911 tells young mother, "do what you have to do to protect your baby"

[friendly_iconoclast]

102. Gladly. I'll leave to the reader to decide what is "sane and decent"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=462071#463225

"And frankly, all the available evidence indicates that Robert Eells is a goon, and that's my opinion based on the available evidence. I do not consider someone with such an obvious agenda to be a credible source when it comes to an incident like the one in question. He's an obviously immature, self-absorbed gun militant. This doesn't mean he's lying; absolutely; I simply prefer better evidence before coming to any conclusions about that."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=275101#275279

"You can keep calling knocking someone over while pushing a door in a "violent attack", and a basis for fearing an actual life-threatening attack, if you want. I'm sure someone's listening."

"Indeed! And it kind of suggests that in carrying out their intent -- which we know was obviously to steal stuff -- it would have been perfectly unnecessary for them to cause any harm at all to the occupant.

So at the end of it all, he would have been maybe a little bruised from the fall, and they would have been gone with some of his stuff. If you want my theory.

His apprehensions and beliefs and actions in the situation may have been reasonable, but that doesn't make what he apprehended and believed REAL, or what he did NECESSARY.

There is just no reason for US to believe that if he had not had a firearm he would now be dead or seriously injured."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=275101#275363

"Similarly, what was the individual in the wheelchair defending himself against? He had been knocked over BY SOMEONE TRYING TO FORCE A DOOR OPEN, **NOT** by someone trying to do him an injury.

Self-defence requires an assault to be defended against. (Threats are an assault.)

I'm not talking about bullshit legislation in backwater states of the US. I'm talking about self-defence the real thing. You know: defence of self.

We'll spell it your way, for handy reference. (Or should that be referenSe??)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defense

"resistance against attack; protection"

If you ain't being attacked, you ain't defending.

So you know, the more I think about it, yeah, the more I question this individual's actions.

He was knocked over by someone pushing past him.

He shot and killed that person as he was falling down (by his own account).

What assault was he defending himself against?

Or was he committing pre-emptive homicide?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=275101#275246

"I'm just not quite seeing being knocked over by someone as they break down a door, assuming that one does not have enemies one expects to come breaking down one's door in order to commit murder or kidnap one's children, as grounds for such a belief.


I'm still waiting for an answer to my original question.

How many people in wheelchairs are killed by burglars in a year in the US?

You'll forgive me if I make the assumption that the number is pretty close to zero.

It isn't all a game of odds, as I know quite well from personal experience and my very reasonable apprehensions in the situation. (I did use force, I was justified in using force, and I would have been justified, and found to be justified, in using a lot more force after that, under my local laws, as long as I didn't intentionally cause a death, because I could have shown that my apprehension of death was entirely reasonable -- even though the odds were hugely against that outcome.)

But really. Who here really believes (without completely disregarding what we know) that the individual who was killed was really going to kill the occupant of the home? who here really believes that the occupant of the home really had grounds for a reasonable apprehension of that outcome, and for a reasonable belief that there was no alternative but to kill the person who had broken down his door?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=128303#128612

"Having actually experienced the event, I find the idea that the woman in this tale was actually being choked -- was actually being denied respiration and was about to lose consciousness in a matter of seconds -- and yet managed to lay hands on her firearm and aim and fire it to be ludicrous. She was being assaulted, and indeed she may have been seriously assaulted and even killed had events proceeded differently -- but there is no reason whatsoever to believe that had she ceased resisting she would have suffered any harm."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=128303#128605

"The intended robbery victim in this instance DID make a choice, did she not? I'm just curious how all you, er, "gun nuts" (hey, "gun-control nuts"?) get around that one.

She gets to make her choice, she gets to live with the foreseeable consequences. Nobody's blaming her for them, where they affect only her. That would really just be dumb. But she can most definitely be blamed if the foreseeable consequences of her actions affect someone else -- and in this scenario, many sane and decent people would indeed blame her for the injury to the would-be robber.

In your world, she also gets to fire a gun in a public place and be excused from all criminal liability if she injures or kills someone. I thank my stars that ain't my world."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=128303#128610

"... NOT to use it to ward off muggers on the streets. That is, she was NOT licensed to "carry" the firearm, she was licensed to TRANSPORT it to and from shooting ranges.

Strikes me as kinda like me being licensed to drive a vehicle on the public roadway and deciding to use it to run down the flagperson at a detour ...

He grabbed the retired bus driver around the neck, causing her MTA medallion to pop from her necklace and fall to the ground, she said. She pulled out her gun and shot him in the elbow, sending him running like a wounded duck. "It was a gut reaction," she said yesterday. "I was afraid. I didn't know what he was going to do. I shot him and then I called 911.


The necklace apparently came off on the first attempt. Although, I dunno; how does grabbing someone around the neck cause her necklace to come apart? Seems he wasn't aiming to steal the necklace, anyhow, its sentimental value to a retired bus driver notwithstanding.

She shot him in the elbow. Either she's a crack shot indeed, or she was aiming for something else ... or she wasn't aiming at all ... or a moving target in a stressful situation just proved too much for her, and everybody else in the vicinity is damned lucky the bullet lodged in the elbow in question and didn't just miss and hit somebody else a little farther away.

"Actually I feel sick about the whole thing," she said. "Picking on a handicapped woman is about as low as you can go. I feel sorry for him, but it was a choice he made."


Well, that's just the damnedest thing. He chose for her to shoot him, even though it was she who ILLEGALLY used a firearm. Sounds like saying that she chose for him to rob her, even though it was he who illegally tried to take her stuff, if y'ask moi."