In the OP of this thread, the OP-er illustrated several instances where individuals apparently used guns in a defensive manner. With one exception, the defensive gun uses (DGU) depicted in the OP were thwarted low dollar value thefts in places like "dollar" stores, convenience stores, and what appears to be a computer lab. The OP videos demonstrate that without question, DGUs happen.
In post #3 of this thread and once in the OP, the OP-er posted several videos that depict or re-enact individuals using deadly force to repel an assailant, in some cases killing them. None of the videos portray events in a would be victim's home; all of the events take place in public settings.
Having established that DGUs happen, it makes sense to ask some questions about them.
- How often do DGUs happen as a proportion of violent and property crimes?
- When is homicide justifiable?
- It is ethically appropriate to threaten to take or in fact take a would be criminal's life over objects of low value or small sums of money?
- What is the value of a life?
- Who should decide the value of a life? When? How?
- What should happen when the person who decided misjudged one or more key factors that contributed to their decision?
Question 1:
The answer to question one has, for at least one lustrum, been provided by the Department of Justice.
- Violent Crime: ~235K times in a five year period
- Property Crime: 103K times in a five year period
Table: Self-protective behaviors, by type of crime, 2007 - 2011 [you may need to click on the "view attachment" link to see it]
View attachment 80258
Source:
"Firearm Violence, 1993-2011". Table 11: Self-protective behaviors, by type of crime, 2007–2011.
Question 2:
One matter that may not be included in the figures above is justifiable homicide. Justifiable homicide is sometimes a complicated thing due to the differences that exist in federal and state laws about what and when homicide in self-defense is justifiable.
- The FBI defines "justifiable homicide" as:
- The killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty.
- The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen. (Because these killings are determined through law enforcement investigation to be justifiable, they are tabulated separately from murder and nonnegligent manslaughter.)
- The 50 states; three doctrines:
In some states, one must observe the duty to retreat such that the burden of proof rests on a non-retreating killer to show that their use of deadly force was justified. Other states don't require one to comply with that standard; thus they are "stand your ground" states; moreover, when one may stand one's ground and when one may not varies among states that have enacted "stand your ground" statutes.
There is also a third doctrine, the Castle Doctrine, that determines the nature and extent of one's authority to use the "stand your ground" doctrine in one's home. In Castle Doctrine locales, one has a duty to retreat when one is not under attack at home. The specifics of the Castle Doctrine are many and they too vary by state. Examples of how they may vary include but are not limited to:
- Whether the grounds of one's home are included within the doctrine
- In a multi-unit building, whether it applies to you in your unit as well as to you in, say, the building lobby
- Whether one is limited to using "proportionate" force and when
- The nature and reasonableness of the fear one feels that inspires one to use deadly force
Discussion and Analysis:
Thinking about the vagueness of the FBI's definition of "justifiable homicide" and the variability of laws about when one has the authority to use deadly force, I think we have a "clusterfuck" going on, and as best as I can tell, the root causes of that being the situation in which we find ourselves are avarice, pride and idiocy.
- Avarice:
- The gun industry wants to make money selling guns and ammo. Accordingly, that industry needs consumers to buy guns in an environment whereby their only impediments are availability of the product itself and a potential buyer's ability to pay for the product.
- The gun industry exhibits avarice when it pushes for limits on the government's ability to explore the nature and extent of the person-related drivers to gun violence and gun misuse.
- Individuals often and clearly express a desire to value property over human life.
A retail client I had years ago implemented a policy whereby cash registers were never permitted to hold more than $250. While that policy existed in part to minimize theft losses, it was implemented also to remove, as best as management could, the obligation and impetus -- especially that felt by clerks who have an overdeveloped sense of ownership -- to protect the store's assets rather than yield them to the thief and in turn act solely to protect their own well being.
The retailer's position is (unless they've changed it since my project finished), if someone demands money or merchandise, or begins to exhibit violence of any sort, do what one must do on one's own behalf. In such situations, do nothing physical to protect the store's property and on the company's behalf. The company has insurance for the financial losses, and it has security footage to aid in apprehending the assailant.
- Pride -- Pride manifests itself and confounds things in a few ways:
- The pride of "common" individuals to think they can and should, absent comprehensive legal training, be allowed to unilaterally, and on the spur of the moment, judge whether and which of the provisions of the relevant doctrine applies to their situation. For example:
- Is a perpetrator attempting to steal things that fall below the felony threshold? Are they just trying to get some de minimis items/cash? Which of us has the ability to sagaciously tell and which of us doesn't?
