Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:20 pm Post subject: 65-year-old Georgia judge shoots and kills intruder
Quote:
A 65-year-old Georgia judge shot and killed an intruder at his Richmond County home early Friday, authorities say.
Superior Court Judge Carlisle Overstreet was uninjured but upset after the incident around 4 a.m. reports the Augusta Chronicle.
The dead man, 20-year-old John Howard Jr., and another man allegedly threw a rock through a glass window or door at the judge's home, entered and went upstairs. Hearing voices, the judge got his gun and found Howard coming down the stairs with a bandana over his face, the newspaper recounts. He then fired, hitting Howard in the chest.
Howard was on probation in a previous burglary case. He apparently was not armed.
Sheriff Ronnie Strength commended Overstreet, saying "If somebody breaks into your home, we expect and hope that what Judge Overstreet did this morning would be done by any other citizen," the Chronicle reports.
I don't condone burglary, but self-defense? The guy was walking down the stairs unarmed. That shooter either has a lot of balls or just doesn't care. It used to be that you had to show fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury even in your own house, although you had no duty to retreat. Heaven forbid if you shoot your own son you're not expecting.
I don't condone burglary, but self-defense? The guy was walking down the stairs unarmed. That shooter either has a lot of balls or just doesn't care. It used to be that you had to show fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury even in your own house, although you had no duty to retreat. Heaven forbid if you shoot your own son you're not expecting.
The typical result of having a handgun in the home is a dead relative. Usually children shooting children, or an adult shooting a child in a dark hallway. Then, of course, there are suicides. Lots and lots of suicides. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
I suggest to my clients and friends that they use pepper spray for self defense. It works well on everything from people to bears. I shot down a very mean, fast, snapping, and large German Shepard in mid-leap with pepper spray when I was a letter carrier in Oak Park, many years ago. The benefit of pepper spray (large can please) is that it is easy to use, nobody dies, and no training is needed. (The dog's owner was right behind, and I was about .2 of a second from spraying her too, when I got control of myself. That's another problem with guns. If I had shot her with pepper spray it would have ended my postal career, but not her life.)
I would not recommend using a gun for home defense based upon my experiences hunting with a variety of weapons from a 12-gauge Remington 870 pump shotgun, a Ruger R bolt action rifle chambered in .270, and a variety of muzzle loading weapons including a .50 caliber flint lock. The problem is that I have shot a deer through the heart to have it run over 100 yards and jump over a very large fallen tree before falling down after being shot. I have also had to track deer for a day that were shot several times but would not die. Many are the ducks and such that are shot every year by hunters and fly away to die. Guns are not effective enough to guarantee a dead stop in the presence of a large and dangerous creature. (I stopped hunting several years ago when I realized it was not for me.) The most dangerous creatures on the planet are humans. If a human is close to me in my home with a knife or a gun, and I need to stop him NOW, pepper spray in the face would be my weapon of choice. See e.g. http://www.udap.com/ (I'm not endorsing this particular brand. Just get something really, really strong.)
People running around with guns for "self defense" are much more likely to be killed by their own gun (or kill a loved one) or to have it stolen and used to kill some other innocent, than to ever shoot it at a bad guy. It's a sad set of facts, but it's a fact.
That said, here is the theory behind the "no duty to retreat" laws in several states, including, it seems, Wisconsin.
Quote:
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine claimed by advocates to arise from English Common Law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.
Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.[2] The law's nickname is a reference to the famous line uttered by Clint Eastwood's character Harry Callahan in the 1983 film Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day."
Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine (last visited Fri Aug 27 2010 17:37:30 GMT-0500 (CST)) _________________ David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
david[at]traverlaw.com
I am a part time self-defense instructor and I respectfully disagree.
1. Situations where a homeowner shoots their child, while tragic, are very rare. I am not even aware of any agency or organization that tracks that data. Children are killed by guns, but it is not always easy to make sense of the data. In some studies, "children" include people up tot he age of 24. The reality is, most children killed by gus are older and are involved in some kind of criminal activity. I am not suggesting that they deserve to die, but there is a big difference from a 12 year old that accidently shoots another kid and a 19 year old that kicks in some homeowners door at 3:00 a.m. Crime rates among those 18 and younger have been declining since the 1980's (despite a rise in firearms ownership), as have gun accidents involving children.
2. I reccomend pepper spray, too, but I tell my students that they should not carry without training. It can be very effective and there are situations where only less-than-lethal force is justified. I have sprayed people and have been sprayed (in training) and can tell you that it is very painful and incapacitating. That being said, it is possible to fight through the pain. There is also data that shows anywhere from 10-20% of people are only minimally affected by pepper spray. There are also some illegal drugs that minimize the effects of spray.
3. Guns, especially handguns, are not death rays that instantly stop assailants, but they can still be very effective. The vast majority of defenensive gun uses (DGU's) are situations where the gun is not even fired. The assailant flees. Some studies estimate that there are anywhere from 1.5 to 2 million DGU's per year. Personally, I would prefer to have a gun if I were in a situation where lethal force would be justified. The "guns are more likely to be used to kill you or a loved one" that has been reported in the Kellerman Study has been so thoroughly debunked that it is approaching fairy tale status.
If I can remember my criminal law days correctly, castle doctrine has been the majority position for some time, though mostly through case law. Most of the current castle doctrine laws have codified the case law and added some provisions to limit liability in cases where there was legitimate self-defense.
I'd like to see the substantive support for this allegation:
Quote:
The "guns are more likely to be used to kill you or a loved one" that has been reported in the Kellerman Study has been so thoroughly debunked that it is approaching fairy tale status.
I would guess that the NRA thinks it has been debunked, but are there any other, somewhat less subjective sources?
When I used to subscribe to the NRA magazines (as an NRA member) I used to read the monthly "armed citizen" section. They were able to come up with a half-dozen or so examples of an armed citizen using handguns with good results for self defense. I suppose the NRA keeps good count of all such events. Will those data outweigh the annual suicide rate with guns in the USA? If so, please show me.
In my 60 years of lifetime, I have lost at least six friends to suicide. One, Joe Burda, ended his life with a handgun when I was in my 20s. My friend Peter Kenfield had a handgun for self defense when he was murdered. The guys who strangled him to death then used Peter's handgun to kill all of the witnesses in the apartment complex. I have never known a single person who has successfully used a gun for personal defense. Not one. Of course, the NRA collects contrary anecdotal evidence. So moving past our anecdotes, lets see some data. _________________ David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
david[at]traverlaw.com
The "43 times more likely" study was done by Kellerman back in the 1980's. It looked at a whopping total of 43 deaths, which is hardly a representative sample. It was debunked by a number of non-NRA sources, including FSU criminologist, Gary Kleck in his book, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America". There are other sources, but I will have to dig around if you are interested.
Prior to going to law school, I worked in the mental health field, including on-call work with people that were threatening suicide. I also had several clients kill themselves. In my opinion, a person that really wants to kill themslves is no more likely to do so because they own a firearm. They will just choose another method if one is not available. The suicide rate in Finland is almost twice that of the US (according to the World Health Organization) and their firearms ownership rate is much less than ours.
As for data on the defensive use of handguns, there is none that I am aware of. The DOJ doesn't keep track of it, though I do believe they compile how many times someone is found not guilty because of a justifiable homicide. Of course, this doesn't include cases where the prosecutor declined to press charges. The aforementioned Gary Kleck estimated that there are around 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year (published in his book Targeting Guns). The 2000 National Crime Victims Survey (published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics) indicated that every day, 550 rapes, 1100 murders, and 5200 other violent crimes are prevented.
The "43 times more likely" study was done by Kellerman back in the 1980's. It looked at a whopping total of 43 deaths, which is hardly a representative sample. It was debunked by a number of non-NRA sources, including FSU criminologist, Gary Kleck in his book, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America". There are other sources, but I will have to dig around if you are interested.
Prior to going to law school, I worked in the mental health field, including on-call work with people that were threatening suicide. I also had several clients kill themselves. In my opinion, a person that really wants to kill themslves is no more likely to do so because they own a firearm. They will just choose another method if one is not available. The suicide rate in Finland is almost twice that of the US (according to the World Health Organization) and their firearms ownership rate is much less than ours.
As for data on the defensive use of handguns, there is none that I am aware of. The DOJ doesn't keep track of it, though I do believe they compile how many times someone is found not guilty because of a justifiable homicide. Of course, this doesn't include cases where the prosecutor declined to press charges. The aforementioned Gary Kleck estimated that there are around 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year (published in his book Targeting Guns). The 2000 National Crime Victims Survey (published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics) indicated that every day, 550 rapes, 1100 murders, and 5200 other violent crimes are prevented.
People running around with guns for "self defense" are much more likely to be killed by their own gun (or kill a loved one) or to have it stolen and used to kill some other innocent, than to ever shoot it at a bad guy. It's a sad set of facts, but it's a fact.
Let's see some real statistics to show that I'm wrong, and I'll change my position.
That said, It's a pleasure to have this reasoned discussion, and thanks to you and the other fine responders to this string. _________________ David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
david[at]traverlaw.com
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 06:19 pm Post subject: kids, guns, and self-defense
The biggest problem with guns and kids is that kids will find the guns, "play" with them, and shoot themselves or their playmates. This is a much more legitimate fear than an adult accidentally shooting a kid. As for the Georgia judge, that shooting wouldn't have even made headlines in Harris County (Houston), Texas. Not long ago, a Harris County man called 911 to report someone breaking into his neighbor's house. He ignored 911 instructions, got his gun, and shot the burglar outside his neighbor's house. Even that didn't get him into trouble. To the best of my recollection, the GJ no-billed him.
Look at the suicide rates in the US compared to other industrialized nations and you will find that we are not even near the top. I woula also like to point out that you offered no proof that there was a causal link between gun ownership and suicide. The one study in your link is hardly conclusive and shows a relationship, but not a causal one. If there were, then we should be seeing dops in suicide rates in countries with little civilian gun ownership, but this is not the case.
As for Kellerman, here is a response that was published a few years ago:
To: ALL
From: PAUL NIXON
Subj: Kellerman analyzed
Conf: PR_NET (103) Read: No Status: Public
This from a local fellow who works in the health care field:
Last week I covered some of the more glaring and easily understood errors of the two and one-half page 1986 New England Journal of Medicine article by ER doctor Arthur Kellerman which claimed that "a gun in the home is 43 times more likely..."
Kellerman used many statistical tricks such as limiting any defensive gun use to that where the trigger was actually pulled and excluding any gun use which ocurreding any gun use which ocurred outside the home (such as the front yard). Using multiple categories and then condensingg the data from there tended to obscure the more obvious factors such as, most suicides in his study did not use a gun. And he also refused to allow criminologists such as Kates and Kleck to examine his "data." Too many to mention here.
Despite the 1986 "study" being trashed by every major criminologist, the "43 times" soundbite that emerged lives on in news stories and HCI literature. The 1986 "study" is actually kind of boring and tacky when compared to Kellerman"s 1993 NEJM submission Again, without a hint of peer-review (since the peers didn't get a chance to look at the data until May of 1997), Kellerman this time has not only one co-author, but nine!! Five MDs, three PhDs and one BA in total, not a recognizable name from the world of criminology among them.
Oh, and Kellerman was now one of the major recipients of over two million in grants from the CDC. The CDC head that gave Kellerman the money and helped him hide his data from the probing eyes of scholarly criminologists, thus violating federal law, is now President Clinton's pick for Surgeon General. Anyway, the soundbite that comes from the 1993 "study"? "A gun in the home is 2.7 times..."
On purpose. Kellerman"s first "mistake" is building his is building his paper around a "case-control model." A CCM does well when used to from a general hypothesis about, say, what is causing a particular disease outbreak. But it has a problem with being very sensitive to sample errors and it played right into Kellerman"s hands.
Kellerman took homicide data from three different counties from August 1987 to August 1992. These counties surrounded Seattle (co-author and medical examiner, Donald Reay"s jurisdiction), Memphis and Cleveland. He then investigated each homicide case to see what lifestyle factors it had (drug-use, renting/owning). The proper thing to do would have been to use a random sample of people who may, or may not have been involved in a homicide. Having found the "case", Kellerman now finds a "control" nearby who supposedly shared the demographics but did not have a homicide in the household.
Here is where everything goes to hell in a handbasket. First, Kellerman was only able to get 388 valid cases out of 1860 official reports but only 316 matched controls. Such a small sample is prone to wide statistical variations absent an agenda such as Kellerman et al. It would be interesting to see why, exactly, Kellerman decided to drop so many cases from the study--but none of the analyses that I have read were writtenread were written after 1996. Again, homicides whether lawful or not are included along with suicides. And even "police" was listed as a category in the "Offender" column.
What Kellerman found was that in the homicide homes, 71% of the victims had high rates of criminal activity which agrees with other studies which find that 75% of murderers and 75% of cop killers are adults with long felony histories.. Hardly something that would compare to the rest of America. No, the gun didn't do it. The nature of the criminal did. Criminals killing criminals.
The study never made an effort to decide whether the person being killed was an intruder --OR--whether the gun which may or may not have been present was actually used. And since Kellerman's study shows that 71% of the homicide victims were killed by people whose relationship to the victim indicates that the killer did not live in the victim's house--and presumably brought his own weapon, if any, with him. All Kellerman asked was, "In this household where a homicide was committed, was there a gun, any gun, in the house?" Nothing more.
It turns out that the cases did not quite match up with the controls. While the cases had an overwhelming violent history of crime, assault, drug abuse and, drug abuse and domestic violence (real stuff, notthe pushy- shovey type) the controls background check consisted of, "Were you ever arrested?" Well, I have been arrested--failure to appear in court for not licensing my dog. Not the same stuff. Also, nothing was asked of convictions or seriousness of the crime.
Kellerman, goes to the control house which must be at least "one block" away from the case house, but no maximum is listed. They could have been way far away from the nasty murder neighborhood. Anyone who has traveled through Phoenix can pass by $200,000 homes and stumble right into run-down apartments and nasty trailer parks in a heartbeat.
So Kellerman comes up with what he calls a "risk ratio" or "relative risk" which is actually just a statistical "odds ratio". Kellerman uses the term "risk" to make his pronouncement more terrifying. In logic, this is called an "equivocation." But was does a 2.7 odds ratio mean? An odds ratio of 1.0 denotes a positive risk. Negative 1.0 denotes an opposite association. An odds ratio from 1.1 to 3.0 is shown to mean a "weak or nonexistent" association. 3.1 to 8.0 is considered moderate. 8.0-16 is considered strong. And over 16.0 is extremely strong. Kellerman's odds ratiorman's odds ratio of 2.7 then, is meaningless. And his 95% confidence interval measurement of 1.7 to 2.7 shows that his measurement is actually quite good. Tight CI spreads are better. If a CI shifts in one direction, it suggests that the correct number is actually toward that shift. Recall that Kellerman's odds ratio of 43 in his 1986 study was not matched with any CI. Now you know why. :)
So, Kellerman measured odds ratios for other behavioral and environmental factors. I wonder how they aligned with the chance of our criminal buddies getting themselves killed? Let's have a look. The tables might take some adjusting to view properly.
Behavior Odds Ratio Confidence Interval
1) Victim Drank Alcohol 2.6 1.9-3.5
2) Drinking Problems (house) 7.0 4.2-11.8
3) Drinking Problems (work) 10.7 4.1-27.5
4) Victim Drink Prob (work) 20.0 4.9-82.4
5) Housemember drugs 9.0 5.4-15.0
6) Victim uses drugs 6.8 3.8-12.0
7) Physical fights (drinking) 8.9 5.2-15.3
8) Medical attention (fight) 10.2 5.2-20.0
9) Any household arrested 4.2 3.0-6.0
10 Victim arrested 3.5 2.4-5.2
ed 3.5 2.4-5.2
Environmental Factors
1) Home Rented 5.9 3.8-9.2
2) Victim lived along 3.4 2.2-5.1
3) Security access 2.3 1.2-4.4
And now, finally, we get to guns...
4) Gun(s) in home 1.6 1.2-2.2
Handgun 1.9 1.4-2.7
Shotgun 0.7 0.5-1.1
Rifle 0.8 0.5-1.3
Did you guys catch the significance of that? Handguns are insignificant and shotguns and rifles are positively good!!!
Oh, joy.
5) Any gun unlocked 2.1 1.4-3.0
6) Any gun loaded 2.7 1.8-4.0
Ahhh! there's that 2.7 number buried in there. I knew we'd find it.
7) Guns kept mainly for self-defense 1.7 1.2-2.4
So as we can see, with the odds ratios alone, we can see that the entire soundbite that came from this study is bogus. But wait, there's more. Presumably, the cops knew if there was a gun in the homicide house since they searched it (even if it was not used in the homicide.) How was the presence of a gun deduced for the control households? Why, Kellerman just asked them. "Hi, I'm doing a study on homicides with guns (yes,cides with guns (yes, they did tell them the intent of the study) you haven't had anyone killed in your family, do you have any guns there?"
Well, if you were a felon, how would you answer that question? "Hell no I ain't got no guns!!" What if you were unsure whether it was legal to keep a gun? What if the homicide victims were involved in crime and felt (rightly) that they had a good chance of getting killed? Perhaps they have more guns than usual.
Well, Kellerman thought of that. In a separate validation study, he proceeded to get a list of gun permit holders and called them up and asked them if they had a gun. If they said "yes" they were telling the truth. "No" meant the opposite. Well, if one had a permit, that would mean that they not only went through the trouble of government hoop jumping, but they were likely not felons. So not only were they more likely to be more truthful than the control households, they were also more likely to be cooperative with "authorities."
So, what were the gun ownership differences between the case households and the control households that lead to this magic 2.7 "relative risk" figure? It turns out that of the case homicide households, 45.4% of them had a gun somewhere ingun somewhere in the house. Loaded, unloaded, locked, unlocked. And the non homicide control households? 35.8% of them did likewise. A spread of just 9.6 points difference and this guy justifies a two-million dollar CDC grant??!!
I can't take it anymore. For a more thorough discussion on the 1986 study, contact Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and ask them for their Winter 1997 issue. The 1993 study is handled nicely in the Spring 1995 Tennessee Law Review in an article co-written by Don Kates and others.
I have a copy of the Tenn Law Review article, but it is a paper copy.
As for children and guns, this is a legitimate concern. Thankfully, these incidents have been steadily decreasing over the years as people seem to be taking safety a lot more seriously.
I won't pretend to understand Texas law, or Texas in general.
It's easy algebra. In 2006 there were 33,300 suicides in the United States. 56 percent of the men committed suicide with firearms, and 31 percent of the women killed themselves that way. "Almost four times as many males as females die by suicide." Do the math.
People running around with guns for "self defense" are much more likely to be killed by their own gun (or kill a loved one) or to have it stolen and used to kill some other innocent, than to ever shoot it at a bad guy. It's a sad set of facts, but it's a fact.
You brought up the Kellerman study, and then proceeded to knock it down. You did the same with allegations regarding foreign suicide rates. Those are called a straw-man arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man I never mentioned Kellerman, or suicides in Finland. I just said what I said, and so far, you have not provided any legitimate statistics to show that I am wrong.
You might want to look for data that shows how many times guns are actually fired in self defense in the United States per year. But then, I could easily add to my statistics by showing how many family members and other innocents are gunned down by mistake, which I have not even touched on yet. And then, there is the murder rate in which stolen firearms are used.
I think my statistics are beating the crap out of yours. What do you think? _________________ David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
david[at]traverlaw.com
The fact that guns are the preferred method of suicide for some does not mean that those people would be alive if they did not have guns. People that truly want to die will find a way to do it. I really shouldn't have been sucked into that argument, as the burden of showing some kind of causal relationship should have been yours. The reality is that there is no relationship between gun ownership and suicide rates. If you look at the data from the FBI and BATFE, you will find that since 1970, the rate of gun ownership has gone up from about 150 guns per 1000 people to nearly 350 guns per 1000 people. During that same time period, overall suicide rates and homicide rates have actually declined.
As for Kellerman, I brought that up because it is the only study cited by people that claim the carrying guns for self-defense is likely to result in their own death or the death of a loved one. Strangely enough, you brought up nothing but anecdotal evidence to support your claim. I had provided statistics about defensive gun uses:
--2.5 million per year
--These outnumber criminal gun uses by 6 to 1
--Most of the time the gun is only brandished.
--Less than 8% of the time is the attacker wounded. Around 1 in 1000 is actually killed.
The reality is that you are violently attacked, you are far less likely to be injured if you defend yourself with a gun. According to one study done in the UK:
In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:
Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%
According to a DOJ study on rape, women that had a gun were able to fend off the rapist 97% of the time, as oppsed to unarmed women only being able to do that 68% of the time.
Respectfully, I think your stats aren't doing much.
I see nothing in your posting that factually refutes my original comment. This is especially true given the effectiveness of pepper spray and its non-lethal properties in comparison to having a handgun in the home, on the person, or in a purse
Here's another anecdote. I vised a friend a few months ago at his retail store. He had Walther 9mm pistol sitting on the top of his file cabinet next to his desk in the back room. The only barrier to the back room from the store was a curtain. The back room is unattended when the store is busy. The gun was sitting in the open, loaded, unlocked, and with a round in the chamber. My friend said it was to defend his store in case anybody wanted to get into his safe. My friend is complete idiot. Do you know similar complete idiots with loaded unlocked guns in bedside stands, under the bed, under pillows, in a dresser drawers, on a closet shelves, leaning in the corners of the living room, and in jean pockets thrown in the corner?
But, in any event, thank you for for the nice discussion. We disagree, for sure, but that's okay. _________________ David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
david[at]traverlaw.com
One of the problems with forum discussions is that it easy to misinterpret things. It is quite possible that I may have been reacting to points that were not made. If so, then I apologize. I was reacting to the assertion that carrying a gun poses an unreasonable risk to the "carrier" or to an innocent person. This is just not supported by evidence. I would agree that there are some people that display unsafe practices when it comes to firearms. Your friend is an idiot. On of the basic rules of gun safety is that guns should be stored in a way that they are inaccessible to unauthorzed people. In his case, leaving it where someone else could get a hold of it is very risky. He should carry it in a manner that it is under his control and possession.
Most of the "gun" people I know are very safe. Any gun they have that is not being carried is locked in a safe or some kind of metal cabinet. I certainly stress safety in the classes I teach and spend a great deal of time making sure my students develop a healthy respect for the lethality of any firearm.
I think we have reiterated our positions enough so readers can see what we were saying.
That said, I agree that this format leaves a lot to be desired. There's no body language, no facial expressions, no pauses, and very little inflection. As a result misunderstandings are common, if not the rule. Hence the need for a little formal politeness now and then to avoid the hurt feelings. All of that may seem over the top to some, but is necessary to aid in the discussion.
In any event, thanks again for the conversation.. _________________ David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
david[at]traverlaw.com
Agreed. I enjoy a good debate and this is a subject that I care about. That being said, logic, reason, and politeness are very important and there is no point in being rude or snarky.
Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 1215 Location: Federal Hill, Baltimore, MD
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:31 pm Post subject:
Thanks for the reminder to get some pepper spray. We live in a large city with a rather high crime rate, and we've had some criminal activity around us, none of it violent thank goodness, just vandalism, theft and B&E. I had thought that we probably should get some defensive mechanisms beyond the nice piece of concrete reinforcing steel that a local handyman gave me, saying "whack 'em on the head with this, it'll do the trick."
But a gun? Never. Handgun, rifle, blunderbuss, thanks. Just way too dangerous. And I grew up in the country and know how to handle firearms. The stats are just overwhelming in my view; having a firearm increases your danger, not your safety. Steve S. has a different view, and that's fine. Sounds to me like he's a fine proponent of firearm safety.
It's legal to carry pepper spray in Wisconsin. Be sure to check the law in your part of the woods. http://www.pepper-spray-store.com/relatedinfo/wisconsin-laws.shtml (example page, I have not checked it for legal accuracy, no endorsement of the site suggested, etc..) After the recent Supreme Court decision in McDonald it's likely legal everywhere (in pressurized gallon cans with an extension hose if you want) but it's expensive to be a test case. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
Comment about the example pepper spray page: The first time I looked at it I wondered why in the world Ronald McDonald was shooting pepper spray at The Hulk. Let's make that the stupid illustration of the day, shall we? But see http://www.pepper-spray-store.com/pepper-spray-video.html (Nat Geo). _________________ David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
david[at]traverlaw.com
Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 1215 Location: Federal Hill, Baltimore, MD
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 05:01 pm Post subject:
Good advice. Turns out that it's ... sort of legal to carry pepper spray in MD. It all depends on your intent in carrying it. If your intent is defensive (and you can convince the investigating official that your intent was defensive), no problem. If you have naughty thoughts about using it to disable someone upon whom you then intend to commit a crime, you are committing a misdemeanor. The moral of the story seems to be, think good/legal thoughts.
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Traverlaw, Traver Law, Traver Law Offices, S.C., Traver & Traver, S.C.,
Traverlaw.com, SSAConnect,
Attorneys for the disabled and disadvantaged in all areas of Social Security
disability law, http://traverlaw.com,
http://ssaconnect.com, Connect, SSA Connect, Think Bigger,
Social Security Advice Connect, Social Security Disability Advice Connect,
"Social Security Disability Advocacy, Debate, and Professional News,"
the yellow and orange swoosh image, and the square favicon.ico image,
are trademarks and service marks of Attorney David F. Traver.
For information the about use of our copyrighted and trademarked material please call
262-594-2096.
CONNECT
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
