November 2, 2011

Wisconsin Assembly argues all night over scholarship preferences for members of designated minority groups.

They took up the topic at 11 p.m. and argued until 8 a.m.:
[A] routine bill... turned controversial when Rep. Peggy Krusick of Milwaukee offered an amendment to remove race as one factor for a scholarship program that serves disadvantaged college students....
Krusack, by the way, is a Democrat. And the argument ended with approval of her amendment, 57-34. All the Republicans and none of the other Democrats voted yes. The vote on the bill has yet to occur.

Before all that happened, the Assembly passed a bill adopting the "castle doctrine," which presumes the use of deadly force against intruders is reasonable.
Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm has said Wisconsin, like most states, doesn't need a castle doctrine because current law provides more than adequate protection for anyone legitimately acting in self-defense. Sheboygan County District Attorney Joe DeCecco said that strangers occasionally enter the wrong homes accidentally if they're confused or drunk.

"Shouldn't there be some minimal effort required to assess the situation or call police before firing?" DeCecco asked.
People need to lock their doors. Are drunks really wandering into the wrong houses around here? Yes, it would be awful if some homeowner with a gun blasted away some confused drunkard, but are there really people who stand ready to shoot intruders but don't lock their doors? If the door is locked, you don't get the drunk wanderer, so what is this important circumstance DeCecco is worrying about?

100 comments:

gregq said...

"so what is this important circumstance DeCecco is worrying about?"

DeCecco is worried that the peasants (that's us) might think we don't need the nobility (that's him) to protect ourselves, we can do it ourselves.

Self reliant people are a bad thing, when you're part of the Elite.

Scott M said...

but are there really people who stand ready to shoot intruders but don't lock their doors

There are very few absolutes in the world. Having a 100% success rate at making sure every door in the house is locked every night before you bed down is not one of them. Aside from that, what about 8pm, just after dinner for you and your family, but also enough time for a drunk to wander home from a prolonged happy hour somewhere. Is your door locked at 8pm?

That's all much ado about nothing, though. As someone who's faced a knife-wielding intruder, I'm not really concerned about calling the cops after they're already in the house. It's life or death at that point.

traditionalguy said...

What about the drunk's rights to a trial and sentencing guidelines?

The trouble with that approach is to leave the homeowner's in the position England now puts them into...You shall not defend yourself.

With this new law, they will need some more drunks to replace the dead ones. Where could they possible find those?

Chip S. said...

They argued for 9 hours without changing anyone's opinion? Sounds like Althouse.

gregq said...

BTW, good for Krusack, and good for Assembly Republicans. It's good to see that not all Assembly Democrats are racist pigs, judging people by the color of their skin.

traditionalguy said...

Equal rights under the law seems so radical.

The whole crony system of life is threatened if this spreads.

The Minority Aristocrats may have to work too.

John said...

Back in the 80's I flew into NJ and was to stay at a friend's house. I was arriving very late, around 3:00AM. He told me that since he had a new baby, he did not want me to be knocking on the door.

He left the door open and I was supposed to just crash on the couch.

I had never been to the house before but I found it, the door was open and the couch was there.

I spent a few very nervous hours worrying if I had gotten the right house.

John Henry

Superdad said...

The castle doctrine is simply the intellectual heir of our traditional notion of property rights and limited government. It should really not be that controversial. William Pitt gave voice to it as such:

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!" -- William Pitt, Earl of Chatham.

MarkG said...

...what is this important circumstance DeCecco is worrying about?

There's always a boogeyman circumstance. Reminds me when Texas passed their CC law ages ago. NPR was worried that people will be shooting each other over parking spaces at Walmart. "Running gun battles" was one phrase I remember hearing somewhere.

Robin said...

Of course its only anecdotal, like the stupid argument in the first place, but if you look at news reports of "drunks" entering the wrong house and getting shot stories, you notice that the excuse is thin and the "drunk" often violent.

Its a BS argument.

Scott M said...

"Running gun battles" was one phrase I remember hearing somewhere.

These kinds of assumptions are made by people that have no experience whatsoever with guns. Robert Heinlein was right about polite societies.

Tim said...

""Shouldn't there be some minimal effort required to assess the situation or call police before firing?"

I'm guessing this hand-wringing, panty-twisted, bed-wetter is a liberal Democrat fearful of citizen gun owners.

