From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Saved by the gun
Date: 2 Jan 93 14:17:42 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1i2inoINN1bm@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
#In article <64nrfn-@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
##  ...  Four mexican armed robbers stormed in and hopped the counter.
                      ^^^^^
## They robbed the cash register.  In the instant the punks turned their
#                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
## backs on the owner, he pulled what looked like a 9 mm automatic and 
#  ^^^^^
## killed all 4.  He appeared to know what he was doing, discharging 6
## shots in a little over 3 seconds.  
#
#I have a problem with this, at least as presented here.  If they were leaving,
#I do not personally feel deadly force was needed at the point they turned thier
#backs.  Unless the fact that they were mexican made them fair game.

  Both this and the following case don't seem to me to be so
clear cut.  How confident could the storekeeper be that they were
going to leave and leave in a peaceful manner?  From the 
language given they hadn't left the store, but were right there
and armed.
 
## In other news tonite, the local news reported a woman kidnapped and raped
## after the rapist took her to his house and chained her to the bed.  
## He fell asleep after raping the woman.  She got loose from her chains,
## got his gun and killed him.  Police say there will be no charges filed.
## 
#I guess stress and shock were in play, here, but again, on the surface, she  
#should not have shot and killed him if she apparently had the chance to leave.
#Taking the gun, of course.

  What guarantee was there that he wouldn't wake up and attack her?
Even if she took the gun, does she have to risk using it in a combat
situation?
# ...
#My opinions only, and I DO have sympathy for the victims, but unless their  
#lives were in immediate danger, they have no right to short-circuit  
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#due-process.  No matter how bad a scum the attacker it.  But I do give benefit 
#of the doubt to the victim, stress and force are awful things.

  In most states "immediate danger" is the criterion, but I'm not
sure that it has to be as *immediate* as you are implying.  If the
perp isn't pointing the gun directly at you, would that be considered
"not immediate"?  I agree that these two cases are "hard cases" because
they appear to be near the borderline, and we also don't have all of
the details - but I would go further than you do and accept that being
in the same room with an assailant that is reasonably thought to
have a high probability of causing severe damage/death is being in
"immediate danger".  

  In both cases the perps had already carried out serious felony
acts, and a reasonable person would feel severe danger.  What
should the storekeeper have done?  1) Stayed there quietly hoping
that they would leave in a peaceful manner?  What if they turned
around and shot him - wouldn't he have felt stupid?  2) Drawn his
gun and not shot?  If they had turned around what would his
situation have been - facing four armed robbers who would 
likely open fire immediately - wouldn't he have felt stupid?
3) What other good choices did he have besides what he did?

  What should the woman have done?  Do we know how easy it
would have been for her to get out of the house - might she 
have had to put down the gun to unlock some of the doors? -
could she have done it sufficiently silently to avoid waking
the kidnapper/rapist? - could she have left the house easily,
or would she have been in a rural-area-needing-to-walk-miles?

--henry schaffer