🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1p7vfu$n81@sol.TIS.COM>, mjr@tis.com (Marcus J Ranum) writes:
|> donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
|> >Huh?  There is no excuse at all for shooting people, other than self
|> >defense.  No matter how sad someone's story, once they pick up a weapon,
|> any 
|> >weapon and hurt someone innocent, I don't think feeling sorry for them
|> is
|> >reasonable.  
|> 
|> 	Shooting people in self defense is *arguably* excusable, and
|> I believe should be addressed on a situational basis. Use of deadly
|> force in self-defense needs to be restricted to cases where it was
|> clearly necessary. This is a subtle and sticky problem. If someone
|> attacks me and I shoot them through the thigh and run away, was it
|> justified? What if I overreact and shoot them between the eyes?
|> 
|> 	Basically, use of deadly force in self-defense places the
|> judiciary in the unfortunate role of having to apply 20-20 hindsight
|> to a tricky (often vague) tactical problem. Us armchair hussars will
|> tell you that 20-20 hindsight applied to tactics is often blind.

I can't speak to Washington DC law, but in New York, its basically a
'reasonable person', i.e. you have to convince the judge/jury that 
you acted as a reasonable person would have in that situation.  NY
does not allow lethal force in defense of property (a few states do,
but its not worth it; Texas is one).  Self-defense in one's home is
much more clear cut.
|> 
|> 	One issue lots of pro-guns-as-self-defense-tools advocates
|> gloss over is the fact that many firearms accidents are a result
|> of mistaken attempts at self defense. 

Do you have cites for this?  I can think of the incident in Louisiana,
but thats it.

|>Should shooting the cat,
|> or the postman, or one's neighbor kid, or one's own foot, in an
|> accident where one *thought* one was being attacked be treated as
|> "just a mistake" or as manslaughter?

postman, kid - manslaughter
cat          - 
foot         - self-inflicted punishment!

If someone uses self-defense inappropriately, they are a criminal, and
should be punished accordingly.  

|> 
|> 	I believe that if someone wishes to accept the responsibility
|> of using deadly force to defend h*self, they should go to jail if
|> they turn out to have applied deadly force by mistake, just like
|> any other irresponsible criminal.

absolutely.  

|> 
|> >And in most cities, the good guys don't have the
|> >legal means to fight back.
|> 
|> 	Don, you continually ignore the tactical reality that most
|> urban shootings are not exchanges of fire, but are unilateral attacks
|> by surprise. Please explain to me how having a gun in my pocket will
|> help me if that loonie in DC decides to discharge his shotgun into
|> the back of my head while I'm getting the groceries.

Firearms aren't magic wands; having one doesn't guarentee anything.
However, there are also situations where self defense with a handgun
is a practical alternative.  Consider an attempted carjacking; given
a small amount of situational awareness, its highly likely that you 
can [and people have] defend yourself successfully [at least two incidents
i'm aware of - the intended victims were FBI agents].

My point is that for each situation we can create where the presense of
a firearm for self defense does not help, we can also create a situation
where it does.

See Kleck "Point Blank" and Wright/Rossi "Under the Gun"

|> 
|> mjr.

-- 
Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
                (internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
 (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..