Intruder dies from shots by resident

[Spoonman]

<snip>
A man charged with more than 30 offenses in the last eight years picked the wrong target for what police said was his last crime.

Police say Tyrone McKnight, a convicted thief, broke into an east Charlotte apartment about 2:30 a.m. Wednesday. Jerene Haron O'Neal, whom police say McKnight didn't know, was sleeping inside.

Once inside the apartment, the intruder was met by the awakened resident, who pointed a handgun at McKnight. O'Neal, 29, fired at least three shots, Charlotte-Mecklenburg police said.

McKnight, 34, of Charlotte was taken to Carolinas Medical Center, where he later died.

<snip>
Including the Albemarle Road shooting, at least eight intruders have been killed by residents or business owners in Charlotte since 2000. While records weren't immediately available, police couldn't recall a case among them where the shooter was charged with a crime.

<snip>
Under N.C. law, a homeowner can use "any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force" to prevent a break-in or "terminate the intruder's unlawful entry." The intruder need not be inside the home.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/5599263.htm

[brokensymmetry]

1. Another example -

of how the right to keep and bear arms is important. The police cannot (and are not required to) protect individuals.

[iverglas]

3. some people look at things as they are

and ask "why?" Some people look at things as they could be, and ask "why not?" Or however that goes.

"The police cannot (and are not required to) protect individuals."

Apart from the fact that I completely fail to see what relevance this statement has to do with the case cited ... why not?

Why should police not be required to protect individuals, within the limits of their capability? (Which is exactly the extent to which people are generally required to do anything.)

A few years ago, the Toronto police knew that a man was sexually assaulting women in a particular neighbourhood. He had assaulted several women, and they expected him to do it again. He did. He assaulted "Jane Doe". Jane Doe sued the Toronto police for failing to inform her (i.e. the residents of the neighbourhood, at least) of the facts in their possession, which they could have used to protect themselves. She won.

It was obviously within the capability of the police to do that. They chose not to do it. Why on earth shouldn't they be required to do it? Why on earth shouldn't they be liable for not doing it?

Why would anyone go on spouting inanities about the police not having an obligation to protect individuals, rather than proposing that the police *should* have such an obligation, within the limits of their capabilities?

This is no more relevant to the initial story than was the comment to which I am responding, but there ya go.

On a more general note, I have observed this trading of tales for some time now. Gun saves life, gun takes life. (Yeah, yeah; "person with gun saves life, person with gun takes life".)

I observe that while "gun takes life" is usually fairly easy to establish, it is very difficult to say "gun saves life" with certainty. How on earth would anyone know whether the intruder in this most recent tale would have taken anyone's life if he had not been killed?? He certainly doesn't seem to have ever done it before, despite having quite a record of dastardly deeds. And in all that snipping, this bit got lost:

Police said it didn't appear the intruder had a weapon.
None was found at the crime scene at the Sailboat Bay Apartments
in the 5400 block of Albemarle Road, police said.

("Albemarle"?? The Duke of Albemarle, I like to think, was a collateral ancestor of mine (he died childless). He was responsible for restoring Charles II to the throne. This was a good thing at the time, and he was acting at the behest of what remained of a democratically elected government, in the interests of the public whom Cromwell had failed so miserably. What a charming colonial street name!)

Someone who fires three shots looks to me like someone who is trying to kill. The law up here in Utopia prohibits that sort of thing, allowing for homicide only where the killing was not intended and where the action that was taken was the killer's only option and all that. Next time I pass through South Carolina, I think I'll try not to stop overnight like I did last April, lest I wander into the wrong motel room by mistake.

.

[brokensymmetry]

7. Why not!

First, let’s establish (or at least, try to establish) the relevance of the statement about police protecting individuals.

Some venues have ample police protection and crime rates are low; hence residents enjoy short response times. Other venues have long response times. In order that you can have a better insight into my position, I will mention that police response times in my area range from thirty to forty-five minutes for burglars in action. Even if the response time were five minutes, such a period seems very long when one is afraid. It is very long time indeed if one is being actively attacked.

While your point about changing the system is well taken, I perceive that as being a long term strategy. It doesn’t help much when one is faced with the immediate reality of a criminal break-in. Further, merely establishing liability on the part of the police may not suffice; money may not cure the consequences of assault.
You observe that it is “… very difficult to say "gun saves life" with certainty.”, and that’s true enough. Indeed, the lack of objective data is at the very core of the greater societal debate since we are faced with pitting one person’s beliefs against another. That being the case, it is unlikely that you will convince me – nor will I convince you – of the relative merits (or lack thereof) of using a firearm for self-defense.
Your subsequent points about the intruder are not relevant. The homeowner is unlikely to know the criminal background of an intruder. Whether such an intruder is armed or not is quite difficult to determine, especially in high stress situations, which these generally are. Delay in acting, such as required for a verbal warning, could result in the demise of the homeowner.

You also mention the three shots. Interestingly enough, people involved in such conflicts tend to not know how many shots they fired. They will generally believe they fired one or two shots, when they have in fact fired many more. This is particularly the case when a semiautomatic pistol is involved.

