We previously discussed the questionable advice of Vice President Joe Biden for people to fire shotguns out of windows to scare off possible intruders. He added “[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” I suggested that such acts would raise criminal and tort liability issues. There now appears a man who followed the same approach and found himself criminally charged. In Virginia Beach, Trevor Lamont Snowden, 22, is charged with reckless handling of a firearm after fired his gun through a door and out his window to scare off intruders.
A woman at a Parents Magazine town hall asked Biden “Do you believe that banning certain weapons and high capacity magazines will mean that law-abiding citizens will then become more of a target to criminals as we will have no way to sufficiently protect ourselves?”
Biden immediately did what he does best: put his foot in his mouth and then shoot himself in the foot. Biden chuckled and responded: “As I told my wife — we live in an area that’s wooded and somewhat secluded — I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony, put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,’” Biden said. “I promise you whoseever [sic] coming in is not gonna — you don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use, and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun.”
In the Virginia case, the man actually saw two masked men leaning into his bedroom window. He fired through his door and fired several time at the window. No suspects were found and no one was injured.
The Virginia code states:
§ 18.2-56.1. Reckless handling of firearms; reckless handling while hunting.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to handle recklessly any firearm so as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Even in the context of a hunting party, the act of shooting without a clear target or consideration of unknown individuals in the area is the basis for negligence per se. Schlimmer v. Poverty Hunt Club,
268 Va. 74; 597 S.E.2d 43 (2004). We have also seem prosecutors and others charged for firing warning shots or discharging weapons in their home. Even in a rural area, it is possible to hit neighbors or trespassers crossing property (a common practice) or others like police, firefighters, or public employees on the land lawfully. We recently saw a case of a man shot while cutting across a rural estate.
Unfortunately, this is debate often comes with a strong political bias. If Rick Perry had suggested sticking shotguns out windows and firing them, he would have been ridiculed and widely condemned. The advice is both dangerous and ill-conceived by Biden or anyone else. Yes, there are ways to fire a shotgun in the air to avoid hitting someone but casually advising the firing of guns out windows is neither responsible nor wise.
Source: Hampton Roads
SwM,
No maybe about it.
Blouise, Maybe it is gun porn. 😉
SlingTrebuchet,
Small price to pay for fitting in with the gun culture
Blouise,
I bet a grillion somethings that
– wearing those when trying to fly would have the TSA stopping you
– someone wearing those to school would be suspended for making terroristic threats.
Seriously!
This conversation reminds me of why my wife and kids always hated to go car shopping with me. The salescritters always wanted to show me the fanciest thing in the place, with all the accessories. Sun roof, moon roof, all kinds of gadgets, fancy inlaid wood dashboard, etc. My questions were: will it run and be reliable? How expensive is it to fix if something breaks? How easy or difficult is it to get in and out of. Gas mileage?
I always got a lot of entertainment value out of asking how the fancy wood dashboard or sun roof improves mileage or handling. How much does the ability to access 9000 entertainment channels on satellite improve ride stability? Come to think of it, the salesman never did answer those questions.
SlingTrebuchet,
The ultimate accessorizing:
http://www.geekologie.com/2011/12/29/3d-finger-art.jpg
“None of the characteristics that are being demonized improves the mechanical performance of AR-15 rifles; they may affect the ease of carrying, handling, or aiming in some cases. But a lot of people think they look cool.”
Absolutely agreed on all counts.
So I buy an AR-15 to defend myself.
It’s pure survival. I need that firepower because of one or more of:
– I can’t shoot for crap – or I shoot ok, but I’m going to lose it when the time comes
– I won’t be able to hit a vital spot, so I need to fire enough rounds into the body mass so that the weight of them brings the targets to their knees
– There’s going to be al least 10 intruders coming at me.
It’s pure survival. That’s why I need an AR-15.
I’ll be fighting for my own life and of my children. Hopefully while I’m emptying 30+ rounds in the general direction of some intruders I won’t hit any of my children – or the cat.
Aaaaaandddd………
The AR-15 looks cool, but if I accessorize it, I’ll look extra cool while I’m fighting for survival. This is important to me – to look cool while I’m crapping myself.
Sling,
“The term “assault weapon” and its definition seems to be the fairly meaningless child of compromises arrived at in negotiations rather than a sane description of the damage a weapon could inflict.”
It is also redundant or circular or both. Anything that can be used to “assault” is a “weapon”, and any “weapon” can be used to “assault”.
Basically, an “assault weapon”, as the term seems to be used in the current discussion, is a firearm with with certain gadgets attached (none of which affect the mechanical performance of the firearm). I never really understood the whole fixation with bayonet lugs, and grenade launchers in the Clinton-era ban, as murder by bayonet or grenade was not really a significant problem at the time (or now). Actually, you are wrong about permitted weapons being enhanced under the Clinton-era ban – they were simplified. Manufacturers recognized that gadgets such as bayonet lugs and grenade launchers added nothing to functionality and simply removed them from new manufactures of AR-15 platform weapons — unless you were a Vietnam War reenactor, you weren’t going to miss them anyway.
