21. you'd almost think

I'd read your post before I wrote my last one: Big Daddy, indeed.

The patriarchal attitudes just ooze, don't they?

[proteus_lives]

23. I don't worry about women defending themselves. I think all people would defend themselves.

I come from a family where people are taught to defend themselves, my mom has had a CCW as long as my dad.

[Scout]

30. then we aren't talking about you, are we?

if a thread/post isn't about you, it isn't about you

:shrug:

[paulsby]

29. strong women

i train with some of the strongest women in the world, including national champions, record holders and olympians.

with that in mind, the average woman is significantly weaker than the average man, and generally less trained in fighting skills.

that's just a fact.

that is one of the reasons (but not the only one) that women are much more likely to be the victims of male caused violence, than the other way around.

this has nothing to do with weak women. it has to do with recognizing the fact that women, like men, have the right to empower THEMSELVES and make the CHOICE to carry or not carry a firearm

choice and empowerment. it's what's for dinner.

my wife, (like i said, i like strong women) is a kickboxer and can kick some serious okole. but she also feels comfortable with guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. Here is a great example of a strong woman.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x230529

[Merchant Marine]

68. Do you support a woman's right to choose?

Does a woman have the right to defend her body with lethal force? Do you support a woman defending herself with lethal hand-to-hand techniques? Strikes to the neck intended to kill and maim rather than disable? How about knives? Is hasty defense with a kitchen knife ok? Are fighting knives kosher? Is a deep stab intended to disable organs ok, or are only slashes ethical? How about blunt objects? Should the victim swing away, or will she be prosecuted for swinging a bat "too hard"?

Do you support a woman's right to defend her body with lethal methods?

[Euromutt]

70. I could reverse the question and ask

"Where do all these frail, weak, wispy women come from about whom anti-gunners are certain that any criminal will 'take the gun away and turn it against them'?"

My wife's done triathlons (sprint triathlons, admittedly), and lifts weights, and I'm not talking those pink 1-pound ones either. She's one of the best drivers I know. She's seen off a knife-wielding would-be rapist (over fifteen years ago now), through judicious use of a store counter and threatening with a pepper spray (which she carried in violation of California state law at the time, but for some strange reason, the responding officer didn't feel like taking it away from her). And still, I sometimes worry about her safety, simply because I love her and care about her. She worries about me, too.

It's quite possible to worry about a loved one without being patronizing.

[proteus_lives]

22. Really?

You'd really abandon your home to an intruder when you're capable of defending yourself?

I'm sorry, that makes no sense at all.

[iverglas]

25. I'll tell ya what makes no sense at all

You'd really abandon your home to an intruder when you're capable of defending yourself?

That.

No sense at all.

Absolutely none.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. Then why did you say you would do that?

or Are you saying you aren't capable of defending yourself?

[TPaine7]

15. Exactly.

The innocent should never be required to put themselves in the tender mercies of criminal assailants. They should never be required to assume risks to protect violent criminals. And the idea that a man should necessarily flee violent attack in his own home is preposterous on its face.

Of course people may choose to do all of the above for their own purposes. That is their right. But a society that requires them to, either legally or through "moral" pressure, is not civilized.

[iverglas]

19. why are we all making up tales??

And the idea that a man should necessarily flee violent attack in his own home is preposterous on its face.

What violent attack?

Someone was BREAKING IN A WINDOW. There was no violent attack.

If someone is BREAKING IN A WINDOW and someone else has an opportunity to leave the vicinity safely (and yes, sigh, there are no wimminfolk and kiddies needing big daddy's protection), why the fuck is it "preposterous on its face" to say that this is precisely what s/he should do, when the alternative under discussion is KILLING A HUMAN BEING?

It's "preposterous on its face" to someone whose manhood is all wrapped up in not being dissed by bad guys, I guess.


Of course people may choose to do all of the above for their own purposes. That is their right. But a society that requires them to, either legally or through "moral" pressure, is not civilized.

A society that permits anyone to KILL A HUMAN BEING when they have no need to is a society of scum, or at least governed by scum.

[proteus_lives]

26. I disagree.

"A society that permits anyone to KILL A HUMAN BEING when they have no need to is a society of scum, or at least governed by scum."