Given a choice between the chance of injury or death of me or an intruder, I’ll opt for the intruder every time. Your Grace’s mileage may vary. :-)

[iverglas]

8. kinda one of the points

"You also mention the three shots. Interestingly enough, people
involved in such conflicts tend to not know how many shots they fired.
They will generally believe they fired one or two shots, when they
have in fact fired many more. This is particularly the case when a
semiautomatic pistol is involved."

And would these be those people who are responsible gun owners and have taken all the proper training and do not use their firearms except when absolutely necessary and so on and on?

Either way, I'd say. Being or not being a member of that class doesn't really seem to matter when it comes to the crunch, might I assume?

And given that there is apparently no acceptable way of prohibiting people who are not members of that class (even if we could determine who they were, and even if it made a difference anyway) from possessing and shooting off firearms as the mood strikes them, or at least prevent them from having things like semiautomatic pistols ... well, I give up.

"While your point about changing the system is well taken,
I perceive that as being a long term strategy."

Of course, the system as it stands is also the result of a long-term strategy, isn't it? The strategy of underfunding public services, not to mention the strategy of disenfranchising and impoverishing large chunks of the population, and particularly of certain segments of the population. Rome wasn't destroyed in a day, after all.

A quick fix to a complex problem created over years and years. It may look tasty, but it's actually just poison, if you want my considered and informed opinion.

And since the real solution might require someone other than the hardest-hit victims of the long and complex problems to actually make some sacrifices, well, I guess it's just no good. Raise my taxes? place limits on my access to lethal weapons? in order to solve the problems that result from the impoverishment and disenfranchisement of someone else? Heavens to betsy, who could one be thinking?

.

[brokensymmetry]

10. Proper training -

Either way, I'd say. Being or not being a member of that class doesn't really seem to matter when it comes to the crunch, might I assume?


That's a very good assumption. Lots of training - and by that I mean regular and frequent training on a police range - will help, but even police officers have the same problems. Not as much or as often as the typical user, of course...

One case in California had several officers responding to a robbery. Shots were exchanged, one officer needed to reload, and he was found dead - trying to reload his revolver with the keys from his pocket. He was shot in the head by the badguy as he tried to get those keys into the cylinder. Why, you may ask? During training, the officers had kept additional ammunition in their pockets.

In another case, locally, a police officer was shot with a 12 Gauge shotgun. Clearly, a stressful event! He fired back with 6 shots - only two shots hit the back of a van a mere 8 feet away. The rest missed the van!

So you can see the problems someone with less training than a full-time police officer would face.

As for paying more taxes to get more and better police coverage, to get treatment for drug addicts, and to improved education so as to reduce crime, I'm all for it. As someone else said, we live in an era of private affluence and public penury. I would gladly pay more - a lot more - to rebuild our infrastructure and our society. I'm sure you would too.

Limits on my access to lethal weapons are a different matter, and I'll fight those limits vigorously.

[Benhurst]

2. PTL! Thank God I live in North Carolina.

:puke:

[ohmyman1]

4. good

i'd have done the same thing. break into my home while i'm there, i will protect myself by any means neccesary.

[CO Liberal]

5. April 10, 2003

Four months old - still not current enough, Spoonman.

[Spoonman]

6. Whatever

Yea we've changed as a society so much in four months.

[iverglas]

9. let's see

whether the point can be made so clearly and directly that even you cannot pretend not to see it.

In the space of 24 hours, a large number of events occurred, and were reported, in which Thing *X* happened. Quite obviously, a similar number of events would have occurred and been reported for any other 24-hour period in recent history. (Unless we have some reason to think that the 24-hour period in question was extraordinary, which we don't have.)

Someone allegint that Thing *Y* happens more frequently than Thing X not only is unable to produce ANY reports of such events in the last 24 hours, but is unable to produce ANY reports of such events in any recent timeframe at all.

Let's say that I provide you with 12 reports of lightning striking and killing people, in the last 24 hours, all over the world.

You're trying to establish that people are more often struck and killed by herrings falling out of the sky onto their heads (ask google for fish fell sky), or die as a result of spontaneous combustion, than die as a result of being struck by lightning.

You offer one ancient report of someone dying when s/he spontaneously burst into flames, or s/he was hit on the head by a fish far from water.

If someone says "pooh pooh", is s/he saying that the laws of physics, and meteorology, have changed since those things happened?

I don't think so. I think s/he is saying that IF IT WERE SO BLASTED COMMONPLACE for people to spontaneously combust or be hit on the head by falling fish, you should be able to produce SOME RECENT instance of it happening.

And IF IT WERE MORE COMMONPLACE for people to die as a result of spontaneous combustion, or being hit on the head by falling fish, than for people to die as a result of being struck by lightning, you should be able to produce MORE instances of the former than of the latter, and you should be able to produce instances that are EQUALLY RECENT.

But I guess that whoever it is that's controlling the media would just have to be biased against people who spontaneously combust or are hit on the head by falling fish, and that would be why you couldn't meet that burden of proof.

Right.

.