Summations Only

Then you'll go to jail...with no guns...and lots of "intruders." - Oni

Niceeee, the serious crashfrog has made an edgy joke. Well done, sir. In principle, I agree. But split-second decisions are not the best. Many trained law enforcement people have made the wrong choice and "though" they saw a gun, only to find out they shot, in many cases, an innocent person. In some cases it has even been a kid.So AE's point about shooting someone before you know whether they have a gun or not, is not a good way to react. And, in many cases, has landed the shooter in jail... where they get intruded, in the butt.- Oni

I get that, and I do believe people should be allowed to protect themselves and their home/family/property. But shoot to kill without evidence of a weapon, I personally don't think I could.In fact, I'd rather unplug and hand someone my flat screen TV then have to shoot them in the chest and kill them over it. I would still have sympathy for an intruder (having been one once when I was about 17). People fuck up and make mistakes in their lives and they don't deserve to die over it.- Oni

And, even trained people, highly trained in those sorts of situations, can and do misjudge. So imagine how badly a civilian who has never been placed in a situation to have to shoot someone will handle making that split second decision.We're just not that ggod at in anyway. Have you read the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell (author of The Tipping Point).Summary:

quote:

---

It presents in popular science format research from psychology and behavioral economics on the adaptive unconscious; mental processes that work rapidly and automatically from relatively little information. It considers both the strengths of the adaptive unconscious, for example in expert judgment, and its pitfalls such as stereotypes.

---

The author talks about a few things on our ability to "thin slice" a situation and the benefits of not having to much info and making, in some if not most cases, a better decision.But he also points out the down falls of our unconcsious decision making process - that split-second decision that requires it - and how many factors, such as our prejudices, can come in to play.

quote:

---

Gladwell uses the 1999 killing of Amadou Diallo, where four New York policemen shot an innocent man on his doorstep 41 times, as another example of how rapid, intuitive judgment can have disastrous effects

---

It goes on to explain that intuitive judgment is developed by experience, training, and knowledge. But even in those individuals who have undergone all that, it can still fail. Imagine how shitty normal, everyday people, with no training, experience or knowledge will be at intuitive judgement. Just saying, guns can make matters worse than they were. Better them than me I always say.- Oni

Irrelevant. My only point is to show that shooting before you're aware of the full dangers of the situation, like AE suggested, is not something that untrained, inexperienced civilians should do - when, even trained, experienced offices fail to fully assess these situations.To many factors render an untrained, inexperienced person incapable rationally assessing the situation. In those cases where they shot first and asked questions later, if they killed someone who possed no danger to them, they should be justly tried and convicted for that. The only way it could be better is if, by chance, they happen to shoot someone holding a gun that they could then try to use the excuse that they felt they were in danger for their lives. I'm sure given enough tries this will be the case sometimes. But even ONE single innocent life lost over an irrational shooting, is one too many.Now, if you see the gun, you're in danger, shoot to kill. On that I agree. Which is where I think the rest of your comment holds true: "The decision to own a gun and use to to defend one's person or home is a decision that only the individual can make for themselves, after assessing their capabilities and temperament."If you choose to defend yourself with a gun when there is a situation that calls for it, go right ahead. But (1) believing that average, everyday citizens can do this is false, and (2) making a mistake can cause the lose of innocent life and that makes the stakes too high.- Oni

How are you in danger?- Oni

Not at all. That's what an irrational assessment sounds like, and is exactly the reason why untrained, inexperienced civilians (what I meant by average citizen) isn't capable of assessing those situations like someone who is experienced and trained. That's why police must see the situation escalate before they can use deadly force. However, they are trained, experienced and have the knowledge to make a better decision than civilians. And even then they can fuck up. source

quote:

---

It is not a legally defined offense (federally) in the United States...

​

Persons charged with "home invasion" are actually charged with robbery, kidnapping, homicide, rape, or assault charges.