As a firearms owner, I'm pretty goddamned sure no armed homeowner would blithely load, aim and fire his/her weapon without assessing the situation. As to whether there is time to call the police, as Instapundit puts it so well, "when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away."

rhhardin said...

The chateau doctrine would offer them wine.

edutcher said...

Martin Luther King would have liked Peggy Krusack.

"Sheboygan County District Attorney Joe DeCecco said that strangers occasionally enter the wrong homes accidentally if they're confused or drunk."

The DA has seen too many Foster Brooks routines. Not all drunks are harmless.

m stone said...

Krusack's in trouble with the dems for not toeing the line. Ouch.

Making race a scholarship criteria, in the democrats's mind is akin to "evening the divide," which, in reality, is both patronizing and illogical. Racial preference from any side is racism.

Hence, no democrat support.

Allie's Apple said...

I'm conflicted on this one, on the surface I think it's a good law.In today's economy there are poverty stricken people of all races. On the other hand it's documented that poverty among minorities is higher.

Scott M said...

As to whether there is time to call the police, as Instapundit puts it so well, "when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away."

I generally come into the house, go straight to the vault, and lock up my pistol. I have three small children in the house, but I doubt I'm going to act any differently when they're older.

When our break-in occurred, I was in the basement (where the intruder broke in, luckily) and on the opposite end of the house from my vault. There was absolutely no time to call the cops. Had I been taking a nap at the time, the intruder would have made it past me and into the baby's room which is where she said she was going.

I got very, very, very lucky in the manner it went down. If anything like that were ever to happen again, I would not confront as I did in that case, but instead retreat to the bedrooms and my vault. I put myself, stupidly, within arms reach of a very long, very sharp knife. As I said, I got very lucky.

jimbino said...

It doesn't have to be a drunk.

What about the case of the Japanese teenager who was shot dead when he showed up waving his arms at the house he mistakenly thought hosted the late-night party?

In any case, folks who think the drunk is more culpable are not fit to serve on a jury.

TMink said...

Afirmative Action does not work. It merely places unqualified people in positions and requires the qualified people to clean up their mess.

Witness our current president.

Trey

Carol_Herman said...

With doors locked, you could get the "drunk wanderer," turning the knob. Knocking for his wife to come out. And, of course, if he "drove" to your house ... he could also try to put a key in the locked door.

When the racket starts, those with guns, reach for them.

Being drunk and confused is no excuse.

Besides, just hearing the shot of gunfire, can bring momentary sanity to a drunk.

And, then there's the other question, if the driver was driving drunk, and weaving ... why wasn't he stopped by the cops?

Alex Ignatiev said...

My wife used to take the position that since she grew up in the country, and nobody in her family ever locked their doors, she would not lock our doors.

She ran out of the house one day and hopped on her bike to go to work at about 6 pm to pick up some papers she needed to complete a task at home. She returned 15 minutes later to find a burglar walking out of our house.

Now she locks doors and has a CCW permit. We also have two dogs.

t-man said...

No one would argue that the speed limit should be reduced to 10 mph on all roads because that would save lives.

People realize that deadly car accidents happen, but accept the risks. The same is true here. A deadly accident may happen (far less often than traffic fatalities), but defense against home intruders should not be curtailed as a result.

traditionalguy said...

We live in interesting times.

Cain is up 7 points over Romney in the Quinnipiac Poll.

Israel is preparing to take out Iran's nuclear industry despite Obama's orders to leave it alone.

A Democrat is supported treating races equally.


Is this all a dream?

prairie wind said...

I keep my doors locked to keep the police out.

cubanbob said...

...what is this important circumstance DeCecco is worrying about?


Being a cynic, I suspect that he might be worried about a SWAT team busting in with a no-warrant search in to the wrong house and a cop getting shot with the shooter getting a get out jail free card.

Scott M said...

No one would argue that the speed limit should be reduced to 10 mph on all roads because that would save lives. People realize that deadly car accidents happen, but accept the risks.

