Newport woman shoots intruder

[Common Sense Party]

A 63-year-old widow shot and killed an intruder who accosted her in the kitchen of her 16th Street home, early Monday, police said.

Phyllis Maloney was in her kitchen about 1 a.m. when a man wearing only boxer shorts came in through her unlocked back door, said Lt. Tom Collins, Newport’s acting police chief.

Maloney repeatedly told the man to get out of her house, but he continued to walk toward her. He followed her through the house and she grabbed a gun out of a kitchen drawer.

When the man made “an aggressive move” toward Maloney, she fired two shots. One bullet struck the intruder in the head.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Thankfully she had the means and ability to protect herself.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110731/NEWS010703/110801006/Man-shot-to-death-in-Newport-home?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE

[SteveM]

1. Clear example of da HyperPunk in action...

One who relishes confrontation and mayhem over any material gain from theft; he just couldn't let up.

[ileus]

2. Her only mistake....not having it on her person at the ready.

she got lucky with this stupid punk....I suppose his production abilities will be compiled in the lost man hours graph.

[RSillsbee]

24. No, she should have locked the door too,

That said, the fact that her door wasn't locked didn't give him the right to invade her home. He was 100% in the wrong

[iverglas]

3. I'm sorry, but

Phyllis Maloney was in her kitchen about 1 a.m. when a man wearing only boxer shorts came in through her unlocked back door, said Lt. Tom Collins, Newport’s acting police chief.

Why would a person like her -- not young, a woman alone, weak from chemotherapy -- have her back door unlocked at 1 a.m.?

If she is so appprehensive about "intruders" that she keeps a loaded firearm in her kitchen drawer, why would she not lock her door? Did she just think the firearm gave her a magical protection force field? What if she had not been able to access it? Where does common sense come into self-defence?

I'm going to be interested in follow ups. I'm just not thinking that someone wandering abroad in his undershorts after midnight was quite all there at the time. If we knew more about him we might be better able to assess the threat he actually presented.

None of which means she may not have been justified in using force against him. It just might mean, if he did not in reality present a threat to her, that if she had not had a firearm, two people would still be alive.

[RSillsbee]

4. If I find you in my kitchen

in boxers at 1 AM I've done all the threat asseccment I need to do

[-..__...]

10. I hate it when that happens...

if someone is going to come unannounced into my home at 0100... at least have the decency to put a pair of pants on.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Or go full monty.

Boxers just seem like a waste of time at that point. If you're going to interrupt me, at least put on a show.

[-..__...]

35. If anything...

the intruder would present himself with a more tempting point of aim.

[TheWraith]

5. So you'd rather the 63 year old woman be at the mercy of someone clearly not thinking normally?

Someone who is going to invade someone's home, at 1 AM, wearing only boxer shorts... and you're so dead set against someone exercising self defense that you'd prefer to have the 63 year old widow at the mercy of this fellow whose mental state is dubious at best?

[iverglas]

11. so you have no regard for the truth?

So you'd rather the 63 year old woman be at the mercy of someone clearly not thinking normally?

QUOTE ME.

Or retract your false statement.

:rofl:

[TheWraith]

98. Do you think it's a good thing that the woman was armed? Yes or no?

Either you think she should have been armed, as she was, or you think she shouldn't have had the option to defend herself. It seems pretty straightforward.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Something to keep in mind in that jurisdiction

There is no affirmative duty to keep your doors locked or otherwise secured. Her not having it locked is in no way contributory to the shooting nor does it constitute any form of negligence.

Since it was in her home Castle Defense doctrine is applicable. No need to worry about minimum force etc or other forms of professional second guessing.

Where she stores her firearms is really her call. Kitchen and bedrooms are the most common.

No one thinks firearms are a magic force field, though there are some who believe they are infested with evil spirits which turn people into killers...

I too will be interested to see what else comes out about this case

[iverglas]

12. to whom are you speaking?

There is no affirmative duty to keep your doors locked or otherwise secured.

Someone must have said there was.

Her not having it locked is in no way contributory to the shooting nor does it constitute any form of negligence.

Someone must have said it was and it did.

Since it was in her home Castle Defense doctrine is applicable.

I haven't checked the local law but I'll assume you're right. So the fuck what? Petitio principii. Big whup. Did someone say that what she did wasn't legal? Slavery was legal once, right?

No need to worry about minimum force etc or other forms of professional second guessing.

And certainly no need to represent the historical requirements of the self-defence excuse honestly.

No one thinks firearms are a magic force field, though there are some who believe they are infested with evil spirits which turn people into killers...

I'm sure there are ... on the strange and fearsome planet from which you are evidently typing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. Making general comments to your inferences

No need to worry about minimum force etc or other forms of professional second guessing.

And certainly no need to represent the historical requirements of the self-defence excuse honestly.

Be on the receiving end of such 2nd guessing and you will then understand it for what it is.


No one thinks firearms are a magic force field, though there are some who believe they are infested with evil spirits which turn people into killers...

I'm sure there are ... on the strange and fearsome planet from which you are evidently typing.

Actually right here on DU quite similar things have been posted...

[iverglas]

37. whatever

Be on the receiving end of such 2nd guessing and you will then understand it for what it is.

Spit out whatever it is you're trying to say and there might be a point to your post.


