Skip to main content

I cannot read at Daily Kos without coming away with the odd perspective that it is far better that an innocent person be horribly victimized by a bad person than for someone to EVEN THINK of defending oneself against 'crime', let alone plan ahead to do so.

It's all I can glean from posts wherein people are just beside themselves that a person who was being ROBBED actually FOUGHT BACK or - worse - SHOT the criminal in the act.

I honestly cannot REALLY imagine people are openly encouraging others to just sit there and take it, but that IS the impression I am clearly getting.

I hear wailing and moaning about a robber getting shot whilst in the act of robbing others with a gun  and somehow it was bad he got shot. It doesn't seem to bother these folks that the person who was shot was actively victimizing another person.

Noooooooo.

They are outraged somebody had the murderous audacity to STAND UP AND DEFEND THEMSELVES versus just sit there, get robbed, get hurt and then parade around afterwards to bask in the sheer glory of having been a crime victim.

Once upon a time, I saw a crime happening. A young woman was screaming in a dark parking lot in Atlanta at 1 am on a Saturday in 1991. (Crime was even occurring back then)

I ran to see what the noise was and saw a woman holding on to a small tree and a guy has ahold of her and is trying to pull her off the tree and into a nearby open door. I told him to stop and after a little running around (and my attempt to rule out a gun being present) we ended up face to face. No gun.

He threw a punch and I slipped it, and I slipped the next one. Then I punched him for throwing punches at me and it was on. Down to the ground we went (most 'street fights" end up on the ground inside 30 secs I was once told...) and I beat the hell out of him. At one dramatic moment, he told me would kill me and "you don't know who you're messing with". I hit him really hard (again) when he said that and I told he was the one unawares and if he would relax I'd let him go.

But no....he wasn't having it so he ended up a bloody mess, crying  in a police car  and going to the hospital (I broke his finger pretty badly...it flopped around) before he was off to jail I pressed assault charges. He fled the state. Total redneck loser.

Cops arrived (finally) AFTER I was done tenderizing him and he decided he wanted no more fun: the cops DID NOT save me. They arrived afterward and filed paper. I saved the girl and I saved myself. Cops weren't there when they were actually needed. They seldom are.

Submitted to simply say, crime actually happens because I have personally witnessed it and was 'victimized'.

Some here seem to believe it doesn't, or that ANY finger you lift to protect yourself means you're a closeted murderer seeking an excuse to murder. Only a murderer would hurt another person, even if they are beating you up. That is a fucked-up mindset.

People in the real world know crime happens, you never know when it will happen and there is not one thing wrong with planning ahead. We plan for all other potential disasters: how irresponsible is it to not have a fire drill?

Home invasions, for example, actually do happen. I am told one happened about 400 yards from my home last year. (There's a lot of them here in Atlanta.)

Planning in advance to deal with such an event isn't really 'nutty', as some here will have you believe: it is basic adult responsibility to anticipate difficulties and have plans.

One example of a plan for home invasions is to have small stabbing weapons hidden in every room so that no matter where the shit hits the fan, you're not far from a weapon. (Notice I didn't make any reference to thundersticks) If it never happens, was I a loony for having prepared?

Worse, I say, is to know how to prepare and live in an area where home invasions occur and NOT do anything to secure your home or have a plan of defense. It's no different than living in California and ignoring the earthquakes.

Now some consider this sort of talk UNACCEPTABLE, even if those nasty guns aren't part of the discourse.

I can just imagine their home invasion plans......

When the desperate men come forcibly into our homes because they are unfairly hungry and were victimized by our socioeconiomic phenomena, we will open our arms and offer them a group hug. Then you kids will offer them cookies. Daddy will ask the poor men if he can write them a check. They may want to be friendly with mommy: that's OK - friendliness is very neighborly. It's OK to share as long as the poor men don't get hurt.
So, I am concerned that I have mispercieved something about the perspective of folks who seem to think a little applied violence in the face of victimization is a bad, bad thing and that being a crime victim imbues you with some sort of spiritual status among mere mortals.

Therefore.....I have crafted a poll so that we may express our opinions about this and sort of see where the mindsets are.

Obviously, I am a shameless self-defender.

Poll

What's Worse?

73%88 votes
10%12 votes
16%20 votes

| 120 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Are you fucking kidding me? (16+ / 0-)

    I really think both sides in the Great DKos Gun Debate are over the top at times....but this one sets a new bar.

    Ray Bolger would like you to stop beating on him.

    We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

    by raptavio on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:37:52 AM PDT

    •  I insist on seeking the middle ground (14+ / 0-)

      in this nutty debate.

      The reality is is in the middle and the answers are in the middle.

      We will not arm every last duckling and puppy, nor will we ban everything but sporks.

      We will have better background checks and we will fix the individual sale loophole.

      •  I can agree with that. (8+ / 0-)

        I simply believe that people have the right to defend themselves from harm and that the short and long-term good of offering that right far, far exceeds  any current or future harm inflicted.

        Personally, I don't feel particularly macho or excited about going to a gun range. It's a chore, a responsibility, and something I take very seriously. It's not something that everyone should choose, but it's not my place to make the choice for them.

        •  I believe in robust self-defense. (14+ / 0-)

          I think people do have a right to not be victimized, to actively resist victimization.

          I am FASCINATED that some seem to value non-violence to the point they'd prefer to get hurt than save themselves.

          And I think I need to point out every time in this thread: I do not (yet) own a gun.

          Ain't against them, don't dream about them. Ain't nothing wrong with training and safety regulations.

          •  I am sure you'll be safer once you own a gun. (6+ / 0-)

            Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

            by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:16:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You should be made Gun Control Czar (11+ / 0-)

              Everybody that wanted to buy a gun would have to endure 5 minutes of your comedy routine and insults.

              That would help.

            •  Clever (5+ / 0-)

              The real issue is human nature. If it was not guns, it would be something else. is a distraction from examining why we choose to use the means. Depriving people of one means only causes them to choose an alternative.

              •  Rubbish. (5+ / 0-)

                Depriving people of one means, guns (more specifically, handguns) has resulted in a murder rate far lower in the countries that have gone that route -- basically, all other developed countries. How long do you plan to run that informal social experiment before you recognize the results?

                No. It's not human nature or self-defense. It's cowboy fantasies (apologies are probably due to the real cowboys out there; I'm referring to plastic ones).

                "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

                by sagesource on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:21:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Patently false (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite

                http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                If we compare the US to other developed nations then living by the gun means that we will, indeed, die by the gun.

                •  Misrepresentation of My Position (0+ / 0-)

                  My point is more forest than the trees. The root cause of the problem should be identified rather than lulling the populace into a false sense of security. Or maybe you would like to claim a certain amount of murder is an acceptable price for society.

                  •  This is the meat of your position (0+ / 0-)

                    "If it was not guns, it would be something else."

                    Are you arguing that the US is inherently violent? That removing all guns would not reduce violent crime one iota?

                    That seems like a pointless argument to me. I don't see all guns going away anytime soon.

                •  Okay, we've been though this argument before, (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Neuroptimalian, PavePusher

                  and gun carrying western European nations have the same low violent crimes rates as their neighbors.

                  The United Kingdom and Russia, with their strict firearms laws, have significantly higher violent crime and murder rates.

                  As for suicides--which get lumped in for rhetorical reasons--there is also very poor to no correlation between the suicide rate and the number of firearms.

                  In short, when firearms are not available, murders and violent assaults are carried out by other means.

                  Finally, the vast majority of violent homicides with guns are carried out by felons against other felons and are typically related to drug or gang activity.

                  Maybe I should set up a form template in the case another misinformed, indoctrinated soul spouts flawed and poorly presented statistics.

                  •  Nice try but you have to dig deeper (0+ / 0-)

                    The UK does have a high rate of violent crime, but they dump a whole bunch of crimes into the category that would never qualify in the US. Basically, any crime against a person is considered a violent crime in the UK. Yes, a shove in the pub is a violent crime. In the US, the number includes only four specific crimes.

                    The gun loving European countries have stricter gun regulations, no concealed carry at all and a culture of gun safety. That is very different from the US, where 40% of guns are bought without a background check.

                    So, no, I'm not buying that "when firearms are not available, murders and violent assaults are carried out by other means."

                    •  Since we're into cherry-picking now, (0+ / 0-)

                      you would have to acknowledge that the number of homicides by non-felon owners is miniscule; roughly the same rate or better than super-peaceful Great Brittan.

                      Violent felonies caused by actual CCW holders is extremely low compared to other populations.

                      Wherever CCW have been liberalized, the homicide and gun death rates have either remained steady or gone down.

                      Despite a decade plus of concealed carry liberalization and an explosion in the number of CCW holders, murder rates have gone down.

                      In fact, the number of all homicides has dropped since the AWB has been rescinded.  

                      Murder rates remain elevate only in cities that heavily restrict legal citizen gun ownership.

                      The vast, overwhelming majority of gun homicides occur between people with criminal histories living in impoverished inner-city communities, the same communities that impose the most restrictions on legal gun ownership and concealed carry.

                      I highly suggest that you go outside of your existing sources.

                      If nothing else, it will prevent you from beating a dead horse with readily debunked arguments.

                      •  The only debunking was done by me (0+ / 0-)
                        when firearms are not available, murders and violent assaults are carried out by other means.
                        That's a ridiculous statement. It ignores the fact that murders and violent assaults will be much smaller in number without firearms.

                        You're welcome to cherry pick all that you want, you still won't make sense when you claim that gun regulations drive people to hack each other up with axes and knives.

                •  So that's how we do it. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  James Kresnik

                  We take an aggregate along a single circumstance---death by gunfire--and make sweeping generalizations about how we will live and die.  A guy with a gun in Burlington, VT is the same as a a guy with a gun in Southside Chicago is the same as a guy with a gun in Westchester, NY is the same as a guy with a gun on the President's detail is the same as a...oh, wait.

                  When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                  by Patrick Costighan on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:33:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I would give away baseball bats... (0+ / 0-)

                ... if it meant getting more guns out of circulation.

                Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

                by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:03:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Moral relativism and determinism run amok. (5+ / 0-)

            It's the logical extent of humanizing and equivocating every human action while externalizing every cause of mortal evil.

          •  I would prefer (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Silvia Nightshade

            that if someone MUST get hurt, that the person who gets hurt is me, at least to the degree that my decisions and my actions are the ones causing harm.

            There shouldn't be that much trouble in understanding this; it isn't complicated, it's simply different from your own perspective, which you seem to want to imply is both 1) a universal human reaction and 2) the only "healthy" or "normal" one.

            Your set-up here is hopelessly flawed because of the binary nature of the way you are approaching the 'dilemma' you've set up.

            The first place I'd question is the assumption that "defending oneself from crime" always, by definition and necessity means acting violently against another person (including the one who is attempting to commit the crime).

            Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

            by a gilas girl on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:39:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  A crazed person invades your home, (0+ / 0-)

              rape and eventual murder being his only goals.  You're gonna just let it happen?  I guess that's your right.  And if the rape and murder of your 8-year-old daughter is his goal?  

              "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

              by Neuroptimalian on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:39:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If the rape and murder of myself and or my (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Silvia Nightshade

                eight year old daughter is his only goal (I hesitate to accept that this is someone's only goal, but those cases do exist), then, I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that neither my daughter nor I get hurt -- that doesn't always or even necessarily mean I have to act with violence, I'm going to get out of there or do whatever needs to be done, including offering myself up if it gives my daughter a chance to get away.

                That said, violence doesn't necessarily have to be my path, and just because I chose not to exploit a violent path out of that does not mean that I won't be successful.

                My mother faced a home invasion when she was home alone with 2 small children and was very newly pregnant with 2 others.  She managed to talk the intruder out of the house and away from her two daughters, so alternatives do exist.   I would hope I could be a brave and as wise as my mother, who knew if she created noise and commotion it would wake her sleeping daughters who would then be placed in even more danger.

                1963 it was. And when the story was presented to me later, when I was a teenager, it was presented to me not as a heroine tale, but as a teaching tale of the power of thinking clearly, not over reacting and always thinking first and foremost of safety not punishment or vengeance.  A "the world is a dangerous place for women, but you don't have to be a victim" story.

                Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

                by a gilas girl on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:10:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I sincerely respect your choices. (0+ / 0-)

                  It's always good to have choices, and a weapon provides choices.

                  A weapon doesn't make you bigger than life, or invincible from life consequences.

                  It doesn't magically alter your brain chemistry into a homicidal maniac.

