Trayvon Martin

[Balta1701]

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/i-hurt-my-d...7173047597.html

 

Balta +1

NRA 0

Point 1. Please do not count a 2 year old shooting their parent as a "win" for me.

 

Point 2. This kind of s*** happens all the time. Please don't try to link to every one of them. If you'd like to see a compilation of ones that appear in press reports there's a guy who has been posting them since the CT murders.

[Jenksismyhero]

We dont want vigilante justice. And deference is given when there is imminent danger (which is a question of fact). But once that danger has passed, the deference is no longer there. Our society is built on police and the justice system handling crimes, not individual citizens. Whether that is good or bad, that is the system we have.

 

And i'm saying it's ludicrous if anyone thinks that just because 2 guys who just pointed a gun at you in your own home run away, they're still not a threat minutes later.

 

Literally everyone in this country should applaud this guy. It boggles my mind that people think he's a criminal for shooting would-be armed robbers. If he went and hunted these guys down 10 minutes later, an hour later, days later, sure, I agree with you. But if this all happened quickly, there's no way a reasonable person would be over that fear of imminent death.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

If someone had just had a gun on me, it is hard to say any "fear" would be gone that quickly, nor am I sure that a reasonable person would be able to switch gears that quickly. A trained police officer, I can see that being a standard. A homeowner? Not so much.

 

Exactly.

[Jenksismyhero]

In Indiana, if you are committing armed robbery in conjunction with one or more other persons and one of those other persons dies at the hands of a third party due to justified self-defense, you can be charged with murder.

 

Yeah the newspaper story said the 2nd robber is also charged with the murder in this case.

[Soxbadger]

And i'm saying it's ludicrous if anyone thinks that just because 2 guys who just pointed a gun at you in your own home run away, they're still not a threat minutes later.

 

Literally everyone in this country should applaud this guy. It boggles my mind that people think he's a criminal for shooting would-be armed robbers. If he went and hunted these guys down 10 minutes later, an hour later, days later, sure, I agree with you. But if this all happened quickly, there's no way a reasonable person would be over that fear of imminent death.

 

I dont applaud people who shoot other people in the back.

 

Its a question of fact whether he had a imminent fear of death, but I personally dont think shooting people in the back is something to be cheered. As soon as they began to flee he should have called the police. Now if they ran back or did something to threaten him further, then I think its much more plausible that he still had an imminent fear of death.

 

I guess I just dont like the idea of people shooting at fleeing targets. Just too much risk to the general public. And its all a question of fact, so who knows if he is really a criminal or not.

[Jenksismyhero]

I dont applaud people who shoot other people in the back.

 

It wasn't just some random person though, it was a guy that just invaded your home and pulled a gun on you.

 

Its a question of fact whether he had a imminent fear of death, but I personally dont think shooting people in the back is something to be cheered. As soon as they began to flee he should have called the police. Now if they ran back or did something to threaten him further, then I think its much more plausible that he still had an imminent fear of death.

 

I guess I just dont like the idea of people shooting at fleeing targets. Just too much risk to the general public. And its all a question of fact, so who knows if he is really a criminal or not.

 

 

But you have to agree this is a very limited case. This isn't some mini-bar fight gone bad. This guy had his house invaded and a gun pulled on him.

 

 

[Y2HH]

It wasn't just some random person though, it was a guy that just invaded your home and pulled a gun on you.

 

But you have to agree this is a very limited case. This isn't some mini-bar fight gone bad. This guy had his house invaded and a gun pulled on him.

 

And in such as case, let's look at the reality of the situation.

 

Guy enters your home, pulls a gun, realizes fight is fair and runs -- your choices are 1) let him go call the police and hope for the best, or 2) make sure he never does this to another person OR returns to do it when you aren't home, and maybe your wife is alone...

 

These aren't the smartest people in the world, so him returning isn't a stretch...after all he's armed...and letting him run/calling the police and hoping they capture him is also kind of a "meh" alternative...because you know he's just going to go rob someone else, and they may not be so lucky...because you let him run.

 

f*** that, if you enter my house I don't care what direction you're facing...you shall die if I get the chance. One less f***wad for society to worry about.

[StrangeSox]

Following that logic to its conclusion, it'd be okay to hunt him down.

[Y2HH]

Following that logic to its conclusion, it'd be okay to hunt him down.

 

Nope, I absolutely wouldn't exit my home to get him, but while he's in my house, he's fair game...just as I was minutes before he realized I was 1) home and 2) had a gun, too.

[StrangeSox]

Nope, I absolutely wouldn't exit my home to get him, but while he's in my house, he's fair game...just as I was minutes before he realized I was 1) home and 2) had a gun, too.

Ok, but in this case, the guy did chase them out of the house and into the yard and continued firing at them as they fled. The man he shot was two houses away.

 

Still in the house? I'm going to be less forgiving than you guys depending on what, exactly, the actions were (think of this case and this case), but once they've fled and are still running away from your property? It's no longer self defense.

[southsider2k5]

And in such as case, let's look at the reality of the situation.

 

Guy enters your home, pulls a gun, realizes fight is fair and runs -- your choices are 1) let him go call the police and hope for the best, or 2) make sure he never does this to another person OR returns to do it when you aren't home, and maybe your wife is alone...

 

These aren't the smartest people in the world, so him returning isn't a stretch...after all he's armed...and letting him run/calling the police and hoping they capture him is also kind of a "meh" alternative...because you know he's just going to go rob someone else, and they may not be so lucky...because you let him run.

 

f*** that, if you enter my house I don't care what direction you're facing...you shall die if I get the chance. One less f***wad for society to worry about.

 

This is exactly why I would feel that the imminent danger part is probably extended longer for a situation like this versus simply when the guy turns his back. I don't think in the reasonable person standard you can expect that kind of a response. A reasonable person is going to feel they are in danger much longer than someone who is professionally trained in that situation.

 

Where that ends, I am not sure.

[Y2HH]

Ok, but in this case, the guy did chase them out of the house and into the yard and continued firing at them as they fled. The man he shot was two houses away.

 

Still in the house? I'm going to be less forgiving than you guys depending on what, exactly, the actions were (think of this case and this case), but once they've fled and are still running away from your property? It's no longer self defense.

 

Well, I'd love to say I wouldn't have done the same...but in such a situation, where I see a person that just struck fear into my wife/children and now they have to live in a home they will never again feel is "safe" ... I might have done the same depending on what ran through my head in that moment in time.

 

But I'd love to say I'd let him go...it's the logical thing to do...but then again...now I get to live in a home with a mortgage in which nobody feels safe ever again because the threat is still out there. Even if the police do catch him, what do they get him on, possession of a firearm (which Chicago does nothing about), and B&E?

 

Great...he'd be out in a few months time...and maybe he'll come back and finish the job because he feels "we caused him to get caught".

 

The more I think about it the more I'd want that person gone forever.

[StrangeSox]

B&E and armed robbery doesn't (and shouldn't) carry a LWP or death sentence. You're no less safe tomorrow than you were yesterday.

[southsider2k5]

B&E and armed robbery doesn't (and shouldn't) carry a LWP or death sentence. You're no less safe tomorrow than you were yesterday.

 

Nor should it for the home owner.

[StrangeSox]

Okay? But if you follow the argument "they could come back in the future and kill me" to its conclusion, that means that someone who commits armed robbery should be permanently removed from society (LWP) or put to death.

 

What if the guy in the home wasn't armed at the time and the robbers got away? Would he be justified in hunting them down and shooting them so they couldn't come back to "finish the job?" If not, where can you draw the line?

[southsider2k5]

Okay? But if you follow the argument "they could come back in the future and kill me" to its conclusion, that means that someone who commits armed robbery should be permanently removed from society (LWP) or put to death.

 

What if the guy in the home wasn't armed at the time and the robbers got away? Would he be justified in hunting them down and shooting them so they couldn't come back to "finish the job?" If not, where can you draw the line?

 

None of those things actually happened.

[Y2HH]

Okay? But if you follow the argument "they could come back in the future and kill me" to its conclusion, that means that someone who commits armed robbery should be permanently removed from society (LWP) or put to death.

 

What if the guy in the home wasn't armed at the time and the robbers got away? Would he be justified in hunting them down and shooting them so they couldn't come back to "finish the job?" If not, where can you draw the line?

 

The day something like this actually happens to you, you know what we'll all call you?

 

A republican.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

None of those things actually happened.

I know they didn't. I'm trying to find where the "they could come back at some point in the future" argument stops working by using a hypothetical situation.

 

What if he had chased them out of the yard, firing at them, but never hit them? They could certainly come back to "finish the job" then. Would he be justified in hunting them down in that case? If not, why is that any different than chasing them into the yard and shooting them when they're a couple of houses down the road and running away? The potential future threat would always remain.

[Jake]

Since people like the idea of deterrence and clearly gun ownership doesn't prevent robberies (case in point). If running away from armed homeowner doesn't keep you from getting shot, why would a home invader not just start a shootout? The burglar clearly didn't intend to use the firearm, just as something to spook anyone inside. He figures that if he runs away he might go to jail but at least he isn't getting shot.

 

When people try to convince folks like me that being armed is a powerful deterrent, they usually emphasize that an encounter like the one being described doesn't have to end violently. But now apparently it does and should.

 

To be clear, I don't think the case we're talking about is 100% cut and dry or some example of the most egregious poor judgment or malice. But guns aren't toys and to the extent I'm willing to say that we should have them in our society, I expect more than the level of discretion any old person who might be handed a gun would have. This is why you hear some people horrified at how easy it is to procure a gun. You don't want it to both be easy to get a gun and have legal interpretations that assume the least from those who might try to use them justifiably.

[southsider2k5]

I know they didn't. I'm trying to find where the "they could come back at some point in the future" argument stops working by using a hypothetical situation.

 

What if he had chased them out of the yard, firing at them, but never hit them? They could certainly come back to "finish the job" then. Would he be justified in hunting them down in that case? If not, why is that any different than chasing them into the yard and shooting them when they're a couple of houses down the road and running away? The potential future threat would always remain.

 

No interest in the strawman game.

[StrangeSox]

No interest in the strawman game.

How is this a straw man? I'm asking where the limit of "he could come back at some point in the future" is. If the threat would extend indefinitely, why wouldn't the justification?

Edited August 21, 2015 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

I know they didn't. I'm trying to find where the "they could come back at some point in the future" argument stops working by using a hypothetical situation.

 

What if he had chased them out of the yard, firing at them, but never hit them? They could certainly come back to "finish the job" then. Would he be justified in hunting them down in that case? If not, why is that any different than chasing them into the yard and shooting them when they're a couple of houses down the road and running away? The potential future threat would always remain.

 

That wasn't the point...odds are they'd never come back, but that isn't the psyche I'm tapping here...that family will no longer feel safe with that person out there. I know I wouldn't. It's the peace of mind that my home no longer has (not that it ever truly had it), but the perception of that safety is now shattered.

 

So now I have a house that I paid 200+K for, that I now need to sell in a s*** market because the peace of mind that home had is gone...is this rational? No...but it's how I'd personally feel. I'd feel as if I could no longer leave my house without my family. Unfortunately I work, and I have too. And for what...and by who? For a person that even if they get caught will be back on the street in a month? And in reality, odds are they'll be back out on the street a few days later...

 

This person did more harm than simply breaking into my home and leaving...there are repercussions, not just for that person (which in Chicago means basically no repercussions at all), but for my family.

 

Edit: So f*** that douche right in his ass.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

That wasn't the point...odds are they'd never come back, but that isn't the psyche I'm tapping here...that family will no longer feel safe with that person out there. I know I wouldn't. It's the peace of mind that my home no longer has (not that it ever truly had it), but the perception of that safety is now shattered.

 

So now I have a house that I paid 200+K for, that I now need to sell in a s*** market because the peace of mind that home had is gone...is this rational? No...but it's how I'd personally feel. I'd feel as if I could no longer leave my house without my family. Unfortunately I work, and I have too. And for what...and by who? For a person that even if they get caught will be back on the street in a month? And in reality, odds are they'll be back out on the street a few days later...

 

This person did more harm than simply breaking into my home and leaving...there are repercussions, not just for that person (which in Chicago means basically no repercussions at all), but for my family.

 

Edit: So f*** that douche right in his ass.

 

I'm not saying that the fear and sense of violation wouldn't be real and perfectly justifiable. I'm asking for how long that's a justification for killing the perpetrator. Still in your house? Yeah, 99/100 justified. They've run out the door and you're firing at them from inside the house? Definitely more of a gray area for me, but probably justifiable under a "heat of the moment"/panic/adrenaline explanation. Leaving the safety of your home and chasing them into your yard? I think that'd be pretty hard to justify as "self-defense" since you're the one who decided to prolong the conflict and pursue them.

 

Now what if it turns out that not only the perpetrators were a couple of houses down, but that the shooter wasn't even on his own property anymore? How long are you justified in chasing after them? If you're trying to argue immediate danger/self-defense, that runs out pretty quickly as you get farther and farther away from your own door. But if you're trying to use "I'd never feel safe in my own home so long as this person lived," doesn't that continue indefinitely?

[CrimsonWeltall]

How is this a straw man? I'm asking where the limit of "he could come back at some point in the future" is. If the threat would extend indefinitely, why wouldn't the justification?

 

After the robbers have escaped, the police are immeasurably more capable of both tracking down and bringing them to justice than the homeowner is.

During the incident itself, the opposite is true. The police have no utility, while the homeowner may be able to stop the threat.

[StrangeSox]

After the robbers have escaped, the police are immeasurably more capable of both tracking down and bringing them to justice than the homeowner is.

During the incident itself, the opposite is true. The police have no utility, while the homeowner may be able to stop the threat.

 

I think that's really what we're debating over here--does it continue to be self-defense if you prolong the incident by chasing them? How long is it justifiable to pursue them?

 

edit: whatever the answer is to that, though, "he can come back at some point in the future" still has trouble working as a justification. That's a preemptive self-defense claim.

Edited August 21, 2015 by StrangeSox