If I am wrong, do say it if you think so, if I am clueless so be it, I'm ok with that, maybe I am relying on facts others would not, should I educate myself more on the subject? I guess yes, is showing some mercy wrong or good? It's not definitive yes and no answer.
But picking on a user name? Please spare me, how are others' nicks descriptive of their fellow users? Should I rename my user name to gunnut666 or stealth007 to become badass?
I guess many disagreed with my attitude about things but I did stress that some facts are important to evaluate, mention, concepts of home security, precautions and habits of livng, proportionality of force or what(if anything) can be done not to kill instead are things I don't feel wrong about mentioning nor ashamed of mentioning. As much as those who did disagree with me, half others did agree that killing them was brutal act. I still don't like the fact that teens were killed but based on later discussions on how this law works, killing them might not be the best thing to do but right thing to do for the homeowner because if they would end up wounded they actually might lie, ask for damages, making homeowner liable for what could be endless legal hassle, which would be way beyond anyone would be willing/capable to endure just to spare lives of intruders in his house, in this sense I was not aware of how this law operates and was maybe overly harsh on homeowner's actions, I admit that. I also don't think any less of myself just because I mentioned possibility of warning shots or wounding, if you can own a gun and kill intruder, wounding or warning is logically better, not legally, I didn't know that, so what?
I guess you wanted to mention something similar like NetWareHead did? I mean the warning shots, wound shots being illegal/unsafe to do.
Can we dispel with the notion that you can even intentionally shoot to wound in a high stress situation? You are aiming center mass, you aren't visualizing where his internal organs are and aiming to miss them. It's just nonsense.
Thats why the first shot really needs to be well aimed. Your second one is always gonna be less accurate after the adrenaline is going.
In this issue:
I. WHY SHOOTING TO WOUND DOESN’T MAKE SENSE SCIENTIFICALLY, LEGALLY OR TACTICALLY
II. ADVANCED INSTRUCTOR SEMINAR OFFERS LATEST ON USE-OF-FORCE ISSUES
=======================================
I. WHY SHOOTING TO WOUND DOESN’T MAKE SENSE SCIENTIFICALLY, LEGALLY OR TACTICALLY
Do police officers really have to kill people when they shoot them? Couldn’t they be more humane and just aim for arms or legs?
As we reported in Transmission #39 [2/28/06], a New York state senator in pondering these questions decided there’s way too much needless death being inflicted by cops these days. So he introduced legislation that would require officers to try to shoot suspects’ limbs when using deadly force. Officers who employed any more than the minimum force necessary to stop a life-threatening offender would face felony manslaughter charges.
Hammered by livid law enforcement protests, Sen. David Paterson [D.-Harlem] withdrew his bill [see FSN Update 3/1/06], but the sentiment behind it seems to remain firmly embedded in many civilian psyches.
“When I encounter civilian response to officer-involved shootings, it’s very often ‘Why didn’t they just shoot him in the leg?’” says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato. “When civilians judge police shooting deaths–on juries, on review boards, in the media, in the community–this same argument is often brought forward. Shooting to wound is naively regarded as a reasonable means of stopping dangerous behavior.
“In reality, this thinking is a result of ‘training by Hollywood,’ in which movie and TV cops are able to do anything to control the outcomes of events that serves the director’s dramatic interests. It reflects a misconception of real-life dynamics and ends up imposing unrealistic expectations of skill on real-life officers.”
In this transmission, Force Science News offers a “position paper” on why shooting to wound is neither practical nor desirable as a performance standard. We hope this information proves useful to you in addressing any shoot-to-wound advocacy that may arise in your jurisdiction.
PRACTICAL ISSUES. Sen. Paterson said his proposed legislation was motivated by the fatal shooting in New York City of Amadou Diallo, who was struck by 19 bullets when officers mistakenly thought he was reaching for a weapon as they approached him for questioning. Paterson believed that shooting an arm or leg would tend to stop a suspect’s threatening actions, precluding the need to shoot to the head or chest, where death is more probable. By requiring only the least amount of force needed to control a suspect he apparently hoped to reduce the likelihood of “excessive” shots being fired.
