2013 America (and Friends!) Gun Violence Thread No Plows Allowed!

[Gregorio]

Or stepped on a nail and got tetanus.

Actually, shit, that reminds me. Wasn't there a case a while back where a burglar did something along those lines, and then successfully sued his intended victim?

You may be thinking of the movie Liar Liar.

[Suvhater]

I think the point Niiro was trying to make can be summed up with another hypothetical...

If perhaps someone had disarmed and killed Anders Behring Breivik in Norway 2011 shooting, that would be cruel. There is no death penalty in Norway therefore he doesn't deserve death for the killing of 69 people.


Cocaine is a hell of a drug

[Blubbartron]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the whole situation, burglary included, could have been prevented had the woman gone to the door (without opening it) and said "hello?" Alternative, if you're really scared shitless is "I have a weapon and am prepared to use it." Either one of these probably would've resulted in the would-be burglar not burglaring.

[Brill Weave]

You're applying hindsight to a case where it's completely pointless. It's probably best if you just let it go because you're wrong (and increasingly stupid) for pointing out what could have happened (but didn't) over and over again.

This is the best piece of advice you're going to get Niiro.

[Brill Weave]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the whole situation, burglary included, could have been prevented had the woman gone to the door (without opening it) and said "hello?" Alternative, if you're really scared shitless is "I have a weapon and am prepared to use it." Either one of these probably would've resulted in the would-be burglar not burglaring.

Don't drink the Kool-Aid man. Don't do it. It's her house. If she doesn't want to answer the door she doesn't have to.

[Meko]

I think (personally) people shouldn't pass judgement on an incident till the full story comes out. Tidbits of information without getting the whole picture will lead people to jump to whatever conclusion that fits their agenda on that particular day. Weather it be to bash gun rights or killings, you shouldn't just randomly say "Oh she wasn't justified". There's so little account of what happened; we could speculate all day as to what could have happened and play a thousand different scenario's. But what it really comes down to is you gotta put yourself in to that persons shoes. Can you honestly say under the exact same circumstances, you wouldn't have reacted the same? What if she did warn the guy? What if she told him at the door to fuck off and he came in anyways?

There's a reason Burglary/Breaking and Entering/Housebreaking is considered a Class A Felony in most jurisdictions. Hell here in D.C. (In Georgetown where the rich are FILTHY rich), they break in to your house, tie you and your family up and leave you there for a few days. One poor old lady died because she had no family to check on her and the only reason someone even found her dead was because her gardener came to the house to water the plants and found her tied up and beaten in her bedroom. Burglary in the District is considered a serious crime of violence. Maybe such crimes are prevalent in her neighborhood and people were getting hurt and she was already on edge because of it? Or maybe she (like 90-95% of the population of the world) don't have a John McClaine mentality and try to cowboy their way through life with shootouts and killing helicopters with cars?

This woman was probably scared out of her mind. Not to even fathom the fact that 1. Nothing like this ever happened to her so she probably didn't have a solid plan other than what she did and didn't think of the long term, or 2. All she saw when the guy opened the door was a guy with a weapon menacing her and her children? I know personally, my kids are everything to me. I could divorce my wife now and survive but without my kids, I am nothing. To even think someone (even a loved one) could ever hurt them or take them away from me, is unthinkable. I would die before I let something happen to them. Even if it means killing someone dear to me, I would do it without question, without hesitation, and with no mercy.

This x10.

[kuronosan]

What I'm gathering from Blubbar and Niiro in this thread is:

1) If you are home when a thief is trying to break in with a weapon, answering the door may dissuade them (or may cause them to break it down anyway).

2) If you do decide to answer the door to your house that someone else is breaking into, telling them you are armed may dissuade them (or may cause them to break it down anyway).

3) If the burglar successfully breaks in, don't try to find safety or defend yourself - find out his intentions first so you can be sure he deserves what's coming to him (or he may just be armed himself and could kill you all because he doesn't give a shit if you care).

