In running for "silly story of the year"

[Snapdragon]

At the end of the story, the reporter said she spoke to Ron Scott and asked him what he thought someone should do if someone was breaking into his home. His response was that they had the right to defend themselves. She said that he went on to say that his concern was that people would start taking it too far, becoming vigilantes, etc., or maybe become so frightened that they became a little trigger happy. Sometimes it happens, like that fellow who shot the drunk teenager through his door (who was arrested).

Ron Scott's presentation at the hearing was about a problem that does not yet exist (rampant vigilantism in Detroit), he was concerned that it might someday, but he screwed it all up. He should have said something along the lines of "People have the right to defend themselves, there are laws as to what is an is not justifiable force, and don't become so scared that you start breaking those laws."

I think that some people find a trend of citizens defending themselves with deadly force a little strange and frightening, even if they would agree that individual incidents were justifiable. Then they go on to say silly things, rather than giving it some thought.

Being supportive of the right to defend oneself and others with deadly force and being against vigilantism are not mutually exclusive, of course, but some folks have a hard time with that. Perhaps because they perceive both ideas being on different ends of the same continuum. I don't see it that way. I think that there it useful to think of a continuum where at some point deadly force goes from being justifiable to not justifiable, and therefore criminal. However, my perception of vigilantes is that they are more like hunters and everything they do toward that end pursuit is criminal.

Very well thought out, EdC. You were able to get past the initial knee-jerk better than some of us.

 

[Jack Burton]

At the end of the story, the reporter said she spoke to Ron Scott and asked him what he thought someone should do if someone was breaking into his home. His response was that they had the right to defend themselves. She said that he went on to say that his concern was that people would start taking it too far, becoming vigilantes, etc., or maybe become so frightened that they became a little trigger happy. Sometimes it happens, like that fellow who shot the drunk teenager through his door (who was arrested).

Ron Scott's presentation at the hearing was about a problem that does not yet exist (rampant vigilantism in Detroit), he was concerned that it might someday, but he screwed it all up. He should have said something along the lines of "People have the right to defend themselves, there are laws as to what is an is not justifiable force, and don't become so scared that you start breaking those laws."

I think that some people find a trend of citizens defending themselves with deadly force a little strange and frightening, even if they would agree that individual incidents were justifiable. Then they go on to say silly things, rather than giving it some thought.

Being supportive of the right to defend oneself and others with deadly force and being against vigilantism are not mutually exclusive, of course, but some folks have a hard time with that. Perhaps because they perceive both ideas being on different ends of the same continuum. I don't see it that way. I think that there it useful to think of a continuum where at some point deadly force goes from being justifiable to not justifiable, and therefore criminal. However, my perception of vigilantes is that they are more like hunters and everything they do toward that end pursuit is criminal.

Yes, he "screwed it all up." The question is why. It is not because he didn't have enough time to prepare, or that he is an inarticulate speaker.

It is because he is a demagogue on a mission. Lies, half truths, and omissions of fact are meaningless to him, except when he is specifically caught and called out such as this reporter did. When painted into a corner he can be forced into admitting what common sense demands, but other than that getting any honest answer or statement from him and his ilk is fruitless to expect.

 

[Hornett]

She said that he went on to say that his concern was that people would start taking it too far, becoming vigilantes, etc., or maybe become so frightened that they became a little trigger happy. Sometimes it happens, like that fellow who shot the drunk teenager through his door (who was arrested).

More typical projecting.

The bleeding heart types (BHT's) just know that someone died.
It is regrettable that someone died, even though it is as a direct result of their own actions.
But the BHT's believe that something has to be done to curb this problem.
Now everyone knows that BHT's can't do anything effective to stop criminals, so to end the killing, they turn to law abiding citizens.
In actuality, the focus should be on CURBING THE HOME INVASION trend that is sweeping our land.
Let's write a story about that instead FoxDetroit.

 

[BogWalker]

Why does the article say "suspected intruder"? How is it suspected? I suspect someone is breaking my door down. Oh, I suspect that's a person I see in my living room. I suspect that's my TV I see them walking out with.

The hell is there to suspect when somebody uninvited is in your home? Aunt Gertrude came for a surprise 3:00a.m. visit and broke the door down? More liberal newspeak at work.

 

[EdC]

Yes, he "screwed it all up." The question is why. It is not because he didn't have enough time to prepare, or that he is an inarticulate speaker.

It is because he is a demagogue on a mission. Lies, half truths, and omissions of fact are meaningless to him, except when he is specifically caught and called out such as this reporter did. When painted into a corner he can be forced into admitting what common sense demands, but other than that getting any honest answer or statement from him and his ilk is fruitless to expect.

