Time to call the police?

[Cormac]

Good for her.

I found the mention of the pentagram thing to be weird. What was the relevance? Maybe she was wearing hoop earrings and had her hair in a pixie cut too? WTF?

The minor detail that irks me, though, is the insistence on referring to her as a "mom." She's a woman and a person. Why refer to her "a mom?" Do we refer to men who are involved in newsworthy events as "dads?"

Agreed.

[pcCoder]

... and in point of legal fact have NO legal obligation to provide protection to anyone, ever, even if they are standing right there watching the carjackers beat the shit out of the lady.

I have a problem with this here. I'm sure one could say that if I am employed by a company and am getting paid by them, I have agreed to perform certain tasks for that money. In exchange for the money, I am obligated to fulfill my tasks. In the same way, I would say that, while it may not be the case legally, one could also make the claim that if police officers are getting paid by taxpayer money, they should be obligated to perform their duties within reason to protect the citizens. Else, we should be able to fire them just as easily as a company can fire a person. Otherwise, what the hell are they getting paid for? Where can I find a job that I can get paid and still not have to perform my duties.

Note, I'm not actually against gun ownership or anything, but having worked at Walmart I can say it seems that the more vocal customers who come through sporting goods talking about guns this and that seem to be the ones I would be worried about the most. I've sold ammunition to a lot of people, and most of the time they don't give of any negative vibes. Usually it's the ones who start ranting about politics or such that seem to give off this vibe that I'd rather not be their neighbor. I've even had one talking about being ready to be part of a civil war if Walmart stopped carrying ammunition. It seems you have your decent responsible gun owners, then you have your "tea party"-like gun folk who like to talk about second amendment remedies if they don't get their way, the wrong person gets elected, they can't push their views on religion/abortion/sex/marriage equality/economics/etc onto others etc.

[Seth]

... and in point of legal fact have NO legal obligation to provide protection to anyone, ever, even if they are standing right there watching the carjackers beat the shit out of the lady.

I have a problem with this here. I'm sure one could say that if I am employed by a company and am getting paid by them, I have agreed to perform certain tasks for that money. In exchange for the money, I am obligated to fulfill my tasks. In the same way, I would say that, while it may not be the case legally, one could also make the claim that if police officers are getting paid by taxpayer money, they should be obligated to perform their duties within reason to protect the citizens. Else, we should be able to fire them just as easily as a company can fire a person. Otherwise, what the hell are they getting paid for? Where can I find a job that I can get paid and still not have to perform my duties.

This isn't about whether or not a cop might be disciplined or fired for refusing to intervene in a deadly situation...after all they do it all the time. A street officer facing a hostage situation will not, and will not be required to rush in to take down the perp, he's actually under orders to wait for the SWAT team and the hostage negotiators. If someone is drowning in a pond, no police officer is expected to, or is legally obliged to jump in the water to save the person...nor are firefighters...as amply demonstrated by the guy in the UK who died in less than 3 feet of water as the fire crews stood around with their thumbs up their asses waiting for a water-rescue crew.

What I'm saying is that if a police officer fails or refuses to act to protect YOU in any particular incident, he cannot be held either criminally or civilly liable for that inaction. The Supreme Court (here in the US anyway) has rules several times that the duty of the police to the public is general in nature, not specific, and that they are under no obligation to protect any particular individual from any particular crime. That's the law.

Note, I'm not actually against gun ownership or anything, but having worked at Walmart I can say it seems that the more vocal customers who come through sporting goods talking about guns this and that seem to be the ones I would be worried about the most. I've sold ammunition to a lot of people, and most of the time they don't give of any negative vibes. Usually it's the ones who start ranting about politics or such that seem to give off this vibe that I'd rather not be their neighbor. I've even had one talking about being ready to be part of a civil war if Walmart stopped carrying ammunition. It seems you have your decent responsible gun owners, then you have your "tea party"-like gun folk who like to talk about second amendment remedies if they don't get their way, the wrong person gets elected, they can't push their views on religion/abortion/sex/marriage equality/economics/etc onto others etc.