4) In the event that you must defend yourself, do not use lethal force on the burglar. He may not be armed and may be just concerned about your safety, hence why he broke into your house while armed (after all, anyone willing to destroy your property to get inside must be a genuinely good and honest person).

5) After all is said and done, it is perfectly okay to go and question whether the punishment fit the crime - even if people in your house were tied up (but not hurt).

Okay. Now that this is out of the way, I'll answer your retarded statema-questions:

a) Yes - lethal force for self-defense is justified if you are scared and someone breaks into your house.
b) No, obviously the dipshit doesn't deserve to die but he did deserve to get shot. You don't break into someone's house, armed, and rummage through things, and expect everything to be cool.

I get your argument. It's just pointless. You're basically saying had he known someone was home he never would have broken in. Use your brain. Would the guy be pounding on the door and ringing the doorbell if he thought absolutely no one was home? I'm pretty sure he'd be able to hear noises coming from inside. All we can do is speculate.

What is known:

1) Wife was home with kids.
2) Strange man knocking on door and ringing doorbell armed with crowbar.
3) Wife calls hubby, hubby calls 911, wife hides with kids in closet.
4) Strange man breaks down door and starts rummaging through house.
5) Strange man opens closet, gets shot.

Stop showing so much concern for a guy who was doing something he shouldn't have been doing. Nobody deserves to die for any reason, but to argue that he didn't deserve what happened is to be a fucking idiot. What you could argue was whether the burglar knew what he was doing was wrong or not because convenient circumstances led to him never knowing what he was doing was against the law (or stupid). To argue that would also be dumb, because then you're speculating for the sake of making your argument work (confirmation bias).

The bottom line is that everyone in this thread understands your argument, it's just a stupid one that makes no sense in context.

[Callisto]

man I thought we'd get more than a week in before we had a serious contender for dumbest argument of the year

[Brill Weave]

man I thought we'd get more than a week in before we had a serious contender for dumbest argument of the year

Between Tagus, mazmaz, and now this we've got some pretty fucking solid contenders.

[kuronosan]

Also, yes - there is a case of a burglar that stood on a nail and sued successfully. The one from Liar-Liar you're thinking of is the one who fell from the roof.

[Churchill]

I was coming in here to say they went full Mazmaz but since we already know he and Plow are perennial idiots I may update that to "Full Niiro".

[Deadgye]

Niiro should play DayZ. See how well announcing "I have a gun and will shoot you" turns out against someone with a bandit skin. Every time I was in a building, or anywhere else really, and heard somebody else if I didn't shoot on sight I died. Sure there were times when the person didn't have a weapon, or it was somebody from BG and we teamed up, but I didn't know that until after the fact and it was relatively rare. Also this doesn't even include anything related to being in my own house or being with my family.

And who said video games with guns don't teach you things.

[kuronosan]

But it makes a good point - when it comes to survival and you're threatened by someone who may clearly have mal-intent you can't really afford to ask them if they're going to be friendly.

[zoobernut]

No, it's not, it's also not the point I'm trying to get across.

Should a person have the right to use lethal force against an intruder in their home.

Does a burglar deserve to be shot to death for the crime of burglary.

No question marks because I'm not actually asking for any input, but if you can answer those 2 questions you should be able to wrap your head around it. Just because the issue isn't as simple and fair as we'd like to see it doesn't make it go away.

I come back into this thread and I see you still can't decide what the hell you are trying to argue or what point you are making.

The answer to your first stupid non-question is absolutely. people have a right to their personal space and they have a right to defend their personal space from others trying to invade that space. A home is a space which people can and will use lethal force to defend. Not only that but beyond just the space people absolutely have the right to defend themselves or their family with lethal force from immediate danger. It really doesn't matter what the burglars intent was or if he thought the home was unoccupied he made a choice and it was a bad one but he made that choice knowing there might be consequences.

Your second question is a trap and completely irrelevant in this instance. Using the word deserve in this case is a weaselly way to change the scope of the issue. Deserve implies that justice was imparted or that shooting the burglar was some form of punishment. Him getting shot was a consequence of his actions causing someone to feel the need to defend themselves it is in no way a punishment and therefore cannot be deserved or not deserved. If the burglar was caught and was incapacitated and the situation was diffused and then someone decided to shoot him after the fact then maybe you could use that argument but in cases of self defense you cannot try to say whether or not the consequences of the situation were deserved.

I also agree with Neph that we are all making a lot of assumptions in this thread we really don't know everything that went down and even the smallest of details can have a huge difference in the outcome.

[Blubbartron]

What I'm gathering from Blubbar and Niiro in this thread is:

1) If you are home when a thief is trying to break in with a weapon, answering the door may dissuade them (or may cause them to break it down anyway).

2) If you do decide to answer the door to your house that someone else is breaking into, telling them you are armed may dissuade them (or may cause them to break it down anyway).

3) If the burglar successfully breaks in, don't try to find safety or defend yourself - find out his intentions first so you can be sure he deserves what's coming to him (or he may just be armed himself and could kill you all because he doesn't give a shit if you care).

4) In the event that you must defend yourself, do not use lethal force on the burglar. He may not be armed and may be just concerned about your safety, hence why he broke into your house while armed (after all, anyone willing to destroy your property to get inside must be a genuinely good and honest person).

5) After all is said and done, it is perfectly okay to go and question whether the punishment fit the crime - even if people in your house were tied up (but not hurt).

Okay. Now that this is out of the way, I'll answer your retarded statema-questions:

a) Yes - lethal force for self-defense is justified if you are scared and someone breaks into your house.
b) No, obviously the dipshit doesn't deserve to die but he did deserve to get shot. You don't break into someone's house, armed, and rummage through things, and expect everything to be cool.

I get your argument. It's just pointless. You're basically saying had he known someone was home he never would have broken in. Use your brain. Would the guy be pounding on the door and ringing the doorbell if he thought absolutely no one was home? I'm pretty sure he'd be able to hear noises coming from inside. All we can do is speculate.

What is known:

1) Wife was home with kids.
2) Strange man knocking on door and ringing doorbell armed with crowbar.
3) Wife calls hubby, hubby calls 911, wife hides with kids in closet.
4) Strange man breaks down door and starts rummaging through house.
5) Strange man opens closet, gets shot.

Stop showing so much concern for a guy who was doing something he shouldn't have been doing. Nobody deserves to die for any reason, but to argue that he didn't deserve what happened is to be a fucking idiot. What you could argue was whether the burglar knew what he was doing was wrong or not because convenient circumstances led to him never knowing what he was doing was against the law (or stupid). To argue that would also be dumb, because then you're speculating for the sake of making your argument work (confirmation bias).

The bottom line is that everyone in this thread understands your argument, it's just a stupid one that makes no sense in context.

The bold are true statements. After that you went full retard. I said nothing of the sort. I can't speak for Niiro. I really hope you weren't trying to say that #1 and #2 are as ridiculously stupid as the rest you mentioned, because they're not. Burglars are (in almost all cases) not looking to hurt people. They're looking for quick shit to steal. If they meet any kind of resistance, most of them give up on the spot. Obviously this is not always the case, and I can't say for sure whether it would have been the case in this instance, but it's something to keep in mind.

Anecdotal evidence go! I grew up on a street that had a series of robberies, and our house during that timeframe had an absurd number of dingdong ditches. It's entirely possible they were checking for signs of life to case my house or making their decision to break in that day. Someone in my family was always home, and always answered the door immediately.

[ronin sparthos]

#1 and #2 assume the robber is a young punk, a drug addict or someone skittish and not a career criminal or an organized burglary.

