if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Self Defense
by Lee
While most of the western democracies have more or less the same protections regarding freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and so on, one area where the United States is unique is the right to defend yourself and be secure in your home and person. Meet the latest American who, in most other countries in the world, would probably have ended up a corpse while waiting for the poliuce to come and save him.
A Hempfield man shot an intruder who invaded his home early Saturday, state police at Greensburg said.
The unidentified homeowner fired two warning shots before shooting Gregory R. Powell, 43, of Greensburg in the legs, police said.
The unidentified family --- a 37-year-old male, a 33-year-old female and 5-year-old and 8-year-old girls --- were not hurt in the 3 a.m. home invasion, Trooper Jared Slater said in a press release issued 13 hours after the incident.
Powell allegedly broke into the residence by using an iron fireplace poker and his fists to break out a pane of door glass. The family called police.
The homeowner, armed with a handgun, warned Powell not to enter the residence. According to police, Powell entered and charged at the man, who then fired two warning shots. After Powell continued to “menace” the man, he was shot in the legs, according to police.
Police said Powell then broke out another pane of door glass and escaped from the house. He was arrested at the scene and flown by medical helicopter to a Pittsburgh hospital for gunshot and laceration wounds. The extent of his injuries was unknown. Police did not say how many times Powell was shot.
So, here we have a guy who breaks into a house when the residents are present. He was warned by the homeowner not to come in, but he did anyway. He then ignored two warning shots and charged the homeowner anyway. Luckily, in America, these types of home invasions while the family is present are rare, precisely because burglars know there is a chance they might end up shot.
A question for those of you who live in Europe or Australia, or for you Americans who support gun control. If you found yourself in your house confronting a lunatic who broke in and charged at you, what would you use to defend yourself? And as you lay there in a pool of your own blood, the screams of your wife and children being raped and strangled ringing in your ears, do you think at some point you might have the thought, “If only I had a gun...”?
Update: Check out the follow-up to this post here.
Comments
the screams of your wife and children being raped
Dude, that’s my worst fuckin’ nightmare.
Don’t forget Canada. Here that guy would go to jail for defending his family.
I’ve always thought it would be a good idea for these gun control advocates to put signs on their gate or door stating that their home is a gun free house. The opposite of those signs such as Beware of Dog, or Have Gun will Shoot. Stand up for what you believe in.
If this happened in Australia, there is a reasonable chance that the home invaders would be shot. Not everyone handed in their guns, and not all guns are illegal. It would be interesting to see how the law handled it and whether or not the shooter would be convicted.
A situation like this one did happen in Sydney recently. A Filipino family had their home invaded by three thugs who had heard the family had money hidden - the parents were tied up and their very tiny 16 year old daughter was repeatedly raped.
The gang, who were Australian aboriginals, were arrested and imprisoned for life. But that doesnt help the girl much - apparently she was so badly injured inside that she may never be able to lead a normal life.
Every family’s nightmare. I am 100% in agreement on this - Howard was dead wrong to disarm Australians, and the incidents of murder and armed robbery have increased. After all, the crims didnt hand in their guns.
whatever, Lee.
This is not Chopper. I am sorry arming myself is worse than beind assulted. I live in the shittiest area of LA and know no reason to own a gun.I also know no reason to defend such behaviour. Who needs to die in your circle? I can’t think of anybody who deserves that.
If this happened to me, the courts wouldn’t need to waste time and money with this animal, the hospital wouldn’t need to waste resources on this animal, he would be dead, a cold hunk of meat on a slab. Now the poor guy that rightfully shot this animal, will have to go through hell with the courts, the ACLU, and the animal himself, because we live in a litigious society, will most defiantly sue for a sum that far outweighs anything that this guy can make in two lifetimes.
So Manwhore,
Being assaulted, and possibly being paralyzed, having your life changed forever, is worse than owning a gun for self protection, well that’s your right, but do not take away that choice for others. You say that you see no reason to defend such behavior, I’ll give you one reason, the second amendment.
You also state that you live in the worst area of LA and know no reason to own a gun, let’s see: http://www.lapdonline.org/general_information/crime_statistics/2004_crime_summary.htm
The odds are not in your favor.
Here’s the stats for ‘05: http://www.lapdonline.org/general_information/crime_statistics/2005_crime_summary.htm
If I only had a gun? Like the various loaded pistols I have secreted several locations throughout the house, or the one in the SUV?
Actually when severly injured hearing is one of the first things to go from loss of blood.
But whatever.
I fully support gun ownership rights - I believe that every human has the right to defend himself or herself with lethal force if necessary.
That said, I don’t think that I would use lethal force to defend myself or my family. I don’t really know what I would do in such a situation, but my own personal morality, or religion if you prefer, conflicts with the notion of killing to defend myself or others. I would certainly do what I could up to the point of killing, but I don’t have a gun, and if I did I don’t think I’d use it.
That said, I don’t think that I would use lethal force to defend myself or my family. I don’t really know what I would do in such a situation, but my own personal morality, or religion if you prefer, conflicts with the notion of killing to defend myself or others. I would certainly do what I could up to the point of killing, but I don’t have a gun, and if I did I don’t think I’d use it.
Wow. I respect sticking to your guns (no pun intended), but when it comes down to the health and well being of my family versus some piece of human garbage, I’ll do whatever it takes to protect them. If someone has malicious intent on their minds towards me or my family, I’ll have no problem putting them out of society’s misery.
I agree with mech. I respect your opinion and position, but I agree with it only to the point where I would use sub-lethal force if at all possible.
The police can arrest him just as easy without a salvageable kneecap or elbow joint as they can with.
But given that my home weapon is a .357 Magnum/.38 caliber, loaded with hollow-point shells, chances are not very good for the goblin. (And my wife is a better shot than I am.)
“Two in the chest and one in the head
always leaves the target dead.”
But given that my home weapon is a .357 Magnum/.38 caliber, loaded with hollow-point shells, chances are not very good for the goblin. (And my wife is a better shot than I am.)
Roger that...I particularly like the loud report of the .357 mag. You don’t necessarily have to hit the assailant, although it helps.
Unfortunately, the guy in the article defending his home will probably be sued by the invader. He should’ve killed the SOB instead of wounding him.
That said, I don’t think that I would use lethal force to defend myself or my family… I would certainly do what I could up to the point of killing, but I don’t have a gun, and if I did I don’t think I’d use it.
Fantt, sincerely, I hope you never have to make that decision (or any of the rest of us, for that matter), but anyone threatening my wife/kids--and they would be, by breaking into the house in the first place--better have a will written. Their estate will need it.
Don’t forget Canada. Here that guy would go to jail for defending his family.
I once read of something like this happening in the UK, and they charged the homeowner with attempted murder and illegal possesion of a handgun. That is how stupid and idiotic their gun control policies.
So if any of your gun control defenders will explain how your so called policy actually protected the homeowner, I would sure love to hear it.
That said, I don’t think that I would use lethal force to defend myself or my family. I don’t really know what I would do in such a situation, but my own personal morality, or religion if you prefer, conflicts with the notion of killing to defend myself or others. I would certainly do what I could up to the point of killing, but I don’t have a gun, and if I did I don’t think I’d use it
If that is the case, just let us know where to send the flowers.
You guys are using pistols to defend your home?!?!
I realize there is a macho factor for owning a pistol. If you really own one for home defense you should reconsider.
Get a shotgun for home defense.
There is no way on God’s green earth if you are woken up by someone breaking into your house you are going to be able to hit them with a pistol.
Also if you miss your target with a pistol (which you probably will) the bullet will go thru the wall. What might be on the other side of the wall may or maynot be important to you. Case in point: I believe it was here in Dallas 8-10 years ago this very scenario played out and it was the wife/girlfriend/daughter of the home owner that got killed.
Speaking from the UK I would say that I think we live in different cultures, so it’s apples and oranges. I am 25 years old, I live in central london, have just moved from Brixton (of Brixton riots fame) and outside of the year I spent in the air force, I have never ever seen a real live gun in the UK. They are just not part of my life, and not part of the British culture. So I suppose that the question of someone breaking into my house with the intention of specifically murdering me never really occurs. I have had someone break into my house and steal my stuff, but I shouted ‘hey!’ and he ran off. I lost a console, some money and some DVD’s that were all replaced by the house insurance.
Now I’m by no means saying that we’re a utopia and we’re all flying kites, I’m trying to highlight some of the differences of psychology across the Atlantic. Guns are coming into our culture, and we will have to deal with similar questions very soon I would guess.
So to answer your question Lee, I guess I would try and use a cricket bat or anything else to hand, but I guess I consider that option such a remote possibility that I don’t feel the need to defend myself against the possibility more than someone breaking in with a rocket launcher of a phial of Anthrax.
Although as I said, maybe that position is getting more and more naive, and we will need to adress it soon.
The Uk rules about reasonable self defence need to be looked at, but the press surrounding the anomalies if often skewed. Archangel, I’m not sure if its the same one you are talking about, but about a year ago a guy got arrested and charged with ileagal gun ownership, becasue he shot a youth in the back whilst he was running away. I think that the main idea is that you have to be defending your life. the problem is this definition is too broad.
I live in the UK too, so home defence is tricky. However, my mate’s grandfather got round the problem by keeping a harpoon gun. It was some sort of compressed air system and was quite capable of putting a steel trident (!) through a solid wood door. He never fired it in anger though…
Part of the problem is that you can’t use a cricket bat. Not only does the government not allow you to defend yourself, but it also doesn’t allow you to prepare to defend yourself. What this means is that you can’t keep a cricket bat lying around ‘just in case’ since that would make any assault on intruders premeditated. Taxi drivers are not allowed to keep their tool boxes in the front of their cabs for the same reason. Even the notion is having something handy just in case is regarded as a no-no by the UK government.
Furthermore, if you heard burglars downstairs at night, if you wander downstairs to see whats going on, you can’t take your cricket bat since that is also regarded as escalating the situation if the burglar is unarmed. You are meant to wander downstairs, see how armed they are, pop back upstairs to fetch some matching level of weaponry, and bob back downstairs. Either that, or call the police, wait an hour for them to arrive and cower in your bathroom while your worldly possesions are taken.
The recent case in the UK is the case of Tony Martin who went to prison for killing a burglar who was a repeat offender. There was also another case where the burglar was stabbed to death. My only problem here is that Tony Martin shot the burglar in the back as he was fleeing and the other guy stabbed the burglar outside the house as he was trying to get away. I don’t know about the US law, but I think the Stop or I’ll shoot business is illegal meaning that any burglar can just leave the premises and you can’t do anything to stop them.
Also worth noting that UK prisons house more people for traffic offenses (including non-payment of fines) than burglars (according to a sunday time article). No doubt Tony Blair is seeing the pay-off for using tax payers money to set up traffic cameras instead of stopping criminals.
As for never seeing a gun in the UK, just go to the airport, the police there have sub-machine guns.
Next entry: How They Blew It
Previous entry: Socialism: It's A Gas!
Lee, you’ll really like this one.