Studies by the Force Science Research Center reveal some of the practical problems with these positions. Lewinski explains some of the basics of human dynamics and anatomy and the relative risks of misses and hits:
“Hands and arms can be the fastest-moving body parts. For example, an average suspect can move his hand and forearm across his body to a 90-degree angle in 12/100 of a second. He can move his hand from his hip to shoulder height in 18/100 of a second.
“The average officer pulling the trigger as fast as he can on a Glock, one of the fastest- cycling semiautos, requires 1/4 second to discharge each round.
“There is no way an officer can react, track, shoot and reliably hit a threatening suspect’s forearm or a weapon in a suspect’s hand in the time spans involved.
“Even if the suspect held his weapon arm steady for half a second or more, an accurate hit would be highly unlikely, and in police shootings the suspect and his weapon are seldom stationary. Plus, the officer himself may be moving as he shoots.
“The upper arms move more slowly than the lower arms and hands. But shooting at the upper arms, there’s a greater chance you’re going to hit the suspect’s brachial artery or center mass, areas with a high probability of fatality. Then where does shooting only to wound come in?
“Legs tend initially to move slower than arms and to maintain more static positions. However, areas of the lower trunk and upper thigh are rich with vascularity. A suspect who’s hit there can bleed out in seconds if one of the major arteries is severed, so again shooting just to wound may not result in just wounding.
“On the other hand, if an officer manages to take a suspect’s legs out non-fatally, that still leaves the offender’s hands free to shoot. His ability to threaten lives hasn’t necessarily been stopped.”
As to preventing so-called “overkill” from shots that are fired after a threat is neutralized, Lewinski offers these observations:
“Twenty years ago officers were trained to ‘shoot then assess.’ They fired 1 or 2 rounds, then stopped to see the effect. This required 1/4 to 1/2 second, during which time the suspect could keep firing, if he hadn’t been incapacitated.
“Now they’re taught to ‘shoot and assess,’ to judge the effect of their shots as they continue to fire, an on-going process. This allows the officer to continually defend himself, but because the brain is trying to do 2 things at once–shoot and assess–a very significant change in the offender’s behavior needs to take place in order for the officer to recognize the change of circumstances.
“A suspect falling to the ground from being shot would be a significant change. But by analyzing the way people fall, we’ve determined that it takes 2/3 of a second to a full second or more for a person to crumple to the ground from a standing position. And that is when they’ve been hit in a motor center that produces instant loss of muscle tension.
“While an officer is noticing this change, he is going to continue firing if he is shooting as fast as he can under the stress of trying to save his life. On average, from the time an officer perceives a change in stimulus to the time he is able to process that and actually stop firing, 2 to 3 additional rounds will be expended.
“Shooting beyond the moment a threat is neutralized is not a willful, malicious action in most cases. It’s an involuntary factor of human dynamics.
“Given what science tells us about armed encounters, Sen. Paterson’s proposals are fantasies. They would hold officers to super-human performance and punish them criminally for being unable to achieve it.”
LEGAL ISSUES. A shoot-to-wound mandate would “not be valid legally” because it sets a standard far beyond that established by Graham v. Connor, the benchmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on police use of force, says former prosecutor Jeff Chudwin, now chief of the Olympia Fields (IL) PD and president of the Illinois Tactical Officers Assn.
Recognizing that violent encounters are “tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving,” the Court “does not require officers to use the least intrusive method” of forcefully controlling a threatening suspect, but “only what’s reasonable,” Chudwin explains. When an officer’s life or that of a third party appears in jeopardy, shooting can be justified as reasonable.