Milo: I understand that my opponent supports the 55 M.P.H. speed limit.
Opus: Saves 500 lives a year! I fully support saving lives.
Milo: Then he'd support the saving of another 10,000 lives by lowering the limit to 40 M.P.H.
Opus: 40?
Milo: Or to 20 ... Saving 30,000 lives a year.
Opus: Gee... 20 is pretty slow.
Milo: Apparently my opponent would send 30,000 men, women, and children to fiery, mangled deaths just so he can zoom along to his manicurist at 55.
Opus: I DON'T HAVE A MANICURIST!
Milo: He probably doesn't. Most mass murderers don't. Hitler didn't.
Opus: Stop it! Stop It! STOP IT! (bangs on podium)
Milo: Rebuttal?
Opus: (frazzled) What?
Milo: Give your rebuttal.
Opus: Uh... Bush is a wimp.

Carol_Herman said...

Back to "black admissions," brings to mind what Clarence Thomas said about his Yale Law Degree.

Thomas said "because of affirmative action," no one gave him any credit for working hard at Yale. And, he still resents this!

So, from the point of view of a qualified Black man, who did the hard work, seeing that he's black should not disqualify him from being competent.

It seems one of the greatest recruiting tools colleges have, are their football teams. Which brings back the old alumni ... and they press for "legacy admissions."

It's not written into law. It just IS.

And, as long as there are black athletes, there will be competitions for them, where top notch schools not only vie to have them. They send out scouts!

Up ahead? Colleges will have to guarantee that getting a degree (there), leads to better jobs. Can't fake math.

gregq said...

"On the other hand it's documented that poverty among minorities is higher."

So, what's the problem? That means more "minorities" will honestly qualify for the scholarship. Why should someone whose parents make $200,000 / year, but who happens to have darker skin, be eligible for a "disadvantage" scholarship? Why should they get that scholarship, rather than someone whose skin happens to be lighter, but whose parents make $25,000 / year?

garage mahal said...

Gun laws and repealing scholarships, by the way, is part of the special "jobs session" from the WIGOP that has yet to bring up a jobs bill.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Robert Heinlein was right about polite societies

1) As a Charter member of “J”’s WiccanSatanistMorman Shekelmeister Club, I think it is fairly obvious that I am not a liberal, even if not a doctrinaire Conservative.
2) That quote is patently, and self-evidently FALSE….To wit:
a. South Central LA;
b. Camden NJ;
c. Somalia;
d. Baghdad, Iraq 2002-07; or
e. Tripoli Libya
A “well-armed society” is a well-armed society, no more or no less. A society’s “politeness” depends on a host of other things, not the state of its armament.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Gun laws and repealing scholarships, by the way, is part of the special "jobs session" from the WIGOP that has yet to bring up a jobs bill

Garage, this may come as a surprise to you, but as a rule, GOVERNMENTS DON’T CREATE JOBS. You might as well discuss how the Prostitutes have not produced a Sexual Abstinence Course for High Schoolers.

Governments can COST jobs, but not create them. They can foster a climate that encourages or DISCOURAGES businesses, but the jobs are NOT a product of government. I realize to your Liberal/Progressive Keynesian perspective this is an “ungude fact”…but it is still true, nonetheless.

Kirk Parker said...

Scott M.,

"I generally come into the house, go straight to the vault, and lock up my pistol."

And the breakin you had shows that your protocol could perhaps be improved.

In my case, in addition to the "safe" where the rifles are locked up (scare-quotes because it's not really a safe, just a locking steel cabinet), I have a pistol-sized one in the bedroom. The pocket pistol goes in my pocket when I get up in the morning, and comes out again when I go to bed at night. Because it's a polymer-framed .380 (Kel-Tec P3AT) it's no more of a burden to carry around than it was, back in the old days, necessary to carry around a cell phone and a palm pilot.

edutcher said...

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Robert Heinlein was right about polite societies

1) As a Charter member of “J”’s WiccanSatanistMorman Shekelmeister Club, I think it is fairly obvious that I am not a liberal, even if not a doctrinaire Conservative.
2) That quote is patently, and self-evidently FALSE….To wit:
a. South Central LA;
b. Camden NJ;
c. Somalia;
d. Baghdad, Iraq 2002-07; or
e. Tripoli Libya
A “well-armed society” is a well-armed society, no more or no less. A society’s “politeness” depends on a host of other things, not the state of its armament.


Heinlein was probably positing a society of families and homes.

Joe speaks to societies of savages.

