Subject:
|
Re: A shot in the dark
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 8 Jun 2007 16:33:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4760 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Part of Dave K’s post here brought this issue to mind and resonated with a recent news story.
Here’s part of the text of a post I wrote back in 2003. I’ve isolated it
here rather than replying in-thread because I don’t want to put any
participants in that thread back on the hook for a response. They’re welcome
(along with anyone else, of course) to reply as they see fit.
| |
By what logic do you claim the authority to act as judge/jury/executioner
simply on the basis that someone has entered your home? Here are a few
possibilities worth considering:
1. The “intruder” is mentally incompetent and has entered your home
inadvertently
2. The “intruder” is your daughter’s boyfriend who is sneaking out of the
house after a late-night visit *authorized* by your daughter
3. The “intruder” is your daughter who has sneaked down to the kitchen for
a glass of water during the night
|
And
here’s the news story, sort of a cross between #2 and #3.
It’s especially poignant because it’s unclear whether Scott announced himself
or gave the supposed “intruder” a chance to surrender. I suppose we can be
glad that he didn’t kill her, but was this really the best way to go about
it?
| |
4. The “intruder,” in desperation, has sought refuge from an attacker by
entering your home. In the heat of the moment she had no time to knock and
wait for you to answer, which surely would have allowed her attacker to
reach her
5. The “intruder” has entered your house in error while
intending to visit a friend who owns a similar home (granted, we’re assuming
that your door was unlocked)
6. The “intruder” thought that you were a politician who had usurped his
rights, and he broke into your home to perform what he considered to be
appropriate retaliation
7. The “intruder” is a Canadian liberal who likes “Serenity” too much.
Okay, I’ll give you #7.
|
Dave!
|
Well in this case the homeowner was definatly in the wrong. There can be no
doubt that he shot without any warning, (otherwise his daughter would have made
herself known to him) and thus he can’t claim self defence, because he wasn’t
being attacked. In my view that sort of thing is exaclty the reason not to have
guns in the house, allowing guns means people like him can have them. To top it
all off he is a policeman, what sort of training do they give them in New Haven?
tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A shot in the dark
|
| (...) I will agree that the homeowner was wrong, but on different grounds. He did not properly identify his target before firing. In many states, you are allowed to presume that any un-invited intruder in your house is a deadly threat. Such laws are (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | A shot in the dark
|
| Part of Dave K's post (URL) here> brought this issue to mind and resonated with a recent news story. Here's part of the text of a post I wrote back in 2003. I've isolated it here rather than replying in-thread because I don't want to put any (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