                  It's a tool that provides options; nothing more and nothing less.

                  •  But other tools can also provide choices (0+ / 0-)

                    and even different choices.

                    And while in principle I agree that a weapon is a tool, in the contemporary United States, some of those tools do not travel alone.  Guns, in particular, comes with a culture and most often, with an ideology and an advertising package, thanks in part to the decades long efforts of (I want to say "your" here, but that might not be a fair pronoun to use) ally, so I'll just say the gun owner's lobby and the gun manufacturers' mouthpiece, the NRA.  

                    So, being armed isn't simply a case of "using a tool to provide one with choices" in these United States.  The extra layers of meaning that travel through our experiences of those tools should also be taken into consideration.

                    And those extra layers of meaning are neither monolithic nor universal,  Therein lie some of our contemporary social and policy problems.

                    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

                    by a gilas girl on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 04:43:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. Being armed and eager never caused any... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kharma, sagesource

          problems at all.

          Oh, wait.....

        •  Then you're a fool. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          radmul

          Comparing the situation in the United States with any other developed country shows why.

          But at least you were a dignified fool. The diarist, with his lame attempts at sarcasm, was a childish one.

          "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

          by sagesource on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:15:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Amusing response. (5+ / 0-)

            Gun banners have the harshest response to this poll.

            it's like it hurts their brain, or something.

            America is just like Japan. Because we eat sushi.

          •  Guns will not be banned in this country, and even (6+ / 0-)

            if they were tomorrow....you will still have 310 million firearms on the streets and not even half would be collected....if even close to that many.  You will also have an over 2 century tradition of the citizens allowed to have them by constitutional right, and that sentiment won't go away easily.  Guns last a long, long time....they are not going to just rust away any time soon.

             Criminals will keep theirs, and a high percentage of law abiding gun owners care enough about the right to own them...that they too will ignore, hide whatever.   I am almost certain even mine would stay right where they are.  

            So this idea that we can dream up this new gun free America and make it a true reality in the next few decades, serves no purpose.  It's not going to happen, you will not remove all guns from America nor even close to that,  so if Japan had luck with that...good for them.  It's not a valid comparison to here.

            •  Maybe not 310 million (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              James Kresnik, Be Skeptical

              That number's based on production data between 1950 and 1999.  It fails to account for things like sales to domestic law enforcement and security agencies, end customer businesses.  It also apparently doesn't include exports to non-military customers, or any destruction, retired, disabling, or genuine loss from the stockpile.

              When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

              by Patrick Costighan on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:52:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Link? (8+ / 0-)

        I stay out of those fights for the most part. But I'm sure I would have noticed this:

        It's all I can glean from posts wherein people are just beside themselves that a person who was being ROBBED actually FOUGHT BACK or - worse - SHOT the criminal in the act.

        "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

        by Horace Boothroyd III on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:17:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  NO links. (7+ / 0-)

          Elsewhere I said I don't save those things up because - largely - they can be traced to people and I am not calling out anybody.

          There was a post yesteday that went into it but it got deleted for reasons beyond my knowing.

          Not only is that against the rules, it is whilly unnecessary.

          The poll is clear. People can vote or they can ignore it.

          I will suggest the outpouring of indignation I find is pretty damned interesting.

          •  FWIW walking away from robbers actually works. (5+ / 0-)

            But I don't give a fuck if they take my stuff, that isn't a reason to hurt someone.

            Injuring persons receives an entirely different response from me though.

            "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

            by Horace Boothroyd III on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:34:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The problem I have (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joieau

            with not linking to where these things come up is that it comes off (to me) as a case of "This is how I feel, even when only one person went there and now I feel the whole group is doing it."  I'm not saying that is the case here, you have your reasons for not providing instances of this crap.  But I suppose I'm jaded from being on the interwebz for so many years that I just don't buy into complaints about a general community without at least something to back it up.  Because I'm in a lot of those diaries, and I don't recall seeing people acting like shooting a criminal is worse than what the criminal started the whole thing with.

            But I'm also of the mind of, you've come to steal my shit?  Fine, take it, I have insurance for that.  If you've come to harm me, well then prepare for a fight.  I don't know if I'm ready to morally condemn someone who kills a person trying to rob them, but on its face it does seem extreme to me.  Then again, most people can't shoot someone strategically to incapacitate but not kill, so in most cases firing a gun is a crapshoot whether the person hit will live or not.

            "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

            by Silvia Nightshade on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:05:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sadly, I have been in those diaries. (8+ / 0-)

              The argument usually is: "Nothing I own is worth someone's life"; "Why are you so afraid, cowardly, racist, etc, etc."; "They can have everything I own".

              And these arguments come up in diaries where a person defended themselves against someone that might have been drunk and broke into the wrong house, etc.

              The moral indignation is clear, no person's life is worth any property.

              While I'd agree 100%, it's a great ideal to aspire to but when you're home is the one being broken into at 3am and you don't know who it is or what they actually want, that moral ideal becomes fuzzy.

              There have been numerous arguments/debates I've personally gotten into with others that defend the criminal and it usually gets nasty. "Who made you judge, jury and executioner???"; "What about their civil rights?"; "We don't live in the Wild West!"; "Vigilante Justice!"; "Racist!"; "Call the Police then" etc, etc.

              My usual reply is that the Police have no constitutional duty to protect anyone, even if they have an Order of Protection and then I give thecustomary linky.

              With the customary quote:

              WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
              Then I always ask, If the police don't have to protect the individual, who does?  No one will ever answer that question, too much for them I guess.

              Or I might reply that the criminal always had the choice not to make me into their "judge, jury and possibly executioner."  That is always their choice they make when committing a crime against another.

              And nobody seems to like that and back and forth we go, the moral relativism gets worse, the ad homimens start to fly and soon you're a gun toting racist that has a small wee-wee and you can't see past your paranoid delusions to accept the undeniable truth that the criminal IS ALWAYS the victim.

              But that's what I've experienced here, on more occasions than I could ever count.

              And does it matter that I've never owned a firearm? NOPE!

              ;0

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:27:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'll agree (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea, sturunner

                with the sentiment that nothing I own is worth someone's life, even a low-life scumbag methhead (we get a lot of those type of break-ins where my mom lives and where I used to live).  I also agree, that you don't know who's coming in, and what they want, and it is a nice ideal but it doesn't always happen that way (especially if someone wakes you in the dead of night).  Which is why I said I don't know if I'm ready to judge someone who kills a person trying to rob them.  It's hard to say.

                I think the reason nobody answers your question about whose responsibility it is to protect people if not the police is because the answer is NOBODY and we don't like to think that.  Because no matter what level of training I get in self-defense and weapons, I'll never be able to defend myself successfully 100% of the time.  It just builds fear (not saying you're doing that on purpose with the question) which we don't want to deal with.  It's a human thing; don't focus on that which makes you feel bad.  Coping mechanism and all.

                You're right in that a criminal makes a choice to put their life to chance when they victimize someone.  These days, a lot of criminals try to break into homes during the day when most people are away for school/work, just to minimize their chances of running into someone who would fight back.  Waking people up in the dead of night isn't a good idea unless you're after those people specifically and you want to catch them unaware.  And since the criminal takes that initial chance, that risk versus reward, I don't know that I can say that someone who kills that person is a horrible person.  I think a life lost over property/money is a terrible thing, even if that person who lost their life was a terrible person.  I am kind of a bleeding heart liberal in that way, I suppose.

                We do have to be careful when talking about defense against criminals/self-defense, because people like Zimmerman or the guy who shot the kids in the SUV claiming they pointed a gun at him when none was found, those people will use "self-defense" as an excuse to execute people who clearly weren't committing any crimes.  Granted, we do have a criminal justice system to punish those in the wrong.  But that doesn't bring back people who are already dead.  So we need to be careful that we aren't unintentially advocating a culture of vigilantes, of people who look for ways to claim they are victimized to mete out their own brand of justice.

                Lastly, while I absolutely HATE the "both sides do it" argument, both sides in this debate on Dkos DO go overboard with the insults.  People need to stop and breathe before typing and clicking away.  Because I'm tired of being told that by virtue of thinking "Gee perhaps we don't have enough regulation to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them" that I'm not a true liberal (LOL), I'm on the same level as Bush and PATRIOT act BS, I can't be trusted to know what "sensible" gun control is (in addition to the whole "no such thing exists" because words can mean anything, everything, and nothing all at once), etc.  You know it's bad when I step in to say to someone on my side of the debate to watch what they say because they're invoking rape culture, only to get attacked as being RKBA's newest BFF.  I think if anyone has gotten that impression from me, clearly they are confused.

                All that said, I think this diary is an exaggeration of people who think it's wrong to kill someone who is victimizing you.  And I wouldn't use the poll as any indicating of what people actually think, because after the content of the diary I'm sure to most the poll choices read as "Pie Wars," "The Pie Strikes Back," and "Return of the Pie."

                "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

                by Silvia Nightshade on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:54:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  If you think (5+ / 0-)

        this diary represents any search for 'middle ground' you're seriously in error.

        Grossly misrepresenting one side of a debate is no path to reality.

        We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

        by raptavio on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:04:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Grossly misrepresenting one side of the issue (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joieau

          is standard in political efforts.

          Some eve consider it good form, if it helps you win your side of the debate....

          I'm just trying to figure out a couple things.

          had you read the diary clearly you would have seen things like

          I am concerned that I have mispercieved something about the perspective of folks who seem to think a little applied violence in the face of victimization is a bad, bad thing and that being a crime victim imbues you with some sort of spiritual status among mere mortals.
          It's worded generally because I am seeking info about the general idea.

          Much of the time at daily kos if I point to something I have many people indignant about my pointing and almost never about what I point toward. People prefer to argue with my finger and feel like they have dealt with something when all they have done is complain about me.

          Which makes me laugh at these folks who think they are so serious and smart.

          It's a question and I got some answers and that's all I wanted.

      •  this nutty debate (0+ / 0-)

        Im reading a De-Gaul biography, mainly to get historical  insight into that whole Freedom Fries/surrender monkey -thing. The debates not likely to be solved here.

        Who is mighty ? One who turns an enemy into a friend !

        by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:06:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345, Joieau, 6412093, Be Skeptical

        I want the second amendment in tact. AND I want restrictions on assault riffles AND I want background checks, and if someone breaks into my house and threatens my family I will drop them like a hot potato with any weapon I can get my hands on.  A gun is a handy way to do that. No shame in defending my people from harm.

        •  Except that... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gramofsam1

          ...it's far more likely your people will be harmed by the gun or the effects of having guns everywhere.

          To prepare for a relatively rare occurrence (defense against a criminal), you establish conditions that drive up the rates of gun thefts, gun accidents, gun suicides, and so on. It's like building a nuclear bomb shelter while forgetting to pay the fire insurance.

          "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

          by sagesource on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:29:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So do NOT try to prepare for ANY possible crime (4+ / 0-)

            for you are just wasting your time and making other people at risk.

            Good humans simply sit there and take it.

            Self-defense is murder.

            Exactly why I posted this question.

          •  Why do some insist on believing ... (0+ / 0-)

            that the occasions when one might have to defend one's self or family is rare, the occasions of accidental gun injury are even more rare?

            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

            by Neuroptimalian on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:52:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  How would you know, about where and how (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Be Skeptical

            my family has lived, how safe we have been, how many times we may have been in danger?

            A woman who lives down the street from me, alone, has had multiple men try to break into her apartment three or four times in the last few months. Every time, she confronted them with a gun, and they split.  

            You call that a rare occurrence? They don't mess with her anymore. They know she will not waste time calling the cops.

            Have you ever lived in a neighborhood like ours?
            'cause if you haven't, you might want to rethink what you are saying.

            I myself have been in at least three confrontations with men over the years, in situations where if I had done the wrong thing, I would have been assaulted at least, and probably raped. No, as it happens, I didn't have a gun. I had a drill sergeant father, who knew better than to think that men attacking women is a rare thing like you do.  Attacks on people in general and women in particular where I have lived and worked are not rare.

            In theory, what you are speaking about sounds great. But for the sake of the people who love and rely on you to stay safe, I hope you pull it together when your crisis comes. If it doesn't come, thank God for that, but please don't pass judgements without walking in other people's shoes.

            Bomb shelter. You are kidding, right?

          •  Firearm Accidents (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Azubia

            http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/...

            Nationwide, the annual number of fatal firearm accidents among children has decreased 86% since 1975.

            The bottom line is that firearm accidents have decreased dramatically for many years and today account for only a tiny percentage of accidents nationwide.

