Self defense
Victim turns the tables on robbers
Los Angeles: Three men try armed robbery, the victim gets his hands on their gun, and kills one of the perps. I like a story with a happy ending!
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Still more disasters in Rittenhouse case
Commentary and video here.
The defense has made a motion for mistrial with prejudice (to re-trying the case). The standard for that is grounds for a mistrial plus proof the prosecution acted intentionally. Why? If a prosecutor is ill-prepared and his case is going down the drain, it's to his advantage to cause a mistrial, so he can start over.
The first time the judge chewed the prosecutor's posterior, the judge said something to the effect of, I don't know what you are trying to do here, which may suggest he was suspicious.
This time the prosecutor said he was acting in good faith, and the judge snapped "I don't believe you." It's probably gone from suspicion to belief.
The judge takes it under advisement, meaning he reserves the right to rule on it later, and warns the prosecutor not to let it happen again.
My guess: if it happens again, the judge will grant the mistrial with prejudice and a lot of findings about the prosecution motives, and how they kept screwing up even after he warned them. If it doesn't, the judge will wait for the verdict. If not guilty, no need to rule. If guilty, he grants a new trial.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Washington Court of Appeals finds for a constitutional right to self-defend
The ruling is discussed by Eugene Volokh, at the Volokh Conspiracy.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
An unusual case of self-defense
Woman draws gun on neighbor, holds him, after she discovers him raping her pit bull, he announces that ISIS sent him to do the deed, and tells her that she will die the moment she kills him.
Understatement of the year: "Woodruff said the man appeared mentally ill..."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (5)
"ThinkProgress" has second thoughts on no-retreat
"South Carolina Prosecutors Say Stand Your Ground Doesn't Apply To Victims Of Domestic Violence." Sounds like the argument is a variant of "the statute on its face says this, but we can't believe the legislature meant this to happen." Amusing to see prosecutors arguing that. It's usually argued by defense counsel, when the prosecutor comes up with a theory that the statute, if applied very literally, would turn a jaywalking charge into a ten year felony sentence.
UPDATE in light of comment: thanks for the citation. It looks to me as if §16-11-400 breaks down:
A. Presumption of reasonable fear if home is illegally entered.
B. Exceptions: (A) does not apply if other person is a lawful resident, etc.
C. A person who is in a place where he has a lawful right to be has no duty to retreat if attacked.
The article may have gotten it wrong (lots of reporters think (A), which is castle doctrine, is no-retreat. But if the defense is based on (C), that subsection has no exemption for the attacker being a co-resident. And I could see why the Legislature might want to create an exemption for A but not for C.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Making a self-defense story fit the desired narrative
Moore, Oklahoma. Business fires violent nut case, he rams vehicle into headquarters, charges inside with knife, decapitates one woman, begins stabbing another...
An employee ends the assault (and almost certainly intended mass killing) with three fast shots from a rifle... given the setting, certainly a semi auto, and likely a dreaded "assault rifle." Employee is a reserve deputy (depending upon the jurisdiction, anything from a friend of the sheriff to a member of the "unorganized militia," an armed civilian who is available for public service if called upon).
So intended mass murderer uses a knife, defender stops it with gun and likely a terrible "assault weapon." How to make this fit the desired narrative?
CNN refers to the defender as a "coworker" who is "also an Oklahoma County reserve deputy." No mention of the firearm used.
A television station that runs the CNN story says "a sheriff's deputy shot Nolen."
Even Fox refers to the defender as an "off duty officer," while noting that he used a rifle.
I have yet to find a media account that describes the rifle (to be fair, that info may not yet be available, but I rather doubt we'll hear it later, either).
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (7)
Armed defenders put a dent in Milwaukee robbery rate
First story here. An armed gang tries to rob tavern workers after closing time, one victim opens fire and kills one of the robbers, with police later arresting the remainder. The robbery gang was responsible for dozens of armed robberies over the past three days. The shootee also had a string of arrests for robbery, auto theft, fleeing and whatnot, and had been injured in a gang shooting a few weeks ago.
And last month, a Milwaukee nurse, a victim of an attempted carjacking, shot one carjacker. The day before, the shootee had shot a person during an attempted carjacking; when his accomplice was rounded up, police arrested ten more suspects believed to be involved in dozens of robberies and carjackings.
Hat tip to Tamara Keel.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
For reference re: justifiable homicide
In the dispute over how many self-defense cases occur, one data point often cited by those seeking to minimize the number is the FBI Uniform Crime Report's count of justifiable homicides (a legal category that includes self-defense). This is usually in the range of 900 a year, including several hundred by police. While that doesn't count self-defense that doesn't result in the perp's death, it is argued that it is inconsistent with hundreds of thousands or millions of defensive uses annually.
What's not realized is that the FBI count is artificially defined in a way that far undercounts defensive uses. The usual definition of self-defense with a deadly weapon is use of force immediately necessary in light of a reasonable belief that the perp is likely to inflict death or serious bodily injury.
But the FBI UCR Reporting Handbook at pp. 17-18 uses a completely different definition. Reporting officials are instructed, in the case of use of force by a non-LEO, to include under justifiable homicide only killings "The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen."
The illustration given (do NOT list as justifiable a situation where a citizen shoots a fellow attacking him, in a crime of passion, with a broken bottle -- the author must have watched too many 1950s movies about street fights) makes it apparent that the assault itself does not count as "commission of a felony."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Surprise....
Gun stores packed in St. Louis area.
"He says nearly 100 percent say they are buying them for defensive purposes. "They're buying AR-15s, home defense shotguns, handguns, personal defense handguns something for conceal carry." said King."
Permalink · AW bans ~ · Self defense · Comments (0)
More on the PA hospital shooting
Story here It now appears that:
1) the murderer had a pocketful of ammunition, suggesting that, but for the psychiatrist shooting him and other staff jumping him, he would have gone on a killing spree. "We believe that Mr. Plotts, if it wasn't for the heroic action of the doctor and the caseworker, we believe he was there and was going to reload that revolver and continue to fire and continue to kill."
2) The killer had been committed before, and his "records indicate has an extensive criminal past including a 1996 conviction for robbery, is prohibited from carrying a weapon."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
Mercy Hospital shooting: bad guy with a gun stopped by good guy with same
Story here. The killer murdered a psychiatric case worker, and then was shot and seriously wounded by a doctor who was carrying a gun. The doctor was nicked by a shot from the killer, it's not yet reported whether that came before or after he hit the killer.
This may illustrate what others have noted: the other side can claim that mass shootings have not been stopped by self-defenders, because mass killings are arbitrarily defined to involve four or more dead, and when a self-defender is present he or she stops the attack before it can reach that number.
UPDATE: the doctor got three hits on the murderer. I'd say the good guy was no amateur.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Media fad issue: Florida no-retreat and felons
Background: of course felons are generally forbidden to possess firearms. But if put in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury, they have the same right to self defense as has anyone else.
Then there comes the rare case where a convicted felon is not in possession of a firearm at the outset, someone puts (or allegedly puts) him in reasonable fear of death, the felon manages to obtain a firearm that he did not previously possess, and defends himself. Did he become a "felon in possession" in that instant? The cases of this are rare, I can recall 2-3 at the Federal level, with splits resulting.
In looking at this issue we must also bear in mind that (1) defendants may argue it when it is bunkum and (2) prosecutors anxious to win may respond in kind and push the envelope of reason.
Florida has a "no retreat" law, which provides that a person put in reasonable fear of death need not retreat before responding with deadly force. There are exceptions, one of which is that the defender was "engaged in unlawful activity" at the time. Some imaginative Florida prosecutors have taken to arguing that, in the case of a felon who argues self-defense, this does not apply, since by taking possession of a firearm he "engaged in unlawful activity" and is outside the statute. (I believe Florida was "no retreat" even before the statute, so I'm not sure this makes a lot of difference anyway). The lower Florida courts have split on whether this argument flies, and its Supreme Court has accepted the question in order to resolve this split.
The resulting media coverage: "Stand Your Ground may be defense for felon." "Tortured gun law now protects armed felons." "Stand your ground continues to rear its ugly head".
Permalink · Self defense ~ · media · Comments (4)
Interesting self-defense case
Richardson v. State, Mississippi Supreme Court, discussed over at the Volokh Conspiracy. Defendant was menaced by a guy who have moved in, became increasingly violent, and boasted of having been convicted of robbery and murder, of killing an informer in prison, and of belonging to a gang. Defendant eventually killed the guy, and the defense that he had come toward him, menacingly, with one hand behind his back.
The trial court refused to admit evidence that the decedent had in fact been convicted of robbery and murder, etc.. That'd be standard (if unjust, to my gut feeling). The American approach to self-defense keys on a reasonably fear of death or serious injury, and a person's fear could not have been based on what they did not then know (that the claims of conviction and past violence were in fact true).
But, the court reasons, the jury might have had questions about whether the decedent did in fact boast of those things. The fact that the boasts could be proven true might thus be some support for the proposition that the boasts were made. Ergo, the jury should have been allowed to hear of proof that the boasts were true.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Never bring a knife to a gunfight, part 2,391
Story here.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
NRO on self defense
""Stand your ground" is not a principle that endorses vigilantism, the quest to enforce the law unilaterally, but instead a principle that declares that public spaces do not belong to violent aggressors. This represents not the abrogation of law but rather the use of law to more justly determine the rights of aggressor and victim, granting greater rights to the victim and thus bringing the statutory law closer in line with natural law. When the state, by contrast, mandates that citizens retreat from aggression (a concept fraught with practical difficulties and dangers), then it does not limit violence, it instead empowers unlawful aggression.
. . . . . .
The Left has to change the subject to vigilantism because the case for self-defense is so manifestly obvious. Is the state respecting the fundamental rights of citizens -- including their right to life -- if it mandates passivity in the face of violent attack? Of course not. It does, however, respect the right to life when it empowers self-defense while also prosecuting those rare few who seek to mask murderous intent behind a self-defense pretext."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Prof. Nick Johnson's new book
Book TV will have Prof. Nick Johnson on to discuss his new book, "Negroes and the Gun: the Black Tradition of Arms." The next broadcast is at noon, EST, this coming Sunday. You can also get a streamed version by clicking on "watch this program" on the right side of the page.
I'm halfway thru the program, and it is very good. Law professor, degree from Harvard Law, but grew up in rural West Virginia, where guns ownership was universal. History: fugitive slaves getting guns, and using them to hold off slave catchers. Frederick Douglass. Underground Railroad units using arms to resist (and posting spies in court to get quick reports of warrants being issued). In more modern times, Robert Williams and the debate over expelling him from NAACP over his advocacy of armed resistance. The shift of the black political class against guns, in response to the Black Panthers, etc., and the latter's conflation of self-defense with political aggression. A great interview and sounds like a really great book!
Permalink · Self defense ~ · civil rights struggle · Comments (0)
Armed passer-by halts violent street robbery
Story here. Armed robbers enter a market, wind up beating and pistol-whipping the clerk. Then a passer-by arrives.
"The gunman “turned around and looked at me,” Dosser said. “He stared at me. I had my weapon up. I didn’t point the gun at the person. I had it at the ready, out of the holster.
His buddy said something to him, and then he had this surprised look on his face, and they both ran to his vehicle and took off.”"
I've been too busy to do much blogging. Just filed an enormous brief, after months of work, in one case, now working on a shorter one, due Monday. Then, I hope, life and blogging will resume.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Armed citizen stops potential mass slaying
A 27 year old gets expelled from a party, returns with a rifle, fires several rounds outside the house, then storms in and points the gun. You won't see this on the national media, because a person inside the house drew a handgun and shot him before he could go any farther.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
This really isn't safe to do in Florida....
Serial child molester enters mother's home wearing a Jason mask. She shot a little low, to my thinking.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Walmart fires clerk for trying to stop assault
A lady was being assaulted by her ex-boyfriend, a clerk on break helps to protect her, and gets fired, since company policy is "let it happen."
The moral issue is, I think, clear, and the legal one may be so. Torts 101 is: no one is liable for failure to rescue another, but a person is liable if they impede someone who is trying to rescue another. The Walmart policy appears to create corporate liability anytime an employee follows it.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (6)
Emily Miller on NY gun laws and gang beating of SUV driver
She's on CNN.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
No retreat laws and racial disparities
The Tampa Bay Tribune ran an article claiming, from a review of 200 court cases, that defendants claiming self defense in Florida were more likely to be acquitted if the person shot was black. I posted on this a while back, looking over their raw data, and noting that most defensive shootings were black on black or white on white, and that both defenders of both races had very nearly the same chance of being acquitted (and hispanic defenders had a much higher acquittal rate than either).
Howard Nemerov, who has far more statistical skill than I do, has done a detailed analysis and gives a solid refutation to claims of racial disparity. He's responding to claims by John Roman or the Urban Institute, who used nationwide figures from 2005-2009. Howard first notes the peculiar choice of years ... why not go for 2000-2010? Why not compare figures for justifiable homicide from States with "no retreat" to States without it? Why not compare figures to law enforcement justifiable homicides, to see if justifiable homicide rules changed generally? He concludes that States which enacted no retreat generally saw an increase in the rate at which black defendants ruled to have been involved in justifiable homicide.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
"No retreat" law repeal
I've noticed that, whenever a person or group objects to "no retreat," they never say just what they want to do about it, other than "talk" or "have a dialogue" on it. That's because the purpose of the protest is to have a protest, and not to air a proposal. So I'll supply the deficiency with a draft bill they can endorse.
Whereas, the lives and persons of murderers, rapists, robbers, and other violent criminals are offered insufficient protection under existing law, and
Whereas, murderers, rapists, robbers, and other violent criminals are exposed to undue and unreasonable danger from resisting victims, and
Whereas, a home is not a castle,
Therefore be it enacted:
I. Limitation on Use of Force in Self-Defense.
A. The victim of attempted murder, rape, robbery or other violent offense is not justified in using force to resist unless the said victim is unable to retreat from the person attempting the violent offence.
B. A person attempting to prevent the commission of murder, rape, robbery or other violent offense against another person is not justified unless the victim is unable to retreat from the person attempting the violent offense.
C. This Act shall be entitled “The Violent Criminals’ Protection Act of 2013.”
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (8)
Robber pulls gun on vet, finds himself kissing a 9mm
Story with video here. The vet's moves were about as smooth as possible. He parries the robber's gun to the side, draws his own and ... I'm sure the robber needed a change of clothing about then.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (5)
He'll probably get fired, but it beats being stabbed
Robber with a knife goes after pizza deliveryman, and discovers that he's just brought a knife to a gunfight. It happened in Florida, BTW.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
George Zimmerman to file claim for legal costs
Here's the story.
I found the statute cited:
"939.06 Acquitted defendant not liable for costs.—
(1) A defendant in a criminal prosecution who is acquitted or discharged is not liable for any costs or fees of the court or any ministerial office, or for any charge of subsistence while detained in custody. If the defendant has paid any taxable costs, or fees required under s. 27.52(1)(b), in the case, the clerk or judge shall give him or her a certificate of the payment of such costs, with the items thereof, which, when audited and approved according to law, shall be refunded to the defendant."
In most jurisdictions, "taxable costs" do not include attorney's fees. They do include costs such as depositions, sometimes travel, expert fees, and some other expenses.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Difference between Massachusetts and Florida
"In court, prosecutors described a brutal and determined attack, saying Jared Remy assaulted Martel in the kitchen, living room, on a stairway and then pinned her to the ground in the patio where he stabbed her several times. At least one neighbor who tried to help Martel was driven back when Remy slashed at him, a prosecutor told a judge in court. Remy was arrested at the scene, his clothes soaked in the victim's blood.
That neighbor, identified as Ben Ray, spoke to MyFoxBoston.com, saying "It's not an easy thing to watch ... It's not an easy thing to try to stop and not be able to.""
"At around 6 a.m., a Vickie Rock, 50, of Riverview, was visiting a home at the Grand Oaks Apartments at 10103 Sherwood Lane in Riverview, when she heard glass breaking and screaming coming from next door, deputies said.
Rock, who was armed with a .45 caliber handgun, went outside to investigate and found a Daniel S. Robertson beating his girlfriend, Cristy Vasilakos, 40, with a metal object, deputies said.
Rock yelled at Robertson to stop, but when he turned and began attacking Rock, she fired the gun at least once, deputies said.
Deputies later arrived to discover Robertson dead in the parking lot."
Florida's "no retreat" law in action, while Massachusetts was spared another case of gun violence.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (7)
Good advice
"Dear gunstore lawyer. Shut. Up.".
Here in AZ we have a statute that (rather generously) lays out the conditions under which may be display a gun in self-defense without actually using it.
HT to Sixgun Sarah.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Good shooting
Pair kidnaps bank teller and her husband, force them to unlock the bank, puts loot in vehicle, forces them to drive away, at which point the husband shoots both. One robber dead, one wounded.
I like stories with a happy ending.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
"No retreat laws" and race
A while ago I posted regarding the Tampa Bay Times' claims that Florida's no retreat law was racially discriminatory because conviction rates were higher when a minority member was shot. I concluded, from reviewing their raw data, and looking at the defender rather than the person killed, that blacks and whites had almost exactly the same exoneration rate, and hispanics had one much higher.
Economist John Lott has used a much more sophisticated means of analyzing the issue. The Times also gave other data on each shooting, such as was it a home invasion, etc., whether the person shot was armed, whether they initiated the confrontation, etc.. He ran multiple regression on that to essentially ask "in identical situations, what are the odds of conviction? Note that he's taking the Times' own test -- ethnicity of a person who was shot. He concludes:
"Everything else equal, in cases with only one person killed, killing a black person, rather than a white person, increases the defendant's odds of being convicted, though the result is not statistically significant. If you also include multiple murder cases, killing a black person increases the chances of conviction even more.
These regressions also show that white defendants are more likely to be convicted than black defendants, and both effects are significantly greater than for Hispanics.
Whether the person killed initiated the confrontation and having an eyewitness were the most important factors in determining whether there was a conviction."
