Category: Carrying / Self-Defense

Don’t mess with Pennsylvanians, ’cause we’ll shoot you:

While being told to be quiet and cooperate, he was dragged across the street in the darkness and told he was going to be shot. But in an instant, the hunted became the hunter.

Pierce, who carries a handgun for protection, pulled out a .357 revolver and shot Maurice Cook of Easton, who had thrust a .45 handgun into Pierce’s back and the side of his head.

Cook, 22, who was shot in the abdomen, was taken to St. Luke’s Hospital-Fountain Hill, where he underwent surgery and was expected to survive, police said.

He and the other mugging suspect, Tyrone Wright, 22, of Newark, N.J., were charged Wednesday with robbery, aggravated assault and conspiracy. Wright told a district judge he was recently freed from a New Jersey prison, where he had been held on a drug charge.

In a sharp contrast to what the reaction would be in Philadelphia, here’s what the Northampton County DA had to say:

Morganelli said he supports laws that allow people to carry concealed weapons and hopes this latest shooting in the West Ward, the second in less than a week, sends a message to ”these young thugs” that their victims might fight back.

Not so easy pickings on this side of the river, eh?   Thanks to Clayton for the pointer.

It’s Clayton Cramer link day here, it seems.   This one on Alcohol and Guns.  As a general rule, I agree that alcohol and guns don’t mix.  If you’re too sauced to drive a car, you’re too sauced to handle a firearm.  But I think that many of the state restrictions designed to prevent this are silly.  My prescription would be for states to make it unlawful to carry or use a firearm while intoxicated.   I think that’s a pretty simple solution. It’s the same thing we use for cars, and operating a car and drinking is far more dangerous than carrying and drinking.

Dustin offers a personal example of how you can’t depend on living in a “good neighborhood” to mean you’ll be safe from crime.  I also live in a decent neighborhood, but that didn’t stop an armed robber from trying to stick up an old man in the bathroom right down the street from me.  Fortunately, the old man pulled his mohaska, and the guy took off.

Apparently the Pasadena man who shot two burglars who were stealing from his neighbor’s house is remorseful about the incident.

Lambright contended that Horn was startled to find the burglars just 15 feet from his front door when he stepped onto his porch. “He was petrified at that point,” the lawyer said. “You hear him say, ‘I’ll shoot. Stop!’ They jumped. Joe thought they were coming for him. It’s a self-defense issue.”

You can hear the complete 911 tape here. I didn’t hear “I’ll shoot. Stop!” I heard “Move, n’yer dead!” followed by shotgun blasts. Syd had a lot more on the event here. John Lott had this to say:

I am however bothered by the advice given by the 911 operator not to go outside to intervene. It appears as if the 911 operator is giving advice that would cover all such cases and I don’t see how that is at all responsible.

Given the circumstances, I’m not sure I disagree with what the dispatcher did. The dispatcher doesn’t know this guy from Adam, and for all you know he might end up causing more problems than he’s fixing, and the dispatcher had reason to believe that was the case.

But he’s a 911 dispatcher, not a family friend offering sage advice. His job is just to keep a lid on everything, and from his point of view, a fella wandering around the scene of a crime with a shotgun is trouble waiting to happen. From my point of view, a residential burglary is a job for the police, but if I’m reasonably confident my neighbors are home, or hear screams or other such, am I going to listen to the 911 guy saying not go outside? We all have to think about what’s right, and keep in mind that agents of the state will act as such, and are more concerned about a good outcome for them, rather than the people directly involved.

I don’t think this guy in Pasadena exercised judgment that was even in the same universe as good, and his lawyer will have quite a job cut out for him. Legally, I believe he’s quite likely a murderer. Whether or not a Texas grand jury will see things that way, we’ll see. I won’t suggest that if they fail to indict it’s a travesty of justice.

Great post from Syd.

Looks like the judge ruled against her:

“The District policy applies to only employees and others working for the District. The policy is known to those persons in advance. They accept their jobs subject to, and knowing, the policy.

ORS 166.170 does not prohibit the District from enacting the challenged employment policy. The District has the right to enforce its policy.”

Disappointing, but not entirely unexpected.

We had a very good discussion in the last thread, where I responded to Jeff Soyer’s piece on castle doctrine. I wanted to continue with some further thoughts. One thing I don’t want to be misunderstood about is that I do not think it is immoral, nor is it illegal, to use physical force to protect or recover property. Pennsylvania law recognizes this. Pennsylvania law basically stipulates that you may use as much physical force as you require to recover or protect your property, or to remove a trespasser, but you may not use deadly force to do this. Even Texas law doesn’t give you as much leeway as many people believe. Under the Texas Penal Code Title 2, Chapter 9, Sec 42:

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Texas allows probably as much leeway in defense of property as any state, but it still limits the circumstances under which it can be used, which is why most Texas lawyers advise against using deadly force to protect property.

But physical force can be hazardous, because it requires close contact with a criminal. Several people suggested getting into a tuffle with a criminal is a bad idea, and I agree with that, which I why I suggested that job is best left to the police. That doesn’t mean I think it’s immoral to use physical force against a thief, quite the contrary, I think society should encourage that. But I stand by my belief that using deadly force to prevent petty theft is immoral, because you’re ending a person’s life over someone stealing a small piece of yours. Even if physical force is a risk, consider that if you were to have a police officer handy, he would use physical force to recover your property and take the offender into custody. I don’t consider is proper to ask someone else to put himself at risk on your behalf, when you would not be willing to do so yourself in his absence. That doesn’t mean I think one is obligated to chase down and recover the property yourself, but if the property means that much to you, I think you’re obligated to behave the same way a police officer would, under the same circumstances (in return, I think the state is obligated to give you the same benefit of doubt they’d afford a police officer in handling the situation).

Others suggested that there’s not much other recourse when the police won’t do anything about petty crime. I don’t believe that citizens should do nothing in these circumstances, but I do believe that they must act within the law. The law allows actions, including physical force, to be taken to recover or protect property; to undo the wrong that was done to you, or prevent the wrong in the first place. It does not allow you to seek retribution. That is something only the state may do. While I very much believe in citizen action to prevent crime, I do believe the state needs to have a monopoly on retribution for crimes. To that end, I believe it’s morally and legally wrong to use deadly force to protect property, when lesser force will do. Deadly force is for protecting life and limb, which I think everyone needs to be prepared to do. But I also believe in being prepared to use physical force. Whether that’s carrying OC spray, taking a martial art, or what have you.

I will never speak against citizens acting within the law to protect their own persons, property, and interests, but I’m not ever going to become an advocate for vigilantism.

UPDATE: Ahab has more.

Dave Hardy informs us that a 21 year old man in Richmond, who shot a fleeing armed robber, won’t be facing charges.  The grand jury refused to hand down an indictment in the case.  Said the prosecutor:

“When the adrenaline is pumping and you’re scared, you weigh fear differently than when you’re behind your desk,” he added.

Still, the prosecutor said he had no regrets about presenting the case.

“This is an indication that the system works,” he said.

Pennsylvania doesn’t use grand juries, except in cases where the crime spans more than one county.  It bothers me our state is lacking this key check on governmental power.  I agree with the prosecution that this is an indication that the system works; the grand jury did the right thing.

I think it’s worth it for me to put up another post tomorrow discussing the defense of property issue, as it generated some good comments, and I want to clarify a few things.  I do believe crime victims should be given a wide benefit of doubt when it comes to defending themselves from criminal attacks.  I’m glad the jury was understanding.