Houston made the TX news again

[MobileDave]

Originally Posted by elnina

I live by myself. If someone kick the door to my house - day or night, and I am inside, he will die or get severely wounded. I am not going to engage in a conversation.
If they know the risk and that we are armed, maybe the crime will cease a bit.

All I was saying is that when you have the deciding factor of someone's life in the palm of your hand you owe it to that person and yourself to make sure the situation ends in the best possible outcome. The reason I confronted the man was because I went on instinct and this felt like the best possible scenario at the time. I am an intimidating size male so I used this to my advantage.

This pause, or thought, if you will, is was separates a law-abiding citizen gun owner like you or I from the criminals that act first and think later. Without this pause its like saying "the sentence for stealing form me is death." You know, like something you would here a drug dealer say.

I never said that you need to confront the intruder like I did. Every single possible situation that involves a gun is different in its own rite and you have to find the best possible outcome for yours. If you were my SO I would tell you in this situation if someone kicks in your front door by all means use deadly force if you have to. And this goes for any woman or male who would feel their life is in danger.

[MobileDave]

Originally Posted by Zhang Fei

The Castle Doctrine is mainly a boon for law-abiding people who live in poor areas. On the one hand, it deters gangsters from threatening violence. On the other, it gives someone who kills another person in the course of being attacked a shield from civil liability. As the Chron article notes, the majority of the cases (under 50 a year) in Houston are minority-on-minority. For the most part, I would imagine these are people who live in crime-ridden areas and don't have any choice in the matter because of their economic circumstances. Given the small size of Houston's police force relative to other PD's in large cities and the area it needs to cover, I'd say Stand-Your-Ground is a reasonable response to high crime rates combined with their inability to be everywhere at once.

The OP's response is that of the typical wealthy suburbanite. He's got so much put away that his possessions mean nothing to him. He can always buy more. For a law-abiding person in a poor area, losing an item to theft may mean going without for a long time. In addition, the OP probably lives in an area where the odds of having things stolen are remote. And if they became any less remote, he'd move somewhere else more upscale and be able to afford to. Someone from a poor area can't afford to move, and the odds of getting ripped off again are probably pretty high, given where he lives.

So you are going to gun someone down in your front yard so you don't miss an episode of Wheel of Fortune?

If they come into your dwelling while you are there you use what ever means necessary to keep yourself safe. You have no idea if they are high on drugs or if they have a weapon in their waistband. But to gun someone down making a getaway with your "things" is cold blooded IMO. It makes you no different than them.

Let me ask you... what "things" are worth a human life? Be precise, please, because I was poor for a very large portion of my life.

[Zhang Fei]

Originally Posted by MobileDave

Let me ask you... what "things" are worth a human life? Be precise, please, because I was poor for a very large portion of my life.

"Was" is the operative word here. You're obviously not in a situation where your on-site physical possessions form a large part of your net worth. It would be amusing to conduct a practical experiment where we get to find out whether the callousness of the well-off for the well-being of the law-abiding poor (as expressed in lenient sentencing laws and attitudes towards measures taken by the poor in defense of their material goods and their lives) is due to sheer idealism or the fact that they are seldom victimized.

Currently, the vast majority of both violent and property crimes are conducted against poor people, even on a per capita basis. What if police resources were allocated based on the number of crimes in a given area, meaning that if 90% of the crime occurs in a handful of poor areas, 90% of the cops are posted there? What if sentencing were pro-rated for occurrence within income groups, such that if few wealthy people per capita are robbed (which is in fact the case), lighter sentences are handed out for robberies of wealthy people. It seems to be a clear-cut case of a disparate impact problem - when poor people are robbed or killed, the sentences are far lighter than when rich people are robbed or killed. Why shouldn't heavier sentences be imposed in cases of poor victims and lighter sentences in cases of wealthy victims? Shouldn't the weight of the criminal class's acts be imposed fairly on rich and poor alike?

It's your good fortune that your options for unwinding after a hard day's work consist of something other than watching TV. Poor people don't have your options, so please hold the condescension. Not everyone can afford your tastes in recreation. It's not a sin to be poor.