Gun Law Views Inlight of Las Vegas Shooting

12 mins is not a useful time to ask burglars or home invasion robbers to wait while you get your gun to at least fend them off for the 10 mins it'll take police to get there.

An AR15 cannot be anything by one shot per trigger pull. If it can be switched to either 3 round burst or full auto, then it is and M4/M16 available only to military/police and not an AR15 the could be accessible to civilians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But how often is a burglar in your home and actually attempting to murder you/cause the homeowner actual harm? Don't they typically not want to get caught so will try to avoid coming into contact with you at all costs because they typically want your sh*t and then want to leave. I'm not saying it's cool for them to break in and take your stuff by any means, but I am not sure I personally could potentially take the life of somebody who was looking to take my TV (as an example) and leave. Obviously that's just personal opinion and that will vary. Just my 2 pence.

What I *am* interested in seeing, genuinely (I'm not stating this trying to be a smartass of anything), is multiple stories of times that a person has successfully defended themselves and others with a gun when the need has arisen. A lot of times you hear the argument that "if one of those people were carrying, things would have been different", so if anybody could provide some examples of when some hero with a gun saved the day, I would be interested to read those accounts.

If you want home defence.....buy a shotgun. You point it "over there" and it hits pretty well everything. Any other gun is for other reasons.

With bird shot and a short barrel you might throw a large pattern, but that wouldn't stop a person. For home defense you'd be loaded with slugs or buck shot. A slug is one piece of metal that has to hit your specific target - not merely over there somewhere. Buck shot puts out 4-8 little balls that are about like a small caliber pistol. The pattern is very tight. The kind of ranges inside a house it might be a 4-5 inch circle. You still very much have to hit a target.

Shotguns are fine. If you don't hit your target on the first shot or don't hit it cleanly or there are multiple targets, then they cycle slowly. They're also big and unwieldy in a close quarters situation. About the only time you'll see police using a shotgun in room clearance is to blast the hinges off locked doors or because it's loaded with beanbag rounds. Personally, it would not be my choice for home defense. I'd rather have a pistol locked in the nightstand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But how often is a burglar in your home and actually attempting to murder you/cause the homeowner actual harm? Don't they typically not want to get caught so will try to avoid coming into contact with you at all costs because they typically want your sh*t and then want to leave. I'm not saying it's cool for them to break in and take your stuff by any means, but I am not sure I personally could potentially take the life of somebody who was looking to take my TV (as an example) and leave. Obviously that's just personal opinion and that will vary. Just my 2 pence.

What I *am* interested in seeing, genuinely (I'm not stating this trying to be a smartass of anything), is multiple stories of times that a person has successfully defended themselves and others with a gun when the need has arisen. A lot of times you hear the argument that "if one of those people were carrying, things would have been different", so if anybody could provide some examples of when some hero with a gun saved the day, I would be interested to read those accounts.

When the common law started in England there were I think 8 felonies. All punished by death. One of those was burglary. That was burglary of a habitation at night. Not a residence during the day. Not a commercial building at night. Only a residence at night. The reason for that, and it is still classified as an inherently dangerous felony because of this, is because there's a high likelihood that if someone breaks into a residence while it is occupied that a confrontation could occur which could easily result in death.

Burglary also is not simply breaking in to steal things. It is breaking & entering for the purpose of committing any felony. Going through a closed but unlocked door to attempt rape is also burglary.

When a burglar gets shot in the US, the homeowner is not justified merely to protect their stuff, but rather because they are in fear for their lives or those of other occupants from the threat of the intruder.

To the extent you rely on criminals to be smart or logical and therefore avoid unnecessarily threatening innocent people... it doesn't make sense to throw acid on someone rather than just hold a knife on them when trying to rob them, and if it's fear of being caught with a knife then a wrench or hammer is probably more dangerous anyway, yet some horrible scum are still out there tossing acid on folks.

You can google thousands of stories of people who successfully defended themselves or others with a gun. It happens almost everyday.

