The article indicates that there was bad blood between the participants already, but in this instance, the facts seem pretty clear
1. 5 against one.
2. They broke into his house with the intent to kill him or do him serious bodily harm.
3. He had already locked himself in and called the police for help.
What else could he have done at that point? would it have been better if he had said; "Okay, I don't want to hurt you guys, so I'm going to lay down my best means of defense and say pretty please don't kill me?"
It seems to me that once they put themselves in the role of attacker they chose to expose themselves to the possibility that heir victim was going to be able to fight back, with possible lethal consequences.
When the door was kicked down, he had every right to protect himself, and to fight back to the maximum extent that he was capable, including shooting at them as they were running away. Remember, unlike Switzerland, the US and Canada are BIG. The response time for police can be over an hour in some rural areas. and he was still outnumbered and on his own at that point.
In my opinion, they had no reasonable expectation of mercy once they had made their intent clear.
I know that it sounds cold, but I believe that if I were in his situation barricaded, cops already called, out numbered by 500%, guys kicking in locked doors to get to me, no idea when the police would show up, I would do the same thing.
According to the newspaper report I read they not only kicked in his house door but also his bedroom door.
I support what he did.
Whether he will have a long life or become a revenge victim I have no clue.
The following 3 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
The article indicates that there was bad blood between the participants already, but in this instance, the facts seem pretty clear
1. 5 against one.
2. They broke into his house with the intent to kill him or do him serious bodily harm.
3. He had already locked himself in and called the police for help.
What else could he have done at that point? would it have been better if he had said; "Okay, I don't want to hurt you guys, so I'm going to lay down my best means of defense and say pretty please don't kill me?"
It seems to me that once they put themselves in the role of attacker they chose to expose themselves to the possibility that heir victim was going to be able to fight back, with possible lethal consequences.
When the door was kicked down, he had every right to protect himself, and to fight back to the maximum extent that he was capable, including shooting at them as they were running away. Remember, unlike Switzerland, the US and Canada are BIG. The response time for police can be over an hour in some rural areas. and he was still outnumbered and on his own at that point.
In my opinion, they had no reasonable expectation of mercy once they had made their intent clear.
I know that it sounds cold, but I believe that if I were in his situation barricaded, cops already called, out numbered by 500%, guys kicking in locked doors to get to me, no idea when the police would show up, I would do the same thing.
I agree---the self defense was required and was used correctly as the last resort choice.
The next question is If he should receives any punishment. Whether a man-slaughter charge or an illegal firearms charge.
Would the situation have played out differently had he been forced to reload and not made use of the illegal modification? Would it have played out differently if the gun he used was not semi automatic---a single shot/reload rifle for hunting purposes? (as many suggest the law should limit guns to). Obviously the number of rounds released is important here.
He apparently had bragged about shooting someone before and vowed revenge on one of the dead beforehand---how did this affect the outcome, or even more importantly, what precedent does this set for future cases, where the one protecting is not in a cut and dry self defense/last resort situation.
__________________
"You have reached the end of you free trial membership at BenjaminFranklinQuotes.com" -Benjamin Franklin
This user would like to thank Chemmie for this useful post:
I agree---the self defense was required and was used correctly as the last resort choice.
The next question is If he should receives any punishment. Whether a man-slaughter charge or an illegal firearms charge.
Would the situation have played out differently had he been forced to reload and not made use of the illegal modification? Would it have played out differently if the gun he used was not semi automatic---a single shot/reload rifle for hunting purposes? (as many suggest the law should limit guns to). Obviously the number of rounds released is important here.
He apparently had bragged about shooting someone before and vowed revenge on one of the dead beforehand---how did this affect the outcome, or even more importantly, what precedent does this set for future cases, where the one protecting is not in a cut and dry self defense/last resort situation.
I guess I would say that if he had an illegal magazine, then he should get whatever punishment one would typically receive for that particular transgression. The circumstances of it's discovery (i.e. after a shootout) shouldn't change it's legality or illegality. That should be a separate issue from whether he was justified in shooting these guys, which I believe he was.
As far as bragging/revenge. That certainly doesn't make him a great guy, but the fact remains that it appears he was all talk, and they were the aggressors. If this had happened in a bar parking lot, then it's a lot more questionable, but they came to his house etc. He was clearly protecting himself and in that context his actions should be justified.
When it happens next time, and the circumstances aren't as clearcut, it should go through the court system.
I guess I would say that if he had an illegal magazine, then he should get whatever punishment one would typically receive for that particular transgression. The circumstances of it's discovery (i.e. after a shootout) shouldn't change it's legality or illegality. That should be a separate issue from whether he was justified in shooting these guys, which I believe he was.
As far as bragging/revenge. That certainly doesn't make him a great guy, but the fact remains that it appears he was all talk, and they were the aggressors. If this had happened in a bar parking lot, then it's a lot more questionable, but they came to his house etc. He was clearly protecting himself and in that context his actions should be justified.
When it happens next time, and the circumstances aren't as clearcut, it should go through the court system.
I totally agree with your points.
For argument sake, say that having the extended magazine was key in his protection--ie. if he didn't have the ammo and was forced to reload, his aggressors would have had the chance to injure him. Does the crime of having an illegally modified weapon also get stricken under self protection? (as manslaughter/murder is stricken under self-protection)
The following 2 users would like to thank Chemmie for this useful post:
For argument sake, say that having the extended magazine was key in his protection--ie. if he didn't have the ammo and was forced to reload, his aggressors would have had the chance to injure him. Does the crime of having an illegally modified weapon also get stricken under self protection? (as manslaughter/murder is stricken under self-protection)
I think I understand the debate point here, and I guess that I would say (my opinion only), the crime of having an illegally large magazine shouldn't get stricken. I think that this holds up logically. If you could use the argument of "Isn't it great that I had illegal "whatever" because otherwise I'd probably be dead." in order to escape prosecution, where would it stop?
Imagine this scenario;
"Some guys broke into my house, I know I was illegal, but isn't it lucky that I had a grenade launcher, otherwise I would have had to reload and they would have got me for sure!"
A silly example for sure, but it makes the point.
Now, having said all that, I have to wonder, exactly what is the penalty for having a large rifle magazine? I'm betting it's pretty insignificant, even in Canada.
I certainly understand the tragedy behind the number, but I guess that I'm not really convinced that you can make any meaningful impact on violent or accidental death in the US by just getting rid of all the guns, or some of the guns, or pieces of guns.
I realize that the numbers represent real people and real tragedy, but in any complicated endeavor, we typically look at the data in order to determine how to effect maximum change. I'm not trying to muddy the water here, but consider the following.
If the number is 1475 in about a month, and we round up and extrapolate that into 24,000 per year, divided by 275,000,000 guns in the US (estimate) you get a 0.00009 chance that any given gun will shoot someone in a given year. This tells me that while gun death is horrible, it's a MUCH smaller problem from a causal standpoint than smoking, drug use, child abuse, alcohol abuse, teen prostitution, or any one of a thousand other problems that should be getting more attention, but don't because they aren't as graphic and sensational.
Example; according to CDC data, more people die each year from liver disease than gunshots, and if you add all alcohol related deaths, the estimate is approximately 100,000 per year. Why don't people push for more laws restricting alcohol use? Clearly its' killing 3-4 times as many people as firearm violence.
As far as accidental death, the example of the two year old boy that was used in the article is horrible. As a dad, it makes me want to cry, but it's also super manipulative because that's specifically the reaction that was wanted.
Who leaves a revolver on the coffee table with a toddler in the room? I'm sorry, but tragic accident or not, the parent has to bear some responsibility here.
If it had been a nail gun, or a circular saw, or even an unstable T.V that he was able to pull over onto himself, we would have all said "what a horrible accident." Maybe thought that the dad showed poor judgement, and that would have been the end of it. because it was a firearm, it's international news.
This user would like to thank Desert Rat for this useful post:
I certainly understand the tragedy behind the number, but I guess that I'm not really convinced that you can make any meaningful impact on violent or accidental death in the US by just getting rid of all the guns, or some of the guns, or pieces of guns.
I realize that the numbers represent real people and real tragedy, but in any complicated endeavor, we typically look at the data in order to determine how to effect maximum change. I'm not trying to muddy the water here, but consider the following.
If the number is 1475 in about a month, and we round up and extrapolate that into 24,000 per year, divided by 275,000,000 guns in the US (estimate) you get a 0.00009 chance that any given gun will shoot someone in a given year. This tells me that while gun death is horrible, it's a MUCH smaller problem from a causal standpoint than smoking, drug use, child abuse, alcohol abuse, teen prostitution, or any one of a thousand other problems that should be getting more attention, but don't because they aren't as graphic and sensational.
Example; according to CDC data, more people die each year from liver disease than gunshots, and if you add all alcohol related deaths, the estimate is approximately 100,000 per year. Why don't people push for more laws restricting alcohol use? Clearly its' killing 3-4 times as many people as firearm violence.
As far as accidental death, the example of the two year old boy that was used in the article is horrible. As a dad, it makes me want to cry, but it's also super manipulative because that's specifically the reaction that was wanted.
Who leaves a revolver on the coffee table with a toddler in the room? I'm sorry, but tragic accident or not, the parent has to bear some responsibility here.
If it had been a nail gun, or a circular saw, or even an unstable T.V that he was able to pull over onto himself, we would have all said "what a horrible accident." Maybe thought that the dad showed poor judgement, and that would have been the end of it. because it was a firearm, it's international news.
Because alcohol, nail guns, cars, smoking, fat food are all "self-inflicted deaths" or due to accidents...being shot down is neither self-inflicted nor an accident, you see the difference...?
You see, e.g. school shootings happens because some nut-cases are allowed to have guns...
So arming the whole population with a gun will not stop these kind of deeds..
I agree that making guns illegal will not solve the whole problem because there are very disturbed social factors involved and somehow guns are seen as the "problem solver".
But having gun control would help...I never understood why people are against gun control...
Because alcohol, nail guns, cars, smoking, fat food are all "self-inflicted deaths" or due to accidents...being shot down is neither self-inflicted nor an accident, you see the difference...?
I must respectfully disagree. Many people on this forum and within this thread have brought up accidental shooting statistics as a cornerstone of their argument, and the article that was posted, which I specifically referenced, devoted the majority of it's content to the accidental shooting of a child. There are a great many accidental gun deaths, and you can't use that fact to argue against guns, and at the same time argue that it doesn't really count in reference to any other type of death by other means.
Also, anyone who has lost a child to a drunk driver, or been a victim of a drunken abusive parent or spouse will not likely agree with the completely unrealistic argument that alcohol abuse is okay because "they are only hurting themselves."
I have never said that I'm against gun control. But I also understand that there are worse things in the world, and if you are trying to eliminate needless, senseless death, guns are well down on the list.
The following 3 users would like to thank Desert Rat for this useful post:
My problem with gun control--is that too many people are screaming for gun control or banning guns so they can sleep well at night thinking they have done the right thing and have a superior opinion and morals.
It is fairly naive to think that stronger gun control laws will make a big impact on lives saved.
Even if stringent gun controls reduce that 1475 death number down, it's will always be a shocking number. It's not like gun related deaths are only horrific once they break the 1000 number--it is just a trivial number with great shock value.
My worry is if millions of dollars is blindly spent on knee-jerk gun control laws that make little difference.
That being said, I don't have much of a better solution other than social and ideological reform (which would take generations to see benefit), so a middle ground should be found intelligently looking at actions and results.
__________________
"You have reached the end of you free trial membership at BenjaminFranklinQuotes.com" -Benjamin Franklin
The following 4 users would like to thank Chemmie for this useful post:
But having gun control would help...I never understood why people are against gun control...
Nor I. I guess it's one of those American things I'll never understand.
I mean, when I was a child I played with guns, including air rifles. A childhood friend still has a pellet in his leg from when we found out that they were really pretty dangerous things to be used as toys[1], and there ended my fascination with them. Seems that some people grow up in different ways to others.
[1] To be fair, we were out shooting crows, he only had a little Gatt gun, which could be fired into bare flesh from point blank without breaking the skin, but was taking great pleasure in shooting my dog with it. I said if he did it again I'd shoot him, he did, I did. Surprising that the gun that could kill a crow on the wing at >100yds would penetrate into the bone from 10 ft? No, not really, as I realised later
The following 2 users would like to thank Ace1 for this useful post:
And seriously, I am thinking of signing that petition to deport this duchebag. I use to have some level of respect for CNN, it clear however, that they have sunken to the depths of Fox News.
The following 2 users would like to thank California Dreamer for this useful post:
And seriously, I am thinking of signing that petition to deport this duchebag. I use to have some level of respect for CNN, it clear however, that they have sunken to the depths of Fox News.
Doesn't that just trample all over one of the other amendments, the absolute right to free speech? Piers Morgan may be a self-promoting tabloid hack, but at least he's apparently not going to be shut up by the NRA and their cronies, so I now have to accord him _some_ respect.
The following 2 users would like to thank Ace1 for this useful post:
I had a small revelation this morning as I watched drivers on the autobahn.
Cars can be deadly but not as deadly as firearms in the wrong hands.
If it takes a few months and a certain high number of driving hours training, and then a stringent test to pass a driver's licence test, WHY is there NO equivalent firearms training and certification tests for owning and shooting a firearm?
This is the same in US and CH.
There is background checks but there is no mandatory "flight hours" to clock in order to own and fire a weapon.
Am I the only Einstein here?
__________________ 祸从口出 病从口入 大家自制 小心小人. Be kind, you are not always right, are you?
The following 2 users would like to thank HAT for this useful post:
I had a small revelation this morning as I watched drivers on the autobahn.
Cars can be deadly but not as deadly as firearms in the wrong hands.
If it takes a few months and a certain high number of driving hours training, and then a stringent test to pass a driver's licence test, WHY is there NO equivalent firearms training and certification tests for owning and shooting a firearm?
This is the same in US and CH.
There is background checks but there is no mandatory "flight hours" to clock in order to own and fire a weapon.
Am I the only Einstein here?
I know that you have to show competency in Belgium.
Linear Mode
