AP: Self Defense laws mean the streets will run with blood

[LKB3rd]

I still think this is a pointless way of thinking about things. By your line of reasoning, if you go for a walk and a person snipes you from 500 yards away for no reason, the cause of your death is that you weighed your life against the risk of walking in public and the effect is you got killed.

Blindly observing cause and effect is a pointless exercise. Saying the cause of dying in a Tsunami is that you were born in a place hit by a Tsunami is a useless exercise.

The castle doctrine allows lethal force to be used in defense of property in many states. It does not allow sniping someone for no reason walking down the street.

 

[Another_David]

This article is too simplistic and altruistic. Exactly what should a store owner do when a person walks off with their property?

As for self defense, take a job working a gas station or convenience store late at night alone and get back to me about how the clerk should flee when facing danger. I suppose the clerk should just clock in then flee--it's a dangerous job

 

[Erebus]

I believe that you may be mis-understanding the statement.

That shifts the burden to prosecutors and police investigators

Isn't that how our system is supposed to work? You are innocent until the prosecutors & police prove otherwise? It sounds to me like the author believes that in a shooting it should be the other way around. It sounds to me like the author believe that the burden of proof should be on the shooter to prove it was self defense rather than the prosecution proving it wasn't.

 

[WILDCATT]

defense

in reverse: perp robbed store had clerk a nice you woman go in back and lay down shoot her in back of head.clerk by grace of god servived.you have no idea what you would if facing the threat.I have been confronted 3 times and did not need to fire twice while I had a gun.but now with the new socialism that would have been much diferent.robbers shoot you first then rob now.they keep finding dead people men and women all the time here.robbed and killed,no witness.

 

[OnTheRoad]

After a few reads I think I follow you...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

From a well-publicized case in Rochester, NY in 1972 when I was growing up. The conclusions regarding the wisdom of the traditional advice "remain unarmed, be a good wittness, never under any circumstances resist" are something that every potential victim needs to think through for him/her self.

www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v64_2002/v64i3.pdf

Editor's note. Sam Schafer was blinded in a robbery of his store aswas 19-year-old Robert Paro as he worked at a gas station on West Main Street. The two male assailants were never caught, but both Sam Schafer and Robert Paro continued to work and raise families in Rochester.

The holdup men gouged the eyes out of the two potential wittnesses.

 

[pbearperry]

There is no beer worth killing someone over.And yes I like beer.To kill someone over stolen beer is senseless and only brings on more ammunition for the antis.

 

[Garys]

There is no beer worth killing someone over.And yes I like beer.To kill someone over stolen beer is senseless and only brings on more ammunition for the antis.

Which begs the question, what is worth killing over? At what point do we stop letting people get away with stealing our property? The conventional, liberal if you will, thought is that no property is worth killing over. We're just supposed to give up anything to a robber, whether he is armed or not. If a woman gives up her jewelry to a robber, what if he wants her? What if, getting her, he decides his life will be far simpler if she's dead?

What is the point at which OK to resist and what happens if we've got to that point and in the process given up the means to resist?

 

[Half Cocked]

It sounds to me like the author believes that in a shooting it should be the other way around. It sounds to me like the author believe that the burden of proof should be on the shooter to prove it was self defense rather than the prosecution proving it wasn't.

I did not get that impression.

 

[terraformer]

After a few reads I think I follow you...

Mind translating? I haven't had enough to drink yet.

 

[theGringo]

Which begs the question, what is worth killing over? At what point do we stop letting people get away with stealing our property? The conventional, liberal if you will, thought is that no property is worth killing over. We're just supposed to give up anything to a robber, whether he is armed or not. If a woman gives up her jewelry to a robber, what if he wants her? What if, getting her, he decides his life will be far simpler if she's dead?

What is the point at which OK to resist and what happens if we've got to that point and in the process given up the means to resist?

John Locke addressed this point in 1690:

This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than by the use of force, so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And, therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me- i.e., kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/D/1651-1700/locke/ECCG/govern03.htm

 

[mikem317]

Which begs the question, what is worth killing over? At what point do we stop letting people get away with stealing our property? The conventional, liberal if you will, thought is that no property is worth killing over. We're just supposed to give up anything to a robber, whether he is armed or not. If a woman gives up her jewelry to a robber, what if he wants her? What if, getting her, he decides his life will be far simpler if she's dead?

Precisely. Which is how they defend their progressive taxation policies like the income tax.

Which begs the question, what is worth killing over? At what point do we stop letting people get away with stealing our property? The conventional, liberal if you will, thought is that no property is worth killing over. We're just supposed to give up anything to the government, whether they use armed thugs or not. If a property owner gives up her honest, hard-earned money to the government, what if they want our very bodies?

What is the point at which OK to resist and what happens if we've got to that point and in the process given up the means to resist?

Axiom of non-aggression is telling. Any force that's utilized in defending against an aggressor is justified.

 

[Gabe]

...Any force that's utilized in defending against an aggressor is justified.

Even if the "aggression" is grabbing a case of beer and running like hell?

 

[theGringo]

Even if the "aggression" is grabbing a case of beer and running like hell?

Next time he might come back for the scotch ...

 

[mikem317]

Even if the "aggression" is grabbing a case of beer and running like hell?

Who has ownership of the case of beer?

The beer is property. Just like the money in your wallet, the guns in your house, your house itself, the car you drive, and the body you inhabit.

These are all examples of property.

 

[56/50]

evan9201

You hit the nail on the head, let all the "BAD" blood flow, it's of no use to anyone anyway's!!! I don't want to sound so heartless but it's the way it is!! I don't see lawful gun owners as the reason for the downward spiral of the morals of society, we're just the opposite!!!

