The temptation of vigilantism - Page 3

Nitesites · February 1, 2012, 07:34 PM

You sort of took that out of context there...If you don't mind, read my preceding posts and you may get an idea of the intention. I don't disagree with your statement, just the idea of being misrepresented.

Onward Allusion · February 1, 2012, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Edit: perhaps I should be more clear. The point is that would you defend thy neighbor?

Um, depends on which neighbor. The one South of me, um...

Seriously though, me shooting a BG to "defend" my neighbor's property would not happen. To defend my neighbor from physical harm or death, yes.

**Frank Ettin** · February 1, 2012, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grant D

I agree with all the posts on the matter of Joe Horn.
But there's nothing inaccurate in my first post, just the story in a nutshell.

Often when we deal with these subjects "in a nutshell" is still wrong. A great deal is at stake and the details really do matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rachen

If an elderly person or a child or anyone who appears to be mentally/physically incapacitated is being attacked...

What about a parent trying to restrain a child from running into a busy street? What about a caregiver trying to restrain an elderly person with dementia or some other impairment from injury himself? Are you absolutely sure that you would always be able to immediately recognize the difference?

Nitesites · February 1, 2012, 08:53 PM

Quote:

What about a parent trying to restrain a child from running into a busy street? What about a caregiver trying to retrain an elderly person with dementia or some other impairment from injury himself? Are you absolutely sure that you would always be able to immediately recognize the difference?

I imagine in some scenarios that I can think of, no. Not immediately. But in others, yes. You listed two good scenarios that should give all reason to pause for thought and witness events as they unfold. But if someone were to pass an elderly lady carrying her groceries on the sidewalk, and then witness her being physically attacked by a crackhead(?) all of a sudden, I don't believe you would mistake that.

**Frank Ettin** · February 1, 2012, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitesites

Quote:

Originally Posted by fiddletown

...Are you absolutely sure that you would always be able to immediately recognize the difference?...

I imagine in some scenarios that I can think of, no. Not immediately. But in others, yes....

But that's pretty much the point. You need to be certain about what's actually going on. In some cases, you might be able to figure it out with a high degree of confidence. But in others, perhaps, not so much.

This takes us back to the basic truth that the details really do matter.

Nitesites · February 1, 2012, 09:12 PM

You are right of course. We must use our ability to reason. Think twice and even thrice before acting upon an impulse.

.22lr · February 2, 2012, 02:40 PM

Since my neighbors are not family members I would:

1) Herd my family into the basement.
2) Call the police and make sure they knew a life was at risk.

My reasoning:

1) My family is my highest duty.
2) I am not omniscient.
3) Why increase the likelyhood of bullets tearing through my neighborhood?

I have been called a coward and many other things, but my duty is to my wife and son. I just can't see how going willingly into a situation which has a high likelyhood of turning into a gunfight benefits my wife or son.

Bottom line: I will not use deadly force to defend non family members.

manta49 · February 2, 2012, 02:55 PM

Why take the chance ring the police. It would be different if they where armed and coming trough your window.

BGutzman · February 2, 2012, 03:13 PM

Assumptions are where things go wrong..... If I see someone breaking into the neighbors then I call the cops and if possible try to let the BGs know they have been reported before they actually enter the house...

(the key is letting them know without presenting a target or endangering family members)

If the neighbors home then I can only hope and pray they are armed and aware of the self defense laws and the appropiate way to respond under the law... Im not running over and attempting and sort of anything because I cant be certain that the people who are breaking in arent actually family members who dont get home often and I dont recognize and are locked out.

I also dont know where anyone in the house is and cannot in anyway engage safely even if it meets all the legal requirements... it simply doesnt pass the common sense test...

The very wording of the question I think is poor.... were not out there seeking our own brand of justice... we simply want to live and be able to protect ourselves...

Colvin · February 2, 2012, 05:58 PM

Thanks for the replies, I'll definitely need to take more time to write these and clarify. The fact that I wrote that on my phone doesn't help.

