# Preparedness for a home invasion



## Bullgrit (Jul 6, 2015)

The subject of home invasion came up in another thread...

If someone were to break into your home while you were inside, how prepared are you and is your home for defense? Are you capable, (physically and mentally) to fight? Do you have weapons available, (dedicated or improvised)? Would you retreat to a safe room? Would you escape the whole house? Would you surrender if ordered by an intruder? Would you attack? How do you think you'd fair in an attack?

For this discussion, seconds matter, and police are minutes away.

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Jul 6, 2015)

Not at all prepared.  That said, I'm reasonably fit, and have a dog, so I'm not the ideal target. There would be no firearms involved on either side; and burglars avoid places with dogs as they're better than burglar alarms.  There's no way anybody could achieve anything in the few minutes it takes the police to show up.

Hmmm.  So I've changed my mind.  Very prepared.  I have a dog!  It's honestly not even something that *ever* crosses my mind.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 6, 2015)

I don't know that anyone who didn't carry a weapon on their person 24/7/365 could ever be prepared for a home invasion. I own firearms that are safely locked away, as is required by Canadian law. I have a miscellany of knives, bayonets, swords, bows, and a 2 metre spear. Given 10 minutes I could be chain armoured and armed with a "boom stick", doing a fair impersonation of Bruce Campbell in "Army of Darkness." Doesn't matter. Your door is broken down and you're hammered to the ground in seconds, so all the preparation in the world isn't likely to do you a whit of good.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 6, 2015)

> It's honestly not even something that *ever* crosses my mind.



I've considered defense/attack strategies for pretty much any place I've entered more than once, (home, office, mall, restaurant, etc.). I've planned tactics against home intruders, terrorist attacks, and a zombie apocalypse. I always assumed my thinking on this stuff was because I was a gamer, but apparently it's not a common "game" for all gamers.

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Jul 6, 2015)

Bullgrit said:


> I've considered defense/attack strategies for pretty much any place I've entered more than once, (home, office, mall, restaurant, etc.)




Wow!  That's a mindset beyond my ability to even imagine!


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 6, 2015)

Bullgrit said:


> I've considered defense/attack strategies for pretty much any place I've entered more than once, (home, office, mall, restaurant, etc.). I've planned tactics against home intruders, terrorist attacks, and a zombie apocalypse. I always assumed my thinking on this stuff was because I was a gamer, but apparently it's not a common "game" for all gamers.
> 
> Bullgrit




I scan for escape routes whilst imagining myself a high stealth secret agent/ninja who might need to make my way out of a building with brutal efficiency, which no doubt stems from a gamer imagination 

The ninja fantasy also extends to using various household items as weapons - including dead fish. I don't think I've got the mental prep or physical prowess to actually do it, but then I'm fairly big so a blunt thump'll still help


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 6, 2015)

It doesn't enter my mind. From conversations with USians on the matter, I checked stats. Basically, break-ins happen people are gone. The targets are usually elderly people and the invasion is committed by someone they know. In 2012 there were 5,500 breaks-in Canada. In 2014 there were 28 homicides in Montréal. 

I am not worried not worried at all. If it happens, well, such is life.


----------



## Joker (Jul 6, 2015)

I'm with Morrus on this one.  Even when I lived in Minnesota, it was never on my mind.  In fact, our doors were always unlocked.

Here in the Netherlands, it just doesn't happen often enough to warrant my time worrying about it.  I couldn't find the statistics on home invasions specifically.  The Central Bureau of Statistics lump theft and burglary using force in one category.  So that's robberies and muggings along with home invasions.  
From what I understand, people that enter your house with the intent to inflict injury are known to you, most of the time.  It seems a rare thing that someone would randomly go to a stranger's house to hurt someone inside.  I understand things like that have happened and I don't want to diminish the trauma those victims have suffered.  But to put it crassly, it's too rare for me to give two diddlies about.

I guess I feel a sense of security, being a rugby player and having practiced martial arts for the better part of my life.  I never get bothered on the streets, even in the "rougher" neighborhoods where I used to live.  It may be a false sense of security because I know how easy it is to bring me down.  But it lets me sleep well.

So, zero preparedness on my part.


----------



## Janx (Jul 6, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Wow!  That's a mindset beyond my ability to even imagine!




I'm probably midway between Morrus and Bullgrit.

I don't plan out every place I go into, but I do at times consider the places I am at and whether I am in the best defensible status.


Generally speaking, burglars want empty homes, not occupied ones.  So generally speaking, nobody's getting a home invasion by burglars.

The guys who will hit my home, will do so because they think I have money, access or information.  No doubt they followed me home from the bank or know what I do for a living and what I have access to.

As we've been preparing to adopt, all my toys are put away, so it'll be a lot harder to just grab a pointy thing...

Dogs are useful as a deterrent, but they can be thwarted by familiarity, food or fear. A home invader knows you have a dog.  They're prepared to bash its head in, which will also intimidate you.

My alarm and camera system act as a better tier of deterrent.  A bad guy will hit a house with no dog before he hits one with a dog.  He'll go hit a house with a dog before he'll hit one with an alarm and camera system.

When the bad stuff goes down, it gets complicated.  I'm an out of shape martial artist.  I can fight to an extent.  Certainly better than somebody untrained, and likely a lot more dangerous.  It is easier for me to kill you than it is to try to disable you with a fancier, riskier move.

A good chunk of home invasions are ruses at the front door.  Somebody knocks, you answer, they force their way in through you.  In which case, I have proximity, which is useful for hand to hand.  If they have a gun, that'll be tricky, depending on if they stick it through the door or shoot through the door.  If they shoot through, I can fall back, hopefully getting missed, and maybe continue to jam up the door way.  If I have my gun, I can shoot back from the prone position.  If they try to shove their arm with the gun through the door, I can step offline from the barrel and use a number of wrist grabs/gun disarms on them.

