Fuzzy Logic?

This is a discussion on Fuzzy Logic? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; A couple of recent threads have me thinking, and yes, this can be a dangerous thing! I guess this really started back when Joe Horn ...

Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Fuzzy Logic?

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,961

    Fuzzy Logic?

    A couple of recent threads have me thinking, and yes, this can be a dangerous thing! I guess this really started back when Joe Horn first hit the news.

    As many of you are aware, the Texas Penal Code has a wonderful chapter (9) titled Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility. This is a great friend to those of us here that have chosen to be responsible for our own safety. This should also be a source of fear for those that choose not to obey the laws of Texas. This chapter details the specific circumstances under which a person in Texas can use force, including deadly force, to protect themself, another, or even inanimate obects.

    In various threads people debate the righteousness of shooting various participants in various events. One argument that has been made several times is that the participant(s) if caught, would not be subject to the death penalty, or that particular person is not an active threat.

    A man walks up to you in the Walmart parking lot. He opens his jacket and shows you a handgun tucked into his pants and demands you hand over your wallet.
    Here we have an armed robbery. In most states we would be legally justified in using deadly force to resist this. He has put us in fear of serious bodily injury or death buy displaying a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony.

    But, he hasn't committed a capital offense has he? I am not aware of any states that execute people for armed robbery. But how many would call that a bad shoot?

    We shake our heads at the Senator from Vermont who said she wanted all of us registered so we can be arrested before we commit a crime. But we are justified in killing the bad guy because of ability opportunity and jeopardy.

    People have said it is wrong to use deadly force to protect property. But we don't have a problem with the presumption in most Castle Doctrines that any bad guy in our home intends to harm us and is fair game. In effect the law is saying we don't even have to be reasonably in fear of death or injury, if he is inside he is fair game.
    So is it we can shoot bad guys to protect property in the living room but not in the detached garage?

    Who here would not use deadly force to prevent a sexual assault on their spouse or child? But does your state execute people for sexual assault?

    So it seems to me that most of us have no problem with the application of necessary force up to and including deadly force for offenders that would not be facing execution if they were caught by police instead of us. Each of us evaluates on a case by case basis.

    As I see it, the penalties the state would impose on these offenders after a fair trial and conviction, has no bearing on the legitimacy of the force I would use. There are two distinct and seperate standards.
    The state can't kill you for breaking in to my house, and I can't incarcerate you for ten years.

    I think chapter nine should be required reading for everyone entering the state of Texas. I also think it should be re titled to something like... "If you don't want to get shot, don't do this!"

    It is late.... I am rambling.
    Your thoughts?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array joffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    165
    Capital punishment and killing someone in self defense is so entirely different on all levels it can't even be compared. Sure, both events entail presumable bad guys losing their life, but that's about it.

    Capital punishment is killing in cold blood, long after the fact. It is execution. The bad guy has long since been apprehended and ceased to pose a credible threat to anyone.

    Killing someone in self defense is none of those things. If it ever is, then it would certainly not be a 'good shoot', it would be murder.

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,720
    As I see it, the penalties the state would impose on these offenders after a fair trial and conviction, has no bearing on the legitimacy of the force I would use. There are two distinct and seperate standards.
    Beccaria had much to say on the question of state-imposed punishments for crimes.

    Agreed, that this is distinctly different from self-defense actions at the moment of threat of violence or death. No court date. No long, drawn-out procedural crap. Just a simple response to a clear criminal action. Simple is good.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array JAT40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    ma
    Posts
    2,366
    Quote Originally Posted by joffe View Post
    Capital punishment is killing in cold blood, long after the fact. It is execution. The bad guy has long since been apprehended and ceased to pose a credible threat to anyone.
    This may be the common view in Europe, Justice is a very important part of our society. The only part of your quote that I can agree with is that capital punishment happens "long after the fact". This needs to change, Justice needs for the sake of the victims and their families, to be brought swiftly.
    While people are saying "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, ... and they will not escape. 1Th 5:3

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array Blackeagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    2,147
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Here we have an armed robbery. In most states we would be legally justified in using deadly force to resist this. He has put us in fear of serious bodily injury or death buy displaying a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony.

    But, he hasn't committed a capital offense has he? I am not aware of any states that execute people for armed robbery. But how many would call that a bad shoot?
    I think you're conflating two things that aren't really related here. Capital punishment is just that punishment. Shooting in self defense is not punishment, it is a preventative measure. The goal is not to punish the assailant in any way, but to prevent him from harming an innocent person.