He also notes:
"Blacks may make up just 16.6 percent of Florida's population, but they account for over 31 percent of the state's defendants invoking a Stand Your Ground defense. Black defendants who invoke this statute to justify their actions are acquitted 8 percent more frequently than whites who use that same defense."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
NYC: no duty to protect
Here's a classic case of it, arising in Mayor Bloomberg's own city. A violent lunatic begins stabbing people. Police are present, but flee and lock themselves in the conductor's car for protection. An unarmed witness wrestles the lunatic down, but is stabbed and cut in the process. Eventually, the NYPD officers emerge from their hiding place.
Held: the fellow who tackled the lunatic when the officers fled has no right to sue the city.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Possible shift in PA against self-defense
Prof. Volokh has a post on the subject. English common law treated self-defense as a true affirmative defense: the burden is on the defender to prove it, and by a preponderence of the evidence (i.e., do more than raise a reasonable doubt). American law almost unanimously treated it differently: the defender must raise some proof of self-defense, and at that point the prosecution has the burden of disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt. Now it appears that the PA Supreme Court may shift to the English rule.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
No retreat laws as a racial issue
Good grief.
An editorial in the Madison Times is headlined "Blacks who stand their ground often imprisoned." It cites to a Tampa Bay Times article that claimed "Defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white."
I immediately noted the article gives the race of the person killed, but not the race of the person defending, which is the real measure. I knew that homicides overwhelming occur within ethnic groups. They're overwhelming white on white, black on black, etc.. So if defenders who kill blacks are acquitted at high rates, that means blacks who assert self defense are acquitted at high rates.
The article didn't give figures for the ethnicity of the defender, but it did give its raw data, in the form of individual files.
UPDATE: These are the results after reviewing all the files. I disregarded pending cases, and the few where ethnicity was not noted. I list here as "exonerated" all those in which charges were not filed, were dismissed, or the person was acquitted:
White defenders: 50 exonerated, 26 convicted. Exoneration rate: 65.7%
African-American defenders: 20 exonerated, 10 convicted. Exoneration rate: 66.6%
Hispanic American defenders: seven exonerated, one convicted. Exoneration rate: 87.5%.
Looking at it another way, African-Americans make up 16% of Florida's population, but 26% of persons exonerated under Florida' "no retreat" and self-defense statutes.
So in the end, no retreat or stand your ground laws actually benefit minorities compared to the rest of Floridians. African-Americans and whites are virtually tied, and Hispanics come out ahead. The Tampa Bay Times was trying to reverse the actual effects, in order to generate a story that fit its narrative.
Marissa Alexander case
It's generating some debate. This writer says it shows discrimination, when compared to the Zimmerman outcome: she just "fired a bullet into the wall of her home," to ward off an abusive husband
But this article contends there's more to the story. She and her husband had been arguing, she went to her car to get her gun, and returned. It was his house, they were living separately. The bullet went into wall close to her husband's head. The husband had been arrested three times for DV, but while she was out on bond she was arrested for battering him, and pled out.
The one thing both agree on is the draconian nature of Florida mandatory sentencing law, under which she got twenty years.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (5)
The media , Zimmerman case, and the law
Prof. Jacob Sullum has an article at Reason Online pointing out that sundry reporters and spokesmen are talking about "stand your ground laws," when they had nothing to do with the case (if a person is pinned to the ground, retreat is not an issue), and others misunderstand self-defense law.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Cert petition: right of a soldier to self-defense in combat zone
Petition here. We're getting to where we may have to field armies of lawyers. They'll do little good in combat, but will be able to comply with legal standards while being defeated. Petitioner is a platoon leader, appealing a court martial. His platoon was hit with an IED, suffered two KIAs.
He questioned a suspect, holding a gun on him, and finally threatening him. He testified that when he looked aside, the suspect threw a rock at him and rose up, reaching for his gun. This was disputed; the translator said the first shot was fired while the suspect was "semi-seated." Forensic experts said, however, that the first shot was fired when the suspect was either standing or nearly standing.
Disputed facts, but the court martial ruled that he had no right of self-defense, since he initiated things by pointing a gun at the suspect and threatening him. Thus, even if his story was true he was still guilty. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 years.
Here's the government's opposition. It points out that he also stripped the suspect prior to questioning him, and that the translator said he said he killed the suspect because he was involved in several bombings.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Making robbery a hazardous occupation
Armed junkie tries to rob pharmacies in Arizona, encounters an armed employee. Junkie flees, tries another pharmacy, and is captured at gunpoint by two armed citizens. It's Arizona, we don't need no steenking permits.
Hat tip to Sixgun Sarah.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
New York grand jury does the right thing
It refuses to indict, for homicide or gun violations, after a clear (captured on security cameras) case of self-defense.
Of course, this not being NYC, I suspect the prosecutor dropped a few hints that he'd like to see the case go away...
Hat tip to Sixgun Sarah....
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
A good shot
In Torrance, CA. Rapist chokes woman from behind, she gets out a .22 (the .22 you have has more stopping power than the .45 you left at home) and fires two shots over her shoulder. One was a solid hit, and the rapist expires. DNA shows he also committed a murder back in the 90s.
"A few weeks after Kemp died, Torrance's city prosecutor said the woman who shot him might have been illegally carrying the gun in her purse, but cleared her of wrongdoing in the interest of justice."
So much for the remark of Colorado State Senator Evie Hudak, to a rape victim: "Chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
George Zimmerman waives "stand your ground" hearing
Story here. I don't know anything about such hearings, except that they are a method to try to gain pretrial dismissal. My guess would be that the defense attorneys judged the probability of a win was insufficient to offset the dangers of a loss -- i.e., that the prosecution would get a a free shot at questioning him and using that to prepare for trial.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (5)
Never bring a plastic gun to a gun fight...
In Ohio, a group of home invasion robbers breaks in, waving a plastic gun, and finds the homeowner has a real one. I dead, 1 wounded, four captured.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Self Defense in Ohio
I think this CCW holder handled things very well.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Wyoming is not the place to try armed robbery
Robber enters a nail salon, probably figuring it was a safe target, and pulls out a gun. "At that moment, a woman who was getting her nails done reached into her purse and got her own firearm." The robber thought it best to leave at once.
UPDATE: Pennsylvania isn't the best place for robbers, either.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Latest in Trayvon Martin case
I'd say it looks like George Zimmerman indeed got beaten up. But the prize for "bad choice of wording" goes to the attorney who filed suit against him: ""Trayvon Martin .... had every right to stand his ground to defend himself."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
No shopping at Auto Zone for me...
A robber sticks up an Auto Zone. An employee runs out to his car, gets his gun, returns with it, and the robber flees. His manager is grateful, but company HQ fires the employee because he violated their policy against employees have guns in the store.
Here's their "contact us" page.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (9)
Florida review of no-retreat calls for little change
To the great disappointment of those opposed to self-defense.
One amusing side issue. The article claims "Two dozen states have passed similar laws since 2005, and several studies show that so-called "justifiable homicides" have increased significantly in the places that have enacted "stand your ground" laws," while another newspaper's article claims that "There remains no evidence that before 2005 Floridians who had lawfully protected themselves were being charged with crimes, let alone convicted." Hard to have it both ways: the law has a significant impact, yet it didn't change anything.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Oklahoma: not a good place for burglars
Burglar kicks in door, searches house, finds 12 year old girl hiding in a closet, and she plugs him.
Comment by a reader, P. N. Henick: "Listen to the 9-1-1 call http://newsok.com/durant-girl-12-talks-about-shooting-home-intruder/article/3720428 - the dispatcher tells her to hold onto the gun, as opposed to putting it down. Also the dispatcher communicates with the arriving deputies that the girl is coming out with a cellphone which is NOT a gun.
There is just so much that was done right. And the reason it stands out is, unfortunately, because that happens so rarely."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Report on Florida's "no retreat" law
Conclusion: hard to find any impact on anything. Not too surprising, since as I recall Florida never had a retreat requirement in the first place. The reporter's words are interesting: "So-called "justifiable homicides" have more than doubled." So-called?
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Texan sees LEO in danger, flanks the perp, and takes him out
The video interview is wonderful.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (5)
Thugs rob cafe, get drilled by customer
Video here. It happened in Orlando.
Hat tip to Sixgun Sarah...
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
Excellent shooting from a 14 year old
A Phoenix teen is babysitting his siblings when a person breaks in and points a gun. Score Teen 1, Perp 0.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Florida's no retreat law retains public support
A poll indicates approval, by 50% vs. 32%.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Cato Institute Forum on no retreat laws
Video here. Clayton Cramer and Massad Ayoob breakfast upon a prosecutor.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (5)
Cato forum on "stand your ground" laws
The Cato Institute, in Washington DC, will next Monday host debate on "stand your ground" laws. Speakers include Clayton Cramer and Massad Ayoob. Admission is free, and it sounds likely to be a lively event.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
NBC doing internal investigation regarding alteration of Zimmerman audio
Story here. In running a story on the Florida shooting, NBC's Today Show altered a 911 call to make it fit the narrative, turning
"Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black."
Into:
"Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
More on Trayvon shooting
Story here. The evidence seems to fit together, and is strong for a "good shoot." Zimmerman tells police that he wasn't the aggressor, that Trayvon knocked him down and was pounding his head against the sidewalk, and that he cried out for help. Police found Zimmerman bleeding from wounds to the back of his head, and eyewitnesses heard him calling for help before he fired.
"Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.
Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police.
Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose.
Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police.
Zimmerman began yelling for help.
Several witnesses heard those cries, and there's been a dispute about from whom they came: Zimmerman or Trayvon.
Lawyers for Trayvon's family say it was Trayvon, but police say their evidence indicates it was Zimmerman.
One witnesses, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.
Zimmerman then shot Trayvon once in the chest from very close range, according to authorities.
When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody lacerations to the back of his head."
Impeccable timing, since only yesterday Chuck Schuer called for Dept of Justice to investigate FlA's self defense laws, and Donna Bazile proclaimed “The problem with the law is that – ‘Stand Your Ground’ is that you often end up in the ground, in the case of an innocent person like Trayvon Martin," and Jesse Jackson predicted "that the protests will continue to multiply in number and that the ranks of protestors will swell until Zimmerman is arrested.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
Administration proposes to slash firearm training for pilots
The Obama Admin proposes to halve funds for training pilots so they can be armed in the cockpit. As it is, the training procedures seem designed to be impossible to meet: "To gain certification to carry a gun onboard, pilots must take a six-day training program in Artesia, New Mexico. They must attend a half-day requalification session at various locations around the country to maintain it."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
DC to residents: just say yes to crime
A DC Councilwoman holds a meeting to find out why it's so hard to register a gun, and DC's Deputy Mayor explains that it's better just to become a victim.
"“The problem is, if you are armed, it escalates the situation,” Mr. Quander told residents. “It is much better, in my opinion, to be scared, to be frightened, and even if you have to be, to be injured, but to walk away and survive. You’ll heal, and you can replace whatever was taken away.”
Rather poor timing, since yesterday DC's 911 caller system broke.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (5)
If a robber uses a gun, his victim will just take it away and use it on him
Another case of that occurring. I cannot recall reading of a robbery victim being disarmed by the aggressor, but have read of several cases where the robber was disarmed by the victim. I attribute this disparity to (1) robbery victims are more intelligent than robbers, and (2) they are less likely to be under the influence of narcotics.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Cato: armed civilians are tough targets
By Clayton Cramer and David Burnett (head of Students for Concealed Carry). Here's a summary, and here's the study.
Cato has also established a webpage to track defensive gun uses.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
"Stand your ground" is doing well in PA
Story here. Good guys survive, bad guys go down or are driven off.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Prof. Lerner on self-defense
I blogged a presentation of hers years ago, now she has her paper online. By "proportionality" she means self defense law that implicitly treats the life of the defender as equal to the life of the attacker. If the defender can only use lethal force if his or her own life is on the line, then the law treats the two lives as of equal value. But, as she points out, the vast majority of people (and not only in the US) do not consider the life of a violent criminal as equal to that of his potential victim. Sometimes, indeed, the European laws do a better job of reflecting this. For example, should the victim use force out of anger rather than fear, they allow a defense or partial defense (reduction of charges) on the basis that the attacker should bear responsibility for having created that anger.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Castle doctrine as applied
Four thugs break into NC home, teen inside uses shotgun to blow one into the next zip code.
"Police said the teen will not face any charges for killing Michael Henderson on December 29.
Under North Carolina's Castle Doctrine Law, homeowners can use deadly force if they fear their lives are in danger."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Circle K clerk disarms robber -- and gets fired
Story here. Aggravating it is that one of the robbers was urging the gunman to shoot him. Apparently company policy is that clerks are expendable.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (6)
Never bring a club to a bow fight
Story here.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Self-defense: two legged predators aren't the only kind
Defender uses .45 to stop dogs from savaging woman. Good shooting, after a 200 yard run.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
This wasn't the bar you were looking for...
Omaha: man tries to rob a bar, the owner throws down on him, then owner and patrons chase him down and tackle him.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
A good boss
Definitely the type of boss you want:
"You'll be hailed as a hero,' Mr Agil told his employee during a news conference.
'But you'd be a superhero if you'd dropped him dead."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Shooting in Phoenix
I haven't covered it yet, since the facts seemed very unclear, but Crime, Guns, and Videotape has a bunch of details that didn't make it into the media.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Chicago -- no one needs to protect themselves
Story here.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Big mistake....
Kidnapping an infant is generally a bad idea, much frowned upon by the law, but if the mother is armed it's apt to fatal. (I'd agree this bears further investigation).
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Never....
Never bring a bow to a gun fight.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Never....
Never bring a bow to a gun fight.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Pharmacist fired by Walgreens releases video
It's the usual story: fellow working for a store is robbed, defends self successfully, and is fired for violation some policy against impeding robbers. This time, the un-victim has released the security cam videos, which has the store all bothered.
The change in the robber's attitude when he draws and shoots is marked. In about half a second it goes from aggressive to "run like hell" mode.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (6)
How airline hijackings ended in the good old days
Crime, Guns, and Videotape has the story. And the aftermath.
As I remember, back in the 60s one airline (Frontier?) didn't care if you carried, and the others cared but really couldn't do much since airports didn't have metal detectors.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Detroit sees two armed self-defense incidents in one day
Report here. Perhaps I should say "reports two," since armed self-defense is unlikely to be reported where the authorities are seen as hostile to arms.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Comparing British and American riots
The British experience and the American. The American experience tends to be briefer
I heard a candidate for the post of Mayor of London on the radio. She was saying that she wanted the police to take no action because she'd rather see houses and shops burning that police hitting people over the head.
UPDATE: a response to that candidate's position: three men killed while trying to protect their property.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (11)
Cory Maye gets to go home
Story here. A plea to manslaughter and time served (10 years), but at least he'll get out.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Court ruling on "he needed killing" jury instruction
From Carico v. Commonwealth, an 1870 Kentucky ruling on self-defense:
"Speaking of assured and continual danger to life, this court, in the case in 2 Duvall, defined the principle of self-defense as follows: "Like the sword of Damocles, the threatened danger is continually impending every moment and everywhere. The threatened man may be waylaid or otherwise attacked unawares without the possibility of defense or of escape, and may never, day or night, feel safe, or actually be so, while his enemy lives, who whenever he may see him or wherever he may find him may be anxious and able to kill him. And does either human or divine law require such prolonged agony and peril; or can the best and most prudent men suicidably forbear to strike for riddance, if they have the courage to defend themselves, in the only way of secure and lasting escape?"
Now if a man feels sure that his life is in continual danger, and that to take the life of his menacing enemy is his only safe security, does not the rationale of the principle as thus defined allow him to kill that enemy whenever and wherever he gives him a chance and there is no sign of relenting? But before a jury should acquit they should be well satisfied that the killing was not the offspring of bad passion, but solely of a thorough and well-founded belief that it was necessary for security. And here (p.128)lies the danger of misapplication. It is difficult to be assured that the act was thus necessary and done in good faith. Of that, however, the jury and not the court must judge; and in that judgment they can not be too self-poised and careful before they conclude that the peril of the accused was imminent and incessant, and that he, well assured of it, honestly believed that his only safe remedy was to destroy the power to execute the threats. And if he was authorized to believe and did considerately apprehend that his own exile or the death of his persevering enemy, watching to kill him, was, like the tabula in naufragio, the only safe mode of rescue, might he not lawfully choose his remedy and throw his enemy overboard? Why should he be required still to wait an assault and to endure longer haunting and hazard when he might at any moment become the victim of his own forbearance, and when self-defense might be impossible or unavailing? Why let the sword still hang over him? Why not remove it out of sight when he may, and not passively linger until it unexpectedly falls and strikes his heart unresisted? The recognition of the perfect right to do so in such a crisis appears to us consistent with both principle and policy. It seems to us conservative. It might afford more security and prevent more assassinations than the lame law of punishment ever could, and the manly and opportune assertion of this universal birthright may teach the reckless who thus maliciously beset the pathway of the peaceable that they will be likely to bring destruction on their own heads. This preventive principle will go hand in hand with civilization and philosophical jurisprudence as a palladium of personal security and social order and peace. Properly guarded, it may do more good than harm."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (6)
Interesting AZ case on self-defense
Pdf of ruling here. Interesting....
Arizona, by statute, provides that for self defense a person is presumed to have acted reasonably if he acts against a person who has unlawfully or forcefully entered his residence. Here, there was essentially a conflict between two people who knew each other, at the doorway, and the one trying to enter was the one charged with aggravated assault.. Each claimed the other had initiated the conflict. The court holds that the jury should not have been instructed on the presumption, since the legislature meant it to protect homeowners who are charged after defensive acts, to benefit the defense in those situations, and not to benefit the prosecution should it instead allege the person entering had unreasonably used force.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Fearful that homeowner might be armed, burglar calls 911
Story here. It's not clear whether the homeowner did have a gun, but the burglar locked himself in the bathroom and called 911 for rescue. Since the burglar was taking a shower when the homeowner came upon him, it is at least possible that drugs and/or felonious stupidity were involved.
hat tip to Sixgun Sarah...
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Kids, don't try this at home
It's only safe for 82 yr old veterans.
Hat tip to Sixgun Sarah....