A good chunk of it is winging it, based on where you are, what's between you and them, and what else is going on (who else is home, etc).  If I forestall entry long enough, my wife can call the cops.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 6, 2015)

I can throw books...lots of books...also have a couple of swords...hand crossbow...I may be screwed but do think I could perform delaying actions until the police show up.  

Gee, I hope they respond, as my location is on the line between two counties and two towns, sometimes jurisdiction comes to play.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 6, 2015)

> Wow! That's a mindset beyond my ability to even imagine!



Mindset? It's called imagination.  And my imagination has been sharpened by decades of role playing gaming. Heck, I used to imagine how to defend my high school against an orc army. 

Bullgrit


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 6, 2015)

I would definitely attack, and that would not be a nice situation for anyone involved.  I'm not as fit as I should be, but I am ferocious.  I don't fight like people in some kind of fistfight; if someone is fighting with me I assume they mean to kill me, and everything I do is intended to do as much permanent harm as possible.  I go for eyes, the throat, and the genitals.  I bite and scratch and spit.  I will try to chew someone's throat/jugular out like a dog.  And, I won't stop until the person is physically incapable of getting up again.

Also, firearms.  So if I can get to one of those I will use it.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 6, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> I would definitely attack, and that would not be a nice situation for anyone involved.  I'm not as fit as I should be, but I am ferocious.  I don't fight like people in some kind of fistfight; if someone is fighting with me I assume they mean to kill me, and everything I do is intended to do as much permanent harm as possible.  I go for eyes, the throat, and the genitals.  I bite and scratch and spit.  I will try to chew someone's throat/jugular out like a dog.  And, I won't stop until the person is physically incapable of getting up again.
> 
> Also, firearms.  So if I can get to one of those I will use it.




have you done this or is it hypothetical at this point? especially the chewing the jugular thing


----------



## Morrus (Jul 6, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> I would definitely attack, and that would not be a nice situation for anyone involved.  I'm not as fit as I should be, but I am ferocious.  I don't fight like people in some kind of fistfight; if someone is fighting with me I assume they mean to kill me, and everything I do is intended to do as much permanent harm as possible.  I go for eyes, the throat, and the genitals.  I bite and scratch and spit.  I will try to chew someone's throat/jugular out like a dog.  And, I won't stop until the person is physically incapable of getting up again.




You appear to be speaking in the present tense. Is this a frequent occurrence for you? How many people have you killed? What do chewed out throats taste like?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 6, 2015)

It isn't something I consider too much.  I never thought about it at all until my wife moved in with me.  It just doesn't happen often enough to be a major concern.

Exactly how I'd respond is entirely situation dependent.  Am I upstairs or downstairs when this happens?  Is my wife home?  Do they have guns?  And so on.  There are too many variables for a general answer.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Jul 6, 2015)

I consider it much more likely to be hit by a car when crossing the street. This I prepare for by being observant.

But intruders in our home? Completely unprepared for. We don't own any weapon (save some good cooking knives). None of us has ever received any martial training.

But what I don't know is how my wife or me would react to such an extreme situation. I think I'd try to defuse it first. But what if the intruder threatens our children? I really don't know.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 6, 2015)

Jan van Leyden said:


> I really don't know.




Nobody knows until it happens.  And I expect that most of the time, people don't react the way they think (or hope) they would.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2015)

I have dogs and weapons in the bedrooms (no firearms).  I'm more likely to retreat/run away from the house than confront, if given the option.


----------



## Janx (Jul 6, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I have dogs and weapons in the bedrooms (no firearms).  I'm more likely to retreat/run away from the house than confront, if given the option.




retreating is highly dependent on available exits.  

My back door is in the same room as my front door, and it leads to my fenced backyard which has locked gates (because they were unlocked when the burglars broke in so security trumped convenience).

ultimately, this is why a home invasion is so bad.  You are at your most vulnerable.  Houses are not defensible positions to fend off an attack.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 6, 2015)

Janx said:


> I'm probably midway between Morrus and Bullgrit.
> 
> I don't plan out every place I go into, but I do at times consider the places I am at and whether I am in the best defensible status.




Well there's paranoia, and then there's situational awareness. If you're in the bad part of town at 3:00am, then having your wits about you is only prudent.

I work at a university in downtown Toronto. Not far away, off campus, is a somewhat rough area and, occasionally, the inmates break containment. I generally get to work some time before 6:00am and one morning while walking from my car I noticed that two rough looking types, one on foot and another on a bike, clocked in behind me and started following me. As my first stop was just down an alley to our campus security building I wasn't too worried. the one on the bike kept riding slowly behind me, up the alley, about a hundred feet back. The other one cut around the church next to our security offices. He was clearly going to cut me off and I'd have been stuck between them, if I'd gone right. 

I went left and walked into security. Security didn't seem to believe me when I said that I was being followed (the lot of them have since gotten a talking to, as I frequently do work for their bosses). The two were also waiting for me when I left security. I made sure to make a stop where three of our overnight cleaners were chatting and the guys following me thought better of keeping it up, as by now they had to realize I knew what was up. They tried to sell us their stolen bike and then buggered off.

The moral: There's no need to be paranoid, but occasionally someone really is out to get you. Keep your wits.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 6, 2015)

Bullgrit said:


> The subject of home invasion came up in another thread...
> 
> If someone were to break into your home while you were inside, how prepared are you and is your home for defense? Are you capable, (physically and mentally) to fight? Do you have weapons available, (dedicated or improvised)? Would you retreat to a safe room? Would you escape the whole house? Would you surrender if ordered by an intruder? Would you attack? How do you think you'd fair in an attack?
> 
> ...



I think I'm well prepared. I recently got a H&K .40, which I keep next to my bed. I have no kids, so there is no reason to keep the gun locked away. Besides, I'm sure there is some Florida law that makes it a crime to put a lock on a gun. I go to the range fairly often to keep my skills up. I have a few police friends, one of which happens to be a weapons trainer in the marines. He is also pretty much nuts, and likes to run through some crazy scenarios, so I've learned to shoot in a variety of situations with better than average accuracy. 

I used to train in martial arts more often, but I haven't had the time to. I do get to train with some of the police friends I have. A few of them train in martial arts, and I get the benefit of that training, so I'm more than competent in defending myself even without a gun.

Best of all, I have Florida's SYG law to defend myself. If someone manages to break in, it'll end up badly for them. 

But even before any of that is necessary, I have a pretty heavy door that isn't going to be broken down easily. It has three locks and a chain deadbolt. My GF likes to make sure the door is secure even though we live in a pretty nice and affluent area where crime isn't an issue.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jul 7, 2015)

Unless they have a fire-arm and keep their distance, I'm set. If they give me time to get to the bedroom, they're dead. (That's where my swords are).

By the by: alarm systems are useless. The police do not respond to them. There are so many false alarms, and the police are way too busy with real emergencies. If you're thinking of investing in an alarm system: don't. It isn't worth it. Not even for "peace of mind" or as a deterrent.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 7, 2015)

sabrinathecat said:


> Unless they have a fire-arm and keep their distance, I'm set. If they give me time to get to the bedroom, they're dead. (That's where my swords are).




What if they have swords too, and they're better or luckier than you are, or there are more of them?


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jul 7, 2015)

Morrus said:


> What if they have swords too, and they're better or luckier than you are, or there are more of them?




Proper use of a sword requires years of training. If someone is breaking into my home, chances are very good that they aren't well trained. Numbers can be countered by simply working through a door frame where they can only work one at a time. And that's where being old and slimy wins over youth and energy.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 7, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> have you done this or is it hypothetical at this point? especially the chewing the jugular thing






Morrus said:


> You appear to be speaking in the present tense. Is this a frequent occurrence for you? How many people have you killed? What do chewed out throats taste like?




No, it's not a frequent occurrence.  However, I have had a gun pulled on me before.  I don't react well to people pulling weapons on me.  Anger has proven to be my go-to response for that, for some reason.

When I was younger, I made a friend who invited me back to his place to play D&D.  Apparently his younger brother didn't like me, or just wanted to show how big of a man he was, and he came up the stairs with a shotgun.  After shoving him down the stairs I went straight to the kitchen and grabbed the two largest knives from the knife block.  I would have went down after him if my friend hadn't stopped me.

Part of the problem of attacking me is that people can't see just from looking at me that I don't place any kind of premium on my life, and I often go through bouts where I really don't care if I die.  Once my familial obligations to my parents are fulfilled, I really have no more reason to be here.  Despite my general disregard for my life, if someone does attack me I see it as an obligation to society to make sure that person cannot ever hurt anyone else again; if I can get out of the situation alive as well (preferably without racking up any kind of hospital bills in the process) then that's okay too.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 7, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Best of all, I have Florida's SYG law to defend myself. If someone manages to break in, it'll end up badly for them.




With SYG. if they're brown and wearing a hoodie, you can probably start firing once they set foot on your lawn.

Edit: Not that you would react that way.  But with the law and the way juries are, you'd probably get away with it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 7, 2015)

Street gangs started shooting at each other in Florida and they got off thanks to the stand your ground law. It was changed since then, I was told.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2015)

Ideally, a street gang should be able to use a properly drafted SYG law as a defense, if the circumstances support it.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 7, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> With SYG. if they're brown and wearing a hoodie, you can probably start firing once they set foot on your lawn.
> 
> Edit: Not that you would react that way.  But with the law and the way juries are, you'd probably get away with it.



Pffft... I'm white. In Florida I could start shooting when I think someone is just thinking about doing something that may endanger my life. There wouldn't even be a jury. 

It's Florida. We have crazy congressmen paid off by the gun lobbyist and the NRA (I know, same thing). Seriously, I could probably get in trouble if I didn't start to just randomly shoot people ever couple of weeks.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 7, 2015)

sabrinathecat said:


> Proper use of a sword requires years of training. If someone is breaking into my home, chances are very good that they aren't well trained. Numbers can be countered by simply working through a door frame where they can only work one at a time. And that's where being old and slimy wins over youth and energy.




Yes, but what if they have swords but are better or luckier than you?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I think I'm well prepared. I recently got a H&K .40, which I keep next to my bed.



Rock & roll!


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 7, 2015)

Nope, not even close.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2015)

Then it were a firearm made by fun-hating Germans.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jul 7, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Yes, but what if they have swords but are better or luckier than you?




Asked and answered. Next question.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2015)

Hey!  That's MY line!


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jul 7, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Hey!  That's MY line!




Sorry for stealing your thunder. Good thing I haven't studied law outside of Boston Legal, Perry Mason, and Law&Order.


----------



## Janx (Jul 7, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Ideally, a street gang should be able to use a properly drafted SYG law as a defense, if the circumstances support it.




Not in Texas.  If gangs are illegal, or if the gangsters were doing something illegal, they lose the right to self defense.  Carrying guns without a permit outside of their residence or vehicle for instance.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 7, 2015)

Janx said:


> Not in Texas.  If gangs are illegal, or if the gangsters were doing something illegal, they lose the right to self defense.




Tell that to Zimmerman, who, by Danny's analysis upthread, should not have been able to use a Stand Your Ground Defense, but successfully did so anyway.  The law does not operate without flaw.

Don't confuse, "Can use the defense in theory" and "Can use the defense in practice".  In theory, as a member of a game engaged in something sketchy, they shouldn't get to use such a defense.  But in reality, the truth of guilt of other things would themselves need to be proven in court.  If they aren't proven, then the defense could well function.


----------



## Janx (Jul 7, 2015)

Except zimmerman wasn't breaking the law. He had a right to be in his car. He had a right to exit his car. He had a right to walk through the neighborhood in the same direction as somebody else. He had a right to talk to somebody he met.