If you have reason to believe that the individual before you is unbalanced or intending to use the weapon/ammunition in a crime, you have every right not to sell him anything...according to the law and federal firearms policy. Indeed, if you suspect an individual is going to use a gun in a crime based on what he says or you know, you are legally forbidden to sell him one.

Take it up with your supervisor if you have concerns.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

And a single anecdote proves what, exactly?

That the possession and proper use of a handgun has important utility for self defense of course.

No. The anecdote proves that the possession and proper use of a handgun has important utility for self defense in this specific instance.

To claim that it proves the general case is simply cherry-picking. It no more proves that carrying a gun makes you safer than a similar incident where a woman pulled a gun and was shot dead by the hijacker would prove the opposite.


Making a general claim from an isolated incident is a major logical fallacy.

[Seth]

And a single anecdote proves what, exactly?

That the possession and proper use of a handgun has important utility for self defense of course.

No. The anecdote proves that the possession and proper use of a handgun has important utility for self defense in this specific instance.

Yes, and by logical extension the same applies to other similar events and other persons.

To claim that it proves the general case is simply cherry-picking. It no more proves that carrying a gun makes you safer than a similar incident where a woman pulled a gun and was shot dead by the hijacker would prove the opposite.

I didn't say it proved the general case. But I note that if we apply your logic to fire extinguishers nobody would own one. A single report is just illustrative of the utility of the firearm. Since the issue of individual safety is, well, an individual analysis, we do not need to look at "general case" statistics for anything. It doesn't matter at all if ten other women have the gun taken away from them and are murdered with that gun, all that demonstrates is that those women needed better training, tactics and situational awareness because we KNOW that under the right circumstances a handgun can definitively prevent a criminal victimization.

All that matters is whether or not the INDIVIDUAL involved in such a situation has made the decision of what tools to carry or not carry for self defense without the interference of their government or other members of society. In this case, her ability to possess a handgun vindicates a public policy favoring allowing people to carry such weapons because it factually protected her, and HER right to protect herself vastly outweighs any fears or opinions about the utility of such arms voiced by paranoid hoplophobes. There is in fact no comparison at all. She has an absolute right to effective self defense and nobody has even the smallest right to interfere with her ability to defend herself effectively at need.

Making a general claim from an isolated incident is a major logical fallacy.

[/quote][/quote]

Depends on the nature of the claim.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Yes, and by logical extension the same applies to other similar events and other persons.

I didn't say it proved the general case.

Did you actually post those two stattements one after the other? Yep. You did.

Making a general claim from an isolated incident is a major logical fallacy.

Depends on the nature of the claim.

No. It doesn't. All an isolated incident can do is add to circumstantial evidence. An isolated example can disprove a proposed general case but it can never, by itself, prove a general case.

Your cognitive bias is showing, Seth.

[Tero]

If we banned guns, she would have to carry a baseball bat in her SUV. Very inconvenient. Plus you gotta come out and swing it.

I would have just floored the gas pedal. Even at a gas pump. The pump handle falls off. I tried it once. Even in reverse. Run over their foot if necessary.

[rainbow]

It worked this time...

Risky, though; if the gun wielding guy had been more determined, she could have been shot...

Or she could have been shot just for not moving fast enough, or because the carjackers didn't want to be identified, or she could have been kidnapped, serial raped and murdered.

Lot's of "could haves" there. But one thing we know for sure is that she successfully used a handgun to defend herself, which she could not have done if she had been disarmed by her government.

Agreed.

On the other hand, if the government were to disarm the hijackers, she wouldn't need a gun either.

[Collector1337]

It worked this time...

Risky, though; if the gun wielding guy had been more determined, she could have been shot...

Or she could have been shot just for not moving fast enough, or because the carjackers didn't want to be identified, or she could have been kidnapped, serial raped and murdered.

Lot's of "could haves" there. But one thing we know for sure is that she successfully used a handgun to defend herself, which she could not have done if she had been disarmed by her government.

Agreed.

On the other hand, if the government were to disarm the hijackers, she wouldn't need a gun either.