---

...this is where the Castle Doctrine comes in in some states.But it still doesn't explain how someone is in danger, where deadly force is the only possible way out, by there being someone in your house. Personal prejudice can play a factor in making a wrong decision. How can you accurately determine that in a split-second? Or are you saying that the intruder has announced his/her intentions, pulled out a weapon and is coming at you? If that's the case, then shoot to kill.But if you just find someone in your home, have not determined if they forced their way in, don't know if there's a weapon in their possession, you have no idea what is going on. And shooting at this point is not justified. People can easily not be home invaded if they don't have a home.- Oni

Right, but how is your life in danger?There is a dude in your house. Check. You have announced that YOU have a gun. Check. He/she has not moved or responded, but isn't running away. Check.Now, where is the threat to YOUR life that your decision in this case is to use deadly force?What if you happen to shoot a deaf, retarded kid who managed to find a way into your house? Would that sit well with your conscious?- Oni

So now we are the jury, too? There is a person in his house, that is all he knows. No. There is a trespasser, but no criminal intent has been determined. Especially none where the death sentence is to be carried out. A Jehovah's witness that walks into your yard is trespassing. Like I said, it could be a deaf, retarded kid who managed to find a way into his house. Shoot first then find out why they were trespassing? That's where we want our society at?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Right, they're definitely trespassing. Now, should they die for that? No, I just meant he/she might not be able to hear you or understand you. He/she may have wandered in unknowingly, for whatever reason, and you shot without finding out. Hell, it doesn't have to be a deaf, retarded person, it could someone who was drunk and you forgot to lock your door. They wandered in thinking they were home and know they think YOU are in their house.In these cases, shooting without knowing what's going on or properly assessing the situation can result in innocent lose of life. And frankly, someone who shoots like that should be thrown in jail. You still fail to establish how it is self defense???If YOU have a gun drawn on someone in your house, who has stopped moving, isn't leaving, but isn't attacking you...YOU are in control. You have done what you needed to do, you are not in danger. Walk back into your room, lock the door and call the cops. A B & E does not constitute the death penalty.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Before you kill someone? Yes, of course. Jeez What the...? If someone is in your house with the intention to steal your microwave, you believe you are justified in shooting them? There are many other reasons why they may not hear you. As long as your life isn't in danger, you have no reason to kill someone. You specified that you had a gun drawn to an intruder that wasn't moving. You can retreat to your room, lock the door and call the cops ending the matter in a non-violent way. There is no reason to shot to kill in the scenario you described. I figured an intelligent fella like yourself would have understood that I was just describing a situation where there would be a logical reason why someone might not be able to hear you. No he doesn't dude. First, the Castle Doctrine is only for the states that have it, if your state doesn't then you don't have the same rights.Second, you described the situation. In your scenario YOU had the gun, locked and drawn, the intruder stopped moving but wasn't leaving - that situation is now under control. You have iced it, there is no need for you to use any deadly force, I repeat, in this case. The only thing left to do is call the cops and let them arrest the person. That's it.Your job is not to determine anything, your job is to make sure you're not in harms way. In the case you described, you did that. You iced the situation. Well done, now put the gun away Mr. Eastwood. - Oni

Who would argue otherwise? Certainly I'm not saying that it is not a dangerous situation, walking to the subway in Spanish Harlem at 3am is a dangerous situation. But I don't need a gun to do that. Waking up to a dangerous situation doesn't immediately mean shots have to be fired. I don't think that's the reason at all. Me sneaking in to your house to take your microwave doesn't place you in any danger. Now, you may perceive it as such but, you'd be wrong. That is why I continue to say that our ability to determine the threat in cases where we are taken by surprise is not very accurate. Yes, agreed. But in CS's scenario he did bring it to an immediate end. He has a loaded gun drawn on an intruder who has stopped moving. Mission accomplished. Call the cops and have them do their job. Yes, and that has scientifically been proven to be worthless unless you are trained, experienced and have the knowledge fit for intuitive judgment. Even then, in many cases, it has failed.Case in point: Amadou Diallo

quote:

---

In the early morning of February 4, 1999, Diallo was standing near his building after returning from a meal. Police officers Edward McMellon, Sean Carroll, Kenneth Boss and Richard Murphy passed by in a Ford Taurus when they thought Diallo matched the description of a now-captured serial rapist and approached him. The officers were in plain clothes. The officers claimed that they loudly identified themselves as NYPD officers and that Diallo ran up the outside steps toward his apartment house doorway at their approach, ignoring their orders to stop and "show his hands". The porch lightbulb was out and Diallo was backlit by the inside vestibule light, showing only a silhouette. Diallo then reached into his jacket and withdrew his wallet. At the same time, lead officer McMellon tripped over the curb, causing him to fire a round from his pistol into the pavement and fall. (Note: this specific incident of what is known as a "sympathetic squeeze"[citation needed] has resulted in nationwide changes to police training policy to place the trigger finger on the frame of the pistol, not the trigger guard.)

​

Seeing the suspect holding a small square object, hearing a shot, and seeing the officer in front fall, Carroll yelled "Gun!" to alert his colleagues. The officers opened fire on Diallo. The four officers fired forty-one shots, hitting Diallo nineteen times. The post-shooting investigation found no weapons on Diallo's body; the item he had pulled out of his jacket was not a gun, but a rectangular black wallet. The internal NYPD investigation ruled the officers had acted within policy, based on what a reasonable police officer would have done in the same circumstances with the information they had.

​

On March 25, a Bronx grand jury indicted the officers on charges of second-degree murder and reckless endangerment. On December 16 a New York appellate court ordered a change of venue to Albany, New York, stating that pretrial publicity had made a fair trial in New York City impossible. On February 25, 2000, after two days of deliberations, a mixed-race jury in Albany acquitted the officers of all charges.

---

And these were four, not one single frightened homeowner, FOUR trained and experienced offices who's fat thing at the top of their neck failed them and an innocent life was lost. Diallo's mistake was being an immigrant who didn't speak english that well.My point here isn't to say the offices were at fault or not, but just to show you that the fat thing at the top of our necks isn't all that great at assessing intense situations, and that factors like personal prejudices may cause us to react needlessly with hast. It is a fact that homeless people can't be home invaded.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Answering questions with questions? Me no likey...Should someone die for trespassing? At the risk of sounding like Straggler here, can I just get a straight answer... If the intentions are unknown and their capabilities are unknown, then it logically follows that the physical risk is unknown too. Draw your gun, stop the intruder in their tracks and call the cops...why not that? Why shoot? Should someone die for trespassing?Also, how are you at risk with a trespasser? I didn't say they broke into your house, I said they wandered in because they were drunk and thought they were home.In that scenario no one is at risk, there's just been an innocent mistake. However, you are technically right, they have trespassed.So... Should someone die for trespassing? But your agrument is that it IS. You're the one claiming that a person in your house has committed a crime and placed you at risk, you then proceed to fire at them which made YOU the judge, jury and executioner. Semantics...You see someone in your house and YOU determined they were breaking and entering, are committing a crime, are placing your life at risk, that EVEN when the stop moving you are still at risk, then, with no further justification, YOU determined that it's time to gun them down.A quick and safe end is, stopping the intuder from advancing on you, locking yourself in your room and calling the cops. That's a quick end where no one gets hurt.And, if they manage to get into your room, remember, you still have your Red Rider and you can still shoot then. What you're advocating is taking the law into your own hands, letting untrained and inexperienced civilians be judge, jury and executioner. That is insanity, that is crazy-talk, and that is antithetical to the very notion of civilization.- Oni

I meant initial danger, like for your life. If I'm in there for your TV your life isn't at risk.But yeah I agree that breaking into someone's home can have lasting effects on them. My friend, a female, doesn't walk to her car alone because she was once carjacked. I love it when you tease. - Oni

That must be one amazing microwave! Fair enough. I don't, but then again, I have a shitty microwave. Well yeah, I agree. If you are in danger of death or great physical harm, then deadly force is justified. If they have violent intent, shot the fucker. But first, please, for the sake of the retards, determine that it is their intent to cause death or great physical pain. Agreed, but once you have established that you and your peoples are protected, the next step is to allow cops to do their job. Otherwise, in all seriousness, if you unjustly shot someone you could be at fault. And that would suck 'cause you were intially the victim.- Oni