• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shooting To Stop the Crime: What is too Far?

The court of law is pretty far down on my list of concerns in that moment. As I mentioned, in public you should cease the use of force the moment that the perp is no longer a threat. In my home however, they will get no such reprieve. I don't give verbal warnings or fire warning shots either. The only thing they're gonna hear and/or see is the SureFire flashlight bulb then the muzzle flash and report.

if there is evidence that you killed someone even after they surrendered and begged for mercy & their life, you may very well spend the rest of your life in prison..if you kill them anyways.
 
I train officers and some civilians. I do little talking. Instead, I use people and - at first plastic/soft knives and guns, and then real guns with paint-bullets - walking the person through actual senarios - making them do the routines over and over and over and over and over for 2 reasons. First, I don't want them to have to make decisions at the moment. I want those already made and done a hundred times. I want the person's actions to be automatic, instinctive and essentially required. Don't think, do. Second, it provides a legal defense because the person did EXACTLY what half a dozen law enforcement officers trained and told the person to do. That puts half a dozen officers on the stand saying "he/she did exactly as he instructed." That addresses motivation. Even if the advise was bad advice, it is virtually the perfect defense, even in a sense "follow the police's instructions."

Exactly. That's why I try to make sure I'm out at the range at least a couple times a month, working on different things. It's also why I do periodic "walk throughs" of the condo both with the lights on and off, looking for the different blind spots and holes. I've only had to use that training once, about 5 years ago when my former roommates and I came home to find her parent's apartment door open and the alarm going off. Clearning that apartment (about 800 sq. ft) was pretty disquieting. Thankfully the door had popped open when one of the animals ran into it and that caused the alarm to go off, nothing more.
 
if there is evidence that you killed someone even after they surrendered and begged for mercy & their life, you may very well spend the rest of your life in prison..if you kill them anyways.

I'm well aware of the legal aspects. I also know that if I don't, the burglar is likely to walk away with at most a slap on the wrist.
 
Because it is the social principle exceeds the worth of the individual. The social principle is that people defending themselves can lead to bad things. Therefore, it is that policy, not the individual, that matters. "Greatest good for the greatest number" also justifies people dying or being assaulted who otherwise would not.
The man had a right to defend himself there is no question about that. He was fearful and reacted , he was not defending himself.




In his situation it appears he had to wait until 20 people were beating on him or someone was shooting him before he could defend himself, which of course means no right to defend himself at all. However, he violated the principle of no-guns even against a mob charging at you.

I don't know the laws of his jurisdiction. Merely possessing the firearm violated law or the gun was an illegal type or had an illegal magazine. The press doesn't always get the details right.
He was not charged for the weapon, he was charged be cause he discharged the weapon. He should have retreated and waited for the police. However, according to Mr. Grier, “I went around and went into the house, ran upstairs and told my wife to call the police. I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house. I tell them, you know, ‘Can you please leave?" He was the one who brought the rifle to a verbal exchange.

He reacted to his own fears there does not appear to be any actual home invasion, they were in his yard, but, that was not enough.
 
I'm well aware of the legal aspects. I also know that if I don't, the burglar is likely to walk away with at most a slap on the wrist.

I guess murder is just an extension of your retirement plan.....
 
Anyone remember Bernie Goetz?

Bernhard Goetz, born November 7, 1947, is best known for his moniker "the Subway Vigilante". Following an assault in 1981, Goetz was infuriated by the lack of prosecution of the three assailants. He decided to start carrying a gun for protection. In 1984, four teenagers approached Goetz again, but this time Goetz shot all four, paralyzing one. The case made him a folk hero for many New Yorkers.

*Snip*

The subsequent trial in 1987 acquitted Goetz of attempted murder, but he was found guilty of illegal firearms possession count, for which he served less than a year. Yet pressure to hold the shooter accountable for his actions landed Goetz back in court. This time, though, Goetz refused to stay on the sidelines. Following the conclusion of his first trial, he'd become much more vocal about the problems facing the city. He pushed for all civilians to arm themselves, and told one reporter that Cabey's mother would have been better if she'd had an abortion. In 1996, a civil jury found in favor of the plaintiff, and awarded Cabey, who had been paralyzed by the shooting, $43 million in damages. Goetz immediately declared bankruptcy.

Bernhard Goetz Biography - Facts, Birthday, Life Story - Biography.com

The website may or may not be totally reliable, but for my purposes, that's none too important. Look at the really big variables in play here: New York gun laws, public sentiment, crime rates and changes in crime rates between trials, etc. Not to mention, if memory serves, Goetz also testified at his criminal trial because he was asserting justification. Taking the stand is usually considered one of the most dangerous moves any criminal defendant can make...and yet, it probably couldn't be avoided for Goetz.

It's hard to imagine any defendant with a justifiable homicide defense who wouldn't have to take the stand, as his state of mind during the killing is more or less the whole game.

Now, ask yourselves, if it could be avoided, is this an experience you hope to include in your own lives? Because if the jury doesn't like you, doesn't like your lawyer, or just plain gets bored, you may well be doing LWOP (assuming you killed). You may even land on death row.

I bet all of us can name at least ten verdicts we each think are absolutely 100% wrong.

Juries are not your friends, friends.
 
He was not charged for the weapon, he was charged be cause he discharged the weapon. He should have retreated and waited for the police. However, according to Mr. Grier, “I went around and went into the house, ran upstairs and told my wife to call the police. I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house. I tell them, you know, ‘Can you please leave?" He was the one who brought the rifle to a verbal exchange.
There's a reason a gun is sometimes called an equalizer. It clearly served its purpose in this case. He protected his family and no one was hurt. It could have easily been a very different scenario without it. I would not be willing to risk the welfare of my family or myself, the law be damned.
 
I guess murder is just an extension of your retirement plan.....

gator, if I felt there was even the slightest chance that the Legal system would deal with the waste of flesh and oxygen, my viewpoint might be different. However, since I do not have the slightest inclination that they would, I have to deal with it before they guy breaks into the home of someone who can't defend themselves. We've returned to a society where you basically have to take care of yourself because the law enforcement community and the legal system are not willing to or allowed to do it for you.
 
Anyone remember Bernie Goetz?

Bernhard Goetz Biography - Facts, Birthday, Life Story - Biography.com

The website may or may not be totally reliable, but for my purposes, that's none too important. Look at the really big variables in play here: New York gun laws, public sentiment, crime rates and changes in crime rates between trials, etc. Not to mention, if memory serves, Goetz also testified at his criminal trial because he was asserting justification. Taking the stand is usually considered one of the most dangerous moves any criminal defendant can make...and yet, it probably couldn't be avoided for Goetz.

It's hard to imagine any defendant with a justifiable homicide defense who wouldn't have to take the stand, as his state of mind during the killing is more or less the whole game.

Now, ask yourselves, if it could be avoided, is this an experience you hope to include in your own lives? Because if the jury doesn't like you, doesn't like your lawyer, or just plain gets bored, you may well be doing LWOP (assuming you killed). You may even land on death row.

I bet all of us can name at least ten verdicts we each think are absolutely 100% wrong.

Juries are not your friends, friends.

The old saying, "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six," comes into play here. Believe me, in the heat of the moment? You are going to do what your instincts tell you to do -- unless you have practiced scenerios over and over and over again. And sometimes? Your instincts tell you to freeze.

When I took a firearms training course, the instructor spent one two-hour sessions talking about, "What happens if you shoot somebody?" His upshot was, in Illinois, count on most likely be charged with a serious crime...have at least $20,000 in the bank for your legal fees...count on a civil suit from the perp or his family...count on another $20,000 in attorney fees for that."

I believe him. Yet, I'd like to think I wouldn't let all that stop me from saving my life or someone else's.
 
There's a reason a gun is sometimes called an equalizer. It clearly served its purpose in this case. He protected his family and no one was hurt. It could have easily been a very different scenario without it. I would not be willing to risk the welfare of my family or myself, the law be damned.

Ya. All my cop friends tell me the same thing. Better to be a defendant than a corpse.

It just doesn't resonate with me at this stage of my life, but I do understand why some people feel this way.
 
Now, ask yourselves, if it could be avoided, is this an experience you hope to include in your own lives? Because if the jury doesn't like you, doesn't like your lawyer, or just plain gets bored, you may well be doing LWOP (assuming you killed). You may even land on death row.

Pinkie, I own firearms and I carry a gun regularly. This is something that I've had to consider regularly for more than a decade now. Nobody even marginally sane WANTS to have to use a firearm (or any other self-defense tool) for real. I know that I do not. However, I also know that my personal property and the safety of myself, my friends, and my family are worth a lot more to me than the life or health of anyone who wishes to take those things from us. I am well aware that a jury is probably not going to look favorably on me. However, I answer to a much higher power than any mortal jury.
 
There's a reason a gun is sometimes called an equalizer. It clearly served its purpose in this case. He protected his family and no one was hurt. It could have easily been a very different scenario without it. I would not be willing to risk the welfare of my family or myself, the law be damned.

This guy did not protect anything. The mob easily could have entered the house when he went in to retrieve the gun. The equalizer here was dumb luck not a weapon.
 
This guy did not protect anything. The mob easily could have entered the house when he went in to retrieve the gun. The equalizer here was dumb luck not a weapon.
You may react in any way you see fit to protect your family. He put the odds in his favor by his actions. He effectively deterred a possible attack by doing so, and as I said before, the law (and the opinion of others) be damned.
 
This guy did not protect anything. The mob easily could have entered the house when he went in to retrieve the gun. The equalizer here was dumb luck not a weapon.

Dumb luck in some situations is aided by a frontal view of a half inch hole in the end of a steel rod.
 
Dumb luck in some situations is aided by a frontal view of a half inch hole in the end of a steel rod.
Ok, I get the tough guy, no nonsense approach to this situation, unfortunately, it equates to no brains as well for this man.

The facts are very clear. That was no imminent threat to his home, himself or his family. There was no physical force used to harm him or his family.There is no record the wife called the police. All we have is this man's word that his family was threatened. He first confronted these people unarmed, he then left the area unprotected these people did not go into his house, neither he nor his family were in danger of imminent harm from these people, the police came after he fired the shots.
 
Ok, I get the tough guy, no nonsense approach to this situation, unfortunately, it equates to no brains as well for this man.

The facts are very clear. That was no imminent threat to his home, himself or his family. There was no physical force used to harm him or his family.There is no record the wife called the police. All we have is this man's word that his family was threatened. He first confronted these people unarmed, he then left the area unprotected these people did not go into his house, neither he nor his family were in danger of imminent harm from these people, the police came after he fired the shots.

Your head is truly buried in the sand if you believe that a street gang in your yard is not an imminent threat. I will counter that the presence of the weapon was an equalizer. One man defending his property from a large group of street thugs. The mob certainly had thoughts of thir own mortality when the weapon came out.
 
Your head is truly buried in the sand if you believe that a street gang in your yard is not an imminent threat. I will counter that the presence of the weapon was an equalizer. One man defending his property from a large group of street thugs. The mob certainly had thoughts of thir own mortality when the weapon came out.

No Chiefgator, my head is not buried anywhere.

According to Grier's own story: he left the yard where they were to get his rifle; this absence was enough time for these people to follow him, enter his house, rape, kill and pillage before the police arrived. The man said, "five men dared him to use the gun". So now you interpret the actions of a man who on a "dare" shot his rifle as some sort of self defense?

The reality is this man was angry...I do not blame him. He was arrested for his acts and they were not that is a fact as well.
 
Ok, I get the tough guy, no nonsense approach to this situation, unfortunately, it equates to no brains as well for this man.

The facts are very clear. That was no imminent threat to his home, himself or his family. There was no physical force used to harm him or his family.There is no record the wife called the police. All we have is this man's word that his family was threatened. He first confronted these people unarmed, he then left the area unprotected these people did not go into his house, neither he nor his family were in danger of imminent harm from these people, the police came after he fired the shots.

Its called force of numbers. It can and has been defended buy use of a firearm. In this case the homeowner was TOTALLY justified in his actions and the police, not so much.

If that had been me the gun would have been drawn and pointed at the nearest individual and the next advancing step he would have been shot and the next nearest target engaged until threat is gone. As soon as the cops show all they would have heard from me is "talk to my lawyer". And yes it really is that simple.

Hey its New York though, where it's considered morally superior to be a wounded or dead victim rather than have a wounded or dead criminal.
 
Its called force of numbers.

It is called anger and a weapon in the wrong hands.

It can and has been defended buy use of a firearm. In this case the homeowner was TOTALLY justified in his actions and the police, not so much.
I pointed out in a previous post that in Texas, for example, this would have been justified, but the facts as applied to the law in the state where this man chooses to live say otherwise.
 
Nobody seems to have addressed the mass shooter in a gun free zone. Is everyone aware that you WOULD go to jail over it?
 
Hello

Yes he should at the very least reckless endangerment and reckless use of a firearm.

Wolfman24
 
In Florida it is a madatory 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot. So in some senarios it would be entirely legal to kill someone, but 20 years in the pen if instead you fired a warning shot. Florida law requires shoot-to-kill and outlaws shoot-to-warn. Bizarre, huh?

Rather than discuss each state's laws, I'll evaluate the senario for my opinion. I have NO problem with him firing the warning shots if his account of what happened is true. If a growing mob is telling you that are going to kill you and your family, saying you don't have the nerve to shoot, firing to prove you do was exactly correct.

But this was NY and generally there you can not use a gun for self defense unless the other person is already shooting at you or stabbing you. New York law gives criminals the first shot.
 
Nobody seems to have addressed the mass shooter in a gun free zone. Is everyone aware that you WOULD go to jail over it?


Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the state and prosecutor. Sadly, now it also may appear to depend upon the person's race.
 
So I have a couple of ideas that were discussed today.

There is an armed criminal in a 7/11 robbing the place. Numerous scenarios can play out, but legally the armed criminal can be shot by a bystanding civilian. What might be considered too far and over the line in terms of action by the civilian? Should the civilian be charged with anything?

No the civilian shouldn't be charged.A civilian has the right to use lethal force to defend himself and others.



What about a breaking and entering in an occupied home? Is there are instance where a civilian at home should not shoot the intruder? Should it depend on the location of the criminal in the home? As in bedroom vs kitchen or garage? Or does it depend on what the criminal has with them? Or is the simple act of breaking into an occupied home enough cause to shoot on sight? Should the civilian be charged?
A civilian should be allowed to use lethal force to defend his home regardless of where that intruder is.And no he shouldn't be charged.A civilian has the right to use lethal force to defend himself and others.


In the instance of a mass shooter, if they are met with armed resistance by a civillian who shoots and kills, is that the wrong course of action of that civilian? Might there be cases where a civilian should not act on an active shooter? Is it wrong for the civilian to act in this situation?


Would it be wrong for a civilian who is right outside of a "gun free zone" to upon hearing gun fire, go into the gun free zone armed...and shoot and kill a mass shooter? Should the civilian be charged the felony for violating the gun free zone policy?
No the civilian should not be charged with anything,if anything he should receive a medal for saving the lives of others.
I know my answers. I am curious about others.

Oh and here is an incident I am curious what yall might think about?

Long Island Man Arrested For Defending Home With AK-47 « CBS New York

New York likes to **** on the 2nd amendment.If anyone should be charged it should be the anti-American scum who passed unconstitutional laws in that state.
 
Back
Top Bottom