911 call reveals details from fatal Seattle burglary

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/911-call-reveals-details-from-fatal-Seattle-2195768.php

A burglar held at gunpoint after burglarizing a Seattle power equipment company is expected to be sentenced Friday. The man's alleged accomplice was shot and killed in the April 14 incident.

SNIP

About 11:20 p.m. April 14, an employee sleeping at Sharps Outdoor Power Equipment in Georgetown awoke to glass breaking and grabbed his legally owned .357 Magnum revolver. The business had been the target of six prior burglaries.

Investigators say that man saw James Stapleton, a repeat felon who had killed a man in Georgia, carrying several chainsaws.

The employee "confronted the suspect at gun point and commanded him to stop," Detective Timothy Devore wrote in a police document. "Suspect Stapleton shifted both saws to his left shoulder while reaching with his right hand for something in his waistband. (The victim) feared for his life and fired his handgun one time striking suspect Stapleton."

The clerk who was guarding the store was not charged. The state is asking for a 17 to 22 months prison sentence, which I think is somewhat lenient for a crime that resulted in a fatality.

Mr. Stapleton's career as a violent criminal ended. He will have no more victims.

[safeinOhio]

1. Simple non lethal way to have stopped that crime

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYdVK3BqPfk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYdVK3BqPfk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWwcJnjpGj0&feature=related


easy to install window film stops intruders

[GreenStormCloud]

2. That would depend upon what level of force the door was attacked with.

I have seen thieves take the steel doors at a warehouse off their frames.

[safeinOhio]

13. You are right about that.

They may only stop 9 out of 10 invasions. Especially those looking to steal 2 chain saws. On the other hand some owners have been killed themselves in gun battles with intruders.

[Kennah]

23. I know of just one, from the Tyler courthouse shooting

There are probably a handful of others, but are you implying there are dozens or even hundreds of examples?

[beevul]

31. Speaking of speculating...

"Especially those looking to steal 2 chain saws."

Aren't you speculating a bit here?

Sure, we know the guy had a chainsaw in each hand, but that would be more a result of what he could carry, would it not?

Point being, even though he had those chainsaws in his possession, nobody really knows whether it would have stopped there, or whether he would have gone back for a few generators and then torched the place when he was done to cover his tracks, except apparently you. Before you point out that I'm reaching, I'll remind you that this is a convicted murderer were talking about here.


In any case, I'd like to know where and how you came up with the information regarding what mistermurderer was "looking" to do.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Not very imaginative are you?

I've seen burglars go righ through that shit into a pharmacy. They came back the next night too. ADT. Security film glass. Didn't matter.

About 3 miles from that shop, too.

[safeinOhio]

5. ON the other hand

It might have worked very well this time. For some people killing another is not a joy, only the last resort.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. I agree with that.

But the shit you posted about the security glass film is speculation at best.

[safeinOhio]

7. Not anymore speculation than

others thinking the intruders would use extreme methods to break in to steal a couple of chain saws.

[beevul]

30. Whom?

"For some people killing another is not a joy, only the last resort."

About those other people, the ones for whom killing IS a joy...Do you think you could possible post links to ...I dunno...a number of them that is significantly representatiive of...anything?

I mean...how about 5 DU links.

Or were you simply casting false aspersions on others for agenda related reasons?

[safeinOhio]

35. See post #10

[beevul]

36. I saw it.

I'll save you the trouble of rereading what I wrote and quote the relevant part here:

"the ones for whom killing IS a joy"

Are you claiming that the poster in number ten believes that killing is a joy?

[safeinOhio]

8. Do you have a link to that?

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Cluebat: Not every break-in makes the news.

[RSillsbee]

9. Specific question here

and this time I'd like an answer.

Does not installing this film indicate (in your opinion) that the property owner is waiting for a chance to kill some one?

ETA Nevermind, your post five already answered the question.

DO you have this film on your house?

If not, why not?

[safeinOhio]

11. I have adequate protection for

my home windows. Double pain glass with stops. I'm in a small low crime town. I have plenty of signs on all windows and doors indicating that I have an alarm system, along with motion detection lights on all sides. I also have firearms that I would use, only, as last resort. I have a safe room that I can retreat to if an intruder inters while I'm home. My safe room requires going thru 4 locked doors and past a secret motion detector that alerts me by cell phone to any intruder that makes it past the first 2 locked doors if I'm not at home at the time. All of my firearms are in the safe room locked in a gun safe.

A few years ago I had a job installing hurricane windows in Florida. If I was in a hight crime area in the north I would install those. I installed them in a fire mans homes he told me firemen hate them for fires as they have to use an axe to go thru the roof as an axe won't go thru those windows. I would think they would be great in Detroit and Toledo high crime areas instead of iron bars used by many. They can be unlocked from the inside so one could escape during a fire.