            A separate fact sheet, the 2009 Fact Sheet on Sports Injuries provides statistics which prove that, in addition to the fact that the annual number of firearm accidents is at an all-time recorded low, hunting remains one of the safest recreational/ sports activities.

            Citing information from the National Safety Council's Injury Facts 2008 Edition, as well as the International Hunter Education Association, the fact sheet reveals that only 2 people per 100,000 are injured while enjoying the sport of hunting, compared to 2,585 who are injured while playing football, 1,984 basketball players, 1,349 bicycle riders, 1,332 soccer players, 1,296 skateboarders and 1,122 baseball players (all per 100,000).

            More people go hunting each year (14,600,000) than play soccer (14,000,000), and yet the numbers prove that hunting is overwhelmingly more safe than soccer in terms of injuries sustained by participants. In fact, of the 23 sports examined, including everything from billiards to cheerleading, only hunting enjoyed injuries of less than ten per 100,000. (Injury numbers include only injuries treated in hospital emergency room facilities.

            http://www.guncite.com/...
            Dr. Kleck further mentions, "The risk of being a victim of a fatal gun accident can be better appreciated if it is compared to a more familiar risk...Each year about five hundred children under the age of five accidentally drown in residential swimming pools, compared to about forty killed in gun accidents, despite the fact that there are only about five million households with swimming pools, compared to at least 43 million with guns. Thus, based on owning households, the risk of a fatal accident among small children is over one hundred times higher for swimming pools than for guns." (p 296)

            In Targeting Guns, Dr. Kleck concludes in part, "Most gun accidents occur in the home, many (perhaps most) of them involving guns kept for defense. However, very few accidents occur in connection with actual defensive uses of guns. Gun accidents are generally committed by unusually reckless people with records of heavy drinking, repeated involvement in automobile crashes, many traffic citations, and prior arrests for assault. Gun accidents, then, involve a rare and atypical subset of the population, as both shooters and victims. They rarely involve children, and most commonly involve adolescents and young adults."

      •  Oddly, the passive non-resistance (4+ / 0-)

        crowd never seems to think about the concept of "proper tool for the job." Of course, most probably don't own sharp, pointy farm and garden implements, chain saws, super-DR brush mower/tree shredders, hoes, shovels, axes, mauls, hatchets, machetes, swords, crossbows, long bows, compound bows, pellet guns or electric badminton rackets. Each of which can easily be the "proper tool for the job" of discouraging and/or killing whatever varmint ails you. Even if it's human.

        Deal is, you need a bit of room to properly use the boom-boom stick against a varmint. Luckily I have some acreage that counts as 'home property' for legal definition purposes. Once inside the house a shotgun is just going to make a big mess and put holes in the wall. There a baseball bat is far preferable, unless your house has very large rooms, high ceilings, and bullet-proof dry wall.

        Yet where it counts - as happened to me just a couple of years ago when a couple of methed-out rednecks pulled right up to my front porch demanding money and waiving a gun - sometimes the only proper tool for the job is a bigger gun.

        Ignorant garbage rhetoric on the ever so safe and anonymous intertoobs doesn't bother me, and I'll never apologize for taking self defense seriously. Because even way out here in the wilderness where very large pit vipers and hungry bears roam, humans are still the most dangerous varmint of all.

    •  Diary is an excellant example of sawdust & Planks (6+ / 0-)

      Notice: This Comment © 2013 ROGNM

      by ROGNM on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:44:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It will yield interesting poll results (5+ / 0-)

        And that's what I am interested in.

        •  Omits the option "Dumbass Question" nt (9+ / 0-)

          "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

          by Bob Love on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:54:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I like how a basic question ruffles certain (9+ / 0-)

            undies.

            •  You don't understand how stupid you're being (5+ / 8-)

              and you don't even know where to start figuring it out.

              Is it better for you to be dishonest or stupid?

              "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

              by Bob Love on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:11:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Huh (11+ / 0-)

                He's gotten at least some people choosing that it's worse to defend yourself against crime. Of course, there's no way to screen for sarcasm.

                But he's not stupid, and I'm dropping a donut on you for going there.

                Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

                by blue aardvark on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:15:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Time for you to settle down Bob (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sturunner, gerrilea

                you're veering into HR territitory.

                I won't HR you but you';re not quite as stainless as you seem to think you are.

                •  Name one person who says this: (8+ / 0-)
                  "it is far better that an innocent person be horribly victimized by a bad person than for someone to EVEN THINK of defending oneself against 'crime'"
                  That's flagrantly dishonest.

                  "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

                  by Bob Love on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:29:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Bob.... that is overstated to make a point (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gerrilea, sturunner

                    There is plenty of fertile ground in that post for your comedic brilliance to dig into IF you want to act as if it is my Life Work and dissertation rather than a QUESTION on a WEBSITE.

                    Remember, Bob: it is only a question.....it is only a question......

                    deep breath, buddy.

                    •  Translation: (7+ / 0-)

                      You built a strawman.

                      We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                      by raptavio on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:43:35 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Not quite. (5+ / 0-)

                        I could spend the next couple hours going through my comments and provide links for all the times things almost just like he's stating has been said here.

                        Pointless, but he's pretty close to what has been conveyed countless times here.

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:36:37 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  By all means (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Glen The Plumber, k88dad

                          do so. Seriously. Because I don't believe him, or you.

                          We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                          by raptavio on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:05:02 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Screw that, read the replies below...ROFL... (4+ / 0-)
                            Problem is, your self defense=my felonious assault (2+ / 0-)

                            Thuggish people routinely justify beating the living shit out of another human being by claiming "I was just defending myself". Now add guns to the equation, and it's time for the coroner.

                            The entire concept of being ready, willling, able, even eager to defend yourself against a threat (or a slight, or a nasty look) lends itself instantly to hypervigilance, looking for offence, and far greater likelihood of violence all around.

                            Just sayin.

                            by Ralphdog on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:15:17 AM EDT

                            [ Reply to This | Recommend Hide ]

                            This IS how it starts...thanks, have a good day now!

                            Besides, you can search through my 5000 comments and read it yourself.

                            Have fun.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:13:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Bob Love

                            not gonna do that. The onus is on the claimant to prove his claims.

                            If what Ralphdog said is your best approximation of the "truth" of the diarist's words, you fail.

                            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                            by raptavio on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:39:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Useless waste of time. (4+ / 0-)

                            And the next time it comes up, I will personally email it to you, each and every time.

                            Example #1:

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            * [new]  and yet, they need guns for self-defense! (6+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                                MBNYC, KingGeorgetheTurd, S F Hippie, a2nite, Sandino, lyvwyr101

                            Isn't it funny how they are only sanguine about death when it's someone else, but their own lives and TV sets demand all sorts of protection?

                            Heads we lose, tails they win.  Some "conversation".  

                            That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                            by Inland on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:09:01 AM EST

                            [ Parent ]

                            Example #2:
                            You know what? (3+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                                Sandy on Signal, bhut jolokia, johnxbrown

                            If someone wants to rob me that bad, let them.  I have insurance for that.  I also have a couple dogs trained for protection, and most people trying to rob places don't like to deal with dogs (which is not to say they won't shoot them).  But I can't protect myself against everything in this world.  You want to rob me at gunpoint because I don't have a gun?  Take my shit.  I'll call my insurance company and get it replaced.

                            And honestly, how many people break into random strangers houses' to rape or kill them?  Very, very few.  Most perpetrators of crimes know their victims, or are targeting that person for a particular reason.  Sure, I guess I have to fear the chance that some random person is gonna want to break into my house to rape and kill me.  I also take the chance of dying every day by getting in my car and driving to work on the interstate.  I could let these irrational fears rule my life, but I don't let them, because I can't control what other people do.  And if someone wants me dead that bad, a list of gun owners with my name on it isn't gonna stop them.

                            by Silvia Nightshade on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:24:12 AM EST

                            [ Parent ]

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:27:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  If you can't make your case on its own merits (0+ / 0-)

                      and support it with evidence, your credibility is nil.

                      Your "Life Work" and "dissertation" comments underscore my point. If people respond with equivalent hyperbole, the ensuing "discussion" will just be a series of emotional outbursts, like a Punch and Judy show.

                      "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

                      by Bob Love on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:22:40 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  I was HR'd for suggesting that rape victims (11+ / 0-)

                    Should kill or attempt to kill their rapists. That they should fight for their life with everything they have.

                    The group consensus was that its better for the rape victim to lie back and take it, and go to the cops later to seek justice. How dare I "advocate violence" against rapists. Go check my comment history if you want names.

                    •  I think (6+ / 0-)

                      you are wrong to advocate women fight back against a rapist with everything they have, but not because I'm defending rapists.  I think that because when women decide it's best not to fight, especially if threatened with a knife or gun that if they DO fight their rapist will kill them, that they are often told the rape wasn't really rape because they didn't fight back, or didn't fight back hard enough, it shows that it was consensual, etc.

                      Trust me when I say I'm not chastising anyone for "advocating violence" against rapists.  I have my own cognitive dissonance to deal with on that issue, seeing as how I'd love to put every rapist scumbag out there six feet under and yet I recognize that's a fucking terrible thing and I'm against the death penalty.

                      "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

                      by Silvia Nightshade on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:11:47 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm against the death penalty as well. (3+ / 0-)

                        These ideals are very clear for me.  I strive to do no intentional harm to others.

                        I cannot be sure that given our history of corrupt courts, that anyone convicted in these United States are actually guilty.  I support the Innocence Project when I can afford to do so.

                        And even if the system were actually about "justice", then is it appropriate and Constitutional for our government to commit such cruel and unusual punishments? NO.

                        Even though I personally wish for every child molester to be castrated and slowly and painfully disemboweled, I know that is not "justice" but vengeance and I must refer myself back to my own overriding ideal.  I want us to progressively evolve beyond violence, so society cannot endorse it as legitimate use of police powers.

                        Does this mean if I saw a child being molested I could stop myself from disemboweling the perpetrator with my bare hands? I seriously don't know.  Some things I hope to never find out.

                        When it comes to property, how can we truly know what a person's intents are?  If someone breaks into my home, I know that without qualification, I will stop them by any and all means necessary. Hey, maybe they just wanted a glass of water, but I have no way of knowing this, at that moment.

                        I know with all my heart that violence is easy and the escalation of violence even easier, we are taught that as Americans, sadly.  But years of self-defense training and meditation hopefully would pay off and I'd not instinctively react and hurt an innocent or lost person whom was in my home.

                        All we can do is prepare for the worst and pray for the best.  Life has no easy answers sometimes.

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:35:37 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  So your defense of this unsupported impression (0+ / 0-)

                      is another unsupported impression?

                      "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

                      by Bob Love on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:15:07 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  This sort of response was inevitable (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Deep Texan

                given the diary, but that doesn't make it acceptable.

                We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                by raptavio on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:42:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Of course it's acceptable. The diarist (0+ / 0-)

                  completely mischaracterized the other side. How palpably dishonest does one need to be before one points it out?

                  "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

                  by Bob Love on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:30:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If you had said 'dishonest' (0+ / 0-)

                    and only that, I would agree.

                    But you went to 'stupid' and thus failed.

                    We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                    by raptavio on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:56:24 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I said he was "being stupid", not that (0+ / 0-)

                      he was stupid. Smart people can and often do act stupid.

                      You don't understand how stupid you're being.

                      "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

                      by Bob Love on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:57:27 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Distinction without a difference. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Neuroptimalian

                        Acting, by the way, is not being.
                        And you are now acting dishonestly.

                        We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                        by raptavio on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 12:51:01 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No. "Being" can be a temporary state, as in (0+ / 0-)

                          "being unruly". "Acting", "behaving" and "being" are often used identically, as is the case here.

                          You don't understand how stupid you're being.
                          You don't understand how stupidly you're acting.
                          You don't understand how stupidly you're behaving.
                          "Being" here is a present participle. That's it's most common use. You are therefore mistaken in saying that I'm acting, behaving or being dishonest because, QED, what I've written is both literally and figuratively true.

                          I've been completely honest throughout this discussion, and your poor parsing hardly make me dishonest.

                          "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

                          by Bob Love on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:05:51 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Your other use of the word "stupid" (0+ / 0-)

                            suggested a state of being, not a behavior.

                            But you know that.

                            Done playing semantics with you now.

                            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                            by raptavio on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 03:28:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  Question #3 was just for you (4+ / 0-)
          •  Yet dumbasses managed to vote anyway, (0+ / 0-)

            to the tune of 25% thus far, I note.

