I fear that more people are going to die needlessly before good sense reasserts itself in American jurisprudence.  Until then, the bodies will pile up, the news media will continue to wring their hands and the perpetrators of violence will escape accountability for their actions.

Tagged with:
 

25 Responses to A Tragic Learning Experience

  1. Rich says:

    All legislators who voted for, and the governor who signed the castle doctrine now officially have blood on their hands. I hope they sleep well.

  2. Shirl says:

    Unfortunate incident, but a man has a right to protect his home and family.

  3. Shirl says:

    Read the whole 20+ page DA report and you’ll change your mind. See also front page of West Bend Daily News – cops take on the partygoers’ attitudes. Very telling.

  4. Other Side says:

    Their disregard for life, and the glibness of their responses is “mind-bottling.”

  5. Shirl says:

    Well said Other Side – I assume you’re referring to the reported responses of his so-called “friends” (as reported by the cop who was there)- the other party-goers? Sounds like they had too many ‘bottles’ on their minds. Almost unbelieveable! This just might want to make some of them stay sober.

    • Phil Scarr says:

      Yes, so by all means, you should shoot them if they try to come into your “castle,” even though they pose no discernable threat. All we have is the word of a murderer to go by.

    • Rich says:

      Shirl, I want you, nay I DARE you, to go to that young man’s parents and explain to them why their son HAD TO DIE for the heinous act of being drunk and dumb. Let me know how that goes.

  6. Shirl says:

    Phil, if Mr. Homeowner could have possibly shot the intruder in the leg (like in the movies), of course that would have been better, but one CANNOT put any blame on Mr. Homeowner for reacting the way he did when taken by surprise by someone unexpectedly in his house. This homeowner has been made out to be a racist who was just itching to take the law into his own hands. On the contrary, he was so scared he was shaking and in shock.

    Rich, the man’s parents have now lost 2 sons to drugs and alcohol. Son #3 is on his way. Yes, I feel for them (I have 3 sons), but realisically, where does the real blame lie?

    • Phil Scarr says:

      Or perhaps, instead of a lethal weapon, perhaps a non-lethal weapon like a tazer which would have rendered the intruder helpless while the homeowner dialed 911. But so many gun nuts have fantasies of being Dirty Harry that now, with the Castle Doctrine or Florida’s insane Stand-your-Ground law, their dreams can come true in a blaze of responsibility-free glory! Lucky us!

    • Rich says:

      So, in the face of truth and logic, you blame the victim. Nice.

      And so it goes.

  7. Other Side says:

    @Shrill: You would be wrong.

  8. Shirl says:

    C’mon guys – take off your blinders! Intruder IN your house at 2am??? Who is at fault here? Oh – Mr. Homeowner is just supposed to know it’s just a kid from the party without a weapon without revenge on his mind. Yes, tackle him and hold him for 5 minutes while waiting for the cops. Yea, right – in a perfect world maybe. The case in Florida is totally different and the outcome should be too.

    The responses here are mind-boggling….

    • Phil Scarr says:

      tackle him and hold him for 5 minutes while waiting for the cops. Yea, right – in a perfect world maybe.

      You’re arguing with the voices in your head again. Was this

      Or perhaps, instead of a lethal weapon, perhaps a non-lethal weapon like a tazer which would have rendered the intruder helpless while the homeowner dialed 911.

      unclear to you? What part of non-lethal is not a better solution?

    • Steven Reynolds says:

      Shirl, you’ve got the blinders on. You can’t even recognize the tragedy of death. I would pray for you, if there were any God that would take your opinion into account.

      Let’s be clear here. Crime is not so rampant here in Wisconsin that the solution is random citizens dealing out death when they feel their castles are violated. It just isn’t. Death of children certainly makes this an idiotic issue even to discuss.

  9. Shirl says:

    Sorry, I automatically dismissed your taser comment. They are tricky even for cops to master. Have to be within a certain distance and they can be unreliable and can deadly. Not only more expensive but can open up the possibility of litigation on the user’s part if permanent injury occurs. Like guns they can get into the wrong hands and are more dangerous than the public might think.

    Bottom line is don’t break into a house that’s not your own.

    • Phil Scarr says:

      they can be unreliable and can deadly.

      Unlike firearms…

      can open up the possibility of litigation on the user’s part if permanent injury occurs.

      Right, much better to kill the intruder so they can’t sue you.

      Conservative logic courtesy of George Orwell.

  10. Shirl says:

    Again, a man has a right to protect his home and family. You may not like it but it’s the law. Crime has consequences….

    • nonquixote says:

      A man always had that right, prior to the passage of the castle doctrine legislative fiasco. But you keep ignoring the point that trespassing and youthful stupidity does not justify an instantaneous death sentence without a trial. Yes crime has consequences, except for the cold blooded killer, in this case.

      Of course this year if I am lucky, I might benefit from fewer Jehovah Witness creeps knocking at my door, after they have been instructed to never come back here, year after year. One cannot always trust men, or gangs of teens in suits carrying briefcases, calling unannounced.

    • nonquixote says:

      I’m kind of expecting you to be arguing this from a pro-life stance next. Funny it hadn’t already occurred to you.

  11. Rich says:

    The huge, sad irony of it all is that we have granted powers to ordinary citizens that not even our police can wield. Think about it. A police officer, after extensive training on the safe use of his firearms, must adhere to a set of very stringent requirements on the use of force and then, only after ruling out all other non-lethal options, can he use lethal force.

    The homeowner? Point and shoot. No smiles required.

    How many innocent lives lost will it take before we admit this was madness? The count currently stands at one. To me, that’s one too many.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.