I don't understand these arguments against security measure to lessen the need to kill an intruder. Perhaps you can explain why you and others would rather kill an intruder than use measures that might prevent the intrusion in the first place. I really don't get it.

[RSillsbee]

16. First, my windows will take a hammer blow w/ out breaking

I have three doors into my house and all three are physically barred when we are at home. I also have three dogs (the yappy kind that thieves hate) and we don't flash our bling. Guns are either in a gun safe or on us. So, clearly I have taken steps to mitigate my risk.

Maybe others can't afford to take those measures

I don't understand these arguments against security measure to lessen the need to kill an intruder. Perhaps you can explain why you and others would rather kill an intruder than use measures that might prevent the intrusion in the first place. I really don't get it.

would rather kill an intruder

Your bias is showing. this is exactly why you have a reputation as a grabber. Do you really assume that everyone but you just can't wait to kill someone? That we're setting up ambushes in our homes?
If you really believe that is the mindset you're no different than any other authoritarian grabber who thinks people ( except you) basically can't be trusted w/ guns

[safeinOhio]

28. Yup ,

As I stated, killing some one should be the last resort. If that makes me a "grabber", does that mean I'm the opposite of a "crazy gun nut"?

[gravity556]

55. No, being a "grabber" doesn't make you the opposite of a "crazy gun nut".

It makes you a pro-criminal safety and anti-rights activist. Happy to help.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

59. Most of what you would consider ....

...a "crazy gun nut" also believe killing is an absolute last resort.

The last thing I EVER want to do is shoot someone, but if I have to, it means it came down to a choice between him and me...and he forced the decision.

[GreenStormCloud]

18. Simply put, I am extremely skeptical that a mere plastic film can make glass that tough.

Yes, I watched the videos. The ones on the car windows interested me. I am not convinced but I will check into it some more.

Part of the reason that we are so rough on you is that you take a blame-the-victim attitude. You don't fault the violent felon (who previously killed a man in GA) for breaking and entering and stealing, but you find fault with the clerk who spent the night on the property.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. The film will slow them down slightly

Might stop an amateur or a teenager, but that is about it. If you score it before you break the window it will fail.

[safeinOhio]

32. I don't see where I ever blamed the victim.

I have stated that a gun is good defense and have them myself. I'm only pointing out that there are other steps that can be taken before one needs to use the gun, making it a last resort of self defense. I never said anything negative about the person that shot the intruder. I only offer suggestion to avoid killing anyone. I do find some here cheering anyone that kills some one. Just because I point out other types of security measures, doesn't mean I belittle the person in the story. Nowhere did I do that.

Here are some more videos to check out. I know the 3m film is pretty expense as it requires professional installation, others make products the home owner can do them selves. I think it is really great for businesses with high end products on display and high crime areas. It is amazing that because I point out some of these thing, I'm called a "grabber". Go figure.



http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-10-25/news/0910240055_1_home-invasion-sheriff-s-office-deputies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlEcffvTWak&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdMNEVqls8c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkYim7maeQI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snIcJVTJC7c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIiRqzX3H4M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzv2UbKHzms&feature=related

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Nobody is arguing 'against' security measures.

People do what they can, and most of us encourage that. What I would argue against is that the property owner had any obligation whatsoever to spend money on exotic security measures (that you yourself don't seem to feel the need to install).

There was no moral or legal failure on the part of the shooter in this case.

[safeinOhio]

33. I never said

There was a moral or legal failure on the part of the shooter in this case,. This is a business and I would think these product might be more cost effective than spending every night camped out in the store.

If it came to the point that I had to camp out every night with a gun because of break ins, I most likely would feel the need for this product. As it is now, I've had no problem with what I do have now.

Seems every time I bring up security measures, there are a couple of folks here that do argue with it. Go figure.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. In all seriousness

Iron Bars are far cheaper.

Both the bars and the glass reinforcement are easily defeated by even a moderately determined foe.


A word comes to mind, with the way in which you brough up that point about the security film. 'Sanctimonious'. Just as I would not go into a thread about some parent that just lost their kid to a gunshot, and post about bulletproof vests, kevlar backpacks, and things like that, so too would I avoid going into a thread where someone just killed another human in self defense and has to live with it, and start posting second-guessing bullshit.

[MicaelS]

84. "I really don't get it."

Then I’ll explain it to you.

Maybe some people simply cannot afford, or are unwilling to spend for, the level of security you have been paid to install in your home. Let’s look at what you have in your home:

(1) Double pain glass with stops.
(2) Alarm system, along with motion detection lights on all sides.
(3) 4 locked doors to
(4) A safe room
(5) Secret motion detector that alerts me by cell phone to any intruder

And you’re willing to install:

(6) hurricane windows

Just how much did #1-#5 cost you?

How much more would #6 cost you?

