Is this hypocrisy? - DPChallenge Forums

01/24/2013 04:44:29 AM · #801

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I think every state should have the castle law. It would help to protect the law abiding citizen from prosecution while defending his/her property.

Or just feeling threatened in your home, or near your home, or your car, or your office, or in your neighborhood, or pretty much anywhere you have business. The Castle doctrine can be used even when there is no threat and you are far far from home. Kill now, ask questions later.

Imagine that you have been having an affair with a married woman and her angry husband shows up your house unarmed but angry. Go get your gun and kill him. No problem, you are just defending your castle. Enjoy

Or lets say some one steals from your tip jar. Chase him down with your car, then shoot him in the back until he dies. Your tip jar on your Taco truck is also your castle.

David McDaniel in 2010 argued with a taxi driver over the change he was due. He was shot to death. Though he was unarmed the castle doctrine protected the killer cabbie, because he felt McDaniel was trying to steal his property. Had only McDaniels shot first he could have put up the exact same defense that the taxi driver used, after all the survivor gets to tell his story.

"Even if somebody is just stealing from your front yard, and they are not threatening anybody, (and) there's no threat of being hurt at all, you can kill them, if it's reasonably necessary protecting your property,"

I have no problem with someone using lethal force against an unarmed intruder or other threat. You assume that simply because someone isn't carrying a gun, they pose no threat or need to actually assault their victim to justify a response. That's ridiculous.

Of course, if you do defend yourself, even from someone who broke into your house, without the Castle Doctrine, you are wide open to all manner of wrongful death lawsuits or even prosecution. Even if they are dismissed, you will spend tens of thousands of dollars being victimized all over again by the same person.

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

01/24/2013 04:57:37 AM · #802

BrennanOB If you walked outside and saw someone stealing your car how would you react?? You would prob just yell "NO, dont't take my car" as he drove off.

I on the other hand would not imediately shoot him (unless he tried to drive off). I would have him exit the vehicle at gunpoint...unless he did make threatning gestures towards me. Then I would call the police to apprehend the low-life criminal. If he is dumb enough to get out of the vehicle and pull a gun...then well he's toast.

Venser

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

01/24/2013 05:04:26 AM · #803

Just so I'm clear, you value inanimate objects over human life?
If someone is stealing your car from your driveway, with no threat whatsoever to you, your family, or anyone you know, you advocate death as a reasonable course of punishment?

Read what Brennan wrote. Someone steals money from a tip jar, death. Arguing over change in a cab, death. Maybe a tad overzealous on laying out the ultimate penalty, no?

01/24/2013 05:10:52 AM · #804

Originally posted by Venser:

That seems to be what he's saying, yep. My mouth's been hanging open so far I haven't been able to type, and you beat me to it. Cowboy's been implying this for quite a while, but now he's out and said it, I think :-(

I'd love to see some stats on whether crimes against property are any more common in "unarmed" countries...

01/24/2013 05:12:38 AM · #805

Originally posted by Venser:

If you had read my post clearly you would have seen that I would take every step to not "kill" a person. The only time I would shoot to kill would be if I became threatned in any way....Now if he came after me with a knife...no I prob would not shoot to kill...(depends on the situation) However, I would put him to the ground...A non-life threatning injury like a shot to the leg. The point is if it did come down to this...the castle law would protect me from getting sued by the idiot that was trying to steal

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

01/24/2013 05:17:55 AM · #806

C'mon now, Adam, one of the things we're ALL taught in self-defense classes is never to point a gun at a person unless we intend to pull the trigger, and never to pull the trigger unless we're willing to shoot to kill...

ETA: let me ask you this; would you teach your kids, assuming you have/had any, that if their playmates grab one of their toys, they should bonk 'em over the head with the nearest heavy object and reclaim their property? If not, why not? Seriously...

Message edited by author 2013-01-24 10:20:15.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

01/24/2013 05:21:49 AM · #807

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

But HOW was David McDaniel arguing about the change? Was he really due more change? Or just running a con? Was he in the cabbie's face acting aggressive? Because if ALL of those are true, I'm not sure I'd be all that against shooting him. So many people act like SHIT threatening other people, acting super over-aggressive,etc.. Granted, it's only 1 in 4,000 or so, but that's still a pretty big chunk of people who just seem unable to control themselves. I don't know that death is a fair outcome, but I do know that they really can't just be free to behave like this without any fear whatsoever.

*Shrug* Good thing, bad thing - hell it's both I think, the question is really does one so overwhelm the other that it's clearly a good or bad thing overall - and I don't know, I really think it always depends greatly upon the fine detail of the circumstantial nuances.

Venser

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

01/24/2013 05:21:58 AM · #808

Why not just get their description and call the cops?
It's a car, insurance will cover it and you've kept yourself out of harm's way.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

01/24/2013 05:24:39 AM · #809

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

.

I on the other hand would not immediately shoot him (unless he tried to drive off). .

I don't think that's justifiable homicide, or even justifiable use of force, unless he's driving it at you... And at that point, I'd recommend moving instead of shooting.

Message edited by author 2013-01-24 10:24:44.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/24/2013 05:25:24 AM · #810

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

BrennanOB If you walked outside and saw someone stealing your car how would you react?? You would prob just yell "NO, dont't take my car" as he drove off.

Yes, that's exactly what I did when it happened to me as I chased him down the street on foot. Then I called the cops. Then I called the insurance company. They found the car the next day in Camden. They insurance company paid for the damage. Was I inconvenienced? You bet. Was it worth killing someone over? Not at all.

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

01/24/2013 05:26:10 AM · #811

I know I have taken those classes. But I am not going to "kill" a person unless that is the last resort. Like I said, If there is no threat to bodily harm, I will not shoot to kill (nearly to stop the intruder if he can't follow directions) If there is a threat to bodily injury or death...then I believe in using deadly force

I am not a gun crazed lunatic that wants to shoot anybody that steps foot on my property. However I do believe in protecting what I have worked hard for

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

01/24/2013 05:28:56 AM · #812

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Bear, to be fair, you should point a gun at anyone who you MIGHT need to shoot quickly. It's more the idea that you should never point a gun at something you don't want to shoot, which is a little different.

As for the kids, it's more like a strange kid they don't know tries to steal their toy, and in that case, hell yes I think I would want my kid to not act like a little bitch - I'd expect them to put up a reasonable defense of their property. Now, if it's a friend who's just using the truck for a minute without permission, then I think that's a bit more similar to your analogy of a playmate stealing a toy. Again, a small, but significant difference.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

01/24/2013 05:32:38 AM · #813

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
.

I on the other hand would not immediately shoot him (unless he tried to drive off). .

I don't think that's justifiable homicide, or even justifiable use of force, unless he's driving it at you... And at that point, I'd recommend moving instead of shooting.

ok that was taken slightly out of context..If he pulled a gun or weapon....

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

01/24/2013 06:07:17 AM · #814

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

So your solution is to get rid of all the lawyers? They don't write the laws, you know.

Actually, they pretty much do... But they don't propose the bills that get turned into law.

Summary:

So hereâ��s a summary of what Marci wrote: If you want to know who actually puts pen to paper, itâ��s nonpartisan staff lawyers who work for Congress who know the exiting law they are affecting inside out. They do that under the direction of office staff for Members of Congress and congressional committees, who vet the bill with outside experts and advocates. Sometimes those advocates (i.e. lobbyists) propose changes in the form of legislative language. But did they write the bill? Probably not.

quoted from: //www.govtrack.us/blog/2010/03/24/who-writes-our-law/

Point taken. I guess I was thinking more about the lawyer who represented the woman burned by the McD's coffee.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/24/2013 07:20:50 AM · #815

It's not about "stuff". If I could somehow know with near certainty that someone is not a threat, they can take my stuff, because stuff is replaceable. However, since I'm not a mind reader, I will err on the side of caution with respect to my safety and that of my family and respond accordingly. If a person has broken into my house or otherwise threatened my safety, unless they turn tail and run or become compliant and lay face down on the floor with their hands in sight, I can't afford to assume they are not a threat.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

01/24/2013 07:21:27 AM · #816

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

.I on the other hand would not immediately shoot him (unless he tried to drive off). .

Originally posted by Cory:

I don't think that's justifiable homicide, or even justifiable use of force, unless he's driving it at you... And at that point, I'd recommend moving instead of shooting.

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

ok that was taken slightly out of context..If he pulled a gun or weapon....

I think this is a good illustration of what those of us who would like to see stricter regulation are talking about.....

This is just us, friends, granted, 'Net friends, and there is confusion about context. When this moves to the home, and someone is stealing a car is where the problem lies. Pulling a gun to express your displeasure at someone who is, granted, stealing, is not the way to handle the issue. There will not be rational discussion from this point on. When the thief in turn pulls a gun, all of a sudden we have a gunfight in suburbia over a material possession. This is not going to be an orderly event between two responsible adults considering the consequences of their actions. And if a bullet flies through the bedroom wall of the five year old across the street and kills her.....

I hope that I never have to personally witness a gunfight over "stuff". That's just wrong. No material possession is worth dying over.

What do we do about it? I don't know, but we really do need to have more training, vetting, and just general knowledge as to whom and what is out there. Personally, I feel there are people out there who shouldn't own guns that do......they scare me. There are also friends of mine who carry.......and I feel safer around them in certain places. The point is to me that guns are dangerous, and in today's daily life it's too easy for any nut to get one.

You have to have training and an operator's license for a car, why not a gun?

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/24/2013 07:26:09 AM · #817

Originally posted by Spork99:

So you'll shoot and sort it out later, because if he has a gun in his waistband he'll kill you if you don't shoot him first. There's no way to guarantee that you'll come out of a situation okay where there's a gun involved unless you take your opponent down, is there?

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

01/24/2013 07:48:38 AM · #818

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

This is an example of the system working the way it's supposed to.

Sorta.

The McD's served coffee at ridiculously high temperatures. Even after the case, they were serving it at 158F, which is better, but still above the recommended 155F maximum. The real problem is that this woman's case does nothing for the hundreds who were scalded before her, nor does the settlement with gag orders really serve the public good. Really, the case simply benefitted this one woman and provided incentive for McD's to serve their coffee at a more reasonable temperature.

I think you just proved Bear's point.

01/24/2013 07:53:54 AM · #819

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

So your solution is to get rid of all the lawyers? They don't write the laws, you know.

Actually, they pretty much do... But they don't propose the bills that get turned into law.

Summary:

So hereâ��s a summary of what Marci wrote: If you want to know who actually puts pen to paper, itâ��s nonpartisan staff lawyers who work for Congress who know the exiting law they are affecting inside out. They do that under the direction of office staff for Members of Congress and congressional committees, who vet the bill with outside experts and advocates. Sometimes those advocates (i.e. lobbyists) propose changes in the form of legislative language. But did they write the bill? Probably not.

quoted from: //www.govtrack.us/blog/2010/03/24/who-writes-our-law/

Point taken. I guess I was thinking more about the lawyer who represented the woman burned by the McD's coffee.

Who do you think the lawyers are who know tort law inside and out are exactly? Contract attorneys? No, the experts in tort law are the exact same lawyers suing companies and people everyday.

01/24/2013 08:13:08 AM · #820

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Spork99:
It's not about "stuff". If I could somehow know with near certainty that someone is not a threat, they can take my stuff, because stuff is replaceable. However, since I'm not a mind reader, I will err on the side of caution with respect to my safety and that of my family and respond accordingly. If a person has broken into my house or otherwise threatened my safety, unless they turn tail and run or become compliant and lay face down on the floor with their hands in sight, I can't afford to assume they are not a threat.

So you'll shoot and sort it out later, because if he has a gun in his waistband he'll kill you if you don't shoot him first. There's no way to guarantee that you'll come out of a situation okay where there's a gun involved unless you take your opponent down, is there?

Maybe. If he has a gun and turns tail to run, why shoot? If he drops my TV and grabs for his gun, then he's toast. If he lays down on the floor with his hands behind his head until the cops get there, I'm not going to shoot. If he lunges at me, he's toast. There are a million "what ifs", only some of them lead to shooting.

There are also a million "what ifs" if you are unarmed...your home invasion experience could go like it did for the Petit family in CT. He might just run away because you startled him. He might shoot you just for the heck of it. However, if he's armed and you aren't, it's just about impossible that you will be able to prevent him from doing whatever he wants, no matter how horrific. You're content to place the safety of yourself and your loved ones in the hands of someone who's willing to break into your home and confront you, that's up to you.

If he's holding you at gunpoint and a mile-wide asteroid slams into the earth, it won't matter.

Message edited by author 2013-01-24 13:15:31.

01/24/2013 08:53:37 AM · #821

Originally posted by Spork99:

If a person has broken into my house or otherwise threatened my safety, unless they turn tail and run or become compliant and lay face down on the floor with their hands in sight, I can't afford to assume they are not a threat.

The current debate isn't really hinging around that, though. I don't have a real quarrel with people who respond to a home invasion by racking a round up. That's appropriate. Protecting your family is good.

No, what we're bemoaning right now is an attitude we're seeing expressed that "If you touch my stuff, I'm gunning for you!" Adam's backing down from that stance a bit now, thank goodness, but it still represents a sort of macho-istic prevailing attitude amongst some significant minority of the population. It's scary. It's not rational. Theft is going to happen. Violence in response doesn't have to.

Message edited by author 2013-01-24 13:55:33.

01/24/2013 08:55:00 AM · #822

double

Message edited by author 2013-01-24 13:55:18.

blindjustice

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/24/2013 09:23:17 AM · #823

I don't think many people dispute that you should be able to defend your life or your family's safety, by whatever reasonable means. I am not sure that a gun would have helped in the Petit case, what with the way it happened, anymore than turning on the ADT system might have helped. But then again burglary is inherently more risky that larceny style crimes, more dangerous for the burglar, and the burgled, as it always involves 1. breaking and entering, 2. a dwelling(not a business, a home- where people are most likely to consider their last place of refuge) 3. at night(where people are more likely to be home) and 4. with intent to commit a felony. I happen to prefer a society where we protect our lives with force, and our property with deterrence and insurance.

I am happy to think that people(prosecutors, judges, juries) will second guess the "reasonableness" of shooting someone for property. I guess to bring it back to the point, a more difficult and stringent process of obtaining a fire arm and maintaining a license might prevent more "shoot first ask questions later situations, as well as less "crimes of passion" and "mistaken interpretations of the laws of property protection."