The home-owner had every right in the world to do what he did. The man broke a window, started entering the house and refused to stop when confronted. The drunk decided his fate right there.

I really don't understand your comments on this post. Please answer these questions? Why should he leave his home to be wrecked, burned and torn apart by a drunk intruder? Why should he risk physical violence by allowing the man to enter his home?

Why was he wrong in defending himself?

I'm not happy the guy is dead, it's horrible but what else should the guy have done?

[iverglas]

27. bully for you

bully seeming to be the operative word here.

[proteus_lives]

28. Wow.

Defending your home and yourself is being a bully. Just wow.

[iverglas]

31. you do insist

on saying the dumbest things, don't you?

Your choice.

[proteus_lives]

40. Unable/willing to defend your position?

That's cool. This were I figured it would end up.

[iverglas]

43. Oh, I see

You are actually saying that this:

Defending your home and yourself is being a bully.

is MY position.

I retract my previous statement.

That wasn't a dumb thing to say.

It was a filthy, false thing to say.

That better now?

[votingupstart]

57. obviously you don't see - look at your own post

"bully seeming to be the operative word here"

your post in response to a legit question - i think you see that your argument is failed yet want to change the subject. go ahead your agenda pushing is noted.

[votingupstart]

56. your post about "bullying" a drunk breaking into a house and refusing to stop when confronted

talk about stupid comments - answer the mans question

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. and to think you called him a Bully, next you'll probably call him a hypocrite.

[Scout]

32. since by "defending" the gunners ALWAYS mean shooting the other guy

and the "good ones" know that one doesn't just mess around with guns, if one is going to shoot one, one shoots at CENTER MASS which is the kill zone/best shot...

if that is one's only reaction to every situation of perceived danger then yes, i'd say that could very well qualify one as a bully.

YMMV but i don't give a fuck :shrug:

[Statistical]

35. Over 90% of defensive gun uses involve no shots fired.

Same scenario as the OP except the criminal leaves after seeing the firearm.

Is that still bullying? Citizen has no obligation to leave his house. In this case there wasn't a second intruder but what if there was. Why should this citizen or any citizen feel obligated to leave their home in middle of the night to avoid endangering the criminal?

Makes no sense.

If you don't want to get shot don't break into occupied homes. The "hot" burglary rate is much lower in the US than in European countries. Majority of break ins in the US occur when nobody is home as it is harder to get shot when nobody is there.

[iverglas]

37. "Citizen has no obligation to leave his house"

As you know, I just don't speak this moronic jargon. I don't give a crap whether the person is a citizen, a landed immigrant or a Martian.

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, let alone to commit homicide.


In this case there wasn't a second intruder but what if there was.

What if there were 16 Martians with pit bulls?

In this case there was a NEIGHBOUR, who was known to the occupier. Now I suppose it's possible that 32-yr-old sons of neighbours travel the block by night in gangs. Not where I'm at.


Why should this citizen or any citizen feel obligated to leave their home in middle of the night to avoid endangering the criminal?

I don't know. Did somebody say they should?

As I recall, we're talking about somebody who KILLED, not "endangered", somebody.

Why should any HUMAN BEING feel obligated to leave their ome in the middle of the night rather than KILLING another HUMAN BEING?

Strikes me that a gen-yoo-ine human being actually knows the answer to that one.

Hey, maybe there really are Martians here. Nasty amoral lot they are, I hear.

[Statistical]

39. No they don't

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, let alone to commit homicide.

He used reasonable force. The criminal was given opportunity to leave, he was warned, he continued to attempt a forced entry which is a violent felony. His contract with society was broken by his actions not the shooters. Any reasonable expectation to avoid bodily injury he forfeited.

Your constant bash of calling the United States "uncivilized" is tiring. If the US is so uncivilized why even bother dealing with the uncivilized natives on a board hosted by uncivilized Americans, on servers in the uncivilized America, and supported primarily by funds from uncivilized Americans and who's primary purpose is to facilitate discussion of topics relevant politics in the uncivilized America.

Even in the more civilized Canada use of lethal force to prevent violent crime is authorized.

[iverglas]

41. You know

If I want to read a bunch of loony made-up shit presented as some sort of received wisdom ... well, I guess I'll just hang around here some more.


