The latest incident of gun owners taking the law into their own hands happened in Missoula, Montana. A German exchange student was killed because he foolishly tried on a lark to snitch something from a garage. See “An Open Garage, a Dead Exchange Student and a New Debate on Self-Defense”, Jack Healy, New York Times, 2014-05-07
What is is about some gun-owners that they follow the supposed credo of the 20th Century Westerns to shoot first, ask questions second?
The most egregious killing was by Byron David Smith of Little Falls, Minnesota. He not only shot teen-age, unarmed invaders multiple times, but he waited three days before calling the police. He didn’t want to bother them on Thanksgiving!!! See “Bryon David Smith killings”. Smith was sentenced to life without parole.
Yoshihiro Hattori, killed in Baton Rouge in 1992 for going to the wrong house, didn’t receive similar justice. His killer, Rodney Peairs, was acquitted. He admitted at trial that he didn’t call the police first. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Yoshihiro_Hattori. His parents did receive a cash settlement that they used for funds for high school students to visit Japan and for gun control. Peairs had said that he would never own a gun again.
This same Wikipedia article has a couple other cases of foreign visitors being killed by guns, including one who knocked on a door to ask for directions.
Maybe it was the movie Westerns of the 20th Century that fostered this cult of “self-defense”. See “How the Gunfighter Killed Bourgeois America”, Ryan McMaken.
Showing posts with label self-defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label self-defense. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 07, 2014
Tuesday, October 01, 2013
Hunters should oppose "Stand Your Ground" laws
Once again it is that tiresome time of year in the Northland. Off in the distance, bang! Too close for comfort, bang! Bird season has started and then next month is deer season with a few other hunting seasons thrown in.
Last time I checked, landowners in Minnesota are supposed to post their property with "No Trespassing" signs every 300-500 feet. In other words, hunters were free to trespass on private land that was not posted.
Even if posted, some hunters ignore the signs or even evidence that they were shooting into private property. One fall a bird hunter shot down our driveway with our red pickup plainly visible. My wife happened to be nearby and yelled at him. He grabbed his bird, ran to his truck, and drove off as quickly as he could.
What if my wife had a gun in her hand? If Minnesota had a "Stand Your Ground" law, would she be in the right to shoot the trespassing hunter?
Last season some bird hunters shot into our land where there was no brush under the power line. There were "No Trespassing" signs within 300 feet of where they shot. What if I had been walking on a trail that paralleled the road and had a gun with me. Would I have been "standing my ground" to shoot back? They were also shooting within 200 feet of an occupied dwelling on the other side of the road.
Given that a GPS unit costs less than most rifles and that St. Louis County, Minnesota, publishes plat maps, available free online, listing all the properties and owners, should landowners even be required to post their property?
Responsible hunters know where they hunt and respect property rights. They would be safe. But the few irresponsible hunters give the impression that all hunters do not respect property rights. These irresponsible hunters should be very glad that Minnesota doesn't have a "Stand Your Ground" law.
Last time I checked, landowners in Minnesota are supposed to post their property with "No Trespassing" signs every 300-500 feet. In other words, hunters were free to trespass on private land that was not posted.
Even if posted, some hunters ignore the signs or even evidence that they were shooting into private property. One fall a bird hunter shot down our driveway with our red pickup plainly visible. My wife happened to be nearby and yelled at him. He grabbed his bird, ran to his truck, and drove off as quickly as he could.
What if my wife had a gun in her hand? If Minnesota had a "Stand Your Ground" law, would she be in the right to shoot the trespassing hunter?
Last season some bird hunters shot into our land where there was no brush under the power line. There were "No Trespassing" signs within 300 feet of where they shot. What if I had been walking on a trail that paralleled the road and had a gun with me. Would I have been "standing my ground" to shoot back? They were also shooting within 200 feet of an occupied dwelling on the other side of the road.
Given that a GPS unit costs less than most rifles and that St. Louis County, Minnesota, publishes plat maps, available free online, listing all the properties and owners, should landowners even be required to post their property?
Responsible hunters know where they hunt and respect property rights. They would be safe. But the few irresponsible hunters give the impression that all hunters do not respect property rights. These irresponsible hunters should be very glad that Minnesota doesn't have a "Stand Your Ground" law.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Treyvon Martin - other truths
Some are defending George Zimmerman claiming he shot Treyvon Martin in self-defense and that his action was covered by Florida's "Shoot First" law.
Let's look at another way. Treyvon Martin felt threatened by George Zimmerman who was stalking him. Eventually Treyvon Martin "pushed first" in self-defense. Zimmerman and Martin may even have had a shoving match. Eventually Zimmerman fell down, pulled his gun, and fatally shot Zimmerman.
Under the old rules, Martin might have been guilty of starting the fight. Given the new rules, he was acting in self-defense and pushed first.
Now, what if Martin was a neighborhood watchman in his own neighborhood? He saw a suspicious white person looking at house addresses. What if he acted exactly as Zimmerman had acted? Would Martin be considered as acting in self-defense or would he be considered as committing a murder?