Personally I've never shot anyone in the US. One of my soldiers did at one point though. His wife was out of town. He was home with the little kids asleep upstairs. Drunk kicked the door in, refused to leave, moved aggressively at him, and he put one round in the guy's hip. You can argue if it's necessary to shoot a crazy drunk for coming in your house, but I think any parent would tell you there's no way in hell a belligerent stranger that just kicked in your door is getting by you in the direction of your kids. Cops released my guy on the scene after about two hours investigation and that was it. Had to wait a couple months to get his gun back. Then he had to suffer our jokes about his poor marksmanship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The real policy problem here is that we're talking about mass shootings, which aren't as big a problem as the amount of attention they get would indicate. (Unless mentally ill white person shoots innocent white people is somehow a bigger deal than mostly minority on minority crime taking thousands of lives, and I don't think that's the case).

The reality is there have been 14 mass shootings that caused double digit deaths in the last 35 years. Five of those were terrorism. The rest were mental health related.

Of those 14, 11 of them involved handguns, not assault rifles or any sort of rifle for that matter. (One I'm listing as handgun also had a shotgun, but no rifle).

Even if we defined mass shooting as 3 deaths (and I'm not sure a domestic double murder suicide should be in the same category), and if we include spree shootings that can extend over a period of days, even then we're talking about around 80 deaths per year out of 325m people. Versus about 200 deaths per year from running into deer.

Most gun deaths are suicide. If you could take guns away, then then the cleverly worded suicide by gun rate goes down significantly, but the actual total suicide rate does not. People just turn to other means that are even more accessible.

If we want to have a conversation about access to effective stigma-free mental health services, I think we could get a lot of agreement and society would be a lot better off.

The largest category of non-suicide deaths by gun are from criminal activity. That's the out of control murder rate you're seeing in places like Chicago. That's almost entirely handguns, mostly transferred illegally.

There are smart things we could do about that too which would make the country significantly safer & would not be a knee jerk reaction towards guns that mostly are not the biggest of problems.

CDC has reliable stats on gun deaths compiled from the annual FBI crime stats reports. The mass shooting numbers I cited are updated through Vegas and come from here:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To the extent you rely on criminals to be smart or logical and therefore avoid unnecessarily threatening innocent people... it doesn't make sense to throw acid on someone rather than just hold a knife on them when trying to rob them, and if it's fear of being caught with a knife then a wrench or hammer is probably more dangerous anyway, yet some horrible scum are still out there tossing acid on folks.

And that is a whole separate issue. It shouldn't be that easy to access these sulphuric acids. Perhaps that's my own ignorance as maybe there are totally harmless reasons why somebody might be using it in their own home/on a regular basis, but if I can't buy more than a pack or two of paracetamol, I'm not entirely sure why you should be able to buy any corrosive acids so easily? But, I digress as that's not entirely relevent to a discussion about guns.

I have googled in the past and found more hits for the discussion about whether or not they would make the difference in any type of attack/burglary and cases where it's gone wrong and an innocent party has been shot because of mistaken identity/etc. I've not actually seen an article where somebody prevented crime and helped a bunch of innocent bystanders because they were licensed to carry (I'm not talking about individual home break-ins specifically either, I'm thinking more in a public space as that's where people tend to say "if only somebody was carrying..."). If you can easily find them on your google search, could share a few examples please? Clearly I'm not googling the right stuff when i've looked in the past and if you can find them easily enough, sharing them would be greatly appreciated as it would give me something that could potentially change my opinion on certain things.

While it's great that one of your soldiers was able to shoot to wound, I am thinking many people *without* military training would not be as calm and there's a higher potential in the panic that they would shoot and kill (instead of wound). You may think shooting and wounding a drunk guy who's somehow managed to kick your door in and moves aggressively towards you with children in the home is fair, but would it still be acceptable to shoot and kill a beligerent drunk guy? Perhaps you'd say yes and that's totally fine. Difference of opinion and I'm obviously not going to change that. As mentioned before, I personally just couldn't live with myself if I had shot and killed a person - even if they were intruding into my home. The only way that I could be okay with that is if they were looking to cause me harm intentionally (so like, your rape scenario vs your "stealing your stuff" type burglary). That scenario would be so few and far between for me personally (I.E. I take all precautions with securing my home and it's unlikely that anybody would be kicking in my door on the first try - unless they are the incredible hulk. They wouldn't get through that fast so I would be able to call the police first) that I would rather defend myself with anything less lethal (like a baseball bat, as a quick example) over a gun.

If we want to have a conversation about access to effective stigma-free mental health services, I think we could get a lot of agreement and society would be a lot better off.

What I will agree on is that the US needs better mental health care in general. But I think that also needs to tie into background checks before granting somebody a license to own a gun. Clearly more checks need to be done and they need to be done at a federal level as opposed to state-by-state where some states have tight rules/regs and others don't (so you can just hop on over a state for ease).

The reality is there have been 14 mass shootings that caused double digit deaths in the last 35 years. Five of those were terrorism. The rest were mental health related.

Of those 14, 11 of them involved handguns, not assault rifles or any sort of rifle for that matter. (One I'm listing as handgun also had a shotgun, but no rifle).


CDC has reliable stats on gun deaths compiled from the annual FBI crime stats reports. The mass shooting numbers I cited are updated through Vegas and come from here

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

Those numbers don't look right to me.  According to your numbers, only 3 of the mass shootings in the last 35 years involved rifles.  A quick Google returned this analysis of the same Mother Jones data:

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/americas/1.724632
 
Though so-called assault rifles account for a small fraction of the United States' 30,000 annual gun deaths, they have been used in at least 10 mass shootings since 2011, according to a database compiled by Mother Jones magazine.
 
The prevalence of these firearms has made them a focal point in the debate over U.S. gun laws as opponents say civilians should not own what they describe as "weapons of war." Backers say they are simply modern rifles enjoyed by millions of law-abiding Americans.

In December 2012, Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster XM15 to kill 28 children and adults at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut before taking his own life with a Glock pistol.

Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook used two assault rifles and two pistols to kill 14 people in San Bernardino, California, in December 2015.

James Holmes carried an assault rifle, a shotgun and two pistols when he killed 12 people in a Colorado movie theater in 2012.

Law enforcement officials say Mateen, a 29-year-old U.S. citizen who was the son of Afghan immigrants, carried an AR-15 style assault rifle and a handgun when he killed 50 people and wounded 53 at a gay nightclub in Orlando. He also had an unidentified device, said Orlando Police Chief John Mina.

<End quote>

Is it 10 since 2011 (not including Las Vegas) or 3?  Did you only include the numbers up to 2012 as your link would suggest?

And that is a whole separate issue. It shouldn't be that easy to access these sulphuric acids. Perhaps that's my own ignorance as maybe there are totally harmless reasons why somebody might be using it in their own home/on a regular basis, but if I can't buy more than a pack or two of paracetamol, I'm not entirely sure why you should be able to buy any corrosive acids so easily? But, I digress as that's not entirely relevent to a discussion about guns.

I have googled in the past and found more hits for the discussion about whether or not they would make the difference in any type of attack/burglary and cases where it's gone wrong and an innocent party has been shot because of mistaken identity/etc. I've not actually seen an article where somebody prevented crime and helped a bunch of innocent bystanders because they were licensed to carry (I'm not talking about individual home break-ins specifically either, I'm thinking more in a public space as that's where people tend to say "if only somebody was carrying..."). If you can easily find them on your google search, could share a few examples please? Clearly I'm not googling the right stuff when i've looked in the past and if you can find them easily enough, sharing them would be greatly appreciated as it would give me something that could potentially change my opinion on certain things.

While it's great that one of your soldiers was able to shoot to wound, I am thinking many people *without* military training would not be as calm and there's a higher potential in the panic that they would shoot and kill (instead of wound). You may think shooting and wounding a drunk guy who's somehow managed to kick your door in and moves aggressively towards you with children in the home is fair, but would it still be acceptable to shoot and kill a beligerent drunk guy? Perhaps you'd say yes and that's totally fine. Difference of opinion and I'm obviously not going to change that. As mentioned before, I personally just couldn't live with myself if I had shot and killed a person - even if they were intruding into my home. The only way that I could be okay with that is if they were looking to cause me harm intentionally (so like, your rape scenario vs your "stealing your stuff" type burglary). That scenario would be so few and far between for me personally (I.E. I take all precautions with securing my home and it's unlikely that anybody would be kicking in my door on the first try - unless they are the incredible hulk. They wouldn't get through that fast so I would be able to call the police first) that I would rather defend myself with anything less lethal (like a baseball bat, as a quick example) over a gun.

