[DGU] The 'Defensive Gun Use' Thread

[chipbennett]

When a person has no real reason to keep from committing a crime they tend to do it.

You are advocating for taking the law into your own hands. Due process rights exist - even (if not especially for) criminals.

If that person has a higher chance of getting shot because of those actions then maybe they will reconsider those actions.

I know what the law is right now and I will follow it. I also do not agree with it.

Couple years back someone stole a trailer and a commercial mower from me. Insurance covered the mower and most of the tools I had in a lock box on the trailer. The trailer was not insured unless it was attached to my truck. I bought a replacement, which I do not like, out of my money. So I bought two trailers and have only one to show for it.

If I had pulled up while the trailer was being stolen I can not use deadly force on the person. That's the current law.

I'm not going to debate if a trailer is worth someone's life. But I will say that if the person who took it was worried about catching a slug because of it maybe, just maybe, they would not have done it. I worked hard for the money to get that trailer. I liked it. I miss it every time I have to use the replacement.

It pisses me off that someone can say that stealing, robbing, etc from someone doesn't count if they turn and run. They still did the deed. Now they keep the spoils and get more brazen for the next time.

Who has said that? This is a straw man.

Yes, they did the deed. The law defines the punishment for conviction for that deed. Guess what? It isn't death.

I just think that TX has it right in this situation.

And I suspect that the TX statute in question might not be interpreted the same way that many here are interpreting it. I'd be interested to see actual incidents and their outcomes.

 

[chipbennett]

That was for a polite society where the police and the prosecutors did their jobs. That world no longer exists in most places in the US, especially in and around cities.

Then go be a police officer and/or a prosecutor. You don't get to carry out any act you want merely because you believe they aren't doing their jobs.

 

[Thor]

Some people just need killing, thieves being one of them. How much of the reward for your work does another person deserve? Are you willing to be reduced to slavery because you are unwilling to defend what is yours? I am not. Nor do I think anarchy is a good social construct.

That was not just a good shoot it was one that deserved rewarding. That he just left after making it makes him a good Samaritan not someone that needs prosecution.

**** the thieving bastards but the horse they rode in on may be okay under new management.

YMMV but I don't care.

 

[dudley0]

Yes, they did the deed. The law defines the punishment for conviction for that deed. Guess what? It isn't death.

You are advocating for taking the law into your own hands. Due process rights exist - even (if not especially for) criminals.


Who has said that? This is a straw man.

Yes, they did the deed. The law defines the punishment for conviction for that deed. Guess what? It isn't death.



And I suspect that the TX statute in question might not be interpreted the same way that many here are interpreting it. I'd be interested to see actual incidents and their outcomes.

I said from the beginning that I know what the law is and that I will follow it.

I also do not agree with it.

 

[chipbennett]

Shooting a robber - that is to say someone who is identifying himself as a potential murderer - whether he’s coming or going is absolutely justified. You don’t know he’s finished threatening you until he is actually gone and out of range, and it is a bit much to expect the victim to make such fine distinctions as to read the robber’s mind to determine he‘s decided to not hurt or kill someone any more. If he's in range he’s a threat.

This is analagous to someone breaking into a home. The homeowner has no idea whether this person is going to “only” steal, or rape and kill — or change his mind halfway thru. The homeowner shouldn’t have to stooge around waiting to see if he’s going to kill before being able to legally defend himself.

Likewise once a robber has shown his violent flag it is foolish to assume he suddenly becomes non-violent because maybe he’s leaving. Too much opportunity to change his mind, too much burden to put on the victim to correctly deduce the robber’s intention from split-second behavior changes. Once the robber starts robbing he should forfeit the presumption of good intentions, and the victim should not have the onus of determining otherwise in the heat of the moment.

To prosecute a victim for shooting the “fleeing“ robber would gut victim’s right to self-defense, as it would make it way too easy for anti-self-defense DAs to bully the victim. If the result is truly “fleeing“ robbers get killed, this morally superior to even one innocent victim being hurt or killed.

How?

If the robber still poses a mortal threat, by the reasonable man standard, then the requirements for use of deadly force in self-defense remain. If the robber no longer poses a mortal threat, then the requirement is not met. The devil is in the details, particularly when the robber is "fleeing". As the lawful victim, you run considerable risk exposing yourself to legal peril (we'll set aside the moral peril here, for the sake of argument - but it matters also to me) by using deadly force in "self-defense" against a fleeing robber, if you do not reasonably believe the robber still to pose a mortal threat while fleeing and when you actually use deadly force.

This is as it should be. It is very clear that some commenters in this thread desire to use deadly force not to stop an extant mortal threat, but rather to prevent the robber from committing further crime.

 

[chipbennett]

Some people just need killing, thieves being one of them. How much of the reward for your work does another person deserve? Are you willing to be reduced to slavery because you are unwilling to defend what is yours? I am not. Nor do I think anarchy is a good social construct.

That was not just a good shoot it was one that deserved rewarding. That he just left after making it makes him a good Samaritan not someone that needs prosecution.

**** the thieving bastards but the horse they rode in on may be okay under new management.

YMMV but I don't care.

And who made you prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner? Who gave you authority to deny constitutionally protected rights (due process, trial by jury, etc.) to thieves?

If you take the law into your own hands by taking the life of a thief, merely because the thief is a thief and not because said thief currently poses a mortal threat to another, then you are no better than the thief.

 

[bobzilla]

So, you are in essence advocating for victim to be judge, jury, and executioner. Because in the scenario as-described, the threat of life/great bodily harm has ended. The use of deadly force is not employed to end said threat, because the one who may have posed such a threat has ended the threat.

No. I do not agree with that position.

We can agree to disagree.

 

[Alamo]

How?

If the robber still poses a mortal threat, by the reasonable man standard, then the requirements for use of deadly force in self-defense remain. If the robber no longer poses a mortal threat, then the requirement is not met. The devil is in the details, particularly when the robber is "fleeing". As the lawful victim, you run considerable risk exposing yourself to legal peril (we'll set aside the moral peril here, for the sake of argument - but it matters also to me) by using deadly force in "self-defense" against a fleeing robber, if you do not reasonably believe the robber still to pose a mortal threat while fleeing and when you actually use deadly force.

This is as it should be. It is very clear that some commenters in this thread desire to use deadly force not to stop an extant mortal threat, but rather to prevent the robber from committing further crime.

Your argument presupposes perfect knowledge, perfect perception, and perfect execution on the part of the defending victim. By this logic you should also oppose the Castle Doctrine.

 

[wtburnette]

Then go be a police officer and/or a prosecutor. You don't get to carry out any act you want merely because you believe they aren't doing their jobs.

The system is no longer working. I'm not going to do a job where they don't let you follow the law and would never work as a prosecutor for a DA not doing their job. The answer isn't "just go to xxx job if you don't think they're doing it well enough" cause we're past that point. That might have worked 10 - 20 years ago but I don't think it's a solution in the current environment. What I'm saying and others are as well is that if the people who are supposed to do these jobs are unwilling or stopped by their bosses from doing their jobs, the people will eventually take it upon themselves. That's how it works. Not just with self defense, but plenty of things. Government won't do something, you'll have to eventually do it yourself. People in Germany weren't getting power due to their government F'ing around and they went out into the forests and cut firewood so they could survive the brutal winter. As the contract between those in charge and the rest of us breaks down, we will fill in the gaps because we're forced to.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I disagree. If the theft has occurred and the criminal is fleeing, the criminal no longer poses a threat of death or great bodily harm to the theft victim. Deadly force in self-defense should only be justified to stop such a threat. Shooting a fleeing thief is use of deadly force to stop theft.

He did it once he will do it again. Protecting his future victims.

Purple as you see fit.

 

[Cameramonkey]

The system is no longer working. I'm not going to do a job where they don't let you follow the law and would never work as a prosecutor for a DA not doing their job. The answer isn't "just go to xxx job if you don't think they're doing it well enough" cause we're past that point. That might have worked 10 - 20 years ago but I don't think it's a solution in the current environment. What I'm saying and others are as well is that if the people who are supposed to do these jobs are unwilling or stopped by their bosses from doing their jobs, the people will eventually take it upon themselves. That's how it works. Not just with self defense, but plenty of things. Government won't do something, you'll have to eventually do it yourself. People in Germany weren't getting power due to their government F'ing around and they went out into the forests and cut firewood so they could survive the brutal winter. As the contract between those in charge and the rest of us breaks down, we will fill in the gaps because we're forced to.

I think we have had enough unnecessary victims due to lack of prosecution that if a few bad guys get offed "just as they put a foot down out of bounds" (football playing in the background) I dont have much sympathy.

Judge me however you like. I dont care. I'm done giving a F.

And context is important. I'm not saying chase and hunt down the perp minutes later and kill him. If one gets shot slightly "too late" per the law, boo fricking hoo.

 

[chipbennett]

Your argument presupposes perfect knowledge, perfect perception, and perfect execution on the part of the defending victim. By this logic you should also oppose the Castle Doctrine.

My argument presupposes no such thing, and your analogy is untenable.

Someone trespassing on your property is legally assumed to represent a mortal threat, according to Castle Doctrine. The correct analogy would be shooting someone who has trespassed, but then flees, and you shoot them after they are no longer on your property.

 

[DadSmith]

Video on gas station shooting.

 

[Thor]

And who made you prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner? Who gave you authority to deny constitutionally protected rights (due process, trial by jury, etc.) to thieves?

If you take the law into your own hands by taking the life of a thief, merely because the thief is a thief and not because said thief currently poses a mortal threat to another, then you are no better than the thief.

You should have highlighted my last line as well.

 

[Alamo]

We’ll just have to agree Chip is wrong.

In new business:

Midland Texas
Invader with rifle breaks into home, homeowner puts him in chokehold, invader expires. OK not exactly a DGU, just DU, but works for me.

And of course he had tried something similar earlier and yet was still loose to run around and doit again. Previous instance involved breaking into a home, putting a responding cop in a headlock, and bloodying the cop‘s nose.

Texas Homeowner Goes WWE on Armed Burglar, Kills Him with Defensive Choke Hold - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ A rifle-toting burglar stormed a Midland, Texas, home over the weekend in an effort to rob its occupants, but discovered too late it was going to take more than the sight of a firearm to scare the homeowner into giving over the goods. Police responded to a call for...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

 

[Thor]

We’ll just have to agree Chip is wrong.

In new business:

Midland Texas
Invader with rifle breaks into home, homeowner puts him in chokehold, invader expires. OK not exactly a DGU, just DU, but works for me.

And of course he had tried something similar earlier and yet was still loose to run around and doit again. Previous instance involved breaking into a home, putting a responding cop in a headlock, and bloodying the cop‘s nose.

Texas Homeowner Goes WWE on Armed Burglar, Kills Him with Defensive Choke Hold - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ A rifle-toting burglar stormed a Midland, Texas, home over the weekend in an effort to rob its occupants, but discovered too late it was going to take more than the sight of a firearm to scare the homeowner into giving over the goods. Police responded to a call for...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Down for the count!

 

[Alamo]

Phoenix Arizona

24yo man tries to break into home, homeowner shoots him, police find him near pot dispensary In the in the area. Cycled thru hospital with non-life-threatening wound and jailed.

Police identify alleged intruder shot by homeowner in central Phoenix

The suspect was later released from the hospital and booked into jail.

www.azfamily.com

 

[Alamo]

I don’t remember reading about these next two upthread, too lazy to go look.

South Bend Indiana
Husband and wife come home at night, apparently their security system alerted them when they arrived. Husband goes to check out house while wife waits in the car. husband finds back gate open. another man holding a chainsaw “above his shoulders” approaches husband. Husband ordered him not to approach, chainsaw, man, ignores warning, husband shoots him DRT. the prosecutor rules no grounds to doubt husband’s claim of self-defense

Prosecutors rule self-defense in fatal shooting sparked by apparent chainsaw theft

Richard Davis, 68, was killed by a homeowner on Beale Street when he apparently attempted to steal a chainsaw from the man's home. It's the second justified shooting in the past month in South Bend per prosecutors.

www.wvpe.org

 

[Alamo]

South Bend Indiana

Guy tries to rob gas station clerk at gunpoint at 1 AM. Customer shoots robber dead DRT. prosecutor says no grounds to charge customer with a crime.

Prosecutor won't charge bystander who shot man holding up clerk

www.wvpe.org

 

[Alamo]

Bartlesville OKlahoma

Morning daylight hours 23yo breaks into woman‘s house. She shoots him DRT and calls cops. Cops interview and release her.

Bartlesville Home Intruder Shot And Killed

Bartlesville Police say a woman shot and killed a man who broke into her apartment.

www.newson6.com