Actually right here on DU quite similar things have been posted...

Yes, where "similar" means "nothing like but I'll say they were if it suits my purposes."

[TPaine7]

32. "the self-defence excuse"

Not that BS again.

Self defense is not an excuse, and is not regarded as such in any place of relevance. Contrary to what you have condescendligly claimed about self-defense not being a right, all nine Supreme Court Justices unanimously agreed in Heller that self-defense is a right.

[iverglas]

42. more remedial reading needed, I see

Here's a nice USAmerican source for you (I googled it with the odd south-of-the-border speling):

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/justification

justification

A sufficient or acceptable excuse or explanation made in court for an act that is otherwise unlawful; the showing of an adequate reason, in court, why a defendant committed the offense for which he or she is accused that would serve to relieve the defendant of liability.

A legal excuse for the performance or nonperformance of a particular act that is the basis for exemption from guilt. A classic example is the excuse of Self-Defense offered as justification for the commission of a murder.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense

Self-defense is a defense to certain criminal charges as well as to some civil claims. Under both Criminal Law and Tort Law, self-defense is commonly asserted in cases of Homicide, Assault and Battery, and other crimes involving the attempted use of violence against an individual. Statutory and case law governing self-defense is generally the same in tort and criminal law.

A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self-defense was justified. ...

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1409

Nebraska Revised Statute 28-1409
28-1409. Use of force in self-protection.

Annotations

1. Elements

... A defendant asserting self-defense as justification for the use of force must have a reasonable and good faith belief in the necessity of such force.

In order for the self-defense justification to be applicable ...

6. Miscellaneous

The excuse of self-defense is applied to the threatening behavior of "another person", not to a generalized group of actors.

You apparently need to go educate the state of Nebraska.

http://mn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20000718_0043086.MN.htm/qx

July 18, 2000
STATE OF MINNESOTA, RESPONDENT,
V.
WILLIAM GLOWACKI, APPELLANT
... In an altercation between co-residents occurring within a defendant's own home, the legal excuse of self-defense does not include a duty to retreat.
... At trial, Glowacki asserted the legal excuse of self-defense ...

Minnesota appears to need you too.

You'll like this one -- natural law and all:

http://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/newly-expanded-preemption-assassination-56501312

We may recall also Samuel Von Pufendorf's argument in his On the Duty of Man and Citizen According to Natural Law:

{W}here it is quite clear that the other is already planning an attack upon me, even though he has not yet fully revealed his intentions, it will be permitted at once to begin forcible self-defense, and to anticipate him who is preparing mischief, provided there be no hope that, when admonished in a friendly spirit, he may put off his hostile temper; or if such admonition be likely to injure our cause. Hence he is to be regarded as the aggressor, who first conceived the wish to injure, and prepared himself to carry it out. But the excuse of self-defense will be his, who by quickness shall overpower his slower assailant. ...

Contrary to what you have condescendligly claimed about self-defense not being a right, all nine Supreme Court Justices unanimously agreed in Heller that self-defense is a right.

So? I thought they weren't authority for anything!

:rofl:

Substantiate your own assertion there. I knocked down the one made about McDonald v. Illinois already in the last few days.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZO.html#15ref per Alito J.

Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, <15> ...

15 Citing Jewish, Greek, and Roman law, Blackstone wrote that if a person killed an attacker, “the slayer is in no kind of fault whatsoever, not even in the minutest degree; and is therefore to be totally acquitted and discharged, with commendation rather than blame.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 182 (reprint 1992).

Absolutely nothing in the cited source to support the assertion. "The slayer is in no kind of fault whatever" -- oh look, is excused; NOT "self-defence is a basic right".

Maybe they did a better job of it in Heller ...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. Citing Jewish, Greek, and Roman law, Blackstone wrote...

I'll bite. How exactly does this prove that self-defen(c/s)e is not a right?

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. While we're at it, I'd like to know if Canadian jurisprudence allows for amicus briefs....

,and if so, whether our interlocutor has ever filed one of relevance to this discussion, or indeed to the Gungeon in general.

[iverglas]

59. something you don't know??

OMG, I'm gobsmacked. I thought you knew everything.

It's an answer easily found. You'll find it in the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada (or any other court). We call them "interveners". You can see how it looks here:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc31/2000scc31.html


So, you give us your c.v., and I still won't give you mine, but I'm not the one who needs to put my money where my mouth is.

How many law courses have you taught? For how many years?

I'm still not giving you my c.v., but if I did, you'd have my answer. I'll just say "not none", howzat?

[Common Sense Party]

72. "I thought you knew everything."

:spray:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Pot, Kettle.

:rofl:

By the way, arrogance and belligerence are not the same thing as having a good, persuasive argument.

[iverglas]

58. don't break a tooth

How exactly does this prove that self-defen(c/s)e is not a right?

Who said it did? Why don't you ask them?

What I said is that Alito had no authority for his statement that it is.

[TPaine7]

83. there is no history

There is no reality outside Her Sophistry's head, at this very point in space and time.

No one has ever demonstrated that all of the Supreme Court agreed that self-defense is a right. There have been no debates in which Her Sophistry's arguments were demolished.

No indeed. So every time the question arises, the self-styled "Queen of Truth and Beauty" is entitled to pretend that it is not an established legal principle in the US that self-defense is a right, and demand proof to the contrary.

