'Justifiable killings' article in Sunday RTD - prejudiced tone from VCU professors

Repeater · May 29, 2011

Justifiable killings rise in Virginia and the nation

The negative tone of the article in some places is due not so much to the reporter, Mark Bowes, but by the VCU professors who are extensively quoted within the article, Jay Albanese, a criminologist and a professor of criminal justice studies, and John D. Reitzel, an assistant professor of criminal-justice studies.

They actually appear to criticize Virginia grand juries who refuse to indict a person who uses lethal force in self-defense, falsely referring to the no true bill (its accurate name) as "jury nullification" -- what do you think of that?

As for OC, what do you think of the tone of the following:

In Virginia, gun owners can openly carry their weapons into state parks, libraries, grocery stores and even into the General Assembly Building. Last year, lawmakers allowed gun owners to carry loaded, concealed weapons into restaurants that serve alcohol, as long as they don't drink.

That's preceded by this:

"You used to have to flee if you were in danger," Reitzel said. "Now you can fight back, and that's not even necessarily on your own property. We're talking about being out in public."

Followed by this:

Those kinds of laws have an effect on public perception, Reitzel said. "To a certain degree, if you're allowing people to carry (weapons) in these places, essentially you're almost expecting them to use it."

The implication, taken together, is that the frequent sightings of Virginians openly carrying their defense with them not only desensitizes the public to guns in public, but also the violence that goes with them.

Your thoughts?

SicSemperTyrannis · May 29, 2011

Repeater said:
Justifiable killings rise in Virginia and the nation

The negative tone of the article in some places is due not so much to the reporter, Mark Bowes, but by the VCU professors who are extensively quoted within the article, Jay Albanese, a criminologist and a professor of criminal justice studies, and John D. Reitzel, an assistant professor of criminal-justice studies.

They actually appear to criticize Virginia grand juries who refuse to indict a person who uses lethal force in self-defense, falsely referring to the no true bill (its accurate name) as "jury nullification" -- what do you think of that?

As for OC, what do you think of the tone of the following:

That's preceded by this:

Followed by this:

The implication, taken together, is that the frequent sightings of Virginians openly carrying their defense with them not only desensitizes the public to guns in public, but also the violence that goes with them.

Your thoughts?

I didn't find the article that bad. Even the quotes you picked out for the most part are just factual statements.

peter nap · May 29, 2011

Eggheads giving their opinion. That's why they're called "Eggheads".

BUT...They're just as entitled to make their feelings known as I am.

Badger Johnson · May 29, 2011

Repeater said:
Justifiable killings rise in Virginia and the nation

We want to have the highest JUSTIFIABLE killings possible, and the lowest negligent homicides. A bit like HDL and LDL cholesterol. 'Oh you have high cholesterol!' Well, which lipid fraction the good kind (protective) or...?' The good kind? Then what's your point? 'Well we want you to stop eating eggs and drink more olive oil', blah, blah , blah. Why? Dietary cholesterol is only remotely linked to (bad) blood cholesterol, yadda, yadda.

Yeah but high cholesterol is bad. Dude, the body makes cholesterol if there isn't enough. It's an emotional response and he's evoking ane emotional response as he sets up his false premise.

If he's a professor, then I want cites not opinions. The dumbest people I've ever met in the diet biz have been recent dietary school graduates who don't know anything but the old style food pyramid, never been fat (they're 18) so no experience, telling people what to eat. So professor does not equal fact.

The use of carrying in 'Libraries, Groceries, Churches, Parks' is to imply "who needs a gun in a library?" OMG, is it legal to carry at plant nurseries? Think of the baby plants, the horror! What about at the SPCA? OH the PUPPIES, baby Jesus is crying.

The truth is, I want to carry everywhere I am. I don't care if the scenery changes.

IMO the only place we should make careful rules about being armed might be in prisons (high chaos), in swimming pools (wet), or in places with explosive atmospheres (sparks), gun shows (chaos, high numbers), mud wrestling (except XDs and Glocks).

I'd be in favor of being able to carry on airplanes, IF the person was specially trained. I mean load up everyone with special plastic bullet shooting HGs, or non-hull piercing simmunition and let someone try to start something on a plane flight.

It just doesn't happen. Hundreds of military flights happen with trigger happy marines and guys with belts full of handgrenades and they make it OK.

Since they can't make an objective appeal they have to set up strawman arguments and make emotional appeals, and do it subtly and claim 'I'm just giving you the facts'. It's rubbish.

SicSemperTyrannis · May 30, 2011

Badger Johnson said:
We want to have the highest JUSTIFIABLE killings possible, and the lowest negligent homicides. A bit like HDL and LDL cholesterol. 'Oh you have high cholesterol!' Well, which lipid fraction the good kind (protective) or...?' The good kind? Then what's your point? 'Well we want you to stop eating eggs and drink more olive oil', blah, blah , blah. Why? Dietary cholesterol is only remotely linked to (bad) blood cholesterol, yadda, yadda.

Yeah but high cholesterol is bad. Dude, the body makes cholesterol if there isn't enough. It's an emotional response and he's evoking ane emotional response as he sets up his false premise.

If he's a professor, then I want cites not opinions. The dumbest people I've ever met in the diet biz have been recent dietary school graduates who don't know anything but the old style food pyramid, never been fat (they're 18) so no experience, telling people what to eat. So professor does not equal fact.

The use of carrying in 'Libraries, Groceries, Churches, Parks' is to imply "who needs a gun in a library?" OMG, is it legal to carry at plant nurseries? Think of the baby plants, the horror! What about at the SPCA? OH the PUPPIES, baby Jesus is crying.

The truth is, I want to carry everywhere I am. I don't care if the scenery changes.

IMO the only place we should make careful rules about being armed might be in prisons (high chaos), in swimming pools (wet), or in places with explosive atmospheres (sparks), gun shows (chaos, high numbers), mud wrestling (except XDs and Glocks).

I'd be in favor of being able to carry on airplanes, IF the person was specially trained. I mean load up everyone with special plastic bullet shooting HGs, or non-hull piercing simmunition and let someone try to start something on a plane flight.

It just doesn't happen. Hundreds of military flights happen with trigger happy marines and guys with belts full of handgrenades and they make it OK.

Since they can't make an objective appeal they have to set up strawman arguments and make emotional appeals, and do it subtly and claim 'I'm just giving you the facts'. It's rubbish.

I have another perspective on specifically listing "libraries, groceries, churches and parks" (as well as the mention of places that serve alcohol) - its EDUCATIONAL! Rather than view it as biased by reading into it that the purpose of the quote was to imply the thought "OMG - who needs a gun in a library?" we could instead view it as EDUCATIONAL. Many people don't know you can carry in these places (including a surprising number of law enforcement). You put words in the professors mouths when you write that the purpose was to express alarm or concern. Then you mention puppies and the SPCA and by the time you are finished you seem to know a lot more about what the professor was thinking then what the words actually say. I've often thought we need to take a deep breath on this board.... the truth is the editorializing of what the professor may have meant is your OPINION perhaps reflecting a bias against academia or professors, whereas what the professor actually said is simply a FACT - you can carry in those places.

SouthernBoy · May 30, 2011

Try as we may, we are not going to change the minds of people like this who do not believe people like us should be carrying guns in public. The only thing that is likely to change their mind is an extreme encounter and as we've seen so many times, often that turns them even more in the direction of tighter restrictions and their ultimate goal; confiscation.

The fact is there are people out there who for whatever reason, just do not like firearms. They don't like them, they don't want them, and the see no need for them. But with these folks, it's not enough that they don't like them, don't want them, and don't need them. They don't want you to have them, either.

You have to really wonder about their mindset. They are perfectly willing to sacrifice their safety and their lives on the alter of their belief that firearms in the hands of citizens is a bad idea. This is really a curious thing because we all have but one life. God didn't grant us nine lives with which w have the luxury to make fatal mistakes and still wake up the next morning with the next life. These people would rather hold their beliefs of non-violence and no firearms even at the cost of losing their lives to some deranged madman or even the "casual" armed robber. Is it in that final moment when their life's fluids are ebbing from their bodies and they still have a measure of conscious thought that reality hits them with their flawed views and fatal mistake? Do they then think. "If only I had a gun"?

user · May 30, 2011

Professors of "criminology" are generally sociologists, not lawyers. Those quoted clearly don't have a clue about the law, and particularly the history of our law, if they were quoted correctly.

The article misuses technical legal terms, such as "justification" and "jury nullification". The author is clearly ignorant of the system of law he's purporting to address. What bothers me about such things is that the average Wal-Mart Shoppers who read the RTD think it's authoritative.

riverrat10k · May 30, 2011

"But with citizen-initiated shootings, "I just get worried about people being their own police officers," Albanese said."

I see nothing wrong with being my own police officer. I am certainly not your police officer, though.

"It tends to result in some unfortunate accidents and bad judgments. "

Cite?

"The percentage of these people who have an idea of when they are lawfully allowed to use that thing would blow your mind.""

I don't understand the last sentence at all.

SouthernBoy · May 30, 2011

user said:
What bothers me about such things is that the average Wal-Mart Shoppers who read the RTD think it's authoritative.

Absolutely. And the same can be said for news anchors who are viewed by some (many?) as all knowing and wise. The lack of knowledge can have disastrous consequences.

wylde007 · May 30, 2011

riverrat10k said:
"It tends to result in some unfortunate accidents and bad judgments. "

What, you mean like when the cops arrive and beat the lawful citizen senseless and refuse him immediate critical medical attention for enacting a citizens arrest.

Yes, some unfortunate accidents and bad judgments are bound to happen... by sworn law enforcement.

Grapeshot · May 30, 2011

riverrat10k said:
"The percentage of these people who have an idea of when they are lawfully allowed to use that thing would blow your mind.""

I don't understand the last sentence at all.

