Mentat wrote:The only one trolling here is you and xouper.
I see you still have nothing of value to add to the discussion.
Rob Lister wrote:Has this thread covered any ground since ...
http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums/vi ... 77&p=22593
Mentat wrote:. . . all I see are emotional knee jerk reactions and panicking at the thought there may be data out their they won't like. And so instead of accepting it, they come up with the most moronic reasons to poison the well.
Mentat wrote:I'll add something of value when somebody else does.
Police say 11-year-old girl used her own shotgun to scare off robbers in Lapeer County
Roberto Acosta, on February 02, 2015
LAPEER COUNTY, MI -- An 11-year-old girl used the shotgun she normally keeps to go hunting with her father to scare off a robber in her home, police said.
The girl was alone at her North Branch Township home on Five Lakes Road about 3:45 p.m. on Jan. 30 when police said she surprised burglars who had broken into the house.
The girl hid in a bathroom closet, where she grabbed her shotgun that police said she stores in a gun safe.
When one of the burglars opened the closet door, police said the girl — whose parents were due home from work a short time later — pointed the shotgun at him and he ran off.
"The 12-gauge shotgun is her weapon," said Lapeer County Sheriff Detective Sgt. Jason Parks. "She and her father are into hunting and avid sportsmen. She was familiar with that weapon."
Parks praised the girl's responsibility, poise and composure.
"She is fully capable of staying there by herself as we can clearly see based on this situation," he said. "She was able to defend herself from an intruder and be able to resolve an event even most adults would be taken aback by."
Added Parks, "She is fully capable of making sound, good decisions," he said. "And be a protector of her home." ...
Officials hope deadly shooting of would-be carjacker is a wake-up call
February 26, 2018, by Aaron Maybin
MILWAUKEE -- A carjacking suspect was shot and killed by his would-be victim early Monday, Feb. 26 near 91st and Fond du Lac in Milwaukee, and we've learned the alleged carjacker also had a gun.
. . . Many who work in the area said carjackers frequent businesses looking for vehicles to steal, and many workers are concealed carry permit holders. The shooter in this case has a permit.
. . . [MPD Captain Andra Williams] said carjackings and vehicle thefts have gotten out of hand and this incident should serve as a warning.
Mentat wrote:Still waiting to hear about that value.
Homeowner shoots man knocking on wrong door
By Ana Ley, June 5, 2014
A man who accidentally banged on the door of a stranger’s house early this morning was shot by the homeowner, Metro Police said.
The victim had been at a birthday party at a nearby house in the 9200 block of Wittig Avenue, near Fort Apache and Elkhorn roads, Metro Lt. Ted Glaude said. He and a friend left briefly, and when they tried returning about 2 a.m., they confused the two houses and knocked on the wrong door, police said.
Officer Laura Meltzer said the homeowner called police, believing the men to be burglars, and fired a single round.
. . . Paramedics took the injured man to University Medical Center, where he was being treated for injuries not considered life threatening, officials said.
. . . No arrests had been made as of 11 a.m., and no other details were immediately available.
Mentat wrote:Still yet to hear a single address on how anything that puts people in hospitals and morgues doesn't count as a health issue worth studying.
sparks wrote:And why not report the use in self defense? Is it not your Constitutional Right(r) to do so?
Oh noes, if one is truly defending his home/family/shit, then surely the DA will be understanding about the altercation...
Seems like a built in problem there ed. You might want to refine your last post.
It is either legal to defend etc. or it is not. You're implying that people don't report self defense...because they might not be sure what that is exactly and are afraid of prosecution.
Responsible gun owners.
sparks wrote:It is either legal to defend etc. or it is not.
Sam Harris: One sometimes hears horror stories about people who engaged in seemingly necessary acts of self-defense and yet were zealously prosecuted and landed in prison. What is the worst that can happen?
Steven Levine: The worst that can happen is that you go to prison for the rest of your life, especially if you kill somebody. In California, even if you have a valid self-defense claim, the DA’s office will typically still file charges on you. I recently had a client, a 50-year-old nurse, who was in her own home when her ex-boyfriend (for 26 years) came over. He’d moved out 7 months earlier. There was a small history of domestic violence. But in fact, he had recently assaulted their 22-year-old daughter by head-butting her. While they were discussing things downstairs in the living room, he picked up a sledgehammer. She grew worried, told him to leave, and retreated upstairs. He put down the hammer but followed her upstairs and told her he did not have to leave. Once upstairs, he was yelling at her. Finally, she grabbed her gun. She’s a cancer survivor. She’s had a double mastectomy. She’s half his size, and she told him to leave. He went for the gun, and she shot him. The bullet went through his rib cage and he died. She tried to save him by doing CPR.
The jury convicted her of murder despite the fact that she said that she was scared for her life. Again, the general principle is correct as far as the law is concerned: You can defend yourself as long as you’re scared of great bodily injury—and that’s not such a high standard. Great bodily injury could be pretty much anything.
Defending Yourself Against Attack by Threatening Force Is a Crime in Kansas
By Eugene Volokh on October 23, 2009
That’s what the Kansas Supreme Court just held, interpreting Kansas Stats. § 21-3211. The statute reads,
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.
(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.
And the court concluded that while this allows self-defense that involves an actual attack on the attacker — for instance, hitting, shooting, or stabbing the attacker — it does not allow self-defense that merely involves a threat of violence against the attacker.
If You Brandish a Gun in Self-Defense in Kansas, You’d Best Shoot It
By Eugene Volokh, April 14, 2010 updated May 25, 2011
From State v. Flint, 2010 WL 445934 (Kan. App. Jan. 29):[A]fter leaving a bar in Emporia where [Brandon] Flint’s fiancee and another man exchanged angry words, Flint walked to his car. Outside, Flint’s fiancee and two men continued to talk in a heated fashion. Flint’s fiancee fell to the ground during the scuffle. At this point, Flint got his gun, walked back across the street, and pointed the gun at the chest of one of the men; both men immediately backed away. Flint’s fiancee got up, she and Flint walked back to Flint’s car, and they drove away.
The State charged Flint with aggravated assault, and the jury convicted him. Flint requested an instruction for defense of another under K.S.A. 21-3211(a), but the district court denied his request, ruling Flint’s use of force was greater than reasonably necessary to resist the attack.
. . . A majority of the Supreme Court held in [State v. Hendrix, 289 Kan. 859 (2009),] that K.S.A. 21-3211 created a defense of self or defense of another only when there is “use of force.” The majority decided actual physical contact rather than a mere threat or display of force is necessary to raise this defense. Since Flint merely threatened the use of his gun and there was no actual force applied, he was not entitled to the defense of another.
Wow. Had Flint actually shot the gun, he would presumably have been entitled to have the jury consider his defense-of-others defense. (Such a defense would generally be roughly similar to a self-defense defense, and use of deadly force is generally allowed in self-defense against sufficiently serious threats.) But because Flint merely brandished the gun, he’s a felon — even if he reasonably believed that brandishing the gun was necessary to save his fiancee’s life. That is simply absurd.
Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 1 guest