            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

            by Neuroptimalian on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:00:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Oh Noes! says the gun trollz (3+ / 0-)

      Trolling is the questionable art of saying silly things to get a reaction - and this diary is an excellant example.

      I have been a frequent visitor to this site for over two years, and I have never seen it put here that:

      "...that ANY finger you lift to protect yourself means you're a closeted murderer seeking an excuse to murder."
      So yes, s/he is kidding you!

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:30:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I never heard that argument here (14+ / 0-)

    being a big believer in self help myself. But if your real argument is guns, beware, because if your a hammer, everything looks like a nail. That "home invader" was a drunk kid in the wrong house. Very tempting to find trouble when armed.

  •  Oh, you were so (4+ / 0-)

    not a victim

    crime actually happens because I have personally witnessed it and was 'victimized'.
    and I resent like hell you claiming to have been victimized when you tossed yourself into the fray:
    I ran to see what the noise was (snip)

    He threw a punch and I slipped it, and I slipped the next one. Then I punched him for throwing punches at me and it was on.

    You only get to be a victim if you don't seek trouble out.

    All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon to support steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

    by Noddy on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:45:39 AM PDT

    •  Um.... yes: one IS a victim in such a setting (13+ / 0-)

      That is why I got to file assault charges.

      I was assaulted.

      •  No, one is NOT (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mamamorgaine, kharma, Kevskos

        a victim if one inserts oneself into a confrontation.

        Rescuer, perhaps, but never victim.

        All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon to support steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

        by Noddy on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:56:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  people getting mad (6+ / 0-)

          doesn't undo any of the facts.

          •  Not mad (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Silvia Nightshade

            Just clarifying the distinction between "victim" and "rescuer" - you were never a victim in that incident. You were a rescuer, who got pummeleld, but not a victim.  The woman was a victim, not you.

            Yes, this is a veriloguist quibble, but when you muddy the waters and claim a victimhood for yourself that is unwarranted, you trivialize the victimhood of the woman you presumably rescued and you weaken your argument.

            You were a rescuer.  Not a hero, not a victim.  Someone who rescued someone else, and bore the consequences of your action.

            If you don't understand the differences between "victim" and "rescuer" you can't effectively argue that others should also intervene in crimes.  What you are asking them to do is to become victims themselves when what you are really asking them to do is to become rescuers.

            All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon to support steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

            by Noddy on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:41:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then shouldn't the law be changed to reflect (4+ / 0-)

              your opinion?  He had the guy arrested for assault.  That is "victimization" no matter how you slice it.  He became the victim in place of the woman.

              Haven't we gone a step further to protect those that try to help others and passed "good Samaritan laws"?

              Do we say that a mother whom saves their child from being hit by a speeding car is the victim when she gets hurt or dies???

              Yes.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:46:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Noddy, there's only three sides in confrontation: (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gerrilea, sturunner

              Aggressor.
              Victim.
              Cop.

              If you're the prime actor, bust my head, and I pull a gun?
              Swing the bat again, and bang you're dead.

              Armed victim.  
              Responding Cops will likely shoot me, cuff you, while you claim: "I only hit him, 'cuz he had a gun."  Fact that you have a pattern of hitting people for money, may not work so well.

              Same situation, but you decide:  Gun?  Phuck this noise, I'm outta here.  
              The law in most States says you're no longer in that confrontation. You're now a fleeing person who did a criminal act.  
              Most States, require that I let you go.
              IF I SHOOT you, it's the action of an AGGRESSOR, as the original criminal action (the baseball bat assault) ENDED.

              Those States with a "duty to retreat" law, codify this by requiring the victim attempt to escape the aggressor before resorting to a physical (lethal force) confrontation.

              My advice is that in ALL such cases, you attempt to disengage, or retreat.  It's going to make more sense in Court AND the news coverage, than claiming a god-given right to Stand Your Ground.  Do NOT meet the Aggressor at the door, retreat further into the house.  If chased?
              Cornered?  Well, you've done all you can.

              I'll opine that the Diarist's option to "rescue" the Victim and leave from a public street was, the original intention.  When the Aggressor got physical, it was a denial of escape as an option.

              The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

              by 43north on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:52:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  If one exercises ones free speech (9+ / 0-)

          which certainly includes saying "stop trying to drag that woman into a car" and someone attacks you for doing so, one is a victim.

          How can we have free speech if we can't complain about a person committing a felony before our eyes?

          Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

          by blue aardvark on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:17:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  glad you said that: the FIRST thing I did (8+ / 0-)

            was tell him to "Let her Go".

            Then we ran and hid behind some cars.

            Then he came to me and attacked me first. <~that's where I was victimized

            So I defended myself.

            Then he got hurt.

            And I offered at one point to let him go but he kept being mean so I whomped on him some more.

            •  Part of the problem is.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Gator Keyfitz

              ....you seem to have been enjoying yourself so damned much. Violence is sometimes a necessity, but it is always a regrettable necessity. You do everything but lick your lips over this opportunity you had to bend someone else without getting into trouble. And then you dismiss the attacker with a shallow and simplistic shrug, apparently completely uninterested in why he became such a danger to society in the first place.

              I had a similar experience once, though fortunately it was somewhat less dangerous. Around Christmas three years ago, I was walking through the parking lot of the local supermarket when a shoplifter who had been detected ran across it trying to escape. The shoplifter was intercepted by a security guard, upon which the shoplifter tried some impromptu brain surgery on the guard with the skateboard he was carrying. I happened to be coming up right behind them, and felt it necessary, given the circumstances, to hit the shoplifter until he lost interest in beating on the security guard (who was an older man, probably only saved from serious harm by the chance that he was a Sikh wearing a turban) and other security personnel arrived to take control of the situation. Then I got the hell out of there, without leaving a forwarding address.

              Did I feel exhilarated by what had happened? Nope. Not in the slightest. It was depressing and squalid, even though it had to be done, like cleaning a crap-caked toilet. To be forced into the necessity of using physical violence is to stand at the end of a long string of failures and mistakes, and be compelled to try to right the situation with the crudest of implements. That it was unarguably necessary in the circumstances, with the potential for the security guard being seriously hurt, didn't make it any less gloomy.

              Perhaps my reaction had something to do with the fact that I hadn't had the opportunity to nurture Ramboesque fantasies about the nature of violence, even justified and inescapable violence. I grew up in a household of people who had seen others die violently, not one or two times but again and again for years, some of whom had killed in return, not just a few, but dozens or hundreds. They used black humor to preserve their sanity -- one of my mother's favorite funny stories had as its centerpiece a neighbor getting her head blown off a few yards away from her -- but they never made it sound grand, or glorious, or anything but demeaning and depressing. It was necessary to be victorious, but it was not pretty. It was just that the alternative was even worse. As the Duke of Wellington is supposed to have said, the only thing worse than a battle won is a battle lost.

              I still wonder about the idiot teenager who started the whole mess. I'm sure he spent some time as a guest of Her Majesty's, and given that he had chosen to do something potentially life-threatening to someone else in pursuit of his own selfish and illegal ends, there's nothing to lament in that. But I'm still sorry for him. Not sorry that I beat him down, or that he was arrested, or that he was disposed of in the way the courts felt best -- not at all sorry that he failed. Sorry that it had come to that in the first place, that he had conceived the harebrained idea that he could simply snatch a bag of candies and run off without being caught. Sorry that there wasn't a voice in his head screaming at him that he was being a fucking idiot when he reached for that bag of candy with no intention of paying for it. I'd like an explanation of why he did what he did, one more complex than the kid was "evil" or "selfish" or "antisocial." All these may be true, but they only move the problem back another step. Why was he evil, or selfish, or antisocial? And more important, what can be done to prevent others from becoming like him?

              Now, if I happen to be talking with some right-wing tool with a two-watt brain, this is the point at which I'm usually accused of making excuses for the criminal. But I'm not interested in excuses. They don't move us forward. I want explanations, as with all tragedies and disasters, something that will lessen the chance that things like this will happen again. And if that means looking for more complex motivations than that the kid was possessed by the devil when he committed his crime, so be it. If it had something to do with his family circumstances, I want to know. If it had something to do with his education or lack of it, I want to know. If there was some other social factor disposing him to his idiocy, I want to know. None of this is going to spring him from the can a day earlier; however he got there, he showed himself a danger to society and society must be protected from him and the potential of further danger. But I'm not interested in punishing him just for the gladiatorial thrill of being allowed to come down hard on someone while at the same time buffing my sense of (self-) righteousness to a golden and minatory glow. I'm interested in protecting society (society -- remember -- the thing that Margaret Thatcher said didn't exist, if I recall correctly). This means that one of my first concerns must be to inquire after the causes for the criminality of this person and others like him, and as far as possible take whatever means are practical to lessen these causes.

              "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

              by sagesource on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:12:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Free speech has zero to do with this (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Silvia Nightshade

            xxdr zombiexx was not a victim in his anecdote. He was a rescuer.

            If he wants his diary to be a stronger diary, the right word choices do matter. I am not saying he shouldn't speak up, only that he use the right word, the one that empowers his diary, not weakens it.

            What xxdr zombiexx did was rescue a victim of a crime, and he suffered the consequences of that intervention.  That does not and will not ever make him a victim.

            If his point in writing this diary is to encourage others to also intervene in crimes in action, then word choices matter very much. Claiming victimhood for intervening means he's encouraging others to step up and be victims, too. By calling himself a rescuer, he then encourages others to step up and be rescuers, too.

            Not a matter of free speech, a mater of correct word choices.

            All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon to support steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

            by Noddy on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:52:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If I walk up to someone in a public place (4+ / 0-)

              and speak my mind, and get attacked, I will consider myself a victim. Your mileage evidently differs.

              Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

              by blue aardvark on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:16:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's just it (0+ / 0-)

                he didn't just walk up to someone and speak his mind - he intervened in a crime taking place.

                If I walk up to someone and say, "Those are some ugly shoes" and they punch me out, I'm a victim.  

                If I run up to a mugging taking place and yell at the guy to stop, and he chases me down and punches me, I'm not a victim.

                All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon to support steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

                by Noddy on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:23:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Why not? (6+ / 0-)

                  I do not see how being in the presence of a violent criminal diminishes my rights. I have the right to speak without being attacked.

                  Suppose I'm walking down the street, happen upon a crime in progress, and the criminal attacks me because they want to kill the witness before I say a word. Am I a victim then?

                  Because if speaking my mind in a public place is the difference, then violent criminals have powers the government lacks. Which seems odd.

                  Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

                  by blue aardvark on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:31:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Because you are knowingly (0+ / 0-)

                    putting yourself in harm's way.

                    Someone trapped in a burning building and killed is a victim. Someone who runs in to save people and is killed is an unfortunate rescuer.

                    •  And therefore violent criminals (3+ / 0-)

                      have the right to do their thing without censure.

                      Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

                      by blue aardvark on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:38:43 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  That's not what we're saying - (0+ / 0-)

                        and you know it.

                        All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon to support steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

                        by Noddy on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:02:49 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  That is exactly what you are saying (4+ / 0-)

                          A law-abiding citizen harmed while trying to stop a crime is a victim of the criminal by any rational definition of "victim". For example, someone harmed by a crime are victims. Good Samaritans who are harmed by the criminal become victims, because it is legal to try to stop a violent crime happening before your eyes, and not legal to hurt additional people to further your criminal attempt.

                          Do you agree that anyone harmed by a crime is a victim? It really is black and white.

                          Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

                          by blue aardvark on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:08:15 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  That depends on if the person (0+ / 0-)

                            chose to insert themselves into the crime.

                            If the answer is "yes", then you're not a victim, you are a person that chose to bear the consequences of your actions. A rescuer, maybe, a supporter, perhaps even stupid, but not a victim.

                            A victim is someone who doesn't choose to have the crime committed against them.

                            All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon to support steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

                            by Noddy on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:29:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Look. It's very simple (3+ / 0-)

                            We had a case here in Denver where a couple of white supremacists started beating a black guy, a passerby intervened, and got shot.

                            The guy who got shot was referred to as a victim on the news. He was referred to as a victim by the police. The shooters were prosecuted, and the criminal proceedings referred to the shot man as the victim of a crime.

                            No one ever suggested that he was not a victim. Both the common vernacular of the news media and the precise language used by attorneys referred to him as such.

                            But you say he was not. And that just plain bewilders me.