And how would they do that?

[rainbow]

It worked this time...

Risky, though; if the gun wielding guy had been more determined, she could have been shot...

Or she could have been shot just for not moving fast enough, or because the carjackers didn't want to be identified, or she could have been kidnapped, serial raped and murdered.

Lot's of "could haves" there. But one thing we know for sure is that she successfully used a handgun to defend herself, which she could not have done if she had been disarmed by her government.

Agreed.

On the other hand, if the government were to disarm the hijackers, she wouldn't need a gun either.

And how would they do that?

You make guns illegal, and you prosecute those that disobey the law.
That is how it works in civilised countries.

[JimC]

It worked this time...

Risky, though; if the gun wielding guy had been more determined, she could have been shot...

Or she could have been shot just for not moving fast enough, or because the carjackers didn't want to be identified, or she could have been kidnapped, serial raped and murdered.

Lot's of "could haves" there. But one thing we know for sure is that she successfully used a handgun to defend herself, which she could not have done if she had been disarmed by her government.

Agreed.

On the other hand, if the government were to disarm the hijackers, she wouldn't need a gun either.

Basically, countries with strong gun laws and relatively low levels of hand-gun ownership should maintain their current laws.

However, the US has such widespread gun ownership, and such a vast amount of guns available, that trying to introduce controls would be pointless and counter-productive.

Once you've reached a certain level of gun culture, ordinary citizens may well be better off armed...

Just glad we're not in that situation in Oz...

[pErvinalia]

It worked this time...

Risky, though; if the gun wielding guy had been more determined, she could have been shot...

Or she could have been shot just for not moving fast enough, or because the carjackers didn't want to be identified, or she could have been kidnapped, serial raped and murdered.

Lot's of "could haves" there. But one thing we know for sure is that she successfully used a handgun to defend herself, which she could not have done if she had been disarmed by her government.

And a single anecdote proves what, exactly?

That the possession and proper use of a handgun has important utility for self defense of course.

You seem to be missing the point. I could provide a single anecdote where a person pulling a gun got shot and killed. But a single anecdotal point by itself doesn't an argument make.

[macdoc]

fucking whacked society.....collective gun worshipping idjits the lot.

meanwhile the banks and medical establishment et al rob you fucking blind.......wake up.

[pErvinalia]

... and in point of legal fact have NO legal obligation to provide protection to anyone, ever, even if they are standing right there watching the carjackers beat the shit out of the lady.

I have a problem with this here. I'm sure one could say that if I am employed by a company and am getting paid by them, I have agreed to perform certain tasks for that money. In exchange for the money, I am obligated to fulfill my tasks. In the same way, I would say that, while it may not be the case legally, one could also make the claim that if police officers are getting paid by taxpayer money, they should be obligated to perform their duties within reason to protect the citizens. Else, we should be able to fire them just as easily as a company can fire a person. Otherwise, what the hell are they getting paid for? Where can I find a job that I can get paid and still not have to perform my duties.

This isn't about whether or not a cop might be disciplined or fired for refusing to intervene in a deadly situation...after all they do it all the time. A street officer facing a hostage situation will not, and will not be required to rush in to take down the perp, he's actually under orders to wait for the SWAT team and the hostage negotiators.

Well, that's just stupid, and I'd be very surprised if that is the case. I know a number of regular cops here in Oz and most of them have had to pull their guns on someone at some point. And they are perfectly within their rights to take action to stop a serious crime happening. And it happens all the time. In the UK I imagine this is the case, as the regular coppers don't carry guns. But in the US and Australia where they do, I don't see why it would be any different in the US to here.

[pErvinalia]

And a single anecdote proves what, exactly?

That the possession and proper use of a handgun has important utility for self defense of course.

No. The anecdote proves that the possession and proper use of a handgun has important utility for self defense in this specific instance.

To claim that it proves the general case is simply cherry-picking. It no more proves that carrying a gun makes you safer than a similar incident where a woman pulled a gun and was shot dead by the hijacker would prove the opposite.


Making a general claim from an isolated incident is a major logical fallacy.