quote:HOWEVER, it is disturbing to know that college students on a college campus are in danger of being killed for immaturity by someone who pulls out a concealable weapon, a handgun because an outdoor noise is a terrorizing experience.
First of all, aspectre, they were not in danger of being killed. Yes, I do own a registered handgun for which I have a concealed carry permit. That is my right as an American citizen. However, since I am a responsible person, I have extensive training in the use of said gun for personal and home protection. Since the girls were not there to break into my house, they were in no danger from me. I got my gun because I didn't want to be retrieving it when people broke into the house.
Also, we may be on a college campus, but faculty housing is as far from the main campus and dorms as you can get and still be on the campus. Our street is very quiet and we seldom see students. Andrew and I are in the lower level of a three-family house and you have to go down a flight of stairs and down a path to get to our front door. In short, we never get anyone who is just passing by - everyone who comes down our walkway is coming to our house.
Frankly, I am hurt by the way you are trivializing my fears. I didn't hear a "noise," I heard footsteps. Heavy footsteps of at least 2 people at midnight on a Sunday. And my dogs went nuts, which they only do when the people outside are strangers. I wasn't "terrorized," but I was alarmed and I feel that was perfectly appropriate. Especially considering the number of sex offenders in my area and the amount of crime.
As to how funny you think it is - what if I put a toilet on your lawn with a letter demanding you donate to the NRA in order to have it removed? How amused would you be then?
And I spoke with campus security and they don't see me as a threat at all.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It can be - which is why I make a point to announce my presence loudly and often in such situations.
However, most places require some sort of clear and present danger before permitting the application of lethal force so just crawling around in the bushes won't do it.
It does, however, increase the risk of accidents and misunderstandings. And since the tresspasser is the one at risk of being shot, I would think (s)he would be more motivated to avoid any such circumstances.
When can it be? Only if they are doing more than trespassing. If someone is on your property threatening you with harm, it's not the trespassing that makes it okay to shoot them.
I agree with the being prepared to face the consequences, but appropriate consequences are needing to apologize, having the fundraiser stopped, maybe a misdeanor ticket for trespassing, getting sued for medical bills if the person is vindictive.
posted
I don't go running around shooting everyone who casts a shadow on my lawn. Like Mrs.M said, I have a handgun and I have been properly trained in its use. If someone is stupid enough to be prowling around my house in the middle of the night, then it's THEIR problem whether or not they get shot. I live in Texas, and if I were in fear for my life from a prowler, and I shoot that person, there is not a grand jury in the state that will indict me. How about expecting the trespasser/criminal to have some responsibility for their actions? I don't know their intentions, and I will assume the worst. It would be stupid of me not to. The best way to not get shot? Don't Do Stupid Things.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, anyone who walks on your lawn at night deserves to die.
That means that your lawn or your peace of mind is more important at all points than someone else's right to live. That because they have made noise in the night and disturbed your rest, their life is forfeit.
I DO agree with needing to be prepared to face the consequences. I do not believe that death is a legitimate consequence.
posted
It can be if you get shot and killed while committing said act.
I'm not arguing capital offense as a legal sanction for tresspassing and immature stupidity, but if you happen to die as a result of an action, one could certainly say that action had a "capital offense."
Tresspassing is one crime where the death is a very possible outcome because people can and should be concerned with their safety.
Arguing details, firing wildly into the night - illegal. Firing at a stranger in your bedroom, probably legal, depending on circumstances.
-Trevor
Edit: I don't believe that either Gryphon or Mrs. M are advocating executing someone for tresspassing on their lawn.
What they are saying is, the sudden and unexpected noise gave or would have given them probable cause to reach for their sidearms.
When a person has a loaded weapon in their hands, there is always a chance of a round being discharged.
The question becomes whether or not the prowler is providing a sense of threat or menace that a reasonable person would react to.
Hence, tromping through someone's yard, no. Walking into someone's bedroom uninvited, yes.
However, I would fault the teens for being stupid enough to commit an act where a reasonable person might become nervous or worried about their personal safety.
posted
Because something is a possible consequence does not make it a legitimate consequence. Walking down the street when someone does a drive-by shooting also makes death a possible consequence, but that doesn't mean that everyone who walks down the street who dies gets what is coming to them.
posted
I guess it's good to keep in mind that annoying the wrong person could get you killed the same way that it is good to keep in mind that walking in the wrong neighborhood or getting married (most violence against women is done by their SO) could get you killed.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I should mention that the more I read this thread, the more I can see Mrs. M's and other people's point of view on this (the danger of it, the annoyance, etc.) and if I were ever on a committee that suggested this (going forward) I would probably point out many of the important aspects that you all have brought up.
Maybe I'm just surprised at myself that I never viewed it in that light at all - that these things never entered my head up until now, when obviously I'm kinda in the minority in my prior viewpoint.
But that must come from the fact that as a whole, I am a very open, trusting person, the opposite of paranoid, and so had never properly empathized with those who live in more dangerous areas, or have a stronger emotional need for security that I do.
I think this has been a good interaction. I learned a lot. And I thank you. really.
posted
I would have said this is more of an urban consideration, at least a sensibility of more heavily populated areas - until the Colorado cookie incident.
I'm glad this thread was bumped, so to speak, because there have been more recent developments. I forgot to update because I've had other things on my mind.
Andrew and I got the following letter a couple days after the incident:
quote:Dear Dr. and Mrs. Marx,
Thank you for your input regarding our fundraiser. Please accept our apologies for any disturbance or inconvenience we may have caused. We have taken steps to make faculty members more aware of the fundraiser and its purpose so that they may have the opportunity to decline to participate in advance. We have also changed the time of day at which we will be moving the toilet, and we revised the letter to avoid any confusion. If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at extension _____.
Best Regards[sic], _________________, '06 Habitat for Humanity Treasurer
I really appreciated the letter and it was on very nice stationary, too. I sent a letter back saying thanks for the letter and no hard feelings.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a minute, am I reading this right? People are annoyed and think it is wrong that Mrs. M., upon hearing 2< intruders on her lawn at midnight, and hearing her dog barking at them, got her lawfully-purchased and carried handgun in case the intruders planned on intruding into her home and not just her lawn?
Is this a joke? If Mrs. M. had shot them just when they were on the lawn, that would be one thing. I think it would be reprehensible for her (or anyone) to shoot at an intruder in that situation (just for trespassing on one's lawn). But to get the gun ready in case things take a more dangerous turn?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rake - I think Kat and I managed to come to the same level of understanding, although I don't think she shares my jaded concerns about politeness.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