In her head. (See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x441366#442418 for reference)

Oh, wait. I'm not a gutless wonder who can't back up what he says. I don't have to pretend that my honor has been offended by a "demand" and so I cannot lower myself to answer an entirely new question (methodology of rape data gathering vs methodology of Kleck's survey). In fact, I will take the time to address an old, well settled question.

(quoting me)Contrary to what you have condescendligly claimed about self-defense not being a right, all nine Supreme Court Justices unanimously agreed in Heller that self-defense is a right.(end quote)

So? I thought they weren't authority for anything!

:rofl:

Substantiate your own assertion there. I knocked down the one made about McDonald v. Illinois already in the last few days.

Why yes, I'll eagerly answer your "demand"--I won't get wounded and storm off in an offended, fake huff. Read this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=241213&mesg_id=241213. Make sure to read post 8, the title is still accurate.

I'm not surprised if you've actually forgotten what the Court said--it's inconvenient.

As for your pre-Heller sources, they're just that--pre-Heller. I'm sure you can find many pre-Heller court rulings and law books making the "Second Amendment protects states rights" argument. They are (and were when they were written) about as valuable and valid as your opinions.

You apparently need to go educate the state of Nebraska.

What do you take me for, some clown with delusions of grandeur?! I leave educating Nebraska to the Supreme Court; fortunately they've performed their duty in this case.

I am not Your Sophistry:


iverglas (1000+ posts) Wed May-28-08 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. I figure DC should have hired me


Hell, I would have done it for free.

I just see this second-amendment thing as a box that the entire US can't get itself out of. All anybody seems to see is the view inside the box, not what's on the outside of it. Of course, that's political thought in the US in a nutshell ...

And of course I also think that individuals keeping and bearing arms being essential to the security of a free state kinda went out with hoop skirts -- and somebody might actually figure that out some day, so it might be wise to look outside that box for a source of the rights one might like to assert, and the sort of restrictions on the exercise of them that are permissible.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=173531&mesg_id=173625

Unlike Your Cluelessness, I don't fancy myself an educator of states or nations.

[michreject]

21. I keep a loaded gun in every room

With over 50 guns, it would be a shame that when i needed one, I couldn't get to one.

[RSillsbee]

25. Wouldn't it be easier

for you to just carry one?

[michreject]

57. I do

I carry a Kahr P380 in my jamies. It's with me when I wake up and I put it on the nightstand when I go to bed.

[SteveM]

88. 50 guns? Good for boat ballast, but kinda expensive...

Just keep one handy for home defense.

[michreject]

90. You don't have to feed em

or take em for a walk.

They're mostly handguns. Buncha 1911's and S&W revolvers. I do have an AK, AR, UZI and a FN-FAL. :)

My wife has her CPL and has her own guns.

[SteveM]

92. I still like the speed & simplicity of a revolver: Point and pull. nt

[krispos42]

7. It just might mean that.

Maybe.

[Common Sense Party]

8. So she brought it on herself?

I don't always lock my doors, either. I have the fan going in the back screen door most nights until 12:30 or 1:00 a.m.

That doesn't mean some nutjob in his BVD's has the right to enter my home.

She may have forgotten to lock it. I fail to see how she is at fault here.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. There are those who would try to attribute some responsibility to the homeowner

over this. Specious and spiteful IMO...

[iverglas]

22. "Specious and spiteful IMO..."

There are those who would try to attribute some responsibility to the homeowner

I guess so, maybe, who knows?

There are those who wonder why someone apprehensive enough about their safety to KEEP A LOADED HANDGUN IN A KITCHEN DRAWER would not lock their doors at night.

This tale might not have ended so happily.

The woman might not have been able to reach her gun. At 1 a.m., she might have been asleep on a different floor of the house. She might have been killed, or incapacitated, by this intruder or a different intruder.

Who would then have been able to rifle through the house at will ... and quite possibly (I'd say probably) have come upon the handgun ... just as he might have done if the householder had not been home at all at the time.

And then at the next house he walked into, he'd have been better prepared.

And certainly the first householder would have had no responsibility for that. Nope, none at all.

[iverglas]

14. so you have no regard for the truth?

So she brought it on herself?

QUOTE ME.

Or retract your false allegation that I said or implied or thought that.

:rofl:


That doesn't mean some nutjob in his BVD's has the right to enter my home.

Did someone say he does?

I fail to see how she is at fault here.

Did someone say she was?

Do you commonly remark on your failure to see things that aren't there?

[Common Sense Party]

55. I made a false allegation?

QUOTE ME.







:rofl:

[iverglas]

60. yes

See how easy it is to be candid and straightforward?

I quote you:

So she brought it on herself?


The text I quote here is no longer available on line, but I have enough of it to make the point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=439808&mesg_id=440096

In a nutshell:

I am talking here about people ... who engage in complicatedly indirect forms of rhetoric that deniably presuppose things that are false.

Like looking in a mirror, isn't it?

[Common Sense Party]

67. You fail again.

Definition of ALLEGATION

1
: the act of alleging
2
: a positive assertion; specifically : a statement by a party to a legal action of what the party undertakes to prove
3
: an assertion unsupported and by implication regarded as unsupportable <vague allegations of misconduct>
See allegation defined for English-language learners »
See allegation defined for kids »


I made no such allegation. I merely asked for clarification of the nonsense you spew on a daily basis.