                            Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

                            by blue aardvark on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:33:40 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Holy Strawman (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Neuroptimalian

                        I'm sure the families of the soldiers and police officers killed in the line of duty will be thrilled that you call them victims.

                  •  Because his role is different (0+ / 0-)

                    and because xxdr zombiexx's  intent (based on the direction the diary went and comments) in writing this diary isn't about how to be a victim, which is what it became when he declared himself a victim in his anecdote.

                    Word choices matter - and xxdr zombiexx is saying, loud and clear, that you, too, can become a victim!  All you need to do to join the Pity Party and proclaim yourself a victim is to seek out some crime and insert yourself into it.  That way the real victim is forgotten and you can claim all the pity and sympathy for yourself. Huzzah, huzzah, huzzah.

                    If you are confronting a person who is actively engaged in violence, you should expect to become the new focus of that violence. You do not get to expect that the violent person stops, scratches his head, and says, "You're right, I shouldn't bash people. Sorry I got angry.  Here, let me give you my card, send any damages and medical bills to me and I'll make it right. Thank you for stopping me." And then you all sing "Kumbaya" and go out for drinks. That just plain isn't ever going to happen.

                    You are not a victim if you chose to intervene in an act of violence. That makes you one of the following:  a rescuer, stupid, an abettor, a supporter, a sympathizer. Not, and never, a victim.

                    Why?  Because you (or in this case, xxdr zombiexx) chose  to intervene, knowing the person was violent, seeing that the person was doing violence. Ergo - not a victim.

                    All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon to support steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

                    by Noddy on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:02:05 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Wrong. TWO events, not one. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sturunner

                  Event #1:

                  If I run up to a mugging taking place and yell at the guy to stop,
                  Event #2:
                  and he chases me down and punches me, I'm not a victim.
                  Same AGGRESSOR, yet IF arrested, it's for TWO separate assaults.

                  There won't be one arrest as the second assault didn't happen. It was a mind-your-own-fucking-business reminder, delivered in the lingua franca of the street.  

                  The police say it's bygones as you interfered with my livelihood and got a lump.  A reminder to see nothing, say nothing, do nothing.  You don't know me.  Stay out of my face.

                  The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

                  by 43north on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:00:51 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That still doesn't make (0+ / 0-)

                    the person who intervened a victim.  A rescuer, who got hurt, yes.  But not a victim.  The victim, in case you forgot, was the woman.

                    All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon to support steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

                    by Noddy on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:05:11 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Ah good point. FDNY, PAPD and NYPD deaths (3+ / 0-)

                      on 9-11-01 weren't victims of terrorism.

                      Someone should have reminded Congress and the Bushco White House of this, in the rush to war.

                      Only when it comes to cash money, survivor benefits do the survivors of that attack; and those who worked Ground Zero, achieve non-victim status.

                      The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

                      by 43north on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:44:15 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Totally different sitautation (0+ / 0-)

                        we're talking about an individual who inserted themselves willingly into a crime of violence, not a terrorist attack.

                        You are comparing apples to opals and making a serious mess of it.

                        All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon to support steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

                        by Noddy on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:30:58 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  inserted themselves into a what? (0+ / 0-)

                          There was ZERO mention of Arabs skyjacking airplanes at that hour of the day.

                          It was at-first a "oh shit, this happened again" incident, as flights have struck NYC buildings previously.

                          The SECOND plane made it less of an accident.  Still a crime of violence against those in the buildings and upon the planes.

                          You seem lost as to the legalese of the matter.

                          Actor, Subject, Justice.
                          Aggressor, Victim, Cop.

                          Pick which one you are, which one, which remains mutable.

                          Rescuer isn't going to effect an arrest, isn't there for anything other than extrication of the victim from eminent harm.

                          If not acted-upon by the Aggressor, the Rescuer is neither Victim nor Cop.  

                          The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

                          by 43north on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:26:16 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  No, if you insult someone ... (0+ / 0-)

                  and they retaliate (albeit with physical violence rather than words), you are not a victim; you were the instigator.  The insulted person is the "victim" in such a scenario.

                  "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                  by Neuroptimalian on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:14:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I disagree. To be insulted does not make one (0+ / 0-)

                    a victim.  That person can walk away, or return the insult with gusto.  If the insulted party strikes you, then you are the victim.  Insults are not crimes, assaults are.  Whoever was the "instigator" has no real meaning.  The initiator of of a verbal confrontation?  Or of a beating?  

                    This is part of what makes the Zimmerman/Martin case so difficult.

                    •  I can't agree. (0+ / 0-)

                      One's victimization might not rise to the level of there having been a "crime" which has been commited, but the person is still a victim.  For example, "victims" of bullying are "victims", even if they aren't touched; such incidents have been known, I'm sure you'd agree, in the "victim" committing suicide.  I say that if you're on the receiving end of a verbal assault, you're still a victim ... and the instigator has done something "wrong", even if it's a moral "crime" as opposed to breaking a law.

                      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                      by Neuroptimalian on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:08:55 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  So he should have done nothing (14+ / 0-)

      and let a woman get robbed / raped / beaten / murdered?  If you saw that happening, you would just shrug and walk away, not wishing to "seek trouble out"?  Wow.  Just wow.

    •  And Notice: no gun was needed (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Noddy, Silvia Nightshade, Nattiq

      The author undermines his own argument: the one time he had to defend someone from violent assault, he was able to successfully do so without a gun.

      So if the author's one anecdotal incident of violence proves that violence is a fact of life, then it is also therefore proved that such acts of violence can be meet and bested without need for a gun.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:38:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Seriously? (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ROGNM, kharma, Deep Texan, MRA NY, wader, Kevskos, Nattiq

    How on earth did this piece of whatever it is get on the rec list?

  •  Wow. Impressive. (5+ / 0-)

    What a brave and powerful person you are.

    Any other "stories" you'd like to share?  They're fascinating!

  •  Anyone who doesn't want to defend themselves... (8+ / 0-)

    ...or their family must have a serious screw loose or be a radical Quaker or something.  I really doubt you'll find more than a few of them here.

    Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

    by dov12348 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:48:17 AM PDT

    •  Don't bet the rent (5+ / 0-)

      on that...

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:08:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's just a very loud minority here. (9+ / 0-)

      I think it's mostly collective emoting.

      However, in the Commonwealth, that attitude is the norm.

      In the UK, a victim can be arrested and jailed for using any kind of deadly force against a attacker. Your only choice is to flee, and hope you're faster than your assailant(s).

      Gun crimes have always been scare in the UK, but the violent crime rate has gone up both before and after the bans.

      But then again, I'm not sure how criminalizing self-defense is affecting the violent crime rate.

      •  So in the UK if you can't flee... (0+ / 0-)

        ...you have to just sit there, even if not bound, while the guy slowly shoots each family member in the head?

        Come on.

        Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

        by dov12348 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:21:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, a 5'2 woman can flee and fight off (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dov12348, Robobagpiper, gerrilea, 43north

          a gang of 6' men bare-handed.

          It's true because it happens on TV all the time.

        •  You can defend your family (6+ / 0-)

          with anything you want, as long as you can get it.

          Just expect to go to jail for the privilege.

          •  Come on - that's just insane. (0+ / 0-)

            Can you cite the law?

            Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

            by dov12348 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:57:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Checked again, the laws have updated since 08: (6+ / 0-)

              http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

              The government had previously rejected attempts by Conservative backbenchers Patrick Mercer and Anne McIntosh to introduce a change in the law because their bills were "never worded quite right".

              In 2004, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir John Stevens, had also said that he supported the use of "necessary force" by members of the public. Straw announced a change in policy at last year's Labour conference.

              In practice, householders are seldom prosecuted if they harm or even kill an intruder but the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 will give them greater legal protection.

              In one recent case, two burglars broke into a house armed with a knife and threatened a woman. Her husband overcame one of the burglars and stabbed him. The burglar died but the husband was not prosecuted. The other burglar was convicted.

              However, in another example cited by the justice department, a householder was prosecuted after he laid in wait for a burglar who tried to break into his shed and shot him in the back.

              Another man was deemed to have used excessive force and prosecuted after he caught a burglar, tied him up, beat him up, threw him into a pit and set fire to him.

              The new law makes it clear that householders should not be prosecuted so long as they used "reasonable force" to protect themselves or others and acted in response to the scale of the threat.

              This still leaves determination of 'reasonable force' completely up to the prosecutor.

              In addition, civilians carrying any kind of 'offensive weapon',which includes most knives, is illegal:

              Myleene Klass Knife Incident

              Miss Klass, 31, who was alone in her house in Potters Bar, Herts, with her two-year-old daughter, Ava, called the police. When they arrived at her house they informed her that she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an "offensive weapon" – even in her own home – was illegal.

              Jonathan Shalit, Miss Klass's agent, said that had been "shaken and utterly terrified" by the incident and was stepping up security at the house she shares with her fiancé, Graham Quinn, who was away on business at the time.

              He said: "Myleene was aghast when she was told that the law did not allow her to defend herself in her own home. All she did was scream loudly and wave the knife to try and frighten them off.

              Next, a subject has a presumed 'duty to retreat,' with the determination left to the local prosecutor:

              Tony Martin Incident

              I was on the stairs, they were shining a torch on me, I pulled the trigger and the rest is history.'  

              Mr Martin has not set foot inside his home since that dramatic night on August 20, 1999.

              Ivy riots up the walls of Bleak House in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk and its windows remain barred by steel shutters.  

              Mr Martin slept in his car after being freed on appeal in 2003, when his conviction was reduced to manslaughter. He won't say where he stays now, refusing to let even the police know his whereabouts.

              'When I had my problem, I was in the papers every day. Things haven't changed.' He added: 'I don't hold it against the police. I just don't respect them and nor does anyone else.

              'They haven't done anything at all. That's why we had those problems 10 years ago. We had no law and order and if I'm responsible for shooting those people they're equally culpable.  

              Finally, as of 2012 the judiciary is reasserting a right to armed self-defense:

              UK Judges Revive Right to Self Defense

              Following their arrest, the couple spent 66 hours in police custody. Mr. Ferrie told the media that police threatened him with an attempted murder charge, adding, "I just crumpled. I saw myself being sent to prison for a long, long time. I was offered food but didn't eat for the whole 66 hours we were held." Mrs. Ferrie described the scene around her home as "something out of CSI." And Mrs. Ferrie's mother summed up the ordeal by stating, "They put Tracey and Andrew through hell." The couple was finally released without charges after mounting public outcry that included a defense from the couple's Member of Parliament, Alan Duncan.

              Further vindication came September 26, when the wounded home invaders pleaded guilty to burglary and were sentenced to four years in prison. Presiding over the case was Judge Michael Pert QC, who rejected attempts by O'Gorman's attorney to obtain leniency for his client by citing O'Gorman's "near-death experience." Judge Pert remarked, "If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take. You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it," adding, "Some might argue that being arrested and locked up for 40 hours is a trauma."

              The comments were followed by those of the head of the English judiciary, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, who made clear, "If your home is burgled and you're in there, you have the right to get rid of the burglar." The Lord Chief Justice added, "The householder is entitled to use reasonable force to get rid of the burglar… In measuring whether the force is reasonable or not, you're not doing a paper exercise six months later… You've got to put yourself in the position of the man or woman who has reacted to the presence of a burglar and has reacted with fury, with anxiety, with fear and with all the various different emotions which have been generated and has no time for calm reflection." And in a nod to England's classical liberal past, the Lord Chief Justice cited Sir Edward Coke, stating, "A predecessor of mine 400 years ago... said, 'Your home is your castle.'"

  •  Shouldn't listen to idiots (9+ / 0-)

    I got into a lot of fights when I was  kid. I got into boxing at a young age because I was small and would get bullied.
    I got better than OK at it for what I was to where I would not take shit from people nor allow myself tio be victimized. 3 years as a paratrooper, one of them in Vietnam kind of made this permanent. Ive also dabbled in martial arts.
    I don't remember how many fights Ive been in but I haven't lost a one since I quit drinking (1975) Of course when I quit drinking and hanging out in bars I didn't get in near as many fights.  
    Haven't been in one for about 2O years. The last one started with some pushing and shoving over a fender bender. he was sitting on the ground with two punches. I told him If he got up I'd hurt him bad and would have except the cops show up.
    Another time a drunk smashed his way into my house at 0400 New Years AM 1984. I got out of bed naked and threw him out the door, then threw on a pair of pants,grabbed  my baseball bat, chased him down the street and gave gave that sonofabitch a Louisville Shampoo. I have never enjoyed hitting someone so much in my life (there were other contenders) He's dam lucky I didn't kill him and so am I.
    FUCK IT!! Do that to me and my honor demands I draw blood!  That day I, an ultr4a liberal anti gunner since I left the Army, went out and bought a gun. I learned in a war you never outgrow your need for ammo, I'd just forgotten it.

    I will always defend myself tho as a liberal I deplore the unnecessary loss of life (Wrings hands)
    Especially my own

    Happy just to be alive

    by exlrrp on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:48:39 AM PDT

    •  Aggression has its place. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Robobagpiper, gerrilea, 43north, Joieau

      Aggression is how we find the energy to protect ourselves from all matter of suck and fail.

      I do think we overuse aggression in this society, but that doesn't mean that aggression is completely and absolutely unnecessary.

      Once again, this is why I'm a big fan of dealing with the root causes of violence and not attributing magical properties to inanimate objects.

      •  Apart from the seeming millions (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Kresnik

        who simply don't give a shit about what happens to people who are not them, there is also the "Fight or Flight" instinctual reaction that kicks in on unusual occasion. It is in fact instinct, earned the hard way through evolutionary experience, and it will take any of several aggressive or passive forms when it kicks in.

        Spring before last a couple of gnarly meth-heads showed up demanding money, pulled a handgun on me and my grandson. I told 'em to get the hell off my property, told grandson to go get the gun and call the police. By the time I got in the door and had it locked behind me, grandson had the shotgun next to me - not loaded, he didn't know how. I had expected the creeps would leave having met resistance, but when I looked out the window they were getting out of their truck.

        Coming on in. With a gun out front and pointed in my direction. There's no 'stuff' of value in this house to defend with anyone's life, but my kids and grandkids are way the hell off limits. From adrenalin-filled fast-heart fear to absolute vicious fury in only the time it took to do that much on-the-fly analysis. They'll have to kill me to get into my house, and I'm going down with a bigger gun in my hand than they've got in theirs. Even though it's not loaded - no time for that, they're 10 feet away. THEY didn't know that, I'd have to bluff big time.

        Which is precisely what I did, in my very best Mad Granny voice, full-on hairy eyeballs and all, firmly hipping that gun like it was my bestest friend and right hand man. Must have worked, because they got back into their truck and backed out so fast they left me a side view mirror for a souvenir. Popping off mere handgun sized bullets out the window the whole way, not aiming at me or the dogs that had finally decided to take a dislike to these intruders. Macho display of losers to a little old lady with a shotgun and offspring to protect, deep in the woods where there's no one around to see.

        Yes. Aggression definitely has its place.

        •  Wow, Grandma of the Year! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joieau

          I'm so glad you and your little ones made it out safe.

          •  This certainly doesn't qualify (0+ / 0-)

            as a high crime area, that's the only time in twenty years here that anybody actually pulled and pointed a gun for anything but target practice in the bottomland. Invited, of course.

            But it does happen often enough to be a back of the mind consideration, where a household in the outback gets invaded and whole families end up dead just for drug crazed fun. There's not any place I can think of in this country where humans don't qualify as the biggest threat around.

            It would be nice if we evolved past it. But evolution is much slower than any one person's lifetime. We may be doomed to extinction, given how inordinately proud we are of our species' violent and purely suicidal tendencies.

  •  I literally have no idea (14+ / 0-)

    what you're specifically referring to, and while I feel bad for the crimes you've been subjected to and applaud you for helping that woman, what you're doing here is attacking a classic RW straw man going back to the 60's & 70's about how limp-wristed bleeding-heart liberals love criminals and hate victims.

    Please. Stop it. I haven't come across many if any respected members of this site who don't believe in defending themselves and others, violently if need be, with a gun if they have one, or in properly punishing criminals. If you have, then take it up with them directly, and not through a callout diary.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:50:26 AM PDT

    •  A diary just yesterday, now deleted (8+ / 0-)

      was the most recent outpouring of this.

      Unsur why it was deleted....

    •  And I am not referring to any specific thing (7+ / 0-)

      I have seen this mentality expressed repeatedly here. I don't save up the quotes and I don't name people personally because that is counter-productive and needless. I am not one interested in calling out specific people and lambasting them (as others do for me) but of ferreting out the problem as a way of finding suggestions for fixing it.

      Along the way I have become pre-occupied with this anti-self-defense mentality. I posted the poll to see if I am correct.

      id did clearly state I was unsure but this is the impression I am getting.

      It is sort of interesting that there are numerous remarks howling with indignation from some I figure to be in the "lets ban everything" crowd.

      Again, I could be wrong. So I asked a question and posted a poll.

      this my be my last day here for such insolence....

      •  Oh, irony! (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan, MRA NY, wader, Kevskos

        You should have reversed your back-to-back posts...

        And I am not referring to any specific thing
        A diary just yesterday, now deleted (2+ / 0-)

        was the most recent outpouring of this.

        Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

        by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:12:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Again, I don't see this as a prevalent view here (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wader

        But by railing against it, you simply prop up that tired old RW meme about criminal-loving victim-hating bleeding-heart liberals.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:27:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  you might start, Doc, with a more basic question (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Kresnik

        removed from the context of guns or even weapons.  The sort of root of it all:

        (poll)

        Does a being, an organism, a vertebrate, a primate, a human,  have a right (not to mention a biological imperative) to defend itself from harm?

        Self Defense?

        Bad.

        Good.

        Pie.

        This argument isn't about tools.  Or maybe it is, but the initial premise has to be examined, it would seem.  And indeed, the right of self defense is a slippery slope, leading directly to Hell.

        And we'll prolly have to define what exactly we are allowed to defend against,  and what must be passively accepted.

        But let's get that established up front.

        Then, with the boundaries established,  we can address the questions of means;   what tools are acceptable with which  to do this defending, if defending is going to be allowed?

        Gotta get all this stuff parsed down in front,  or it just turns into semantic squabbles

        don't always believe what you think

        by claude on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:22:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Callout? (7+ / 0-)

      Can you say stretch? If this is a callout then any diary that disagrees with anything is a callout.

      I myself have heard the "don't hurt the misunderstood robber, he's just a kid" meme more than once here at the GOS, and seen others rec it. Any post about defensive gun use is guaranteed to elicit responses along the lines of "they were kids". Or "he was drunk". Or my favorite, "an innocent person could be hurt, so submitting is the best plan".

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:30:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A gun troll (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sturunner, Silvia Nightshade, k88dad

      (here there be snark)

      A lot of people say we should not use snark to defend ourselves against trollz.  Those people are dangerously deluded.

      I once saw a troll post on a web-site.  I attacked the troll for doing bad things.  With my superior skillz, I fought off the troll and he left bleeding and whining and running for his "one simple tip" home-page.

      A lot of people here say snark is bad.  People say we should not use snark to defend ourselves when trollz attack.  A lot of people say we should just lay down and let trollz invade our web-pages.  Those people are wrong.

      I will defend myself, and I will use whatever weapons I can.  And yes, I will use snark if ever attakced by a troll.  And I will not apologize.

       

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:53:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's the sad product of a sheltered existence, (5+ / 0-)

    and a rigid non-nuanced world view meeting a desire for power at the expense of other, individual, human beings.

    The ends of such sheltered arrogance is something straight out of The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism.

    I really hope that only a minority of people in this community have this state-centric rather than individual-centric belief system.

  •  Which is worse? Hitting yourself in the head with (14+ / 0-)

    a hammer or hitting someone else in the head with a hammer?

    What's Worse?

        o Hitting myself in the head with a hammer.
        o Hitting someone else in the head with a hammer.
        o N/A: I don't own a hammer.

    Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

    by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:52:15 AM PDT

  •  Complete bullshit. (4+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    kharma, MRA NY, Kevskos, Nattiq
    Hidden by:
    Victor Ward

    No one here believes what you say they do. No one.

    You're peeing on yourself, and now you smell really bad.

    "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

    by Bob Love on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:53:28 AM PDT

  •  Strawman (12+ / 0-)

    Who is saying victims have no right to defend themselves? I call troll bullshit.

    If your presence doesn't add value, your absence makes no difference. Make the effort to matter.

    by vmibran on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:56:07 AM PDT

  •  BTW, xxdr zombiexx thank you for your kindness (7+ / 0-)

    and your story. It must have been tough to bring up those memories.

    Don't ever let anyone make you believe that putting yourself in harm's way for the sake of others is a bad choice.

    •  Okay, (0+ / 0-)

      so I hate being the asshole who nitpicks things, but we need to think about this for a second.

      It can absolutely be a bad choice to put yourself in harm's way for others.  You could unknowingly make things worse, or get other people hurt.  I'm not saying that's the case here.  I don't feel like I know enough about the whole situation to say.  But we need to stop feeding this obsession with "heroes" in America.

      "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

      by Silvia Nightshade on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:15:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I hate to say it, but I think you lack (0+ / 0-)

        genuine compassion, with this penchant of abstracting problems outside of the realm of humanistic experience into an emotionally detached solipsism.

        Ultimately it boils down to an utter denial of human will. It's not human, it's not even animal. It's machine-like.

        •  Oh please. (0+ / 0-)

          I lack compassion?  I don't understand the human experience?  Okay fine, whatever man.  There's a reason our first responders die in America far more than in other countries, and it's not because our emergencies are worse.  

          In this case, Dr Z and the woman he helped were both okay.  Everything came up roses.  That doesn't always happen.  Very recently in Columbus, a kid fell into the Scioto river (I think it was Scioto, I could be wrong, but it was in Columbus) and someone jumped in to save him.  They both died.  It's a terribly sad tragedy.  Did the guy who went in to save the kid make a good or bad choice?  His motives were pure, his desire to help the kid was noble.  But was the choice a good one?

          "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

          by Silvia Nightshade on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 05:12:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  See, this is what I mean. (0+ / 0-)

            You, once again, glibly dismiss real experiences for either hypothetical, contrived scenarios or unrelated events.  

            It's either an elaborate rationalization, or ordinary magical thinking.

            •  Okay, please explain (0+ / 0-)

              what I'm dismissing and what I've just made up in my last comment.  I'm sure you'll insult me for saying this, but I honestly do not understand what you're trying to say in this last comment.  Please explain it to me in terms I can understand (insert your own insult of choice about how I'm stupid if you must, I don't care at this point).

              We were discussing someone putting their own self in harm's way for another person.  Rescuing someone from a river is different from stopping a man from attacking a woman.  I'm just using an example from the real world that happened recently (I'm having trouble locating the news story because I don't remember any names, but it was sometime within the last six months) to ask the question about whether or not it's always a good idea to put oneself in harm's way for another person.

              "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

              by Silvia Nightshade on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 06:55:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I must have missed the part (7+ / 0-)

    where someone here doesn't believe in the right to defend themselves.  Just out of curiosity, don't you think it might have been wise to call the cops before inserting yourself into the scuffle?

    If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. Albert Einstein

    by kharma on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:07:05 AM PDT

  •  Kind of a fun question (4+ / 0-)

    But rather than sharp pointy objects I'd suggest bear spray.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:07:44 AM PDT

  •  I believe in the right to defend (8+ / 0-)

    myself--or my family.

    What I do NOT believe in is the right to defend my things with LETHAL force.

    If you're trying to rape my daughter--watch out. But if you break into my home, the huge likelyhood is that you want my TV. I'm not shooting anyone for that. The TV isn't worth it. See the difference?

    "Maybe: it's a vicious little word that could slay me"--Sara Bareilles

    by ChurchofBruce on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:13:04 AM PDT

    •  Even if you and your beautiful (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Kresnik

      daughter are inside the home when these folks come in to grab your stuff? What would make you believe they won't do you - or her - harm while they're at it?

      Honestly, I don't think people of the "Don't Defend Your Stuff" crowd have any idea of the situational realities of having criminals invade one's home, even if all they want is stuff. Are we not to consider our homes sanctified ground? Are we not designed by evolution itself to protect the den and offspring?

      You truly believe you and your daughter can simply go make yourselves a pot of tea while the thieves carry out your plasma screen TV, confident in your surety that they won't want more?

  •  Problem is, your self defense=my felonious assault (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heart of the Rockies, Deep Texan

    Thuggish people routinely justify beating the living shit out of another human being by claiming "I was just defending myself". Now add guns to the equation, and it's time for the coroner.

    The entire concept of being ready, willling, able, even eager to defend yourself against a threat (or a slight, or a nasty look) lends itself instantly to hypervigilance, looking for offence, and far greater likelihood of violence all around.