There was an old saying in the British Army, "The savages must be made to have respect for the law". Therein lies the dichotomy.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)


The problem I see with ScottM’s gun plan is that it leaves he and his family wide-open to Zombie intrusion…..

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Joe speaks to societies of savages

Which is a variant of the “No TRUE Scotsman” Argument……..

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)


As to the other bill discussed, about scholarships, I agree, as someone has touched upon, why should Melia, or Sasha, or Jesse Jackson’s “Love Child” or Spike Lee’s son, get a scholarship, based on being disadvantaged, whilst Bubba and Noreen’s son or daughter, is NOT eligible?

traditionalguy said...

Societies of savages is the lowest common denominator that the the Soros-o-crats want for the once God fearing USA.

We don't want to make others feel excluded, do we?

And Christian symbols everywhere "Hurts feelings so bad."

Scott M said...

And the breakin you had shows that your protocol could perhaps be improved.

It has been, as have the locks and doors. In any case, I don't carry around the house.

The problem I see with ScottM’s gun plan is that it leaves he and his family wide-open to Zombie intrusion…...

After it became obvious that we're going to face a zombie apocalypse, I had the house lifted and stilted. Granted, it's the only one in the neighborhood...

Original Mike said...

I want to know the ratio of confused/drunk people wandering into strangers homes vs. the number of real intruders encountered by homeowners. I strongly suspect this confused/drunk scenerio is a red herring.

m stone said...

Stilts stop zombies?

I'm off to Home Depot.

garage mahal said...

Garage, this may come as a surprise to you, but as a rule, GOVERNMENTS DON’T CREATE JOBS

THEN WHY CALL IT A JOBS SESSION! Do gun laws create jobs?

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
After it became obvious that we're going to face a zombie apocalypse, I had the house lifted and stilted. Granted, it's the only one in the neighborhood

Crafty Plan, I take it the Undead are Stair Challenged? OF COURSE, in America today, the Undead Americans with Disabilities Act might require you install a ramp.

prairie wind said...

They call it a Jobs Session because they want to keep their jobs. Legislators know that the electorate are concerned about jobs, so legislators use the word "jobs" often.

Allie's Apple said...

Gregg, you are absolutely right.I wonder if there is something else in he bill that outraged the Democrats last night. Im going to try to find it online somewhere ,if it is online that is.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
THEN WHY CALL IT A JOBS SESSION! Do gun laws create jobs

No. They don’t. I assume it’s a “Jobs Session” because:
1) The General Assembly will be examining Taxation, Workers Comp. or regulation; OR
2) Republicans, in Wisconsin, being politicians, feel-erroneously- that they too, can CREATE JOBS.
The delusion that government can create jobs spans many parties and a number of political-economic theories and persuasions.

TosaGuy said...

This is not carte blanche to shoot someone in your home. An investigation will still occur to determine what has happened and the resident of the home is not immune from prosecution.

Basically, people will no longer have to prove they didn't do something wrong when they defended themselves, family and property.

MayBee said...

This is why people live in Los Angeles. It's so much more glamorous.

In LA, this argument would have been about how this law could have killed Robert Downey Jr.

andinista said...

The Legislature can remove race as a factor all it wants. They can add in the most punitive "we mean it" language. It won't matter.

The administrators that actually award these scholarships, with unspoken winks and nods between them, will continue to follow their quota system.

It's like this. They get in conference. One administrator will vigorously defend a borderline or unusual candidate. The others will know what that means, and go along. Each administrator will be given an informal quota of unusual candidates to defend. There will be no written proof of collusion, but they will all know what's going down.

Every year, the informal quota of unusual candidates that each administrator is allowed to defend will ratchet upwards.

The only way to prevent this corruption is mandate only numerical metrics, i.e. GPA and SAT.

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

The grants run between $600 and $1,800 a year.

To qualify, the students must first show financial need and then show they are a member of a minority group, a first-generation college student, handicapped, or a current or former prison inmate. Minority students are defined as those who are African American, American Indian, Latino, or Hmong.

Many rural students are just as disadvantaged (or more so) and would be unfairly discriminated against because they were not one of the favored groups (aka white kids).

I used to help students and parents fill out the FAFSA forms and due to the depressed economies in rurals area, many qualified for aid.

The only fair way is to treat all students the same for government programs that are funded by all taxpayers dollars. The government should be blind to anything other than financial need in these types of grants.

