Blogger agonizes over Teens on Trial

[firearms_instructor]

I found an article titled Teens on Trial on a stranger's website. I don't remember what I was searching for that led me to it., but here's the link:

http://www.mynameiskate.com/life/verdict.html

The author (Kate?) seem upset that a teenaged girl was shot. after reading the article and the case law summary that followed, here's what I wrote to Kate:

Kate,

My name is Richard and I somehow stumbled across Teens on Trial on your website. I read the article and your comments expressing dismay at the apparent injustices in this case.

I should tell you at this point that I am neither a cop, attorney, prosecutor, nor judge. I also don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak (I have no relationship with any of the parties in the case). I am a Certified Firearms Instructor and Range Safety Officer, and I do know a few things about the justifiable use of deadly force, however. I am writing you in the interest of putting some of the facts of the case into perspective. I don't expect you to believe anything I tell you, and I suggest you do your own research. I do request that you give some more thought to this.

1) A knife is a deadly weapon - police are trained to shoot a knife-wielding assailant who approaches within 21 feet. Try a Google search for "Tueller drill". Charles Cameron initiated a potentially deadly assault by stabbing Hansen in the back while initiating a home invasion. Hansen was lucky that Cameron didn't manage to slice any of his arteries, or he could have bled to death.

2) The Castle Doctrine ("A man's home is his castle") - many states require that you withdraw from a hostile encounter if at all possible, UNLESS YOU ARE IN YOUR HOME. The youths in question invaded Hansen's home, and prevented him from leaving.

3) Disparity of force - Hansen was outnumbered 4 to 1, and two of his assailants were armed with deadly weapons. His assailants were much younger and probably much more agile than him.

Hansen made a huge mistake by agreeing to pay for sex with a couple of underaged strangers, but once he dropped them off at the restaurant, that incident was over, and the girls had no right to go back to his house. It sounds like Longoria started this whole sordid mess, and paid for her poor judgement and morals with her life.

So here's how I see it: the girls conspired to defraud a horny old man, and when he refused to pay for services not rendered, they tried to blackmail him. When he left they conspired to rob him. They enlisted two more accomplices, went to his house, and assaulted him with a deadly weapon while robbing him. They kept him from leaving, that's kidnapping. From the facts as presented in the case law summary, I can only conclude that this was a righteous shoot. The old man shot in self-defense. He exercised his right to defend himself. And apparently the police also thought this was a righteous shoot since Hansen wasn't indicted for homicide. The kids involved are lucky that I wasn't the prosecutor for their case or one of the jurors, because I have no sympathy for them.

You said, "And HE KILLED A GIRL. Am I the only one that really noticed this (other than her friends)? Why isn't he required to defend his action?". Well, because here's the deal: the girl he killed WAS IN HIS HOUSE ASSAULTING HIM WITH A DEADLY WEAPON WHEN HE SHOT HER. He told them to drop their knives, and she lunged at him. So what would you do, if someone invaded your home, and then lunged at you with a knife? I offer a link for your consideration:
http://www.a-human-right.com/

Sincerely,
Richard

 

[Treylis]

Hansen sounds rather sleazy, but to me he was clearly in the right in shooting to survive. For god's sake, he was stabbed and outnumbered.

I can only hope you receive a cogent response from her in which she changes her mind, but I doubt you will, sadly.

 

[firearms_instructor]

My wife caught the telling statement

which puts mynameiskate's righteous indignation into proper perspective so I wrote this:

I just realized what I missed earlier. My wife saw it, actually. "I have had friends who committed crimes." This explains your skewed perspective. Apparently you do not take crime seriously. You seem to think it's OK to break into someone's home and assault them with a knife, but it's not OK for the homeowner to defend his life?

Also, you said, "What angers me is the lack of consequence for the "victim". It's hard to call him that when he started it all by propositioning two underage girls. No criticism was heard about that.". I have several problems with this. First of all, there is no "lack of consequence" for the victim. Hansen was stabbed in the back, beaten, confined against his will, had his home invaded and his properly stolen and damaged, threatened with blackmail, and he had to shoot someone to defend his life. How do you think his relationship with his wife has been affected, now that this sordid episode has been in the papers and through the courts? You blame Hansen for starting this, but the legal case summary, which was based on the surviving girl's testimony, says this: "While waiting for his car to get washed, Borg Hansen met Jessica Longoria. During the ensuing conversation, Longoria offered to have sex with Hansen for money." Gee, it sounds to me like this whole thing was Jessica Longoria's idea. Also, I don't recall reading anywhere that Hansen knew the girls were underaged. He still exercised poor judgement, no matter what, but I don't recall reading that Hansen had a history of soliciting underage girls for sex.

You say, "Mostly, I mourn for Jessica. I suppose her death could be considered her fault or that of her friends. But I'm really not a fan of circumstantial blame. Hansen pulled the trigger.". "circumstantial blame?!" I say BS. Jessica Longoria and her criminal friends perpetrated a home invasion, and Jessica Longoria died while trying to stab Borge Hansen with a knife.

You say, "And the killer is not even being tried. I realize he'd probably get off on a plea of self-defense. But why isn't he being forced to PROVE it?". Here's why, Kate: one of the defendants involved confessed, and her confession was probably consistent with the evidence the police examined during the investigation (bloody knife, for example)..

After reading your comments I'm left wondering whether you are ageist, or sexist, or both. It was OK for Jessica Longoria to invade Borge Hansen's home and assault him with a knife because she was a young girl and he was an old male pedophile? Is that your point? I find it interesting to read your complaints against the newspaper's alleged bias, however, I find your particular bias (punish the victim!) utterly repugnant and lacking moral merit.

Sincerely,
Richard

 

[RatFink]

Nowhere in that article (That I saw) does it say that he knew she was under age. These days it's kinda hard to tell sometimes. So for all we know he just thought he was buying a prostitute.

I also got the impression that they propositioned him, that this was the plan Jessica came up with "Lets tell that old guy we'll sell him sex. When we get to his house we'll steal some stuff"

Maybe I missed that stuff, if I did then I'm wrong, but it seems like an old guy just wanted to buy sex, which I think should be legal anyway.

 

[Publicola]

Here's my rather lengthy take on it. Paging John Galt

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Logical disconnect alert:

"So I don't know anyone who robs, and so I've never talked to anyone about why they would rob. Or accepted it as something if not normal, plausible.
Complicating matters is that, according to her friends, Jessica was the instigator. It was her idea, and her that persuaded the others to come along. This is what I was told. But in the trial, and in the trials to come, will her friends speak so poorly of the dead? Will they instead claim responsibility?"

Kate does not know any thieves; at least not any serious thieves. So she has trouble understanding that people do these kinds of things.

I thought the girl who died was a friend (or at least an acquaintance) of Kate. The girl who died died because she was a perpetrator of an armed robbery and assault. Kate knew her, ergo Kate knows thieves ... serious thieves.

Kate needs a reality check. This situation was presented to her as that reality check, but she is apparently missing the message.

 

[sturmruger]

I can't decide if it is entertaining, or just sad to read misguided anti ramblings. I feel bad for this woman. It doesn't sound like she would ever defend herself if she was in danger.

 

[firearms_instructor]

Speaking of Kate...

"Kate needs a reality check. This situation was presented to her as that reality check, but she is apparently missing the message."

Agreed. I haven't received a reply from her yet. Reading elsewhere on her site I discovered to my horror that she aspires to be a schoolteacher. I have a problem with someone like this influencing young skulls full of mush, as it were.

 

[Publicola]

Hawkmoon,

Unless I misread Kate's piece she said she knew someone that knew the deceased robber. No argument that the deceased & her accomplices were serious thieves but Kate did not know them directly, only indirectly through a friend. I do believe she said she met one of them once, but a single meeting is probably insufficient to "know" someone.

But that aside she claims herelf to not "...know anyone who robs..."

Sturmruger,

I think she'd defend herself although I doubt she'd be able to do so effectively.

The problem she has is not her opposition to all self defense, but she assigns pity to the ones who don't deserve any while condemning the one who does deserve some sympathy.

On the surface there could be many reasons for her attitude, but the root of it is a denial of reality - not the typical denial of reality that we all think of when we hear the term, but the denial of a reality based in logic. In fact, she's reversed the entire process a human is supposed to use to make decisions: she disregards logic because it would lead to a conclusion that goes against her feelings. She can comprehend the circumstances & their potential outcomes, but she chooses not to so she can feel her way to a conclusion that lets her view the criminals as victims & the victim as a criminal. For her this is much more satifying than if she looked at things from what we'd consider a rational perspective.

But rest assured, if she were attacked I don't think she'd have any moral problems with defending herself. She'd probably be a little miffed if anyone questioned her actions. This is because of her desire to feel rather than think. She would be able to feel that her life was in danger, whereas she will not feel that the man who shot the knife wielding teenager was.

Firearms_instructor,

Her becoming a teacher should scare us all. We should be doubly scared when we realize that many like her are teachers & have been for decades. I fear that Kate's manner of not thinking has already influenced a great deal of our kids. & I can see evidence of Kate's brand of feeling rather than thinking in other countries, England comes foremost to mind.

Nobody likes to see a kid die or get sent to prison. I can understand that. But when that emotional response colors the facts & the logical conclusions that should be drawn then there's a disconnect from what we consider reality. This is easy as hell to teach because it doesn't require much active thinking. It relies on feeling your way to a conclusion rather than piecing things together. You can ignore the causal relationships & make your determination on the bald outcome - it's wrong for kids to suffer. You can avoid or negate the hard questions such as "would the teenagers have killed him?" or "wasn't her death justified as she was threatening the life of a man whom they had already injured?" & replace them with the idea that the man not getting p8nished for killing the teenager is wrong. No chain of facts need support this conclusion & no evidence need to be introduced. Killing kids is wrong & anyone with a heart can see that.

So the danger her views represent is greater than we realize because they are so easy to teach & pass on to anyone who is impressionable. Hard thinking is not required, only feeling. It's much easier to feel than to think & given a choice most people will take the oath of least resistance when they learn things.

Yep, it bothers me that Kate would become a teacher, but I'm more bothered by all the teachers who share Kate's views, & even more so by all the kids who would be Kate's philisophical disciples. Kate getting a job in education would be a bad thing (judging from this one topic) but I'm afraid it'd be a rather tiny drop in a rather large bucket.