Some people gadgetize their cars, some their computers, some their bicycles, some their firearms. Some do it because it improves performance, others because it looks cool. None of the characteristics that are being demonized improves the mechanical performance of AR-15 rifles; they may affect the ease of carrying, handling, or aiming in some cases. But a lot of people think they look cool.
“I stand corrected. I had no idea that anyone was making after market stocks and sight mounts for the Mosin-Nagant.”
I can’t/don’t insist that people view the content of links that I refer to, but I do tend to refer to links that are relevant to a point – as opposed to photos of my cat.
The point in that video was the gun-fetish apparent in the accessorization options..
AR-15 pattern weapons are probably more common – and have similar dress-up-dolly options.
Hard figures on numbers seem difficult to find.
This report
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/17/how-many-ar15-rifles-sold
….estimates about 2 million such pattern rifles manufactured for domestic use between 2000 and 2010.
This might apparently account for 20% of all rifles manufactured.
————————————
This is not to suggest that such weapons are commonly used for criminal purposes.
It is more that they might be purchased in the belief that they are a solution to some problem.
.
“why not consider why gun crime declined during the assault weapons ban. ”
There seem to be lies, dammed lies and statistics.
This report on the assult weapon ban
http://factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/
…. accuses both opposing sides of cherry-picking to support their position.
It makes the point the the “ban” did not take such weapons out of society. It only prevented (most) new ones being added.
And then, permitted weapons became enhanced to replace the void.
The suggestion is that it was difficult to determine if the ban had any real effect – and that such an effect might only be measurable in the long term.
The effect might be to reduce certain types of gun crime, but would have no efect on others.
.
The term “assault weapon” and its definition seems to be the fairly meaningless child of compromises arrived at in negotiations rather than a sane description of the damage a weapon could inflict.
Sling,
Texas seems to be an anomaly. (That may be the most understated sentence I have written in my entire life.)
In most states, you can’t shoot people over “stuff”, and civilians can’t shoot fleeing felons, let alone misdemeanants. Whether you believe the rules are followed or enforced, there are in fact strict rules about when the police are allowed to use deadly force on fleeing felons.
Without surveying the law of all states, the District of Columbia, and the various territories, I think I can still state with confidence that a private citizen is generally not privileged to shoot a fleeing felon unless there is a reasonable belief that the fleeing felon is a continuing danger to others — for example, if you came home to find a guy standing over your bleeding wife and 10-yearold daughter with a bloody knife in his hand and the guy subsequently fled with the knife in his hand, you could probably shoot at him as he went out the door,and maybe even chase him and shoot at him during the chase, because he is demonstrably capable and willing to hurt more people with that knife, like, maybe, carjacking someone during his escape. Short of some egregious situation like that, though, you are generally not privileged to use deadly force once the threat has ended.
Personally, I think that if you walked into the kind of situation I hypothesized above, and the guy fled, your time would be better spent calling 911, tending to the wounded (hopefully not dead), and giving a description to the police.
Of course, if the assailant is a one-armed guy and you are a doctor who went for a walk by himself after an argument with your wife, you may want to chase the guy, but that’s a different TV show.
(( Posting this a second time as a word appears to have routed the comment into the Moderation black hole ))
If I understand the Texas situation correctly….. while stealing a carton of milk might in itself be a misdemanor, it becomes effectively a capital offence if the owner of the milk sees it being taken away.
If presented with a suggestion that a carton of milk is hardly worth a human life, the owner of the milk would presumably say that they fired (executed) because they believed that the person was taking ‘stuff’.
A hungry person who breaks into a house only to find some milk/food might not be able to argue this in front of a jury due to being dead.
The logical thing to do is these situations is to shoot to kill.
It simplifies matters. There is no counter argument from the shot person as to the situaton.
Whereas the shooter might have been a depraved person who shot calmly and callously, shooting to kill would prove that they were actually in genuine fear of their lives/property. Shooting to disable or warn would prove that they were not really afraid.
What we seem to have is a society in which a large slice of the general population believes that they can not depend on law enforcement to protect their interests. They therefore become judge, jury and executioner on their own behalf. This is a primitive society.
Would the knowledge that they can shoot people ‘legally’ lead people to ignore good sense in the matter of physical security and actions?
Why bother being careful when pulling a gun is a solution?
Why press for better law enforcement whan a DIY approach seems simpler?
What does this say about the value that society places on human life?
.
Take people from this sort of society and have them invade another country.
That seems to have been the major factor that drove Manning to leak what he did.