By legal definition, the possible consequences of deadly force include both death and great bodily harm. “The law has never broken these 2 apart,” Chudwin says, which is what Paterson’s proposal tried to do. “He’s saying that police should only shoot someone just a little bit. Deadly force is not about ‘just a little bit.’ Any time you fire a firearm, there’s a substantial risk of great bodily harm or death. The law doesn’t even so much as suggest that deadly force should be just enough to wound but with no probability of death. That’s plain wrong legally and tactically, and sends the wrong message.”
Attorney Bill Everett, a risk-management executive, use-of-force instructor, former LEO, and National Advisory Board member of the FSRC, agrees. As he explains it, use of force from a legal standpoint is a matter of “proportionality,” and there are 2 ways to measure it: what’s necessary and what’s reasonable.
He draws the analogy of a house being on fire. “Firefighters can pour what seems at the time to be about the right amount of water on it to stop the fire versus not using one drop more of water than necessary, even in hindsight, to put the fire out.” The former fits the “reasonable” approach, the later is the “necessary” perspective and is the essence of Paterson’s shoot-to-wound/minimal force bill.
“When you impose a standard of strict necessity, you require officers to do a whole lot of thinking in a situation where the Supreme Court recognizes there’s not a whole lot of time to think in,” Everett declares. Under a shoot-to-wound directive, “an officer faced with a suspect running at him with a jagged bottle is expected to think about getting target acquisition on an arm or a leg, while his own life is at risk.” The hesitation it is likely to create will only heighten his risk.
The critical issue of officer survival aside, Everett predicts that legislation like Paterson proposed would “substantially expand the civil and criminal liability of police officers.” He asks, “What if an officer tries to wing a suspect and ends up hitting an innocent bystander? What about the liability there? What if an officer tries to shoot an offender’s limb but shoots him in the chest instead? How does his true intent get judged?
“Right now under the Supreme Court’s prevailing standard lawyers and judges in a large percentage of police shootings can look at the facts and conclude that there is no basis for allowing a civil suit to go to trial. But if you change the standard, there’ll be a lot more cases going to juries to evaluate: 1) did the officer intend to wound or did he intend to kill the suspect and 2) was the suspect’s death absolutely necessary. A trial will become the rule rather than the exception.
“Who in their right mind would become a police officer in a jurisdiction where shoot-to- wound and standards of strict necessity became the law? Those ideas may have some humanitarian appeal, but once you go beyond the Disneyish attraction and face the reality, support for this thinking has to evaporate.”
TACTICAL ISSUES. Modern training teaches that when an officer uses deadly force the intent should be to stop the suspect’s threatening behavior as fast as possible.
Like it or not, this is most reliably done by “disrupting the central nervous system, by inducing severe hemorrhaging and/or by destroying skeletal integrity” (bone structure), in the words of firearms trainer Ron Avery, himself a championship shooter, head of the Practical Shooting Academy and a member of FSRC’s Technical Advisory Board.
Shooting for an assailant’s center mass is usually considered the most effective first option because the upper torso combines a concentration of vital areas and major blood vessels within the body’s largest target. “When the risk of failure is death, an officer needs the highest percentage chance of success he can get,” Everett notes.
Shooting instead for a smaller, faster-moving arm or a leg with the intent to wound rather than to incapacitate invites a myriad of tactical dilemmas.
For instance:
–An officer’s survival instinct may exert an overpowering influence on target selection. “I don’t care how good a shot you are,” says Avery, “if your life is threatened you’re going to go for the surer thing first and worry about your assailant’s life being saved second. If a guy is running at me with a blade, the last thing I’m going to be thinking is ‘I’m going to shoot him in the arm.’” Hence, shooting for center mass may become a psychological default.
