kylemittskus wrote:I've thought about the situation Sparky posted for a bit now. I have not read any story about it at all. I'm also ignoring any info outside of the info that Sparky has given. My basis is that Sparky feels the DA is wrong and the guy was justified. Ergo, Sparky will either give both sides, as he did with the gun question, or be biased towards his side.
Self-defense, and the right to self-defend, is important. If you are threatening my daughter's or SWMBO's life, I would put a bullet in your head and two in your chest. And then sleep soundly. However, the right to self-defend isn't unlimited. Like freedom of speech, there are limits and boundaries. You can't booby trap your property, for example.
In this situation, Pink didn't have knowledge that bad guy had a gun. Pink claims that he felt his life was threatened and responded in kind. However, his actions don't seem to me to be fear-based. Again, if someone knocks on my door and I'm afraid, I'd call 911 and not open the door. I'd take my gun, take my family, and protect wherever we hid. I'm not saying that my course of action needs to be universal. However, I am ok with this guy's story, his claims of fear, etc. be put to the test. I'm not ok with some guy shooting an unarmed man, saying I was scared for my life, and everyone going, "Works for me."
The lack of a 911 call is odd, IMO. And pulling out a couple, extreme cases out of the millions of 911 responses and saying that's why it was ok doesn't work for me. YMMV. Now, had he called 911 and 5 or 10 minutes later, the guy has breached the door and the police aren't there, that would be a different situation, although it still may not make Pink's actions justifiable.
RPM's post is interesting, but I don't see how its germane other than to establish that self-defense laws aren't new. The law enforcement of today is so unbelievably different from yesteryear.
Not that this is vigilanteism, but he certainly made his own decisions, without direct justification (the guy wasn't pointing a gun at him or someone else), and made no attempt to get any help. Because of that, someone is dead. Whether that person "deserves" to be dead is a question and I'm ok with it being argued and tested.
I also don't see this as anti-gun or anti-self-defense. And in no way do I think "certain parties are pushing us to meekly surrender our constitutional right to protect ourselves and our families." I don't see this as a party issue at all. And of course certain parties want us to call 911 if we're in fear of our lives. I want everyone to call 911, too.
And to preempt any accusations, I am pro-guns (at least the kind that was used in this case) and want desperately to vote Republican.
First, you don't need knowledge of what weapon they have. Hands & Feet are considered weapons (see Assault & Battery), so the "weapon" isn't at issue. If you fear for your life, appropriate force is acceptable. Now, neither link stated how big or small Mr. Green was, but that isn't a real issue. Black belts come in all sizes, and you don't need to be big. You also ignored that he didn't stay down once shot, but got up and charged again.
Second, while he didn't call 911, it was noted in the 2nd link that his wife was on the phone to 911. So while someone called 911, it was more the Police asking why HE didn't call 911. Um, he's a SARGENT in the Air Force. He expected he could handle the situation.
Third, while he opened the door initially, he did close it in an attempt to defuse the situation. He did not "charge" out. Rather, Mr. Green broke down the door, and charged IN. As I already said, that's enough justification.
Fourth, I specifically used "parties" to not indicate any one party. Merely that there are groups out there that want control. While it is mostly Democrats that seem to want to take our 2nd Amendment rights away, it is not limited to them, which is what I was trying to get across. NOT BLAMING ONLY ONE PARTY.
Which is another annoyance, that certain people here do not fully read and/or COMPREHEND posts or the links. Skimming isn't enough.
Fifth, while every effort should be made to call 911, it is not possible in every instance to do so, nor should it be a requirement. Not all instances have a slow buildup to violence. Sometimes you have no time to call (home invasion, anyone?) until after the fact.
And again, the police have NO RESPONSIBILITY to protect us. If you call the police, and they get there after your family has been murdered, you can't sue them if they stopped for donuts and coffee on the way (not that they would, but see the 2 Supreme Court cases).
Almost all (if not all) of the parties wanting to disarm us, have armed bodyguards. Do you think they are going to give up those armed bodyguards?
By the way, according to American Police Beat, the average response time for an emergency call is 10 minutes.
The Department of Justice reports that the best response time is 4 minutes and the worst over 1 hour.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics ((the United States' primary source for criminal justice statistics is a department of the Office of Justice Programs in the U.S. Department of Justice), in 2008 (latest report), 28% of Violent Crimes had less than 5 minutes response whereas Property Crimes had around a 13 minute response time; 30% had a 6 to 10 minute response for VC (20% for PC); 33.5% had 11 minutes to an hour response for VC (48% for PC); with around 2.5% over an hour.
Supposedly, most criminal encounters take 90 seconds, so you have a minimum of 2.5 minutes to wait before the police arrive if you're in the lucky 28%.
Or it could be that you are in the majority, and have to wait longer.