Gun owner: I, not cops, got bad guy

[roo_ster]

Three Cheers

"Let no good deed go unpunished" is, I suppose, the Willemette Village motto.
--
The homeowner stands in stark contrast to the slime-trail-leaving Village Trustees and sorry excuse for a Chief of Police.
--
Amadeus:
Texas sure has more good points than bad points. I have lived in 7-8 states & I choose Texas.
--
I fondly recall a line from the movie "Miss Congeniality":
"This is TEXAS! Even my florist has a gun!"
--
TBO/Amadeus:
One good thing about Texas is that if a stranger is on your property after dark, it is assumed he is up to no good and the home owner is justified in utilizing the "Reformation via Reincarnation" program. Some Texas laws can be traced back to Mosaic Law, this being one of 'em.
--
As a practical matter, I think that it might be wise to refrain from shooting the burglar if you manage to get the drop on him, to avoid all the unpleasntness that even a righteous shooting can involve. But then, this is a selfish, un-neighborly, not-very-community-oriented attitude on my part that I may have to work on. Anybody who'll breask into a house while occupied deserves a dirt nap.
--

 

[carpettbaggerr]

In New York state, deadly force may be used to protect your own life or the life of another person against threats of serious bodily harm or death. Specific crimes where deadly force would be considered reasonable include:

Burglary
Arson
Rape
Kidnapping
Sodomy

A good is article reposted here

I'd guess most states have similar laws on burglary

 

[larry_minn]

In MN the reason you used deadly force in your home better not be. "this POS was in my house so I shot him" Read about the Erickson kid in Fargo/Moorhead area. (I do think he was in ND) His brother called and said he was comming over because he broke his fridge handle (something like that) Well he broke door locks/chain and charged in. warning (claimed) to have been given then shotgun at close range. He may get off on self Defense. (many other factors here such as drugs)
Anyway from what I undersand (and I did NOT stay at Holiday Inn Express in last 3yrs) You can NOT shoot someone JUST for being in your home without permission. Who would want to? It could be drunk/altimers/injured person who is confused/looking for help. Once YOU feel they are threat (and can/could articulate that to jury THEN lethal force is option.
Sounds like in this case that was situation. He was in realistic FEAR for himself and family. IMO should have used shotgun and empty gun.

 

[Nightfall]

Wow, great letter. Too bad I'm not rich, I'd pay to move the guy someplace where his rights were respected.

 

[fix]

One of those trustees, James Griffith, argues this case was an exception to what normally happens when there's a gun in the house.

I'd be willing to bet a month of my salary that Mr. Griffith has a handgun in his home.

 

[Bill Hook]

Too bad I'm not rich, I'd pay to move the guy someplace where his rights were respected.

I'm guessing Willemette is hoity-toity, so this guy can afford to live elsewhere (BMW SUVs aren't cheap either). He should take a hint from the indifference he's getting from the town to his plight.

 

[Top_Notch]

Willmette is an affluent suburb of Chicago. The gun ban was enacted when Lori Dan (a psychotic) got hold of a gun and went to a school...with predictable bad results.

 

[Chairman Meow]

Have a look at this letter I have written before I send it off to the Trustees of Mr. DeMar's village.

Dear Trustees,

I am writing you in regards to Mr. Hale DeMar’s defense of his family. Mr. Griffith, you were quoted as follows in the Chicago Times:

"This bullet could have ricocheted or the bullet might've gone upstairs where his children were, no telling what would have happened," Village Trustee Jim Griffith said.

But what might have happened if Mr. DeMar had not acted? Intruders are often armed, career criminals. Could not the consequences have been just as severe as those you mentioned?

There are dangers involved with everything we do, including driving to work, playing sports, or owning guns. The decision of which activities to incorporate into our lives is an individual one that must be taken very seriously, with proper consideration given to the dangers involved. Mr. DeMar considered the possible consequences of having a firearm in his home and decided that by placing his gun in a safe, he mitigated the possibility of an accident while maintaining his ability to defend his home. The decision to do so is one that only he and his family can make, and this case illustrates that they made the right choice for their safety. One of the main reasons that gun control is so hotly debated is that pro-gun people often neglect to recognize the dangers inherent in gun ownership, while anti-gun people often neglect to recognize the benefits. Mr. DeMar’s actions indicate that he understands the dangers involved and knows how to address them to secure his family from both sides.

This case further illustrates that large dogs, home alarm systems, and police protection do not provide adequate security in the face of home intrusion. Remember, you are your own last line of defense. If you have a family, you may be their last line of defense as well. That is a responsibility that should not be taken lightly or passed off to the over-worked, under-funded criminal justice system.

Regardless of your stance on the gun control issue, please recognize that this unfortunate event is evidence of the benefits of gun ownership, and should not be taken as an opportunity to censure a responsible citizen who makes responsible decisions. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
James Tucker
Salt Lake City, Utah

 

[bobby68]

i'm pretty new to gun issues so please forgive my ignorance: Is it legal for a city to pass a law "banning" handguns in your home. I thought you could own whatever you wanted as long as it is legal in the state and secured in your home. How common is it for local municipalities to do this?

 

[migoi]

I went and read...

the articles about Laurie Dann and am thinking things would have turned out a whole lot better if the teacher had been suitably armed and had enough gumption to have done the right thing (two COM as soon as the dink's firearm swept the class). All the victims in that shooting were children.

I'm not sure how the current gun ban would have stopped the Dann creature. Surely someone deranged enough to shoot 2nd graders would hardly pause at the fact that keeping a gun in her home would be a crime.

migoi

 

[Andrew Rothman]

Is it legal for a city to pass a law "banning" handguns in your home. I thought you could own whatever you wanted as long as it is legal in the state and secured in your home.

Some state have laws forbidding cities to impose tighter regulation than the state. Others do not. Illinois, one of the top three or four firearm-unfriendly states, allows cities to impose whatever madness they see fit.

How common is it for local municipalities to do this?

San Francisco is trying to do it right now, in spite of a state law that seems to forbid it.

There are several other states - PA, CO and UT come to mind, that seems to have tighter rules in some cities than in the state at large.

www.packing.org is a great place to research gun laws across the country.

 

[griz]

homes are safer without handguns

The intruder apparently felt pretty safe with the gun ban in place. He ignored lights, alarms, a big dog, and the fact that the house was occupied. With one shot the homeowner made him rethink his workplace safety preconceptions.

God bless this guy and I hope his well written letter starts the whole state on a swing in the other direction.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Is it legal for a city to pass a law “banning†handguns in your home[?]

No, but all levels of government operate outside the law to some degree.

~G. Fink

 

[EricOKC]

i'm pretty new to gun issues so please forgive my ignorance:

No problem. We were all new once. Welcome.

Is it legal for a city to pass a law "banning" handguns in your home.

Legal? Now thats a good question isnt it? Is it done? Unfortunately, yes. Consider Washington, DC for example. Or NYC. Or Chicago. Or, well you get the picture.

I thought you could own whatever you wanted as long as it is legal in the state and secured in your home.

One would think that.

How common is it for local municipalities to do this?

Far more common than it should be.

 

[Standing Wolf]

This career criminal had been arrested thirty times.

Is it time to give the criminal justice system a standing ovation, or should I remain seated?

 

[eagle45]

Do you really expect us to believe that such a well written, coherent, logical, to the point, accurate, correctly spelled, and overall damn good letter could possibly have been written by one of those right wing gun nuts? Good! We do!

 

[Strings]

I dunno, Standing Wolf: think thirty in a row could constitute a "hat trick"?

 

[tim71]

I read somewhere that a landmark decision, I believe in Jersey, where a court ruled that protecting the citizens was NOT, a primary responsibility of the police departments. This is very very important. I believe someone was trying to sue a police dept if I remember right. I'd say that leaves the responsibility up to us. I live in a rural area where it would take the sherrif's dept 15-30 minutes to reach me so I know it's my job. My county's pretty cool about that stuff.

Tim

 

[DRZinn]

What really gets to me is that RIGHT IN THE FACE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY the police chief felt it necessary to assert that homes are safer without guns.

I hope before I leave California I get mugged (non-violently). Then I will sue the state (or the elected officials thereof) for preventing me from defending myself.

 

[another okie]

I don't understand why the homeowner didn't have a shotgun handy. As I understand the article, the city has a handgun ban, which wouldn't prevent him from having a shotgun. Probably less chance of recidivism, too.

 

[CJ]

I read somewhere that a landmark decision, I believe in Jersey, where a court ruled that protecting the citizens was NOT, a primary responsibility of the police departments. This is very very important. I believe someone was trying to sue a police dept if I remember right. I'd say that leaves the responsibility up to us. I live in a rural area where it would take the sherrif's dept 15-30 minutes to reach me so I know it's my job. My county's pretty cool about that stuff.

I remembered this as being in San Jose, California. A search turned up http://www.outlawslegal.com/friendly/dreamin.htm which lists a disturbing number of these instances where police were exonerated for ignoring pleas for help.

 

[ckyllo]

what the village should of done was to ban nut jobs from being in the village not banning handguns. I guess that isnt very PC but it would be more effective. oh wait that would mean that the Trustees and police chief would not be able to be in the village. and they are not gonna vote themselves out of a job. :banghead:

 

[Zonamo]

in most (not all, but most) places, even if you find a perp in your home, you cannot just blast him just for being there.

Depends on the state. Most Eastern States, you have an obligation to hide and cower.

Most Western States and many Southern States, you have a right to stand and deliver.

 

[standingbear]

he stood up for his ideals,protected his family and himself and as a bonus,he shot a career scumbag at the same time.he doesnt need questioned,he needs congratulated.



this guy has been arrested 30 TIMES??gee,anyone want to bet he'll choose more carefully next time?

 

[Ivy Mike]

I'd pat this guy on the back, buy him a beer and thank him for serving teh citizens of this country.

The next day, I'd take him shooting and try to work on his aim. Maybe give him the number of a local Bekins agent.