He meant to kill that guy. You should never ever shoot to wound someone. Not least because it's easy to mistakenly kill someone if you hit an artery or something. What's important though is you should not think your finger should come in contact with the trigger before things have crossed a line to the point you have no reasonable alternative and you intend to kill this person. If you allow yourself to think you could wound them as some lesser level of force, what ends up happening is you'll shoot when you should not or at least when you don't have to.

Also, that soldier was an enlisted NBC specialist. He inventoried and fixed gas masks for a living. And at the point of this story he was a week from shipping to training to become an officer and pilot. He had never been trained by the Army in use of a pistol, never had any advanced weapons training, and never been in a combat zone. There's no reason that guy should react any differently than a minimally trained civilian.

As far as the acid... it is in all kinds of things from drain cleaner to fertilizers to batteries. You can get higher concentrations for construction. I've used it on floors. It's used cleaning jewelry. There's lots of uses. For that matter, you can make some incredibly dangerous things from a 5min shop at your neighborhood sainsburys. That's not something that can be fixed.

There's tons of stories on gun owners stopping crimes. I think a lot of those are burglary/home invasion situations. To a lesser extent robbery. And rarely to end mass shootings, but then mass shootings are very rare to start with.

Probably the most famous story this year is this one:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/southwest-valley-breaking/2017/01/12/police-activity-shuts-interstate-10-westbound-near-tonopah/96481168/

While I appreciate everyone will hate this source, it comes up on google and the stories it cites to are accurate:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/11/24-times-citizens-used-guns-to-save-lives/

This was a rare mass shooting situation ended by a concealed carry person:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/24/22-year-old-with-concealed-carry-stops-tennessee-church-shooter/

This happened last night:
https://articles.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2017/10/intruder_shot_in_mcminnville_t.amp

Saturday:
https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/publicsafety/alleged-burglar-fights-with-homeowner-near-union-mills/article_04e44e4a-b0c1-11e7-b5de-1b8e38d91f30.amp.html

Earlier this week:
https://amp.news4jax.com/news/sources-mother-of-intruder-shot-killed-is-jacksonville-police-officer

There are several of these things per week. It's just not national news, just like a couple gang members kill each other it's also not a national story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He meant to kill that guy.

And that is where me and that guy are different. I wouldn't be able to live with myself killing a dude for being belligerently drunk. He may move aggressively towards me while my children are in my home or whatever, but I personallywould not be okay with taking that persons life. You are aboslutely right, your finger shouldn't come into contact with the trigger unless you intend to kill. That's not me. Other people might be okay with that, but that's absolutely NOT something I could get on board with except under VERY exceptional circumstances (which, as per my original comment, are VERY unlikely so I don't see the need to prepare for something that's highly unlikely to happen - again, personal preference).

As far as the acid... it is in all kinds of things from drain cleaner to fertilizers to batteries. You can get higher concentrations for construction. I've used it on floors. It's used cleaning jewelry. There's lots of uses. For that matter, you can make some incredibly dangerous things from a 5min shop at your neighborhood sainsburys. That's not something that can be fixed.

In these acid attacks, these people are buying them outright (from all the reports I've read so perhaps I'm reading incorrect information as I've not dug any further). They aren't mixing normal items from a Sainsburys and turning them into something deadly (that's obviously something that can happen anywhere). From all accounts, it's being purchased without any checks as to why it's being purchased. Maybe they should question it?? But, again, not exactly relevent to the topic at hand.

Going to read through your articles now - thanks for sharing. I will confess, I'm not even going to give traffic to Breitbart so won't be reading that one, but will read the rest now over lunch break. Ultimately I'm looking for instances that happen out of a private residence for reasons I already mentioned, but I'll read them all (minus the one).