You guys got my idea. Good debate.

Mr Dish · February 2, 2012, 09:03 PM

I firmly believe that if the BG is attempting to steal my property then HE, not me, has already put his own life up as collateral. But I don't think I would be justified in protecting my neighbors property if he is not there.

That being said, I do watch my neighbors property when they go to Florida each winter. If I am in the house at the time of the break in, then I would be defending myself. But if I look thru the woods and see a strange vehicle there I would call the police, then go thru the woods to see what is what.

Old Wanderer · February 3, 2012, 12:26 AM

Well you never quite know how all this will turn out.

Many years ago I was working in Columbia. On a Saturday afternoon I walked out into a parking lot, and found a man with one hand strangling a woman holding her against a car, his other hand had pretty much bashed her face in.

I was carrying. However a lot of those people only come up to my chin, so I grabbed him and started to see what I could break on his face. Every-time I hit him I asked him in Spanish if he liked it? Then BANG and a shot goes right by my head.....Who shot, the woman who's face was covered in blood laying on the ground.

"Leave my husband alone"

I spun him around to use as a shield and threw him on top of her.

So much for being to "good Samaritan"

Nitesites · February 3, 2012, 12:58 AM

Bystander Effect...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

Added : And Old Wanderer, no matter the outcome, their actions did not define you. Your actions did.

Glenn E. Meyer · February 3, 2012, 10:40 AM

In the video, Surviving Edged Weapons - IIRC - there was a clip where officers stop a man from abusing his wife. They have their backs to the wife. She then parts the head of one with a cleaver.

BTW, one in six undercover officers report having had on duty cops point their guns at them on arrival at a scene. Some have been killed.

I recall in Portland where a good samaritan got the choke hold put on him and killed by arriving officers.

Nitesites · February 3, 2012, 11:38 AM

So don't help someone in their greatest time of need? Turn a blind eye? Is that what some of you are implying? What kind of world do you want to live in? Yes, sometimes people die while trying to do good things. Sometimes no good deed goes unpunished. An unfair twist of fate and simple matter of fact. But the world is a better place because of them and people like them. And sometimes, the GoodGuys win.

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/165689...ssault-attempt

http://www.volunteertv.com/news/head...3.html?ref=163

http://www.woio.com/story/16304997/g...jacking-victim

Lord forbid if you actually have to stick your neck out there for someone else.

**Frank Ettin** · February 3, 2012, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitesites

...So don't help someone in their greatest time of need? Turn a blind eye? Is that what some of you are implying?...

No, that's not what folks are saying. Folks are saying that one needs to know what's going in order to know what the right thing to do is. (And one ought to have the skills to do what needs to be done in order to avoid making a bad situation worse.)

And what if you actually wouldn't be helping someone in the time of his greatest need, but would, instead, be helping a criminal commit a crime? Or what if trying to help someone who doesn't want, or need your help, leaves you dead and your family without you?

And calling the police and being a good witness (and maybe taking some photos) is not "turning a blind eye."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitesites

...sometimes, the GoodGuys win...

And sometimes the guy who interposes himself in a situation he doesn't understand winds up not being the Good Guy.

Nitesites · February 3, 2012, 11:51 AM

And with all due respect Mr. Meyer And Fiddle, it doesn't change the fact that they were doing the right thing.

**Frank Ettin** · February 3, 2012, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitesites

And with all due respect Mr. Meyer And Fiddle, it doesn't change the fact that they were doing the right thing.

Just because those people reported in the links you posted did the right things doesn't mean that you will be doing the right thing when you jump into a situation you don't understand.

Nitesites · February 3, 2012, 12:02 PM

I won't yield in my beliefs but politely acquiesce further argument.

Glenn E. Meyer · February 3, 2012, 12:11 PM

I was giving evidence as to the possible risk factors. Intervening in a domestic conflict has the well known risk of the victim turning on you.

Morality does not say you should be ignorant of risk.

