Would-be Burglar Shot to Death

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

An apartment break-in ended in a shooting, with the tenant killing the intruder. It happened to our east in Moorhead, Minnesota around midnight Saturday.

The burglar died after being shot in the chest at close range with a shotgun.

It`s been an emotional night for Sara Graham. "I thought he was drunk and trying to rob me; I did not know he was," says Graham. She begins to cry and can`t finish her sentence.

She was sleeping in her apartment when a man walked in in the middle of the night. She yelled at him to leave, and he did.

snip

But the intruder came back, this time entering another apartment. The tenant told police the man refused to leave and tried to pick a fight with him. The apartment owner grabbed his shotgun, and when the intruder attacked again, the tenant fired. It was a fatal shot.

http://www.kfyrtv.com/News_Stories.asp?news=31367


Tragic ending to tragic choices.

David

[MichaelHarris]

1. Galveston girl killed in shooting

GALVESTON – A 12-year-old girl died Sunday morning after she was shot at a Galveston home, police said. Police believe the girl was shot by a sibling. http://galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=4077ff5c...

[sharesunited]

2. Thank you Michael. Try to answer every gun worshipping post

with one which reminds us of the unacceptable cost to society.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. In what way does this post worship guns?

[Raskolnik]

25. If you don't like the cost, feel free to amend the Constitution.

Instructions are provided in the document.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

3. Accidental gun deaths while very rare are tragic and should be studied to see how to prevent them.

Thanks for posting it.

[gorfle]

9. if..

If having the tools to defend ourselves means we must deal with the tragedies of the misuse of those tools then so be it.

To quote Thomas Jefferson, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending a too small degree of it."

By your posting these sorts of articles, Michael, you appear to be saying that disagree with Jefferson.

[iverglas]

16. I'll be happy, and proud, to disagree with Jefferson

Anybody who preaches that one person's interests - let alone life - must be sacrificed in his own interest is just a big old piece o' dirt, eh?


If having the tools to defend ourselves means we must deal with the tragedies of the misuse of those tools then so be it.

My blank verse collection is overflowing.

I'm going to start giving classes to those who might have difficulty interpreting.

This one:

As long as I get to have what I want, I don't give a flying fuck whether you die.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Translate this one, please.

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."

Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, 560 (1878)


Seems to me a different way of saying the same thing, and I wonder how it reads to you, please.

[iverglas]

21. sorry, does not compute

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows ..."

Seems to me to presuppose a time machine. And of course to involve pre-emptive punishment.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. But aren't all laws based on

a similar balance of 'do x and we punish you with y, so don't do x'?

All laws hinge on that understanding, right?

[iverglas]

24. they do indeed

But does a sensible person say that this prevents evil?

The general deterrence effect of gallows has been pretty much disproven. And increasing sentence lengths really doesn't have much more effect, in terms of general deterrence.

People who actually give a shit about the victims of the evils in question look for ways to prevent it. Post facto punishment of those who have committed it just doesn't do a whole lot for the victims.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Fair points.

I too, am unimpressed by measures such as the death penalty, as far as the prevention of murder goes. At least in comparing murder rates in places where you might get 30 years to life, versus places with the death penalty.

Still.. The fact that there is a law against murder, and we do punish severely for it, with or without the death penalty, cleary has some deterrence effect. If murder wasn't illegal at all, I would expect a severe uptick, even here in the US, where we have fairly high rates of assault and murder, even ignoring firearms.

Some level of regulation is clearly necessary, and perfectly legal even under the 'shall not be infringed' nature of the 2nd Amendment, but I question that regulation's use as a deterrence as well, for the bloody-minded.

[iverglas]

29. I didn't say what you question

Some level of regulation is clearly necessary, and perfectly legal even under the 'shall not be infringed' nature of the 2nd Amendment, but I question that regulation's use as a deterrence as well, for the bloody-minded.

The limitations on access that I support are not deterrent, they are preventive. My whole point.

Imposing requirements on the "law-abiding" regarding how they deal with their firearms - yes, associated with sanctions for failure to comply - can be expected to reduce transfers (voluntary or involuntary) from the "law-abiding" to the scofflaws.

It does this in two ways.

First, it gives the law-abiding tools with which to prevent such transfers, e.g. by requiring that the transferee prove that s/he is eligible to acquire.

Second, it acts on those who are genuinely likely to be deterred by the threat of sanctions, if they are not already deterred by their own decency: those with something to lose if caught in non-compliance.

Requiring registration can provide a further incentive for compliance with measures to prevent both voluntary and involuntary transfers.

The law-abiding can be expected to decline to transfer firearms to ineligible persons if their possession of the firearm in question is known to authorities and they can thus be held accountable for its disposal.

And they can be expected to comply (at least to some degree; human nature is a factor here) with safe/secure storage rules, if they are given some incentive, for those to whom mere decency is not enough, in the form of accountability if they fail to comply.

And forgive me if I just keep on saying it, but: anyone who genuinely does give a shit about other people, in terms the harm of which they are at risk because of the firearms practices of some members of their society, supports measures like these. Nobody who does give that shit stamps their foot and asserts their right to do what they damn well please and conceal what they do from the bogeymen in the gu'mint and rejects what can genuinely be called the inconveniences of those limitations.

The absolutely enormous harms wrought with firearms in the US are not "inconveniences". Having to get a licence to possess firearms and register one's firearms and store one's firearms safely/securely, those are inconveniences.

[Raskolnik]

32. Let's see if that holds up when applied to other civil liberties.

Having to get a license to possess books and register one's newspapers and store one's religious materials safely/securely, those are inconveniences.

Sound like a little more than "inconveniences," don't they?

[Raskolnik]

23. Your disdain for civil liberties, if not endearing, is not surprising.

You're an authoritarian, through and through.

Yes, civil liberties *are* dangerous. Allowing people the freedom to speak, to move freely, to congregate, and share unpopular ideas does have a cost in decreased public safety. Placing restrictions on law enforcement and insisting on due process can have a cost in decreased public safety. Most reasonable people understand that civil liberties can, and do, come with a cost, and understand that the cost is worth paying in the long run.

There is a balance to be struck, that much is certain, but you certainly do have a consistent and persistent contempt for anything that protects, rather than erodes, people's civil liberties. Why is that?


edit typo

[iverglas]

26. my disdain, of course, is for your Jefferson and his ilk

Let's look at that again:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending a too small degree of it.

It's just all about him, isn't it?


Yes, civil liberties *are* dangerous.

"Yes"? Was there a question? Did someone say civil liberties are dangerous? What are you talking about?


There is a balance to be struck, that much is certain, but you certainly do have a consistent and persistent contempt for anything that protects, rather than erodes, people civil liberties. Why is that?

Er, purple? No, it was "expeditious", wasn't it.

I am so sorely in need of lessons in the correct way to answer questions loaded with filthy false premises, I wonder that someone hasn't come to my aid by now.

I oppose any and all restrictions on access to abortion.
I support decriminalization of the possession of any and all drugs.
I oppose restrictions on access to any of the protections and benefits of laws and public policies/programs, and any private sector discrimination, on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, and any other irrelevant personal characteristic.
I oppose any interference in the exercise of any variety of right or freedom for which justification consistent with the foundational values and principles of a liberal democracy has not been demonstrated.

I don't agree with you when it comes to the demonstrated justification for limitations on access to firearms. And so you resort to flinging around really really dumb insults and posting filthy false allegations. I get it, already.

Nobody really knows what old Ben said, but it was along this line:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

You regard other people's deaths (and the huge costs to the economy, and the underdevelopment of communities, and all the private pain and costs, arising out of harms caused by firearm) as the loss of a little temporary safety, I guess. I don't.

[Raskolnik]

28. Unless you're getting paid a nicked every time you type the word "filthy,"

I think its served its purpose. Same goes with "purple." The fiftieth time you use those old chestnuts, its clever. The hundredth? Not so much.

But I am proud of you, iverglas. Four declarative sentences in a row. Take a star out of petty cash.

You regard other people's deaths...as the loss of a little temporary safety, I guess.

Sometimes, yes, I do. There are countless examples where I find the essential civil liberties are worth the inevitable cost of some innocent lives, as tragic and jarring as that calculus is. And I'm sure if you were being honest, you could come up with numerous examples of you doing the same thing when it comes to civil liberties you find valuable. But for some reason, I don't see other people on DU accusing *you* of not giving "a flying fuck" whether someone dies. Why do you suppose that is?

[iverglas]

30. give it a shot

There are countless examples where I find the essential civil liberties are worth the inevitable cost of some innocent lives, as tragic and jarring as that calculus is. And I'm sure if you were being honest, you could come up with numerous examples of you doing the same thing when it comes to civil liberties you find valuable.