If there are scholarships set up that want to discriminate on the basis of race, handicaps, religion or ethnicity, then that is their prerogative. It is private money and they can do with it what they will.

Scott M said...

If there are scholarships set up that want to discriminate on the basis of race, handicaps, religion or ethnicity, then that is their prerogative. It is private money and they can do with it what they will.

Sorry, DBQ. I cannot accept such an uncomplicated and workable plan such as the one you describe above because Love says you're a hateful woman.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ Scott

:-D

Kirk Parker said...

"In any case, I don't carry around the house."

But that's exactly what I'm advocating for. It's not that my home, or my area, is remotely dangerous, it's not. It's that--by definition--any kind of breakin will be totally unanticipated.

And that's the point, too, of calling attention to the size of the implement--if your only carry piece is a full-sized 1911, no wonder it's not something you want want to do at home! In my case, the .380 is with me literally all the time, and it gets conceptually demoted to "backup gun" whenever I put on something more capable.

n.n said...

Either we respect individual dignity or we continue to judge individuals by their incidental features (e.g. skin color). Why, exactly, do people consider slavery, abortion, etc., objectionable?

The "loaded gun" principle complements the "locked door" principle -- presumed guilty. Where is the conflict?

Does this mean totalitarian policy will forever supplant moral knowledge?

Well, a free society, even a semblance of one, is nice while it lasts.

Scott M said...

But that's exactly what I'm advocating for. It's not that my home, or my area, is remotely dangerous, it's not. It's that--by definition--any kind of breakin will be totally unanticipated.

I realize that and I know guys that do that. Two things I'll probably never do. Carry at home all the time and walk around day to day with a round chambered. Both of those decisions admit they're not perfect, but I'm erring on the side of caution.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"In any case, I don't carry around the house."

We don't carry around the house either. But we also don't lock our guns up in inaccessible places or leave them unloaded. That makes zero sense.

If you need a weapon for self defense, you certainly aren't going to have the leisure to run to the gun safe, unlock it, load the weapon and then defend yourself. It is too late by that time.

The hunting rifles and that sort of thing, there is no need to keep loaded and ready. Protection weapons....ready.

Scott M said...

If you need a weapon for self defense, you certainly aren't going to have the leisure to run to the gun safe, unlock it, load the weapon and then defend yourself. It is too late by that time.

Since the break in I have two vaults, one for each level. Hardly inaccessible. Both contain a loaded weapon and a flashlight. Both are minivaults with spring-loaded doors opened with finger-combo locks. No dithering necessary.

Sofa King said...

I can't believe this is the hill Wisconsin democrats want to die on. Even California - California! - racial preferences in education lost to a popular vote.

This morning on the WTMJ morning news program, they had one of the Democrat legislators call in. The reporter asked him why they were opposed to this amendment, and he started talking about helping the poor. The interviewer - obviously reluctantly - pointed out that the amendment really had nothing to do with this, at which point the legislator started blathering about the importance of diversity.

Do the Democrats really think this is persuasive to most Wisconsin taxpayers?

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Though ScottM is a WiccanSatanistMorman Althouse retard, I will make a few points in his defense, DBQ…please note, HE HAS THREE SMALL CHILDREN IN THE HOUSE. That changes the equation a bit…chance that Zombie Zoe will break in, some non-0 percentage, chance that Child Charlie will play with gun, arguably, greater than odds of Zombie Zoe…ergo the REAL danger is the child with the fire arm, less so Zombie Zoe. So, I can see why ScottM has his fire arms locked away. It’s like many things in life, playing the odds, making a compromise.

If “J” lived next door it might make more sense to pack all the time….

$9,000,000,000 Write Off said...

are there really people who stand ready to shoot intruders but don't lock their doors?

Yes. I haven't seen the keys to my house since the day the real estate agent gave them to me.

ndspinelli said...

All people who don't live in Wisconsin need to realize we have A LOT OF DRUNKS..more than your state, no matter what it is.

Scott M said...

Yes. I haven't seen the keys to my house since the day the real estate agent gave them to me.

