Wednesday feel good stories
Chief Tango sends us two stories for today’s feel good stories, both are from California where the legislature, who allows themselves to own and carry concealed weapons, just restricted law-abiding citizens right to protect themselves. The first story happened in Yorba Linda where a man in his twenties barged into a couple’s home;
Detectives said a husband, wife and baby were home when a stranger barged into their house from the backyard. The mother dialed 911, and deputies rushed to the scene.
“She indicated that her husband was holding another male subject at gunpoint,” said Orange County sheriff’s Lt. Jeff Hallock. “We arrived and we found a male subject deceased from a gunshot wound.”
Neighbors told Eyewitness News that they heard three gunshots and a lot of arguing. They said it sounded like one of the men arguing was drunk.
Investigators said the husband shot and killed the intruder, who was in his 20s, inside the house.
According to another source, the dude was yelling about zombies and about needing a gun the night before at a party. He was shot when he broke a glass door and entered the house.
The second story comes from Fresno where two men broke into a home and a gun fight broke out;
Deputies say a husband and wife were inside the home during the home invasion. They reported two men forcing their way in to their home.
Police say the husband shot one suspect dead. The husband was also shot. His condition is not known. Deputies say the man was airlifted to Fresno Community Regional Medical Center and was able to speak.
Deputies say in recent home invasions in the area suspects pretend to be police officers. Deputies say they are not sure if that is what happened Sunday night. “The prior cases are similar home invasion where people arrive with masks on their faces and say they’re police officers and force their way into the home,”
Category: Politics
I see that the mother of one Trayvon Martin, the thug who was dispatched from this mortal coil in an exercise of self defense by his victim, testified in Congress yesterday. She was there to give her views on the stand-your-ground laws on the books in some (but not enough!) states. What’s curious is that her son’s victim did not rely on that law in his defense when he was sensationally and stupidly charged with the thug’s murder. The victim argued, successfully, that his was an act of self defense, an altogether separate matter than what the thug’s mother testified about.
So people are disguising themselves as the po-po in LaLaLand, and breaking into other peoples’ homes?
And the po-po never refer to anyone as man or woman, only as male or female, and they aren’t homeowners, they just live in that residence.
Serious disconnects from reality there.
Good reasons to stay out of California.
@2 To refer to male and female instead of man and woman or boy and girl is used to gain emotional and objective distance in situations where one group of people have to control or handle another group of people. You find it both in law enforcement and the medical environment.
I speak for myself when I say that the situation described above is my nightmare. I would never shoot at a police officer, even if they entered my home by force. My response would be to obey them, let them take control of the situation, and allow them to march me down to the police station and attempt to straighten the situation out there. I am a law abiding citizen, and I see the police as the legitimate extention of societal controls and norms. It would be an unthinkable scenario for me, to attempt to decide in the first few seconds of an encounter, whether the men coming through the door had a lawful right to be there or not, and to determine whether I should attempt to engage them or not.
2/17 Air Cav: agreed. Lawful use of a firearm in a self-defense or defense-of-others situation should IMO automatically and permanently bar any and all lawsuits against the shooter by either the victim or family/friends of same. In other words: if someone is not convicted of a crime in conjunction with such a shooting – no suit is permitted. Period.
I am reluctant to support any additional Federal laws. But I would support a Federal law barring such lawsuits from Federal courts – and if possible, from all state and local courts in the US as well. (I doubt the latter would be possible without a Constitutional amendment to that effect, but one can dream . . . . )
@4 Civil liability is far different than criminal Hondo, had Zimmerman been criminally convicted he would have to prove he was somehow not liable…as that is not the case it is still the responsibility of the plaintiff to show how Zimmerman is liable and in what fashion. I am not convinced that a civil case will result in success, but I am also reluctant to give a free pass to those acquitted as our justice system often frees wealthier guilty defendants. Just because this case is a weak one from a civil viewpoint doesn’t mean the next one will be, we should not make case law permanent based on a single case. Forget Zimmerman’s case it’s a weak one regarding civil law anyway and consider a more likely medical death case. In such a case a doctor who was not criminally convicted could not be sued in your scenario, which you say is fine….however what if in civil court it’s revealed that while the doctor did not commit a criminal act resulting in death his deviation from accepted medical procedures was a major factor in the death? In that scenario which happens far more frequently than the Zimmerman type cases the doctor’s decision to choose an alternate method of surgery or procedure was a contributing factor to the death and as such he bears some responsibility for that decision. Tort reform is easy to accept when wrongful cases are brought, but there are many, many cases that are litigated appropriately for responsibility where criminality doesn’t exist. Tort reformists know that and are interested in reducing their overall insurance liability, they quote some obviously egregious examples and disingenuously avoid the more nuanced and regularly appearing cases to make their point. For every McDonald’s hot coffee case there are dozens of legitimate civil responsibility cases that end without criminal convictions but include a civil liability based on the decision making process. Even the McDonald’s case is not as clear cut as people would have you believe even though it is trotted out as an example of frivolous lawsuits because everyone should know… Read more »
VOV: most doctors don’t shoot their patients, VOV.