–Poor shot placement is bound to increase. Even when officers are trying to shoot center mass, they often miss. Lewinski recalls a case he was involved in where an officer firing under high stress just 5 feet from an offender failed to hit him at all with the first 5 rounds and connected with the next 4 only because the suspect moved into his line of fire. “Hitting an arm or a leg on a moving suspect with surgical precision will be virtually impossible,” Avery asserts. “I could probably count on 1 hand the individuals who can make that kind of shot under the pressure of their life on the line. Expecting that level of performance by police officers on an agency-wide basis is ludicrous.” Misses may well go on to injure or kill someone else.
–Use of certain weapons might be discouraged. “Because of the spread pattern, an officer might be precluded from grabbing a shotgun, for fear of hitting more vital areas when he tries to shoot to wound,” Everett speculates. “If the offender has a fully automatic weapon, say, should an officer be prevented from using the best defensive weapon he may have because it might have sweep or rise?”
–”Successful” shots could be dangerous to people besides the suspect because of through-and-through penetration. “Virtually every police round today is designed to penetrate heavy clothing and 10 to 12 inches of ballistic gel,” explains Chudwin. “Rounds with that capability will penetrate even the biggest arms” and could, like misses, then travel on to hit unintended targets in the background.
–”Successful” shots that don’t persuade an offender to quit leave the officer still in peril. When we know from street experience that even multiple center-mass hits don’t always stop determined, deranged or drugged attackers, “how many officers would be murdered by offenders who get shot in a limb and are still fully capable of shooting back?” Chudwin asks. Indeed, Avery believes that shooting an offender without incapacitating him “may just infuriate him, so he doubles his effort to kill you. There is no dependable correlation between wounding someone and making them stop.”
–Shooting to wound reflects a misapplication of police equipment. “Less-lethal options should be attempted only with tools designed for that purpose,” Avery says. “If you deliberately use deadly force to bring people into custody without incapacitating them, you’re using the wrong tool for that job. Also if you shoot them in the arm or leg and you destroy muscle tissue, shatter bone or destroy nerve function you have maimed that person for life. Now attorneys can play the argument of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ and pursue punitive damages for destroying the capacity of your ‘victim’ to earn wages and so on. You don’t try to just wound people with a gun. Period.”
The experts we consulted agreed that advocates who push a shoot-to-wound agenda appear to understand little about human dynamics, ballistics, tactics, force legalities or the challenges officers face on the street. Chudwin has found that these critics of police practices can often be enlightened if they are invited to experience force decision-making scenarios on a firearms simulator.
Avery has a more dramatic, if fanciful, idea. “Put them in a cage with a lion,” he suggests. “Then let’s see if they shoot to wound.”
There are 2 types of criminals in a home invasion.
The opportunist - Just looking to get in and get out without being seen type of criminal, usually a 2 pm burglary.
The Sadist - The I don't give a fuck criminal. I will rob, rape, and murder anyone in the house, usually a 2 am burglary.
Read something elsewhere on the interwebs that made me think:
I dont know if I totally agree with this but I see his point. A professional burglar will stake out your home and wait until he knows you're gone before attempting anything. THAT guy isnt going to be a threat to your family. Its the other two you need to worry about. One who doesnt think ahead, might panic and do something stupid, and the other who is actually looking for trouble. Both are equally life-threatening but for slightly different reasons.
Problem was, it was NOT a home defense, it was pure attack of fucktard wielding too much power over situation.
Third one just might be shot when he was running for his life, not doing anything else.
Where is your home defense? Or you mean by defense also revenge, retribution and punishment, shooting someone from behind? Also, defense is only defense when threat against you is equal or overwhelming depends on how armed opponent is, if your opponent has knife but you have rifle, it's very unlikely they are any high treat to you.
Was what the teens did bad? Yes it was, they should not stick in someone else's place, but I guess at the worst they might steal some rusty bike and some laptop or TV, definitely nothing someone should deserved to be killed for.
Good you mention this because beside 24 states in US, laws like these are not used anywhere else and killing anyone in your home outside these 24 states, would be murder, and for good reason, you don't kill people because they steal things which have barely any value.
Did some people with guns at home save themselves against heavily armed and dangerous recidivist robbers in the past? Yes, fortunately they did, good for them, but that's not what I am talking about.
What I wanted to say is, that these laws do allow using of excess force compared to threat of the intruder, allowing stupid people to stockpile guns and waiting for chance to kill someone legally who was lightly armed or unarmed at all, it gives morons sense of power and control and stupid people do like much power and no responsibility.
It's not home defense, it's kill at will and seems that some guys of AT forums really like the idea of kill at will.
See? That's why you have to secure your home so it's not easy to break into and have a good living manners, do not leave small kids at home if you are aware that houses get robbed often and even when you are at home do not leave them unattended for too long if your house is too big and someone might break into their room without you even noticing. If negligence like this happens, guns won't help you anyhow, just like other inanimate objects, they will not do anything just by themselves.I dunno, I've read plenty of cases of adolescents being in homes alone while family is out where the child ends up raped and/or murdered by a burglar expecting an empty house. Not sure if there are any studies showing the probability of a home invader killing someone according to time of day, but if you're an impulsive criminal and your adrenaline is running, and suddenly you get scared because there's now someone looking at your face and you know you can overpower them, I think violence just happens. They're animals and will either flee or fight.
Although I must ask again if so many people need guns for home protection, it's not sign of good police force in that area, what is response time? Are cops skilled, friendly, can citizens rely on their work being done well, do they even patrol the area?Man I'm a die hard liberal progressive all for gun control, but you got 3 guys in masks breaking and entering, with weapons, I'd shoot the fuckers on sight as well. That's your life, home and property. You can defend it in that situation.
Now sure if it can be proven that someone was running away from the situation and shot from behind, I can see an argument. But good luck proving that shit in those situations.
maybe I am relying on facts others would not
I guess many disagreed with my attitude about things but I did stress that some facts are important to evaluate
Dude don't let yourself be fooled by anyone around here because they own guns. They don't know much about guns either because that's the purpose of the guns, to kill and or defend yourself without knowing really anything, just load the magazine and shoot.
To be said one is knowledgeable about guns, one would have to be pretty good at understanding physics, chemistry and mechanics and their interactions related to gun's inner workings.
Being a gun nut doesn't really mean anything, everyone can just grab the gun and shoot because that's what guns are made for.
Unlike other self-defenses - martial arts and non-projectile weapons are difficult to master and require considerable skill acquired via long term training.
Half of posts in this thread are basically celebrating someone less fortunate died and praising some fucktard with 50 IQ for mass-murder of three teens.
Also, defense is only defense when threat against you is equal or overwhelming depends on how armed opponent is, if your opponent has knife but you have rifle, it's very unlikely they are any high treat to you.
Good you mention this because beside 24 states in US, laws like these are not used anywhere else and killing anyone in your home outside these 24 states, would be murder, and for good reason, you don't kill people because they steal things which have barely any value.
What I wanted to say is, that these laws do allow using of excess force compared to threat of the intruder, allowing stupid people to stockpile guns and waiting for chance to kill someone legally who was lightly armed or unarmed at all, it gives morons sense of power and control and stupid people do like much power and no responsibility.
It's not home defense, it's kill at will and seems that some guys of AT forums really like the idea of kill at will.
but I don't understand when cowards are praised for being cowards, shooting someone armed with knuckle, or knife, or being unarmed at all is fucking cowardly thing to do. Whether it is in your house or in porn shop, whether it's legal or not. It's cowardice at its best. The guy is coward.
I would order them to leave, if not complying, few warning shots would be shot near them. By that time they would be very unlikely still there or trying to subdue me, but if yes they would be shot to places which would not kill them but would render them incapable of harming me.
