Guns: I am sorry, but…

Reach for the gun (Photo credit: ialla)

Monday night a Rochester, Minnesota, man shot his sixteen-year-old granddaughter when he mistook her for an intruder.  I’m sorry, but the man is a disgrace.  And anyone coming to his defense should be ashamed.  What the hell is wrong with people?

Are we such cowards that seeing a person we THINK we don’t know is a threat worthy of deadly force?  Apparently so.  The Rochester incident proves that some  individuals are not responsible or strong enough to be entrusted with so-called “castle doctrine” laws that allow fools to shoot at will.  Where do we draw the line?  Do we maintain the law to protect cowards?

The use of deadly force is justified if someone perceives a reasonable risk to life and personal safety.  Correct?

Consider this:  If you end up shooting your granddaughter accidentally, was your safety ever really threatened?  Could a person take a more defensive position to assess the threat before killing someone?  I think so.  This guy killed his granddaughter, people!  Why?  Because he acted as judge and executioner upon seeing someone outside his door he THOUGHT he didn’t know.  A real threat worth of lethal force, indeed.

Of course we know that crazy people show up at back doors everywhere all the time shooting innocent old fucks for fun, right?  Oh, but let’s give this pathetic gun owner a break.  He claims he was concerned because a break-in of some sort had been reported in the area recently.  So obviously the Rochester man’s house was next in line.   The solution?  Shoot first, ask questions later.  Do you think I am wrong?  Well, that’s what happened, isn’t it?  Tell me what happened.

The Rochester man shot first and now there are plenty of questions.  One of them should be the state of fear in this country.  When I was a kid we more or less ran freely through yards and neighborhoods.  Perhaps it is a good thing most kids stay in texting friends and playing video games.  If kids played outdoors today, they’d be fair game.  Yes or no?  If a granddaughter is fair game — which she is if this shooter is not prosecuted — who isn’t fair game?

The insanity of our gun culture is pathetic.  Period.

Related articles

• Man Shoots Granddaughter Thinking She’s An Intruder (minnesota.cbslocal.com)
• Bob Costas Not Backing Down Despite Widespread Attacks by Gun Nuts (freakoutnation.com)
• Father Accidentally Shoots 7-Year-Old Son Outside Gun Store (crooksandliars.com)
• Montana Man Cleared By Castle Doctrine Law After Shooting Unarmed Husband Who Confronted Him About An Affair With His Wife (jonathanturley.org)
• The Insane Defense of the “Castle Doctrine” Gone Wild (slate.com)
• Man claims killing teen was self defense (wptv.com)

Chickens, Eggs, and the Castle Doctrine

Don't you feel safer?

Now we have pictures of George Zimmerman’s bloody head which some say bolsters his self-defense argument.  Like so much of today’s thinking about rights and responsibilities, this one seems rather simple and misguided.  If that is indeed Zimmerman’s bloody head, I guess my reaction is so what?

A couple of things to keep in mind.

First and most obviously, if Zimmerman had been minding his own business he wouldn’t have had to “defend” himself.  All the 911 transcripts support a telling of the events that show Zimmerman trailing a person completely within his rights to be out and about in free America.  Even after being told not to follow Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman did so anyway.  But this is an old story and one that raises obvious doubts about Zimmerman’s justification for shooting Martin.

But I think there is an even simpler concern about which I don’t hear much talk.  If the so-called “Castle Doctrine” is indeed designed to ensure that people have the right to defend themselves if they feel threatened, who has that right?  Everyone, right?  Under these laws a person may use deadly force if he feels his life might be at risk or feels that serious bodily may occur.

We don’t know when Zimmerman pulled out his gun to shoot Martin, but wouldn’t being stalked by a man with a gun look like a threat to you?  Maybe just being stalked by an angry guy talking on a cell phone might be a threat.  Trayvon Martin didn’t have a gun.  If Zimmerman’s story holds up, one might easily surmise that Martin was acting in his own self defense.   (And doing so without the use of a weapon, by the way.)

So when does one person become the victim and the other the attacker?  Moreover, as these self defense laws are more broadly applied to public space, couldn’t one even imagine a scenario when criminal becomes victim and in turn applies his right to self defense?

Imagine a situation in which a person is caught stealing something and the owner of that property becomes enraged and starts beating on the thief.  If the thief feels that his life is at risk, can he pull out a gun and shoot the property owner?

What is it with all these macho guys and guns anyway?  How tough are you if you need to resolve threats with the service of a firearm?  It seems to me that we are a rather paranoid and insecure society that values property rights over human rights and this sort of self defense argument is only one more manifestation of that twisted set of priorities.

But logically the real issue here is very much like the chicken and egg puzzle.  If we’re going to start letting people make decisions with firearms based on a fear, whose fear trumps another’s?  Who gets the right to say they are entitled to defense over another?  This is especially an issue when people take their defense into public spaces.

Pay attention to who supports this stuff.  They are not right.  The civil society we once took for granted is being taken away from us.

Related articles

• “Castle Doctrine” Author: Trayvon’s Killing Was Not Self-Defense (thedailybeast.com)
• NRA Chief Calls Media “National Disgrace” (stlouis.cbslocal.com)
• Scott Walker Praises Ted Nugent, Castle Doctrine (huffingtonpost.com)