He is attempting to imply that only a very few of us have any idea regarding the use of deadly force.

My experience with people here has been just the opposite and it always begins with "only as a last resort" to protect against loss of life or serious bodily injury.

Citizen · May 30, 2011

The article in the OP is hostile to self-defense. Its subtle, but its hostile. Basically, the newspaper is forwarding some of the same tired, fallacious, enemy talking points, just dressed up in new clothes. For example:

Said VCU's Albanese: The self-defense laws "encourage citizens to resolve criminal situations, rather than relying on police."

This nothing more than the old anti-gun idea that the police will protect you, so you don't need a gun to protect yourself.

But, Albanese handed us a beauty:

"...The percentage of these people who have an idea of when they are lawfully allowed to use that thing would blow your mind."

He just indicted himself and the entire educational system, complete with confession. Thank you, Albanese, thank you! You would rather whine against the pro-human-rights laws (because they give the public certain perceptions), rather than get busy educating the public. Thank you very much, Perfesser. We're on it.

Repeater · May 30, 2011

Gary Kleck, the Empiricist

user said:
Professors of "criminology" are generally sociologists, not lawyers. Those quoted clearly don't have a clue about the law, and particularly the history of our law, if they were quoted correctly.

The article misuses technical legal terms, such as "justification" and "jury nullification". The author is clearly ignorant of the system of law he's purporting to address. What bothers me about such things is that the average Wal-Mart Shoppers who read the RTD think it's authoritative.

Gary Kleck is a professor of Criminology at Florida State University. He describes himself as "an Empiricist" and will only consider facts and data collected in the field, not feelings or falsehoods.

As you can see, he has published a great deal. Too gad Mark Bowes didn't talk to him. Maybe Bowes could read the following:

Gary Kleck. 2009. “How not to study the effect of gun levels on violence rates.” Journal on Firearms and Public Policy 21:65-93.

Repeater · May 30, 2011

Let's "talk" about this ...

Citizen said:
The article in the OP is hostile to self-defense. Its subtle, but its hostile. Basically, the newspaper is forwarding some of the same tired, fallacious, enemy talking points, just dressed up in new clothes. For example:

Said VCU's Albanese: The self-defense laws "encourage citizens to resolve criminal situations, rather than relying on police."

This nothing more than the old anti-gun idea that the police will protect you, so you don't need a gun to protect yourself.

But, Albanese handed us a beauty:

"...The percentage of these people who have an idea of when they are lawfully allowed to use that thing would blow your mind."

He just indicted himself and the entire educational system, complete with confession. Thank you, Albanese, thank you! You would rather whine against the pro-human-rights laws (because they give the public certain perceptions), rather than get busy educating the public. Thank you very much, Perfesser. We're on it.

The quote from the Carnegie Mellon University criminologist reveals the mindset that seems to prefer peace over defense:

I suspect that it's a greater presence of people who represent a serious threat to people who have guns themselves, and respond with that," Blumstein said. "You're seeing more people with guns who are going to deal with a situation with firepower, than that they might have otherwise dealt with by talking the guy down.

So, "talking the guy down" is preferred over brandishing or shooting in defense? And what if talking things over doesn't work, then what?

SouthernBoy · May 30, 2011

Repeater said:
So, "talking the guy down" is preferred over brandishing or shooting in defense? And what if talking things over doesn't work, then what?

Why... you throw flowers at them and tell them how much you love them.

peter nap · May 30, 2011

wylde007 said:
What, you mean like when the cops arrive and beat the lawful citizen senseless and refuse him immediate critical medical attention for enacting a citizens arrest.
.

Ha!
Sure, go ahead and criticize the Police for trying to prevent crime and putting their life on the line and interrupting their doughnut break and maybe messing up an expensive manicure.

Every time a thread starts you show how anti cop you are.:lol::lol:

Dear God...I'm speaking in tongues.:lol:

nova · May 30, 2011

In that case, people should give up their fire extinguishers and spare tires. They probably won't ever need them, so why have them?

I bet his university has installed AEDs in the buildings. Better give them up too, since that's what EMTs are for. Just call 911 after running away.

If the time comes you need them, you NEED them and will wish you had them.

Thundar · May 30, 2011

Repeater said:
The quote from the Carnegie Mellon University criminologist reveals the mindset that seems to prefer peace over defense:

So, "talking the guy down" is preferred over brandishing or shooting in defense? And what if talking things over doesn't work, then what?

This whole thing is not about "then what" when it comes to open carry. There is a deterrent effect that open carry provides. I believe that the ability to conceal has a dispersed but somewhat weaker deterrent effect upon some criminals.

wylde007 · May 30, 2011

peter nap said:
Every time a thread starts you show how anti cop you are.:lol::lol:

You feeling OK?

:uhoh:

peter nap · May 30, 2011

wylde007 said:
You feeling OK?

:uhoh:

Just being a smart hiney!:lol:

'Justifiable killings' article in Sunday RTD - prejudiced tone from VCU professors

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate