Category: crime Page 3 of 4

Stop them

On Thu September 11, 2008

According to “Invaders ram door; shotgun fells one” on sacbee.com, one Sacramento resident didn’t have a very good Tuesday:

Several people — at least one with a gun — were breaking through the front door of his Del Paso Heights home. His pregnant wife and two children, ages 2 and 3, slept in a back bedroom.

As the would-be invaders forced the door open, the man told police, he believed he had to act. He stuck the barrel of his shotgun into the expanding gap and pulled the trigger.

A 19-year-old man took a shot to the torso, stumbled several yards and fell dead. His accomplices — police don’t know how many — fled.

And you know what? I have no problem with this. I can easily imagine doing the same thing to protect my wife and children. Standing in my front hall, shotgun in hand, with a group of people trying to force the door open, the decision seems pretty clear-cut. Let them come in to do who-knows-what to my family, or stop them.

I choose ‘stop them.’

Happily, the homeowner will likely not be subject to legal trouble for protecting his family:

Sgt. Matt Young, the department spokesman, said the home’s occupant likely won’t face charges for the early morning shooting because his actions appear to meet the standard for justifiable self-defense.

“The final disposition will lie with the district attorney, but at this time and stage of the investigation, we don’t intend to arrest him,” Young said.

Hat tip to Kim

Happy endings

by Rick

On Mon March 31, 2008

In crime, happy ending

According to The Mercury News, stories still do have happy endings, even when they involve a teenage boy robbing an 84-year-old man.

Once upon a time, it was 2:00 p.m. in Santa Rosa, California. An elderly man was walking home with a bag of groceries in each arm. A boy in his mid-teens with a large knife approached the man and said, “Old man, give me your wallet or I’ll cut you.”

The man informed the boy that he was a former Marine who had served in three wars and had seen plenty of knives and bayonets. Putting the grocery bags down, he told the boy that he’d be sorry if he got any closer.

The boy got closer. The man kicked the boy in the groin, incapacitating him. The man picked up his groceries and walked home, leaving the boy curled up on the sidewalk.

And they lived happily ever after, except the boy.

The end.

A tip of the hat to Kevin at The Smallest Minority.

Consequences? What consequences?

by Rick

On Thu January 17, 2008

In consequences, crime, law, responsibility

From the “I bought crystal meth, took it, and overdosed, so I’m suing my dealer because it’s obviously his fault” department, meet 23-year-old Sandra Bergen from Saskatchewan. She sued her drug dealer for providing her with crystal meth. He wasn’t holding a gun to her head, but she claims “He should have to meet me half way and that’s what this lawsuit was about.” What’s her side of the ‘half way’ she mentions? According to the article, “Bergen maintains she has taken responsibility for her poor choices by getting sober.”

In my book, what you do to make sure a bad thing doesn’t happen again is simply ‘reacting.’ Taking responsibility is admitting what you did and making amends for any damage you’ve caused. Since all of the physical damage was to Bergen herself, she need not take action. Any emotional trauma suffered by her family is a direct result of her actions so how she takes responsibility for this is a personal matter between her and her family.

The drug dealer is certainly guilty of an illegal act. At the same time however, he didn’t force her to take the drug. It was her choice and her responsibility.

The unfortunate result of this suit is a default judgment for Bergen because the defendant refused to name his supplier. Even more unfortunate is another indication by society that one is not responsible for one’s own decisions, and certainly not for the consequences of those decisions.

Gun crime exaggeration

by Rick

On Sun October 28, 2007

In crime, politics

The news can sometimes be ridiculously interesting. Take for example, the CBC News article “Canadian homicide rate drops 10 per cent,” published last week. It reports there were 605 homicides in 2006, 58 fewer than 2005. In a population of 30 million, there were 605 homicides. Roughly 0.00002%. Of course no homicides would be even better, but this isn’t the picture the politicians are painting with their claims that Canada has ‘lost its innocence’ because of the significant increase in gun violence. The reason being there has been no recent increase in gun homicides, much less a significant increase.

According to Statistics Canada, 190 of those homicides involved guns, which is down from 223 in 2005. Compare the 190 gun homicides with the 210 people stabbed to death. Did I miss Toronto Mayor David Miller’s desperate calls for a knife ban?

Just to compare, there were 10,100 homicides committed using guns in the United States during 2005. The United States has roughly 10 times the population of Canada, but the homicides committed using guns is five times greater in the US, after taking the population difference into account. So tell me, why should I take seriously the politicians’ claims that gun crime is becoming a Canadian problem on the same scale as in the United States?

A more likely cause is the politicians taking political advantage of a few high-profile killings.

Extra-super-ultra-illegal

by Rick

On Mon September 10, 2007

In crime, idiocy, politics

The torrent of illogic flowing from ‘hot button’ issues makes my head hurt. I realise this is a story from June, but it’s no less timely.

A CBC story reported that Toronto mayor David Miller has been invited to join a group of U.S. mayors concerned about gun violence.

Miller has always been ready with sound bites about gun issues that sound great but mean next to nothing. True to form, the article quotes him thus:

Miller, who has long said illegal guns streaming across the border from the U.S have fuelled gun violence in Canada, applauded the coalition’s moves and said Ottawa must take heed of the mayor’s warnings. “The federal government has to start speaking up with the United States,” he told CBC News Sunday.

First of all, Miller has said illegal guns from the U.S. are a problem. He’s said legal guns here are a problem. He’s said guns stolen from legal owners are a problem. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear cabbages are a problem if he could gain political advantage in saying it.

Second, what’s the Federal government going to say to the United States? “Hey, we’re having a problem with guns coming across our border.” Of course the Unites States would say, “Then don’t allow the guns over your border.” And rightly so. If we’re having a problem, how is it the responsibility of the United States to fix it for us? The only way I could see Miller’s suggesting not being laughable is if the Unites States government were actively complicit in sending the guns over the border. If our border is so porous that we have no control over it, we can’t really complain to anyone else.

Byron Brown, the mayor of Buffalo, New York, said:

We think by partnering on these issues, we can crack down on this illegal transmission of guns

Again, this sounds good, but what exactly will this cracking down involve? Will they pass more laws and pat themselves on the back? The illegal guns you’re cracking down on are already illegal. How will making them extra-super-ultra-illegal change anything on the street? Until these mayors say something of substance, I’m forced to assume they’re just saying things people will agree with to curry favour.

The UK had all handguns banned by 1998 and at the time the Home Office Minister, Alan Michael, said, “Britain now has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. We recognize that only the strictest control of firearms will protect the public.” Despite this, a Times of London article reported last month that “The government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998.

When will the majority of the population get it through their heads that simply making guns illegal will make sure the law-abiding citizens can’t have any, but criminals who want guns will only be somewhat inconvenienced in stocking up? If these genius politicians really do have a solution to go with their sound bites, I’d love to hear about it because so far the silence has been deafening.

A phrase that fits this circumstance perfectly is, “Gun control is what you do instead of something.”

A tip of the hat to Kevin at The Smallest Minority for the Times article and the Home Office Minister’s 1998 pronouncement.