They only want "stuff " and won't harm you.

[oneshooter]

HOUSTON—A homeowner was gunned down in front of her daughter Tuesday night after three masked men burst into her northwest Harris County home, according to Harris County Sheriff’s deputies.
Investigators said the woman, Peggy Ariza, was home with her 17-year-old daughter and another female family friend when three men wearing ski masks knocked on, then burst through, the front door.
The 17-year-old began to scream and Ariza, who was on the second floor, ran to the stairs to investigate. That’s when one of the men opened fire, hitting the mother once in the chest.
After shooting Ariza, the men fled the scene. They were still on the loose Wednesday afternoon.

More at:
http://www.khou.com/news/local/Masked-men-shoot-kill-mom-during-home-invasion-in-NW-Harris-County-128307313.html

They need to be found, tried, and if found guilty given a cell with free lawyer, hot meals, and cool air conditioning.:sarcasm:

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[onehandle]

1. Fear! nt

[Hangingon]

2. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. nt

[iverglas]

3. if only anyone had ever said that --

They only want "stuff " and won't harm you.

-- you'd have yourself some actual sarcasm there.


They need to be found, tried, and if found guilty given a cell with free lawyer, hot meals, and cool air conditioning. :sarcasm:

Indeed they do. They seem to be dangerous and to have committed an extremely serious crime. (The "lawyer" generally comes before the "tried", of course.)

I dunno, maybe you misplaced the sarcasm thingy.


Now if only the woman had been wearing her handgun like she should have been, and had it in her hand when she ran down the stairs, she would certainly have been able to dispatch the three guys before they got her.

That, you may need to have pointed out, was sarcasm.

[mvccd1000]

4. You're right, iverglas.

I don't think I've ever read the statement on DU that, "They only want 'stuff' and won't harm you."

It's usually couched as, "Is your property really worth someone's life?" (Implying, of course, that you're an uncivilized lout if you would actually shoot someone over property.)

Unfortunately, those who support that position fail to realize that the answer is, "NO, my property is not worth someone's life - particularly my own!" The only people in the scenario above who felt someone's property was worth a life are the criminals who broke in.

Had they had to confront a layered security system (well-lit exterior, solid doors with good locks, possibly a barking dog) and STILL come into the house, it's a pretty safe bet that lethal self-defense is warranted (and possibly even necessary, unless you feel that a dead homeowner is morally superior to a living homeowner with possible PTSD).

[iverglas]

6. I am indeed, and you are not ... "right"

It's usually couched as, "Is your property really worth someone's life?" (Implying, of course, that you're an uncivilized lout if you would actually shoot someone over property.)

You can go one better. Stating that one is an uncivilized lout if one would actually shoot (or, you know, beat or stab to death) someone over property. I'll state it. There.

However, I find I am unable to find the slightest familial relationship between that statement and the statement "They only want 'stuff' and won't harm you."

None at all.

I'd ask you to point it out, but that would be a waste of both our time, since you can't.

[rl6214]

9. Oh come on iverglas

you can't tell me that you have never seen it said here that if someone had just given the criminal what they want then they would have just gone away with no one hurt.

[TheWraith]

11. So you approve of lethal self defense?

And how is someone supposed to know, in the few seconds they have to react, whether someone is "just after their stuff" or intends them personal harm?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

8. I know the area in which this happened...

Good, low crime neighborhood, well-lit streets. The house had bright exterior lighting and is located not far from a street light. The houses in that neighborhood have solid-core front doors as a matter of building code, and good locks tend to come with upper-middle class homes. Don't know if they had a dog, but doubtful that would have done a thing.

The criminal knocked on the door, and when the victim's daughter answered it, they pushed their way in.

In this case, even having a gun wouldn't have done a thing for the victim - she was overwhelmed by speed and superior force.

[GreenStormCloud]

12. Solution: Have peephole in door. Have gun in hand if they are strangers. N/T

[We_Have_A_Problem]

13. Sadly....

...the woman who opened the door chose NOT to use the peephole.

Not sure it would have mattered anyway - the killers were out for that woman specifically.

[TPaine7]

10. Someone came as close as a careful sophist would...

Here's the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=275101&mesg_id=275101

I'll help out with a few highlights:

iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Dec-15-09 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
6. just think, if he hadn't had a gun

Edited on Tue Dec-15-09 09:30 AM by iverglas

He'd be dead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Dec-15-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #7
21. ah, random thoughts


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

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


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

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

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


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

iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Dec-15-09 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #63
68. well, we've both mistook a thing or two


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

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

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


Once a violent attack has begun, there is usually no way to determine how far the attacker is willing to go. {another poster quoted by iverglas}

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


In this case, two able-bodied young men against a wheelchair-bound person is a huge disparity of force. {another poster quoted by iverglas}

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

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

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

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

iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Dec-15-09 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #46
53. huh


Would you give a masked intruder the benefit of the doubt? I would not. {another poster quoted by iverglas}


Who would? What are you on about?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Dec-15-09 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #74
80. brawk

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

(That last bit about "allowing" ready access to firearms meaning that {the wrong type of} "people are going to die UNNECESSARILY" was handled quite ably in posts 83, 115 and 116, if I say so myself.)

Now a good sophist knows about the judicial use of hedging words, but anyone reading the thread can see who argues passionately and loudly for home invading felons--and against handicapped homeowners being "allowed" ready access to firearms. Handicapped and other vulnerable people being "allowed" ready access to firearms is bad, you see, because it endangers those dear folks most in need of protection.

Home invading felons.

[ileus]

5. more people should be honorable and die for the cause.

not saying these people were anti-gun, or even that they didn't own firearms...only that it's considered cool pass into nothingness without harming others.


This is a good reason to OC when around your house in some areas of the country.

[Atypical Liberal]

7. They should have just submitted.

"Deputies are unsure if the men took anything from the home, but they believe robbery was the motive."

They should have just sumbitted to the demands of their armed assailants and hoped for the best.

(sarcasm)