More Active Posts
Front Page
Vigilante justice
 |
 32 Comments |
Vigilante justice in Alabama. Another good reason to have a gun in the home.
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: crime, gun-rights, justice, law |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Off-key
I am not against people owning guns for self protection or for hunting or for target practice or just because they feel like it.
I don’t think gun ownership should be prohibited.
I own an air rifle and have killed three rabbits with it.
I am sure people with guns in their homes have successfully defended themselves against villains.
However, although I don’t have proof, I would bet far more people have been killed by gun accidents and by impetuous violence using guns than bad people have been killed by citizens defending themselves by firearms.
By the same token, personal gun ownership is probably way down the scale of why we are a fairly free country.
Because I support a principle does not mean I believe silly assertions made to justify support for it.
I own an air rifle and have killed three rabbits with it.
I hope you ate them. I’m against killing for sport.
I kill to protect our garden. I didn’t eat the rabbits. I’m not a vegetarian, either. I am a very bad person.
Interesting story. Fascinating, really.
I’m glad that the robber wasn’t more of a dangerous sort. That could have backfired (no pun intended).
I need no convincing about the wisdom of having a gun(s) in my home for defense.
However, the amazing thing about this incident is the attitude of the thief when forced to clean up the mess he had made. He had the audacity to complain, as if he were being wronged, as if an injustice was being done to him. It is mind boggling that his mental processes could be so far out of whack. Is such a person even salvageable? Only God knows.
However, it throws light on the situation in the world of Genesis 6 where God declares that He will not strive with man forever. There comes a time when even the patience of God is exhausted and He declares the situation unsalvageable. As it was in Noah’s day, so it may be for this world one day soon.
I read a case the other day where a homeowner shot and killed an intruder. What alerted him from his deep sleep? His parrot begin squawking, “Hello! Hello!”.
South Carolina does not prosecute homeowners who shoot intruders. If I were a person intent on breaking into homes, that’s not where I’d do it.
Random,
The right to bear arms was very important to the Founding Fathers which is why it is #2 on the amendment list of the 10 most important - right behind their #1, Freedom of Religion.
I can hear the debate now.
Jefferson: “All Americans should have the right to worship God as they please without any government interference nor should the government impose a state religion on its citzens”
Madison: “Well, Mr Jefferson, I agree that Freedom of Religion is most important but, Historically the only way to make that happen is let Americans shoot who ever tries to limit it - they will need guns for that”
Protecting one’s home isn’t exactly “vilgilante justice.”
The homeowner showed remarkable restraint in all of this. He had the thief sit on the floor while he collected his thoughts, he developed a smart plan, and instituted it.
The best part of this story, though, is the total lack of police saying things like, “Well, this incident worked out okay, but we can’t condone Mr. McKinnon’s actions. Leave this sort of thing to the professionals.” No, instead the real truth came out. The thief is lucky to be alive.
I had to defend my state on today’s whirled views, but I am really proud to call myself an Alabamian today. Talk about good old fashioned common sense. Reminds me of the story several years ago about the woman over in Mississippi who woke up one night to find a would be rapist in bed with her. She proceeded to grab aholt of him and walk him to the door where he couldn’t get the door unlocked, she informed him “you broke in you sum%#@&* you can break out. We southerners can be quite creative. I just can’t imagine either of these things happening say in Illinois. And if it has please let me know so I can be proud of that state too.
Well, bully for this guy! As a victim of 4 home invasions over 6 years, I know what it’s like to come home and find your house trashed. It’s a horrible feeling. As ya’ll know, I finally moved because I couldn’t stand it anymore.
I think it’s hilarious that the guy had the robber clean the place up!
And there is the story of the thieves in Texas complaining to the judge that the policeman had been rude to them when he arrested them. They had stolen a trailer load of cow parts destined for the dog food factory. The cop told them, “You guys just stole 40,000 pounds of cow a–holes.”
The judge laughed at them.
The ACLU will soon be filing suit against the homeonwners, and if the victim was a minority some minority-victimology/entitlement group will be claiming ‘involuntary servitude’.
I like stories like these where the evil doer receives his just reward. Justice (not revenge) always feels good, because God loves justice too.
I agree with STUBOB that the title Vigilante Justice is inaccurate. This wasn’t vigilante justice, but real justice.
Random Name (1): … I would bet far more people have been killed by gun accidents and by impetuous violence using guns than bad people have been killed by citizens defending themselves by firearms.
Frank: You may be right about that, RN. But the standard for justified self-defense with a firearm isn’t how many “bad people have been killed,” but rather, how many bad people have been killed, and wounded, and simply persuaded to change their plans by an armed victim.
I don’t have the stats right handy, but in the vast majority of citizen uses of firearms against criminal violence, a shot is never fired. Either the perp flees when he realizes his mark is armed, or else the victim holds the perp at gunpoint until the LEOs arrive.
So yes, criminals may very well shoot and kill more victims than victims shoot and kill criminals.
But law-abiding victims operate by a different moral standard.
Incidentally, I’m glad this story had a happy ending, but IMNTBHO, the homeowner would have been better off ordering the robber face down on the floor with his hands up behind his head until the law arrived. (That’s how I was trained, anyways.)
Having the perp moving around the house, picking up this and moving that, could have ended badly in several different ways.
Good thing he faced a docile and compliant perp.
Frank, my argument was not about whether or not killing or wounding or threatening an intruder is legally justified.
Your advice about the proper protocol for using a gun to handle in intruder sounds quite good.
llama’s argument is quite witty. However, I’m not sure it’s very relevant to the world we live in today.
I think the harm that would come from preventing gun ownership would outdo the supposed benefits that would come from preventing it.
When considering various alternatives, I think the decision process should be “What is the least bad alternative” rather than “What is the supposed best alternative.”
I think the kind of anecdotal argument prevented in this thread is very romantic and satisfying to gun fans. It’s very sentimental in a way. It’s sort of the male equivalent of what’s called a “bodice ripper.” It’s the Dirty Harry ripper or something. Lots of women like it here.
Statistics about the number of children killed by gun accidents and the number of spouses killed by spouses with guns handy compared to the number of intruders are much less satisfying.
I just think it’s something we have to put up with, but we ought to face it honestly instead of sugarcoating it with stories such as these, no matter how heartwarming.
Random Name (16): Frank, my argument was not about whether or not killing or wounding or threatening an intruder is legally justified.
Frank: Yes, I am aware of that. But your remarks further down seem to indicate that you didn’t get what I was trying to say. You wrote:
Random Name (16): Statistics about the number of children killed by gun accidents and the number of spouses killed by spouses with guns handy compared to the number of intruders are much less satisfying.
Frank: “… compared to the number of intruders” what? Wounded? Killed?
To reiterate, the measure of the (righteous) utility of guns in society is not the number of intruders (or other violent perps) killed, but rather the number of violent or threatening attacks thwarted, regardless of whether or not the perp was wounded or killed.
If an intended crime does not occur because the perp knows (or even simply believes) that his victim is armed and prepared to use deadly force against him, then the presence of guns in society fulfills their just purpose.
Random,
BTW: What did you mean by “I think the kind of anecdotal argument prevented in this thread is very romantic and satisfying to gun fans”?
“The police officer laughed at him when he complained and said anybody else would have shot him dead.”
Unfortunately, the cop is correct about homeowner behavior. Frank in Phoenix notes that this homeowner should have been frightened of the intruder. The homeowner was merely dismayed and angry. Many in such a state have indeed killed the intruder, in which case they commit “legalized” murder.
From the standpoint of libertarian ethics, this homeowner committed kidnapping.
Scroop Moth (19): Frank in Phoenix notes that this homeowner should have been frightened of the intruder.
Frank: Not “frightened.” Cautious.
Scroop Moth (19): The homeowner was merely dismayed and angry. Many in such a state have indeed killed the intruder, in which case they commit “legalized” murder.
Frank: While shooting a criminal attacker in self-defense is a homicide, it in no way constitutes “murder.” Murder, by definition, is the unjustified taking of a life. Victims of actual or threatened violence are justified under the law to use that force necessary to stop the attack or the threat. And when the victim reasonably believes his life to be in danger, “necessary force” includes deadly force.
Scroop Moth (19): From the standpoint of libertarian ethics, this homeowner committed kidnapping.
Frank: Are you really a fool, or do you just play one on WMB?
The perp committed trespass of a domicile and burglary. Thus the citizen was justified in forcefully restraining him.
Ergo, no “kidnapping.”
#18 Frank,
I have not extensively researched or collated statistics on this, so I could be wrong.
My belief is that more people die by accidental gun deaths and by inappropriate use of guns (children getting hold of guns and playing with them), people who know each getting into an arguments and using a gun (not criminals, just ordinary jerk people) than die by the result of a person at home defending himself against an intruder, something I consider perfectly appropriate most of the time.
One could also add in cases where guns are stolen by burglars or taken away from people trying to defend themselves, and other mishaps.
And so on. I could go on, but I won’t. I just think we listen to and pay attention to stories that turn out the way we want them to, and tend ot overlook or ignore stories that don’t fit the script we want to happen.
That is what I meant.
We let people drive cars. Lots of people get seriously injured or killed in automobile accident but we don’t make people stop driving. Their is a greater cost to letting people own guns than gun supporters want to admit. Nevertheless, we should let people own and keep guns, without romanticizing the supposed benefits.
Random Name (21): I have not extensively researched or collated statistics on this, so I could be wrong.
My belief is that more people die by accidental gun deaths and by inappropriate use of guns (children getting hold of guns and playing with them), people who know each getting into an arguments and using a gun (not criminals, just ordinary jerk people) …
Frank: Random, “ordinary jerk people” who get into arguments with people they know and kill them are criminals. E.g., Cain — Genesis 4.
Random Name (21): … than die by the result of a person at home defending himself against an intruder …
Frank:I’m not as into the whole RKBA fight as I once was, but as I recall, the studies supporting the greater social benefit of private gun ownership are there for your consideration.
Also, you’ve said three times now (at least) that “more people die by accidents and criminal misuse of guns than in casess of justified self-defense.”
And for the third time (at least) I respond, it is largely meaningless to compare the number of accidental, negligent and criminal deaths against the number of justified killings of criminals.
Guns can be successfully used in self-defense without killing or wounding the criminal, or even without firing the gun. Comparing a (presumably) lesser number of dead criminals against a (presumably) larger number of dead accident or crime victims is not a valid measurement of the number of crimes prevented or lives saved by private gun ownership.
Random Name (21): One could also add in cases where guns are stolen by burglars or taken away from people trying to defend themselves, and other mishaps.
Frank: Arguing against private gun ownership because criminals might turn the tables and use citizens’ guns against them (if indeed that is what you’re suggesting) isn’t ultimately valid, either.
As I recall, the 2nd or 3rd greatest cause of death to on-duty police officers is being shot by criminals with their own service weapons. (Auto accident is no. 1, I think — again, I’ve been out of the loop on these matters for quite some time.)
You wouldn’t propose disarming LEOs because their guns might be taken and used against them, would you?
Why do you keep thinking or saying that I am arguing against gun ownership? Do you read what I say, or do you replace what I say with what you think I say?
I am being cynical about gun ownership and about romanticizing it. I am cynical about marriage, but I have been married for almost 42 years
I consider my daughter married to her partner although they can’t legally get married. Although my wife and I have a marriage certificate signed by a Unitarian minister, I am not sure that makes us really married, even if it wasn’t a shotgun wedding.
Are you really a fool, or do you just play one on WMB?
Blessed art thou, Frank in Phoenix. I do try to live up to my illustrious surname. Of all localities on the net, this blog may appreciate a role that was hallowed by St. Paul (for its service to the labors of love, I like to think).
Fools tell the truth. Or at least make you think. The kidnapping was not the arrest but the obtaining of another’s labor by the threat of deadly force. Check out the libertarian tracts about ethics which involve even more extreme and counterintuitive questions than this.
Frank — If you shoot and kill an intruder in your home because you’re angry at him or too stubborn to evade the danger when you easily could, it’s murder. No jury will convict you of it, but it’s still murder. Just as some Christians think fetuscide is murder, even though I know it isn’t, I think using unnecessary deadly force on your own premises is murder, even though many people think it isn’t and routinely allow fellow citizens to get away with it. Many Christians think that killing burglars in the act is optional, a good thin, a service to society, and just punishment.
Scroop Moth (2): … The kidnapping was not the arrest but the obtaining of another’s labor by the threat of deadly force.
Frank: If he forced the perp to wash his car, moow his lawn and paint his house at gunpoint, you might have something there.
As it is, he simply required the perp to clean up the mess he made of the citizen’s home during the course of the burglary.
“Kidnapping”? Feh!
Even though the burglar made a mess and caused damage, the homeowner may not use force to obtain compensation (may not, not cannot). An economic claim against someone doesn’t justify using the threat of violence to obtain labor (kidnapping), however fleeting. The homeowner needs to file suit, obtain judgement, and await recovery through execution by a peace officer of a warrant. Libertarians argue problems a lot less clear than this scenario, Frank. Libertarian theories of property lead serious thinkers in the movement to consider such ethical puzzles as, who owns the rope a criminal uses to tie up a victim?
Scroop Moth (28): Libertarian theories of property lead serious thinkers in the movement to consider such ethical puzzles as, who owns the rope a criminal uses to tie up a victim?
Frank: “The one who paid for it,” I would assume.
But why would that question even matter? The issue isn’t ownership of the rope, but the violence against the victim.
“Serious thinkers in the movement”? Talk about arguing over the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin …
Two of the more fundamental tenets of libertarianism (as I understand it) come into play in the given scenario:
Do not aggress against others; and personal responsibility for one’s actions.
The burglar was the aggressor; and he was held responsible for his actions by the victim. (The homeowner suffered the loss, not “society” nor the State.)
Again, I would have been both inclined and quite happy to hold the perp for the arrival of the LEOs, and then to await redress at a court of law. But I don’t begrudge the homeowner putting the burglar to work cleaning up the mess he made while waiting for the cops to show up.
Indeed, I think it might be argued that the homeowner’s actions may have served to better personalize the offense in the eyes of the burglar. He had to look his victim in the eye, not to mention spend a good amount of time in the home under the homeowner’s conditions, rather than under his own (i.e., commission of theft).
It’s easier to victimize somebody who you never really see.
Not being a libertarian, I’m sympathetic to your emphasis on personalized relationships. That’s how humans actually interact, rather than according to the absolute values of consent and voluntary exchange. The issue with the rope is whether the victim owes damages to the criminal for cutting the criminal’s rope during an escape. I agree that angels seem to be dancing on the head of a pin, but libertarians are clever and relentless enough to make this happen. My reason for going down this path was to defend the life of the burglar, not to criminalize the homeowner. I know two cases where gun-happy homeowners murdered quasi-intruders and got away without punishment, despite clear ethical traditions about justifiable homicide.
Scroop Moth (31): … I know two cases where gun-happy homeowners murdered quasi-intruders and got away without punishment, despite clear ethical traditions about justifiable homicide.
Frank: And I don’t doubt that has happened — people taking the lives of criminals where the circumstances didn’t warrant such.
Similarly, I have to believe there have been more heinous and depraved criminals who’ve gotten away without temporal punishment (i.e., in this life), perhaps due to some legal technicality — the rules of evidence, e.g.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves if we are prepared to do all that we can to bring criminals to justice, but within the rules of the game, and if we’re ready to trust God for the eternal punishment (or even the redemption) of the guilty.