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Interesting question re: gun free zones
There was some argument regarding whether a private entity which forbade firearms in an area, or in parked cars, might assume some liability to a person who became a victim of crime because they could not defend themselves. The usual counter was the concept that a person generally has no legal duty to protect someone else from crime -- phrased otherwise, to prevent someone else from committing a criminal act.
Reader CarlS points out an interesting passage in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989). The suit was brought on behalf of a boy who suffered serious brain damage when county social workers ignored evidence that his father was beating him, and the Supremes held that this did not involve deprivation of liberty without due process of law.
In the course of distinguishing cases that allowed prisoners to sue for lack of safety and medical care, the majority noted:
"The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf. See Estelle v. Gamble, supra, at 103 ("An inmate must rely on prison authorities to treat his medical needs; if the authorities fail to do so, those needs will not be met"). In the substantive due process analysis, it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf -- through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty -- which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means."
So the State's liability in the prisoner context does not arise from its knowledge that the prisoner is in danger, but from the fact that it has limited his freedom to protect himself...
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
New book on self defense law
Mitch & Evan Vilos, "Self Defense Laws of All 50 States," available here. This must have taken forever to research and write. It has the statutes of every State, notes on major case law in each, and practical explanations of each of these entries. Then charts on when deadly force can be used in each State, a prosecutor's opening statement in a self-defense case (just to show how your actions might be portrayed), and "the mother of all self-defense laws," which they suggest promoting to your State legislature. Concisely written, it still spans 554 pages.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Excellent shooting under pressure
Story here. The officer survived because when the would-be killer stuck the gun in his face, the hammer dropped on a fired round, and the officer swatted the gun with his flashlight as he fell back and drew. Thereafter he greatly improved the auto's air ventilation systems.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
Another defensive shooting shooting in Chicago
It seems to be becoming the new fad. Or perhaps this was always happening, and the media only now covers it -- which might be even more significant.
Note the mantra: the shootee admits to throwing a rock or brick through the woman's window, the neighbors say he harasses everyone, and his family and friends say "He wasn't the type of little boy to do that; to throw a brick in an old lady's window like that."
Hat tip to reader Jim Kindred...
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Mock jury research on shooting burglars
Study here.
"Jurors" were given written summaries of a situation and asked if they'd convict or acquit, and if they convicted, what sentence they would impose. The scenario involved a homeowner encountering a burglar under ambiguous conditions tending toward shooting not justified (burglar makes a verbal threat but no moves -- technically, that might not be enough. In Arizona, it's more than enough: one fewer burglar, where's the harm?).
Findings: mock jurors were told the homeowner used different firearms. If told was an AR-15 (and shown a picture) they were MUCH more likely to convict than if told it was a Ruger Mini-14, although both shoot the same cartridge. They also imposed sentences 50% longer if told it was an AR-15. Then the study's creators changed the scenario to a female homeowner/shooter. Her odds of conviction went up, over that of a male, and if she used an AR-15 the sentence went WAY up.
Caveat: the mock jury on the last was composed of university students rather than a segment of the community at large. [Correction in light of comments: all juries were students. A good reason to use pre-emptory challenges against university students!).
Here in AZ, with real juries, the results are quite different. A prosecutor once told me that he'd urged the County Attorney to stop prosecuting homeowners who shot burglars in the back. They'd just lost three of those cases in a row. Whatever the statute law might be, jurors saw one fewer burglar as a good thing and would not convict a fellow homeowner for having done a good thing.
Hat tip to reader Joe Olson....
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (10)
Self defender downs cop-killer
This posting points to a memorable 1999 event which doesn't seem to have attracted much media interest (it happened in Phoenix, and don't remember hearing of it before this).
Phoenix PD officer Marc Atkinson was tailing a stolen vehicle and waiting for backup when he went around a corner and found its three occupants waiting in ambush; he had no chance, and they killed him.
A fellow named Rory Vertigan was in a car right behind the officer. He drew his Glock and emptied the magazine, wounding one killer and disabling their car. He then tackled the wounded killer as he tried to flee. Police quickly nabbed all three.
Culpepper Co. VA ends investigation of self-defender
Actually, I don't know that the Sheriff of Culpepper did investigate the fellow, after he held a burglar at gunpoint, but I suspect there must have been some inquiry before the sheriff issued him a letter of commendation.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
For the third time, a Chicagoan blasts a robber with an unregistered gun
This time, a pawnbroker kills an armed robber, who'd been convicted of robbery before but apparently paroled after boot camp. [I always thought that was a singularly foolish idea. The reasoning seems to be (1) the military teaches self-discipline and duty, (2) the military starts with physical workouts and being yelled at, therefore (3) if you have someone yell at a criminal while he works out, he will become self-disciplined and law abiding. This does not follow]. (h/t to reader Alice Beard)
The Chicago Tribune seems disappointed that no one is prosecuting the City's self-defenders:
Even as Mayor Richard Daley rails against the gun ban's critics, the Police Department doesn't seem up to vigorous enforcement of the law. In two recent instances, homeowners have shot intruders with handguns that apparently fall under the ban. But so far, the city has not filed charges against the shooters.If the law is worth having, it has to be applied even against sympathetic violators. If Chicago's not willing to enforce the law, it won't make a substantial difference if the Supreme Court says Chicago can no longer have it.
(Perhaps someone should inform the Trib about the Illinois law giving an affirmative defense to gun charges, based on discovery of the gun after a self defense incident)
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (5)
Are we seeing a pattern here?
Posted by David Hardy · 3 June 2010 01:35 PMFor the second time in a week, a Chicagoan uses a banned handgun to shoot a home invader.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
80 yr old Chicagoan defends self with illegal handgun
Posted by David Hardy · 26 May 2010 04:00 PMStory, at Crime, Guns, and Videotape. A masked robber, with a long rap sheet, burst into the elderly couple's home, and collided with a .38 projectile going the other way.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
89 year old lady fires in self-defense
Posted by David Hardy · 25 April 2010 08:32 PMStory here. She had a .22, went for a headshot, missed, but the thug for some reason decided to depart. I guess he figured the odds were good for him against an 89 year old, but not so good for him against an 89 year old and a pistol.
Via Fear and Loading.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
medicinal pot grower defends self
Posted by David Hardy · 17 March 2010 02:14 PMStory here.
Sounds like a hazardous occupation: "I don't want to shoot people, but God, this is our eighth home invasion since last May." He ought to get something a bigger than a .22, at that rate!
Hat tip to XD Owner....
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Tidying up after self defense
Posted by David Hardy · 16 March 2010 07:55 PMStory and photo here.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Armed teacher stops knife attack
Posted by David Hardy · 9 December 2009 08:23 AMA teacher at a private school sees a stabbing of a student, draws his gun and stops it.
I've heard the term "subculture of violence," and in my time as an attorney known a few who were in such a group, where physical violence was just a fact of life, nothing to get worked up about. In this case, having stabbed a guy a half dozen times, his wife drives him away, but then returns to retrieve his cell phone. For you, this is attempted homicide. For him, it's Tuesday morning.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (6)
Lady in India cleans terrorist clock
Posted by David Hardy · 7 October 2009 08:01 PMA great headline: "Indian farmer's daughter is most bad-ass woman in the world". More detail at The Telegraph.
Border terrorists entered her house and began beating her father with clubs. She whacks one with an axe, takes his AK-47 and finishes the job, then wings one of his buddies as they run for the hills.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Local self defense
Posted by David Hardy · 7 October 2009 05:21 PMStory here. A robber has to be careful: his victim may be faster on the draw.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Self defense figures by race
Posted by David Hardy · 31 August 2009 12:56 PMHoward Nemerov has some charts and statistics on justifiable homicide, race, and right to carry laws. Basically: in RTC States, blacks are on the giving end of nearly 50% of self-defense homicides (i.e., justifiable), and in non RTC States the percentage drops by nearly half. Howard notes this indicates that RTC laws are of special benefit to black Americans, since they are more likely to be put in a position where self-defense is vital.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
Case in Greensboro NC
Posted by David Hardy · 27 August 2009 02:07 PMArticle here. There have been a lot of burglaries in the neighborhood, two teens come up to house to break in, leave when owner makes noise. Owner then steps out and fires shots in the air, and police cite him for discharging a firearm inside city limits. OK, not exactly a wise response -- he could have spent the time calling 911, and shots into the air have to come down somewhere.
But what's interesting about the story is ... keep skimming down and you come to a Google map, I'd guess of his house. You not only get his address, you can hit the "Sat" button for an aerial view and a link to an image of the house from the street. I wonder if the newspaper generally does this to people on the receiving end of attempted burglary?
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Self defense in Harlem
Posted by David Hardy · 14 August 2009 01:52 PMStory here. The defender was about as restrained as can be imagined. Told them his store had no cash at the point, tried to talk them into just leaving. Only after the four robbers began beating and pistol-whipping one of his employees did he pull the shotgun out and fire.
Even the NY Times is quasi favorable. It does note police may charge the defender with a misdemeanor...
Chicago gov't going trigger happy?
Posted by David Hardy · 29 July 2009 12:06 PMChicago is instituting a major change in LE policy, allowing use of deadly force against felony suspects fleeing in autos. (The article does not explain the basis for a distinction between suspects fleeing in autos and those fleeing on foot, or whether a motorcycle counts as an auto).
I haven't time to research today, but as I recall Tennessee v. Garner rejected the general power to use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon and limited LEO lethal force mostly to parallel civilian use of lethal force, i.e., defense of self and others. I suspect that any Chicago civilian who back-shot a fleeing car thief would be the subject of a quick indictment.
Hat tip to reader Ash Mayfield ...
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (10)
Bear arms in self defense
Posted by David Hardy · 27 July 2009 10:30 PMStory here. A few years ago the Mt. Lemmon area, a 45 minute drive from here, was essentially besieged by its bear population. Particularly attractive targets (a pie shop) put metal grates on windows and doors, only to have them tear thru walls.
Hat tip to reader David Hustvedt, who is from the area.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (7)
Tucson home invasion
Posted by David Hardy · 22 July 2009 11:15 AMAround here, home invasion robbery stories usually end with a description of the robber's gunshot wounds. This case was a bit out of the ordinary. One of the robbers was a correctional officer. While they were pistol whipping the victim, his neighbor came outside and challenged them, and they shot at the neighbor.
The neighbor's son had a rifle and settled that affair quickly.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
AZ: no retrial for Harold Fish
Posted by David Hardy · 17 July 2009 12:25 PMStory here.
"Rozema said that two developments prompted his decision not to retry the case. First, the Arizona Court of Appeals overturned Fish's conviction. ... [T]he appellate court decided the jury was not instructed properly as to what constitutes "unlawful physical force." The court also decided the jury should have heard evidence that Kuenzli was known to act violently when confronted about dogs in his care.
Second, Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill into law Monday that applied retroactively to the Fish case a new law on self-defense. Whereas Fish had to prove at his trial that he acted in self-defense, it is now up to the prosecution to prove at trial that Fish did not act in self-defense."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (9)
Harold Fish conviction reversed
Posted by David Hardy · 4 July 2009 08:16 PMPdf of AZ Ct of Appeals ruling here. To shave a long opinion to its core--
Fish was hiking, saw another guy, waved, other guy's dogs charged him, he fired a warning shot. Then the other guy charged him, crazed look in eyes, windmilling arms and shouting threats. Fish shouted to halt and, that having no effect, shot him fatally.
Major issue on appeal: trial court refused to allow testimony from several other people that other guy, upon confrontation relating to his dogs, had rushed at them, crazed look in eyes, arms windmilling and shouting threats.
Ruling: general rule is that self defense must be based on reasonable fear, and reasonable fear cannot be based upon something the defender doesn't know (in this case, that the guy tended to go off balance with regard his dogs and behaving in a threatening way). Arizona case had allowed court to admit unknown events, in its discretion, but adoption of the federal rules of evidence (which have no such provision) as the state rules ended that. HOWEVER, the prosecution, by arguing that Fish's claim that other guy behaved so crazily was ridiculous, opened the door to Fish bringing in evidence that that was, in fact, how the guy had behaved in the past. Conviction reversed and sent back for new trial.
UPDATE: yup, this was the case that led to a change in the statutes on self defense -- previously self defense was an affirmative defense, meaning that (like insanity, etc.) the defendant had to prove it, by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely true than not). During this case, the legislature modified the law so that justification defenses, including self-defense, had to be disproven, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the prosecution. Problem was the legislature gummed it up, and forgot to include a clause making the change retroactive, and the court held that the legislature *can* make a liberalized defense retroactive, it must give some indication of this intent, there was none here, ergo Fish would be tried under the law as it existed at the time of the shooting. There's now a move to pass a statute that would clarify a retroactive intent.
"Reasonable fear" ... may write a separate post on this. It's rather strange, I can't offhand think of another defense where what matters is what you *think*, but not how things *are*. To prove self-defense you must prove a reasonable fear that the other guy was going to inflict death or serious bodily harm. At least, that's been the US standard since the early 19th century. So....
Guy bashes in your door one night, comes at you, you shoot in reasonable belief he means you serious harm. Turns out he was staggering drunk, thought he was breaking into his own house. You have a defense since you feared serious harm and it was reasonable to do so (even though in fact you may not have been endangered).
Officer stops guy, guy has crazy look, reaches for something, officer shoots. Afterward it turns out guy has a murder warrant, killed last officer who stopped him, clearly did mean to kill this one, too. BUT officer didn't know that when he shot. In practice, he'd not be prosecuted, and the jury would walk him anyway, BUT in theory, were it tried, officer would only be allowed to prove the basis of his fear -- that guy looked crazy and seemed to reach for something -- and jury would only consider whether those two facts were sufficient cause to shoot him. That he in fact was a fleeing cop killer would not be allowed in evidence. The officer didn't know that, so it could not have formed a basis for him to fear for his life.
I don't say the above makes great sense, logically, but it's the way the law works just now. I've had proposals for statutory amendments to cure it, and may write an article on the subject.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (19)
Internat'l Law Enforcement Educator & Trainers on mass shootings
Posted by David Hardy · 24 April 2009 06:20 PMThe legendary Massad Ayoob is attending the annual conference of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association. He writes:
"Thursday afternoon, I chaired the panel of experts discussion on deadly force issues. I had been able to assemble ten superstars of police training. [He lists them, and their credentials are indeed impressive].
One of the topics that inevitably cropped up was response to mass murders in schools and other public places. Among us was Ron Borsch, instructor at the Southeast Area Law Enforcement Academy in Ohio, who has been an advocate of “sole response” entry into such situations by the first responding officer. Though controversial in law enforcement, his theory was validated recently by the courageous 25-year-old cop who entered a mass murder scene only a few weeks ago at an old folks home, and stopped the killing with a single bullet from his Glock .40 service pistol coolly and expertly delivered to the gunman’s chest.
Borsch’s impromptu discussion revealed the fact that some 25% of mass murder shooting sprees he has researched were ended by armed private citizens. This led in turn to a discussion of the Israeli Model, in place since the Maalot massacre of schoolchildren decades ago, in which teachers and other school personnel were trained and discreetly armed with handguns, which has proven famously successful ever since in Israel. Across the ten-member panel AND the dozens of police instructors attending the discussion, not a single voice was raised against that concept, and many spoke enthusiastically in favor of it.
Don’t listen to the politically motivated figureheads. Talk to the REAL cops. They’re the ones who best understand the dynamics of violence, and of protection of the innocent from evil."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (10)
Gun Self Defense Blog passes a milestone
Posted by David Hardy · 21 April 2009 10:44 AMClayton Cramer's gun self defense blog just chronicled its 4,000th such incident, and pauses to list a few conclusions:
In six cases, the criminal managed to get a gun away from the defender, but in 183 cases the defender managed to get a gun away from the criminal.
There was exactly one case of mistaken identity among the 4,000 -- and the shooting there began with the officers, who thought the defender was an armed burglar. Nobody was hurt.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (5)
Central Florida's not a good spot for robbers
Posted by David Hardy · 3 April 2009 01:52 PMIt's just not hospitable for that trade.
"A pharmacist shot an armed robber dead Tuesday at a drugstore off South Orange Blossom Trail, the Orange County Sheriff's Office said.
It was at least the fourth time this year that a robber was killed at a Central Florida business and was the second drugstore holdup that ended in death."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
Should self-defense be limited to the strong?
Posted by David Hardy · 25 February 2009 06:11 PMKurt Hoffman asks the question, which has a personal angle.
Via Instapundit...
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Crime fighting's Future Is a Man with a Gun
Posted by David Hardy · 12 January 2009 04:29 PMSo says this column in the Orlando Sentinel. A good piece of writing.
Hat tip to Dan Gifford...
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (5)
Interesting article on self defense
Posted by David Hardy · 13 November 2008 08:22 AMRight here, in pdf. Author raises the point that the present test for self defense (did the defender reasonably believe he was in danger or lethal danger?) misses much of true self defense. I.e., when the defender is attacked by surprise and reacts by reflex, not really having a belief about anything. Courts generally treat that as self defense anyway, but the author suggests we ought to modify the doctrine to fit. He also notes that German law is more liberal toward self-defense; a person under criminal attack is not required to use only a reasonable amount of force, but rather is allowed to use force unless it is grossly disproportionate to the attack.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Bureaucrats' approach to self defense
Posted by David Hardy · 26 October 2008 09:50 AMVia RicketyClick comes this: a Houston defense lawyer has posted the DEA guidelines on use of lethal force. He notes that trainees are given fact patterns and then expected to recite from the standards verbatim. I'm sure that is solid training ... in memory skills.
Only a bureaucracy ... the document is probably 8-10 pages long. A long checklist of factors, which would be of less than no use in a confrontation. With ridiculous standards such as if a knife wielder is aggressive, it may justify use of lethal force IF he is within 21 feet of you. I suppose you are expected to bring a tape measure (and what shooter thinks in terms of feet rather than yards?). Actually, it says use may be justified if he is 21 feet from you, not within 21 feet, so I guess you cannot fire if he is five feet from you. [I don't doubt, as commentors note, that a knife-wielder can close 21 feet in less than your time to draw and fire. But to teach it as some hard and fast rule, as if there is no reason to use force if the guy is 22 feet out, or pretend that with a guy charging you you can estimate the distance, is going a bit far.]
