lamarw,
You understood correctly, I was interested in reports from other localities where the system is used.
Do you have any more information on how the system operates? Is it constantly recording? If so, what civil rights issues (if any) has that raised amongst residents? I would imagine that it passively monitors ambient and looking for a signature that sounds something like a gunshot, but I'm not sure.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nbrown
i think it's rediculous you can have 20+ people come on YOUR property and threaten the lives of your family and yourself, and for protecting your family you go to jail. I would think if you were facing a mob of that size anyways with everyone shouting they were going to kill you and your family, you would have the right to use lethal force, right? I mean if there saying there going to, and with 20+ vs. 1 they clearly have the ability, how would you not be justified?
|
The argument is mildly complex. The first assumption is that any use of a firearm is considered lethal force because it could result in lethal injury to a person. The second is that if one had the time opportunity and capacity to fire a warning shot that they were not truly in mortal danger or harm's way. Thus, the argument goes, lethal force (the warning shot) was used even though the shooter was not in danger that would justify lethal force.
I hope that makes sense. To many people in the self defense business, people on this board (myself included), and police, this argument is very compelling. Not perfect by any means (in logical reasoning and in premise validity) but very compelling.
Now here is why it's not perfect: In this situation, the gang fulfilling the three "sides" of the "threat triangle" (excuse the quotes, I despise metaphors in communication):
Ability: There are 20 of them, all young and fit, possibly armed.
Intent: Verbal threats, and subjects have a history of violence (gangs), and the house has been purposefully compromised (from the article it sounds like the surrounded it, even sneaking up on the homeowner from a corner of the house)
Opportunity: They have surrounded the house from the outside, outnumber the homeowner, and are again possibly armed.
Thus, by the measurement of the commonly used "threat triangle", lethal force was justified. The problem is that the homeowner, by his actions, made it apparent that he himself did not feel threatened enough to use lethal force even though he, by the first assumption of why warning shots are bad, did actually use lethal force. This odd contradiction is why the warning shot argument is imperfect.
Again, I hope I'm making sense here. Apologies if I'm not.
My speculation is that had he actually shot someone (namely the person closest to his house or the people who came around the corner of the house) that he would not have been charged with any crime. But this is speculation.