    Think about it this way: If an attacker attempts to rob you, you draw, and he turns tail and runs before you shoot him, that would be considered successful self defense. If a prisoner convicted of a capitol crime escaped before he could be executed, that would hardly be considered a success for the justice system. The objectives are very different. In self-defense, the objective is to prevent a criminal from harming someone, hurting or killing the criminal is sometimes necessary, but it is not the point. In capital punishment, killing the convicted criminal is the whole point.

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackeagle View Post
    I think you're conflating two things that aren't really related here. Capital punishment is just that punishment. Shooting in self defense is not punishment, it is a preventative measure. The goal is not to punish the assailant in any way, but to prevent him from harming an innocent person.

    Think about it this way: If an attacker attempts to rob you, you draw, and he turns tail and runs before you shoot him, that would be considered successful self defense. If a prisoner convicted of a capitol crime escaped before he could be executed, that would hardly be considered a success for the justice system. The objectives are very different. In self-defense, the objective is to prevent a criminal from harming someone, hurting or killing the criminal is sometimes necessary, but it is not the point. In capital punishment, killing the convicted criminal is the whole point.

    Also I'll add that we shoot to stop a threat, not to kill the threat. I will keep shooting until I am no longer in danger, not until the BG is dead. If the threat stops because the BG dies so be it, but most likely it will be because the BG ran away or passed out. 85% survive being shot with a handgun so defending yourself with a gun is NOT the same as a death sentence.
    It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.

  8. #7
    Member Array nasal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    People have said it is wrong to use deadly force to protect property. But we don't have a problem with the presumption in most Castle Doctrines that any bad guy in our home intends to harm us and is fair game. In effect the law is saying we don't even have to be reasonably in fear of death or injury, if he is inside he is fair game.
    So is it we can shoot bad guys to protect property in the living room but not in the detached garage?
    An intruder in your house is automatically a mortal threat. There is nothing standing between you and them except your will and ability to defend yourself. It is not only what they might do, but how quickly they could do it.

    If someone is outside your dwelling, burglarizing your garage, you are better off locking the doors and leaving them be. You may not like it but what are you risking by going after them? You could be ambushed, hurt or even killed. How would that help/protect your family?

    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    I think chapter nine should be required reading for everyone entering the state of Texas. I also think it should be re titled to something like... "If you don't want to get shot, don't do this!"
    That being said, stealing is wrong and the law should err in favor of the victim of the crime. I do think it should be legal to shoot someone in order to STOP THEM from stealing your property. Getting shot is just one of the risks of the job if you choose to be a criminal, and we know it acts as an effective deterrent in many cases. If you get shot taking someone's stuff, too bad. Once someone leaves your land, though, it is up to the police. You acted too slowly to protect your things. Shooting someone at this point is wrong and should be illegal. It is vigilantism, pure and simple (I am reminded of a story from another member about being falsely chased down by an armed posse).

    Personally, unless I was in a survival situation, I would never shoot anyone over any amount of property, even if it was legal. I just do not think it is the right thing to do. Besides, by pressing the attack I am risking my life, not what I prefer.
    Last edited by nasal; February 7th, 2009 at 11:55 AM. Reason: Fixed some mistakes.

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackeagle View Post
    I think you're conflating two things that aren't really related here. Capital punishment is just that punishment. Shooting in self defense is not punishment, it is a preventative measure. The goal is not to punish the assailant in any way, but to prevent him from harming an innocent person.
    Exactly. So as I said the punishment that may be imposed by the state is not relevant to the level of force I may use. These are different situations. The negative impact I have on the bad guy is for the same actions by him, but with a different objective in mind. My impacting negatively on him is not to punish him for what he is doing, it is solely to cause him to cease that activity immediately. The negative impact imposed by the state is a punishment well after the act has concluded and in theory to deter him from doing it in the future.


    An intruder in your house is automatically a mortal threat. There is nothing standing between you and them except your will and ability to defend yourself. It is not only what they might do, but how quickly they could do it.
    Nasal raises the standard presumption that is part of the basis for Castle Doctirnes. But is it necessarily true? Just because the law presumes someone to be a lethal threat does that mean in fact they are a lethal threat? How is the burglar who is shot the day before Castle Doctrine goes into effect in a jurisdiction less of a threat than the burglar shot a week later?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  10. #9
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,407
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post

    Nasal raises the standard presumption that is part of the basis for Castle Doctirnes. But is it necessarily true? Just because the law presumes someone to be a lethal threat does that mean in fact they are a lethal threat? How is the burglar who is shot the day before Castle Doctrine goes into effect in a jurisdiction less of a threat than the burglar shot a week later?
    If you wish to play 20 questions with a home invader at 3am in your bedroom go right ahead. I on the other hand will not assume he's there just to borrow a cup of sugar.
    It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.

  11. #10
    Member Array buzzgum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    .... But does your state execute people for sexual assault?......
    Your thoughts?
    No, but they should. Just my 2.

    As a CCW'r I don't consider myself judge, jury and executioner. I don't arm myself in the hopes to extract justice on BG's. If I wanted to do that, I would have become a judge. I don't think your comparing apples to apples. The whole point of CCW is self-defense. Like others who've posted already, the court imposes punishment for a crime. If I was in fear for my life and shot to stop the threat and the BG happens to die, I wasn't extracting justice, I was preserving my life.

  12. #11
    Senior Member Array BlackPR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Lakewood Colorado
    Posts
    844
    So it seems to me that most of us have no problem with the application of necessary force up to and including deadly force for offenders that would not be facing execution if they were caught by police instead of us.
    Sort of. I like your thoughts, just because it's good to think, re-think, and re-re-think these things all the time.

    Don't forget, there is an aspect to a response to a crime that's easily left out...

    Immediacy.

    We have the same restrictions a cop does. You mention "the cops catching someone" but that may very well mean you are killed by a cop, since they have to respond to the immediacy of the situation. That does not make the cop a judge, jury and executioner, either. They are merely responding to unfolding events -- where a court has to decipher and weigh events that have already unfolded.

    Although it's easy to compare CCWers to "judge jury and executioner" and lots of anti-gunners will try that -- It's no different than a cop who is forced to use lethal force -- and one wonders if the same anti-gunners would be so quick to paint cops that way.

    Someone else said it well... the Courts are about handing out justice on things that are done. A lethal force situation is about responding to an immediate situation, with very little time to think it through. You are expected to behave as a "reasonable man," and that tends to become the way such events will be measured, later, in the courts.
    The facts are indisputable. There is more data supporting the benefits of Conceal Carry than there is supporting global warming. If you choose ignorance, in light of all the evidence, in order to bolster your irrational fear of guns, you are a greater threat to society than any gun owner.

  13. #12
    Member Array Double Naught Spy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    453
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    But, he hasn't committed a capital offense has he? I am not aware of any states that execute people for armed robbery.
    If you wait until he kills you, then it is hard to defend yourself.
    Considering yourself to be defenseless is the first administrative step to becoming a victim.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,961
    So it would seem we are all in agreement that the anti's arguments don't hold water. The question I have now is when engaged in debate with a rabid anti, how is the best way to clearly seperate the issues? Intervention vs punishment?

    Also, how to clarify that, assuming a particular state's laws are a reflection of the will of the majority of the residents of that state, that we are not the radicals whose thinking it outside the mainstream, but they are?

    In so many instances it seems to me they have us trying to defend our position. How do we best turn that around and put them on the defensive? How do we best expose them as attempting to enable violent criminals?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  15. #14
    Member Array jonesy_26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    325
    To me the separation is clear. If I have to draw and shoot someone, I am not judging that individual on anything. I am simply taking action to prevent bodily harm or death to me or another innocent person. My doing this is a reaction to that individual's action. There is zero judgemnt involved.

    The anti's POV comes from their differing philosophy. Just submit to the BG's demands and hope everything is OK. The police will take care of everything,etc. Whereas in our line of thinking, as free citizens, as human beings, we have the right and the authority to not be a victim. I don't have to let anyone commit a crime against me period.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. That warm, fuzzy feeling
    By Katana in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 25th, 2010, 03:26 PM
  2. Help with Glock 26 Logic Please
    By SaddleSC in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2009, 11:20 PM
  3. Here's a warm and fuzzy for ya
    By BAC in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: April 17th, 2008, 06:33 PM
  4. logic of FMJ and JHP
    By Go Glock in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: November 1st, 2006, 08:26 PM