Those numbers don't look right to me.  According to your numbers, only 3 of the mass shootings in the last 35 years involved rifles.  A quick Google returned this analysis of the same Mother Jones data:

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/americas/1.724632
 
Though so-called assault rifles account for a small fraction of the United States' 30,000 annual gun deaths, they have been used in at least 10 mass shootings since 2011, according to a database compiled by Mother Jones magazine.
 
The prevalence of these firearms has made them a focal point in the debate over U.S. gun laws as opponents say civilians should not own what they describe as "weapons of war." Backers say they are simply modern rifles enjoyed by millions of law-abiding Americans.

In December 2012, Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster XM15 to kill 28 children and adults at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut before taking his own life with a Glock pistol.

Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook used two assault rifles and two pistols to kill 14 people in San Bernardino, California, in December 2015.

James Holmes carried an assault rifle, a shotgun and two pistols when he killed 12 people in a Colorado movie theater in 2012.

Law enforcement officials say Mateen, a 29-year-old U.S. citizen who was the son of Afghan immigrants, carried an AR-15 style assault rifle and a handgun when he killed 50 people and wounded 53 at a gay nightclub in Orlando. He also had an unidentified device, said Orlando Police Chief John Mina.

<End quote>

Is it 10 since 2011 (not including Las Vegas) or 3?  Did you only include the numbers up to 2012 as your link would suggest?

If you'll look at what I said... I said of shootings resulting in double digit deaths.

I'm looking at the data now, and you're right. It's actually 5 of 14 (not 3) which involved a semiautomatic rifle.

The analysis you're citing to, which states 11, includes incidents where as few as 3 people are killed. It also includes sprees as well as mass shootings.

I used the higher number because I believe setting the mark at 3 yields an extremely misleading result. I don't think a domestic violence double murder suicide or a gang shooting are relevant to what people think of as mass shootings. Certainly they have no relation to the kind of thing we saw in Vegas. In those lower casualty situations, the type of weapon is irrelevant. They could do that with a couple revolvers. To ban assault weapons or not would make no difference. Magazine capacity would make no difference in those incidents.

Even with that overly broad standard of 3 deaths being labeled a mass shooting, still the totals killed are around 80 people per year out of 325mil.

Again, by far the largest cause of gun deaths is suicide. If you look at Australia as the corollary, suicide rates BY GUN dropped off steeply after their gun ban, as one would suspect. But their actual suicide rates haven't changed. It is intentionally misleading to include suicide in the number of deaths and declare that a gun problem



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you'll look at what I said... I said of shootings resulting in double digit deaths.

I'm looking at the data now, and you're right. It's actually 5 of 14 (not 3) which involved a semiautomatic rifle.

The analysis you're citing to, which states 11, includes incidents where as few as 3 people are killed. It also includes sprees as well as mass shootings.

I used the higher number because I believe setting the mark at 3 yields an extremely misleading result. I don't think a domestic violence double murder suicide or a gang shooting are relevant to what people think of as mass shootings. Certainly they have no relation to the kind of thing we saw in Vegas. In those lower casualty situations, the type of weapon is irrelevant. They could do that with a couple revolvers. To ban assault weapons or not would make no difference. Magazine capacity would make no difference in those incidents.

A 'public mass shooting' is defined by the US Congressional Research Service as 'incidents occurring in relatively public places, involving four or more deaths—not including the shooter(s)—and gunmen who select victims somewhat indiscriminately'
(https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43004.pdf)

This fits in with the FBI definition of a 'mass murderer': 'a number of murders (four or more) occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period between the murders'
(https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder#two)

So, why not use that definition (4 deaths, not including the shooter) and then there's no confusion.

And that is where me and that guy are different. I wouldn't be able to live with myself killing a dude for being belligerently drunk. He may move aggressively towards me while my children are in my home or whatever, but I personallywould not be okay with taking that persons life. You are aboslutely right, your finger shouldn't come into contact with the trigger unless you intend to kill. That's not me. Other people might be okay with that, but that's absolutely NOT something I could get on board with except under VERY exceptional circumstances (which, as per my original comment, are VERY unlikely so I don't see the need to prepare for something that's highly unlikely to happen - again, personal preference).

In these acid attacks, these people are buying them outright (from all the reports I've read so perhaps I'm reading incorrect information as I've not dug any further). They aren't mixing normal items from a Sainsburys and turning them into something deadly (that's obviously something that can happen anywhere). From all accounts, it's being purchased without any checks as to why it's being purchased. Maybe they should question it?? But, again, not exactly relevent to the topic at hand.

Going to read through your articles now - thanks for sharing. I will confess, I'm not even going to give traffic to Breitbart so won't be reading that one, but will read the rest now over lunch break. Ultimately I'm looking for instances that happen out of a private residence for reasons I already mentioned, but I'll read them all (minus the one).

You can buy a very strong acid like that for jewelry/silver cleaning, and for like cleaning brick or tile grout in a remodeling situation. Battery acid would also be easily accessible. Even if you took away those sources though, they could still mix some things up to make very bad stuff.

I think overwhelmingly most incidents of that sort are the private home scenario. Much fewer are the concealed carry in public sort of situation. Concealed carry or not isn't really relevant to the mass shooting scenario. Sure, it could and has ended those situations a few times, but ultimately there aren't that many of those situations happening (despite what one would think from the amount of media attention they get). It is more likely to be a factor with the robbery scenario or a few other things. And even then I'd guess it goes badly about a third of the time. I'm not particularly making a case for concealed carry. I've lived in Texas a long time, own lots of guns, and never got a concealed carry permit despite it being essentially free for people in the military. I just don't see the use personally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concealed carry or not isn't really relevant to the mass shooting scenario.

The reason I was asking, making it relevent to my question not necessarily "mass shootings" in general, was that you tend to hear when mass shootings occur or a bank robbery or something to that idea "if only a gunowner that was carrying was there, it would have ended differently". I just don't often see these incidents coming up, hence my asking.

Read one of your examples so far and it seems like a homeowner went home to confront a person who's broken in but it doesn't sound like that's necessarily self-defence (obviously that's arguable because it couldn've been self-defence had the homeowner been home, I guess, but that makes a difference to me). He wasn't defending himself/his family, he literally went home to confront a person who had broken in to his home without knowing many details, and shot and killed that guy.

A 'public mass shooting' is defined by the US Congressional Research Service as 'incidents occurring in relatively public places, involving four or more deaths—not including the shooter(s)—and gunmen who select victims somewhat indiscriminately'
(https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43004.pdf)

This fits in with the FBI definition of a 'mass murderer': 'a number of murders (four or more) occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period between the murders'
(https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder#two)

So, why not use that definition (4 deaths, not including the shooter) and then there's no confusion.

Cause that data is not cleanly compiled and publicly available the way the excel sheet from motherjones is. Or at least I'm not aware of where it's located. The CDC stats though go off that version. However, they don't get into mass shootings so much as categories of gun deaths. The number used by motherjones is based off a 2012 law that says 3 deaths in any circumstance including the shooter.

In either case though, if there are 9 or fewer deaths, that's a low capacity magazine in a single pistol. No amount of mag capacity or assault weapons ban is going to have any meaningful impact to that end of the spectrum. Those policy points might matter in the double digit range, so we have to look at the data to see how big the problem is at that end of the spectrum. That's what I tried to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The reason I was asking, making it relevent to my question not necessarily "mass shootings" in general, was that you tend to hear when mass shootings occur or a bank robbery or something to that idea "if only a gunowner that was carrying was there, it would have ended differently". I just don't often see these incidents coming up, hence my asking.

Read one of your examples so far and it seems like a homeowner went home to confront a person who's broken in but it doesn't sound like that's necessarily self-defence (obviously that's arguable because it couldn've been self-defence had the homeowner been home, I guess, but that makes a difference to me). He wasn't defending himself/his family, he literally went home to confront a person who had broken in to his home without knowing many details, and shot and killed that guy.

The number of people who actually carry on a daily basis (not just licensed) is relatively low. It's not common to get caught up in those sorts of crimes anyway. Just statistically those wires aren't going to cross all that often.

In that particular example, he was defending himself at the point he confronted the suspect and had to use force to protect himself. I think we can all agree it'd be better if the police beat him to the scene. Beyond that, I can't really say what was going on. There are real issues in property law from not confronting trespassers though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk