Georgia mother shoots home invader

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

Quote

A point that was very strongly made and repeated numerous times in the carry classes I have taken, and in pretty much every serious article I have read, is that anyone claiming self defense must take every possible step to defuse or avoid the situation.
Or risk going to prison for a long time.

I strongly agree with this statement, as there is nothing that you can do that is more serious and more irreversible than taking someone's life.

It seems to me though that stand your ground laws negate this type of cautious thinking, as they remove the duty to de-escalate the situation. Also, Georgia (for one example) is a shall-issue state that does not require any training before issuing a carry permit. There is a background check, but no requirement that you demonstrate any knowledge of laws or proficiency. Smart people will get training anyway, of course. It's just not safe to assume a Georgian with a concealed weapon knows the law, or that they can hit the side of a barn.

Don

Well, in theory, the only thing that "Stand Your Ground" does is remove the requirement to retreat if at all possible. It wasn't supposed to remove the "reluctant participant" part.
It wasn't supposed to allow someone to be an aggressor, in whole or in part, and allow a claim of self defense.

But some judges seem to have taken it that way.

And I know what you mean about Georgia's lack of requirement for training. For some reason, a valid Hunter Safety certificate or Honorable Discharge from the service (DD-214) is considered adequate training for a Wisconsin carry permit. The DNR just about had a conniption over that. There is very, very little in the Hunter Safety training that applies to carrying a pistol in public. Nothing at all about the legalities of it.
You are right that a smart person will get proper training, but there are a lot of guys (mostly men) that show up at my local shooting range with a lot of misconceptions about the law. Fortunately, actual defensive shootings are really rare, because some of these guys are going to commit murder if given half a chance. I try to suggest that they get some real training, or at least read a little about the legalites, but some of them "know everything they need to."

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It seems to me though that stand your ground laws negate this type of cautious thinking,

this is pretty short sighted, IMO.

cautious and responsible people will behave cautiously and responsibly. Those that aren't won't - I don't think the law matters one bit in the way you are assuming.

We need better people

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

If a woman has the choice of either shooting the guy and killing him or sleeping with him and hoping by doing so he won't kill her, which would you recommend?

Not for the first time, I have no clue what you are talking about.

Don

This crowd is really slow. Didn't you just advocate using a firearm as a last resort?

[normiss 622]

You do realize possession of a DD-214 is in fact proof of significantly better weapons training than any concealed carry class don't you?

[regulator 0]

I do. I have mine in my safety deposit box. And BTW I scored expert in all of my range qualifications with the worst score being 38/40.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

cautious and responsible people will behave cautiously and responsibly. Those that aren't won't - I don't think the law matters one bit in the way you are assuming.

Respectfully disagree, I think that legal repercussions are a factor included in the calculation of "risk" by lots of people. For example, drinking and driving used to be acceptable behavior; there were even popular expressions for it such as "one for the road". The percentage of drivers who drive drunk declined steadily though the 1980's and 1990's, and has plateaued since at around 20%, about half the rate of the 70s and early '80s. Various analyses,such as this one, strongly indicate that the decline was due in substantial part to DUI laws. DUI has always been very risky in terms of increasing chances of a serious or fatal accident. In the 70s, about 60% of drivers never drove drunk, because they didn't drink at all or because they chose to mitigate risk by not drinking when they had to drive. About 40% of drivers chose to take the risk of drinking and driving. With the passage of 0.1% and later 0.08% laws, about half of those drivers stopped drinking and driving. So for those people the risk of an accident wasn't quite enough, but the accident risk plus the legal risk was enough to influence their behavior. The remaining 20% seem to be impervious to any rational risk assessment.

So regarding drunk driving, about 60% of the population has always been "cautious and responsible". Of the remainder, laws have influenced about half to avoid driving drunk. I think a 50% reduction in the percentage of drivers who are impaired is quite worthwhile. Of course there is a residual group for whom no incentive seems to be enough to change their behavior. Does the existence of this group mean that DUI laws are useless and should be repealed? Of course not.

I don't know how well the DUI situation fits the SYG situation, my point is just that laws can influence behavior.

Quote

We need better people

That has always been true.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rehmwa 2]

I understand your point, but we need to acknowledge that we aren't talking about affecting that 60% or that 90% you note are agreeable.

We're talking about how to change the behavior of the fraction of a percent of people that are mixed up enough to be criminal.

applying mass behavioral methods to the outlyers of the population is likely not to be effective on those you are trying the get to - only those that don't need it in the first place. Your DUI analogy is a good one, but we're talking about the chronic alcoholics, not the weekend drinkers.

I am very glad to see a discussion about the people, not the object though.


edit:

Quote

" Of course there is a residual group for whom no incentive seems to be enough to change their behavior. "

Ooops, I see you do acknowledge the point... Now it's just a matter of finding agreement on what level of effectiveness we think is possible...

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

You do realize possession of a DD-214 is in fact proof of significantly better weapons training than any concealed carry class don't you?

Maybe better training in actually shooting the gun and hitting a target, but:

Does military training cover the use of deadly force in a civilian setting?
Does it cover the legalities of where one may carry and where one may not?
Does it cover the necessary conditions for the use of deadly force?
Does it cover the steps that should be taken before, during and after a DGU?
Does it cover how to deal with law enforcement after a DGU?

And does it cover all the differences in the laws of each state? They vary quite a lot. What is legal in one state may or may not be in another.

The actual use of the firearm is a small portion of the training. Most of it is procedural and legal.

Do most military personnel qualify with a pistol? I know they do with a rifle, but shooting a pistol is a significantly different skill.

And there's no time limit on the DD-214. I know an 80 year old Korea veteran, who hadn't touched a gun in years, that got a carry permit.
No real clue as to what the law is. He has stated that he can shoot someone in his backyard, put a knife in their hand and he won't even be arrested.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[davjohns 1]

Things like that scare me.

1. Do not put a knife in their hand. Do not drag them into the house. Do not mess with them at all unless you need to render first aid.

2. Unload the firearm and lay it in plain sight away from you. Present nothing that would cause a responding officer to want to shoot you.

After that, it gets a little tricky. You need to notify the authorities. You need legal representation. Not necessarily in that order.

I tell friends and family that they should call me first. When the police arrive, they should quietly and respectfully explain that something very tramatic has happened, their thoughts are a mess, but they will be very happy to assist the officers after talking to their attorney (who is on the way). Then, shut up.

Andy and Jerry might want to chime in here. But I have had so many clients that I could have defended better if they had not cooperated with the police by giving permission to search, trying to talk their way out of it, messing with evidence, etc.

Let's face it. You just shot someone. Depending on the slant of the police and DA, you are half way to a convicted murderer or half way to a folk hero. Your attorney can help shape that. It would be a shame to win on the murder charge, but get convicted of tampering with evidence or some such. Worse, messing with things makes you look guilty and makes the police and DA surly. Not a good thing at that point.

Alright. I'm only licensed in Alabama. If you are in actual need of legal advice, don't be stupid. Hire a good attorney who knows the law in your state.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

Things like that scare me.

1. Do not put a knife in their hand. Do not drag them into the house. Do not mess with them at all unless you need to render first aid.

2. Unload the firearm and lay it in plain sight away from you. Present nothing that would cause a responding officer to want to shoot you.

After that, it gets a little tricky. You need to notify the authorities. You need legal representation. Not necessarily in that order.

I tell friends and family that they should call me first. When the police arrive, they should quietly and respectfully explain that something very tramatic has happened, their thoughts are a mess, but they will be very happy to assist the officers after talking to their attorney (who is on the way). Then, shut up.

Andy and Jerry might want to chime in here. But I have had so many clients that I could have defended better if they had not cooperated with the police by giving permission to search, trying to talk their way out of it, messing with evidence, etc.

Let's face it. You just shot someone. Depending on the slant of the police and DA, you are half way to a convicted murderer or half way to a folk hero. Your attorney can help shape that. It would be a shame to win on the murder charge, but get convicted of tampering with evidence or some such. Worse, messing with things makes you look guilty and makes the police and DA surly. Not a good thing at that point.

Alright. I'm only licensed in Alabama. If you are in actual need of legal advice, don't be stupid. Hire a good attorney who knows the law in your state.

Yup. In that sort of situation, the cops are not on your side.

I was taught not to alter the scene in any way. Destroying or fabricating evidence is a crime.

What I was taught to say:

"Officer, that person attacked me."
"There is the evidence." Point to any evidence of the attack. His weapon, scuffle marks, collateral damage, any witnesses to the attack.
"I will sign a complaint against him."
"I will make a statement at the proper time, under the proper circumstances. Right now, I am very upset and I wish to talk to my lawyer before saying anything more."

And then SHUT UP.

Remember that a cop involved in a shooting is not interviewed about it for a couple of days (48-72 hours, depending on the rules) and that interview takes place with a police union lawyer present.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[normiss 622]

Neither do the CWP classes here, so what's the difference?
All the CWP classes I'm familiar with in FL, only teach basic gun safety.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

Neither do the CWP classes here, so what's the difference?
All the CWP classes I'm familiar with in FL, only teach basic gun safety.

Really?

I've taken two (Minnesota and Wisconsin).
Both were very heavy on rules, laws and procdeures. Both had basic safety covered, and a qualifier shoot at the range (again, very basic).

This is the organization that wrote the both the classes I took. http://www.ahlmans.com/aacfi.html

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo