The advertising above is just a source of revenue. If the ads get offensive enough, I may drop them.
Clayton Cramer's BLOG |
|
|
Clayton's commentary on news and events of the day. Broadly speaking, I'm a conservative with libertarian sympathies (getting more conservative as my children get older).
 Never forget! I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page).
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through. |
Friday, April 13, 2007
Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law A number of states require you to back away from a confrontation outside your home, rather than use deadly force. In the last couple of years, NRA has backed efforts to change the law so you are not required to do so. While I generally support such laws, I also recognize that there might be situations where using deadly force because of such a law would be a tragedy. For example, a minor dispute over a parking space might escalate rapidly to the use of deadly force--and someone who was a little hotheaded, but otherwise a decent person, is now lying dead on the pavement. The person who shot him will now confront months to years of civil suits and guilt about killing someone when he could have just walked away. Let's call this "non-criminal hothead gets shot" scenario. On the other hand, there are times when thugs rely on the requirement to back away as a method of intimidating decent people. Let's call this the "gang members intimidate decent people" scenario. The first case under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law is now under way: WEST PALM BEACH — Norman Borden hopes to become a trailblazer - the first defendant in Florida to have a murder charge dismissed because of the state's fledgling "Castle Doctrine" law.A couple of points: 1. It took a year from passage of the law to an incident where this became an issue. I guess there aren't as many Floridians wandering the streets with Death Wish fantasies as opponents thought. 2. Gang member. Baseball bat. Driving a vehicle yelling at Borden. Gang members retaliate by setting fire to Borden's home. Hmmm. Maybe it wasn't wise for Borden to open fire (because of retaliation) but at least from this newspaper account, it sounds more like the "gang members intimidate decent people" scenario. Labels: gun defense aftermath, gun rights, gun self-defense Friday, March 30, 2007
A Truly Weird Gun Self-Defense Case And an example of how leaving out just one or two details can really change what you read. A guy comes home, finds his wife with a guy in a truck in the driveway, and she's wearing only underwear and a bathrobe. From the March 30, 2007 Fort Worth Star-Telegram is this report. She screams she's being raped--the driver starts to pull away, with the wife still in the car: FORT WORTH -- In December, Darrell Roberson fatally shot a man outside his Arlington home after finding the man and his wife in a compromising position inside a pickup.Remember, she claims that she's being raped, and she's still in the vehicle as it pulls away. Roberson does something that is not only legally in the right, but only a hopeless pacifist would not take action. This isn't some stranger who says she's being raped--it is his wife. There's no question of hoping the police catch the rapist later--he is taking Roberson's wife away, potentially to be killed as a witness. This AP account published in Delaware leaves out one rather important detail--that the pickup truck is driving away with Roberson's wife still in it. That turns from a lawful but perhaps questionable "fleeing felon" shooting into a "to prevent death or great bodily injury to another" shooting. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." -- Romans 6:23. Even if it's just a little sin, like adultery, and another little sin, like lying about it. Labels: gun defense aftermath Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Why Using a Gun in Self-Defense Should Be the Last Resort Back when my wife and I took concealed weapons class, our instructor gave a number of reasons why using a gun in self-defense needed to be the last resort. The obvious reason is that your decision will be examined, very critically, and in the cool light of day, by the district attorney. Any mistakes you made will be used against you. Another reason is that even if your use of a gun is completely in the right, all of the relatives that haven't talked to your attacker for the last twenty years (because he was a deranged drug addict and brutal thug) will suddenly start talking about what a sweet and decent person he was, and that he didn't deserve to die! Then the lawyers will start suing you. Almost twenty years ago, we were told to plan on spending at least $15,000 defending yourself from civil suits even if you were 100% in the right. There's no question about this. When I lived in Irvine, some years ago, there was an incident in which a gas station had been repeatedly burglarized. The owner and one of his employees started to swap nights staying there. Finally, the burglar came back. The employee drew a gun on the guy who had broken in, and ordered him to put his hands up. The burglar instead put his hand into his pocket. The employee shot. The police decided it was a completely justified shooting, even though the burglar had no weapon in his pocket. The newspaper interviewed the late burglar's wife, who explained that her husband had been a good man, but a cocaine addiction problem had caused him to start committing burglaries to feed his habit. She was heartbroken, but she understood why the employee had been in fear for his life, and she had no hard feelings against him. That lasted about a week--and then the newspaper reported that she was suing the employee and the gas station owner for wrongful death. Some ambulance chaser must have gotten to her. The third reason why shooting someone in self-defense needs to be the last resort is that it is often quite traumatic--even when you were completely in the right, and the alternatives were death for yourself or loved ones. This article captures some of that: Eric Cegon's first few weeks were filled with sleeping pills, anxiety and disbelief that he had to kill a man with a shotgun.This is part of the reason why, as much as I support the right to be armed for self-defense, I would prefer that we have a working criminal justice system instead. In some parts of America, that system works well. In other places, apparently not so well. Labels: gun defense aftermath Sunday, February 25, 2007
Every Use of a Gun in Self-Defense is Potentially Life Changing Most of the time that I hear from someone about entries in the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog, it is from the next of kin of someone who was killed--and usually, they are complaining that the police, the courts, and the newspapers are covering up a murder. On very rare occasion, when I ask for some evidence of this, I actually get it. Most of the time, what I am hearing is the very human desire to imagine the best about one's husband or son--and an inability to face the very harsh reality that their loved one had put someone else legitimately in fear of death. Today I heard from someone who was the shooter. He was not happy about what he had to do, but with the history of violence of the deceased against the deceased ex-wife, it was probably for the best. It is still a sobering experience to have to take another life--even when there is no alternative except the death of an innocent person. Let's never get too jocular about this. Labels: gun defense aftermath |
