• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Boyfriend tells police he fatally shot girlfriend after mistaking her for int

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
Not necessarily.

We can't look at these things from the viewpoint of someone who is trained, and then forget the length and breadth of human emotion and attitude. First, we can come up with the wrong answers. But, even more important in my mind, we can hand the government more power to cage people. Also, I am especially wary of the whole "carrying a gun is an awesome responsibility" thing. Far too often in our society responsibility is put across as blame or a way to avoid blame ("you had better do this or you will be held responsible for any negative outcome!"). Any particular self-defense angle or tactic being put across by a gun guru or self-defense expert is only as good as that instructor's judgement. I'm not willing to take a dictum, for example, "you are responsible for every shot you fire", and use it to hang everyone.

I recall a very good example of mis-used responsibility. In Mas Ayoob's video Judicious Use of Deadly Force, he repeatedly uses the awesome-responsibility angle and the you'll-be-hanged angle. His belief that his students are irresponsible adolescents who need to be hammered and scared positively pours out as an undercurrent from some of his comments. OK, am I supposed to suddenly adopt his attitude just because he thinks he needs to approach his students that way in order to get them to act responsibly?

Do you see what I am getting at? If we take an instructor's principles that include heavy weight on the responsibility angle as a student scare tactic, and turn around and apply them to everybody, we may condemn people who don't deserve it.

Back to human emotion and attitude. In the OP situation, I can easily see an untrained person in such a situation. I can also easily see a scaredy-cat person in such a situation. You know, such people do exist. Not everybody has the nerves of Audy Murphy or John Basilone. Reason deserts them in times of heavy stress. Some of us are basically saying that if such a person is untrained--meaning his never been taught the possibilities in such an encounter--he now has to think up those possibilities at exactly the time his reason is deserting him, at exactly the time his whole attention is fixed on that sound down the corridor in high fear, his ability to think frozen.


There is a big wide difference between an untrained scaredy-cat's mistake and somebody who celebrates in the street and fires into the air.

We are worlds apart on this I'm afraid.
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
I guess the moderators should just close this sub-forum then since there will be nothing to talk about come January, right? Why don't you allow the moderators to determine what they will allow -- since this is their forum and not your own -- since that is their choice to make and not yours.

This thread is relevant to firearms in the fullest, and the man was "openly carrying" his firearm at the time of shooting, so how could you argue otherwise?

I'm guessing that C3 is concerned that we will all be led astray, and not continue our effort in OC. The lack of OC events is certainly cause for concern when coupled with that.
I'm planning an OC for long gun very, very soon. Lot's of research is going into this one, so it is taking a while to prepare.
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
Yeah, no snit. That was the whole reason I wrote it. The real question is whether you have articulate and thoughtful counter-arguments.

I'll wait and see if the DA here articulates it for me. Fear is not a significant defense for cavalier behaviour when deadly force is used. It's certainly not fair or just to the victim
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I'll wait and see if the DA here articulates it for me. For now, let's just say I'm glad we're not room-mates. I move around in the dark all the time.

Oh? You don't have an argument.

Ron Paul, as a matter of civility, doesn't criticize his opponents; he criticizes their ideas. Too bad you don't have any ideas for me to criticize. I even went first, laying out my reasoning for you. Giving you a chance to critique my ideas. Instead, you decide to try a sideways insult. Like I said, you don't have an argument.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
Oh? You don't have an argument.

Ron Paul, as a matter of civility, doesn't criticize his opponents; he criticizes their ideas. Too bad you don't have any ideas for me to criticize. I even went first, laying out my reasoning for you. Giving you a chance to critique my ideas. Instead, you decide to try a sideways insult. Like I said, you don't have an argument.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

I thought I had retracted that soon enough, but I did rethink that and change my post immediately. I have lots of argument over that, but it's just not a proper time for me right now. Ron Paul?
Anyway, Sorry you saw that post before I changed it.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I thought I had retracted that soon enough, but I did rethink that and change my post immediately. I have lots of argument over that, but it's just not a proper time for me right now. Ron Paul?
Anyway, Sorry you saw that post before I changed it.

OK, I'll give you the retraction.

Instead of Ron Paul, what if I reference Aristotle and Plato? It is a civilized technique, regardless of the user.

However, until you post an argument, you have none. Retracted or not. You still have the earlier unsupported comment that we are worlds apart.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I'll wait and see if the DA here articulates it for me. Fear is not a significant defense for cavalier behaviour when deadly force is used. It's certainly not fair or just to the victim

Common law is easy enough for us all to understand. Why do you need to wait for "the professional" to spell out your argument. This reliance takes justice out of our hands and hands it over to those who are not really interested in justice.

Can you please enlighten us with your opinion if the following also were present.


Victim -you have that part down there was a victim


Actus reus



Mens Rea
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Common law is easy enough for us all to understand. Why do you need to wait for "the professional" to spell out your argument. This reliance takes justice out of our hands and hands it over to those who are not really interested in justice.

Can you please enlighten us with your opinion if the following also were present.

Victim -you have that part down there was a victim

Actus reus

Mens Rea

You make a very good point. Unfortunately, as I suspect you already recognized, I don't think his problem is the common law. The hitch seems to be in the vicinity of what he expects everybody else to figure out and do based on what he would do, or what he was told he should do, or...


Hmmmm. I wonder. He also seemed pretty interested in justice. The Old Testament kind. You know, the kind that involves revenge. A blending of correction, deterence, and revenge.
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
Common law is easy enough for us all to understand. Why do you need to wait for "the professional" to spell out your argument. This reliance takes justice out of our hands and hands it over to those who are not really interested in justice.

Can you please enlighten us with your opinion if the following also were present.


Victim -you have that part down there was a victim


Actus reus



Mens Rea

As for the first part, I was just delegating my task because I was occupied with another.

Let me see if I can clear this up a bit. This person meant to harm someone...badly. He used a gun, and instrument of deadly force. He hadn't established he was in some sort of grave danger, I mean how could he? Was the victim (his dead girlfriend) attacking him? No. Was she threatening him? No. Did she break and enter? No. Was she a previous problem for him? No. On the other hand, he extended his home to her, and she is now a rightful tenant. He has a duty of care to those he has extended his property to. Now this ass clown knows he has other persons in his home, and if he owns a gun, he's presumed to know the practical safety aspects, and the accompanying responsibility related to its' use. The ONLY time I am aware of that it is common or acceptable to fire a weapon of deadly force when you don't actually see and know the person(s) you are shooting it at is in the military, which he isn't and this isn't a war zone were talking about. He fired at a shadow that he presumed was another human being that wasn't threatening him. He didn't see a gun, knife or anything else but a shadow in a home that he voluntarily opened to someone else. He had constructive knowledge there was another person that he gave permission to be in his house that it could have been, and he acted in disregard of that knowledge. He also had no rational fear that he could demonstrate. Using deadly force against a non-threatening person...out of some conjured up fear is an irrational fear. He made himself believe this other shape was something to fear, when there was no demonstrated aggression, weapon dispalyed, or threat leveled. For a fear to be a defense it has to be a rational fear. fears of Silhouettes in the dark are not a rational fear. They might be common, but they're still not rational.
So that leaves us the voluntary, or involuntary aspect of it. So far there has been no claim that the gun discharged by reflex or accident. And...thus far there has been no mention of him wanting to get the victim out of his life one way or another. so it seems he didn't want to kill her specifically. So that leaves us the specter of himkilling her involuntarily. He meant to shoot someone, not necessarily dead, but shoot the shadow. He didn't murder her, but he acted with wanton disregard for her life when he fired that gun
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
As for the first part, I was just delegating my task because I was occupied with another.

Let me see if I can clear this up a bit. This person meant to harm someone...badly. He used a gun, and instrument of deadly force. He hadn't established he was in some sort of grave danger, I mean how could he? Was the victim (his dead girlfriend) attacking him? No. Was she threatening him? No. Did she break and enter? No. Was she a previous problem for him? No. On the other hand, he extended his home to her, and she is now a rightful tenant. He has a duty of care to those he has extended his property to. Now this ass clown knows he has other persons in his home, and if he owns a gun, he's presumed to know the practical safety aspects, and the accompanying responsibility related to its' use. The ONLY time I am aware of that it is common or acceptable to fire a weapon of deadly force when you don't actually see and know the person(s) you are shooting it at is in the military, which he isn't and this isn't a war zone were talking about. He fired at a shadow that he presumed was another human being that wasn't threatening him. He didn't see a gun, knife or anything else but a shadow in a home that he voluntarily opened to someone else. He had constructive knowledge there was another person that he gave permission to be in his house that it could have been, and he acted in disregard of that knowledge. He also had no rational fear that he could demonstrate. Using deadly force against a non-threatening person...out of some conjured up fear is an irrational fear. He made himself believe this other shape was something to fear, when there was no demonstrated aggression, weapon dispalyed, or threat leveled. For a fear to be a defense it has to be a rational fear. fears of Silhouettes in the dark are not a rational fear. They might be common, but they're still not rational.
So that leaves us the voluntary, or involuntary aspect of it. So far there has been no claim that the gun discharged by reflex or accident. And...thus far there has been no mention of him wanting to get the victim out of his life one way or another. so it seems he didn't want to kill her specifically. So that leaves us the specter of himkilling her involuntarily. He meant to shoot someone, not necessarily dead, but shoot the shadow. He didn't murder her, but he acted with wanton disregard for her life when he fired that gun

What a bunch of repeating his old arguments without actually addressing mine. He's elaborating his points, true. But, they'e the same arguments. And, he hasn't addressed mine.

And look at that big presumption he tries to sneak in there. That presumption is precisely the point; but rather than refute my arguments, he figures he can just re-state his, and nobody will notice. My point is that presumption is a dangerous one to give government. It can be wrong.

My point was that criminal negligence is not necessarily present. People can be fearful. People can be untrained. People can be waking up from sleep. People can be waking up from sleep and still partially foggy from drinking earlier in the evening before bed. And, despite those possibilities, some expect the fearful, untrained, sleepy person to suddenly invent a sound tactical plan at precisely the moment their reasoning powers can't do it.

So, we're still actually where we were a few posts back. No counter-argument from him.
 
Last edited:

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
Not necessarily.

We can't look at these things from the viewpoint of someone who is trained, and then forget the length and breadth of human emotion and attitude. First, we can come up with the wrong answers. But, even more important in my mind, we can hand the government more power to cage people. Also, I am especially wary of the whole "carrying a gun is an awesome responsibility" thing. Far too often in our society responsibility is put across as blame or a way to avoid blame ("you had better do this or you will be held responsible for any negative outcome!"). Any particular self-defense angle or tactic being put across by a gun guru or self-defense expert is only as good as that instructor's judgement. I'm not willing to take a dictum, for example, "you are responsible for every shot you fire", and use it to hang everyone.

I recall a very good example of mis-used responsibility. In Mas Ayoob's video Judicious Use of Deadly Force, he repeatedly uses the awesome-responsibility angle and the you'll-be-hanged angle. His belief that his students are irresponsible adolescents who need to be hammered and scared positively pours out as an undercurrent from some of his comments. OK, am I supposed to suddenly adopt his attitude just because he thinks he needs to approach his students that way in order to get them to act responsibly?

Do you see what I am getting at? If we take an instructor's principles that include heavy weight on the responsibility angle as a student scare tactic, and turn around and apply them to everybody, we may condemn people who don't deserve it.

Back to human emotion and attitude. In the OP situation, I can easily see an untrained person in such a situation. I can also easily see a scaredy-cat person in such a situation. You know, such people do exist. Not everybody has the nerves of Audy Murphy or John Basilone. Reason deserts them in times of heavy stress. Some of us are basically saying that if such a person is untrained--meaning his never been taught the possibilities in such an encounter--he now has to think up those possibilities at exactly the time his reason is deserting him, at exactly the time his whole attention is fixed on that sound down the corridor in high fear, his ability to think frozen.


There is a big wide difference between an untrained scaredy-cat's mistake and somebody who celebrates in the street and fires into the air.

I'm afraid that the philosophical theory that you suggest was something the victim in this case couldn't live with. Justice is apportioned sometimes, and in cases like these, it's for the next hapless roomate this guy has. Good grief man! What inspires good sense if you excuse every act of cowardice or carelessness
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I'm afraid that the philosophical theory that you suggest was something the victim in this case couldn't live with. Justice is apportioned sometimes, and in cases like these, it's for the next hapless roomate this guy has. Good grief man! What inspires good sense if you excuse every act of cowardice or carelessness

Bluntly, do you have a counter-argument or not?
 
Last edited:

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
Back to human emotion and attitude. In the OP situation, I can easily see an untrained person in such a situation. I can also easily see a scaredy-cat person in such a situation. You know, such people do exist. Not everybody has the nerves of Audy Murphy or John Basilone. Reason deserts them in times of heavy stress. Some of us are basically saying that if such a person is untrained--meaning his never been taught the possibilities in such an encounter--he now has to think up those possibilities at exactly the time his reason is deserting him, at exactly the time his whole attention is fixed on that sound down the corridor in high fear, his ability to think frozen.
This guy was far from frozen. He was able to find and prepare a firearm, in the dark. Most people in that much fear...the kind of fear that makes you see see shadows as a threat...pull the covers over their head and pray or shake. they might even click their heels together and chant "there's no place like home". Not this guy though. He was not so afraid of the bogeyman that he couldn't take initiative and seize upon a modern day instrument of power. He was able to reason somewhat.
I'll go one further though and say I don't give a damn if he was scared. Fear doesn't relieve you of responsibilty. He had a responsibility to use that firearm without reckless disregard for others.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I'm afraid that the philosophical theory that you suggest was something the victim in this case couldn't live with. Justice is apportioned sometimes, and in cases like these, it's for the next hapless roomate this guy has. Good grief man! What inspires good sense if you excuse every act of cowardice or carelessness

So, the best you've got is to apply a broad-brush, a generality, to all? Really?

That's exactly what I've been arguing against. Thank you for conceding the argument by reinforcing that you have no argument.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
This guy was far from frozen. He was able to find and prepare a firearm, in the dark. Most people in that much fear...the kind of fear that makes you see see shadows as a threat...pull the covers over their head and pray or shake. they might even click their heels together and chant "there's no place like home". Not this guy though. He was not so afraid of the bogeyman that he couldn't take initiative and seize upon a modern day instrument of power. He was able to reason somewhat.
I'll go one further though and say I don't give a damn if he was scared. Fear doesn't relieve you of responsibilty. He had a responsibility to use that firearm without reckless disregard for others.


Strawman argument. No one is seriously arguing this guy was physically and mentally immobilized by fear.

And, your refusal to give consideration to fear is a no-brainer. Its just restating your earlier arguments.

I would ask you again if you had a counter-argument, but you lost the argument in previous post by attempting to apply to all a principle I had already easily showed didn't.

Separately, a person can't take responsibility unless he knows there's a responsibility there to take. Knowledge, responsibilty, and control go hand-in-hand. One cannot hold someone responsible if that person does not know he has that responsibility. But, that is beside the point. You can if you want to. My argument is that we cannot afford to give government that power. It is a wrongful conviction just as surely as if he was imprisoned for the crime of another.

But, regarding our discussion, get back to me when you are willing to start differentiating, and willing to use a little human decency towards what could be a tragic, but nonetheless human, mistake rather than Old Testament anger and revenge.
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
My argument is that we cannot afford to give government that power. It is a wrongful conviction just as surely as if he was imprisoned for the crime of another.

But, regarding our discussion, get back to me when you are willing to start differentiating, and willing to use a little human decency towards what could be a tragic, but nonetheless human, mistake rather than Old Testament anger and revenge.
The government doesn't have any more power than the people in this case, UNLESS the accused wants to give that to them. He has a right to a trial by the people...a jury of his peers...to judge him. I think you're afraid that the people would judge him, and that result would not be as compassionate as you wish. On the other hand, you don't seem to want to give the government the chance to allow the people's judgement to occur. You want the government to make the judgement that this was an accident, thereby depriving the form of constitutional justice we so revere. I think it is you who are granting more power to the government.
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
Separately, a person can't take responsibility unless he knows there's a responsibility there to take. Knowledge, responsibilty, and control go hand-in-hand. One cannot hold someone responsible if that person does not know he has that responsibility. But, regarding our discussion, get back to me when you are willing to start differentiating, and willing to use a little human decency towards what could be a tragic, but nonetheless human, mistake rather than Old Testament anger and revenge.

He didn't know he had any responsibility to others in his home? He didn't know he had a responsibility to handle a gun safely? Oh please......

Even if I, by some overly sensitive whim, chose to be forgiving and agree that this was an accident, just what teaches a fool like this not to repeat his error? Nothing, right? You certainly cannot assume he would suddenly cast off his fears and act rationally next time, because there is too much evidence that shows people are creatures of habit where deeply rooted patterns are concerned. Alcoholics, wife beaters, sex offenders, gamblers...all keep on doing the same thing until they are "helped". there's no way to deprive this guy of his gun unless he's convicted, so just like a drinker he will get back in the car and drive; just like the wife beater he'll slam his wife's head against the wall again, and just like the gambler, he'll embezzle his employer's money or hock the family home to continue the pattern.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
He didn't know he had any responsibility to others in his home? He didn't know he had a responsibility to handle a gun safely? Oh please......

Even if I, by some overly sensitive whim, chose to be forgiving and agree that this was an accident, just what teaches a fool like this not to repeat his error? Nothing, right? You certainly cannot assume he would suddenly cast off his fears and act rationally next time, because there is too much evidence that shows people are creatures of habit where deeply rooted patterns are concerned. Alcoholics, wife beaters, sex offenders, gamblers...all keep on doing the same thing until they are "helped". there's no way to deprive this guy of his gun unless he's convicted, so just like a drinker he will get back in the car and drive; just like the wife beater he'll slam his wife's head against the wall again, and just like the gambler, he'll embezzle his employer's money or hock the family home to continue the pattern.

Hahahahahahhahahahahaaa!!

Another strawman argument. You put up an argument I didn't make, then argue against it. Nobody is saying he never new he had a responsibility to others or to handle a gun safely. I am arguing its entirely possible it doesn't occur to a person who is awakened from deep sleep, perhaps foggy from late evening drinking, his mind enveloped in fear, that the noise he heard was not a burglar, and that the person who startles him in the hall is not a burglar. You're essentially arguing that such a person should be as clear thinking in the crunch as he is in a classroom setting. Bwahahahahahahaa!

Your deterence argument falls flat because it depends on there being an offense in the first place. "Oh, I'll just declare an offense, and every argument that depends on it will look solid and convincing to anybody who doesn't notice" Hahahahahahaaa. (I'm being generous by assuming you were even thinking through on your argument.)

Furthermore, you equate a rare tragedy being repeated with people who repeat their behaviors much, much more frequently. And, you even include non-crimes like alcoholism and gambling. Bwahahahahahahahahahaa!!

Well, its been fun. Entertaining even. But, since you cannot really do more than twist my arguments and go off on tangents, I suppose I'll get little rational argument from you. (sigh)
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The government doesn't have any more power than the people in this case, UNLESS the accused wants to give that to them. He has a right to a trial by the people...a jury of his peers...to judge him. I think you're afraid that the people would judge him, and that result would not be as compassionate as you wish. On the other hand, you don't seem to want to give the government the chance to allow the people's judgement to occur. You want the government to make the judgement that this was an accident, thereby depriving the form of constitutional justice we so revere. I think it is you who are granting more power to the government.
Wrong, the state has the burden, the responsibility, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, to a jury, that the charges brough against the accused can be prooven in a court of law. The state must not ever take to trial a case that they know they cannot "win."

It is a travesty of "justice" to give "the people" the first shot. The state decides who goes to trial not you.
 
Top