LOL!!!

t-man said...

nd -

I think that Louisiana would be in the running for most drunks.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
are there really people who stand ready to shoot intruders but don't lock their doors
In the town where I was born, I’d say a high percentage of doors were unlocked…and a goodly number of folks would gladly shoot you if you walked into their house, uninvited, unannounced, late at night….what’s odd about that? They aren’t mutually contradictory ideas!

Don’t walk into a “man’s house” without an invite, the door being locked or unlocked has no bearing on that advice. An unlocked door is NOT an “invitation” to enter, something that’s not yours.

Original Mike said...

I am perplexed by this "need" for people to not lock their doors.

Scott M said...

Don’t walk into a “man’s house” without an invite, the door being locked or unlocked has no bearing on that advice. An unlocked door is NOT an “invitation” to enter, something that’s not yours.

Is that advice in general or a description of vampires?

MadisonMan said...

Laser-like focus on jobs!

Thanks Republicans!

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
I am perplexed by this "need" for people to not lock their doors
Do I “need” to tell you not to rape my offspring? Do I need to tell you not to “murder” me. I shouldn’t HAVE to lock my doors!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

please note, HE HAS THREE SMALL CHILDREN IN THE HOUSE. That changes the equation a bit

Good point. However, we also a small child (long long ago in a galaxy far far away) and she was taught that guns were not toys and not to touch things that didn't belong to her. But that was us and our child.

We also took precautions to keep the weapons out of reach of little hands. Out of reach of short people like me; too without having to resort to a ladder.

When other people brought their heathen children (joking so that LOVE doesn't think I hate children and puppies) we would lock them away. The guns, not the children or puppies. Tempting though.

So if Scott M thinks it prudent to handle the guns in his house how he wants....I'm all for that.

are there really people who stand ready to shoot intruders but don't lock their doors

We don't always lock our doors at night or all of our doors. We DO lock the business property because it is separate from the house and is full of things that petty criminals would want to steal for easy resale....tools etc.

First: it would take a concerted and purposeful effort to come into our home or even find our property at night. You have no reason to be there at all. NONE.

Second: anyone who was coming to the property at night or after biz hours to visit or for business emergencies (this does happen quite often) would be calling first and would be expected.

Third: you just don't wander around at night unless you do want to be shot or eaten by a mountain lion, bear or someone's guard dog(s).

Original Mike said...

"I shouldn’t HAVE to lock my doors!"

Deal with the world you live in, not the one that "should be". It's not like locking your door is hard.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Laser-like focus on jobs!

Thanks Republicans

So Mad Man has the WIGOP passed a massive healthcare entitlement, instead of focusing on jobs? Have they passed a massive redistributionist pork package rather than address jobs? Have they passed budget in three years? Unless you’re answer is “yes”, “Yes” and “No” I think I might shut up about Republican failures…Oh I forgot, filed legal actions against non-union employers who are seeking to INCREASE employment? Or passed regulations that are forcing 10-20 GIGAWATTS of generation power to close and that will dramatically increase the cost of operation for remaining plants? Have they hindered the development of domestic fossil fuels, whilst funneling billions to bundler-backed boondoggles? If not, I’d say they’re doing better than your side…of course that’s setting the bar pretty low.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Deal with the world you live in, not the one that "should be". It's not like locking your door is hard
Should I forego defending myself, or filing a police report?

Oh I got one for you, tell that to Martin Luther King, “Deal with the world you live in Doctor King. What’s with your ‘need’ to vote?”

Original Mike said...

That's my point, Joe. Save your indignation for the tough issues.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Lunch is about over here at the Shawarma Hut back to saying, “Would you like falafel with that?”

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
That's my point, Joe. Save your indignation for the tough issues
Thanx for informing me that my personal space isn’t worthy of any indignation? Do you tell rape victims the same thing? “Sure it was your personnel space, property and dignity violated, but really was it all that big a deal?”

BTW, I’m not “indignant” I’m simply pointing out that unlocked doors are NOT an invitation to enter…Even vampires know that, that’s why they ask your permission before entering.

Original Mike said...

"BTW, I’m not “indignant” I’m simply pointing out that unlocked doors are NOT an invitation to enter"

Couldn't agree more (I also fully support the Castle Doctrine; if you break into my house you deserve whatever you get). You shouldn't have to lock your doors, but the fact of the matter is it's a trivial precaution. It ain't on the same level as rape or discrimination.

ricpic said...

They argued from 11 PM till 8 AM because of the Left's obsession with blacks. Leftists continually circle the plight of the blacks and continually offer, as their solution, programs and legislation that make blacks more equal. More equal than who? Whites. Who must be punished by being treated less than equal ostensibly in order to right past wrongs. In reality the gleeful punishment of whites is the obverse of the obsessive love of blacks in the Left's cosmology. But love is probably the wrong turn. The Left fastens on blacks obsessively in some kind of ecstasy of masochistic self-laceration. And we have to pay the price.

garage mahal said...

Laser-like focus on jobs!

Thanks Republicans!


Abstinence only sex ed is next on tap today in the "special jobs session".

Original Mike said...

It also helps the decision tree. If I keep my door unlocked, the stranger might be confused/drunk. If you enter through my locked door, however, I've get a good indication of your intentions.

Sigivald said...

Shouldn't there be some minimal effort required to assess the situation or call police before firing?

Yes.

Looking at them breaking into your house is "assess[ing] the situation".

Calling the police and then shooting them isn't going to be real helpful for stopping the notional "innocent drunken idiot" from getting shot (and our host's comments on that scenario are correct).

A notional duty to call the police and wait for them to come before acting when your home is being invaded is untenable, and won't stand up to public opinion.

(For that matter, I'm not sure it'll stand up to the law of self defense as it stands...)

Hoplophobes. They're so cute, when they're out of power and therefore unable to do much harm.

(TW: Polizeys. Holy Polizei, Batman!)

Sigivald said...

Also, contra Joe, "South Central LA" is not (well, was not - it's not exactly 1992 anymore) "an armed society".

It was a place where a criminal element was armed, but the common man was disarmed by law.

(Similarly for the other examples, especially those of insurrection and civil war.)

"An armed society" in Heinlein's use is one where the possession of arms by the average man is commonplace and normal, not one where criminal gangs have arms and nobody else does, or "during a foreign-funded insurrection with suicide bombers".

Weakest possible counter-argument other than "nuh UH".

gutless said...

It doesn't matter what the law says about race preferences -I give you California- the academic elite will do what it damn well pleases sub rosa.

Kirk Parker said...

Joe,

I understand the little "children aspect". Though I no longer have my own here, there are little grandchildren* around on a frequent enough basis to make it a concern. I think I've got it adequately covered by having the handguns either secured, or on my person. No chance for fiddling there. And since my all-the-time gun is pocket carried (with an adequate, trigger-covering holster, let me hasten to add!) where's the chance for someone fiddling with it?

And Scott,

"Israeli carry" is not something that I'd ever recommend, however: first of all, you didn't ask :-), and secondly the recommendation to not do anything you're not comfortable doing still takes precedence.


----------------------------------
*Ahem. This is where y'all say, "Wow, you don't look nearly old enough to have grandchildren." :-)

gutless said...

I have hand guns in hidden holsters in twelve places in my house, garage and yard and shotguns in four additional places. They range from small caliber to large. The shotguns are all 12 gauge. I am never more than 2-3 seconds away from supplemental arms. I also carry a 9 mm Glock in a pancake holster, a .44 magnum in a shoulder rig and two SW hammerless Chiefs Specials in ankle holsters, left and right. We have only had three accidental shooting incidents over the years, none fatal. If have told my grandchildren to leave the guns alone.
I don't lock my doors when I am home.

Scott M said...

"Israeli carry" is not something that I'd ever recommend, however: first of all, you didn't ask :-), and secondly the recommendation to not do anything you're not comfortable doing still takes precedence.

I was raised on long rifles and shotguns. The whole family is military so I'm very familiar with assault rifles. However, pistols are new to me in just the past couple years. So there's THAT aspect of it. Secondly, I judge for my own comfort and confidence that the two seconds it takes me (having trained so) to draw and charge the pistol aren't going to make that big of a difference between carrying it unchambered versus no carry at all.

Scott M said...

That having been said, there have definitely been times when I've quietly charged the weapon and returned it to it's holster.

andinista said...

The appropriate response to a home invasion is very fact specific. There are some universals.

1. Nobody wants to shoot somebody else. Give 'em one fair warning, if you can.
2. If they do not respond to the fair warning by leaving, you must shoot. Do not shoot them in the back.
3. Do not shoot to kill. Shoot to as quickly and rapidly as possible disable the threat and collect your family to safety. Once the invader is down, stop shooting.
4. Call 911.
5. Don't say anything to the police. Let them do their job of collecting evidence. Your lawyer will talk to the police, not you. FYI, police after a shooting are given 24 hours before they have to make a statement to IAD.
6. Don't feel sorry for the invader. Be comforted that you did your unpleasant duty, protected your family, and held back the forces of barbarity and chaos.

Alex said...

garage - why can't the legislature walk and chew gum?

MadisonMan said...

@joe, have Democrats in Wisconsin called a special session to deal with jobs?

Original Mike said...

"why can't the legislature walk and chew gum?"

I've wondered that for years.

Peter said...

WI Statute 939.48: “Self-defense and defense of others.
...

"(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a third person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or second-degree reck-less homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or second-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed."

Surely it is curious that the Statute considers self-defense to be a “privilege” (to be granted or withheld by government) and not a natural right (to be recognized by government)?

MadisonMan said...

why can't the legislature walk and chew gum?

Can they even just walk?

Sofa King said...

Surely it is curious that the Statute considers self-defense to be a “privilege” (to be granted or withheld by government) and not a natural right (to be recognized by government)?

Not really, no, it is legal jargon for "immunity." If I have a right to self-defense, then by definition I am privileged to violate lesser laws for that purpose.

Calypso Facto said...

You take what I'd call a legitimate criticism of the "Jobs Session", garage, and f it all up with misinformation like "repealing scholarships".

Peter said...

Is granting preference to "current or former prison inmates" a perverse incentive, or what??

"To qualify for the Talent Incentive Program, students must show financial need and that they are a member of a minority group, a first-generation college student, handicapped, or a current or former prison inmate . Minority students are defined as those who are African-American, American Indian, Latino or Hmong."

Shanna said...

I think that Louisiana would be in the running for most drunks.

LA is awesome. You can get daiquiris in the drive through with a straw and hard liquor at the grocery store.

Is granting preference to "current or former prison inmates" a perverse incentive, or what??

That was my first thought as well. Congratulations on that murder, here's some money for college!

andinista said...

And as for drunks, quite early one morning on Jan 1, we left our house for some ice climbing. Just as we were getting into the car, we heard a noise from the bushes. A holiday reveler who was sleeping it off, was awoken by our activity. He stumbled up to our frontdoor, and started vigorously pounding on it, and shouting incoherently. As his rage increased, he broke down our door, stumbled inside, went to our bedroom, undressed and fell asleep.

Well. In those pre-cell-phone days, we ran down to the 7-11 to call the cops, who came and hauled him away. It ruined our climbing trip, cuz we had to stay home until we could get our door frame repaired.

That guy was sooo lucky that he picked our house. Our neighbors would have shot him dead. His guardian angel was working overtime that morning.

andinista said...

Hey Sofa,

Can you provide references to that right/privilege/immunity? I'd really hope you are right, but I remain deeply suspicious that government people will hold themselves to such an understanding.

marylynn said...

Believe it or not we did actually wake up one morning to a drunk sleeping soundly on our couch. I locked the doors every night - but our teenage daughter forgot to re-lock when she came in for the evening. Funny thing is, when i saw the dog sniffing at the young man on our sofa, i assumed he was a friend of one of our daughters .... after a few minutes i thought to wake the daughters up and ask about the guy they allowed to spend the night. Following a few minutes of confused conversation, we all realized none of us knew who the heck he was or how and when he had come in the door.
A poke to his shoulder was enough to make him wake up and run out the door, terrified of US!
Harmless and later on a funny story, but yeah, it could have been not too funny if he hadn't been harmless ...
And YES, we do live in Wisconsin ... which of course increased the odds he's be drunk ...

Mitch H. said...

I used to live in an apartment behind a funeral home. I had bereaved family attempt to come in the "back door" about every six months or so. This was particularly fun when I was in the bathroom at the time, and I had to yell down the hall that the funeral home rear entrance was the next alley over.

Mind you, this funeral home was much favored by this region's motorcycle gangs, and my semiannual home invasion gets less cute and more alarming in retrospect.

I probably ought to have locked my front door more often, but it's hard to be paranoid when you've nothing worth stealing and living by yourself.