The criminal was given opportunity to leave, he was warned, he continued to attempt a forced entry which is a violent felony. His contract with society was broken by his actions not the shooters. Any reasonable expectation to avoid bodily injury he forfeited.

Makes my head hurt though, it does. You actually believe that means something and was worth saying in public, don't you?


Your constant bash of calling the United States "uncivilized" is tiring.

Oh dear. Were you really unaware that there are still pockets of civilization, relatively speaking anyway, in the US?

There really still are places in the US where people just can't up and kill somebody based on their own weird philosophy of life and get patted on the back, you know. Really.


Even in the more civilized Canada use of lethal force to prevent violent crime is authorized.

Chapter and verse, please.

[Statistical]

46. Name a single state?

Oh dear. Were you really unaware that there are still pockets of civilization, relatively speaking anyway, in the US?

There really still are places in the US where people just can't up and kill somebody based on their own weird philosophy of life and get patted on the back, you know. Really.

All 50 states allow lethal force to prevent violent crime. All 50 states consider unlawful forced entry to be a violent crime.

Name a single state that prohibits the use of lethal force on a criminal who is attempting to force their way into a home.

[iverglas]

47. you bone up first

All 50 states allow lethal force to prevent violent crime.
All 50 states consider unlawful forced entry to be a violent crime.

I just can't deal with meaningless statements, myself.


Quickie google before I go - you'll like the source. Emphases mine.

http://www.savetheguns.com/self_defense.htm

GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS

Chapter 278: Section 8A. Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense.

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

... If an intruder enters a dwelling and is NOT threatening death or serious bodily injury, the occupants have no right to use deadly force. If you are prosecuted for your use of deadly force in your home, the burden is on you to provide evidence that you acted in self defense. If you CANNOT provide evidence that you acted in self defense, then the Court will not instruct the jury that you have acted in self defense. And you may spend a very long time in prison for defending yourself.

Massachusetts law takes the position that if you are not within the walls of your home, you MUST make every attempt to escape or avoid all confrontation with an aggressor before your right of self defense arises. The basic difference between self defense inside your home and outside your home is that inside your home, you have no duty to retreat. Outside your home you must retreat if you can do so safely.

Will that do for starters then?

[Statistical]

53. Reasonable belief.

I think someone willing to force their way into a home present a reasonable threat to bodily harm.

Statistics would back me up. Of course the way the law is in MA it would be a matter for a jury but the homeowner would put a defense indicating his beliefs were reasonable.

If you quote a reasonable statute that relies on case law (such as a reasonable belief statute) the second half of the "proof" would be a case where a judge/jury rejected that defense.

Statutes that rely on case law are incomplete without the appropriate case law.
While it is possible a jury would find his actions unreasonable they also might find his actions reasonable.
BTW everything other than the first paragraphs is not the law. It is someones opinion on the law.

The extent of the statute
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/278-8a.htm
Chapter 278: Section 8A. Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

[X_Digger]

58. 29/50 agree that forcible entry = violent crime

Even the three bastions of gun control, CA, IL, and NY have it..

CA
"198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."
http://law.justia.com/california/codes/pen/187-199.html

IL
"Sec. 7‑2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling."
http://tinyurl.com/lovocq
*weak law on the books, but case history supports this use, outside of Chicago. (Green, Castles and Carjackers: Proportionality and the Use of Deadly Force in Defense of Dwellings and Property, (1999) University of Illinois Law Review)

NY
"2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon such premises. Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three.

[Euromutt]

100. C-46, Part I, Section 34

Statistical said:

Even in the more civilized Canada use of lethal force to prevent violent crime is authorized.

Iverglas responded:

Chapter and verse, please.

As stated in the subject line, C-46 (Canadian Criminal Code), Part I, Section 34:

(1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).

This is pretty much what any American self-defense instructor will tell you. Any force that causes death or grievous bodily harm is, by definition, lethal force, but its use is justifiable if the intent is to stop without killing, even if death is an unintended result.

Where American law--at least in a number of states--may differ is in having a "Castle Doctrine" in which it is assumed that any person who gains unlawful entry into an occupied residence intends to inflict death or grievous bodily harm upon the occupants.

[iverglas]

103. he shoots, he misses

if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

You know about things like disjunctive and conjunctive?