Surely you have some scenarios in mind.

Do keep in mind that collective decisions won't really count. The collective decision of a society to engage in war when attacked, in order to preserve its collective liberty and security, knowing that some of its members will die, just really isn't the same as your little calculus.

Yours is that the "right" of some individuals to do what they bloody well please outweighs the right of others to live in safe communities, to live in communities with healthy economies, to live with all their limbs intact, to live with their family members still breathing ... and to just plain live.

Not the same thing. But feel free to come up with something you think is the same that you can catch me out with.

[Raskolnik]

31. Really? Do you honestly think that it would be difficult to come up with an example?

Let's pick the right against unreasonable search and seizure off the top of the pile and use that as an example. I'll go out on a limb and assume that you do not believe police should have unfettered powers of search and seizure. I'll go further out on a limb and assume you believe that you yourself should and do deserve some level of protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Now, let's say the Prince of Canada decides that the death toll from drunk drivers is just too costly, and decrees that anyone in a liquor store or bar may be searched, questioned, and detained indefinitely at sole, unreviewable discretion of the law enforcement officer on the scene to reduce the instances of driving under the influence. Of course, the toll from drunk drivers is undeniably tragic, but I'm going to guess that you might not approve of being detained, frisked, and given a breathalizer test every time you had a pint** at the corner pub. But why would you be put off? Do you think that your individual right to do what you bloody well please outweighs the right of others to live in safe communities, to live in communities with healthy economies, to live with all their limbs intact, to live with their family members still breathing ... and to just plain live?



*do you guys still have royalty? I forget.
**or its Canadian equivalent, the hexaliter

[MrModerate]

4. From the story, the guy doesn't sound like a burglar at all . . .

But instead a crazy assailant. A different kettle of fish than simple burglary, IMO.

[Statistical]

7. The legal definition of buglary has nothing to do with stealing.

Burglary = unlawful entry into a residence (i.e. trespassing inside a home).

Although we use a more common language version to mean "houses getting robbed" the article is accurate.
If he had lived the suspect would have been charged with burglary since he escalated to violence it would have been Burglary in the 1st degree in most states.

[MrModerate]

8. No argument. But the colloquial understanding of the term is what people will take away . . .

From the story.

Also . . . first degree burglary and not assault?

[pipoman]

10. In most states

assault does not include laying hands on a person, it is often threatening language or 'fighting words', once hands are laid on a person it becomes battery. In some states use of a weapon during the coarse of a crime escalates the crime being committed, in my state burglary while threatening someone with a weapon is aggravated burglary.

[proteus_lives]

5. "Tragic ending to tragic choices."

Very true.

[zbdent]

6. this, I can understand ...

what I can't accept is ... after having brought down a would-be robber, who was then unable to move and was face down in his own pooling blood, walking up to him and shooting him several more times in the back, thus killing him, being judge, jury, and executioner ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. Who is suggesting that you or anyone accept that?

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Useless anecdote.

Just like Michael's post. You're feeding the trolls.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. Not completely useless.

I know your position and respect it. I disagree though. ALmost everyone knows how common gun violence is in this country. People, especially here, don't seem to be aware that guns are also used for self defense on a somewhat regular basis. While I agree that these incidents are anecdotal and policy should never be based on anecdote, I do believe that people should be aware of them.

David

[AtheistCrusader]

18. If you want to open people's eyes...

you'd have to outweigh the links people like Michael offer, because the confirmation bias of the viewer is going to swing in a direction I don't think you'll want, even if you do equal numbers of links. Currently he, and others, are posting more.

I think even the most jaded anti-gun individual knows firearms can and are used for lawful defense purposes sometimes, even though it's under reported in the news. If you could show a statistically significant number of defensive gun uses that outweighs criminal activity, that would be something indeed. But what is happing here is, frankly, weak, from a convincing the viewer standpoint.

My 2 cents, anyway.

[Tim01]

15. Wow. The intruder came back. He shouldn't have done that. nt

[SteveM]

33. I think the (dead) intruder was making a statement. Arrogant AND dangerous (nt)

[iverglas]

17. .

Police say the dead burglar was a 17-year-old Moorhead boy.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. Tragic ending to his criminal decisions.

[Tim01]

34. Maybe people shouldn't break into other peoples houses. nt