How guns save lives

Washington Times ^ | 1/26/03

[kattracks]

Thanks to Baltimore Circuit Court Judge John M. Glynn, justice finally prevailed Thursday, as two businessmen were acquitted of first-degree murder charges for killing a weapon-toting hoodlum who broke into their warehouse. Just seconds after defense attorneys finished their closing arguments, Judge Glynn pronounced Darrell Kifer and Kenny Der not guilty in the June 30, 2001, slaying of Tygon Walker, who was holding a hammer and threatening to kill them. Judging from the facts of the case

[On the Road to Serfdom]

Your stipulation is to such far fetched "fact" that it is pointless to speculate what the law would be. If no innocent person could be harmed by a spring gun, if the only people harmed were those intending to steal (and your racist example not being the reason), then yes Texas law would probably be different than it is now and spring traps would be legal.

Here is what you don’t get: Spring traps are not the only example of lethal defense of property and only property. Shooting a fleeing thief in the back is another example, one which is legal at night in Texas even if the only purpose is to prevent him from getting away with your property. It is legal. Is it moral? That is up to the individual. I would not do it, but I am glad it is legal and I am glad others are willing to do it since it creates a deterrence.

[ArrogantBustard]

What year of law school are you in at Washington and Lee?

[ArrogantBustard]

You practice in Northern Virginia?

Lexington isn't in northern Virginia. It's in the mountains, 'way south-west Virginia. It's the home of the Virginia Military Institute, and Washington and Lee University.

[steve-b]

protecting YOUR OWN LIFE or the LIFE OF OTHERS

Both of which apply here, inasmuch as Kifer and Der were inside the building when the perp broke in.

[Shooter 2.5]

Again, since it's apparent you are ignorant of Texas Law, I strongly suggest you contact a Texas Lawyer because you have no idea what you're discussing.

[steve-b]

Under the facts of this matter, we have someone dead and someone holding a gun claiming self defense. And you suggest -- that the law just believes the assertion of the person claiming self-defense, and no trial takes place to prove it?

It is appropriate to conduct an investigation to determine whether or not the shooting was as it appeared (an act of legitimate self-defense) or something else (a murder made to appear as an act of self defense). It is most certainly not appropriate to bring any sort of criminal charges unless and until evidence supporting the latter theory is discovered.

[Shooter 2.5]

"I would not do it, but I am glad it is legal and I am glad others are willing to do it since it creates a deterrence.

I am not about to shoot a kid who steals from my property of a valuable that was left in a yard and was a temptation to someone with loose morals.
I have already decided to stop anyone who steals a gun from my house by any means possible.

I did talk to a anti-gun politician so they could raise the penalties for stealing firearms and his comment was we had enough laws already. Apparently, he thought we had enough laws toward criminals because he continued intoducing laws that would only affect law abiding citizens.

[WL-law]

It is appropriate to conduct an investigation to determine whether or not the shooting was as it appeared (an act of legitimate self-defense) or something else (a murder made to appear as an act of self defense). It is most certainly not appropriate to bring any sort of criminal charges unless and until evidence supporting the latter theory is discovered.

Of course you're right, and I spoke in shorthand, in that to make the decision to go to trial an investigation occurs, suspicions were raised, a case was presented to the grand jury -- all of that preceeded the trial, of course, and I therefore presume that the investigation raised serious questions regarding the facts and did not provide clear answers.

[Teacher317]

You repeatedly assume that the perp was only after property, making the shooting illegal... you also imply that since it was a business, the break-in was for property, and that if a break-in occurs in a home, the break-in is not for property alone. Poor assumptions, all.

[steve-b]

Your example is irrelevant, for the same reason that the case of a stinking-blotto drunk driver who manages to make it home without causing an accident is irrelevant. The objection to booby traps is the unreasonable risk to innocent bystanders. This is why the placement of such a trap constitutes an offense even if the police discover it before it has ever gone off.

[steve-b]

Let's stipulate that no innocent person can be harmed by the spring gun.

The laws that exist in the real world are based on the circumstances of the real world. If we lived in a world where some sort of magical device can smite the guilty and spare the innocent with absolute reliability, the laws would be tailored accordingly.

[Shooter 2.5]

I therefore presume that the investigation raised serious questions regarding the facts and did not provide clear answers.

You're presuming too much. The facts of the investigation were such that the judge took seconds to reach a Not Guilty verdict.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

I agree, and I should not have said "I am glad others are willing to do it" because if no one did it that would be preferred with me. However, I would still want the law to permit it so the thief knows he is the mercy of his victim and the law is totally against him.

[Teacher317]

Katko v Briney (183 N.W.2d 657) is THE classic case of defending property with lethal force... the owner left an "abandoned" shack rigged with a spring gun after some robberies... it took off the leg of a "collector" who was taking old mason and ball jars from the abandoned shack.

[Shooter 2.5]

The use of spring guns, destructive devices or nuclear weapons are irrelevant to this case. I suggest you do more research on defence of property and self defense before you dig a deeper hole for yourself.

[Shooter 2.5]

I agree with your original post. I was just adding there is different types of property in which a person may make a different decision. Would I kill to protect the twenty year old lawn mower I was stupid enough to leave in a yard? No.

Would I do everything in my power to protect an heirloom, firearm, or family albums?. Then the answer is different.

Even the thieves who would steal a simple lawnmower may get a different answer if it was the sixth time they came back, each time escalating what was taken.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

Here is an interesting link about Briney losing the lawsuit after his trap shot the thief in the leg:

http://www.newsaic.com/mled.html

Still, Briney stood by his actions and had no regrets. "There is one thing I'd do different, though," he said in 1974. "I'd have aimed that gun a few feet higher."

[Double Tap]

Once again, no spring gun was used, so it is irrelevant. In Texas is against the law to use spring guns, so again, your arguement is irrelevant.

By Texas statue, it is legal to shoot someone in the back if they are running or driving off with your property. It is in plain English. There has been cases go to court and won using this law. It has nothing to do with self defense or spring guns. It is defense of property only, period.

What is your fascination with spring guns?

[WL-law]

If the facts indicate there just might be a reason to think reasonable fear for one's well being was present, one would hope that the prosecutor would seek first the truth and second the inditement.

We wholeheartedly agree. So why do you presume that this wasn't the case re the prosecutor -- I do unless someone can provide me a reason to suspect otherwise.

[WL-law]

This brings me back to my original rhetorical question, why first degree?

Depends on the facts. If the investigation preceeding the indictment surfaced evidence (and I'm just surmising here)that these guys were (a) pissed off at getting robbed, so they (b) waited, armed and ready, for the burglar to return, and then (c) finished him off --- well, that would constitute premeditated murder, albeit with sympathetic defendants.