And many criteria are based on probable cause? (p/c). That's for arrests or searches, commonly defined as "strong suspicion." If I were to use lethal force, I'd hope it was based on more than a strong suspicion that the other person posed a threat.
Not to mention instructions such as identify yourself as "DEA". How about "police"? I know what DEA is, and DEA knows what it is, but there are probably a lot of people who have no idea what DEA, ATF, DOJ, etc. stand for.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (10)
Women !!!
Posted by David Hardy · 14 October 2008 07:36 PMAn intruder breaks in, fires a shot, the couple arms, and this happens:
"According to Babecki, his wife would have fired the rifle, except that she feared she might kill her pet birds in their cage right outside the bedroom."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (5)
Inspiring story
Posted by David Hardy · 10 October 2008 12:31 PMThe story comes via Instapundit...
Knox County (TN) Commissioner Greg Lambert hears a commotion at the shopping mall, cries that someone had been shot. Two unarmed security guards are trying to respond. Luckily Lambert is a CCW carrier, so when they find the armed suspect he holds him for police. As they arrive, the perp apparently tries again to start firing and they put him down.
The linked articles say the perp killed a store clerk because he was unhappy about a purchase, and was shot and wounded.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Not recommended to the prudent
Posted by David Hardy · 5 September 2008 08:27 AMEven if a perp has a shotgun, he shouldn't get between a mother and her kids. Fortunately, the perp couldn't comprehend that the safety was on, which enabled the mother to grab the barrel, and the father to get it away from him and blast him.
Hat tip to Bernie Oliver...
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (7)
85 year old burglary victim takes novel approach
Posted by David Hardy · 3 September 2008 09:26 AMShe solves the problem of how do you hold the perp at gunpoint while calling police -- by forcing the perp to call them for her.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Dave Kopel on Heller and the right of self-defense
Posted by David Hardy · 24 July 2008 12:18 PMDave Kopel has an article on the subject, accepted at Syracuse Law Review.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
State constitutional rights to defend self and property
Posted by David Hardy · 16 July 2008 10:30 AMHere's a recent article (pdf) by Prof. Gene Volokh on the subject. Via, of course, the Volokh Conspiracy.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Perpetual victimhood
Posted by David Hardy · 15 July 2008 04:57 PMArticle here. It recounts the story of John White, a black who moved into an almost-entirely white area of Long Island. A gang of white youths shows up on his lawn at night, cursing him and threatening to kill his son. He draws a .32, one of them slaps it away, and he plugs him. He winds up convicted of manslaughter. The author contrasts the case with that of a while male in Texas who shot two burglars and walked.
OK, that's not the difference of race, but between Texas and NYC. Here in AZ, juries would have walked him in a heartbeat. OK, so maybe the Arizona Revised Statutes require more threat than that ... he'd been menaced, on his own land, the aggressors threatened his kid. He even gave fair warning. The A.R.S. are the written law, but there's also an unwritten one that juries follow. You've got 12 homeowners sitting in the jury box thinking "I could have done that, too."
Instead, the author concludes:
"So should L.I., NY change their gun laws to be more like TX? Then of course we risk the chance of having more child-gun accidents, more gun robberies, and thus more gun crimes, and more senseless gun killings...More guns equal more death. How about calling the police? Getting a dog? An alarm system? Martial arts? Even a taser, for crying out loud!"
So... the guy was within his rights, should have been acquitted, but we don't want anyone to be able to do that.... when you're supporting a self-defender, it's not the time to talk about gun ownership leading to "senseless gun killings."
PS--as to his allegation that gun rights groups "went running" to the Texan's defense, and ignored that of the defendant here, I've not heard that any gun rights groups were involved in the Texas case (which ended, quickly, when a grand jury refused to indict, and I see no mention that the defendant here ever alerted a gun rights group. But that's irrelevant to the author's claim of victimhood, I suppose.)
[UPDATE: I meant that the author of the article was trapped in a victimhood state of mind. He argues that Mr. White was attacked, then victimized by the NY "justice" system. Sounds like that to me. But he then argues that people having firearms, i.e., John White, would just make everyone victims of crime, or themselves victims of accidents. So, one way or the other, we all should resign ourselves to being victims one way or another. I should've been clearer.]
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (12)
Now, THIS is restraint above and beyond!
Posted by David Hardy · 31 May 2008 01:16 AMStory here.
Customer has argument with grocery store manager, pulls gun. In response, this being Florida, the manager and assistant manager draw, too. Customer backs up and then opens fire.
The manager reasons "When I saw the first bullet hit high, right away I knew I was dealing with someone that was not a good shooter." He and the assistant hold fire, eventually talk the guy into putting down his gun, assuring him they really won't beat him up if he surrenders.
I like to think I'm a cool head but I couldn't have done it. It Somebody lets loose at me, and I rather doubt I'd be observing his group size and figuring he's firing high. illustrates what Glenn Reynolds said, that in a disaster movie everyone screams and panics, because that makes for an exciting movie, but the reality is that in a tight spot Americans tend to keep calm, organize, and respond rationally.
Via the always amusing This Is True. A really great site for news of the unusual, including pro-gun news of the unusual.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (6)
Defense of others in Dallas
Posted by David Hardy · 10 May 2008 12:13 PMVideo here. I see an officer carrying an AR-15 variant, not clear if that's what was used, or if it was the officer's gear.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (6)
The government can't protect, part 1,295
Posted by David Hardy · 30 April 2008 09:30 AMFrom Oregon comes this remarkable story.
Man chase a woman down in his vehicle, she heads her car toward the police headquarters. She makes it, he rams her car, gets out with a rifle, shoots her and himself before police can respond. (It's a small department, and from the story it sounds as if everyone was out on patrol with only the police chief in the HQ, and he's up on the second floor. When I've gone down to the sheriff's substation for my area, there are plenty of parked squadcars, but if you need to talk to a deputy they have to call one back from patrol. They're stretched thin, so the substation is probably the least-policed location around here).
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
Pizza Hut self-defender fired
Posted by David Hardy · 24 April 2008 09:36 AMSayUncle has the story.
Local contrast: in Tucson, one of the more sickening crimes of the last decade was the "Pizza Hut killings." Two young local thugs robbed a Pizza Hut, became concerned that one of the clerks might have recognized them, and so herded everyone into the back and murdered them all. If one of the clerks, or a deliveryman, or for that matter a customer walking in, had been carrying, it might have been a different story.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (8)
One incredible self-defense tale...
Posted by David Hardy · 22 April 2008 01:45 PMBlind man encounters burglar, pins him to the floor, beats him senseless, then holds him at knifepoint for police.
Memo: do not cross this guy.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six
Posted by David Hardy · 7 February 2008 08:53 PMUnless it's a six pack. Even then, you should opt for something with more stopping power.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
An impressive letter to the editor
Posted by David Hardy · 25 January 2008 01:20 PMAbout a battlfield convert, over at keepandbeararms.com.
UPDATE: James Rummel tries to run it to ground and says it pegs the needle on his BS detector.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (8)
Ret. Green Beret court-martialed after shooting burglar with .22
Posted by David Hardy · 24 January 2008 01:39 PMThe charges: failure to use a weapon of sufficient caliber. I'd have thought conviction was a certainty on those facts, but he had a good lawyer.
Hat tip to Budd Schroeder...
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
IMPRESSIVE video on self defense
Posted by David Hardy · 14 January 2008 12:35 PMHere. Via Instapundit.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Armed pizza deliverymen
Posted by David Hardy · 9 January 2008 06:11 PMThere's been so many cases of self defense by armed pizza deliverymen that Clayton Cramer's self defense blog has set up a separate category.
As he notes, the joke used to be, call 911 and call a pizza place, and see which gets there first -- now we can add, and the deliveryman is likely to be as well armed as the officer!
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
Robbers beware....
Posted by David Hardy · 28 December 2007 06:05 PMThat Domino's Pizza delivery guy you're thinking about robbing might just have a CCW permit.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
If a criminal pulls a gun on a victim, the victim will just take it away and use it on him
Posted by David Hardy · 28 December 2007 11:09 AMFrom Gun Watch comes this Florida story. Perps stage a nightime home invasion robbery, but the homeowner disarms one and shoots him and they flee.
I think this is a third story I've encountered where the victim disarmed the criminal and used the gun on him. I have yet to see one where the criminal disarmed the victim. This may reflect that fact that the criminal is much more likely to be under the influence of opiates, crack, and/or ETOH than the victim. Or perhaps that victims are smarter, or know more about gun handling.
Oh, and the newpaper headline? "Tallassee home invasion turns deadly."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
You CAN fight city hall....
Posted by David Hardy · 17 December 2007 12:14 PMIf you're DC's 911 service. CIty councilman hears woman screaming outside his house, calls 911, and gets jacked around.
"Roughly 1,000 calls a week to D.C.'s call center are being monitored for quality, Quintana told the public safety panel, chaired by Councilman Phil Mendelson. But council members said they hear the same complaints over and over - of police who don't show up, of call takers who are rude and ask too many questions, and of phones that are never answered."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (5)
Gun free zone liability act
Posted by David Hardy · 11 December 2007 09:30 AMAlan Korwin reports that bills have been introduced in AZ and GA to make entities that declare "gun free zones" liable for any harm caused by impairment of self-defense.
Update: I'm informed the GA bill is from 2003; there is no such bill pending there now.
Via Instapundit, who has in the past suggested you could get the same result under common law. It might be clearer now -- I mean, every mass killing I can remember occurred either in a gun free zone, or a place where the killer would expect no one to be armed (an Amish schoolhouse, a church -- the killer in the Colorado cases may have *thought* churches were gun-free in that state). And every mass killing that was stopped short was stopped by armed civilians, not by LE.
Also via Instapundit, SayUncle has an impressive list of armed civilians vs. mass killers.
Permalink · Self defense ~ · State legislation · Comments (12)
New blog focuses on self-defense cases
Posted by David Hardy · 7 December 2007 08:50 AMIt's Gun Watch. Curiously enough, run by an Austrailian, but mostly reporting US cases. The lead one involves a fellow who was robbed by two thugs, who stuck a gun into his ribs and said they'd shoot him. He waited for the right moment, drew his own revolver, and shot the gun wielder.
"Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli said the good guy won in a botched armed robbery. But at a news conference Wednesday, he also cautioned against a return to the vigilante days of the Wild West." I never can understand why any government official, in describing a clearly valid case of self-defense, has to reference vigilantes. I could better understand him cautioning armed robbers that they should not engage in their trade, but why does he feel compelled to utter this sort of warning to their victims?
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (13)
Civilian drives robber to flee to the police
Posted by David Hardy · 7 November 2007 06:24 PMStory here. A Houston pushed a woman and tried to drag her purse away, only to have her husband draw a shotgun from his truck and fire (I assume a warning shot).
The robber ran, the husband pursued, and the robber ended by fleeing to a police car, shouting, 'Let me in. They are shooting at me."
This being Houston rather than Great Britain, the police hauled him away.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (6)
Richmond ice cream store defender not indicted
Posted by David Hardy · 5 November 2007 02:30 PMStory here. He shot a fleeing robber, which is technically a no-no, but the grand jury did the right rather than the legal thing. (It is rather funny that the prosecutor said he thought he might at least get a misdemeanor discharging a firearm in a public place out of it).
Hat tip to reader Rudy DiGiacinto..
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (6)
Website for personal protection devices
Posted by David Hardy · 23 October 2007 09:54 AMRight here. Since I live in AZ, my personal protection tools are in .45, but those who have the misfortune to live where that isn't permissible might find this page interesting. (Actually, they have a lot of interesting devices -- a device to awaken a driver if he dozes off, a recorder that plays audio of a big dog barking, a stun gun that looks like a cell phone (useful in areas that forbid stun guns), etc.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Another case on "the government will protect you"
Posted by David Hardy · 31 August 2007 09:59 AMFrom the Burlington Free Press:
"A state trooper had no special duty to arrest a man who had sexually assaulted and battered his former girlfriend and continued to do so after the trooper left, the state's highest court has ruled.
Trooper Maurice Lamothe of the St. Albans barracks, responding to a domestic violence call on Nov. 18, 2002, saw marks on the victim's face but did not arrest the man later convicted of battering and sexually assaulting her, despite what Baker described Thursday as a "pro-arrest policy" in the state police manual. ...
After Lamothe, who Baker said is still a trooper in St. Albans, left the scene, the man beat and sexually assaulted the woman again; he did both things again after breaking into her apartment early the next day, the court said. ...
In a decision written by Associate Justice Brian Burgess, the court said there is a high bar for someone suing the state, because it is protected by a legal doctrine of "sovereign immunity."
The victim would have had to show gross negligence on the part of the trooper, Burgess wrote, and his failure to foresee and prevent further violence did not rise to that level.
"Ordinarily, the duty owed between strangers does not extend to controlling the conduct of third persons to prevent physical harm," he wrote. And while Vermont law calls on police officers to protect public safety, "the statutes create no special relationship between crime victims and law enforcement personnel." ...
[NB: at this, many if not most states would take an even broader view of sovereign immunity: you can't sue, period, whether it was gross negligence or not. But the second standard mentioned -- that a person has no duty to prevent someone else from committing a crime -- would rule out suits in VT even if gross negligence were shown.
A bit of personal experience is set out in extended remarks below.
Continue reading "Another case on "the government will protect you""
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Unusual defensive gun use
Posted by David Hardy · 22 August 2007 08:31 AMTwo pit bulls enter house thru a doggie door, maul a sleeping woman, who tries to shoot them (it's unclear whether she shot and missed or otherwise acted) and eventually escapes. Story here.
Hat tip to Don Kates.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Self-defense in FLA
Posted by David Hardy · 5 August 2007 11:34 AMStory here. Florida isn't the safest spot to try a carjacking...
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Thought re: Pizza Hunt
Posted by David Hardy · 2 August 2007 07:53 AMI've noted cases before where a Pizza Hut employee is fired after defending himself. The company policy appears to be that they will send delivery people into danger (if you stop to think about it, no one is in more peril of robbery than someone doing that job -- like a taxi driver, you have money and a criminal can summon you to any location, but with the pizza you have to walk up to the front door, too), but that if they dare do anything to protect themselves they will be canned.
Here's a story about one delivery fellow who was tied up, robbed, and stabbed to death -- but in full accord with company policy. Pizza Hut responded in true bureaucratic form, with a meaningless statement: "Pizza Hut issued a statement that stated driver safety is a top priority and is taken seriously among co-workers."
If anyone wants to let them know what they think, their customer satisfaction number is 1-800-948-8488, and here's their feedback page (but who knows if anyone but the webmaster reads it).
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Great 911 audio
Posted by David Hardy · 13 July 2007 09:13 AMHere. The lady's husband shoots the burglar while the operator is still asking foolish questions. The questions that follow are the funny ones, tho. BLAM! "My husband just shot him." "Does your husband have a gun?"
Hat tip to Budd Schroeder....
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (8)
Airline jerk learns how 9/11 changed things
Posted by David Hardy · 10 July 2007 04:01 PMThe 9th Circuit just handed down an affirmance in US v. Gonzales (pdf here). Facts: shortly after takeoff a passenger got hysterical, demanded that the plane land, paced around, started opening overhead bins and shouted he had a bomb and was going to blow the plane up.
The opinion quotes a flight attendant on the results. Yes, some passengers started screaming "we're all going to die." As for the rest:
"I saw many of our male passengers unbuckle their seatbelts and they stood up and they — I remember seeing the people throwing punches and everybody, you know, they were all on top of Mr. Gonzalez. . . . [Gonzalez] was hysterical and he was swinging and kicking and he was just — he was hitting and kicking passengers and the passengers were trying to take him down and hold him down."
They ultimately tied him up. The 9th Circuit upheld the trial court's decision to enhance the sentence by nine levels, and then max him at 27 months' imprisonment.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
Teen disarms, shoots, carjacker
Posted by David Hardy · 3 July 2007 01:40 PM"When he leaned inside, trying to yank the mother out of the car, the 17-year-old grabbed the gun, Fortunato said. He said it went off once as they struggled, but did not hit anyone. Once the youth got the gun, he shot Chestnut several times, Fortunato said."
Update: the attacker was wanted for Murder One.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
A contrast with how it's done in Great Britain
Posted by David Hardy · 2 July 2007 02:22 PMFrom ABC News: a punk tries to swipe money from a 72 year old fellow's pocket, and discovers too late that he's a Marine who has kept in good shape. The Marine grabs the guy's wrist and unloads a large can of whupass on him, then the store manager charges in to help.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
FLA: CCW holder stops robbery
Posted by David Hardy · 28 June 2007 09:30 AMTwo robbers stick up a Subway sandwich store, begin to force employees into the back room for possibly lethal purposes. But a customer has a CCW permit and a gun, and the score ends 2-0 for the defender.
UPDATE: the Sun-Sentinel has more details. The defender was a 71 year old Marine.
"They just happened to pick on the wrong guy at the wrong time," said Wesley White of Yulee in north Florida. White said he's known Lovell for 19 years.
Lovell is a former Marine who was a member of the helicopter detail that transported Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, White said. He also was a former Pan Am and Delta airline pilot who worked out regularly and was in good condition, White said.
"He's also one heck of a shot," White, 50, said."
The comments to the story number over a thousand, and are cheering for him. I liked "Subway now offers 7 six inch sandwhiches that have les than 6 grams of fat (as long as you don't put any condiments containing fat into them). And for a limited time, cap a thug, get a free value meal upgrade."
Hat tip to Eric Schultz...
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (6)
Defender acquitted in FLA case
Posted by David Hardy · 26 June 2007 04:39 PMI'd posted earlier on a Florida case where a fellow decided to attack a guy walking his dog, got two other folks (one a gang leader) to help him pulverize the person ... and they found to their dismay that the person was armed and able to shoot.
He's been found not guilty. In the meantime, tho, he sat in jail for eight months, his house has been burned down and his dogs been euthanized (I assume they were picked up when he was). The prosecutor's comments leave me wondering why he went ahead with the case (and note that a baseball bat was found near one of the dead thugs -- they obviously would have demolished the guy had he not been able to shoot):
"Williams, who argued that only Borden's first five shots could be construed as self-defense, said it was difficult to overcome the evidence that even the surviving victim, Juan Mendez, conceded the men planned to beat Borden.
Williams said he was upfront with the jury about the reputations of the men involved as well as their plans to hurt Borden because he wanted a fair trial.
"The truth hurt me in this case," said Williams, who expressed no surprise at the verdict. "They were bringing a lot of violence to this defendant. It's tough to put yourself in that guy's shoes and say he didn't act appropriately. It's really tough.""
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (16)
Update on apartment co. that fired a manager for defending a woman
Posted by David Hardy · 24 June 2007 09:18 AMThe company is flailing around trying to defend itself -- uh, his rent check bounced, uh, an unnamed source said his first aid did harm, and Bitter goes to town on their claims. As she notes, you couldn't buy this much bad publicity. I just ran a Google on the manager's name, and it turned up 27,000 hits.
Even the Washington Post blog is taking his side, followed by comments like "The Village Green Company is a bunch of scumbags. They would sell their own children to turn a profit. I rented from them and their policy makes me want to puke" and "I live at the Oaks at Mill Creek and there is no one here who feels safer with Colin gone. Managment made a big mistake and its not the first time. If I could move I would but I cant break my lease but I am very very tempted." As Bitter says, you couldn't buy this much bad publicity if you wanted to.
Oh--here's a page where you can send the apartment company an email.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Dialing 911....
Posted by David Hardy · 24 June 2007 08:51 AMAnd I imagine it's more prompt, here in Tucson than in some places.
"Most of the time police [i.e., 911 operators] answer promptly — in 12 seconds on average.
But on June 7 a caller waited 5 1/2 minutes, computer records show. On April 24, police took six minutes and 34 seconds to answer the phone. And the maximum answer delay was seven minutes and 12 seconds on March 20."
Hat tip to Bernie Oliver.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
An item prob. not to be reported in the MSM
Posted by David Hardy · 21 June 2007 12:04 PMFrom an email from Don Kates:
I am in receipt of the following:
11 year-old girl shoots two home intruders
5-2-07 -- Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza,
26, probably believed they would easily overpower a home-alone eleven
year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two story
home.It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in
Montana, and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was
nine. Patricia was in her upstairs bedroom when the two men broke
through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's
room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be
the first to catch a near point blank blast of buck shot from the girl's
knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to
the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to
death before medical help could arrive.It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen
.45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The
victim, 50 year old David Burien, was not so lucky as he died from stab
wounds to the chest.Patricia staved off a robbery and potential rape because her
parents taught her how to use a gun. Her parents just didn't hide a gun
in the house and not educate her on the power that a firearm provides.
Ignorance can be deadly, but fortunately for this Montana family,
knowledge was power.Permalink · Self defense · Comments (6)
AZ home invasion, with usual outcome
Posted by David Hardy · 20 June 2007 09:10 PMArticle in Tucson's morning paper: "HOME INVASION NETS WOMAN 60 DAYS PLUS 3 YEARS OF PROBATION."
Farther down in the article, a note that four perps kicked in a door at 4 AM and "One of the suspects, Johnny Hunter, was shot after hitting the victim in the face..."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Very disgusting
Posted by David Hardy · 19 June 2007 01:00 PMAn apartment complex manager hears a woman screaming, takes a shotgun, saves her life, and gets fired.
" One policy prohibits any type of weapons being used in the workplace. The complaint cited him for "gross misconduct."
"Colin demonstrated extremely poor judgment in responding to this situation," the complaint said. "Colin's failure to immediately report this incident ... could have serious ramifications to the property, its associates and residents.""
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Altercation between CCW holder and undercover officer
Posted by David Hardy · 10 June 2007 09:56 AMStory here. The matter is just starting out, but at this point it does sound uncommonly as if the CCW holder was acting in self-defense.
In that situation I'd probably stomp on the brakes, if only because when you try to drive and defend yourself at the same time, you're apt to do both rather poorly.
[Hat tip to reader Eric Anondson]
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Arming students: Instapunk weighs in
Posted by David Hardy · 26 May 2007 11:44 AMInstapunk has some fun with a Clemson student's article, that maintained self-defenders on campus would just manage to miss or hit bystanders, and with great lines like "You can't fight violence with more violence" -- although it seems to me that law enforcement is paid to do just that -- and proposing a course where students "would learn to be aware of the warning signs of a potential attack..." E.g., a sucking chest wound.
Interesting that in this sort of hypothetical, the author assumes that the killer is clever, rational, inventive, and a good shot, and that any defender is foolish, clumsy, rather stupid, and has lousy aim. Hey, fellow, which one of them is a mental case, and which one passed the background check and has training?
Reminds me of a comment Prof. Kleck made, about how he got interesting in doing statistical work on self-defense. He said he was struck by a number of writings which seemed to assume that firearms were quite useful to criminals, yet useless in self-defense. It struck him that in both cases the same tool was being used for roughly the same purposes and under the same conditions -- it's just that one use was lawful and the other not. A tool that was useful for one probably would be useful for the other, too.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
"Toward a culture of self defense"
Posted by David Hardy · 19 May 2007 11:21 AMMichelle Malkin reports how a mentally-prepared 11 year old girl cleaned a kidnapper's clock. I bet that guy is going to have a fun time in prison, between being charged with crimes against little kids, and having had an 80 pound girl get the better of him. After breaking his hold, she rang all the doorbells in her building, and the neighbors mustered to cut off all escape routes, chase him down, and open a big can of whupass on him.
Reminds me of a case here in Tucson, at the other end of the age scale. A guy broke into a convent, came into the kitchen, exposed himself to a nun and approached. Bad choice. The Old Nuns were tougher than nails. She grabbed him by the exposed appendage and yanked (she later told police that she figured if she had a grip on it, he wouldn't be doing much with it). He screamed and knocked her down, but she kept her hold. The rest of the nuns rushed in, seized the big cast iron skillets, and began pounding him over the head. He is shrieking in agony, being near-emasculated and beaten into a bloody heap at the same time. The police reported that he surrendered without resistance.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Article on Va Tech and fighting back
Posted by David Hardy · 12 May 2007 03:49 PMBillie Louden has it in the Denver Post.
"When I later learned he was armed with only two handguns, disbelief washed over me. It was later revealed he fired 190 rounds in about seven minutes. Being in law enforcement as well as having been in the military, I know for a fact the shooter had to have spent a great deal of time reloading and exchanging magazines. I can only wonder what was going on during these necessary pauses.
I don't blame the victims for their own demise. I blame the non-confrontational attitude in America that may have stopped someone from fighting back. The basic human instinct of survival has been tamped down by the reemergence of the "Make love, not war" peacenik movement of the '60s, especially on our college campuses.Our kids are being taught to avoid conflict and try to reason with the unreasonable. A non-aggression mentality has been ingrained in them since gradeschool, where childhood games like dodge ball are deemed to harsh. In Littleton, some protested a statue of a heroic American soldier because he carried a gun. The thinking must be that if we deny to our children that guns exist, then guns will never hurt them.
I found it ironic that the one person who did try to block the Virginia Tech gunman's way was a professor who had survived the Holocaust, a man who, I am quite sure, had looked insanity in the eye before and survived. He understood that inaction meant death. This is also what must have finally occurred to the passengers on United Flight 93 on Sept. 11, 2001, when they chose to fight back. Even though they died, they died fighting and on their terms."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (8)
Another ruling that the government has no duty to protect
Posted by David Hardy · 10 May 2007 12:04 PMHudson v. Hudson, a recent 6th Circuit ruling. (pdf).
"First, we briefly recount the tragedy that led to this
lawsuit. Jennifer Braddock was issued three protective orders against James Hudson, the father of
her son, because Hudson repeatedly abused Braddock. In August 2001, while the third protective
order was in effect, Hudson broke into Braddock’s home and threatened her. She called the
Memphis Police Department, but it made no attempt to find him. Hudson eventually was convicted
of aggravated criminal trespass, vandalism, and violating the protective order, and sentenced to one
week in jail. Over the next two years, Braddock called the police several times to complain about
various violations of the protective order, including acts of physical violence, but the Memphis
Police took no action. Braddock’s struggle against Hudson’s violence ended when Hudson broke
into her home, killed her and two of her friends, then turned the gun on himself and committed
suicide."
....."As a general principle, state actors cannot be held liable for private acts of violence under
a substantive due process theory. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S.
189, 196 (1989); see also Castle Rock, 545 U.S. at ___, 125 S. Ct. at 2810. We recognize two
exceptions to this rule: (1) when the state has a special relationship to the victim, and (2) when the
state creates the danger that led to the victim’s harm. Jones v. Union County, 296 F.3d 417, 428 (6th Cir. 2002). In Jones, the plaintiff claimed that Union County, Tennessee, violated her substantive
due process rights when it failed to serve a protective order on her ex-husband, who later attacked
her. We held that “the Tennessee Legislature’s imposition of affirmative duties upon state officials
to serve ex parte orders of protection timely does not give rise to a due process claim cognizable
under § 1983 based upon a special relationship between Union County and Plaintiff.” Id. Similarly,
we hold that a protection order does not create a special relationship between police officers and the
individual who petitioned for that order.Nor may the plaintiffs establish their claims under the state-created-danger theory. Under
this theory, a plaintiff must show “an affirmative act that creates or increases the risk, a special
danger to the victim as distinguished from the public at large, and the requisite degree of state
culpability.” McQueen v. Beecher Cmty. Schs., 433 F.3d 460, 464 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Kallstrom
v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055, 1066-67 (6th Cir. 1998)). These officers’ alleged inaction fails
to satisfy the “affirmative act” requirement."[Update in light of comments: the Court's treatment of due process falls into two categories. "Procedural" due process is what you'd normally think of as due process. A person got what process was due, a fair trial or procedure. "Substantive" due process is a strange bird, largely created to make the 14th amendment apply the Bill of Rights to the states. For example, if a state outlaws freedom of speech, it deprives a person of liberty without "due process" no matter how much process they give that person.]
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (12)
Kopel paper on self defense
Posted by David Hardy · 8 May 2007 09:41 AMDave Kopel has put online a pdf version of his forthcoming article, The Human Right of Self Defense. It's going to be in the BYU Journal of Public Law.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Youtube of CCW defender
Posted by David Hardy · 4 May 2007 06:53 PMHere's the security cam video. Nice soundtrack, too. Looks like the robber enters, goes to counter at extreme right, one motel clerk begins emptying the till for him. The guy on the laptop at left gets up, casually wanders over to help her, then draws and fires. The guy drops right outside the door. BTW, the comments say the camera angle is deceptive -- the lady with the kid wasn't actually standing right next to the armed robber while he was doing his thing, nor in the line of fire.
The CCW holder looks to have been a cool hand, up until he drew you'd swear he was just helping make sure the robber got his money -- reportedly, three shots and three hits.
[Update: the camera angle and setting may be deceiving, as has been reported -- the lady with the child may have been out of the way. As a pure legal-type, there might be some question around shooting him in the back. I'd hope that the police are like those around here, inclined to say "good shooting" rather than "let's ask for a legal opinion." And inclined to understand that once a gun battle begins, it doesn't stop because the other guy turns away. We can put all sorts of legal constructs on that -- "well, he could still have turned and resumed the fight" -- but the bottom line is that once a person begins a fight for his life at close range, it's too much to expect that in a tenth of a second they will judge "hey, he's turning way, I should cease fire under sundry provisions of state law." As the pragmatic judge Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, it is too much to expect distinterested contemplation in the presence of an uplifted knife (paraphrase, I forget his exact wording).]
9/11 and Va Tech: a failure of doctrine
Posted by David Hardy · 27 April 2007 01:32 PMMarc Danzinger has an article on the subject.
[Hat tip to Instapundit]
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
USC students swarm gunman
Posted by David Hardy · 25 April 2007 12:51 PMStory here. Drug dealing teen shows up for college party, makes threats, pulls gun, and is promptly taken down by the students there.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (6)
Pregnant mother shoots robber
Posted by David Hardy · 8 April 2007 06:49 PMHere's the story. (Via Instapundit).
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Oregon court rules no duty to retreat
Posted by David Hardy · 30 March 2007 11:53 AMThe Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that there is no duty to retreat under existing statutes.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Self defense against terrorist attack
Posted by David Hardy · 7 March 2007 05:33 PMA report from South Africa, where an armed churchgoer halted the St. James Massacre. Pretty gutsy fellow -- had only a snub-nose and so had to creep up on them. He's authored a book on self-defense, available on the page.
Hat tip to Dan Gifford...
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Article on "stand your ground" laws
Posted by David Hardy · 28 February 2007 08:17 AMJohn Longenecker has it here.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Off duty officer shoots robber in DC
Posted by David Hardy · 19 February 2007 09:58 AMAn armed, off duty DC officer shoots a street robber. Good for him. But we have to reflect that, if he hadn't been an off-duty officer, he'd have been in handcuffs and jail before the robber was.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Crook watches the wrong person
Posted by David Hardy · 7 February 2007 08:04 PMFrom the (South Carolina) State comes the story... robber accosts a couple getting into their car, pushing a gun at the man and demanding the car keys.
His lady companion whips a pistol out of the glove compartment and lets drive. Not the best marksmanship, but it was under pressure, and she pots the robber in the posterior.
He's arrested at the hospital, and turns out he's wanted in ten other armed robberies, and a car theft. (He also had priors for burglary, assault, and drug distribution).
I know a lady who hired out as bodyguard. She would advise a client who was particularly needful of protection to retain also a standard bodyguard, some young fellow with a burr haircut who walked with a military stance and looked very alert. Then she'd tag along behind. If anybody tried anything, they'd focus on the male bodyguard, and probably ignore the older woman trailing along behind them in a big frumpy hat and looking unconcerned. And not realize they'd turned their back on someone who had a .357 in her purse, knew how to use it, and had taken 2nd place in women's pugil stick competition at the Soldier of Fortune competition.
Continue reading "Crook watches the wrong person"
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
Castle doctrine proposed in Minnesota
Posted by David Hardy · 1 February 2007 09:33 AMThe Pioneer Press has the story.
"Opponents say the measure has nothing to do with self-defense.
"The law is about posturing. It was written by people who want to make it look like they are tough on criminals," said Zach Ragbourn, spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence."
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Kicking *** and taking numbers
Posted by David Hardy · 21 January 2007 07:05 PMFive antigun types criticize Prof. Reynolds' NY Times piece on laws mandating gun ownership, and he fires back.
Continue reading "Kicking *** and taking numbers"
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Mary Katherine Ham on gun defense
Posted by David Hardy · 16 January 2007 04:23 PMMary Katherine Ham has a detailed post on gun self-defense, over at Michelle Malkin's blog. (Via the Bitchgirls).
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Federal self defense bill
Posted by David Hardy · 15 January 2007 11:49 AMRep. Bartlett, of Maryland, has introduced HR 73. I'll paste its text in extended remarks below. It doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting out of Judiciary Committee, but the effort is praiseworthy.
Continue reading "Federal self defense bill"
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (5)
Psychology of self defense
Posted by David Hardy · 14 January 2007 08:43 AMDr. Helen has thoughts on self-defense from a psychological standpoint.
"Have you noticed that most of the tips you get in recent years for how to survive a violent crime involve an accompanying psychological maneuver of first trying to make you feel impotent? And instead of suggesting remedies to overcome this impotence, these survival tips usually just tell you to give the criminal what they want."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Former Demo candidate uses assault rifle
Posted by David Hardy · 11 January 2007 03:49 PMFormer Democratic congressional candidate Paul Hackett used an AR-15 to hold three men after their car crashed into his fence. There's a bit of an investigation since this would be threat of deadly force to apprehend people who'd committed misdemeanors.
Amusingly, the Huffington Post carries the story favorably, as "Fmr. Political Candidate Hackett Subdues Three Men With Assault Rifle: "I Had Done This About 200 Times In Iraq"."
It's amusing, since the Huffington Post's regular columnists include Paul Helmke, head of the Brady Center, and Josh Sugarman, head of Violence Policy Center, which should tell you their general orientation as to "assault rifles" and use of force by civilians.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (6)
Home robbers face risks in New Mexico
Posted by David Hardy · 1 January 2007 11:28 AMAlburquerque homeowners accounted for three dead housebreakers last month. Story here.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Good try by unarmed university police officer
Posted by David Hardy · 25 December 2006 10:48 AMAn Iowa court rejects an argument, by a university policeman forbidden to carry firearms on the job, that the restriction creates an unsafe workplace. (pdf file)
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Shooter saves officer in LA
Posted by David Hardy · 24 December 2006 01:48 PMHere's the story. It sounds complicated. Officer pulls over a Mercedes that cut into a funeral process, guy tries to bribe him. When officer tries to arrest him, the guy decks the officer and is on top of him, beating away. The officer is crying for help and says the guy was grappling for his gun. Citizen pops the guy.
Gotta say, there has to be more to the story. Young guy, driving a Mercedes, with over $3000 cash in his pockets, tells the officer to look at what he's driving, writing him a ticket is a waste of time, call your boss, tries to bribe him, then refuses to be arrested and tries to call his parents.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
Swordsman holds off home invader
Posted by David Hardy · 9 December 2006 10:08 AMIn Memphis, a home invasion robbery ends when one of the victims draws a sword and lops off the attacker's trigger finger. He'd been beaten unconscious, but awakened, found the sword (apparently used for yard work, altho one might suspect since it was under the couch, doubling as a home defense tool), and slashed away.
There was no difficulty identifying the robber, since police just fingerprinted the finger. He served eight years for home robberies, only being released from prison last year.
I suppose now we'll have to say "never bring a blade to a gunfight -- unless you can nail the other guy's trigger finger with the first slash."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
Medieval English law on self-defense
Posted by David Hardy · 5 December 2006 02:48 PMJust finished reading Thomas A. Green, The Jury and the English Law of Homicide, 1200-1600, 74 Mich. Law Rev. 413 (1976). Several interesting aspects.
As the period starts out, self-defense isn't much of a defense. The defender must prove that he did *everything* to avoid use of deadly force, and that it was an absolute necessity. At that, he would still be convicted, but upon the jury's recommendation, the judge would forward a request for pardon, and kings rubber-stamped them. The defender's property was still forfeited to the Crown, and he sat in jail until the pardon came back. Further, all intentional killings were the equivalent of first-degree murder. There was no second-degree, and no manslaughter (that didn't come in until Tudor times).
Juries, however, dealt with the problem. If a fellow was a decent citizen, they'd just acquit, no matter what the facts were. The court records suggest that England must have been full of hedges, unclimbable ditches, and walls, because jurors were constantly finding that self-defenders had retreated to one and been unable to escape. :Nearly every act of self-defense was said to have been undertaken by a cornered defendant: ditches, walls, and hedges had constrained the fleeing defendants at every turn. Moreover, all juries, when questioned by the incredulous bench, tenaciously repeated these assertions." 14th century records show findings of self-defense in over 50% of some sets of trials. One case involved an attacker who hit the defender with a bow, and when it broke, continued to hit him with one of the broken staves. The judge questioned the jury as to how the defender could have thought he was going to be beaten to death with that, but the jury stood by its findings. (Remember that without manslaughter, the jury's choice was find self defense or send the fellow to the gallows).
There was also at this period no doctrine for use of force to defend a third person, but when that came up juries just found that the defender was really defending himself.
(We also have to read this against the background that at common law there was a general privilege to use force to prevent a felony, so self-defense was only argued when the aggressor was not trying to commit robbery, rape, burglary, etc.).
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Insight from Canada
Posted by David Hardy · 21 November 2006 08:57 AMEnterStageRight has it.
"Security of the person is non-negotiable. It is the prime given. It is the excuse government uses for nearly all its other actions. The thing about security of the person is that it is ultimately not something that can be delegated. Anyone who demands under any circumstances that a person delegate that authority 100% by disarming whether voluntarily or under duress is either running a protection racket or planning something very, very bad. Maybe even Pol Pot bad."
An interesting adaptation of Hobbes, who, nearly four centuries ago, originated the concept of "inalienable rights." Hobbes argued that men instituted government for group protection, to end the state of nature where every person had to protect themselves (and were in turn free to attack and rob others, subject only to the risk that the person might defend and kill them). His Levithan managed to annoy almost everyone. Royalists were angered that he found the source of sovereignty in popular will rather than divine right. Republicans were angered that he considered the delegation of power to the government (in his time, most likely a king) irrevokable.
Hobbes considered that the people might give up just about any right (starting with the "right" to victimize others by crime) EXCEPT self-defense. Why? Because they had empowered the government precisely to protect them and make self-defense unnecessary. Anytime it was necessary, the government had failed in its central purpose. The one right remaining, of protection, could not be bargained away, because it was the only thing the subject had received in exchange for making the deal. Thus a subject could not alienate, voluntarily bargain away that right, no matter what the government offered in return and no matter how much he wanted to.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Favorable article on self defense
Posted by David Hardy · 20 November 2006 07:12 PMThe Memphis Commercial Appeal has an article favorable to self defense.
"People are scared, very scared," says Chris Fowler, 56, who co-owns Top Brass Sports. "And I understand."
He understands because he sees the looks on their faces.
When Vietnamese immigrants were being victimized in Parkway Village, many came to Top Brass for training -- so many, in fact, that Fowler brought in a Baptist missionary to serve as an interpreter.
"I've had Arabs, Pakistanis, Hispanics, and they're all U.S. citizens," Fowler says. "These people have stores, businesses. They've been robbed and they don't want to break the law."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
More on Knoxville self defense
Posted by David Hardy · 20 November 2006 04:15 PMLast week, I posted on the story of a Knoxville county commissioner who got the drop on an armed robber -- who foolishly tried to stick up a guy wearing a "Friends of the NRA" cap.
Instapundit is reporting that the robber he stopped is being charged with murder, for having killed a Walgreens truck driver in the course of an attempted car-jacking. More here and here.
UPDATE: this is grand. Instapundit reports that the local alternative paper ran an editorial attacking the commissioner -- he'd once offered a firearm with every vehicle he sold, was now engaged in "showboating," had now "shown himself to be a danger to himself and others" and a "National Rifle Association wetdream." "The whole scenario is somehow suspect ... The grand jury could put Lambert under oath to get his story straight and decide whether and what crimes may have been committed."
And the article appears just in time for the guy he defended against to be charged as a murderer. Oh, yes, payback is a cast-iron ***** at times.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
More self defense in Knoxville
Posted by David Hardy · 16 November 2006 08:07 AMInstapundit reports another "there are parts of Knoxville that I'd not advise you to invade" moment. In this one, a state senator holds four would-be burglars at gunpoint. Three were juveniles, and the senator gave them cookies to eat while waiting for police.
UPDATE: thanks, link corrected.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
TV station offers quick "refresher" on self defense
Posted by David Hardy · 13 November 2006 06:32 PMHow many errors can you count?
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (8)
Knoxville stickup ends rather suddenly
Posted by David Hardy · 13 November 2006 08:13 AMA fellow tries to stick up a county commissioner in Knoxville, and finds the pol gets the drop on him.
Via Instadpundit, who remarks "There are some areas of Knoxville that I would not advise you to invade."
UPDATE: the robber might have gotten a clue as to what he was up against from the fact that the intended victim was wearing a "Friends of the NRA" cap.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Constitutional right to self-defense
Posted by David Hardy · 7 November 2006 12:56 PMAt the Volokh Conspiracy, Prof. Volokh has a discussion of use of lethal force in self-defense as a constitutional right.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Self defense in Seattle
Posted by David Hardy · 30 October 2006 05:33 PMClayton Cramer has a post on a case in Seattle. Basically, a guy classed as a mentally ill criminal offender (he'd tried to burn down a day care), and was self-medicating with crack cocaine (generally not considered therapeutic for mental disease) attacked a fellow and was shot.
The attacker's uncle has written an article, basically blaming the person on the receiving end for carrying a firearm and not running away or fighting with fists (as Clayton points out, he'd been knocked to the ground in the first assault). "There is no doubt that Danny acted erratically that day, but he did have a diagnosed mental illness. I am certain he would admit that what he did was wrong, if he were alive, but he was taken from us by a misguided man with a gun."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
If a criminal carries a gun, the victim will just take it away
Posted by David Hardy · 30 October 2006 10:32 AMI've mentioned before that the belief that "if a person uses a gun in self-defense, the criminal will just take it away and use it on him" seems to be pure urban legend. I have yet to encounter a case where that happened. On the other hand, victims from time to time do disarm gun-using criminals. I've noted cases of that here and here and here.
Now from Memphis comes another case: "Frayser woman takes intruder's gun, kills him."
My guess as to why defenders are so successful, and attackers not: defenders actually have a motive to try that dangerous tactic (here, she was a mother with two kids whose apartment had been invaded), and offenders are often impaired by alcohol or drugs, and also distracted. The defender is thinking only of defense or escape, the attacker is concerned with controlling them, looting the scene, and keeping an eye out for police.
[Hat tip to Don Kates].
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Self defense, proportionality & gap between law and popular views
Posted by David Hardy · 26 October 2006 09:06 AMEarlier this month, I posted an entry on Prof. Renee Lettow Lerner's presentation at the George Mason Univ. conference. One of her themes had been that there is a considerable gap between legal standards (created by the legal elite portion of society) and popular feelings on self defense. The legal standard keys on proportionality: generally, one may use deadly force only to defend against deadly force, not to defend against non-deadly attack, property crimes, burglary, etc. as such. The popular view is more like -- shooting burglars is a public good, and if someone advances on you, unarmed, but with violent intent, despite warning that you are armed, well, he's going down and you're in the right. There's no moral equivalance between his life and yours (the core assumption of proportionality) if you're a defender and he's an intruder, burglar, or serious aggressor.
Just had a couple of illustrations of this. Earlier today I posted on the Massachusetts gubernatorial debates, where the candidates were rivalling each other in support for a Castle Doctrine law, presumably because ALL candidates knew the voters wanted it -- in *Massachusetts*, no less.
Now comes this story from Cincinnatti. In one case a thief physically attacks a convenience store owner, who shoots him as he flees. In the other, a man shoots a car thief. Neither would come close to meeting a proportionality test -- no reason to fear serious bodily harm at the time the shot was fired. But a former prosecutor tells the reporter:
"If either one of these two individuals is charged, I think the state may have a difficult time possibly getting a conviction because I think people in this community are fed up with crime and I think there would be some sympathy for the defendants in these cases. It might be a difficult case to get a conviction on."
Article on arming teachers
Posted by David Hardy · 25 October 2006 03:19 PMInteresting article at the Mises Institute. "So there we have it: the government that is supposed to protect people ends up only recommending a gauzy "environment" in which everyone is supposed to feel special and listened to. Instead of protection, we get therapy."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
School ends "attack the attacker" training
Posted by David Hardy · 25 October 2006 01:13 PMAubrey Turner reports that the instructor who was teaching kids to attack and resist a school shooter has been reassigned, and the school has notified all parents that they do not endorse his approach. "I should have known that a school district with the spine to teach children to resist an attack was too good to be true."
Via The Bitchgirls.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
They're tough in Hugo, OK
Posted by David Hardy · 21 October 2006 09:09 AMStation KXII reports that a fellow tried to rob a liquor store with a .45, and the result:
"The clerk pulled out a .38 revolver and shot the suspect one time in the upper torso. When that did not encourage the suspect to put down his gun, the clerk grabbed a shotgun and shot the suspect one time. The man, identified as 50-year-old Guy Wade Buck, walked outside the store where two Hugo police officers were standing."
[Hat tip to Dan Gifford. Don Kates, responded, BTW, that self-defense stories are usually carried by the local media, and ignored by all others.]
CCW instructor offers free training to teachers
Posted by David Hardy · 15 October 2006 12:17 PMA Utah CCW instructor is giving free courses to teachers.
"The concealed-weapons instructor's offer was met with opposition from some teachers and union representatives at the Utah Education Association's conference in Salt Lake City.
"We've always resisted the idea of arming school employees," said Susan Kuziak, executive director of the 18,000-member teachers union. "Though the intentions may be good, ultimately, the potential for harm is too great.""Well, I suppose they knew their members better than I do. Although I might be a bit reluctant to have my kids taught by someone I can't trust not to start shooting at them.
(I was taught by the Old Nuns. 5 foot high women who'd taught 4th grade boys for decades. They didn't need guns. If anyone had tried to attack their classroom, they'd just have torn off his arm, beaten him to death with it, and then asked Mary to make sure St. Peter repeated the thrashing when the battered miscreant arrived. They made Marine DOs look like Kumbaya-singing wussies. No way you could stop one with a conventional weapon).
Ruling: 911 cannot be sued for failure to protect
Posted by David Hardy · 12 October 2006 04:13 PMA Camden, NJ court has ruled (as all or almost all courts have) that the 911 service cannot be sued for failure to respond to a call. The family of a kidnap/murder victim sued, over failure of 911 and police to respond to a call from a witness of the kidnapping.
Here's some detail:
"According to investigators, the caller telephoned police from his car in the PATCO lot to say that he saw a woman struggling with two men. The caller, whom police would not identify, said a woman was screaming as she was being dragged into a car. The man followed the abductors' car through the parking lot and then lost sight of it, investigators said. All the while he was on the phone with police dispatch, they said.
The dispatcher dismissed the incident as a domestic dispute and never relayed the information to patrol officers, according to investigators."Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Self defense cases
Posted by David Hardy · 2 October 2006 09:56 AMClayton Cramer assesses a case where self defense was argued, but lost. Interesting perspectives from each side.
As far as the outcome ... well, as trial attorneys will tell you, *anything* can happen in a court of law. I've lost cases I knew should have won, and won cases that should have been lost (did that last week, in fact), for no reason I could ever figure out.
Video on self defense
Posted by David Hardy · 10 September 2006 06:21 PMJust finished watching a DVD, "Deadly Force," available here. It's essentially a training film on when you can use deadly force. Several re-enactments, with commentary on whether it would be proper or not. Input from a retired deputy on what he looked for when he showed up at a probable self-defense case, and from a retired county attorney on what he looked for when deciding whether to prosecute.
It won't win an Academy Award, but this is a film you watch for content and education. Chuckle -- the deputy actually had investigated a case where a shopowner shot a burglar outside, far outside his premises, and dragged the body back in, put it in front of the cash register, and claimed it was a robbery. Of course there were drag marks all over, and the burglar had been shot in the back, so the guy wound up pleading to manslaughter. As he pointed out, once you find out the crime scene has been re-arranged, you naturally start to doubt everything the person said.
I liked the practical point: if you're cold and shakey, you may have grounds to use deadly force. If you're hot with rage, you probably don't.
It also has interviews with long-term criminals. Their story matches what one guy, who knew some burglars, told me. It makes burglars avoid houses where someone is home -- way too dangerous. In the US, burglars tend to go in only if they're sure nobody is there. One says that he gave up residential burglary after he got shot at -- from then on, he only did businesses at night. I like the burglar who suggested that homeowners should warn the burglar they have a gun, and give him a chance to flee, before snuffing him. He had a friend who was shot by surprise by a homeowner, and he seems to feel that was unsporting.
Self defense cases
Posted by David Hardy · 9 September 2006 09:13 AMInstapundit notes a couple of amusing self defense cases. In one, a nurse manages to strangle an intruder; in the other, a wheel-chair bound granny who has a CCW permit pops a mugger.
Self defense & English antisemitism
Posted by David Hardy · 2 September 2006 10:45 PMWas just reading Geo. McDonald Frazier's Black Ajax, one of his few serious works (his Flashman series is the funniest stuff I have ever read, and I mean that. If you haven't read them, start with The Flashman Papers. "Can a man who fights lies, cheats, steals, fights fixed duels, seduces his father's mistress, and betrays his country on the battlefield ... be all bad?"
His novels are based upon some pretty solid historical research. Black Ajax is a novel about an American ex-slave who went to Britain and tried for the boxing championship, toward the end of the Napoleanic Wars, when bare knuckle fighting was the obsession of the nobiity and, indeed, just about everyon, right up to the prince regent (de facto king, George III being insane).
One brutal sport it was ... you fought until one man or the other could not stand -- the ex-slave kept in his second championship fight with a broken jaw and two broken ribs -- his opponent, the champion Tom Cribb, had his eyes swollen shut so that his seconds had to lance them, and drain the blood so he could see.
The novel points out at one point that Jews were unsafe on the streets -- a dog would not be used as they were (I think one of Dave Kopel's writings picked up on this).
Then a Spanish Jew, Mendoza, became a major boxing figure, and set up a school. London's jews decided to join the fad and studied under him. (One of his invention was Mendoza's Chop ... when the other guy swings a right at you, instead of blocking it with your left, you use your right fist to hammer his forearm and drive it away. Two or three of those and the other guy's right becomes very weak).
As a result, in a matter of a few years, London's jews were treated quite politely. An antisemite had to worry whether the fellow he meant to harrass had spent a few months with Mendoza, and was well suited to hammering the stuffing out of him.
Rather like CCW permits in that regard.... only a minority of the population has them, but who's to say whether this intended victim is part of it?
[Update in light of comments] The book suggests, and I've heard elsewhere, that boxing was highly developed at the time. There was one fellow who stand with one foot on a handkerchief, and bet that you couldn't hit him (I assume there was some limit, like you had to aim for the head or upper torso), use both hands, keep going till you give up, and he almost always won the bet. He was simply too fast.
That's not to say it wasn't brutal. As I noted, fights kept going until one man couldn't stand up. Some wrestling throws were allowed. If one got the other in a headlock, he was entitled to keep pounding him; referees didn't break it up. No gloves to protect body, or hands, and special measures (such as soaking the hands in brine) to try to toughen them up. ]
Crime Strike TV
Posted by David Hardy · 2 September 2006 06:12 PMVia Instapundit and Dr. Helen, comes the link for this new TV series on self-defense cases. (Hosted by NRA, in case you're wondering why the mass media would do something like that).
Dave & Susan Caplan on common law self defense
Posted by David Hardy · 28 August 2006 01:54 PMI was reviewing an article by the late David Caplan and his wife, Susan Wimmershoff-Caplan, Postmodernism and the Model Penal Code, 73 UMKC Law Rev. 1080 (2005). Pretty interesting in that it shows, by citation to English cases from 1330 onward, that the common law version of the castle doctrine was simple. You could kill a person who broke into your house to steal, period. The 1330 case specifically recognized that this was so even if it was not in necessary self-defense. It was regarded as a good deed that benefitted the entire community. (In one early case, cited in Coke's Commentaries, the defender killed a burglar and the court said "he would receive from the law nothing but good.") If he was no menace, if he was fleeing -- who cares? He was a burglar, prove that and you walk.
This underscore a point Don Kates has made. Self-defense law, with its restrictions (including retreat in a minority of US jurisdictions) evolved against a background where thieves and other felons could be killed out of hand, so it never came to a matter of pleading self defense. Self defense only came into play when two people, with no other criminal intent, got into a fight. There it made sense to have restrictions such as retreat. (At earliest common law, self defense wasn't even a defense, it was just good grounds to apply for a pardon. Even that didn't stop forfeiture of your goods. Later it did apply to forfeiture, and pardon became routine -- the court made the finding and sent notice to the monarch, and the monarch sent back a pardon.)
Only when the courts and legislatures moved away from "open season on burglars" were the requirements of self defense made applicable to use of force against persons committing a felony. I suspect that, like many legal evolutions, it happened so slowly that no one realized it.
[UPDATE in light of comments: I haven't been able to find the article anywhere on line. David is dead and I don't know if Susan does much on the internet. What the Latin means, I cannot figure out. My days of Latin are around 35 years ago, and that sentence is a little too involved for me. Tucker didn't worry about it, since in his day knowing two classical languages was an entry requirement for most colleges. I read somewhere that, at the seige of Yorktown, many American and French officers conversed in Latin. With the English-French conflicts, learning the enemy language had not been important to them, but everyone who'd gone to a college knew Latin.]