It all turned out to be a bad idea, but he wasnt breaking a law. Gangsters having guns were, whichh is why they dont have a right to self defense in Texas.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 7, 2015)

sabrinathecat said:


> Asked and answered. Next question.




No, you just denied that they could possibly be better than you.  And while I appreciate that you may be the world's foremost super-ninja, there's always somebody better.

But never mind. Carry on. Conversation became weird.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 7, 2015)

Janx said:


> Except zimmerman wasn't breaking the law. He had a right to be in his car. He had a right to exit his car. He had a right to walk through the neighborhood in the same direction as somebody else. He had a right to talk to somebody he met.
> 
> It all turned out to be a bad idea, but he wasnt breaking a law. Gangsters having guns were, whichh is why they dont have a right to self defense in Texas.




Sure, as long as the only witness you have to question is the guy who survived. The problem with things like "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" is that you can seemingly initiate the incident, subsequently 'fear for your life', and then end that of another with near impunity.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 7, 2015)

Janx said:


> Except zimmerman wasn't breaking the law.




Correction - he _wasn't found guilty_ of breaking the law.  We have limited information on what actually happened, and one interpretation of the data is that Zimmerman threatened or initiated aggression - effectively committing assault, and thus taking him out of "stand your ground" territory.

Be careful of apples and oranges:  You are comparing your third-person-omniscient knowledge of what is happening with the hypothetical gang member with the real case of Zimmerman, for which we do not have that omniscient viewpoint.

So, step back your view on that gang member.  Reduce the information you have about him, and the case, to make it equivalent.  "Gang member" is going to be difficult to actually prove in court, unless you get one of his fellow gang members to rat on him, so that's really not an issue.  Say the weapon itself gets excluded from evidence, on procedural grounds.  Or, perhaps more typical for the expected issue, the gang member doesn't have any prior convictions, and, knowing he's in a SYG state, figures he can go ahead and use a gun he legally owns!  He is carrying the weapon legally!  He can't use it in any robbery, but in any drug-deal gone bad, or in any confrontation with another gang, he may be able to claim SYG if he legally owns a weapon.

"I'm sorry, Your Honor, but I was minding my own business, when this guy came up and started tellin' me to get the heck off 'his turf'.  I was just goin' to the corner store for some smokes, Y'r Honor.  It looked like he was goin' for a knife, so I shot him."


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 7, 2015)

For all we know, Trayvor Martin was standing his grown cause he feared for _his_ life. He just can't tell his side of the story.


----------



## Janx (Jul 7, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Correction - he _wasn't found guilty_ of breaking the law.  We have limited information on what actually happened, and one interpretation of the data is that Zimmerman threatened or initiated aggression - effectively committing assault, and thus taking him out of "stand your ground" territory.
> 
> Be careful of apples and oranges:  You are comparing your third-person-omniscient knowledge of what is happening with the hypothetical gang member with the real case of Zimmerman, for which we do not have that omniscient viewpoint.
> 
> ...




Taking the variables presented as gang members in a shootout, I haven't done that.

In any event, gang members very likely have priors. It is part of their initiation to join a gang as I've heard recently.  So it's easier to prove (or at least accept for the purposes of the conversation as originally presented).

Furthermore, in Texas, that guy better have a CHL if he's goin to the corner store for some smokes.  he can't have the weapon on him outside of his car or home.  That's how they nail crooks for using a weapon to defend themselves.  If the weapon was excluded, then he had no weapon in the eyes of the court and thus wasn't a SYG case.  For it to be a SYG case, the weapon and its legality is part of the case.

Keep in mind, I have been referring to Texas self defense law (and stating that).  Florida is its own jacked up gun laws problem.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 7, 2015)

Janx said:


> Taking the variables presented as gang members in a shootout, I haven't done that.
> 
> In any event, gang members very likely have priors. It is part of their initiation to join a gang as I've heard recently.  So it's easier to prove (or at least accept for the purposes of the conversation as originally presented).
> 
> ...




And therein lies one of the biggest problems; a country that doesn't have a national strategy with respect to firearms. Legally buy a firearm in another State and then own it illegally in another? Sure.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 7, 2015)

Janx said:


> In any event, gang members very likely have priors. It is part of their initiation to join a gang as I've heard recently.




All gangs are alike, now?

There was an issue in Texas recently with some Hell's Angels.  While criminal records are common enough among them, my understanding is that the majority of the club does *not* have a criminal record.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 7, 2015)

Umbran said:


> All gangs are alike, now?
> 
> There was an issue in Texas recently with some Hell's Angels.  While criminal records are common enough among them, my understanding is that the majority of the club does *not* have a criminal record.




Well operating a criminal organization in which all the members are "known to police" would seem counter productive to both continued operation and profitability. As you imply, no, they aren't all alike. There are several reasons why, for example, street-level drug operations tend to employ children.


----------



## Joker (Jul 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> For all we know, Trayvor Martin was standing his grown cause he feared for _his_ life. He just can't tell his side of the story.




Why has no-one hired a medium to speak with him so he can give his testimony?

Am I the only one using my brain here?


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 7, 2015)

Joker said:


> Why has no-one hired a medium to speak with him so he can give his testimony?
> 
> Am I the only one using my brain here?




You have a situation in which only two people are directly involved. Physical evidence is inconclusive. It's not that Zimmerman proved his innocence, but rather that The State could not prove his guilt.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jul 7, 2015)

ninja: another mis-used word.
I explained tactics of using a door frame to reduce numbers.
I tried to imply that anyone who had the time and training to learn to use a sword would not be involved in home invasion: they'd either have too much money to be interested, or they'd have people to do that for them.

Yes, there is always the random factor. Sure, they might get lucky. They still either wouldn't get out of the house alive, or wouldn't live very long after leaving. Not unless they had near military grade body armor.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2015)

Janx said:


> Not in Texas.  If gangs are illegal, or if the gangsters were doing something illegal, they lose the right to self defense.  Carrying guns without a permit outside of their residence or vehicle for instance.




