Fastest growing demographic of Texas CCW permittees...
Is black women.
"Why do you need it?” I don’t remember how many times I was asked this question by a multicultural cast of women whenever I talked about getting a gun.
“I live alone,” was usually my immediate response.
“You could get a baseball bat,” some said. “That’s what the police are for,” others would say.
“I also want to travel and camp by myself and have extra protection to do those things alone,” I would say. This usually provoked a longer silence or a change of subject.
White Southern men, on the other hand, were the most likely to congratulate me on this life decision and follow up with advice on the best kind of firearm to buy."
Hat tip to Instapundit....
I really don't understand why so many people in today's world feel their opinion is the only one that matters. I, for one, keep a nine-iron near both my doors and near my bed. I also have a dog who has proven that he will attack anyone who tries to enter my room at night. I've had people tell me that letting a dog sleep in my bed is the dumbest thing ever because it humanizes an animal. Personally, to each his own.
Posted by: Sarah at July 13, 2012 09:22 AM
I like Sarah.
Posted by: Jim D. at July 13, 2012 10:41 AM
I like the dog...but that's just me, and I haven't met Sarah...
But if the contest comes down to "nine iron vs. nine millimeter" or "ca-nine versus nine millimeter"...
Those millimeters do seem to win.
Posted by: kalashnikat at July 13, 2012 03:32 PM
I hope Sarah never learns what it means to be defenseless like that doctor's wife and two daughters in Ct who met the two Monsters.They are always out there and they are always hunting for people like Sarah the defenseless.
Posted by: Granny Grunch at July 14, 2012 10:39 AM
I hate to pile on, since Sarah seems to have the right spirit, but that 9-iron is next to useless. Easy to block, hard to swing in close quarters, shaft will bend/break. Even if Sarah's had some cane or staff defense training to help her use it, I'm with Kalashnikat. 9mm with a good defense load, and by her side, not by the door.
Posted by: tkdkerry at July 15, 2012 09:28 AM
While I understand what everyone is saying, Vermont's laws on property defense state that you have to be able to prove you tried everything possible before you shoot an intruder. There was a case here in May where a guy killed his intruder, and for a month the DA kept drilling the man, his family, and police investigators looking to see if the guy really did everything possible before he attacked. What I've heard from friends in the court system is that there were questions if he could have just locked himself in a room, left through a back door, or hid. Given that, I'll stick with the dog and golf club. It may be riskier, but I wouldn't face jail time for simply trying to protect myself with a gun.
Posted by: Sarah at July 17, 2012 02:26 PM
No Sarah, you won't face jail time, but you could face cemetery time, a very long sentence, if you can't protect yourself when you need to. Anyway, many state's laws are different, so events in Vermont might not mean anything to a resident of another state.
Posted by: poppa india at July 17, 2012 06:23 PM
Sarah, I think you're simply mistaken. VT has no duty to retreat, and as far as I can tell uses the same reasonable-person standard for determining when deadly force is justified. And nobody here is talking about "property defense", we're talking about *self* defense.
Can you cite the specific part(s) of VT state law that you think require you to "[try] everything possible before you shoot an intruder"?
Posted by: Kirk Parker at July 18, 2012 02:02 AM
Oops, that should say "the same .... standard ... that most other states use.
Posted by: Kirk Parker at July 18, 2012 02:04 AM
There is the Duty to Retreat clause. This is taken from Vemront's WCAX news archives:
"This is worst case scenario for somebody, that somebody breaks into your home in the middle of the night. That is the fact. That resonates with people. That scares people. But we have to follow the law in the case," Donovan said.
"I think it's tricky to prosecute. It's unlikely to be successful simply because most people expect that when you're in your home, you're safe," said legal expert Jerry O'Neill.
O'Neill says under Vermont law you do have the right to defend your home, but you can't overstep something called a "duty of retreat" clause. In other words, deadly force can only be used if you have no other way to safely get out of the situation. "If, for example, you were able to subdue the person and then you pulled out a gun and shot them. You can't do that," he said.
Donovan says that's why it's critical for police to nail down a sequence of events. He says he must have a clear understanding of exactly what happened in the moments leading up to the fatal stabbing, and if that use of deadly force was justified given the circumstances. "We really need to know the facts about what happened and when it happened in order to apply those facts to the law to come to the right decision," Donovan said.
Posted by: Sarah at July 18, 2012 05:35 AM
"There is the Duty to Retreat clause."
Exactly where is this written in VT law? Nowhere that I can find. Perhaps some of your misunderstanding comes from treating news media reports as an authoritative source on the subject?
Every source I've seen mentions that VT has no specific legislation on the subject, and that VT case law is generally supportive of no-duty-to-retreat (about.com is typical of these.)
Posted by: Kirk Parker at July 18, 2012 11:15 AM
I'm a little smarter than taking the media at their word. It's the fact that the interviews that brought up the Duty to Retreat were brought up by both the DA and a local defense attorney (O'Neill).
I've read our state laws. One says you can "aim" your weapon to defend your home, no where is it mentioned that you can fire and be legally justified. Another states you have to be "justified" when firing a weapon. What qualifies as justified is not mentioned anywhere.
As for About.com, one thing to remember about them is that writers are hired to be a "guide" for their site. Given that, I don't take everything found on that site as complete and utter fact.
Posted by: Sarah at July 19, 2012 07:43 AM
"no where is it mentioned that you can fire and be legally justified."
That's precisely s where you are going wrong. Vermont, like every other state save one, is a common-law jurisdiction; (1) that which is not expressly prohibited is permissible, and (2) case law forms an important part of the legal regimen.
Note, too, that if your reading of the situation were correct, you'd be in just as much legal danger, as nothing in VT law says you can swing your golf club at someone in self-defense.
Posted by: Kirk Parker at July 19, 2012 10:29 AM