guns

[soberups]

Justified or not, he is absolutely responsible for that young man's death.

Lets say you choose to get drunk and walk down the side of a dark road, wearing dark clothing.

Lets say the road has a cliff on one side with no guardrail.

Lets say I'm driving that road at night with my family in the car, at legal speed, and you drunkenly stumble out in front of me...leaving me no time to stop.

Lets say I have two choices...stay on the road and run you over, or swerve off the road and over the side of the cliff.

If I choose to run you over in order to avoid going off the cliff and killing my entire family...does that make me responsible for your death?

[bbsam]

The last line of the article bugs me though. The parents of the drunken college student are happy to finally see the now 73 year old homeowner in court so "he can take responsibility for his actions". What about the actions of the student that got him shot in the first place? Drunk or not he tried to enter a then 68 yr old persons home. That person especially at that age would have justifiable fear for their safety.

That's why I made the seemingly absurd suggestion that I would take martial arts training before owning a gun. I don't want to be in the position of victim or using deadly force with nothing in between. Mostly I don't want the decision to use deadly force being driven by fear. People get stupid when they are scared.

[over9five]

People get stupid when they are scared.

People get stupid when they are drunk.

[Dis-organized Labor]

People get stupid when they are drunk.

UH, whas' ya' say???


A body in lotion, tends to stay in lotion, until acted upon by an outside force..

Like, another babe in lotion?????
D'chever go to a lotion rasslin' bar (hiccup).

I think global warming has to do with all the heaters in use on UPS package cars. When they leave the doors open, the heazt rots the ozone layer (burp)

[dilligaf]

Lets say you choose to get drunk and walk down the side of a dark road, wearing dark clothing.

Lets say the road has a cliff on one side with no guardrail.

Lets say I'm driving that road at night with my family in the car, at legal speed, and you drunkenly stumble out in front of me...leaving me no time to stop.

Lets say I have two choices...stay on the road and run you over, or swerve off the road and over the side of the cliff.

If I choose to run you over in order to avoid going off the cliff and killing my entire family...does that make me responsible for your death?

Sober, I couldn't agree with you more and no I don't think it should. I don't remember reading anywhere in the article if the shot was fired after the drunk student came in the house or before. I would think that this would play a huge role in determining guilt. If someone is in my house I am justified in using deadly force.

[soberups]

That's why I made the seemingly absurd suggestion that I would take martial arts training before owning a gun. I don't want to be in the position of victim or using deadly force with nothing in between. Mostly I don't want the decision to use deadly force being driven by fear. People get stupid when they are scared.

And people get scared when other people attack them or try to break into their home.

Do you really feel that you have the luxury of assuming that the person who is breaking into your home is unarmed?

Martial arts are great...but of little use against an armed assailant, or multiple assailants, or some guy that is just bigger and badder and tougher than you are.

What you are describing is a "continuum of force" and is a good protocol for police officers whose job is to subdue violent yet unarmed people. They have the ability, training and backup to start with verbal commands and then if needed proceed through various less-lethal options (martial arts, tear gas, tasers etc.) before finally resorting to deadly force.

I, on the other hand, have no interest in a "fair fight" or in risking my or my family's safety in an attempt to minimize the damage I may have to do to an attacker.

If you dont want me to shoot you...dont attack me or my family and dont try to break into my home while my family and I are inside. Its not that complicated.

[Dis-organized Labor]

And people get scared when other people attack them or try to break into their home.

Do you really feel that you have the luxury of assuming that the person who is breaking into your home is unarmed?

Martial arts are great...but of little use against an armed assailant, or multiple assailants, or some guy that is just bigger and badder and tougher than you are.

What you are describing is a "continuum of force" and is a good protocol for police officers whose job is to subdue violent yet unarmed people. They have the ability, training and backup to start with verbal commands and then if needed proceed through various less-lethal options (martial arts, tear gas, tasers etc.) before finally resorting to deadly force.

I, on the other hand, have no interest in a "fair fight" or in risking my or my family's safety in an attempt to minimize the damage I may have to do to an attacker.

If you dont want me to shoot you...dont attack me or my family and dont try to break into my home while my family and I are inside. Its not that complicated.

Sober, You consistently provide a great perspective on this topic. No emotion; good analogies; good examples. I am not currently a gun owner, but am open minded. Your points are very valid. As Dilli said, we don't know if he actually breached the door, was standing outside of it, came inside and was threatening, or what. Although tragic, the home owner seemed to be justified I(based on the very little we read).
Is he obligated to give a waring shot? No. Should he have? Did he have time? WE do not know.
I hope the shooter prays for the victim daily, and does not feel so bad that his life is ruined. It was a tragic mistake. That's all. IMHO

[Jones]

You are confusing intent with outcome.

His intent...was to protect himself and stop a justifiably perceived threat.

He is not responsible for the decision that the young man made...to become intoxicated and then attempt to break into an occupied home. The reality of the world that we live in is that the choice to break into an occupied home will often result in an outcome of death.

The young man made a choice to drink alcohol and thereby set into motion a chain of events that culminated in his own death. The homeowner was just the messenger. The message delivered...was that it isnt a good idea to break into someone elses house.

Lets say you choose to get drunk and walk down the side of a dark road, wearing dark clothing.

Lets say the road has a cliff on one side with no guardrail.

Lets say I'm driving that road at night with my family in the car, at legal speed, and you drunkenly stumble out in front of me...leaving me no time to stop.

Lets say I have two choices...stay on the road and run you over, or swerve off the road and over the side of the cliff.

If I choose to run you over in order to avoid going off the cliff and killing my entire family...does that make me responsible for your death?

You want to hold the young man responsible for his actions, and I have no problem with that. He was drunk, and he was trespassing. But as far Mr Crouthers goes, you don't want to hold him responsible for his actions at all. He's simply a "messenger" playing out his part in some unstoppable chain of events that he has no control over. That's ridiculous. Every individual is responsible for the actions he/she chooses to take, Mr Crouthers included.

You're then trying to justify Mr Crouthers actions with a made up analogy that bears no resemblance to what happened in this case. This was not an instance of Mr Crouthers having to make a split second decision where no matter what he chose to do, someone was going to die. There was no break in. In fact according to the police report there was no evidence even of an attempted break in. The boy never entered Mr Crouthers' house. He wasn't even standing at the door when Mr Crouthers went outside to look for him. He was drunk and went to wrong house, that's it. The police had been called and were on the way, no one was trying to break in, and Mr Crouthers was safe inside his house armed with a shotgun. That's hardly life or death. This was not a chain of events set into motion by the drunk young man that led inevitably to his death, Mr Crouthers made decisions the whole way, and he's responsible for those decisions. He chose to grab a loaded gun, he chose to open his front door and go outside looking for an intruder, and when he found him he chose to shoot him.
Mr Crouthers and his lawyer are now claiming as part of his defense that he did not know the gun was loaded and he only wanted to scare the boy. Think about that for a minute. He says he took a gun that he thought was unloaded(ie, useless) and went outside looking for the intruder. Would you do that? Does that sound like he was in fear for his life? And I'm not even going to get into the part of responsible gun ownership that deals with knowing whether or not a weapon is loaded.
The court may well find him not criminally liable, but he's clearly responsible for what he did.

[soberups]

Mr Crouthers made decisions the whole way, and he's responsible for those decisions. He chose to grab a loaded gun, he chose to open his front door and go outside looking for an intruder, and when he found him he chose to shoot him.
.

OK, I was wrong.

I was under the impression that the intruder had either forcibly entered the house or was trying to break in.

If in fact he never entered the home and Crouthers went outside looking for him, that changes things completely....particularly if the police had already been called.

This does not absolve the drunken student of responsibility for trespassing, but Crouthers was responsible for negligence in discharging his weapon. "I didnt know it was loaded" is a piss-poor excuse.

[bbsam]

You are confusing intent with outcome.

His intent...was to protect himself and stop a justifiably perceived threat.

He is not responsible for the decision that the young man made...to become intoxicated and then attempt to break into an occupied home. The reality of the world that we live in is that the choice to break into an occupied home will often result in an outcome of death.

The young man made a choice to drink alcohol and thereby set into motion a chain of events that culminated in his own death. The homeowner was just the messenger. The message delivered...was that it isnt a good idea to break into someone elses house.

My intent was to quit drinking and drugging before UPS fired me. I received the results of my actions (rightfully so), not my intentions. I think Klein will back me up on this. Not that will strengthen the argument any.