    Just sayin.

    •  Who said "eager"? (5+ / 0-)

      Would you argue that someone who has home fire drills and a fire ladder is eager for a fire?  If they did have a fire, would you suggest arson?

      I have a baseball bat in my bedroom closet. It is certainly a lethal weapon. No, I am not eager to ever need to use it.

      Your position argues against any preparation at all, that everyone just pray for the best. That's not a plan, it's fantasy.

      •  I like the 1914 analogy. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gramofsam1

        Nobody in 1914 wanted horrific global carnage with the deaths of millions of soldiers. Not exactly.

        But all the European powers had armed themselves to the teeth for defensive purposes, and intended to assiduously defend their interests. And having all those weapons and large standing armies, and the imperative to use them aggressively and promptly to get the best defensive result, led directly to the resulting bloodbath of WWI.

        What you prepare intently for tends to be exactly what comes to pass; with preparation comes expectation. You start seeing what you expect to see. Including threats, real or imaginary.

        "Hey. You lookin' at me?"

    •  This is more to the tune of the question. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Kresnik

      I had jury duty 3 years ago - felony murder trial, drug dealer tried using "Self defense" as reason for plugging another cocaine dealer with an AKS-74U. In a residential parking lot.

      He was not allowed self-defense because he was committing a felony.

  •  Planning to prevent a crime that may or may (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kharma, Deep Texan

    not be committed by another person is a waste of time and effort.
    It's like looking for needles in haystacks that haven't been built. The Bush/Cheney gang did that in Iraq. In that case, it wasn't just a waste of time, it resulted in real deprivation, injury and loss of life for a lot of inoffensive people.
    That's what happens when one presumes to control other people's behavior.
    Which is not to say an assault ought not to be repulsed or that there should be no intervention when abuse is detected. It's just saying that time is of the essence.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:15:49 AM PDT

    •  Does your home have any locks on any doors? (5+ / 0-)

      And if so, do you lock them, ever?

      Just asking....

      Team Cheney built a rationale for attacking; they did NOT engage in self-defense.

      Which is not to say an assault ought not to be repulsed or that there should be no intervention when abuse is detected. It's just saying that time is of the essence.
      So....if time is of the essence, preparations can help?
    •  Really? Preparedness is a "waste"? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, erush1345, Be Skeptical
      Planning to prevent a crime that may or may not be committed by another person is a waste of time and effort.
      Yeah, because you may or may not be mugged, it's a waste of time to learn how to protect yourself.

      Just like your house may or may not catch fire, so smoke detectors are really a waste of time and effort to install and keep running.

      And really, when you think about it, you may or may not get in a car crash, so the two seconds it'll take to buckle your seat belt are really wasted time and effort.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:23:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is a difference between buckling (0+ / 0-)

        oneself into a potentially lethal machine and buying a lethal weapon whose only purpose is to damage and kill.

        One does not "get in a car crash."  Car crashes can be avoided, but not by buckling oneself into a car. Not crashing is the result of careful driving and being aware of potential hazard on the road, including reckless drivers. 50+ years of driving without an "accident" is evidence that it can be done.

        Also, houses do not "catch fire" unless there is a raging forest or prairie fire, in which case an internal smoke detector will do no good.

        The false attribution of agency to inanimate things is not just a logical falacy, it's deceptive. It encourages thinking that things just sort of happen and nobody is to blame.

        We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:58:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ummm, what? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          erush1345, James Kresnik
          One does not "get in a car crash."  Car crashes can be avoided, but not by buckling oneself into a car. Not crashing is the result of careful driving and being aware of potential hazard on the road, including reckless drivers.
          Really? You're going to suggest that there is no such thing as a car crash that could be avoided by "careful driving," and thus that everyone involved in a car crash is to some degree at fault because he/she could have avoided it by driving more carefully?
          50+ years of driving without an "accident" is evidence that it can be done.
          The plural of anecdote is not data.
          The false attribution of agency to inanimate things is not just a logical falacy, it's deceptive. It encourages thinking that things just sort of happen and nobody is to blame.
          Sometimes, things do just happen and nobody is to blame. Humans are mortal beings, and though we insulate ourselves from it as much as we can, we are still subject to the vagaries of nature. Animals and plants were dying from freak accidents, diseases, fires, and just about anything else that could kill them long before our ancestors came down out of the trees, before any species on this planet had evolved to the point where the notion of "blame" had any kind of meaning.

          More often than that, though, things happen that are the result of negligence, stupidity, or ill-will on one person's part, but where the victim is a completely different person who is not even the slightest bit "to blame" for the thing that happened to him or her. Whether or not someone else was at "fault," the event in question did "just happen" to the victim, as he or she couldn't have been expected to anticipate it and/or prevent it.

          Because the alternative is to suggest that if my apartment burned to the ground and I died in the fire, I was partially at fault for my own demise for not having inspected the wiring in the walls before renting the place—or that when I was mugged, I was partially to blame for having put myself in that situation, and I should have been more careful. That's what your first comment about driving really suggests—that there is no such thing as a person who is completely blameless should some kind of disaster befall them.

          Really problematic stuff here.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:32:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Automobiles are not a vagary of nature. (0+ / 0-)

            To say that persons are to blame for injurious behavior is not to blame the victim of the injury.
            Electrical short circuits do lead to fires, but in that case, whoever installed and failed to maintain the wiring would be to blame for that.
            The perspective of the victim is not helpful, if the cause is to be determined, because in focusing on the object of an event, the subject or perpetrator tends to get left out. So, for example, in discussions of automatic weapons the manufacturers and importers and purveyors of these tools of death are hardly mentioned. Indeed, it can be argued that they have hired the NRA just exactly for the purpose of keeping the spot-lightl off the weapons dealers.

            We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

            by hannah on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:46:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What's with the need to assign blame? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau, James Kresnik
              Automobiles are not a vagary of nature. To say that persons are to blame for injurious behavior is not to blame the victim of the injury.
              But to say that one can avoid all car crashes by "careful driving," as you did in the above comment, is to insinuate, by extension, that everyone involved in a car crash is on some level at fault for having not driven carefully enough, that there are no true "victims" in the crash—only those who were more or less at fault.
              Electrical short circuits do lead to fires, but in that case, whoever installed and failed to maintain the wiring would be to blame for that.
              And yet, unless I inspect all of the internal wiring myself and know what I should be looking for, I do not have any way of knowing whether the person who installed the wiring did a good or a bad job. That's why I have smoke detectors.

              If a fire happens, the question of who to blame is a question for after the fire has been put out; when the fire still burns and threatens people, the identity of the person who is at fault for the fire is completely unimportant. The only important thing while the fire is burning is getting the people and animals out and getting the fire extinguished.

              The perspective of the victim is not helpful, if the cause is to be determined, because in focusing on the object of an event, the subject or perpetrator tends to get left out.
              And yet, the perspective of the victim is important in this discussion, because each and every one of us is a potential victim of all sorts of things that are completely out of our control and for which we would be completely blameless—fire, robbery, violence, reckless drivers, you name it.

              From that perspective, it only makes sense to be mentally and physically prepared for potential hazards—and thanks to a few billion years of evolution, we're wired to be able to make those kinds of decisions.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:28:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I haven't been in a car accident for years (0+ / 0-)

            I don't need seat belts anymore.

  •  Do people actually do this? (6+ / 0-)
    is to know how to prepare and live in an area where home invasions occur
    WTF?

    Unless you are a drug dealer the odds of having this problem are quite low.

    "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:20:22 AM PDT

  •  Can we also fight back when the rich rob us? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xxdr zombiexx, gerrilea, KVoimakas

    I say yes.

  •  Good diary, doc. (9+ / 0-)

    Tipped and rec'd.

    There are indeed people who think that the best course is to not resist. There are companies that even have this codified as policy in their employee handbooks.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Note the poll where 10% of respondents think the subject of the diary should not have actively defended himself, even after the would be robber aimed at the victim and pulled the trigger.

    Incredible.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:35:33 AM PDT

  •  I haven't seen issues with people defending (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LJ in VA, sturunner, gramofsam1

    themselves or others from people committing some kind of potential crime.

    I have seen people knocking down the gun-toting-will-inevitably-save-your-skin-and-the-world-will-be-at-peace weapons fantasies, though.  Because, many of them are unrealistic fear-mongering meant to excuse someone's security blanket that's actually increasing the chances for gun-related violence to occur.

    There are self-defense (and offense) measures in my house and car to hopefully help in the case of avoiding or defusing a violent crime.  They don't involved firearms, though.

    "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

    by wader on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:37:09 AM PDT

  •  Self defense. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nattiq

    The problem is, trouble comes out of the blue. You never know when something will happen. Oh, I know what I'll do! I'll keep a loaded pistol in my pocket 24/7!

    What could go wrong?

    GOP: Bankers, billionaires, suckers, and dupes.

    by gzodik on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:40:10 AM PDT

    •  You cannot keep your gun with you all the time. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sturunner, Otteray Scribe, gerrilea

      martial arts, yes. Guns, no.

      •  I like tactical flashlights. (7+ / 0-)

        Something small, like the Streamlight DS LED.  Nobody objects to a flashlight, even in places where firearms are not allowed.  This is about the same size as a small flashlight that uses two AA batteries. There is nothing about it that looks out of the ordinary to the average person.  However, it puts our 24,000 candela, which converts to 25,000 candlepower.  Also has a strobe which can completely disorient a bad guy as well as blind them.  This flashlight is not a toy.  Cost about $145.00 at the local police uniform shop.

        Shine it directly in somebody's face at close range on high beam and they will still be seeing spots the next day. Especially at night when the pupils are dilated.  

        The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

        by Otteray Scribe on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:34:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Totally under rated. I have one as well. (3+ / 0-)

          I will assume I can shine a bright light in a criminal's face without being a vicious murderer who longed for the day somebody broke in so I can vent my socially-inappropriate murderous urges......

          •  Not going to stop them, but delay. (0+ / 0-)

            Some come with a serrated bezel that will take a quarter-sized plug out of somebody's hide. Unfortunately, if they are hopped up on meth or bath salts, they might not even notice.  

            I wish that guy who shot the teenager in the wrong house in the dark had a flashlight. If he had used a light, it's unlikely he would have fired.  IMHO, any firearm used for home defense purposes should have a gun mount tactical flashlight attached to it.

            The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

            by Otteray Scribe on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:46:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, man. Hub bought an LED (0+ / 0-)

          flashlight on the bargain table at the factory outlet recently. Nifty thing has a super-bright 72 light front, and a mere 20 on the tip, directional. Nifty hanger-upper folding hook. Made in China...

          The switch is right under the big front display, so when you hit it the light beams right into your eyes and blinds you. Duh. We laugh about it every damned time we use it, soon as we're done cussing...

    •  It's called home carry. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, KVoimakas, Joieau

      You keep your primary self-defense weapon on you at all times and the others stay locked up.

      A gun on your person always means you're prepared for whatever (home invasions, spree killers, dice-roll random encounters with evil zombies) at any time and at the same time the weapon stays out of the hands of children and burglars.

      I don't home carry, but I don't wall around with a fire extinguisher all the time either.

      •  I'm not THAT paranoid, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Kresnik

        but then again, I don't live in a crime-ridden city. I live on ample acreage surrounded by ample acreage so far out in the boonies that humans aren't allowed to live beyond my property line. Which marks the border between me and about a half a million acres of bear sanctuary.

        We've lots and lots of weapons scattered about inside and outside the home base. Many of them are sharp, long-handled implements of destruction and/or earth-working, kept so as to be within easy reach if the number one threat shows its ugly big head... pit vipers. The timber rattlers are big enough to swallow adult rabbits or juvenile groundhogs, and they do this quite regularly. I've found skins more than a foot in circumference. But rattlers are smart enough to be shy of the kept yard, people and large mammals. Copperheads, on the other hand, think they own the place. Hell, I've had 'em invite themselves right on into the house if someone leaves a door open.

        I'd like to buy a nice pearl handled six-shooter (like I learned to shoot with when I was 11), a hip holster to carry it with when out in the forest managing the medicinals or just hiking. But there's really no threat out there I could meet for which a gun is the proper tool, outside of hunting season (we don't hunt or even eat meat). Even the grandsons are adults now, so I'd feel okay about a handgun for a change.

        Meanwhile, Grandpa's shotgun stays stashed between the fridge and the rock wall, shells (birdshot and buckshot) on the shelf behind the front door. For carrying outside when there's a threat for which it is indeed the proper tool, and that has happened more than a few times in 20 years here.

