If they had TO BREAK IN, most likely AT NIGHT, to do it?
Hell YEAH.
What’s wrong with surprising them at the front door? For that matter, why are the parents incapable of recognising their own child, and thereby realising they aren’t breaking and entering?
If it’s a no-knock warrant, definitely. There are other people I’d prefer to see shot over the use of this tactic, but if the police act like criminals, without identifying themselves as the police, it’s their own damn fault if they are treated like criminals.
I am unfamiliar with American party-going custom, but don’t people usually introduce themselves, probably at the front door, rather than just strolling in unannounced?
Ahhhh, the great “what if” game. What if Hitler had been accepted into art school? What if Osama Bin Laden died of diabetes before 2000? What if George H.W. Bush had done the job right in Iraq? The only thing you can do is “suppose.” I suppose if that were the case, things would be different.
Straw man, straw man, straw man. "What if the Tooth Fairy comes in to leave money for little Billy? What if an infant somehow miraculously wanders into your house through a window late at night? What if What if Jesus Christ himself returns as a “thief in the night?” All bullshit.
Your stupid scenarios:
-
Child returning home to surprise parents: Parent with gun calls out, “Get out of here NOW! I have a gun and I WILL shoot!” Kid calls out, “Dad, chill out, it’s me.” Dad proceeds to lecture kid about surprising parents in the early A.M. No one gets shot.
-
Police serve a warrant at the wrong house: Maybe I watch too much TV, but don’t the cops generally knock first, identify themselves, and state that they have a warrant to search the premises? In this case, what homeowner who isn’t a prison kitten in his own right wouldn’t cooperate? Even if they skip the formality of knocking first and do a breach and enter, SWAT-style, they will identify themselves, and quite honestly, if it IS a SWAT-style entry and you’re not already standing there in the kitchen with your gun at the ready, you’re going to be too busy shitting your pants and getting down on the floor to shoot anyone.
-
Someone goes to the wrong house when invited to a party. The house is dark, it’s the wee hours of the morning, and there aren’t 15 cars lined up at the house. What party does the person think is going on? Most people I know, if confronted with a situation like that, would call someone they know is already at the party or will be at the party and confirm the address. If they don’t know anyone’s phone number at the party, the worst they can do is knock and see if someone answers. Not one single person I have ever known in my life would assume that somehow the party is actually going on and think it’s OK to break into the house.
With the possible exception of your first scenario, each of these would require either shooting through the door or such complete inanity on the part of the person breaking in that I wouldn’t blame a homeowner at that point for assuming the worst.
This is what the last thread turned into, more or less. The only way that anti-gun folks seem to be able to argue against home defense is to present absolutely ridiculous scenarios where someone breaking into an occupied home late at night is a thief with a heart of gold and if anyone would shoot him it would rob the world of an angel in human clothing. That’s where this is heading, isn’t it?
All of the cases I mentioned have happened. Here is case of partygoershot at wrong house.
You’re right, it could never happen.
You’ve made the same mistake as you did last time. We don’t support shooting people for knocking on front doors.
Another strawman comes to life. It’s like Oz. “An off-duty New Haven police officer shot and critically wounded his 18-year-old daughter, apparently mistaking her for an intruder after she sneaked out of their Stratford home and re-entered through the basement.” Cite.
I remember this case, and I think the guy should have been convicted of murder.
I’m not sure what any of this has to do with the debate at hand, though. How do these examples connect to or exemplify a point you’re trying to make? I’m sure it would be appreciated if you would explain their relation to your argument.
ETA: if your argument is that 1) people shouldn’t shoot without being able to see the intruder, 2) police officers should be more careful that they serve warrants on the correct addresses, and 3) nobody should shoot another person for simply walking into their driveway, I very much doubt that anyone here will have any problem agreeing with you.
Therefore: Police should not be allowed to own or fire firearms.
Correct?
Idiotic example. Not only was this raid at 9:45 A.M. negating the idea of someone breaking in at night, THERE IS NO MENTION WHATSOEVER OF THE HOMEOWNER EVEN HAVING A GUN. Not only that, but I NEVER SAID THAT THE POLICE NEVER RAID THE WRONG PLACE. So you totally misrepresented my statements there, and I’m pretty fucking sure it won’t be the last time.
It was pretty clear from the article that the homeowner recognized that it was the police raiding his house, he’s pissed off at them, but at no point did he shoot at the police, or brandish any type of weapon, or anything. Piss-poor example. Total fail for you on this one.
Idiot homeowner shoots foreign exchange student in the driveway, NOT A HOME INVASION IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. Another piss-poor example. Another fail for you.
Trigger-happy cop shoots (NOT TO KILL, I might add) an intruder in his basement. He should have issued a challenge; being a cop, he should KNOW this. Instead he shot first. Stupid cop. No donut. All you’ve really managed to do here is cite an example of someone who should know better doing something stupid. No, make that two people, since daughter had to know daddy was a cop with a gun and that it was possible to get shot at by idiot cop dad. Citing this as a validation of your scenario is like someone saying that someone, somewhere, got food poisoning from eating shellfish, therefore all shellfish should be outlawed.
I think there has been a consistent argument that when you perceive there is an inruder in your house it is OK to shoot. The argument seeming to be that if someone is in your house unexpectedly they must be up to something nefarious. Here is one example:
And yet even with my feeble memory I was able to recall at least three cases off the top of my head where that was not true. Yet I was met by a chorus of “strawman” and “stupid scenario”.
My point is that seeing someone in your home should not result in shooting what you perceive to be an intruder until you have clear indication that your life is in danger. Yes, this should be obvious, but from the quote above it clearly is not. I personally don’t give a fuck if every real home invader is blown away, but I would not want anyone to live with the guilt of shooting a loved one or stranger because of the faulty perception that they had “broken in”.
You are absolutely shameless. You said my scenarios were stupid, and strawmen, yet all three ocurred in real life. Why do you want to turn this into a gun control debate? Do you think I want to ban all guns? Keeping them away from morons perhaps. Maybe that is why you are threatened.
You can’t possibly be this stupid. You said that homeowners are never suprised by cops busting in without announcing themselves, therefore there is no danger of police being shot accidentally. The fact that this particular homwowner did not shoot is a blessing. The cops may not have been so lucky if they accidentally did it at your house.
This kid wasn’t in the house, he was out by the car he came in. Pearis should have gone to jail for that, shoots, runs back into house, doesn’t call police. The entire thing fails the smell test.
Police served a warrant at the wrong address, no one got shot. Its a no knock warrant, but when they do those they bust down the door and announce they are police. If a cop gets shot, the person wanted to shoot a cop.
The girl snuck back home in the middle of the night, not “one day to surprise his parents and lets himself in the back door.”
You’re technically correct, I suppose, in saying that they are not straw men; they are not mere constructs of your imagination. However, they are, by and large, totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Threatened? By what? I don’t own a gun, and never have. I would have to use some sort of household object to defend myself, putting myself at greater risk, if ever someone were to break into my living space.
[Emphasis mine]
Remember how I predicted that you wouldn’t be able to resist misrepresenting my arguments? Here we go again! My actual statement:
Note that I never said that homeowners “are never surprised” and I don’t see anything in the article that indicates that the police did NOT identify themselves immediately. In fact the homeowner seems to indicate that he recognized the intruders as police almost immediately. He seemed pretty fucking surprised and yet there was no gunfire. **Please find a cite of the police making a raid of a home at the incorrect address and NOT identifying themselves, leading to the homeowner shooting at the police or else STFU. **
As for “The cops may not have been so lucky if they accidentally did it at your house,” I take that to mean that you think that I would be more than happy to open fire immediately on uniformed, armored police breaking down my door at 9:45 A.M. I know you didn’t actually emphasize the “your” in that statement, but I sensed it nonetheless. Correct me if I’m wrong.
sigh
I don’t even own a fucking gun. I never have. If someone were to try to break into my place, and the last resort was the use force to defend myself, I would be forced to use some sharp or large, heavy blunt object to defend myself, placing myself in harm’s way far more than I would like.
No, you weren’t.
In the first example, the partygoer wasn’t even in the house.
In the second example the police were making a no-knock entry, so you could argue they weren’t up to something nefarious. I’d still consider it a good thing if no-knock warrants were made illegal, precisely because it resembles a break-in and thereby makes friendly-fire accidents more likely.
In the third example, the daughter was in the house, but not unexpectedly so, even if the father thought his daughter had gone to bed for the night.