Given the way some laws are written, it's clear that some people must be able to accurately distinguish a perp's intent in the heat of the moment. From what I have observed, it's often enough not easy to determine intent even after the fact in the tranquility of experts' (doctors, accountants, psychologists, etc.) offices, police stations, law offices (prosecution or defense), and courtrooms. How on Earth a layman is supposed to do so effectively in a far less serene setting is beyond me. I know folks can make a decision; I don't at all know or feel confident that most folks can make the best choice in the situations where DGU is a consideration.
- Is a perpetrator indicating somehow that one's personal being is at risk?
- Other ways....[I'm not going to sit here and list every stinking way...hopefully readers are wise enough to identify other ways on their own.]
- The pride that comes from ignoring the facts and thinking one knows better.
- The pride that comes from wanting to have a whole nation bend to one's way -- when it's clear that one's way is not the only way that offers the prospect of ameliorating the "gun problem" -- rather than seeking a compromise solution that lets "legit" folks have guns and minimizes the availability of them to "non-legit" folks.
- The pride that accompanies the idea that the "gun problem" can be solved by dealing only with guns, would be gun owners, and actual gun owners. The problem
- The pride that accompanies the "don't f*ck with me" attitude some people have. This zealous attitude may lead such a person to overreact. If/when such a person does overreact, they may then create undue risk and penalty for themselves in addition to needlessly killing another person.
- Idiocy -- Idiocy, and the ignorance that often accompanies it, factors into the picture when individuals who have the means to defensively use a gun fail to or lack the ability to think rationally, ethically and quickly before pulling a trigger. The sad reality is that there are plenty of folks who aren't technically of below-normal intellectual acuity, but who yet couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag that has holes on both ends.
The "stand your ground" model makes it easy to know when it's okay to threaten or use deadly force in self-defense, and that appears to be part of why such statutes have been implemented, but the doctrine also puts a lot of trust and authority in the hands/minds of folks who may or may not deserve to be given that authority and trust. (
How 'duty to retreat' became 'stand your ground' - CNN.com) As noted above, certain prideful individuals simply cannot handle that level of authority. Where the "stand your ground" laws are simple, that problem is solved, but solving it with super-simple "stand your ground" laws opens the door to a lot of ethical/moral mistakes.
Additionally, "stand your ground" (SYG) laws seem to inspire unwarranted vigilantism. Consider the OP's second video, the events of which I presume took place in a "stand your ground" state. In it, a store worker is not behind the register where the thieves are rummaging about looking for something (presumably money). The worker comes into view leaning over the customer-side of the counter, brandishing a pistol and threatens a thief.
Now why that worker needed to confront the thief is beyond me. His own safety was clearly not at risk; he was nowhere to be seen until he leaned over the counter with the gun. He put his own safety at risk as well as risking killing another person. And for what? Well, we don't know and cant' say based on the video's content, but we can see the thief was looking for goods or money rather than acting to threaten harm to the worker. Based solely on what the video shows, there is nothing indicating the worker had cause to do anything other than stay where he was in another part of the store or exit the store and find safety.
By the same token, the "duty to retreat" laws, though on their face are pretty simple, it may not always be so simple to say whether a person, a person such as the worker discussed above, can flee or should (should not) have tried to flee. On the other hand, it's unreasonable to always by law require one to flee rather than defend oneself (not property) and as a result of the law make it overly easy to penalize reasonable individuals who act reasonably given the circumstances. On the upside, "duty to retreat" laws don't inspire vigilantism, so in that regard, they do at least help inspire reasonable behavior when forced into the stressful situation of having to choose between self-defense and flight.
In my opinion, organizations that are unavoidably avaricious have no right to participate in the "gun debate." Moreover, individuals who have excesses of pride and ignorance have no business owning guns or being given the imprimatur to judge whether a situation rightly calls for DGU. I think the gun use laws need to be things that a reasonable person can accurately apply and that a jury comprised of average intelligence jurors don't need to think hard to assess in connection with events and acts upon which they are asked to opine. I think all three doctrines currently in place are flawed: SYG laws don't impose enough constraints; DTR laws impose too many constraints and too much uncertainty, and "Castle" laws are too complex.