Laws are written to be victim neutral.  Even the worst person has the right to self-defense if the situation warrants.  Mere illegality of certain non-provocative acts does not nullify that right- you might get convicted of illegal carrying or ownership, but if you- or a person you came to the rescue of- were attacked unprovoked, you can still use self-defense.

If, OTOH, the gang was committing a violent crime- even something as simple as brandishing- when attacked, self-defense won't be allowed as a defense.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 7, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Laws are written to be victim neutral.  Even the worst person has the right to self-defense if the situation warrants.  Mere illegality of certain non-provocative acts does not nullify that right- you might get convicted of illegal carrying or ownership, but if you- or a person you came to the rescue of- were attacked unprovoked, you can still use self-defense.
> 
> If, OTOH, the gang was committing a violent crime- even something as simple as brandishing- when attacked, self-defense won't be allowed as a defense.




Bernhard Goetz immediately comes to mind.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 7, 2015)

sabrinathecat said:


> ninja: another mis-used word.
> I explained tactics of using a door frame to reduce numbers.
> I tried to imply that anyone who had the time and training to learn to use a sword would not be involved in home invasion: they'd either have too much money to be interested, or they'd have people to do that for them.
> 
> Yes, there is always the random factor. Sure, they might get lucky. They still either wouldn't get out of the house alive, or wouldn't live very long after leaving. Not unless they had near military grade body armor.




No longer engaging.  Sorry.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jul 7, 2015)

Self-defense and coming to the aid of another are fine, but there is a limit to the level of reaction. You are not allowed to use more force than necessary. You do not, for example, get to use a gun because someone raised a fist to you. Furthermore, once you have diffused the situation, you are not allowed to escalate or continue it. In other words, once the fight is over, it's over. You can't chase the person down and finish them off.
The expectation of control and restraint is much higher for boxers, martial artists and anyone with military training. Just not for police, apparently.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jul 7, 2015)

sabrinathecat said:


> ... You are not allowed to use more force than necessary. You do not, for example, get to use a gun because someone raised a fist to you. ...




But apparently you can.  It seems the standard is whether you "reasonably" think that your life is in danger.

This was a fascinating read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/ to get a perspective on the circumstances of police shootings.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2015)

> It seems the standard is whether you "reasonably" think that your life is in danger.




...or severe bodily injury.  That means looking at the totality of the situation: time, place, words said, number & character of people involved, who raised a fist to whom.

One of my professors talked about one of his old cases- a bench trial regarding an athlete got shot by a guy during a dispute in a parking lot.  The athlete was over 6'5", the shooter was a foot shorter.  The athlete described cocking his fist to swing...and the judge's hammer came down, " Self-defense!"


----------



## Umbran (Jul 7, 2015)

sabrinathecat said:


> Self-defense and coming to the aid of another are fine, but there is a limit to the level of reaction.




And part of the point of "stand your ground" laws is to *change* that limit, to allow you to use deadly force in cases where previous self-defense laws would not allow it.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 7, 2015)

Janx said:


> Keep in mind, I have been referring to Texas self defense law (and stating that).  Florida is its own jacked up gun laws problem.



Florida is the honey badger of the U.S. It doesn't care. Gang members shooting up the place? Immunity. Drug deal went bad and you shot and killed a guy after chasing him and shooting at him? Stand your ground. Arthritis? More like Areyoustandingyourgroundtis.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jul 7, 2015)

Charging at someone who has just drawn a gun seems just plain stupid.  Unless you think they are going to shoot you anyways and that is your only option.

Edit: That was from the third example.

From the first:



> In his order, Judge Terry Lewis was critical of the stand your ground law, however. "The law would appear to allow a person to seek out an individual, provoke him into a confrontation, then shoot and kill him if he goes for his gun. Contrary to the State's assertion, it is very much like the Wild West."




Thx!

TomB


----------



## Janx (Jul 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> For all we know, Trayvor Martin was standing his grown cause he feared for _his_ life. He just can't tell his side of the story.




I assume both parties would make that claim.  And potentially both parties may be correct.

Zimmerman was scared of Trayvon, Trayvon was scared of Zimmerman.  Both entered the situation on legal ground.  Then things got squishy.  And at some point, Trayvon appears to have been on top of a prone Zimmerman, hitting him.  And later, Zimmerman shoots Trayvon.  I don't think it was a proud day for either one.

Ultimately, the guy with the gun won the fight.  

The guy with the gun, who was also on the phone the cops won the legal challenge.  In Texas, he may have been flagged as the instigator as he got out of his vehicle, instead of actually Standing His Ground in his car.  It seemed implied that he started the verbal contact with Trayvon, which might further constitute escalating the conflict.  For a CHL holder, these were all red flags for increased legal risk in a self defense situation.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 7, 2015)

Joker said:


> Why has no-one hired a medium to speak with him so he can give his testimony?
> 
> Am I the only one using my brain here?




Someone sawRashomon. Or should.

[video=youtube;3YLil2iBIcc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YLil2iBIcc[/video]


----------



## Janx (Jul 7, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...or severe bodily injury.  That means looking at the totality of the situation: time, place, words said, number & character of people involved, who raised a fist to whom.
> 
> One of my professors talked about one of his old cases- a bench trial regarding an athlete got shot by a guy during a dispute in a parking lot.  The athlete was over 6'5", the shooter was a foot shorter.  The athlete described cocking his fist to swing...and the judge's hammer came down, " Self-defense!"




Yup.  Sounds about right.

Any cries of "he didn't have a weapon" or "you could have shot him in the knee" are pretty much bullcrap and irrelevant.

A dude can be killed in a single punch to the head.  It's happened.

Shooting at someone's knee is a much harder shot, and in a crisis (like when you claim you were in when you drew), your best chance is center of mass.

Assuming the conditions for legal shooting are met, expect a dead person and be grateful for anything less.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

What I find important though is making sure those legal conditions are truly met.  Folks with a gun have a much higher standard they should hold to in order to pretty much stay out of trouble and make sure they are absolutely in the right in a situation.

Nowadays, cops advise that Neighborhood Watches do Patrols.  They recommend NOT carrying any weapon if you do any kind of patrol/dog walk watch.  Take a pic slyly and keep on walking.  Somebody carrying a weapon starts thinking, "maybe I can stop this" and before you know it, ego and escalation occurs and bam, trayvon is dead.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 7, 2015)

Janx said:


> I assume both parties would make that claim.  And potentially both parties may be correct.
> 
> Zimmerman was scared of Trayvon, Trayvon was scared of Zimmerman.  Both entered the situation on legal ground.  Then things got squishy.  And at some point, Trayvon appears to have been on top of a prone Zimmerman, hitting him.  And later, Zimmerman shoots Trayvon.  I don't think it was a proud day for either one.
> 
> ...



That's interesting. Wasn't Texas where the old white guy shot two people who were burglarizing his neighbor's home after he called 911 and the dispatcher told him to stay inside?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2015)

Janx said:


> Shooting at someone's knee is a much harder shot, and in a crisis (like when you claim you were in when you drew), your best chance is center of mass.



A Secret Service agent told my HS pretty much the same thing on career day, in the context of a Senator criticizing his agency for excessive use of force, saying something along he lines of,  "We can't carry a golf bag of weapons and match the perps' weapon's caliber to make sure we don't use too much force.  And when we shoot, we shoot to kill- shooting to maim is Hollywood stuff."



> Nowadays, cops advise that Neighborhood Watches do Patrols.  They recommend NOT carrying any weapon if you do any kind of patrol/dog walk watch.  Take a pic slyly and keep on walking.  Somebody carrying a weapon starts thinking, "maybe I can stop this" and before you know it, ego and escalation occurs and bam, trayvon is dead.




Guns also seem to support the seductive call of our inner cowboy, and that is dangerous.  Not only are you less likely to be trained in threat assessment and IDing friends & foes, it makes it harder for first responders to make those same assessments.

It also muddies the subsequent investigation when there are multiple shooters...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2015)

Janx said:


> Except zimmerman wasn't breaking the law. He had a right to be in his car. He had a right to exit his car. He had a right to walk through the neighborhood in the same direction as somebody else. He had a right to talk to somebody he met.




Not quite.  Rights at never absolute, and carry with them corresponding duties...and consequences when those limits are not respected.

Zim had a right to be in the car or exit it.  However, that right was somewhat curtailed by a legitimate & lawful request from a law-enforcement representative to not follow TM. 

They asked him not to follow or engage, but he did anyway.  That right there- had cops been present at that moment- could have gotten him arrested for failure to obey a lawful command and interference with the duties of an officer of the law.  But no witnesses, no charges.

So it isn't entirely true to say Zim wasn't breaking the law.  It is more accurate to say that he didn't get charged with the small stuff because there wouldn't be sufficient evidence to convict.


----------



## Janx (Jul 7, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That's interesting. Wasn't Texas where the old white guy shot two people who were burglarizing his neighbor's home after he called 911 and the dispatcher told him to stay inside?




yup. the Joe Horn case.

From CHL class, there's basically degrees of separation from you to why you pull your gun out.  Each degree raises your legal risk (as in you will have a harder time avoiding jail if your defense fails):
I might get the order a little wrong, it's been a year...

1 defense of your self from harm.
2 defense of your immediate property from theft/damage (aka wallet)
3 defense of your family from harm (wife, kids)
4 defense of your home/property from theft/damage (ex car, TV, etc)
5 defense of another person from harm (neighbor, that lady screaming for help over there)
6 defense of another person's property from theft/damage

Joe Horn was at 6, trying to stop 2 dudes from taking some stuff out of his neighbor's window.

Technically legit, but as it required advancing toward trouble (because Joe was at his house, they were over there), his lawyers had to work extra hard to frame it correctly.

The point of those degrees of separation, and advancing towards trouble is that in any self defense case, there are two sides.  Yours, and the other guy who wants you to pay for what you done.

The other side is going to make you look like a vengeance crazed racist, even if you were totally justified.  Quannel X showed up for this case and argued just that in the court of public opinion.

I heard that Joe Horn was cleared, but it cost him a lot of money, losing him his home (I think Danny said so in some other thread).

On the Zimmerman vs. Trayvon case, it's not always clear how I stand.

Zimmerman should have stayed in the car. Not because dispatch told him to, but because he was armed and it was a really bad idea to confront a suspect, and the cops were on the way, and nobody was in active danger.  He was off the radar of those 6 degrees I listed.  Thus, his legal risk was much higher.

But legally, he had a right to be there in that neighborhood.  He had a right to talk to anybody he wanted.  So he didn't break any law up to that point.

It's likely he initiated contact.  Nobody knows what he said or how he handled it.

It's not implausible that Trayvon's response didn't make things better. Trayvon said some racist stuff on the phone, allegedly.  Black vs. hispanic is a problem in schools. Where Zimmerman was accused of being racist, is that really likely in an adult of MIXED race compared to a black teen in high school?  If Trayvon had been an Urkel with clean record, I'd buy that he was squeaky clean in that fight.  A football player, with some issues at school, likely added some fuel to that situation.  This is likely how Zimmerman's lawyers presented it, and it is not implausible.

Result is, mystery verbal contact, Trayvon getting some good hits in, gun shot. Tragedy.

I don't think either one made good choices that night.
Making bad choices can get you killed.  The other guy could have a gun, so if you fight him, he could shoot you.  Turns out this was true.
Zimmerman was the adult (with a gun), he had a greater duty to exercise caution because of that

Ultimately, like all self defense cases, it came down to a jury.  Do I trust in the judicial system or not?  If not, then like an election where my guy loses, I have to accept that I don't get my way every time.

At this point, one of the sad things I see from that case, is Zimmerman keeps getting into trouble.  I think many folks see this as confirmation that he was a bad guy the whole time. But I think another possibility is that he's got some kind of PTSD/survivor's guilt thing going on.  Meaning that the whole deal could have gone down like zimmerman said, and he's become unstable from it, causing him to act badly now.

There are many ways this stuff isn't always what it looks like.


----------



## Janx (Jul 7, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not quite.  Rights at never absolute, and carry with them corresponding duties...and consequences when those limits are not respected.
> 
> Zim had a right to be in the car or exit it.  However, that right was somewhat curtailed by a legitimate & lawful request from a law-enforcement representative to not follow TM.
> 
> ...




Part of that was the directive was from a 911 dispatcher.  They did not have 'lawful authority" to issue him an order, and thus "stay in the car" wasn't binding.

A loophole, though really it was Zimmerman's chance for simple advice and best practice to be heard and listened to.

he failed his wisdom check.  In hindsight, should have stayed in the car.

I'm thinking that Zimmerman's defense painted everything up to the confrontation as "not a good idea, but not illegal or bad"

They then must have framed the first contact as going south quickly and aggressively by Trayvon.  Given that evidence was that Trayvon was on top in MMA style beating Zimmerman up, that's quite possible.

Since all we'd get from either side was he said/she said stuff, they likely relied on the witness who saw Trayvon on top and the physical injuries (I don't know what trayvon got, besides shot, but zimmerman took some hits).

Sadly, both could have said, "hey, let's call the cops and they'll settle who's supposed to be here and who's not supposed to be stopping me" and been done with it.

When that whole case come up, there were far worse atrocities under the SYG law in Florida that started getting new press.  One where a kid in an alley gets pulled up on by a security team and shot.  No weapons, no crime, no talking, just bullets.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 7, 2015)

Janx said:


> yup. the Joe Horn case.
> 
> From CHL class, there's basically degrees of separation from you to why you pull your gun out.  Each degree raises your legal risk (as in you will have a harder time avoiding jail if your defense fails):
> I might get the order a little wrong, it's been a year...
> ...



According to the wiki page, he was cleared by a grand jury, so he didn't even have to go to trial. If he did lose his house, it doesn't seem like a bad trade-off. Kill two people, pay some money and walk away? Not bad... not bad at all.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 7, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That's interesting. Wasn't Texas where the old white guy shot two people who were burglarizing his neighbor's home after he called 911 and the dispatcher told him to stay inside?




It's also where the old white guy shot the exchange student who was trying to find a Hallowe'en party and turned up at the wrong address.


----------



## Joker (Jul 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Someone sawRashomon. Or should.
> 
> [video=youtube;3YLil2iBIcc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YLil2iBIcc[/video]




I have.  Akira has a special place on my shelf.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2015)

> Part of that was the directive was from a 911 dispatcher. They did not have 'lawful authority" to issue him an order, and thus "stay in the car" wasn't binding.
> 
> A loophole, though really it was Zimmerman's chance for simple advice and best practice to be heard and listened to.




While it is true that dispatchers are civilians, not officers, and their directives do not have the same weight, it is also true that disobeying their orders can open you up for liability.  

1) It takes you from being uninformed and puts you on notice that what you are doing or about to do may have serious repercussions.  You're starting to get into de facto "reckless disregard" territory.

2) this is bad enough under criminal law, but it could REALLY hose you in a civil lawsuit, where the standard of proof is so much lower.

Add to all that, in some rare circumstances, the dispatchers' supervising police officer may also jump on the line to intervene, giving orders with the full force of law.

Bottom line: it's usually bad to disobey orders such as Zim was given.


----------



## Janx (Jul 7, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> According to the wiki page, he was cleared by a grand jury, so he didn't even have to go to trial. If he did lose his house, it doesn't seem like a bad trade-off. Kill two people, pay some money and walk away? Not bad... not bad at all.




I'd say your stance implies that what Joe Horn did was wrong, and that he "got away with murder".  I really don't mean to put words in your mouth, just that's how it reads to me.

In my view, if those 2 guys were stealing something, they deserved to be shot.  And they were.  The law says so.  Has some mincy conditions on when and where, but that's quibbling about physics and proximity of moving objects.

In which case, Joe Horn, in doing the right thing, lost his home.  Not exactly a win.  And blowing his whole wad on a grand jury which is "not a trial" is a pretty hefty cost.

I doubt he set out to murder 2 people when he woke up that day.  He was an old retired guy.  Not set to start over from scratch.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 7, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> It's also where the old white guy shot the exchange student who was trying to find a Hallowe'en party and turned up at the wrong address.



Looks like Texas is challenging Florida for stupid self defense claims.


----------



## Janx (Jul 7, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Looks like Texas is challenging Florida for stupid self defense claims.




that's another story from a few years back.  Not sure what happened, but it would seem like if the student just knocked, they'd side with him.

Bear in mind, Texas is also the state where a father caught a farm hand molesting his daughter and he beat the pedo within an inch of his life.

the father didn't get arrested.

That's what deadly force in Texas is supposed to be for.  Have a criminal being bad right in front of you?  Kill him.  Get a parade.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 8, 2015)

Janx said:


> I'd say your stance implies that what Joe Horn did was wrong, and that he "got away with murder".  I really don't mean to put words in your mouth, just that's how it reads to me.



You read it correctly. I believe he got away with murder. I believe that what he did was wrong.



> In my view, if those 2 guys were stealing something, they deserved to be shot.



That's pretty extreme, isn't it? You steal something from a house where there was no one, and that means you deserve to be shot and killed? What if it had been a kid stealing a pair of shoes from a shoe store? Would you say the store employees would be right in shooting the kid?


> And they were.  The law says so.  Has some mincy conditions on when and where, but that's quibbling about physics and proximity of moving objects.



Some laws are written badly, as the Florida, and apparently Texas, SYG laws show. 



> In which case, Joe Horn, in doing the right thing,



I disagree. If the two guys had broken into Joe's home, then sure, he has at least a reason to fear for his life and defend himself by shooting the two guys. But that's not what happened. What happened was an old guy called 911 and told the dispatcher “Well here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I’m going” after the dispatcher had told him not to go outside. This is a guy that decided he wanted to play hero and killed two guys that stole some stuff from an unoccupied home. To you he may have been doing the right thing. To me? Not so much.



> lost his home.



Good. Two other guys lost their lives.  







> Not exactly a win.



Did he go to jail? Nope. If you don't call killing two guys and getting off a win, I'm not sure what to tell you. 







> And blowing his whole wad on a grand jury which is "not a trial" is a pretty hefty cost.



Right, so losing your house is a fair punishment for killing two people, but stealing something means you deserve to get shot and killed? Doesn't really seem proportionate to the crimes, does it? Did the two burglars deserve to be punished? Of course they did. Killed? No. Arrest them and send them to jail. That's a punishment for burglary. Kill them for stealing a few things? Pretty damn extreme punishment. 



> I doubt he set out to murder 2 people when he woke up that day.  He was an old retired guy.  Not set to start over from scratch.



Well then maybe he should have stayed inside and not gone out to play hero. It doesn't really matter if he woke up that morning and set out to kill two people. The second he said “Well here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I’m going," he was determined to shoot. So, if he lost his home? Doesn't really bother me. He lost his life savings? I don't really feel sorry for him. Two guys lost their lives, and Joe got to keep his freedom. He should feel lucky. And hopefully, one day, when Joe gets angry at someone, that person doesn't turn around and pop a few bullets in Joe's face. Then Joe can feel lucky that some people can be responsible gun owners that don't go out trying to play hero.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 8, 2015)

Janx said:


> that's another story from a few years back.  Not sure what happened, but it would seem like if the student just knocked, they'd side with him.



I tried Googling it, but I couldn't find the particular case. I did find a bunch of stories of a bunch of kids getting killed for minor things. Also, it seems Subway's Jared was really into kids.



> Bear in mind, Texas is also the state where a father caught a farm hand molesting his daughter and he beat the pedo within an inch of his life.
> 
> the father didn't get arrested.



That's actually more understandable. Although, I'm a bit surprised that the father wasn't arrested for not having a gun and killing the guy. 



> That's what deadly force in Texas is supposed to be for.  Have a criminal being bad right in front of you?  Kill him.  Get a parade.



So Texas law promotes vigilantism?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 8, 2015)

Uh-oh...my alarm system is down:


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 8, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I tried Googling it, but I couldn't find the particular case. I did find a bunch of stories of a bunch of kids getting killed for minor things. Also, it seems Subway's Jared was really into kids.
> 
> That's actually more understandable. Although, I'm a bit surprised that the father wasn't arrested for not having a gun and killing the guy.
> 
> So Texas law promotes vigilantism?




This is the story I was talking about. I was wrong; it was Louisiana.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/24/us/acquittal-in-doorstep-killing-of-japanese-student.html

I was getting it mixed up with a similar story that happened shortly afterwards, involving a Scottish national. The second story is mentioned at the bottom of the Wikipedia article about the first:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Yoshihiro_Hattori


----------



## Janx (Jul 8, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> So Texas law promotes vigilantism?




Yes, with conditions that the crime happens right in front of you.  No batman suits.  No hunting down your prey.


Police are very bad at actually stopping crime.  They're are lousy at catching burglars.

If you see a crime happening, you are the First Responder.  You can run, or you can fight.


If your goal is to stay alive, you should always run.  CHL training and martial arts agree on that.  Fighting entails risk (physical and legal).

But the law says you can take a bite out crime (at some legal risk, depending on the jury).

Since this is Texas, everybody here knows everybody has a gun (stereotype).  So anybody doing crime knows they can get shot.  They do it anyway.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 8, 2015)

Janx said:


> Yes, with conditions that the crime happens right in front of you.  No batman suits.  No hunting down your prey.
> 
> 
> Police are very bad at actually stopping crime.  They're are lousy at catching burglars.
> ...



Maybe Texas should invest money into improving its police force rather than relying on guys like Cowboy Joe to go around shooting people.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 8, 2015)

Janx said:


> Since this is Texas, everybody here knows everybody has a gun (stereotype).  So anybody doing crime knows they can get shot.  They do it anyway.



There is no evidence the death penalty deteres crimes, so this ain't really that surprising.


----------



## Janx (Jul 8, 2015)

goldomark said:


> There is no evidence the death penalty deteres crimes, so this ain't really that surprising.




I don't disagree.  The death penalty reduces headcount of criminals. It's that simple.  A company terminates its bad employees.  Texas terminates its bad citizens.

Obviously, it's not perfect.  If you're goal is to prove TX sucks, I'm not in its fanclub nor am I its spokesperson.  I simply live here and get what the law is trying to do.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 8, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> So Texas law promotes vigilantism?




Cowboyism - it's Constitutional


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 8, 2015)

The death penalty deters one specific criminal form adding to his or her rap sheet.  Beyond that...

Texas is kidding itself about how fairly it adjudicates death penalty cases, though.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 8, 2015)

Janx said:


> I simply live here and get what the law is trying to do.



You mean ignore the Constitution?


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 8, 2015)

Janx said:


> I don't disagree.  The death penalty reduces headcount of criminals. It's that simple.  A company terminates its bad employees.  Texas terminates its bad citizens.



Eugenics in action. 

Of course, bad is relative.


----------



## Janx (Jul 8, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Eugenics in action.
> 
> Of course, bad is relative.




I prefer dead crooks on scene by direct witnesses to executing prisoners.  Texas sucks at getting the innocent/guilty part right after the fact.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 9, 2015)

I prefere people to be alive.


----------