        We have no neighbors. No one can see our place from the road or from their roofs. If we call the cops they have to come from the other side of the county, and may not show up at all. They expect us to be able to protect and defend ourselves, so we do. They get to sort it out after the fact, if there's sorting to be done. So far the worst has happened to one grandson and one nephew, both city kids to whom "look out for snakes" means zip, because the snakes look just like the ground they're walking on. The regional medical center stocks antivenin just for we who are "a great place to send the kids for summer break," I think...

  •  IMHO, the poll needs some work. (11+ / 0-)

    "Crime" is not defined. For example, if somebody steals my car (assuming I am not in it at the time) that is not worth using deadly force.  I might want to strangle a burglar who came in and stole my stuff, but again, the stuff is insured.

    On the other hand, if a member of my family or myself were in a life threatening situation; the answer is hell yes, I would use deadly force.  I spent the better part of the day Saturday before last in a continuing education seminar on "less than lethal" weapons. The training emphasized that once in a while things can go terribly wrong with that too.  OC/CN spray has been known to trigger allergic reactions, seizures and cardiac arrest. This is the real stuff, not what you can buy at Walmart or a sporting goods store. Same with the Taser.  Any officer who uses these devices had better be prepared for the psychological and legal fallout if it turns out to be fatal.  Obviously, Lt John Pike and Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna were either under-trained or forgot what they learned in training.  

    When my daughter joined the Sheriff's Department, we had several long talks about this. She said, "Daddy, I don't think I could bring myself to shoot somebody."

    I told her that every situation was different, but the fact is, it would be easier for her to shoot somebody trying to kill one of her fellow officers or a civilian, than if she were threatened herself. One of her friends was shot in the face at close range by a guy with a .308 deer rife.  The guy with the rifle was aiming at the Lieutenant, but when the K-9 officer pulled up in her cruiser, he turned to shoot at her. That gave the Lieutenant just enough time to shoot and kill him, but not before he got off two shots with the .308. The first round hit her square in the face. He got off a second shot, hitting the dog.  Both survived, barely.  

    Now if that is not justifiable use of deadly force, I have landed on the wrong planet.  

    The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

    by Otteray Scribe on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:04:33 AM PDT

  •  Tipped and rec'ed - (5+ / 0-)

    For "shameless self defender" alone.

    When I lived alone, no matter how late it was, no matter how many hours I had worked, the first thing I would do was search my house to make sure no one was waiting for me.
    I would do this before I'd relax. Like taking out the trash. Just do it.

    I have always been labeled as a paranoid freak among my female friends. They'd say I watch too much crime drama on T.V., etc. (I don't own a T.V.)

    It bothers them a lot that I actually have my car keys in my hand before I leave the dark building to walk out to my car. OR that I WILL stop and look over my shoulder at anyone who is walking behind me for very long.  

    I don't understand our culture, but I do get what you are talking about. Our culture is so effed up. I quit talking about it to women I care about. They don't appreciate it.  I didn't stop taking care of myself though.

  •  Back in my married days (5+ / 0-)

    I bought my wife a shotgun because I was traveling quite a bit for work. She had grown up around guns and felt comfortable handling it. The basic idea was if anyone comes into the house uninvited, shoot them. Ain't a judge in the state going to prosecute her. Now, she never had to use it, but it made us both feel safer knowing the gun was there.

    "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

    by just another vet on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:39:25 AM PDT

  •  Shoot 'em all! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChurchofBruce

    Fuck sorting 'em out.

    /snark

    Oh.  Sorry.  This isn't about RKBA.  I forgot.

    /snark

    Struggle with dignity against injustice. IS there anything more honorable that a person can do?

    by Celtic Merlin on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:40:22 AM PDT

  •  which is worse? it ain't so simple (5+ / 0-)

    Here's an actual story:

    The man who shot a car thief Monday is 56-year-old Gail Gerlach, according to a search warrant filed Wednesday.
    Gerlach, of 1419 N. Lee St., owns a plumbing business and has no criminal record.
    Spokane County Prosecutors have not charged Gerlach in the shooting death of 25-year-old car thief Brendon Kaluza-Graham. Police say Kaluza-Graham drove away in a 1997 Chevy Suburban left idling in Gerlach’s driveway. When Gerlach called 911 just before 8 a.m. Monday, he told the dispatcher he had just shot an armed man who stole his SUV, according to police.
    But police found no weapon in the SUV or on Kaluza-Graham. They recovered a flashlight, a screwdriver, a pair of gloves and a set of keys – including multiple shaved keys – from the SUV after Kaluza-Graham’s death.
    Gerlach told police that as the Suburban drove away, he saw the driver turn around, raise his arm and saw what he thought was a gun and that the thief was going to shoot at him.
    He then pulled his own gun, a 9 mm handgun, and fired a shot, according to court files.
    Police are investigating a charge of 2nd degree murder, according to the warrant.
    Gerlach has been vocal on his social media accounts about his support of the Second Amendment.
    In his biography on his personal Twitter account, Gerlach describes himself as a “right-wing conservative.”
    In a Facebook post in Janurary, Gerlach wrote “To all my new friends, A militia must be prepared today, tomorrow and forever!”
    Kaluza-Graham died from a single gunshot wound after driving the Chevy Suburban about two blocks and into a garage.
    Gerlach’s publicly available social media posts include a slew of references to gun rights.
    Another January post on his Facebook was a photo of a man holding a gun and said “I don’t register my 1st Amendment rights and I won’t register my 2nd Amendment rights either.”
    The search warrant identified Gerlach as the owner of the green SUV that Kaluza-Graham is accused of stealing before he was shot.
    So, which is worse?  A foolishly simplistic question.

    Maybe, instead: is death the proper punishment for theft?  (If yes, why do the courts not impose it--is death an acceptable penalty only if the thief is caught in the act by the person being robbed?)

    If you say you thought a person had a gun, does that excuse you from responsibility for deadly force?  If it turns out he did?  If it turns out he didn't?

    Is there any extenuation for a thief who steals a car that was left running?

    At what level of threat is deadly force justified?

    These are not easy questions.  But we can come to answers that are better than cartoonish "I was threatened, I shot," without any nuance at all.

    •  Ask the guy who entered another person's (0+ / 0-)

      property and took something extremely valuable without asking, full-well knowing they could get injured or killed in the process.

      We can play what-ifs all day (What if it was the middle of the woods or the desert, and losing the car meant being stranded?), but the simple fact is the thief valued their own life less than the person shooting them.

      We all have our own thoughts on the value of personal property versus the value of life, but some bad outcomes can simply be avoided.

      We're not infants and we don't need absolute protection from grievously bad decisions.

      •  So you're okay (0+ / 0-)

        With a country of vigilante justice?  Lots of problems there, starting with the fact you can't anticipate what vigilantes might consider a shooting offense.  Loud music next door?  Drugs?  Underage drinking?  Vandalism?

        So you are saying you support death penalty for theft?  Or is it just that this was "extremely valuable"?  

        My point was, if we all have thoughts on the value of personal property versus that of life, just what are those thoughts?  Is it more or less valuable, and under what circumstances?  Shouldn't we be explicit and consistent as to the circumstances under which deadly force is justified?  Because otherwise it's chaos, and Trayvon Martins start popping up all over the place.

        And if it is a rule that we don't need "protection from grievously bad decisions," why does that extend only (and fatally) to the thief and not to the moron who left his car running in a neighborhood that has seen property crimes in the past?  

        Myself, I like Kant on things like this: act as though your actions constituted a universal rule for behavior, everywhere, for everyone.  And me, I don't think an extrajudicial, idiosyncratic form of "justice" is how we should proceed.

  •  I checked and this was not posted April 1st (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gramofsam1, kovie

    What we on Kos have a problem with is people who shoot UNARMED people when they don't have to—big difference from your prattle. What I personally have a problem with is people who fear crime well out of proportion to their likelihood of being a victim of crime. I have no problem with being prepared. I have no problem with gun ownership. I have a problem with living in fear. It is no way to live.

    •  Or people who fear that the jackboots are coming (0+ / 0-)

      any minute now in the black helicopters to take away their guns and freedom and beef jerky and it's only the fact that they own guns that makes the feds think twice about implementing Operation Evil Moustache.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 03:37:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How about a fourth option (3+ / 0-)

    This whole post feels like a continuation of the hotel shooting incident discussed yesterday, where most of the disagreement was around the innocent bystander.

    So option 4 of the "what's worse" survey: being an innocent bystander killed by the self-defender.

    I guess though, if the bystander gets killed by self-defense guy, he morphs into a 2nd degree murderer and isn't a "good guy with a gun" any more.

    And my hat goes off to the person who was carrying when Giffords got shot; he used good judgement and DIDN'T shoot the bystander who wasn't the shooter (to hear him tell it, it was a near thing).

    This is my first post here, I've been lurking for a hideous long time, but I couldn't let this go. Final note, if you use a bat to chase a burglar out of your house, cool. If you continue chasing him down the street, the situation becomes he's running from a nut with a bat.

    •  I really appreciate your (0+ / 0-)

      coming out of lurking to make this observation, Shagford:

      Final note, if you use a bat to chase a burglar out of your house, cool. If you continue chasing him down the street, the situation becomes he's running from a nut with a bat.
      And I agree with you about the man who refrained from shooting in Tuscon, too.  It's often hard to find sense in some of the threads when they go off on these tangents, or when folks try to theorize about all situations of violence from their own isolated experiences, assuming that what happens to them, must by some rule of the cosmos have a universal dimension to it.

      There are times, of course, when the exception can actually prove the rule, rather than argue for its opposite.

      Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. (Click on orange text to go to linked content.) Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:47:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nattiq

    If 6 people organize themselves, attain guns and target you specifically to kill. You must be a dick. Just a thought.

    If after spending thousands of dollars to arm yourself against some fantasy and you build a bunker and collect enough food to last a couple of years and nothing like your fantasies comes to pass. Are you disappointed on your deathbed that you didn't get to kill your neighbors over water? are you dissapointed you didn't get to kill a member of our military or national guard or are you glad you spent all that time, money and energy on nothing.

    BTW, I'll defend my kids to the death, but not my flatscreen tv.

  •  This reminds me of the time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nattiq

    I saw a gangsterish-looking  guy lurking around, who wasn't from our neighborhood.  He ducked through a gap in the fence and started walking fast, when he knew I was watching him.  I called the cops and began following him at a distance, trying to keep an eye on him  There'd been some burglaries in my neighborhood a few months ago.

    But he doubled back and before I knew it he punched me,smashing my nose.  Blood was everywhere. Then he pushed me down and began beating my head against the sidewalk.  I was afraid he was going to kill me.

    If I hadn't shot him I could have died. I was just trying to prevent a crime.

    Yours, George Zimmerman

    Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

    by 6412093 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 12:10:39 PM PDT

  •  my diary yesterday really got to you huh? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jarbyus

    but you missed and still miss the point.

    The point was that the presence of the gun aborted a thinking process.  One that may have pointed out to the guy that he was also putting a child in danger by firing at the criminal while the criminal was too close to the child.

    He didn't yell at the mother to move over (she was obviously stunned - looking at her in the video), he just fired.  It was a shot a trained police officer probably not have made and he was lucky he didn't injure or kill the child.

    But that will never be acknowledged, because he stopped a crime, put three bullets into the armed bad guy.  The NRA, et. all will not acknowledge how lucky that was and how that kind of luck cannot always be counted on.  It doesn't fit their message.

    But you and others went to saying that I thought was sorry the  criminal got shot, etc. etc.

    I hear wailing and moaning about a robber getting shot whilst in the act of robbing others with a gun  and somehow it was bad he got shot. It doesn't seem to bother these folks that the person who was shot was actively victimizing another person.
    And here is the assumption again.  Completely missing that it was the fact that the PROXIMITY of the child was the issue NOT that he shot the goddamn criminal.

    But you (and others) missed it because of your knee jerk reaction that I was boo hooing the fact the armed criminal was shot.  

    Yes I deleted the diary . . . but not because your arguments (and the misdirected arguments of others) wore me down . . . the deletion came because the diary needed, even hours later, to be policed and I had to take my son to a doctor's appointment that we had waited 5 months to get.  So I could not do it.

    In actuality I expressed NO sympathy for the criminal (something you and your ilk read in) - my concern was only for the lack of thinking that put a child about an inch away from being shot.

    Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

    by Clytemnestra on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:31:57 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site