We all judge risk in making an intervention situation. That's well known.
We all judge whether the victim is worthy.

This is an area well studied and blanket statements that one must intervene to be moral is your choice but not supported by what people actually do.

A hypothetical. You see a man beating a young teenager. You intervene.
You see a mob of twenty five men going to string up a young teenager. They are all carrying M4s. Some are on lookout. Do you, Johnny J-Frame, charge in with your 5 rounds or call the cops.

Lots of the must intervene scenarios confounding the intervention necessity with a fight that you think you can prevail in easily. Single guy vs. woman. Thus you can be a hero.

If you are willing to take a very high risk of death to engage in a low probabilty successful action - then you might be the pure moral hero.

Two burglars and me with my AR from cover - Moral Hero.

Godzilla going to set fire to my neighbor's house - nah.

My last question - from a similar debate. I save your wife but get killed. Do you now step up and provide continuing financial support for my family to the best of your ability? That would seem a moral responsibility.

One member suggested when I asked this - that it was responsibility to have enough life insurance to support my wife after I get killed saving yours.

Or should the state support the family of a good samaritan after such an action on your tax dollars. Seems a better way to spend money than a moon base.

Thoughts?

It is true that folks have taken actions that guarantee their death to save their buddies or family in combat or disaster. Those are usually greater connections to those who you will save. Not my neighbor's TV.

Will you do it for all victims - probably not. To deny that you are influenced by such is not realistic.

gvw3 · February 3, 2012, 12:36 PM

In Chicago you would lose your guns and go to jail. That's if the cops didn't shoot you 1st. The bad guy family would sue you and you would lose your house.

brickeyee · February 3, 2012, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Intervening in a domestic conflict has the well known risk of the victim turning on you.

Numerous police departments have been sending at least two officers to DV calls for a while.

If it makes them nervous, it should make us even more nervous.

**OldMarksman** · February 3, 2012, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Posted by Mr. Dish: I firmly believe that if the BG is attempting to steal my property then HE, not me, has already put his own life up as collateral.

It would be a very good idea to consult a criminal attorney who practices in Michigan before acting on that belief.

Glenn E. Meyer · February 3, 2012, 04:29 PM

Not being a lawyer like Fiddletown but having read some of the theory on this matter, modern law suggest that law usually trumps property and the use of lethal force to protect property isn't looked on favorably in most Western cultures.

The presumption of castle doctrine laws is not the defense of property but the implied risk to folks when an intruder is present.

One can argue that some property threats can be threats to life but the link is usually remote except for constrained circumstances (like the TX law), stealing the last vial of insulin on a desert island or the like. However, most typical property losses don't outweigh the life of the perpetrator.

Your opinion may vary from this but that's not the common legal view. Fiddletown can certainly correct me if this is incorrect.

One also (psych hat), makes me ask is it the property or sense of territorial violation that wants you to use lethal force for property loss (assuming there isn't a personal threat)? That's in the discussions.

**Frank Ettin** · February 3, 2012, 04:41 PM

I agree with Glenn's assessment on the legal side of things.

Those laws that permit one to claim justification for the use of lethal force for the protection of property do so only subject to certain specific criteria being satisfied. And those criteria generally involve situations in which a high probability of risk to innocents may reasonably be expected.

February 1, 2012, 07:34 PM	#51
Nitesites Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 2011 Posts: 600	You sort of took that out of context there...If you don't mind, read my preceding posts and you may get an idea of the intention. I don't disagree with your statement, just the idea of being misrepresented. __________________ On Yellow

February 1, 2012, 09:12 PM	#56
Nitesites Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 2011 Posts: 600	You are right of course. We must use our ability to reason. Think twice and even thrice before acting upon an impulse. __________________ On Yellow

February 2, 2012, 03:13 PM	#59
BGutzman Senior Member Join Date: December 4, 2009 Location: Frozen Tundra Posts: 2,414	Assumptions are where things go wrong..... If I see someone breaking into the neighbors then I call the cops and if possible try to let the BGs know they have been reported before they actually enter the house... (the key is letting them know without presenting a target or endangering family members) If the neighbors home then I can only hope and pray they are armed and aware of the self defense laws and the appropiate way to respond under the law... Im not running over and attempting and sort of anything because I cant be certain that the people who are breaking in arent actually family members who dont get home often and I dont recognize and are locked out. I also dont know where anyone in the house is and cannot in anyway engage safely even if it meets all the legal requirements... it simply doesnt pass the common sense test... The very wording of the question I think is poor.... were not out there seeking our own brand of justice... we simply want to live and be able to protect ourselves... __________________ Molon Labe

February 2, 2012, 09:03 PM	#61
Mr Dish Senior Member Join Date: December 25, 2009 Location: Shepherd, MI Posts: 128	I firmly believe that if the BG is attempting to steal my property then HE, not me, has already put his own life up as collateral. But I don't think I would be justified in protecting my neighbors property if he is not there. That being said, I do watch my neighbors property when they go to Florida each winter. If I am in the house at the time of the break in, then I would be defending myself. But if I look thru the woods and see a strange vehicle there I would call the police, then go thru the woods to see what is what. __________________ Vote Libertarian or QUIT COMPLAINING!

February 3, 2012, 12:58 AM	#63
Nitesites Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 2011 Posts: 600	Bystander Effect...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect Added : And Old Wanderer, no matter the outcome, their actions did not define you. Your actions did. __________________ On Yellow

February 2, 2012, 02:40 PM	#57
.22lr Senior Member Join Date: July 14, 2007 Posts: 245	Since my neighbors are not family members I would: 1) Herd my family into the basement. 2) Call the police and make sure they knew a life was at risk. My reasoning: 1) My family is my highest duty. 2) I am not omniscient. 3) Why increase the likelyhood of bullets tearing through my neighborhood? I have been called a coward and many other things, but my duty is to my wife and son. I just can't see how going willingly into a situation which has a high likelyhood of turning into a gunfight benefits my wife or son. Bottom line: I will not use deadly force to defend non family members.

February 2, 2012, 02:55 PM	#58
manta49 Senior Member Join Date: July 15, 2011 Location: N Ireland. UK. Posts: 1,809	Why take the chance ring the police. It would be different if they where armed and coming trough your window.

February 2, 2012, 05:58 PM	#60
Colvin Senior Member Join Date: August 15, 2011 Posts: 127	Thanks for the replies, I'll definitely need to take more time to write these and clarify. The fact that I wrote that on my phone doesn't help. You guys got my idea. Good debate.

February 3, 2012, 12:26 AM	#62
Old Wanderer Member Join Date: December 26, 2008 Location: Bonney Lake, WA Posts: 77	Well you never quite know how all this will turn out. Many years ago I was working in Columbia. On a Saturday afternoon I walked out into a parking lot, and found a man with one hand strangling a woman holding her against a car, his other hand had pretty much bashed her face in. I was carrying. However a lot of those people only come up to my chin, so I grabbed him and started to see what I could break on his face. Every-time I hit him I asked him in Spanish if he liked it? Then BANG and a shot goes right by my head.....Who shot, the woman who's face was covered in blood laying on the ground. "Leave my husband alone" I spun him around to use as a shield and threw him on top of her. So much for being to "good Samaritan"

February 3, 2012, 10:40 AM	#64
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	In the video, Surviving Edged Weapons - IIRC - there was a clip where officers stop a man from abusing his wife. They have their backs to the wife. She then parts the head of one with a cleaver. BTW, one in six undercover officers report having had on duty cops point their guns at them on arrival at a scene. Some have been killed. I recall in Portland where a good samaritan got the choke hold put on him and killed by arriving officers. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