Problem was, it was NOT a home defense, it was pure attack of fucktard wielding too much power over situation
See? That's why you have to secure your home so it's not easy to break into and have a good living manners, do not leave small kids at home if you are aware that houses get robbed often and even when you are at home do not leave them unattended for too long if your house is too big and someone might break into their room without you even noticing. If negligence like this happens, guns won't help you anyhow, just like other inanimate objects, they will not do anything just by themselves.
Although I must ask again if so many people need guns for home protection, it's not sign of good police force in that area, what is response time? Are cops skilled, friendly, can citizens rely on their work being done well, do they even patrol the area?
How about citizens who cannot operate guns, people who are blind, maybe are disabled in other ways that do not allow them to shoot a gun and they maybe live alone or with family members with similar conditions, or maybe they are just too old? How castle doctrine helps most vulnerable citizens?
Crime is proportional to police effectiveness, the least effective police the more crime and vice versa.
If police is good there is still some crime occurring ofc but it's happening way less, crime goes down, recidivism goes down, prison sentences get shorter etc.
What efforts federal or state government does to decrease crime? Because it seems to me that things that begin with 'war on .... ' never get anything done other than creating more misery.
See? That's why you have to secure your home so it's not easy to break into and have a good living manners, do not leave small kids at home if you are aware that houses get robbed often and even when you are at home do not leave them unattended for too long if your house is too big and someone might break into their room without you even noticing. If negligence like this happens, guns won't help you anyhow, just like other inanimate objects, they will not do anything just by themselves.
Although I must ask again if so many people need guns for home protection, it's not sign of good police force in that area, what is response time? Are cops skilled, friendly, can citizens rely on their work being done well, do they even patrol the area?
How about citizens who cannot operate guns, people who are blind, maybe are disabled in other ways that do not allow them to shoot a gun and they maybe live alone or with family members with similar conditions, or maybe they are just too old? How castle doctrine helps most vulnerable citizens?
Crime is proportional to police effectiveness, the least effective police the more crime and vice versa.
If police is good there is still some crime occurring ofc but it's happening way less, crime goes down, recidivism goes down, prison sentences get shorter etc.
What efforts federal or state government does to decrease crime? Because it seems to me that things that begin with 'war on .... ' never get anything done other than creating more misery.
Good thing the law doesn't give a flying fuck what your feefee's think about them. Good riddance on the dumb bitch.Quote from the driver from the linked article earlier, doesn't look like anyone actually read what she said:
Rodriguez told Fox 23 she feels responsible for her part in planning the break-in but not for her friends’ death.
“We all knew going in what could happen. We always said if there’s guns, every man for themselves,” Rodriguez admits they burglarized other homes in the past.
http://www.kswo.com/story/35042570/woman-charged-speaks-out-about-burglary-that-killed-3-ok-teens
100% premeditated and they actually discussed the homeowner possibly having "guns".
Good thing the law doesn't give a flying fuck what your feefee's think about them. Good riddance on the dumb bitch.
We know what the perpetrators had for weapons after the fact, I seriously doubt the home owner had a clue what weapons they had.
Therefore he was justified in his actions. As for the intruders they played a dangerous game and won mad prizes.What the home owner knew about how the intruders were armed is irrelevant.
Just like no one truly knows what the intruders were capable of despite their intentions.
Therefore he was justified in his actions. As for the intruders they played a dangerous game and won mad prizes.
This is not a knock on police but they can only do so much and are bound by reality. They cant be everywhere and protect everybody. When the criminals are seconds from breaking in, police are minutes away. Everybody should be responsible for their own defense. You alone are responsible for defending your own life so dont drop the ball.Although I must ask again if so many people need guns for home protection, it's not sign of good police force in that area, what is response time? Are cops skilled, friendly, can citizens rely on their work being done well, do they even patrol the area?
Sad but thats their problem, not mine. It shouldnt discourage law abiding citizens from gun ownership. Thats the beauty of USA. Those who want to carry can. Plus I know plenty of crusty old guys (and women) that still carry guns on an everyday basis and are armed at home. Even dudes in wheelchairs.How about citizens who cannot operate guns, people who are blind, maybe are disabled in other ways that do not allow them to shoot a gun and they maybe live alone or with family members with similar conditions, or maybe they are just too old? How castle doctrine helps most vulnerable citizens?