I don't know why I bother. Nothing you've ever said in this forum makes much sense nor does it in any way reflect reality.

[iverglas]

69. I quote:

So she brought it on herself?

Q.E.D.

[Common Sense Party]

70. A question is NOT an allegation.

Definition of ALLEGATION

1
: the act of alleging
2
: a positive assertion; specifically : a statement by a party to a legal action of what the party undertakes to prove
3
: an assertion unsupported and by implication regarded as unsupportable <vague allegations of misconduct>


I'm still waiting for you to QUOTE ME making a false ALLEGATION.

[iverglas]

73. a statement with a question mark at the end is not a question

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/SO

so
... 7. Apparently; well, then. Used in expressing astonishment, disapproval, or sarcasm: So you think you've got troubles?

The expanded version of what you said is:
"So you are saying that she brought it on herself."

I did not "apparently" say what you alleged I said. I didn't say it any way at all. What I said did not imply it. You did not infer it from what I said.

You made it up, pretended to have inferred it from what I said, and stuck a question mark on the end to cover your ass.

It's a game I don't play. So you lose. But you can keep playing with yourself, if you like.



html fixed

[Common Sense Party]

74. Fine, then. Did she bring the home invasion on herself?

Yes or no.

[iverglas]

75. not at all fine

Provide some evidentiary basis for aiming that question at me, and we'll talk.

[Common Sense Party]

78. I need do no such thing.

You've shown you're incapable of discussing anything related to firearms in a rational manner, without your trademark belligerence and arrogance.

If you cannot answer a simple question then it is not worth my time discussing anything with you.

[PavePusher]

87. It's the Jello. n/t

[rl6214]

94. Bob and weave

duck and evade.

[ileus]

30. she probably has homeowners insurance also...

[IamK]

41. that will pay for the service to mop up the blood...

[MicaelS]

13. "two people would still be alive" ???

Where do you get the two people from? According to article there was only one intruder, and he was the one killed.

[iverglas]

16. you're quite confused, aren't you?

Maybe if you weren't so intent on confusing someone else (I think there must be a lot of easily confused people around here, seeing how many people spend their time trying to confuse someone, just in this thread alone) that you confused yourself. Maybe.

Here's what I actually said. I'll add some emphasis for your assistance.

It just might mean, if he did not in reality present a threat to her, that if she had not had a firearm, two people would still be alive.

I didn't say "two people would still be alive". I said IT JUST MIGHT MEAN two people would still be alive.


Where do you get the two people from? According to article there was only one intruder, and he was the one killed.

Dang, it's hard to know how to help when someone is this confused.

There are two people in the scenario.

One of them is dead. One of them is alive.

It is possible that if one person had not had a firearm, two of them would be alive.

Yeesh.



html fixed

[MicaelS]

17. I asked a simple question, that is all

I thought I was misreading something.

[rl6214]

95. Asked and all you get is sarcasm and insults

[Blown330]

15. Yeah right.

I'm sorry but...

You're not sorry about anything here.

Why would a person like her -- not young, a woman alone, weak from chemotherapy -- have her back door unlocked at 1 a.m.?

Maybe she honestly forgot? Age aside there's plenty of reason to believe other things might have pre-occupied her evening. Gee, for such a claimed humanitarian you sure don't seem to grasp the obvious too well.

It just might mean, if he did not in reality present a threat to her, that if she had not had a firearm, two people would still be alive.


If, if, if...if maybe the idiot hadn't intruded on an old lady in nothing but his underwear he might be alive. He made a stupid decision and paid for it, case closed.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Our assessment of any threat he presented is immaterial.

If we knew more about him we might be better able to assess the threat he actually presented.

Does not matter. Unimportant. If there is a question of impropriety, a grand jury will decide the matter. Without all the evidence and facts at hand, all we can do is speculate (probably badly).


And it truly doesn't matter. All that matters is that SHE apprehended a design on the part of the intruder to harm her. Maybe he wanted to ask her where the unicorns that stole his pants went. Doesn't matter. She was afraid. He was committing a crime. Done.

[iverglas]

23. nope

In a discussion of whether it is advisable to permit people to keep loaded guns unsecured in their homes, it is very material.

Does not matter. Unimportant. If there is a question of impropriety, a grand jury will decide the matter. Without all the evidence and facts at hand, all we can do is speculate (probably badly).

If I'd been talking about her criminal liability for the homicide, that would be material. I wasn't.

Doesn't matter. She was afraid. He was committing a crime. Done.

Maybe he was an unfortunate homeless person who was not receiving the mental health care to which human beings in a wealthy society are entitled, and had he not been killed he would have done no harm.

Would matter. To people who give a shit.

"He was committing a crime" is of the utmost immateriality. No civilized society allows the killing of human beings by members of the public for committing crimes.

You must have meant to say "she had a reasonable apprehension of death or serious injury ...".

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. I do give a shit about both of them- but more about Phyllis Maloney than Boxer Shorts Dude...

...as he was acting in a way that would lead her to believe "she had a reasonable apprehension of death or serious injury ...".

It's too bad he (maybe) didn't get his meds, or wasn't diagnosed. Or he might simply have been out for an evening's assault and robbery.

Either way, I rather think this whole thing is traumatic for Ms. Maloney. Shootings like this usually are...

[iverglas]

33. and yet you know NOTHING about him

But still you don't give a shit about him.

The world is not really made in black and white.

If someone came at me with a long knife, shouting that I was the bride of Satan and had to be killed before I took everyone to hell, and I had a gun handy, I might well shoot.

I would still hope that someone gave a shit about the person obviously suffering from a delusional illness and not criminally responsible for his act. I would. And I would very sincerely wish that he had been helped when he should have been. And if he had come in through an unlocked door, I would wish with all my heart that I'd locked it. I'll bet Phyllis Maloney wishes she had locked hers. Don't you think so? Traumatic as it is to kill someone and all.

[-..__...]

40. I'll bet Phyllis Maloney wishes...

she had an advanced degree in psychology so she could have made an expedited, on scene, mental health evaluation before she put a bullet in his skull.



I would still hope that someone gave a shit about the person obviously suffering from a delusional illness and not criminally responsible for his act.

Congratulations, Sigmund.

Your keen sense of situational analysis and online psychological evaluation has been bested by a 63 year old widow. :eyes:

Risheberger had been attending a party near Maloney’s home, Collins said, and authorities were investigating whether Risheberger may have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol. It will take several weeks before blood-test results will be ready.

[iverglas]

43. I find it hard to believe the deceit

I do, even after all these years.

You quote me:

I would still hope that someone gave a shit about the person obviously suffering from a delusional illness and not criminally responsible for his act.

and then you say:

Congratulations, Sigmund.
Your keen sense of situational analysis and online psychological evaluation has been bested by a 63 year old widow. :eyes:

You are actually pretending that the comment of mine that you excised from its context was about the case under discussion in this thread. You are actually hoping that someone will believe I said that about the individual in the case under discussion in this thread. You are actually saying that I said that about someone other than the hypothetical individual I invented who accused me of being the bride of Satan. You are actually beyond hope, beyond the pale, beyond the outer limits of civility.


Oh look. Congratulations, you have come up with an update I had not looked for in the last hour.

Nothing to do with what I said that you intentionally misquoted.

[-..__...]

52. "Obviously"... you inserted your own foot into your mouth...

not me, nor no one else.

But... you just can't live with that.

Can you?

I would still hope that someone gave a shit about the person obviously suffering from a delusional illness and not criminally responsible for his act.

Those are your words... correct?

Nothing to be taken out of context as it's pretty clearly stated.

Oh look. Congratulations, you have come up with an update I had not looked for in the last hour.

Why would you when you "obviously" already had it in your mind that your analysis was the correct one?

Here... allow me to repeat yourself (in bold, mind you)...

I would still hope that someone gave a shit about the person obviously suffering from a delusional illness and not criminally responsible for his act.

You are actually pretending that the comment of mine that you excised from its context was about the case under discussion in this thread. You are actually hoping that someone will believe I said that about the individual in the case under discussion in this thread. You are actually saying that I said that about someone other than the hypothetical individual I invented who accused me of being the bride of Satan.

Believe whatever you want.

If it helps you sleep better at night.. well, who am I to point out your fallacies and faults.

You are actually beyond hope, beyond the pale, beyond the outer limits of civility.

Well... I try. But, that's all I can promise.

Ohhh, and BTW... "civility"... coming from you?!?

:rofl:

[iverglas]

61. what a lot of effort

just to repeat a falsehood and make it no less obvious than it was to start with.

[TPaine7]

99. Why not confess and accept your just deserts?

If someone came at me with a long knife, shouting that I was the bride of Satan and had to be killed before I took everyone to hell, and I had a gun handy, I might well shoot.

No, it wouldn't atone for all you've done, but it would be a tiny step in the right direction.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. The scope of the discussion is not yours to control

Your prior posts on this thread infer that you feel she has some responsibility due to the unlocked door, and that her keeping a firearm outside of safe or other secured place is somehow inadvisable.

The reality is that she survived a home invasion and that in the end trumps the second guessing by people with no skin in the game, understanding of local ordinances, or just trolling.

[iverglas]

34. I'm not doing any inferring

More to the point, I am not implying anything that some others are pretending to infer from what I said.

Your prior posts on this thread infer that you feel she has some responsibility due to the unlocked door, and that her keeping a firearm outside of safe or other secured place is somehow inadvisable.

My posts in this thread SAY exactly what they say.

I cannot understand someone being so apprehensive about intruders in their home that they keep a loaded firearm in a kitchen drawer and then fail to lock their doors at 1 a.m.

I simply cannot understand it. That's the extent of it.

I have absolutely no doubt that she left that loaded firearm in the kitchen drawer when she was not present, and I find that extremely unadvisable. It is beyond me how it could be legal.

If the same person had broken into her home and stolen that gun without presenting any threat to her, and then gone next door and shot the neighbour dead, you would be saying that she bore no responsibility at all.

It just comes down to the fact that it pretty much would not matter what someone did with their firearm, they would come out of it blameless as the driven snow, in the mouths of some.

Nonetheless, in this instance, the fact is that I am unable to understand this woman's actions. I am also unable to approve of keeping loaded firearms in kitchen drawers behind unlocked doors or in empty dwellings.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. In canada perhaps.

Not in the US. Fundamental, inalienable right.

For the context of determining whether what she did was right or just, it is not interesting whether he was an unfortunate homeless person that needed mental health aid. The question of whether the gun should be present is uninteresting. The question of whether this man should have been able to acquire aid before it came to this, is, and I think we can probably agree on this point, if not the former.

I apparently disagree with your definition of 'civilized'. To me, in a civilized society, a person is not burdened with risking their safety to determine the intent of a person breaking the law and entering their home, in what the victim might very reasonably interpret as a dangerous situation. I give the victim the benefit of the doubt, even if the aggressor got the worse end of the deal, when the confrontation was concluded.

Based upon the information released thus far, I see no reason to think this isn't our rights/responsibilities working as intended.

[iverglas]

68. you and the right wing of your Supreme Court can say it to your heart's content

You must have meant to say "she had a reasonable apprehension of death or serious injury ...".
In canada perhaps.
Not in the US. Fundamental, inalienable right.


Don't make it true, and don't mean that I haven't refuted it over and over.

... Uh, in this very thread. Do see post 42.


I apparently disagree with your definition of 'civilized'. To me, in a civilized society, a person is not burdened with risking their safety to determine the intent of a person breaking the law and entering their home, in what the victim might very reasonably interpret as a dangerous situation. I give the victim the benefit of the doubt, even if the aggressor got the worse end of the deal, when the confrontation was concluded.

Well, your representation of what my definition is aside, I say that in a civilized society a person is answerable for using force against another person.

No one, least of all me, and no law, has ever -- EVER -- said that anyone has the burden of "determining the intent of a person breaking the law and entering their home". No person, no law, not me.

And you know this.

So what and whom you are talking about, and why you are saying this to me, I guess I just don't know.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. No.

I should have been more specific.

""He was committing a crime" is of the utmost immateriality. No civilized society allows the killing of human beings by members of the public for committing crimes."

I do not know the laws in Canada, regarding justifiable homicide. I suspect your statement is untrue, however I could be wrong. Or, this is based upon a dishonest re-phrasing of the issue. She did not kill him because he was committing a crime (unlawful entry). She apparently killed him because she feared for her life. The fact that he was comitting a crime in the process merely ticks off a point in favor of the victim as a justifiable homicide. (Pending outcome of investigation)

[iverglas]

80. there ya go

If someone uses force against another person because they have a reasonable apprehension of serious injury or death otherwise, there we are.

(It would be hard for the other person not to be committing a crime in such a situation -- in fact, self-defence requirements usually include the proviso that the actual or apprehended assault be unlawful. So one includes the other, but the other isn't sufficient in itself. Only particular crimes will found a self-defence claim, of course.)

[oneshooter]

91. You said that............

"No civilized society allows the killing of human beings by members of the public for committing crimes."

Please name for us those "civilized society's".

Bet ya can't, or won't.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. Actually, the ENTIRE Supreme Court said that- they differed on the regulation thereof.

Even the liberals held that it was, indeed, a right. The dissents in Heller were about whether the DC gun laws were permissable or not (the dissenters held that the DC regulations were acceptable).

Strange that someone who regularly holds forth about USAian gun laws is unfamiliar with THE most important court case in our time
concerning said gun laws. Perhaps your c.v. isn't quite as impressive as you implied earlier?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x443457#443682

[friendly_iconoclast]

86. And the SC dissenters agreeing about that right were quoted in this thread:

Which my interlocutor from the North participated in, btw:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=241213&mesg_id=241266

The entire thread is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x241213

[iverglas]

89. you've evidently missed the part where I said

I don't care. The full bench in Heller or anywhere else could have said that the earth is flat, and I wouldn't care.

Your Supreme Court has done quite a lot of weird and wonderful things in its time. Shall I name some?

It has talked nonsense before, and it will undoubtedly talk nonsense again. Such is life.

That of the nine state constitutional protections for the right to bear arms enacted immediately after 1789 at least seven unequivocally protected an individual citizen’s right to self-defense is strong evidence that that is how the founding generation conceived of the right.

Who cares??? And how could you not see this as obiter, when that is not what the constitutions in question say (see below)?

How a small gaggle of rich white guys viewed something over 200 years ago is not determinative of anything. When will you people get this? Does one have to keep dragging up slavery over and over again?

And with one possible exception that we discuss in Part II–D–2, 19th-century courts and commentators interpreted these state constitutional provisions to protect an individual right to use arms for self-defense.

Right to use arms for self-defence.

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.

Can you pick some of those quotations out for me? Because I'm really just not seeing a lot of them.

This seems to be the thread that runs through Scalia's reasoning:

Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence <is> guaranteed by the <Ohio> constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

The Heller decision was about the "right to keep and bear arms", NOT the "right of self-defence" -- and so was the Ohio constitution:

(footnote 8) See Pa. Declaration of Rights §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3083 (“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state… ”); Vt. Declaration of Rights §XV, in 6 id., at 3741 (“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State…”); Ky. Const., Art. XII, cl. 23 (1792), in 3 id., at 1264, 1275 (“That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned”); Ohio Const., Art. VIII, §20 (1802), in 5 id., at 2901, 2911 (“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State … ”); Ind. Const., Art. I, §20 (1816), in 2 id., at 1057, 1059 (“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State… ”); Miss. Const., Art. I, §23 (1817), in 4 id., at 2032, 2034 (“Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State”); Conn. Const., Art. I, §17 (1818), in 1 id., at 536, 538 (“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state”); Ala. Const., Art. I, §23 (1819), in 1 id., at 96, 98 (“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State”); Mo. Const., Art. XIII, §3 (1820), in 4 id., at 2150, 2163 (“hat their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned”). See generally Volokh, State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, 11 Tex. Rev. L. & Politics 191 (2006).

So if you can help me out here ... keeping in mind that I won't actually care, since (as our young friend of the vast expertise agrees of course) your Supreme Court isn't actually the arbiter of anything; it just holds the authority to give opinions binding on people and branches of governments that are subject to its jurisdiction. But still, any assistance you can offer will be gratefully received.

[ileus]

31. uninvited = engage

I'm not going to waste seconds and my families life to find out if the home invader is only there to beat and steal, or rape and murder.

[iverglas]

36. do you take two seconds to lock your doors after midnight?

[ileus]

38. sometimes yes....sometimes no.

letting the cat and dogs in one of four doors I often times find a door left unlocked. sometimes I find a garage door left open also...

unlocked or even open doors isn't an invite for anyone to enter my home...and they'd better hope the issue isn't pressed. Someone comes in my home uninvited it's on their conscience what the result may be.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

46. are you translating english to french or something?

None of your responses ever make sense.


my point is just what is written...

[iverglas]

48. there is no point in saying something so completely bleeding obvious

that no one has and no one ever will say the opposite.

What you said:

unlocked or even open doors isn't an invite for anyone to enter my home.

was so completely bleeding obvious that no one had and no one ever will say the opposite.

So I asked: what is your point?

What was your point in saying something so completely bleeding obvious that no one had and no one ever will say the opposite?

To hear yourself type?

[Blown330]

50. Once again...

Why are you wasting your time and this site's bandwidth muttering pointless noise?


A pot is calling a kettle black. Almost every word you've posted in this thread has been nonsense. Baseless assumptions, moral grandstanding, poorly hidden insults all waste bandwidth. Might explain why so many of your posts are deleted around here. Facts are very simple here: she had an accessible firearm and she was able to defend herself from an intruder. Anything else you can add is just speculation (in the form of thinly veiled insults).

[iverglas]

62. I'm missing bellcrank

but you seem to be picking up the slack quite well.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Leaving your door unlocked is neither an invitation, nor a crime.

So, it's a non-starter, even if she completely spaced it, or just has a habit of leaving it unlocked.

[iverglas]

71. did you mean to address that to someone who said it was?

I guess so. Maybe you can find the post you meant to reply to and do that. Can't help you with that, though, since nobody seems to have said this.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. You are the one that keeps bringing up the door was unlocked, upthread.

As security conscious as I may be, I have occasionally found my front door unlocked in the morning.

What of it?

[iverglas]

81. "What of it?"

What more can I say?

Someone so apprehensive of facing an intruder in their home that they keep a loaded firearm in a kitchen drawer ... but leave their door unlocked at midnight.

I fail to understand it.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. It's a different mindset, to be sure.

I certainly don't keep a firearm in a kitchen drawer, however. Not even before the little one came along. It's just not terribly wise, at least in my situation.

[rl6214]

97. Hiding behind your insinuations

Never standing behind your statements.

[rl6214]

96. That's good, you just keep placing the blame on the

poor, sick 63yo woman.

I just didn't know you hated women so much. I mean that could be the only reason you are.

[michreject]

20. She might have thought she locked it

As you age, people do become less attentive.

[ileus]

39. At least she was aware enough to shoot the criminal.

[ileus]

29. that if she had not had a firearm, two people would still be alive....really.

he had no intention on raping, beating, or murdering her we know this how?....chance you gotta take I assume.

[iverglas]

45. I have no idea how you know things

he had no intention on raping, beating, or murdering her we know this how?

And I have long since given up speculating how anybody around here knows anything.

Few here seem capable of understanding simple words on a page, so how they ever come to know anything is way beyond my powers of figuring.

[rl6214]

93. Right, it's the 63yo womans fault

the man coming into her kitchen at 1am in his boxers is in no way an agressive move. Who cares WHY she had the gun in her kitchen, the guy should still be alive. He wasn't any threat to her, he just wanted a bite to eat.

:sarcasm: (just in case I needed to put it)

[iverglas]

47. well would you look at that

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110731/NEWS010703/110801006/Man-shot-to-death-in-Newport-home?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE
the updated version

Lt. Tom Collins, Newport’s acting police chief, said the incident was a tragedy for both the woman, Phyllis Maloney, and for the man who was fatally shot, Jordan R. Risheberger, 21, of Florence.

The blood lust isn't universal.


Looks like he may have been busted for pot possession a couple of years ago. But that shouldn't be illegal, right?



Thankfully she had the means and ability to protect herself.

I very much fear that efforts to portray this young bozo as a would-be murderer / rapist / robber are going to fail, i.e. it was a case of "protect herself" against nothing. But you go ahead with this, and we shall see.

Not that the householder could be faulted for fearing such eventualities. Just that if there hadn't been a loaded gun in her kitchen drawer, it may well be that none of them would have materialized and both parties would still be alive and unharmed.

Nobody will know, but we may be able to take an educated guess. I'm still reserving mine.

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. Indeed, the default position should be to blame the gun owner.

And not the poor fellow who got lost looking for his trousers. An obvious ambush if ever I saw one...

[iverglas]

63. well, you can do what you want, dumb and baseless as it may be

I'll do what I want.

And you'll tell false tales about what I do, every day in every way.

It's your job, from what I can tell! I hope it pays well, at least!

[-..__...]

54. Giive it up.

I mean I'm very well familiar with your anti-gun attitude/beliefs, bur the more you continue, the more foolish you portray yourself here.

Looks like he may have been busted for pot possession a couple of years ago.

Yeah... I found that too.

Jordan R. Risheberger, 19, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia at Lower River Rd.,

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RIxvV47JMqIJ:issuu.com/cincinnati/docs/florence-recorder-010710+%22Jordan+R.+Risheberger,%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

Difference is... I didn't choose to mention it because it's not relevant to the case.

I mean I could have used it as evidence that Jordan had an arrest record (or likes to get buzzed), but I see it as being irrelevant to this case.

I guess a Thank You for directing you to the shooting victims name would be called for, but I'm not expecting one.

But that shouldn't be illegal, right?

No.. actually it would be one of the rare times when you were right.

It shouldn't be illegal, but unfortunately, it is.

I'll be interested on what toxicology report has to say.

Pot, booze, something else, combination of those and/or other drugs?

Regardless... good for Phyllis on making a quick decision that could have gone horribly wrong if she had the time to second guess.

[Union Scribe]

56. I suggest you print up some forms and attach them to your doors

asking home invaders to put down in writing what their intentions are as well as attach documents regarding prior arrests and convictions. Maybe they can make appointments to come back later so you can run their info by a lawyer.

My "educated guess" is that people who make a hobby of picking apart elderly crime victims would suddenly forget their moral superiority if faced with actual danger.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. Justifiable != Necessary.

Foreward: I do not live in a 'castle doctrine' state. I do not approve of the Castle Doctrine myself. I do not believe it is appropriate to shoot someone in any situation where human life is not credibly on the line. If my state had a castle doctrine, I would STILL not shoot someone retreating through my front door with my TV, even though the TV is over the dollar value requried to make the crime an instant felony, and even though I would be immensely cross over the whole thing.



It is not necessary, should it even be possible in your country, for your father to shoot someone, even if that person is inside his home. It is up to the victim (and the reasonable interpretation of that victim) whether the person inside the home is a threat. That is the ONLY trigger that should predicate violence of ANY sort in retaliation.


I do not support castle doctrine laws, as they go too far in moving the burden of proof/reasonable apprehension on the part of the victim, and leave too many unanswered questions in cases where the 'victim' may have actually invited the assailant, or a drug deal going down, or any number of circumstances where a previously welcome person is suddenly 'unwelcome' and killed in 'defense'. I believe that, like in my state, any person that kills another person in self defense, should probably explain the circumstances (and have the investigation/evidence reviewed by) to a grand jury.

[iverglas]

82. my actual point was ...

edit because I'm not sure what the point of my subject line was now. You can ignore it.



Scenario: a frail 5'8 73-year-old man -- frail because he had recently had a pacemaker implanted and was still in the recovery period -- facing an unknown over-6-foot young man standing at the foot of a short steep flight of stairs it would have taken him three bounds to ascend, after entering the house without knocking -- would the slightest movement on his part not have been enough to "justify" shooting him?

The apprehension would surely have been reasonable. Just getting knocked down could have caused the victim serious injury. (As it turned out, less than six months later he suffered a hip fracture without any impact at all, and when he died not long after it was found that he had melanoma metastasized to bones and all major organs.)

And the claim of self-defence might well, or even probably, have been accepted by a judge/jury.

But in the real world, the "intruder" turned tail and hustled off upon merely hearing a voice.

So indeed, justifiable doesn't equal necessary. Only a tesseract would tell us for sure in any case. But we agree that not every "intruder" presents a situation in which the use of force is justified, and in some cases, even though justified, it may result in an unnecessary death or injury.


... leave too many unanswered questions in cases where the 'victim' may have actually invited the assailant, or a drug deal going down, or any number of circumstances where a previously welcome person is suddenly 'unwelcome' and killed in 'defense'.

The ones that concern me also are the ones where there is a criminal pall over the whole thing: the "intruder" is committing a crime against the "victim" only because the victim is a criminal, e.g. a drug dealer. Self-defence against a would-be drug ripoff? Hm.

You're too new to remember this one. It was quite amusing. See my posts 2 and 8. ;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=98607&mesg_id=98607

Where did Squatch go?

[gejohnston]

100. I can answer that

at least for Florida anyway, which is the most relevant to me at the moment.

The ones that concern me also are the ones where there is a criminal pall over the whole thing: the "intruder" is committing a crime against the "victim" only because the victim is a criminal, e.g. a drug dealer. Self-defence against a would-be drug ripoff? Hm.

Florida Statute Section 776.013.
This Florida law creates a presumption that a person acts in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm when confronted with certain circumstances. There are exceptions to the law. The presumption of reasonable fear does not apply if:
"(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

I would be surprised if most if not all states don't have similar exceptions.