Sunday, July 22, 2007

What the hell?

I was drifting through the archives just now, looking for inspiration, and I stumbled across this comment by a Nony Mouse on my "Meditations on aftermath" thread:

"If I were on a jury and I found out that a shooter had contacted a lawyer about shooting someone before he did it, I would feel extreme prejudice against the shooter.

Likewise if I found out that he had purchased any books by Ayoob.

Anyone who fantasized about killing someone is a nut case.

The chance that the shooting was defensive is small, as he was just looking to shoot someone."

First off, who the hell are you and why are you on my blog?

So much for not having any inspiration. Alrighty, then, my old sod, let's have a go at this, shall we?

If I were on a jury and I found out that a shooter had contacted a lawyer about shooting someone before he did it, I would feel extreme prejudice against the shooter.

You would feel extreme prejudice, hmm? Let us take a look at that, then. According to Merriam-Webster, "prejudice" can be one of two things. It can be "an injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights".

Hmm. Since you are postulating that you'd be on the jury, and since the American justice system does not allow a victim of the defendant to serve on his jury, the first definition obviously doesn't fit.

The second definition of "prejudice", though: a "preconceived judgment or opinion"; "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge"; and "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics."

Goodness. A "preconceived judgement".

You'd feel an "adverse opinion formed without just grounds"?

You admit to feeling an "irrational attitude of hostility"?

And you'd still be sitting on the jury ... why? Let us hope that your admitted irrationality would come out in voir dire and you'd be excluded posthaste.

I do admire your confession of irrationality regarding guns and self-defence, though. it is extremely difficult to find a gun-banner or self-defence-bigot willing to admit that his views are, indeed, irrational and you should be commended for your courage in doing so.

Likewise if I found out that he had purchased any books by Ayoob.

You do realize that many of Ayoob's students are law enforcement and some are military, right? Ayoob has been invited to speak on this very subject at many Law Enforcement academies throughout the land, and Mas spends a lot of time speaking at seminars put on by Law Enforcement departments?

Would you feel the same level of "irrational hostility" towards a peace officer who had purchased a book by Ayoob?

Anyone who fantasized about killing someone is a nut case.

No argument there. How the hell, though, do you equate talking to a lawyer or buying a book by Massad Ayoob with fantasizing about killing?

Let me ask you something. If you buy house insurance, plan fire evacuation drills with your family, install smoke detectors in your house and put fire extinguishers where they'll be the most help -- does this mean that you're fantasizing about arson?

If you have a pool, and you surround the pool with a fence to keep small children out, install flotation devices near the water, take a Red Cross LifeGuard course and teach your children to swim -- does this mean you're fantasizing about drowning someone?

Having plans to deal with a worst case scenario does not mean you are fantasizing about committing that worst case.

Training does not automatically mean the trainee is fantasizing about unlawful acts. Lifeguard training does not automatically mean the trainee is fantasizing about drowning someone, firefighter training does not mean the trainee is fantasizing about arson; paramedic training does not mean the trainee is fantasizing about killing someone -- and nether does firearms training.

To believe otherwise would be ... irrational. See previous paragraphs.

The chance that the shooting was defensive is small, as he was just looking to shoot someone.

And how do you know that the defendant was "looking to kill someone"? Are you claiming mind-reading skills? Did you use your powers to probe the innermost thoughts of the defendant? If you do have the awesome power of telepathy -- the ability to read someones mind -- I believe that James Randi has a million dollars for you.

No?

So you don't actually know for a fact that "he was just looking to shoot someone", do you?

Okay, then, what about the "chance that the shooting was defensive is small"? Again, how do you know? Do you study defensive shootings? Were you there? Do you know the shooting statistics of the region in question? How may other shootings from that area have you researched?

Right.

We'll just mark that last statement of yours up as the bushwa it is.

In your own words, your argument is based on irrationality and opinions formed without just grounds or sufficient knowledge.

Pretty much says it all, I think.

LawDog

27 comments:

krikkert said...

As a self-confessed hoplophobe, I salute you, sir, for shooting the bad arguments down. There are better ones.

Snigs said...

Excellently stated (as always). Folks like your "a Nony mouse" are guilty of shooting someone- namely themselves...usually in the foot.

LawDog said...

As a self-confessed hoplophobe, I salute you, sir, for shooting the bad arguments down. There are better ones.

Really? Do tell.

Laurel Zimmer said...

At first I was going to point out that your anonymous friend was misconstruing your ideas regarding contacting a laywer... They were acting like you'd be consulting the lawyer about killing a specific individual, rather than a "what if?" scenario about a whole class of bad guy types. And I was going to say that those are two totally different things, and one is legitimate while one is questionable...

But then it dawned on me that it's perfectly legitimate to ask your lawyer about the repercussions of killing a specific person, too, and here's why:

Twentysomething female has become enlightened, ditched her abusive boyfriend, obtained training and armed herself. Word gets 'round that abusive boyfriend isn't happy about it. Then, abusive boyfriend starts showing up places she is, threatening her. She gets a restraining order, which only pisses abusive boyfriend off more.

Question: Is it psychotic for the female in the scenario to then ask her lawyer something to the effect of, "What if he breaks into my house and, fearing for my life, I have to kill him?"

I think not, and frankly, I think a person who cares enough about making sure it's a "good shoot" to ask their lawyer the "what ifs" is worthy of our respect, not condemnation.

*shakes head at anti-thinking anti-gunners...*

Chris Byrne said...

I get the same bullshit on most of my posts about self defense techniques, mentality, preparedness etc...

Bob@thenest said...

I have a lawyer's business card and have read (and own) several of Mas' books.

So, according to mouse, when my home is invaded at 0300 and I fire stopper shots that provide the ultimate stop, I am not acting in self defense and am guilty as mouse would charge?

The State of Florida disagrees, but I wish mouse luck in throwing a stopper alarm-clock-radio if in the same circumstance.

Pre-judgement from a mental ivory tower sure seems risky to me.

SewerDweller said...

for what it is worth, on my 'to do' list for 2A stuff is this.

1. have a good defense lawyer on retainer. Think of it like accident insurance for your car.

2. -Many- books and articles on 'proper' self defense with a firearm.

3. a -good- pistol course.

4. maybe some body armor.

CrankyProf said...

Shoot. Shovel. Shut up.

Alternately, shoot, drag into domicile, call LEO and explain that critter was breaking in, and you were in fear of your life.

Anonymous said...

I recall when my grandmother found out I'd bought a single-action sixgun she started in on telling me there wasn't any sense to arming oneself before there was a problem. She also says she doesn't like guns, but simultaneously says "I could use a gun if I had to". I hear her say that and I'm like "yeah, right" because when it hits the fan is no time to learn.

mustanger98 on THR

martywd said...

I'm definitely going to forgo the "crankyprof's" advice.   That's the kind of advice I'd expect to hear from those ignorant of the law.   Legal carry and the use of a firearm is a serious responsibility.   Considering all legal options and consequences of legal carry is a must.   Only a fool would speak or suggest otherwise.

But it does look like it's been a busy weekend in Texas for folks still willing to do some self-defense?   If you doubt what I type, see here, here, here, here, and here?

Kristopher said...

I have a better notion, Crankyprof:

Shoot, call yer Lawyer, and shut up.

If the shoot is rightous, your lawyer will probably prevent stupid things from happening, provided you do your part and STFU.

Most innocent folks who end up in prison dug their way into a cell with their own mouths. You own post might get so used by an over-achieving DA in the future. DAs are more than capable of subpoenaing PCs and doing google searches.

Something to think about when handing out advice to do unlawful things on the internet.

Don Gwinn said...

Ha! I was recently told by an internet expert (and hoplophobe) that taking a class from someone like John Farnam or Mas Ayoob is not "training," but "paying to hear a class and getting a fun-time certificate."

So maybe the pistol course idea wouldn't impress the hoplophobes that much. :)

Loving Annie said...

Snigs said it rather succinctly just now.

CrankyProf said...

It's one of the things that's great about being married to a law enforcement officer who also happens to be a lawyer, Kristopher -- occasionally, one can make a (often-heard) joke.

Lighten up, Francis.

buzz_knox said...

I've heard hoplophiles say that training courses were a waste of time and money. Of course, these were the same "internet experts" who were too lazy and/or cheap to actually take the time or pay the cost of attending these courses, and thought that "training" themselves at the range would take care of all their needs.

Justin said...

(often heard) + joke = unfunny

Nyx said...

The chance that Nony Mouse's points were valid is small, as he was just looking to be an argumentative nuisance.

I'm sorry. I know we can't read minds, and all that, but I just had to.

Rick R. said...

Any Mr. Mouse's comments are EXACTLY why you want a pre-selected attorney WITH EXPERIENCE in lethal force cases.

A proper voir dire will reveal his prejudice and allow him to be kicked from the jury.

But your attorney MUST BE AWARE that this mindset is regrettebly common. Those of us who don't grok the "glorification of victimhood" that hoplophobes tend to practice aren't going to be able to fill in the blanks, either.

And if your attorney is unaware of the depth of the prejudice against planning for the worst amongst the uninformed and bigoted, he may not even realize that he needs to question for it.

Anonymous said...

Hmm, I guess asking a lawyer about tax laws means you're cheating on your taxes. And boarding up your house is just calling the hurricane in.

markm

Kristopher said...

It's one of the things that's great about being married to a law enforcement officer who also happens to be a lawyer, Kristopher -- occasionally, one can make a (often-heard) joke.

I appologize for assuming you were being an idiot ... but if you repeat the statement in a dull un-inflected monotone, it is what it sounded like.

Sarcasm and hyperbole can be a bit difficult to determine from a short post. Maybe an imoticon would have helped a bit?

Since I do not know you, I had no means to determine whether or not you were serious. There are plenty of folks out here who wouldn't hesitate to make serious 3-S comments about self-defence.

Lil said...

Anyone who fantasized about killing someone is a nut case???

Clearly the person who wrote that was not a parent. If there's a parent alive who claims they haven't entertained, even for one second, the fantasy of murdering their offspring, they are either liars or saints.

RobC said...

Lil... you can add prospective suitors of a daughter as well... one or two that went on dates with the apple of my eye had me itching to re-educate or eradicate... Thank goodness her common sense kicked in... otherwise I could have been typing this from jail! :-)

Tower Tales said...

Lawdog,I wanted to repost this, from a gun forum that I belong to.
I hope that you would be kind enough to disseminate it to those people foolish enough to equate Guns with only negative connotations.
http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?p=20978#post20978

Anonymous said...

No matter what the hoplophobes think. My final words are NOT going to be spoken over the phone to a to 911 dispatcher.

Break in to my home at your own peril.

R.L. Hunter

Anonymous said...

Nicely done LD. Its amazing that people who have no knowledge of a subject hold such predjudiced opinons.

Mike

Anonymous said...

Another thought - Those of us who move from state to state with some frequency may find it wise to speak to a lawyer in order to confirm the local interpretation of state laws that may be different from what we are used to (Castle doctrine vs. required retreat, for example).
LittleRed1

lilbiter-rants said...

The "Joke" shoot, shovel, and shut up has been made so many times that it's not a joke anymore, it's an expression.
One that's best not to take literally, because it actually has multiple applications.
One that is very popular in small Georgian towns as a matter of fact.
I know this because it's something that I grew up hearing.
-Gabby