As with all violent actions, we can only speculate on all the possible causes and results.
Let's look at another way. Treyvon Martin felt threatened by George Zimmerman who was stalking him. Eventually Treyvon Martin "pushed first" in self-defense. Zimmerman and Martin may even have had a shoving match. Eventually Zimmerman fell down, pulled his gun, and fatally shot Zimmerman.
Under the old rules, Martin might have been guilty of starting the fight. Given the new rules, he was acting in self-defense and pushed first.
Now, what if Martin was a neighborhood watchman in his own neighborhood? He saw a suspicious white person looking at house addresses. What if he acted exactly as Zimmerman had acted? Would Martin be considered as acting in self-defense or would he be considered as committing a murder?
As with all violent actions, we can only speculate on all the possible causes and results.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Hunters should oppose "shoot first" laws
Imagine you are hunting on Federal, state, or county land. You think you know where the boundaries are, but without precise GPS knowledge, you can't be sure. Suddenly, somebody challenges you claiming that you are trespassing. You start to protest, but blam! You're dead.
Your killer was right that you were trespassing, you were carrying a loaded gun, and so he claimed self-defense.
What if you're walking on the road and pass somebody's property. For whatever reason the person shoots you. Your killer claims self-defense. You were carrying a gun and there are no witnesses.
These kinds of shootings have occurred. There was a case in Wisconsin a few years ago where a group challenged a hunter because they believed he was trespassing. He shot and killed at least five of them. He did claim self-defense, but the survivors claimed otherwise. I believe that hunter is in jail.
But if there are no witnesses and no survivors, who is going to prove that the shooting was not in self-defense?
The "shoot first" laws make it a bit unwise to enjoy the solitude of hunting alone.
Your killer was right that you were trespassing, you were carrying a loaded gun, and so he claimed self-defense.
What if you're walking on the road and pass somebody's property. For whatever reason the person shoots you. Your killer claims self-defense. You were carrying a gun and there are no witnesses.
These kinds of shootings have occurred. There was a case in Wisconsin a few years ago where a group challenged a hunter because they believed he was trespassing. He shot and killed at least five of them. He did claim self-defense, but the survivors claimed otherwise. I believe that hunter is in jail.
But if there are no witnesses and no survivors, who is going to prove that the shooting was not in self-defense?
The "shoot first" laws make it a bit unwise to enjoy the solitude of hunting alone.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
How many people must die before you show up and vote?
Too many times we have had "wars of choice" where we went in with little understanding of the countries we invaded. We assumed that all our fancy weaponry would overcome "the enemy" with "shock and awe". We are really dismayed when the people we are "protecting" regard us as the enemy and can fight for years with far less sophisticated weaponry.
We have forgotten our own history. There was a well-organized army with advanced weaponry and organization "protecting" us. But many of the people regarded this army as the enemy. They formed poorly-armed, poorly-organized militias and fought back. It took eight years for the "super-power" of the time to admit defeat.
Now we are getting ourselves into the same quagmires as that once world-spanning empire got itself into, not once, but many times. Thousand of our countrymen are killed and even more are permanently maimed. The casualties of the citizens of the "enemy" country are even greater.
But less than half of us vote into office our governments that beat the war drums. The opposition party often goes along with or eggs the other party into the conflict. Too many of those who dislike both parties or for some reason are unhappy with the less aggressive party don't show up.
Now we are seeing a similar situation within our own borders. Many people were dissatisfied with the party of their choice and stayed home in the 2010 elections. The more aggressive party "won" the elections in many jurisdictions and is enacting laws that allow citizens to "protect themselves" with impunity against some unspecified "enemy". If there are no witnesses, these armed citizens can kill somebody "threatening" them and face no consequences.
Thus was set up the situation that many predicted – an armed white man killed an unarmed black teenager!
How many people must die before you show up and vote?
We have forgotten our own history. There was a well-organized army with advanced weaponry and organization "protecting" us. But many of the people regarded this army as the enemy. They formed poorly-armed, poorly-organized militias and fought back. It took eight years for the "super-power" of the time to admit defeat.
Now we are getting ourselves into the same quagmires as that once world-spanning empire got itself into, not once, but many times. Thousand of our countrymen are killed and even more are permanently maimed. The casualties of the citizens of the "enemy" country are even greater.
But less than half of us vote into office our governments that beat the war drums. The opposition party often goes along with or eggs the other party into the conflict. Too many of those who dislike both parties or for some reason are unhappy with the less aggressive party don't show up.
Now we are seeing a similar situation within our own borders. Many people were dissatisfied with the party of their choice and stayed home in the 2010 elections. The more aggressive party "won" the elections in many jurisdictions and is enacting laws that allow citizens to "protect themselves" with impunity against some unspecified "enemy". If there are no witnesses, these armed citizens can kill somebody "threatening" them and face no consequences.
Thus was set up the situation that many predicted – an armed white man killed an unarmed black teenager!
How many people must die before you show up and vote?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)