February 3, 2012, 11:38 AM	#65
Nitesites Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 2011 Posts: 600	So don't help someone in their greatest time of need? Turn a blind eye? Is that what some of you are implying? What kind of world do you want to live in? Yes, sometimes people die while trying to do good things. Sometimes no good deed goes unpunished. An unfair twist of fate and simple matter of fact. But the world is a better place because of them and people like them. And sometimes, the GoodGuys win. http://www.8newsnow.com/story/165689...ssault-attempt http://www.volunteertv.com/news/head...3.html?ref=163 http://www.woio.com/story/16304997/g...jacking-victim Lord forbid if you actually have to stick your neck out there for someone else. __________________ On Yellow

February 3, 2012, 11:51 AM	#67
Nitesites Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 2011 Posts: 600	And with all due respect Mr. Meyer And Fiddle, it doesn't change the fact that they were doing the right thing. __________________ On Yellow

February 3, 2012, 12:02 PM	#69
Nitesites Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 2011 Posts: 600	I won't yield in my beliefs but politely acquiesce further argument. __________________ On Yellow

February 3, 2012, 12:11 PM	#70
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	I was giving evidence as to the possible risk factors. Intervening in a domestic conflict has the well known risk of the victim turning on you. Morality does not say you should be ignorant of risk. We all judge risk in making an intervention situation. That's well known. We all judge whether the victim is worthy. This is an area well studied and blanket statements that one must intervene to be moral is your choice but not supported by what people actually do. A hypothetical. You see a man beating a young teenager. You intervene. You see a mob of twenty five men going to string up a young teenager. They are all carrying M4s. Some are on lookout. Do you, Johnny J-Frame, charge in with your 5 rounds or call the cops. Lots of the must intervene scenarios confounding the intervention necessity with a fight that you think you can prevail in easily. Single guy vs. woman. Thus you can be a hero. If you are willing to take a very high risk of death to engage in a low probabilty successful action - then you might be the pure moral hero. Two burglars and me with my AR from cover - Moral Hero. Godzilla going to set fire to my neighbor's house - nah. My last question - from a similar debate. I save your wife but get killed. Do you now step up and provide continuing financial support for my family to the best of your ability? That would seem a moral responsibility. One member suggested when I asked this - that it was responsibility to have enough life insurance to support my wife after I get killed saving yours. Or should the state support the family of a good samaritan after such an action on your tax dollars. Seems a better way to spend money than a moon base. Thoughts? It is true that folks have taken actions that guarantee their death to save their buddies or family in combat or disaster. Those are usually greater connections to those who you will save. Not my neighbor's TV. Will you do it for all victims - probably not. To deny that you are influenced by such is not realistic. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

February 3, 2012, 12:36 PM	#71
gvw3 Member Join Date: January 29, 2012 Location: Chicago Area IL Posts: 75	Don't try this in Chicago In Chicago you would lose your guns and go to jail. That's if the cops didn't shoot you 1st. The bad guy family would sue you and you would lose your house. __________________ Criminals promote gun control. It make the rest of us easy prey.

February 3, 2012, 04:29 PM	#74
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Not being a lawyer like Fiddletown but having read some of the theory on this matter, modern law suggest that law usually trumps property and the use of lethal force to protect property isn't looked on favorably in most Western cultures. The presumption of castle doctrine laws is not the defense of property but the implied risk to folks when an intruder is present. One can argue that some property threats can be threats to life but the link is usually remote except for constrained circumstances (like the TX law), stealing the last vial of insulin on a desert island or the like. However, most typical property losses don't outweigh the life of the perpetrator. Your opinion may vary from this but that's not the common legal view. Fiddletown can certainly correct me if this is incorrect. One also (psych hat), makes me ask is it the property or sense of territorial violation that wants you to use lethal force for property loss (assuming there isn't a personal threat)? That's in the discussions. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

February 3, 2012, 04:41 PM	#75
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,471	I agree with Glenn's assessment on the legal side of things. Those laws that permit one to claim justification for the use of lethal force for the protection of property do so only subject to certain specific criteria being satisfied. And those criteria generally involve situations in which a high probability of risk to innocents may reasonably be expected.