@seawulf575 ”it IS an example of using a gun to protect yourself.”
Correct. I was responding to the claim you made that it was an example of a good guy with a gun stopping a mass shooting. It’s not, It’s an example of a woman shooting an unarmed intruder in the face multiple times.
@seawulf575 _”…to say it was “probably” justified is garbage…”
Wait, what? I don’t know all of the facts of that case, I’m not a lawyer, I wasn’t there. Since you want to get way off track on this, I guess I’ll indulge you. First: there are 2 types of “justification” there’s the legal justification and the moral justification. It’s possible to be legally justified in shooting someone but not morally justified and the opposite in some places I would imagine.
I was using the term in the legal sense. Between castle doctrines, stand your ground laws and other legal principles of self-defense like when duty to retreat has been met or excepted for, based on the facts as I understood them, I would say the woman was “probably justified” in shooting the intruder in the face multiple times. There are other rules in play about only using the minimum amount of force necessary to protect yourself and others. Did she need to empty the clip into the guy’s face? I don’t know, I wasn’t there. It sounded like the intruder was begging for his life at one point and she was still shooting. It’s hard to fully understand all of the legal issues at play here as an outsider with incomplete information. Also I’m not a lawyer. So was the shooting legally justified? My answer remains “probably.” Law is complicated and I’m smart enough to understand that I’m not an expert on everything—especially the stuff I’m not an expert in.
Was she morally justified in shooting an unarmed man? I don’t know that either. If she didn’t have a gun in the first place, it’s certainly possible that she would have left the premises with her kids instead of hiding and fighting back (but I don’t know the architecture of her home or any of the other relevant details). It’s also possible that she could have used a less-lethal weapon for self-defense and accomplished the same goal. Or maybe just talk to him i.e. “Don’t hurt us, the Police will be here in 90 seconds. My purse is on the counter and has $300 in it. There’s still time to get away if you leave now!” Believe it or not, most burglars are after property and don’t want to be arrested. One might argue that morally all gun owners should have maximum deterrence to discourage trespassing/burglars, such as signs, security cameras, dogs, reinforced doors and windows, etc. Maybe she had all of these things.
One thing a gun does do is increase the odds that violence will be the outcome. If one is unarmed, they’re most likely running away (which is probably the best option in nearly every scenario). If one is armed, I suspect there will be many instances where they’ll decide to stand their ground when objectively, from a tactics assessment, running would be the wiser choice. For many people, guns narrow their thinking instead of expanding it.
@seawulf575 ”…It is a weak attempt to not admit guns have a purpose.”
Guns are designed to kill things effectively. Acknowledging that there are nuances and complexities in a self-defense shooting like this is not a denial of this fact.
@seawulf575 ”Do you believe he had some innocent reason for being there?”
No. He’s a burglar.
@seawulf575 ”Do you believe the woman should have asked the guy nicely to leave?”
Possibly. I wasn’t there. It might have been effective. If he knew someone was home, he might have moved on to the next house. Most burglars are looking to steal stuff when nobody is home. You have more time to steal stuff when the cops aren’t racing after you with guns drawn to defend a terrified mom and her kids. I’m not blaming her for not asking him to leave either. It’s possible she tried this and he ignored here, or that she believed being quiet was the best course of action. I’m answering your question—don’t misinterpret it as me second-guessing someone in that situation.
@seawulf575 ”Do you believe she had any way of knowing if he was armed?”
She knew he wasn’t holding a weapon, but likely didn’t know if he was in possession of a weapon. Living in a country with weak gun laws makes it more likely that other people are armed. This assumption wouldn’t be true in countries like Japan, where encountering an armed person is very unlikely.
@seawulf575 “Do you believe she should have asked the intruder if he was armed before shooting him?”
No. It’s a stupid question. One cannot trust the response, so it’s pointless to ask. That said, we are not legally permitted to shoot someone just because they’re armed. Home invasions have different rules, but generally, they have to have a weapon in their hand, otherwise, I would be legally justified in shooting anyone open-carrying saying “I fear for my life!” Would a verbal warning with the gun pointing at his face been sufficient to defend herself? The first shot? The second? I wasn’t there and I’m not going to second-guess her decisions. It’s possible that she was legally justified in her actions but exceeded her moral authority to do so in this instance.
@seawulf575 ”Now, I’m willing to bet she was not part of a well regulated militia, so do you believe she should have not been allowed to have a gun?”
My reading of the second amendment (and how it was interpreted for centuries) was that the federal government couldn’t disarm state militias. The pentagon can’t disarm the national guard of any particular state. The fear was a tyrannical federal government trampling the states especially with respect to preventing states from maintaining their slave patrol militias which were necessary to maintain the institution of slavery. I realize that conservative justices have recently started reimagining the Constitution in “fun new ways” that the founders never intended, but the language of the second amendment is clearly about well-regulated state militias and not about Bobo’s (or Mohamed’s—which shouldn’t make a difference, but probably does for many) right to own tanks and anti-aircraft MANPADs.
People have a right to own stuff unless prohibited by law. So if there’s not a prohibition against owning a revolver in her state, then it’s not illegal. Should there be a law banning handguns? Maybe. I think shotguns make the most sense from a self-defense standpoint in a home invasion scenario. They are easier to hit what you’re pointing at, are very intimidating, and the risk of having bullets going through walls into your neighbor’s home is greatly reduced. I dislike semi-automatic weapons in the hands of civilians. I’m more comfortable with allowing single action firearms with additional restrictions.
@seawulf575 ”Do you believe that she could have foreseen all the things that happened that day when the family got the gun in the first place?”
No. Did she need the gun to protect her family? Would other forms of deterrence been equally or more effective? Conservatives are driven by fear. There’s a long tradition of being terrified of the black man coming to get revenge on the white slave owner for raping his daughter. It’s the foundation of America’s gun culture. You can’t have slaves without guns. The reality is very different from the fear that inspires people to acquire small arsenals. One of my best friends in the world owns a couple dozen guns. Nobody is going to attack him or his family. His daughter is in greater danger from an accident with one of those weapons than a home intruder killing her. Of course no-one expects accidents, because they wouldn’t happen otherwise.
@seawulf575 ”Do you believe the family should have had to predict something like this to convince the government they should be allowed to own a gun?”
I don’t think this story proves anything—certainly not your claim that good guys with guns are a good way to resolve mass shootings. What if she’d used a flamethrower? Would that be good evidence to support people carrying flamethrowers for self-defense?
And let’s get back to the idea of a justified shooting. Wouldn’t you agree that the police were perfectly justified in shooting John Hurley? Is creating a society where everyone is armed and there are scenarios where it’s easy for misunderstandings to degenerate into firefights where every individual is legally justified in their actions, and everyone gets killed a good thing?
A man hears a car backfire, but believes it to be a gunshot. In good faith, he draws his weapon and takes cover. Another individual hears the car backfire and sees the man holding a gun behind cover with a woman that could be his target. He draws his AK and points at the man. Someone else sees a man with an assault rifle and thinks it’s an active shooter situation and calls 911… Can you see how such a scenario where lost of ordinary citizens—terrified for their safety (and possibly inspired by the fantasy of being called a hero) can quickly escalate into unintentional massacres? Is Kyle Rittenhouse the model we want for a safer America?
It’s why police wear uniforms and spend countless hours training, and why most countries on planet Earth don’t want that much firepower in the hands of jumpy, untrained civilians (who are very likely overconfident in their abilities in an active shooter situation).
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