No retreat law proposed in PA
Posted by David Hardy · 17 August 2006 07:21 AMA no retreat law is being proposed in PA, according to this article. If the reporter has it right, it sounds a bit strange... only applicable to CCW permit holders.
On the other hand, it may be no stranger than the existing law. I was about to post on it yesterday when my browser crashed and I lost the link--as I remember it, the existing PA law covers self-defense in two sections, one relating to defense of self or others, the other to defense of property, and there is no retreat provision in the defense of property section, but none in the defense of self or others one!
Self defense with a sword
Posted by David Hardy · 16 August 2006 03:40 PMFrom Kim du Toit: a Minneapolis man drives off burglars with some swordplay.
NY Times on castle doctrine laws
Posted by David Hardy · 7 August 2006 12:00 PMThe NY Times has run an article on the castle doctrine laws. Of course, it's mostly a hit piece. Don Kates' detailed response is in the "read more" section below.
Continue reading "NY Times on castle doctrine laws"
Self-defense with a muzzle-loader
Posted by David Hardy · 24 July 2006 04:37 PMPermalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
No retreat laws
Posted by David Hardy · 21 July 2006 10:51 PMI dunno. In southern Arizona at least, the cops might just say "Great job on icing that burglar.".
Some years ago a prosecutor told me he'd gone to the county attorney and asked why they were bothering to prosecute homeowners who had back-shot fleeing burglars. The county attorney responded -- because that's illegal. The prosecutor replied: we've just had three cases of that, back to back, with clear facts, and jury acquittals. If no jury in this county will convict for an act, that act is legal, for all practical purposes. So far as the jury pool is convinced, the real law is open season on burglars, no bag limit. His experience, by that way, was that an appreciable part of any jury pool has been victims of theft in one way or another (we're within 60 miles of the border -- a stolen car can be over the border before you come out of a movie or shopping mall -- so Lord help the thief when it comes to a jury trial. Anytime a thief vs. homeowner case somes to a jury, count on it, there are going to be some angry homeowners on the jury, and no indignant burglars.
Understand, it's legal here to have a holstered gun in a glove compartment, unlocked and loaded. I used to do that. I'm a reasonably careful driver, but in the last 15 years, have twice been stopped for moving violations. Being polite, I pointed out that I had a .45 in the glove compartment with the registration, and would the officer like to hold it? In one case, the officer then engaged me in a long conversation about whether he should buy a Colt 1911 clone, or spend an extra hundred dollars getting a real Colt? I suggested that my Charles Daly clone was utterly reliable and quite accurate. in the other, the officer suggested that I should get a CCW permit, they were very easy to get, and then I could take it with me concealed anywhere. We were fellow gunnies, he just had to write a ticket because I was a little too fast, now let's get down to the important thing, talking about guns.
Life in southern Arizona is good. I heard of one case where the homeowner caught the burglar, stuck a revolver about an inch, and began demanding why he shouldn't shoot him then and there. Then, as the officers arrived, he pistol whipped him a few times and said he'd kill him if he ever saw him again. The homeowner was the late Judge Meehan, if that gives you any idea of local justice.
Criminal brings knife to a gunfight
Posted by David Hardy · 21 July 2006 06:24 PMA ^#^&#(* stabs eight people, then finds someone in a mood to resist
"The attacker, chasing one victim into the store's parking lot, was subdued by Chris Cope, manager of a financial services office in the same small shopping center, Higgins said.
Cope said he grabbed a 9mm semiautomatic pistol from his pickup truck when he saw the attacker chasing the victim "like something in a serial killer movie."
"When he turned around and saw my pistol, he threw the knife away, put his hands up and got on the ground," Cope told The Associated Press. "He saw my gun and that was pretty much it."".
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (5)
CCW permit holder shoots in self defense
Posted by David Hardy · 16 July 2006 06:59 PMIn, appropriately enough, Williamsburg VA, a CCW permittee drops two bad guys.
Again, illustrative of the restraint of most such holders. He's grabbed, beaten, and robbed, but didn't fire until, as they were departing, one of them drew a gun. If anything, reports of self-defense I'm seeing suggest that the defender was too restrained.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Are castle doctrine laws retroactive?
Posted by David Hardy · 11 July 2006 01:58 PMThe Arizona Supreme Court is set to consider whether the recent castle doctrine law is retroactive -- i.e., does it apply to conduct that occurred before its effective date, but which came to trial after it.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
San Fran victim turns tables on robber
Posted by David Hardy · 29 June 2006 10:17 AMVia Don Kates -- the San Francisco Chronicle reports that three robbers accosted a victim in the Tenderloin district, whereupon he shot and wounded them, and skedaddled. One of the robbers went to the police, whereupon they were all arrested.
A police inspector says ""It's rare to have a victim be armed and use the weapon successfully on all three perpetrators,'' Peterson said. "We would like to talk to that victim to hear the rest of the story.''"
Of course (1) the robbery victim doesn't want to talk to police -- since only a few high level politicians, such as Diane Feinstein, can get gun permits in SF, he'd be certain to be arrested after telling the "rest of the story." (2) the fact that the robber thought it was a good idea to go the police, presumably to protest at having been shot by his victim, tells you a lot.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
So much for the government will protect you
Posted by David Hardy · 22 June 2006 11:35 AMSometimes, it can't even protect itself.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
But if you use scissors or beer, the robber will just take them away
Posted by David Hardy · 14 June 2006 05:59 PMUSA Today reports on a shopowner who drove off and pursued a robber with a pair of scissors.
"The only thing I did wrong was run with a pair of scissors."Here's another shopowner, who drove off a robber by wielding a can of beer.
(I guess some armed robbers are wussies if there is resistance... skedaddling from the sight of an upraised beer can?)
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Self defender wins legal fees under a nifty statute
Posted by David Hardy · 7 June 2006 06:46 PMVia Arbitrary and Capricious (which posts the statute): A story in The Olmypian:
Defendant was a serviceman charged with assault with a firearm; defense was that he had drawn it to ward off an angry group menacing him and his girlfriend. Jury found for him. Now the State finds itself liable for his legal fees, perhaps $25,000, under a Washington state law providing that "When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense..."
The article fills in some details. He and a friend and their girlfriends were accosted by a group of seven. The group threatened them. His friend had the gun, but dropped it and there was a scuffle and he came up with it, and warned them to back off. Prosecutor said they went with it because he hit one of the group with the handgun. The jury foreman noted they presented no evidence of this. One of the prosecution witnesses said he was so drunk he couldn't recall much of the event.
A nifty statute, although as one attorney points out, since the State rather than the county pays, it's not much deterrent to a county prosecutor.
Hat tip to refugee(at sign)ricketyclick.com, and Ricketyclick Blog
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
AZ ruling on statutory immunity to suit
Posted by David Hardy · 3 June 2006 11:52 AMThe Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled in Sonoran Investigations v. Hernandez.
Decedent Hernandez was caught shoplifting by security guards, who used a choke hold on him, which allegedly killed him. His estated sued for wrongful death/overuse of force. Defendants plead a statute which absolves a person of liability for negligent or grossly negligent harm to a person who was committing a property misdemeanor.
The Court of Appeals found the statute unconstitutional under a provision of the state constitution that states: “The defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall, at all times, be left to the jury.” It cites an early state supreme court ruling striking down a statute that immunized tavern owners against liability for harm caused to patrons by reason of their intoxication, the Supreme Court concluding that that immunity was a roundabout way of creating a contributor negligence defense.
Continue reading "AZ ruling on statutory immunity to suit"
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Wrapup of Castle Doctrine enactments
Posted by David Hardy · 26 May 2006 11:05 AMThe Star-Telegraph has an wrapup of the trend.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Self-defender charged with gun violation
Posted by David Hardy · 28 April 2006 07:50 PMHere's an article on a homeowner who used a handgun to stop a burglar, and wound up charged with gun law violations. The article isn't the clearest, but seems to indicate an Ill. representative has introduced a bill to prevent gun law prosecutions arising out of self-defense use.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Closer look at AZ "Castle Doctrine" bill
Posted by David Hardy · 27 April 2006 04:02 PMA conversation with friend and reader Bill Bailey prompted a closer look at Arizona's SB 1145, as passed by the House and signed recently by the Governor. It has five major thrusts:
(1) Previously, "justification" defenses, including self-defense, were affirmative defenses. The defendant (or self-defender) had to prove them by a preponderence of the evidence (i.e., proof of "more likely true than not). Under SB 1145, if the defense presents "evidence" (quantum undefined) of justification, the prosecution must disprove justification to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. This change is not limited to defense of home or car, but applies anywhere.
(2) No duty to retreat before using force to prevent certain serious offenses, including aggravated assault. Again, this applies anywhere, any place a person has a right to be, in the language of the law.
(3) A person is presumed to be justified in using force or deadly force if he/she reasonably believes they are another are in imminent peril and the attacker has entered or is trying to enter a residence or occupied auto. Again, no duty to retreat. (I don't think this changes the law any, since if a person reasonably believes themselves in imminent peril they are justified in using deadly force whether in a house or anywhere else).
(4) A person is generally presumed to be justified in use of force if the attacker has unlawfully forced his way into residence or car or is trying to do so (with certain exceptions, such as if the person forcing in had a legal right to be in there). I wonder how this interacts with (1) above... if the prosecution is always required to disprove justification anyway, what is the additional effect of saying that in certain cases justification is presumed? I can think of two possibilities: (1) under the first, the defense must put up some "evidence" before the burden shifts to the prosecution, so perhaps this presumption substitutes for the evidence. If the defender proves a home invasion, the prosecution immediately assumes the burden of disproving justification. If home invasion is shown by the prosecution's own case, it had better disprove need for use of force before it rests, or it may lose on a directed verdict before defendant has to put on his/her case. (2) It's always nice to have two favorable jury instructions rather than one. Oh, perhaps (3) the shifting of the burden only functions at trial, so perhaps this presumption would function to prevent a finding of probable cause, and thus arrest, in a home invasion absent evidence that use of force was not justified.
(5) If the aggressor is foolish enough to sue, and the defender wins, the defender recovers attorney fees and lost income (presumably, lost while at the courthouse). This not limited to the home invasion situation. Good idea, but I think the legislature slipped up. It applies to any justification "under this chapter." This chapter is ch. 4 of TItle 13, ARS. That includes all justifications, including necessity (no way to obey law without greating greater social or individual harm, not applicable to causing serious injury or death) and duress (being forced into it, with the same limit). The good news for LEOs is that Chapter 4 also covers use of force in law enforcement.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
At least the burglar was not the excitable type...
Posted by David Hardy · 20 April 2006 04:20 PMAfter an 85 year old man shot an intruder, "Deputies went to Clark's home on Mack Pete Road and found him asleep with two gunshot wounds to his back...."
I'm rather stoic myself, but if I'd been shot twice I'd probably have trouble getting to sleep. On the other hand, there is just a tiny chance that ethanol/morphiates/etc. played a role.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
More "the government will protect you" reports
Posted by David Hardy · 18 April 2006 03:16 PMIn Michigan, suit is filed over a 911 operator's treating a child's report as a prank, and the article mentions another suit where a woman, seriously injured by a gunshot, had the dispatcher treat her as a nut case. In the first case, a woman had collapsed of an apparent heart attack, and the dispatcher told her son "Now put her on the phone before I send the police out there to knock on the door and you gonna be in trouble."
In Chatanooga, US Today reports thousands of 911 calls a month go unanswered.
Another suit in Canada cites a woman who bled to death during a 31 minute delay in response to a stabbing.
And a girl discovers to her dismay that not all cell phone services support 911 calls.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Prof. Kleck
Posted by David Hardy · 18 April 2006 08:31 AMAn interesting column on Prof. Kleck and others, whose statistical work is affecting legislation.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Self-defense arrest in NYC
Posted by David Hardy · 17 April 2006 09:48 AMA pair of shop-owners who used a 9mm to ward off armed robbers have been charged with possession of an unlicensed gun.
Self-Defense legislation -- a proposal
Posted by David Hardy · 11 April 2006 02:33 PMI have a proposal for self-defense and "castle" legislation. The usual standard for self-defense is reasonably belief that the other person is going to do something (use deadly force, etc.). The key is the defender's belief and whether that was reasonable.
As a result, you generally can't introduce evidence that the use of force really WAS reasonable, unless the defender knew of that information when he/she acted. Say they shot a knife-wielder outside arm's reach. The defender cannot introduce evidence as to how fast a knife attack can be launched, unless they knew of the evidence at the time. Or in cases where there is much proof the attacker is dangerous -- he had convictions for violence, had seriously maimed others in the past, etc. -- again, not relevant unless the defender had learned of this prior to the defense.
Why not modify statutes so that the defense can be proven either by proof that use of force was justified OR that it was reasonably believed to be so? Self-defense is, after all, justified because no honest citizen should have to die at the hands of a thug -- why now allow proof that that was exactly the case? The reasonable belief standard was meant to give the defender leeway where they have to act quickly. Keep that, but also allow proof that the person snuffed genuinely was a social menace.
I suspect such a bill would have the backing of law enforcement, since LEOs also wind up using force and having to prove justification under the same statutory standards. The local prosecutor might gripe, but the cops would be all for it.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
The government will protect you
Posted by David Hardy · 7 April 2006 05:10 PMIn Detroit, a 6 yr old calls 911 to report his mother is unconscious. The dispatcher refuses to send anyone unless he puts an adult on line, and there is no adult. He calls again, and the dispatcher threatens him with trouble for a prank call. When police do arrive, 3 hours later, his mother is dead.
"Officials said the 911 operator will be disciplined, but because of her years of service she will not be fired." Nothing like civil service. Story here.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Never...
Posted by David Hardy · 31 March 2006 02:13 PMNever bring a bat to a gunfight.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Indiana "no retreat" law
Posted by David Hardy · 22 March 2006 08:41 AMIndiana's governor just signed a no retreat bill into law.
From the report, Indiana didn't have a retreat requirement to begin with. This does not stop the Brady Campaign spokesman from describing the bill as "horrible" and "a big mistake."
He goes on, "We shouldn't be encouraging people to use deadly force in public. That's why we have trained police officers."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
More on Cory Maye case
Posted by David Hardy · 21 March 2006 11:37 AMThe Agitator has details of an on-scene investigation. (via Instapundit). Maye is the fellow convicted of murder after police broke into the wrong apartment and he fired at them. This isn't the usual blogging -- he actually tracked down a juror, and another person who was on the receiving end of a flawed search. And found that the public defender was fired, apparently for having defended Maye better than the powers that be desired.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
AZ Senate passes "stand your ground" law
Posted by David Hardy · 11 March 2006 10:11 AMThe AZ Senate voted unanimously to pass SB 1145. The critical language establishes "no retreat" (AZ never had a retreat requirement, but the bill may serve to keep it from being imported thru the backdoor of "there was no reasonable need for force since it was as reasonable to retreat") and establishes a presumption of lawful use of force if the other person was forcibly entering a dwelling or vehicle.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Another one bites the dust
Posted by David Hardy · 6 March 2006 05:27 PM63 year old homeowner ends a burglar's career in Florida.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Jury awards self-defender $250,000
Posted by David Hardy · 6 March 2006 12:07 PMA Kansas jury has awarded a quarter of million to a person who shot in self-defense. The aggressor came at the defender with a knife, and the defender plugged him with a.357.
A criminal case had been filed against the defender, and that jury acquitted him, but the aggressor filed a civil suit. The defender filed a ballsy counterclaim for battery and trespass, and won big. The quarter-million is just for actual damages, pain and suffering and mental anguish -- the jury decided in favor of giving them, but apparently under state law the amount of punitives is tried separately. As one might guess, the story suggests that the aggressor POed the jury. [Hat tip to Dan Gifford]
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Another webpage on self-defender's conviction
Posted by David Hardy · 28 February 2006 01:19 PMBudd Schroeder sends a link to a webpage for Brent Parris.
[Update: as the comment notes, you have to be cautious judging a case from a webpage written by one side! I do try to find news stories that give additional details (altho there you have problems with the reporter's understanding or bias, but couldn't find any that shed additional light here.]
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Webpage on self-defense conviction
Posted by David Hardy · 27 February 2006 11:12 AMFrom Budd Schroeder comes a webpage on the Richard DiGuglielmo case, arguing that he was railroaded after he defended his father from attack.
More here. Apparently the prosecuting attorney is marketing a book on the case. Pretty tacky.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Lott's study of liberalizing CCW
Posted by David Hardy · 26 February 2006 04:15 PMJust came upon a mathematician's blog, with a commentary on criticism of John Lott's work in the field, together with his response in the comments.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
A psychiatrist looks at self-defense
Posted by David Hardy · 24 February 2006 12:42 PM"Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychatrist Examines the Anti-gun Mentality." The title says it all.
I liked the note about the person who wrote her that he was against guns, because if they had them, one of his neighbors might kill him. Her response: what is your basis for believing that your neighbors would kill you if they had the ability?
[Hat tip to Kirt McAlexander]
UPDATE: Here's Clayton Cramer's take on the article.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Don't worry, the government will protect you
Posted by David Hardy · 23 February 2006 05:52 PMA "glitch in the system" frees a prisoner, who then kills a pregnant woman, her husband, and another fellow. More here.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
DC police priorities
Posted by David Hardy · 8 February 2006 04:25 PM[Via The Parson's Fifth}:
The Georgetown Hoya reports that three students were mugged, and one shot, just off campus. This is in Washington DC, where gun ownership is largely outlawed (and until fairly recently, so was possession of Mace and pepper-spray).
The DC police response: “If our people weren’t taken away dealing with large parties and drinking all the time, we could have high-visibility patrols and try to deter some of serious problems that go on,” she said.
Great priorities, those. We can't do much about armed robberies and attempted murders because we're too busy dealing with disturbing the peace and underage drinking.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Another case of victims disarming a criminal
Posted by David Hardy · 8 February 2006 10:07 AMAnother case of victims disarming a robber. As I've noted before, I can't find any reports of a criminal taking a gun away from a defender, but cases where the defender disarms the criminal pop up with some frequency. The victim has but one concern -- defense -- whereas the robber has to multi-task, control the victim and witnesses, keep an eye out for police, and get the money. He's also frequently intoxicated, high on drugs, and none too intelligent.
Hat tip to Clayton Cramer, who's having some technical trouble with his gun self-defense blog...
Ah, he's got it working, and here's the link.
Continue reading "Another case of victims disarming a criminal"
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Super Bowl and self-defense
Posted by David Hardy · 31 January 2006 08:34 AMAn article on the planned Super Bowl in Detroit quotes a resident:
"City officials say Super Bowl visitors should not be intimidated by the statistics, saying downtown is relatively safe.
But that is small comfort in outlying neighborhoods.
Workman points to a bus stop at the corner where a young man was recently shot to death. She is disturbed by the comings and goings at a reputed drug house next door and by the hostile-looking youths who hang around outside the liquor store across the street.
She and her neighbors say they cannot count on police to help in this part of the city.
"You learn how to adapt and keep you a gun," Lauderdale said."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Speaking of "if I defend myself, the criminal will just take it away"...
Posted by David Hardy · 29 January 2006 09:45 PMI found a link to the sequence (animated GIF) on the security camera, where the robber manages to throw his gun onto the counter, and the victim grabs it. Link.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Messy case
Posted by David Hardy · 29 January 2006 06:45 PMA Florida homeowner has been acquitted of trying to kill a police officer.
The only good news is that the officer was wearing a bullet-resistant vest and got a bad bruise from the shot.
Beyond that, there's plenty of blame to go around. Officers heard a rock hit their car around 1 AM and went looking for the thrower. (Given what followed, it is reasonable to deduce that they were angry and not exactly thinking straight).
They climbed over the defendant's 7 foot fence and went poking in his backyard. One entered his screened porch (an imporant detail, I think). Others pounded on his door, awakening the homeowner. He'd been vandalized before. He went to the back where an officer had entered his screened porch. The officer pointed his flashlight in his eyes (standard tactic to ensure you can see and the other person cannot). Startled, he shot, and hit the officer on his vest. The prosecutor charged attempted murder of an LEO, and the jury found otherwise.
I can't say as I would encourage either (a) shooting thru a door when the most you know is someone is on your back porch at 1 AM and shining a flashlight into your eyes or (b) climbing over 7 foot fences into a stranger's backyard at 1 AM, pounding on his door, shining a flashlight into his eyes and expecting that your relationship is not going to go sour in a hurry.
I think the entry onto the porch may have been critical, since a porch with a door is part of the residence (special rules may apply where you have to enter the porch before you can knock or ring a doorbell). In this situation, the officer (or perhaps we could say unknown intruder) was thus in a place where he shouldn't have been, and (in legal theory, anyway) inside the residence. If he'd just been standing in the backyard, the jury's view might have been different.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
If a criminal uses a gun, the victim will just take it away...
Posted by David Hardy · 28 January 2006 06:50 PMWhen I interviewed Prof. Gary Kleck for the documentary, he observed that there is some manner of urban legend about people using firearms in self-defense, and having the criminal take the gun from them. He hadn't found a single case of this, and guessed that it might arise from cases of law enforcement being shot with their own gun -- since LEOs are often forced to grapple with a suspect, or escort them around, while their gun is holstered and thus available for a grab.
Clayton Cramer has just blogged a case where the victim took the gun from a robber. The robber stopped to rifle the victim's pockets, and the victim got the gun away.
The other day I saw a store security video, pretty funny, where the robber comes in and presents the gun in an overhand sweep, with the other hand coming up to make it a two-handed stance. He does it a bit too dramatically, and apparently gripped the gun too loosely, so the gun popped out of his hand and landed on the counter. The clerk moved quick and grabbed it, and the robber turned and ran for his life.
I'd suspect that "victim grabs gun" is a lot more frequent than "criminal gets gun away," since (1) a victim needs worry about taking on the criminal, while the criminal has to be concerned about retaining control, getting the loot, and watching over his shoulder for police and (2) the victim is rarely drunk, high, or really stupid.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Miss. House passes self-defense law
Posted by David Hardy · 18 January 2006 10:08 AMA self-defense bill similar to that of Florida has passed the House in Mississippi.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Citizens apprehend bank robber
Posted by David Hardy · 2 January 2006 12:35 PMIn Lexington, KY, police responded to a bank robbery to find that two citizens were holding the robber at gunpoint.
An "oops" moment. I googled the arrestee's name, "Daniel L. Stines," and came up with this. If that's him, and it's the same name and town but can't be sure, he's gonna have to resign as master of Masonic Lodge 930....
{Update: yep, I meant "oops" in terms of -- if you're a young crackhead, having citizens grab you for bank robbery and hold you for the cops is an occupational hazard. It's quite another thing when you're 60 yrs old and something of a pillar of the local community....]
Continue reading "Citizens apprehend bank robber"
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Florida self-defense bills spreading
Posted by David Hardy · 1 December 2005 12:47 PMEarlier, I noted that a variation of the Florida "castle law" had been introduced in Michigan.
Word now is that a Mississippi shooting of a burglar has prompted introduction of such a bill in that state. The homeowner fired through a door and hit a fellow trying to break in (his mother denies that he would have done such a thing, but since he had a record for burglary, theft, and drugs, and was wearing a ski mask while trying to entire in the early morning hours, there is a logical deduction to be made here).
NRA also reports that such a measure is being introduced in Oklahoma.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Record for criminal stupidity: robbing a gun store
Posted by David Hardy · 21 November 2005 09:47 AMSnopes has confirmed the story about a fellow who tried to rob a gunstore and went down in flames. Down to the details that he had to walk around a parked police squadcar to get in, found it full of patrons (including the officer), and threatened to shoot them all unless they complied.
(Some of the details were not confirmed. For instance, he went down with only four bullets in him, not 23. The officer was a better shot than that).
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Don Kate's thoughts on self defense
Posted by David Hardy · 20 November 2005 10:33 AMThe previous posting put me in mind of an argument Don Kates once made, relative to the legal doctrine of self defense.
Don observed that it evolved against a common law background where a person had an almost unlimited (and maybe completely unlimited) power to use deadly force to prevent a felony or apprehend a felon. Felonies were, after all, capital offenses, so using lethal force wasn't going very far -- the state itself would use lethal force if the felon was caught -the only question was whether the person was a felon. So any self-defense against a felon would be handled under this segment of the law.
That meant that the only time you considered self-defense as a legal defense would be in a conflict between otherwise law-abiding persons. A tavern fight, that manner of thing. In this context, restrictions such as "you must retreat to the wall" made some sense. There was a valid interest in defusing the conflict rather than escalating it, and retreat would often be available. (Note, in support of this concept, that at earliest common law self-defense did not mean a finding of innocence. Rather, the finding was guilty with the understanding that the Crown would issue a pardon. I seem to remember that by Tudor times it was almost automatic, with the court finding guilt, ruling that it was self-defense, and requesting that a pardon issue).
The problem, Don argued, was that with the narrowing of felonies, and of the right to use lethal force to prevent them or to hold a felon, the vast majority of defensive uses against criminals wind up drawn into self-defense, and held to the narrower standards which historically were only used in fights between otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Self-defense and homeowners' insurance
Posted by David Hardy · 16 September 2005 01:29 PMThe New York Law Journal reports a NY appellate case on the topic. The insured shot an intruder in his house, was charged, plead self-defense, and jury acquitted him. The intruder's estate then sued him civilly. The appellate court held that his insurer had no duty to defend him, since the policy excluded coverage for intentional, rather than negligent, acts (to be precise, it excluded act "expected or intended" by the insured). The article notes that courts around the country have split on this issue.
More on looting and self-defense
Posted by David Hardy · 1 September 2005 01:50 PMOver at the Volokh Conspiracy, David Kopel floats the idea of shooting looters (pointing out a citizen's arrest is hardly feasible under the conditions), and Orin Kerr points out some hazards (need to discern who is looting necessities to stay alive, risk of "friendly fire" between two good guys each thinking the other is an armed looter.
It goes without saying that these problems would be minimized if there was any organization of the militia. I'm not talking military training, just organization at the level of an armed neighborhood watch. Even if not organized in advance, in future disasters where there is some warning, why not see if one can be hastily put together?
Now, that would be an interesting project for shooting groups in disaster-prone areas! If order were being restored in NO by something like Southern Louisana Rifle and Pistol Ass'n, divided into squads and improv companies, it'd do more for the right to arms than fifty law review articles.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
Hurricane disaster and self-defense
Posted by David Hardy · 1 September 2005 09:43 AMThe New York Times reports on the situation in New Orleans:
"In a city shut down for business, the Rite Aid at Oak and South Carrollton was wide open on Wednesday. Someone had stolen a forklift, driven it four blocks, peeled up the security gate and smashed through the front door.....Some frightened homeowners took security into their own hands.
John Carolan was sitting on his porch in the thick, humid darkness just before midnight Tuesday when three or four young men, one with a knife and another with a machete, stopped in front of his fence and pointed to the generator humming in the front yard, he said.
One said, “We want that generator,” he recalled.
”I fired a couple of rounds over their heads with a .357 Magnum,” Mr. Carolan recounted Wednesday. “They scattered.”
He smiled and added, “You’ve heard of law west of the Pecos. This is law west of Canal Street.”
......
With no officers in sight, people carried empty bags, shopping carts and backpacks through the door of the Rite Aid on Wednesday and left with them full. The forklift was still in the doorway. As they came and went, the looters nodded companionably to one another.
Paul Cosma, 47, who owns a nearby auto shop, stood outside it along with a reporter and photographer he was taking around the neighborhood. He had pistols on both hips.
Suddenly, he stepped forward toward a trio of young men and grabbed a pair of rusty bolt cutters out of the hands of one of them. The young man pulled back, glaring.
Mr. Cosma, never claiming any official status, eventually jerked the bolt cutters away, saying, “You don’t need these.”
The young man and his friends left, continuing the glare. A few minutes later, they returned and mouthed quiet oaths at Mr. Cosma, and his friend Art DePodesta, an Army veteran, who was carrying a shotgun and a pistol."UPDATE: This didn't stop a New Orleans group from holding a gun buy-back.
Interesting thought: isn't this the type of situation where a "well-regulated militia," or even a poorly regulated one, would be invaluable? Order could be restored with a radio announcement: "All militia members will report to their captain's house. The officers will organize patrols of the streets and maintain order."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
Prof. Kleck's latest studies on self-defense
Posted by David Hardy · 27 August 2005 07:47 PMI only have the abstract, and apparently like many scholarly journals it runs behind (i.e., the 2004 issues sometimes appear in 2005). Prof. Kleck talked about this when I filmed him a few months ago.
Criminology, Nov 2004 v42 i4 p861(49)
Resisting crime: the effects of victim action on the outcomes of crimes. Jongyeon Tark; Gary Kleck.
Author's Abstract: COPYRIGHT 2004 American Society of CriminologyThis study assessed the impact of sixteen types of victim self protection (SP) actions on three types of outcomes of criminal incidents: first, whether the incident resulted in property loss, second, whether it resulted in injury to the victim, and, third, whether it resulted in serious injury. Data on 27,595 personal contact crime incidents recorded in the National Crime Victimization Survey for the 1992 to 2001 decade were used to estimate multivariate models of crime outcomes with logistic regression. Results indicated that self-protection in general, both forceful and non forceful, reduced the likelihood of property loss and injury, compared to nonresistance. A variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun, appeared to have the strongest effects in reducing the risk of injury, though some of the findings were unstable due to the small numbers of sample cases. The appearance, in past research, of resistance contributing to injury was found to be largely attributable to confusion concerning the sequence of SP actions and injury. In crimes where both occurred, injury followed SP in only 10 percent of the incidents. Combined with the fact that injuries following resistance are almost always relatively minor, victim resistance appears to be generally a wise course of action.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
California case on self defense against dogs
Posted by David Hardy · 22 August 2005 06:25 PMVia Don Kates and Paxton Quigley--
On August 16, the California Court of Appeals handed down People v. Lee, No. B175291.
Facts: Defendant, a retired deputy, was walking her dog when two other dogs approached and refused to pull back when she shouted at them to go away. She testified that she had been attacked by dogs three times in the past in the area and was afraid they were attacking. She fired a shot at them which hit a parked car. [This case is NOT a lesson in good gun handling -- and it certainly sounds like LA County Sheriff's Dept could use a lot more training in safe use of firearms]. Witnesses to the incident (most of whom were at a distance of 50-60 yds, and disagreed quite significantly on how close the dogs were to her) said they didn't think the dogs were preparing to attack. She was tried and convicted on charges of discharging a firearm with gross negligence.
The trial court refused to give a jury instruction on self defense. The prosecution argued that the California law on self-defense only pertained to defense against humans, and that when animals attacked the only defense was necessity (which is considerably narrower than self-defense, and puts the burden of proof on the defense). Apparently the uniform California jury instructions on self-defense refer to defense against a "person."
The Ct of Appeals reverses and concludes
The focus is on the nature of the threat, rather than its source. It serves no public policy, and is neither logical nor fair, to deprive appellant of the defense of self-defense because the threat of imminent harm came from a dog and not from a person. The use of force in defense of oneself should be legitimate, whether or not the source of the threat is a human being. In other words, the use of force in self-defense should not be illegitimate because the source of the threat is not a human being.The opinion also has an interesting survey of cases on self-defense against animals.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
Police will protect: Castle Rock v. Gonzales
Posted by David Hardy · 29 June 2005 05:59 PMThe Supremes have just issued a ruling in Castle Rock v. Gonzales (pdf version available here.
Essentially, the plaintiff obtained a domestic violence restraining order against her husband, which order contained a command that law enforcement arrest if there was probable cause to believe he had violated it. The husband kidnapped their three children, and she reported it to police. They responded there was nothing they could do, but call back in a few hours. Husband later called and said he had the kids at an amusement park. She asked police to go over there or put out an all points bulletin for him -- they declined. She called repeatedly through the night, and was told to wait. The husband turned out to have murdered the three kids and was killed after he drove to a police station and came in shooting.
The mother sued under 42 USC 1983, alleging that the town had a pattern of nonenforcement, and this amounted to a violation of the 14th Amendment's requirement that no state deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process. The Supreme Court uphold the dismissal of her complaint. What rights State law gave her, in terms of enforcement of the order, were not property interests protected by the constitution. State law did not give her an absolute right: it commanded that the officer use every reasonable means to enforce the order, that he shall arrest unless it proves "impractical," and this indicated that the right to enforcement was discretionary with the government (and hence not a matter of her "property"). Moreover, such right has little resemblance to any ordinary concept of property. "In light of today’s decision and that in DeShaney, the benefit that a third party may receive from having someone else arrested for a crime generally does not trigger protections under the Due Process Clause, neither in its procedural nor in its “substantive” manifestations."
Souter and Breyer concur. Stevens and Ginsberg dissent. Their points: if she had hired a private security firm, wouldn't that contract have been "property"? They argue that the State law did in fact make enforcement mandatory; at the very least, the Court ought to certify the question to the State supreme court for determination.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Trial court wierdness on self-defense
Posted by David Hardy · 23 June 2005 09:31 AMThe Indiana Supreme Court just reversed a homicide conviction where the trial court, for reasons not apparent, forbade the defendant to question jurors as to their attitudes on self defense, or to mention that defense in opening argument. The pdf (7 pages) is here. It sounds as if the trial court also ordered forbade defendant to put on evidence of self-defense, but relented at some point and let him at least use his own testimony to that effect.
Even stranger, the defense attorney did not object. The Supremes however regarded this as fundamental error and reversed notwithstanding the lack of objection. If self-defense was a defense, the defendant was entitled to question jurors during their selection to see if they had any feelings aganst self-defense.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
When beauticians attack
Posted by David Hardy · 16 June 2005 03:56 PMThe Shreveport Times reports an interesting case of self defense.
An armed robber tried to knock over Blalock's Beauty College, threatening the owner and her pupils with a revolver. He grabbed the money and ran, whereupon the owner, Dianne Mitchell, tripped him and dove atop him, calling for her students to help. They grabbed whatever was handy and proceeded to, very literally, beat the p_ss out of him.
Continue reading "When beauticians attack"
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Self Defense and Employee Firings
Posted by David Hardy · 11 June 2005 12:02 PMVia the Volokh Conspiracy:
The West Virginia Supreme Court just dealt with the scenario where a store employee defends against robbery, and promptly finds themselves fired. (As has happened more than once!) The employee had not used their own firearm, but had jumped and disarmed the robber, and used the robber's gun to them until police arrived.
The court noted that this was an "at will" employee, and thus could normally be fired for any reason or no reason at all, but that there was a narrow exception for firings that were contrary to strong public policies. It then reviews caselaw affirming self-defense as a right, and concludes that that a firing based on exercise of the right runs contrary to public policy.
Continue reading "Self Defense and Employee Firings"
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
FLA abolishes retreat requirement for self defense
Posted by David Hardy · 5 April 2005 12:34 PMThe Florida legislature has passed a statute abolishing the retreat requirement. The Reuters article indicates that the standard will be "reasonable belief they are in danger of death or great bodily harm." It quotes a Demo state Rep. as saying "All this bill will do is sell more guns and possibly turn Florida into the OK Corral," which says more about the Rep. than it does about the bill.
Continue reading "FLA abolishes retreat requirement for self defense"
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
Duty to retreat
Posted by David Hardy · 5 April 2005 09:09 AMClayton Cramer has a posting on a NY case on self-defense.
NY follows the "retreat" requirement: a person cannot claim self-defense if they did not "retreat to the wall" (first try to escape, unless cornered). There is an exception for a defender in his/her own residence: your home is your castle and you need not retreat out of it. The NY decision says that a person standing in the doorway of his apartment is not "in his castle" and must retreat. (The defender and the deceased apparently had a longstanding feud -- the deceased had stabbed the defender in the past and put him in the hospital for two days. This time the defender apparently began the dispute by pounding on the wall between the apartments: the deceased came over and "got his his face," and he hit him with a pipe.