That says AND, not OR.

Not intended to cause death AND no more than necessary.


This is pretty much what any American self-defense instructor will tell you. Any force that causes death or grievous bodily harm is, by definition, lethal force, but its use is justifiable if the intent is to stop without killing, even if death is an unintended result.

And they say I play word games.

If I wanted to know what a self-defence instructor would tell me, I'd ask. Sort of like if I wanted to know what a driving instructor would tell me about traffic laws, I'd ask. I prefer actual facts, supplemented if necessary by actual expert opinion.

Anyhow. I kind of think that one would be hard pressed to claim that putting a gun to the back of someone's head and pulling the trigger (is this that thread, or is that some other thread?) was NOT "intended to cause death".


Where American law--at least in a number of states--may differ is in having a "Castle Doctrine" in which it is assumed that any person who gains unlawful entry into an occupied residence intends to inflict death or grievous bodily harm upon the occupants.

Yeah, I just never tire of the misrepresentation of these "castle doctrine" laws around here.

No, that is not what those laws "assume". They institute an irrebutable presumption that the individual who uses force against such a person had the requisite apprehension of death or serious injury that brings him/her within the self-defence excuse, without breaking a sweat.

But that one's done and dusted here, long time gone.

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


html fixed

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. Excellent points. I'm guessing they won't be addressed, just talked around.

[Euromutt]

71. This must be some strange usage of the word "civilized" that I wasn't previously aware of

See, to my mind, a lot of what makes a society civilized is that those who are the target of aggression are not expected to yield to the aggressor when the aggressor displays willingness to use unlawful force. That the just don't have to let themselves be pushed around by the unjust, to use a somewhat crude characterization, but have the right to resist.

Does an individual have "the obligation to to exercise whatever reasonable option is available, to avoid an assault, before choosing to use force"? Absolutely. No argument there. What is very much open to discussion (evidently) is what options are "reasonable." To my mind, requiring someone to flee his home when faced with as assailant is by no means "reasonable."

We don't seem to be able to eradicate violence in our societies. What we can do is decide whether we tolerate violence on the part of aggressors, or on the part of their targets. The civilized thing is to opt for the latter.

[paulsby]

83. not quite true

no individual has a legal obligation to RETREAT, even if that is a "reasonable option" when faced with an assault (let alone a home invasion).

some countries DO have a duty to retreat. we don't.

[Euromutt]

99. Not that I disagree...

... but I was trying to keep my points within Iverglas' framework. She contends that certain actions are immoral, even if they are legal, and that the fact that such immoral acts are legal in certain jurisdictions indicates that those jurisdictions lack civilization.

Since I can't dispute that "legal" does not necessarily equate to "moral" (and, conversely, that "illegal" does not necessarily equate to "immoral"), I wanted to keep considerations of legality out of it and focus on what is just, or if you prefer, right.

Certainly I don't think it's fair, just or "reasonable" to require a person to retreat out of his own home before forcefully resisting an aggressor. If nothing else, your home is the ultimate place you should be able to retreat to; if your so-called "duty" to retreat doesn't stop there, where does it stop?

When it comes to a so-called "duty" to retreat from any other place, there's a bit more room for discussion, though frankly, I'm strongly inclined to think it's bullshit. It smacks of an elementary school teacher who's supposed to supervising recess but can't be bothered to keep order, and responds to kids who complain they're being bullied that they should just stay away from the bully, apparently ignorant of the fact that bullies have legs and are capable of following their victims. But heaven forfend you should take it into your head to deal with the bully yourself by bloodying his nose for him!

[paulsby]

101. i understand your point

i just wanted to make clear the distinction.

if i am faced with a man brandishing a knife (whether in my cop or off duty), i have no LEGAL duty to retreat behind cover.

however, in most situations, i think (if cover is immediately available and he is far enough away or distracted by something so that i have time to seek it) that is the morally preferable choice.

there are situations where it is tactically preferable (or even morally required) for one NOT to retreat, such that if retreat would give somebody access to other victims, or be able to flee etc. (and place others subsequently at risk), etc.

but i like the fact that the law sides with the person using self-defense.

i have found, ime, that citizens with CCW are especially restrained. we once had one of our officers executed by a man (he fired multiple shots into the officer's head as he lay on the ground).

there were two people present with CCW's in a bus that had stopped nearby.

one jumped out and drew her gun, but felt that her backstop wasn't sufficiently safe to shoot at the suspect. note ... he was IN THE PROCESS of shooting the officer when she made this decision.

in the other case, a guy ran out and drew his gun but by the time he did, he could see the suspect's gun was empty, as the slide was locked back. he thus didn't feel justify to fire. he most definitely would have been , if he challenged the man to stop, and the man walked away (under my state's laws), but he didn't feel morally justified, so did not do so.

note this man was naked, high on crack, and clearly completely out of his head.

[TPaine7]

73. For those of you who don’t already know iverglas,

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...

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 ...

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.

Debating hypocrites is embarrassing sometimes; it feels like boxing a paraplegic.

[iverglas]

74. I would really hate

to make myself look like this kind of humourless dumbass in public, myself.

To actually be one -- well, I think I'd have shot my own self by now.

To toy with one? Sometimes it's amusing ...

[TPaine7]

76. So you think shameless hypocrisy and opposing human rights is funny?!

No wonder debating you feels like taking advantage of the handicapped--you're humor challenged.

Frankly, iverglas, I couldn't care less which type of jackass you chose to look like in public. (And I know you have several varieties in your repertoire.) But I must confess, if you ever decide to go through with shooting yourself over it, I'd like to watch on youtube. I'd pay up to a nickel.

Sigh. Bald faced, unprincipled hypocrisy =| humor.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. I noticed you didn't dispute his points.

[iverglas]

94. you'll also notice

I didn't refuel his rocket ship.

What?? He doesn't have a rocket ship????

Now, I know I have to explain it when I don't use concrete blocks to compose sentences.

I didn't refuel his rocket ship because he doesn't have a rocket ship.

I didn't dispute his points because ...

... because he didn't have ...

... because he didn't have any ...

How we doing?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

96. We are doing great his points were excellent, we all know why you didn't respond.

[Euromutt]

81. Then why do you keep doing it? (n/t)

[iverglas]

93. lordy lordy lordy

Your mother wears army boots.

Are you in some kind of competition with Fireguy Dave for who can post the most (qualitative or quantitative, your choice) moronic attempts at insult?

[Euromutt]

102. What would be the point?

You're already heading the league table by a mile, despite having been absent.

Oh, I'm sorry, you thought your insults were clever? Hate to break it to you, but you overestimate yourself.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. Poor Webb, bullied to death by that awful gun owner!

I mean, how could any decent person perceive his actions as threatening?

He was only drunk and breaking into his neighbor's house late at night with a five-foot hardwood staff with a steel tip.

I don't see what's so wrong with that.

[iverglas]

38. well, that's your belief, I guess

As I do keep saying, I don't give a crap what anybody believes.


I mean, how could any decent person perceive his actions as threatening?{/b]

I suppose that's relevant to something, but I don't really know what. Or care, at all.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. You don't care so much you keep responding.

[proteus_lives]

42. If point a gun at someone....

You're shooting to kill. Shooting to wound is for movie heroes and sharpshooters. That's how people are taught to use firearms, they are not toys.

As for the "bully" thing. Why was the home-owner a "bully" for shooting a intruder? And if I'm a bully, why are you and that unpleasant iverglas fellow being the hostile ones?

[iverglas]

44. snork

Now Scout - restrain yourself there. ;)

Boggles the mind how anyone can be so expert in all things moi and still have it go right over their head, don't it?!

Hugs and kisses,
that iverglas fellow

-- just don't you go proposing to me now!

[Statistical]

55. Shoot to stop.

Shooting to kill implies you your intent was to kill.
Police shoot to stop the threat. Sometimes in the process of stopping the threat the threat is killed.

I agree though that shooting to wound is both stupid, opens yourself to liability, and only works in Hollywood.

Accurate language is important. If you tell a police officer investigating a shooting that you were shooting to kill you likely will bring unwanted scrutiny.

[proteus_lives]

60. Thank you.

That is better language. I don't ever want to kill someone but I would want to stop a threat to myself/family/home.

Thanks for the tip. :hi:

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. Really? The one time I used gun defensively no shots were fired

and I considered that a good outcome.

What did I do wrong?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. Are you really saying the elderly man was the bully in this situation?

The elderly man who confronted a young man who had broken into his home and was approaching him. The elderly man who asked the young man to stop several times. You are honestly calling him a bully, really? Not the young man who after breaking into an old man's house and being asked to stop said, "What are you going to do?" Any rational person can tell who the bully was in this situation and it wasn't the man holding the gun.

David

[TPaine7]

33. Who made something up?

Think it through, iverglas,

1) A rake is a deadly weapon. Just like a crowbar, a bat, or a brick. If someone is committing an in-your-face home invasion with any of these things in their hands they are armed. If you pull a gun, their only non-violent options are to disarm and surrender or flee.

2) Even without the rake, if you repeatedly warn off someone committing a crime and they continue to approach you in a menacing way--knowing full well you are armed with a gun--you are justified in shooting them. They are potentially armed by virtue of the fact that they are approaching your gun. Logically, that is no different than if they were picking up a bat or knife to use against you. If you wait until it becomes a wrestling match, you deserve whatever you get.

"It's 'preposterous on its face' to someone whose manhood is all wrapped up in not being dissed by bad guys, I guess."

What makes you think gender has anything to do with it? As I recall--I don't have time to look it up--you are the one with the "manhood issues"--the one who brags about your prowess and willingness to go man-to-man against the bad guys with an umbrella or your bare fists. Project much?

I guess some of us identify with homeowners, some with thugs.

[iverglas]

34. uh ... you?

As I recall--I don't have time to look it up--you are the one with the "manhood issues"--the one who brags about your prowess and willingness to go man-to-man against the bad guys with an umbrella or your bare fists. Project much?

Make dumb shit up much?

[TPaine7]

72. I’d forgotten how tedious your BS can be, iverglas

Let’s see;

1) It’s obvious that I didn’t make anything up in the relevant post

2) It’s obvious that my logic is perfectly sound in my analysis of what happened in this universe

3) You wanted desperately to avoid these facts and divert attention

So you tried to pretend that I made up your machismo. More BS. Everyone who has been around here any length of time knows what a tough-guy, macho-man little old woman you are. I’m sure if I looked I could find you telling how you reached over your walker and rope-a-doped some young tough who broke into your nursing home.

You know you’re a bad-ass (at least in your own mind), iverglas, stop pretending. Here’s a recent example I just happen to remember:

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 ...

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

Man’s man machismo? Check.

Willingness to commit violence to protect property? Check.

Willingness to violate criminal-coddling “civilized” law you pontificate about piously? Check.

Hypocrisy? Check.

And lest we forget, feeble attempt to divert attention from the fact that your original charge—that I made stuff up in post 15—was total and utter meritless BS? Check.

Yawn.

[proteus_lives]

45. He's very hostile isn't he?

I find it interesting that the anti-gun, anti-self defense types are so crude and the first to go negative.

"I guess some of us identify with homeowners, some with thugs."

Isn't mind-boggling that some people think that a violent drunk has the right to run roughshod over a neighbor's home?

[iverglas]

48. snork

Snork snork.


Many things are indeed mindboggling. Dimwittedness and deceit among them.


Snork.

[proteus_lives]

51. Snork back at ya!

You have been an amusing poster. I've followed several links posted here and it seems like you often take your show on the road. I for one, find rudeness and the unwillingness to defend your position be rather mind-boggling.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. You shouldn't talk about Scout like that.

[pipoman]

54. Yea, he's a trouble maker alright...

:evilgrin:

[burrfoot]

61. Isn't anybody going to tell them??

:eyes:

[iverglas]

75. it's against the rules. ;)

My game, my rules!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

97. It really doesn't matter does it, actually it's kind of funny, it is blatantly obvious to me.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. It seems your tune changes depending on what thread it's sung on

Or the gender of the person in question, I daresay:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=230249&mesg_id=230697

...Assessing a situation in which a death was caused by someone acting in self-defence, to determine whether the death was a permissible result of justified use of force, is essentially impossible. (I refer to assessing the situation, not the reasonableness of victim's claim to have feared injury/death -- that can be entirely reasonable even if it is fairly plain in hindsight that it would not have been borne out.) No one really knows whether the woman in the scenario who shot the man in her house would have been seriously injured or died if she had not shot the assailant. I can't say she would not have, and no one can say she would have....