Read his statement, particularly from over 1/2 way down where he speaks of the “Collateral Murder” video and moves onto other factors,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/01/bradley-manning-wikileaks-statement-full-text
Extract:
———————————————————–
It was clear to me that the event happened because the aerial weapons team mistakenly identified Reuters employees as a potential threat and that the people in the bongo truck were merely attempting to assist the wounded. The people in the van were not a threat but merely “good samaritans”. The most alarming aspect of the video to me, however, was the seemly delightful bloodlust they appeared to have.
The dehumanized the individuals they were engaging and seemed to not value human life by referring to them as quote “dead xxxxxxxxs” unquote and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers. At one point in the video there is an individual on the ground attempting to crawl to safety. The individual is seriously wounded. Instead of calling for medical attention to the location, one of the aerial weapons team crew members verbally asks for the wounded person to pick up a weapon so that he can have a reason to engage. For me, this seems similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass.
———————————————————–
Actually, stealing a carton of milk, and only a carton of milk, would probably be a misdemeanor in most states, because most states set, by statute, a minimum value on the property stolen for a felony charge.
The laws vary widely by state, but breaking into someone’s home to steal a carton of milk, would get you at least an unlawful entry charge, probably a felony; maybe a burglary charge if it is an occupied dwelling at night, pretty likely a felony. A defendant might argue, in some states, that he was only after the milk, so he didn’t intend to commit a felony, but that works better on law school exams than on juries.
Now
Mespo:
“I fail to see how firing to prevent a felonious act would ever be considered reckless discharge of a firearm assuming we accept his story.”
As I posted above, parts of his story as reported in the press sound odd to me; I suspect that the police do not believe it. Hence the charge.
Gene,
Sure ain’t the milk of human kindness.
ST/mespo,
“Sling:
“Stealing a carton of milk is probably a felonious act.”
*********************
That must be some good milk!”
The salient question neither of you are addressing and may go directly to value is . . .
“Milk of what?”
Just a thought. A moderately sick and twisted thought, but a thought nonetheless.
And people complain about the castle doctrine….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield
“Oh look!
At 4:10 in that vid that I linked above…
The Mosin-Nagant”
I stand corrected. I had no idea that anyone was making after market stocks and sight mounts for the Mosin-Nagant.
But if you intend to do any machining or attach the sight mounts I think I will stand by my advice for a reliable gun smith – at least for the vast majority of people.
BTW, anyone have any idea how many Mosin-Nagant rifles were used in muggings, convenience store hold-ups, drive by shooting – any other crime?
How many gun crimes are committed by individuals fascinated with look-alike, wanna-be accessories?
It feels good to rage indignant.
The shameful thing is that it does not help us understand the problem. It does not solve any problems.
Speaking of masturbation, if you want to stop, why not consider why gun crime declined during the assault weapons ban.
We know it had nothing to do with a decline in the availability of assault weapons or high capacity magazines. Those continued to be legally available in large numbers at reasonable prices. So what changed?
What is the real basis for a reduction in gun crime. Answer that and you might make a real contribution.
Sling:
“Stealing a carton of milk is probably a felonious act.”
*********************
That must be some good milk!
Oh look!
At 4:10 in that vid that I linked above…
The Mosin-Nagant
At 6:00 after an explanation of how many grillions of the thing are hanging around for cheap use as is or for spares, you can sex it up – but you might ned to do a bit of machining. to achive the level of sex in the vid.
I learned to shoot with a similar rifle. I won competitions. I also used way ‘sexier’ stuff. The sexier stuff did not improve my shot.
Such a rifle in not wonderful for concealed carry, but for anything else it’s more than adequate for domestic use – apart from being invaded by a zillion zombies.
.
On the other hand, you got gun masturbation and gun porn.
“Range Time with Cory & Erika” on YouTube is fabulous. Chick with guns sort of thing, with manly man to guide hot chick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or1ctzlR4aY is great
“You need to get your clothes out of the way”. Oh yeah!
I need to practice my concealed-carry draw. Drop the laundry basket and get my clothes out of the way. Yank up my garment.
I need to practice instant draws and not worry about flashing part of a boob. Heavan forfend that anyone might see a flash of skin while people are being killed. Microseconds are vital when doing the laundry and being suddenly confronted by someone I need to kill.
I need to get off four shots – because I’m a crap shot. Then I got to “search and asess” – just in case all four shots missed – I need to asess that. Thank deity I got a HUGE mag. Then I got to reholster and cover up.
Wow! Doing the laundry is more dangerous than the sharp end of invading Iraq.
That’s not security
That’s a form of porn in a sick society.
Stealing a carton of milk is probably a felonious act.
There are countries where this discussion would be unthinkable.
In Afghanistan, it might be a reasonable discussion, but I’m thinking more of First World countries – that get by quite nicely thankyou without people packing heat.