Police are not the only reason for less crime. Criminals surely will think twice when they know they are dealing with armed civilians. Everyone likes to go for the low hanging fruit, criminals are certainly not the exception. There is a quote that I feel applies appropriately here: An armed society is a polite society"Crime is proportional to police effectiveness, the least effective police the more crime and vice versa.
If police is good there is still some crime occurring ofc but it's happening way less, crime goes down, recidivism goes down, prison sentences get shorter etc.
What efforts federal or state government does to decrease crime? Because it seems to me that things that begin with 'war on .... ' never get anything done other than creating more misery.
No that's not what I said, nor meant, although it's undeniable that negligence does play part in some cases where exact individual became a crime victim.You're blaming the victim again. In fact you're blaming everyone except *the person or persons perpetrating the crime*. Victim, police, castle doctrine policy, federal AND state government, are all responsible for this. Not the perpetrator, right?
I did refer to those being in a condition where they are physically not able to shoot because of health reasons.Sad but thats their problem, not mine. It shouldnt discourage law abiding citizens from gun ownership. Thats the beauty of USA. Those who want to carry can. Plus I know plenty of crusty old guys (and women) that still carry guns on an everyday basis and are armed at home. Even dudes in wheelchairs.
No that's not what I said, nor meant, although it's undeniable that negligence does play part in some cases where exact individual became a crime victim.
In all honesty you can't view it in all black and white that all criminals do just commit crime and victims suffer, it's lot trickier than that, criminals are mostly opportunistic and will commit crime when and where they get a chance and if more chances are up they choose the easier one, e.g. the already mentioned low hanging fruit.
To get it to that perspective, imagine you have not secured your computer with AV and latest system updates, you click on stupid stuff on the net and get a virus, ransomware that will steal your data, you made no backups, although the perpetrator is responsible for committing crime of infecting your computer and damaging data inside, you let it happen in the first place because you were negligent in backing them up, nor being responsible internet user, nor patching your computer with updates, in fact if something like this would happen to your PC at work and corporate network would get hacked through it be sure you would be held responsible for this although the actual crime was committed by someone else and you were his victim. Will you blame the virus itself? Will you blame virus' author? Or you realize if you would be less pussy and more caring, this would, if nothing else, happen to someone other?
Let's do other thing, imagine you rarely lock your car, and you never check if it is actually locked even after you press lock button on your car remote once in a while, or you are just busy and you forget to do it, if your car gets stolen, someone else did steal it and committed crime of vehicle theft, but if you would lock your car and check regularly, chances are high someone else would have their car stolen instead of yours. You would not become a victim because you did care about your car, or your computer, respectively.
Let's get further and eliminate aspect of crime this time entirely.
You are negligent to your health, you drink a lot, smoke a lot, eat junk food, sleep little etc, you fall ill sooner or later, will you blame the illness? Will you blame doctors or medicine? Or you will get to realize you could prevent that by huge margin if you would live differently?
All of this works same way with how you live at your home, if your home is more resistant for criminals to break into, you check if doors are locked, if windows are closed, you have alarm. You CAN prevent a lot of that stuff happening to YOU.
Do you live in an area that has seriously high crime rate? Do you feel unsafe all the time? Can't you rely on public safety to be good enough to let your children alone outside? Were you robbed before? Why not move somewhere else? Why not change something in your life for the better? Living in fear regardless of what your defense means are, or what law allows is oppressive and annoying.