[iverglas]

52. it seems you'll just say anything you like

without regard for anything resembling truth and decency, don't it?

Rhetorical question.

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. I like to point out bafflegab and the use of exegesis as a diversion when I see it

Especially when they are used by a self-proclaimed champion of decency and truth.

Since few Republicans post here at DU, I'll use anyone who meets the criteria.

[proteus_lives]

24. Agreed.

Nailed it.

[iverglas]

77. we all know how I love updates

http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/news/local/story/Fayette-County-Homeowner-Shoots-and-Kills-Intruder/c3eQuEvsrEGic6YPdQowpQ.cspx

... Delois Harris says the man on the porch was her cousin, 32 year-old Anthony Webb. Family members describe him as "slow" but say he would never harm anyone.

Webb and Willie Woods have been neighbors for years. In fact, Woods went to school with Anthony Webb's father.

"They stay right there, baby," Harris says pointing to Webb's house about 150 yards from Woods' home. "He lived right there. He knew that was Anthony. He knew that. Everybody knows Anthony around here. Anthony does not bother anybody. Never has."

Woods says he didn't realize it was Anthony coming at him. His only thought was to protect himself and his loved ones.

... Neighbors told Woods that Anthony Webb had stopped by another house, a rental that Woods owns nearby, shortly before the shooting. The men who live inside the home said Webb kept asking for a cigarette before they told him to go.

[iverglas]

78. cont'd

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/jun/03/slaying-of-intruder-justified-police-rule/

... Officials in Fayette County have ruled that Woods was justified in shooting Anthony Webb, 32.

In addition to Woods and his wife, their daughter and two grandchildren were also in the home.

Police believe that Webb vandalized mailboxes in the area as well as at least one other home before breaking into the Woods house.

When police responded to the shooting, they found Webb in the front room of the Woods home with a gunshot wound to the head. A rake was next to the body.

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpp/news/local/060109_Neighbors_Torn_in_Oakland_Shooting

Delois Harris says, "Anthony was knocking at his door that's his father he should have called him and asked to come and get him."
With tears of sorrow, frustration and anger running down his face, next door Webb's father asks why.

The victim's cousin tells FOX13 News there would have been no mistaking Webb for anyone trying to do harm.

"No not around here sir no there is no doubt this is a small community he was born here everybody knew Anthony." Harris says, "Very tough you know why why to me it's a senseless thing that happened here."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. It is a shame that his family didn't take better care of him given his reported condition.

[iverglas]

82. ah

So now having a family that doesn't take care of one is good grounds for getting killed.

Gotcha.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. Now if you'll show me where I said that.

[iverglas]

85. what? what?

I'm sure I could find 50 people who would swear on their baby's head that that's what you said!

That's what it takes to establish the truth, isn't it? A vote?

So I've been given to understand hereabouts today. You can probably find the posts in question, and explain the error of the posters' ways to them.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

88. That's what I thought. No apology necessary.

[X_Digger]

86. Sauce for the gander, not the goose, silly! n/t

[iverglas]

87. yasss

And we all know what a literal mind is the sign of.

[Merchant Marine]

91. No,

Committing a violent felony is good grounds for getting shot by the victim or police response.

[iverglas]

92. bibbity bobbety BOO!

You actually imagine I give a crap about this kind of crap? Yeesh.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

95. That's why you post here all the time.

[proteus_lives]

89. Doesn't change a thing.

Webb was still breaking into another person's home with a dangerous object in his hands. He was told to stop and go away. He didn't, he kept coming at the man. So the home-owner shot him. He did the right thing. He protected his home and family.

[iverglas]

90. I didn't actually say it did

Tough, eh?

What I wonder is what would have happened if the occupier (and I'm sorry, but I don't believe for an instant that he didn't recognize the man outside, whom he could see and with whom he exchanged words) had NOT pointed that gun at him.

The other people whose home the man had been at that night didn't seem to have needed a gun to get rid of him -- let alone needed to kill him.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

98. He didn't break into the other houses with a rake and approach the owner after being asked to leave.

Fortunately it matters not one bit what you think. The facts are what are important and no charges will be filed.