Frankly, I thought I was quite clear in limiting the proposed prohibition on lawsuits to those who (1) used a firearm to defend self/others, AND (2) were not convicted of any crime in conjunction with doing same. (I’d support the same type of ban on post-incident lawsuits in self-defense cases not involving a firearm, too.)
If someone defends themselves/others and are not tried and found guilty of a crime in connection with doing so, I do indeed believe that they should have civil immunity relating to that incident. All they did was exercise their right to defend themselves and/or others. The fact that the perpetrator got hurt or killed may be sad – but IMO, it’s also damned irrelevant.
@6 I understand, I will agree to disagree. I don’t believe all self defense cases are as clear cut either. If you start an argument and start punching you back and you kill me I no longer have a voice. Your version of the story is the only one that exists in the absence of 3rd party witnesses…forensic evidence might not exist to convict you, but that doesn’t exonerate your behavior in starting the event…
That civil suit might be the only additional time you squirm before getting away with starting a confrontation that resulted in someone’s death other than your own…I’m okay with leaving those intact as well…
We will indeed have to agree to disagree, VOV. IMO someone who’s already been put through the ringer by the state (through formal investigation or trial) and has not been found guilty of any crime – but has quite likely spent thousands if not tens of thousands defending themselves – should not have to do the same thing again simply because their injured/dead attacker (or surviving) family sees them or their insurance company as an easy payday.
Thanks Hondo, I always appreciate a civil discussion with you…someday that Sam Adams at the Quabbin might be entertaining…
I understand your point and I would like to believe there was an area where reform for someone who suffered a home invasion and defended themselves could avoid a civil suit…in my warped head though there are cases where only two witnesses exist one of whom is now dead. In those cases the lack of witnesses and in the rain or elements the lack of physical forensic evidence often means there will be no conviction simply because of that lack of evidence.
In those cases I guess we never know what the truth is, we only know what the law decided. My experience with the law is such that I don’t necessarily equate the law with truth and/or justice anymore…maybe there is only the alternative you suggest to keep the vast majority of truly innocent people safe we will have to allow the less obviously innocents a pass…
Food for thought indeed…
VOV: appreciate discussions with you as well. They’re routinely civil and always worthwhile.
Not to belabor the point, but the hypothetical you propose (2 participants, one dead, no good forensic evidence) would likely not result in a civil suit, either. If there are no 3rd-party witnesses and no reliable forensic evidence, how is any court – civil or criminal – going to determine with any reasonable degree of certainty what happened? The only such cases I could see proceeding would be one filed by some unethical hack lawyer angling for a contingency fee from an out-of-court “pay me and I’ll go away” settlement. And that kind of shakedown pisses me off bigtime.
The only cases I can see where you might have a point would be those where there’s clear evidence of wrongdoing but political pressure stops prosecution (happenings near a certain “female island” some decades ago come to mind). And in that kind of case, I think there are simply far bigger issues to worry about than someone getting an undeserved pass on a civil lawsuit.
I think you might have done the seemingly impossible, get me to rethink this for these types of cases as you suggest. It is elegant in that it still allows corporate and medical malfeasance to face civil scrutiny but disallows only those self defense cases. I think that is a viable alteration…now who do we call to get it started? The numbnuts in the Mass Congressional Caucus will be a start for me, but those calls are quite often an exercise in medieval levels of frustration…
You two (VOV and Hondo) can have fun with it on your own time–or not.
Jones pulls into his driveway and, as he parks, he sees a man running from the house. Jones jumps from his car, runs around back and finds his backdoor knocked in. He has a weapons permit and is armed. He gives chase, running around a corner and, as he does, he sees the man a block or so ahead. Jones screams “Stop!” as he nears the man. The man (Smith) wheels around, sees Jones running at him crazily and reaches into his waistband and begins to pull what looks to Jones to be a gun. Jones draws, fires, and drops him. Smith is DOA at the local hospital. Jones made a mistake. Although it was indeed a gun in Smith’s waistband, Smith wasn’t the man who had kicked in Jones’ door.
Jones fired in self defense, although he mistook Smith for the guy who kicked his door in. If the prosecutor charges Jones, and he is found not guilty, based on the self defense theory, should Smith’s estate be permitted to sue?
And yet at the same time, the victim class and professional rabble rousers are all up in arms because the police shot a 13-year old kid who was rolling around in a neighborhood in Santa Rosa with an Airsoft gun that looked A LOT like an AK and who pointed it at them after repeated commands to put it down.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.