Of course to not get black and white again, healthy living people do get sick for no apparent reason, secure computers do get hacked and locked cars and buildings do get broken into, and robbers do visit other areas which are more safe, so the chance is still there even when you are very responsible with living and live in a good area so no one is completely safe. Although I must stress it's in everyone's personal interest to decrease these chances and these measures do help. Once you become a victim it's too late, one way or another some consequences will arise regardless of outcome from that situation, just being law abiding citizen yourself is not enough in eyes of some perpetrator, they don't give flying fuck about that. Many people live by daily negligence, relying just on thinking it won't happen to them and that creates opportunities that criminals will take immediately, of course not all crime cases are of this origin, but they are common and this is really undeniable. Examples of these things could go endless.
In this sense, I agree with NetWareHead, everybody is responsible for themselves although I am more for preventive measures and he is more for reactive measures.
I did refer to those being in a condition where they are physically not able to shoot because of health reasons.
No that's not what I said, nor meant, although it's undeniable that negligence does play part in some cases where exact individual became a crime victim.
In all honesty you can't view it in all black and white that all criminals do just commit crime and victims suffer, it's lot trickier than that, criminals are mostly opportunistic and will commit crime when and where they get a chance and if more chances are up they choose the easier one, e.g. the already mentioned low hanging fruit.
To get it to that perspective, imagine you have not secured your computer with AV and latest system updates, you click on stupid stuff on the net and get a virus, ransomware that will steal your data, you made no backups, although the perpetrator is responsible for committing crime of infecting your computer and damaging data inside, you let it happen in the first place because you were negligent in backing them up, nor being responsible internet user, nor patching your computer with updates, in fact if something like this would happen to your PC at work and corporate network would get hacked through it be sure you would be held responsible for this although the actual crime was committed by someone else and you were his victim. Will you blame the virus itself? Will you blame virus' author? Or you realize if you would be less pussy and more caring, this would, if nothing else, happen to someone other?
Let's do other thing, imagine you rarely lock your car, and you never check if it is actually locked even after you press lock button on your car remote once in a while, or you are just busy and you forget to do it, if your car gets stolen, someone else did steal it and committed crime of vehicle theft, but if you would lock your car and check regularly, chances are high someone else would have their car stolen instead of yours. You would not become a victim because you did care about your car, or your computer, respectively.
Let's get further and eliminate aspect of crime this time entirely.
You are negligent to your health, you drink a lot, smoke a lot, eat junk food, sleep little etc, you fall ill sooner or later, will you blame the illness? Will you blame doctors or medicine? Or you will get to realize you could prevent that by huge margin if you would live differently?
All of this works same way with how you live at your home, if your home is more resistant for criminals to break into, you check if doors are locked, if windows are closed, you have alarm. You CAN prevent a lot of that stuff happening to YOU.
Do you live in an area that has seriously high crime rate? Do you feel unsafe all the time? Can't you rely on public safety to be good enough to let your children alone outside? Were you robbed before? Why not move somewhere else? Why not change something in your life for the better? Living in fear regardless of what your defense means are, or what law allows is oppressive and annoying.
Of course to not get black and white again, healthy living people do get sick for no apparent reason, secure computers do get hacked and locked cars and buildings do get broken into, and robbers do visit other areas which are more safe, so the chance is still there even when you are very responsible with living and live in a good area so no one is completely safe. Although I must stress it's in everyone's personal interest to decrease these chances and these measures do help. Once you become a victim it's too late, one way or another some consequences will arise regardless of outcome from that situation, just being law abiding citizen yourself is not enough in eyes of some perpetrator, they don't give flying fuck about that. Many people live by daily negligence, relying just on thinking it won't happen to them and that creates opportunities that criminals will take immediately, of course not all crime cases are of this origin, but they are common and this is really undeniable. Examples of these things could go endless.
In this sense, I agree with NetWareHead, everybody is responsible for themselves although I am more for preventive measures and he is more for reactive measures.
I did refer to those being in a condition where they are physically not able to shoot because of health reasons.
Really? Really?Or you realize if you would be less pussy and more caring, this would, if nothing else, happen to someone other?