 

[Gabe]

Thanks to all for the discussion. I've made up my mind: There's an idea in criminal justice that I buy into; that any harm caused by the commission of a crime, even if the harm is unintentional (from the perspective of the criminal), is entirely the fault of the criminal.

In this OP's case, the criminal got himself shot and killed as a direct result of he himself committing a crime, even though his crime was not violent and that he was in fact running away from the clerk and not threatening him bodily. I am very comfortable in saying that he is the only guilty party, even though he was shot over a case of beer. I am even comfortable with the clerk's arguably excessive and reckless response to the crime, because to expect him to respond differently puts an implied burden on him to prearrange an approved response plan for if a criminal should commit a crime. This is an unreasonable thing to expect from a law abiding person who is not a security professional of some sort. It is enough for us to obey the law ourselves - we shouldn't need to prepare for if someone else breaks it.

The clerk responded to the crime and caused the death of the criminal. This was a happy outcome, because the unintentional harm (from the perspective of the criminal) befell only the criminal and no innocent person. (This is the reason why I was so charmed by the quote I referenced originally.)

But what about a more striking example? What if this dip shit got in his rusted Firebird and took off down the road with his ill gotten MGD, and the clerk tried to shoot him but instead blasted a poor woman's brains all over the street? Then how would I feel about what the clerk did? Would I then think he was guilty of some crime? Not at all, because the principle is the same.

To be sure, if an innocent man, woman or child is hurt or killed, it is a sad thing, but if that innocent person is harmed as a result of a criminal committing a crime, even if it is because of a victim's response and not the criminal's own doing, then the entire blame still belongs to the criminal and not the victim. Had the criminal not committed a crime, the innocent person would remain unharmed. If people want to prevent "vigilantism" then they need to target criminals not their victims.

 

[Negotiator]

Man, this is enough to make my head go to a point...

The whole notion of applying logic / cause and effect to a law based society is just plain ridiculous. Logic , just like statistics, can be used to prove even the most ridiculous theorems, such as the famous question regarding how many legs does have horse have??

Theorem: All horses have an infinite number of legs.

Proof: Everyone would agree that all horses have an even number of legs. It is also well-known that horses have forelegs in front and two legs in back. 4 + 2 = 6 legs, which is certainly an odd number of legs for a horse to have!

Now the only number that is both even and odd is infinity; therefore all horses have an infinite number of legs.

The notion of letting the punishment fit the crime was posited by Gilbert and Sullivan in their Operetta The Mikado. ( small extract for thoes that don't know it...)

A more humane Mikado never
Did in Japan exist,
To nobody second,
I'm certainly reckoned
A true philanthropist.
It is my very humane endeavour
To make, to some extent,
Each evil liver
A running river
Of harmless merriment.

My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time —
To let the punishment fit the crime —
The punishment fit the crime;
And make each prisoner pent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment!
Of innocent merriment!
.
.
The advertising quack who wearies
With tales of countless cures,
His teeth, I've enacted,
Shall all be extracted
By terrified amateurs.
The music-hall singer attends a series
Of masses and fugues and "ops"
By Bach, interwoven
With Spohr and Beethoven,
At classical Monday Pops.

The billiard sharp who any one catches,
His doom's extremely hard —
He's made to dwell —
In a dungeon cell
On a spot that's always barred.
And there he plays extravagant matches
In fitless finger-stalls
On a cloth untrue
With a twisted cue
And elliptical billiard balls!

Someone steals a case of beer ( say Bud Lite) and gets shot in the process... does the punishment fit the crime? I don't think so. Let them take the beer, it's not worth it.

Someone steals a case of Dogfish Head 60 minute IPA?...stand 'em up against the wall and shoot them!

I can't see how anyone can logically argue that it's okay to shoot a punk who steals a case of beer without threatening the store owner.

 

[Gabe]

...I can't see how anyone can logically argue that it's okay to shoot a punk who steals a case of beer without threatening the store owner.

I'm sure this same thought went through this criminal's brain as he expired. Of course he was the one who stole the beer....

 

[Jose]

I can't see how anyone can logically argue that it's okay to shoot a punk who steals a case of beer without threatening the store owner.

The shooting is not a punishment. It is merely a way to stop someone from taking what is not rightly theirs. When you rob someone of their possessions, you are robbing them of the most precious resource on earth: their time. The time it took to earn the resources with which to legally acquire the possession now being stolen.

Pure morality would dictate that it is proper to use any amount of force to prevent the taking of what is rightfully yours. Society just continues to dilute that morality by making relativist statements and comparisons.

 

[mikem317]

Pure morality would dictate that it is proper to use any amount of force to prevent the taking of what is rightfully yours. Society just continues to dilute that morality by making relativist statements and comparisons.

"Proper" is key here. Grossly disproportionate reaction is the issue.

 

[Jose]

"Proper" is key here. Grossly disproportionate reaction is the issue.

The "grossly disproportionate" reaction is an artificial construct. Texas is the only state in the nation that understands this concept. Which is why the use of deadly force to stop property crimes is legal there.

 

[Negotiator]

"Proper" is key here. Grossly disproportionate reaction is the issue.

+1 - my point exactly

 

[theGringo]

The "grossly disproportionate" reaction is an artificial construct. Texas is the only state in the nation that understands this concept. Which is why the use of deadly force to stop property crimes is legal there.

In some states I think you can just shoot 'em in the knee. In others, you have to hide under your blankets until they're gone. You have to know the laws in your state.