And his mission is . . .? My guess would have to be that he'd like to roll back the Castle Doctrine laws or something. Maybe he's trying to get his audience to draw an emotional connection between Castle Doctrine/justifiable lethal force and vigilantism. I don't really know what his goal is, I'm just speculatin'

 

[Jack Burton]

And his mission is . . .? My guess would have to be that he'd like to roll back the Castle Doctrine laws or something. Maybe he's trying to get his audience to draw an emotional connection between Castle Doctrine/justifiable lethal force and vigilantism. I don't really know what his goal is, I'm just speculatin'

He already said what his mission is.

We must operate not on the basis of fear but on the basis of udnerstanding and how we as a community can come together to stop the violence," he says.

He is another "community organizer" who knows much better than the people living there just how to solve their problems. If only they would listen to him then the world would fart unicorns, rainbows, and butterflies.

 

[Bill of Rights]

"All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." If they just call him an intruder, their station/paper/whatever can be sued by any survivors for libel/slander. Thus, he is a "suspect".

YOU are not so bound in the protection of your home, family, lives, and property: When you see an intruder, you don't have to "suspect" anything, although it is wise to remember that every round you fire has an attorney's name on it.



Blessings,
Bill

Why does the article say "suspected intruder"? How is it suspected? I suspect someone is breaking my door down. Oh, I suspect that's a person I see in my living room. I suspect that's my TV I see them walking out with.

The hell is there to suspect when somebody uninvited is in your home? Aunt Gertrude came for a surprise 3:00a.m. visit and broke the door down? More liberal newspeak at work.

 

[ultra...good]

"All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." If they just call him an intruder, their station/paper/whatever can be sued by any survivors for libel/slander. Thus, he is a "suspect".

YOU are not so bound in the protection of your home, family, lives, and property: When you see an intruder, you don't have to "suspect" anything, although it is wise to remember that every round you fire has an attorney's name on it.





Blessings,
Bill

I agree with what you say, the part about innocent until proven guilty, but what about Adam Lanza. Never convicted in a court of law, yet he is known as the Sandy Hook shooter. Every story has a different angle that is pushed. I know you cannot try a dead man, but Lanza was never convicted in a court of law, so technically he has never been proven guilty. So, why is he known as the shooter in that case?

Just a question that comes to mind, there is no answer as far as I am concerned. It is just the way it is.

 

[BogWalker]

"All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." If they just call him an intruder, their station/paper/whatever can be sued by any survivors for libel/slander. Thus, he is a "suspect".

YOU are not so bound in the protection of your home, family, lives, and property: When you see an intruder, you don't have to "suspect" anything, although it is wise to remember that every round you fire has an attorney's name on it.



Blessings,
Bill

I'm hoping you're correct on that. To me it read like one of those "they were good boys" type of deals the left likes to use when demonizing self defense. I figured if they were shot to death in somebody's home there is nothing suspect about it. Not like these were guys that were arrested on a warrant somewhere else.

 

[EdC]

I agree with what you say, the part about innocent until proven guilty, but what about Adam Lanza. Never convicted in a court of law, yet he is known as the Sandy Hook shooter. Every story has a different angle that is pushed. I know you cannot try a dead man, but Lanza was never convicted in a court of law, so technically he has never been proven guilty. So, why is he known as the shooter in that case?

Just a question that comes to mind, there is no answer as far as I am concerned. It is just the way it is.

Good question. My theory is this. There's "run of the mill" crimes like home invasions and then there are sensational crimes. First of all, the sensational crimes (whether due to notable, atypical, or telegenic victims/criminals, unusual circumstances with some sort of twist, or high body count) get more attention by the media to begin with.

Because Sandy Hook was in the public eye so long, officials had more reasons and opportunities to discuss the case with the media. This resulted in he police and other gov't authorities clearly, plainly, and with absolute certainty, publicly identifying Adam Lanza as the shooter. With that out there, I don't think that any news service would or should have any qualms about reporting Adam Lanza as the shooter.

It's good to ponder these things.

 

[Paul30]

Why does the article say "suspected intruder"? How is it suspected? I suspect someone is breaking my door down. Oh, I suspect that's a person I see in my living room. I suspect that's my TV I see them walking out with.

The hell is there to suspect when somebody uninvited is in your home? Aunt Gertrude came for a surprise 3:00a.m. visit and broke the door down? More liberal newspeak at work.

That should be followed by an "Alleged home defense shooting" Which is usually followed by a report that the criminal was possibly killed last night. Unless they are describing a person in the yard who is shot while considering breaking into the home, if he is past the door frame uninvited, he's an intruder.

 

[NicholasScott]

Ok, so next time someone breaks into my house, I'll reach for a notepad instead of my 20 ga. because I'm helpful like that.

right? lol thats exactly what i would say. "Here sir, let me help you with that. Take whatever you want. I'm unarmed. I wont hurt you" If people knew that we were armed they wouldn't try to rob us in the first place. Well maybe they would, but IF they did, they would be really stupid.

 

[Long Rider]

Lady I knew a few years back was raped. She said she pleaded with her attacker and he didn't listen. Just continued to rape her. My wife and I taught her how to plead with attacker, if it ever happens again. 6 rounds of .38 special.