Again, the home owner is under no obligation to provide verbal assistance to a criminal. If someone decides to break into a home, they've signed off on the potential consequences be that the owner sizing you up as a 15 year old thug wannabe or waiting for you to come through the door to be blown away. This is ultimately the decision of the homeowner and much like the burglar come with potential consequences you sign off when you make your decision.

I lose very little sleep when someone defends themselves from a potential sexual assault or a botched robbery where the homeowner gets killed and the robber wastes time in court pleading remorse.

[Blubbartron]

#1 and #2 assume the robber is a young punk, a drug addict or someone skittish and not a career criminal or an organized burglary.

Again, the home owner is under no obligation to provide verbal assistance to a criminal. If someone decides to break into a home, they've signed off on the potential consequences be that the owner sizing you up as a 15 year old thug wannabe or waiting for you to come through the door to be blown away. This is ultimately the decision of the homeowner and much like the burglar come with potential consequences you sign off when you make your decision.

I lose very little sleep when someone defends themselves from a potential sexual assault or a botched robbery where the homeowner gets killed and the robber wastes time in court pleading remorse.

I fully agree that she was in the right to blow his fucking face off, he did enter the house. However, why couldn't the woman have stood 5-10 feet back from her door and announced her presence? There is a high probability that it would have prevented the breaking and entering. Your spiel about "15 year old thug wannabes" is ridiculous. If anything, I would argue that the non-career criminal is more likely to break into a place when they know the owner is home. The career criminal gets to be a career criminal by being smart, not by being a dumbass and dramatically increasing his chances of getting put behind bars.

[Brill Weave]

I fully agree that she was in the right to blow his fucking face off, he did enter the house. However, why couldn't the woman have stood 5-10 feet back from her door and announced her presence? There is a high probability that it would have prevented the breaking and entering. Your spiel about "15 year old thug wannabes" is ridiculous. If anything, I would argue that the non-career criminal is more likely to break into a place when they know the owner is home. The career criminal gets to be a career criminal by being smart, not by being a dumbass and dramatically increasing his chances of getting put behind bars.

I'm sorry man but you can't say that and say that it has a high probability it would have defused the situation. It has just as high a probability of escalating it. Because you don't know what you're walking into. Is is one person, is it more. Are they armed. Are they even there to steal things. You're risking an awful lot to give someone illegally entering your home an idea of where you are in the hopes they leave.

[zoobernut]

I fully agree that she was in the right to blow his fucking face off, he did enter the house. However, why couldn't the woman have stood 5-10 feet back from her door and announced her presence? There is a high probability that it would have prevented the breaking and entering. Your spiel about "15 year old thug wannabes" is ridiculous. If anything, I would argue that the non-career criminal is more likely to break into a place when they know the owner is home. The career criminal gets to be a career criminal by being smart, not by being a dumbass and dramatically increasing his chances of getting put behind bars.

Because it isn't necessarily the smartest thing to do for the safety of herself and her family. Yes she could have done that yest it MIGHT have helped diffuse the situation but there is a chance it wouldn't therefore she took the action that she felt provided the highest chance of her and her family getting through the situation safely. No one ever in their right mind when deciding which course of action to take is going to choose one which is slightly less safer for them but might be slightly safer for the burglar.

[Blubbartron]

I'm sorry man but you can't say that and say that it has a high probability it would have defused the situation. It has just as high a probability of escalating it. Because you don't know what you're walking into. Is is one person, is it more. Are they armed. Are they even there to steal things. You're risking an awful lot to give someone illegally entering your home an idea of where you are in the hopes they leave.

The only case in which you're worse off by "answering" the door (not opening/unlocking) is if you opted to do that before getting your gun. That's the only case. If you were legitimately frightened and got your gun first, you're in the exact same position as hiding in a closet waiting for the intruder to find you. They may know you're inside, but they don't know where you are. If you hear them attempting to break in (because seriously, smashing windows or breaking down doors is not quiet), you can run for better cover/positioning, or blast them as they try to stumble through the window/doorway.