You have spent a lot of money, and / or a great deal of your time, which is worth money, to fortify your home. If you are willing to spend unlimited funds to avoid using a gun, this is your choice. You do not get to make that choice for others. Just because you are willing to turn your home into a fortress, doesn’t mean everyone agrees with you, or is willing to spend the time or money to do so.

And if other people can only afford a $500 handgun to defend their home are you going to accuse them of wanting to kill an intruder?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. Maybe at best...far from a guarantee

[Atypical Liberal]

47. That would stop one crime.

Extra layers of security on the building might have stopped this crime. But the actions of the store employee have insured that James Stapleton won't be committing any other crimes, either.

Security systems are great, and I think everyone should avail themselves to whatever such systems they need and can afford.

But whenever good people take a stand against bad people, especially at great person risk to themselves, we should always rejoice and congratulate their actions, and never belittle them for it or second guess them for not choosing another course of action.

[gravity556]

4. You know, if I have informed someone in a situation like that, that

I was on the phone to the cops and was armed, my reaction would have been the same. If you tell someone that they need to stop and that you have a lethal weapon trained on them and they kept advancing and made a move toward grabbing something from their waistband, chances are it's going to be a gun, and he's willing to accept the risk of being fired on in order to do you violence? That would certainly put me in fear of greivous bodily injury, especially in light of this tidbit: Police arrived roughly four minutes after the victim reached the 911 dispatcher
Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Hear-911-of-fatal-Seattle-burglary-in-process-2195768.php#ixzz1ZZeniPnn

Four minutes is a loooooong time in which an armed attacker can do quite a shitload of damages. There are people who hold life in such little regard that they wouldn't hesitate to torture or murder someone to find some bullshit object to pawn.

Only way to stop it is for the word to start spreading that kicking in a random stranger's door is increasingly followed by gunfire. They don't fear the cops, because the cops are understaffed (and unerpaid), and pretty soon they start to get bored with just beating the shit out of an elderly couple, so maybe they spice things up with sexual assaults, or worse, a spot or murder.

[ileus]

10. Nice to see the clerk too a major bite outta crime.

[RSillsbee]

12. Clearly the clerk was a rude toter

who couldn't wait to murder someone. That's why he didn't have security saran wrap on his windows

[ileus]

14. and he used a special high powered magnum handgun...cowboy wannabe.

probably had special man killer loads in the cylinder...

[safeinOhio]

15. Thanks for the flippant

remarks, and you wonder why some people find a few gun rights proponents disgusting and blood thirsty.

[RSillsbee]

17. I notice that you place gun rights proponents

in a different catagory than yourself. Freudian slip?

[PavePusher]

19. Since he is parodying a poster here, who uses that very type of terminology...

you might reconsider who you cast your approbation towards.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. I found your first response in this thread pretty disgusting too. Blame the victim and all that.

[safeinOhio]

24. Seemed to touch some nerves.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. Rude toters usually do

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Washington State must not have a felony murder rule or the other perp would be going

away for a much longer term.

[SteveM]

34. Yeah, I noticed that too. 22 mos. and a "Peace Bond" is pretty weak. nt

[iverglas]

37. interesting how in all that

there is no information as to whether the person who was shot actually HAD a firearm on his person. Strikes me as odd. What was he allegedly reaching for in his waistband/pocket? Would the police statement not ordinarily have said, if it had been a gun?

"The business had been the target of six prior burglaries."

So ... what, you replace the broken glass and cross your fingers? No thought that it might be useful to install, oh, I dunno, bars, or a grate, or something? No alarm goes off if someone breaks glass to get in? This wasn't a convenience store; it apparently had valuable equpment and the owner was well aware it was a target for theft. No anti-break-in measures at all?

Am I correct in my understanding that the employee sleeping on the premises was lying in wait for a burglar? Cheaper to pay overtime (and expose an employee to danger) than to install security measures? Or maybe the employee just volunteered.

I'm sure I'll be forgiven for saying I think all these questions are relevant, when the issue is whether the death of a human being could have been avoided.

I don't think that if you have every expectation that your business premises will be broken into, and ample time to take preventive measures, you really just get to wait for it to happen and then kill somebody. Not in the civilized world.

[gejohnston]

38. gun, knife, does not matter

The police statement might, but then given the information a cop would have shot him too.

As for the other stuff, who knows. I try not to make opinions based on a couple of paragraphs. They may have been in place but defeated or too expensive.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. More blame the defender, protect the crook.

We have come to expect nothing else from you. The police never charged him so their investigation obviously ruled it self-defense.

[oneshooter]

40. In Canada there is no such thing as "self defense" the burglar/attacker is always right!!! n/t

[Euromutt]

45. No, no, you've got it the wrong way round

It's not that "the burglar/attacker is always right," it's that a private citizen using force in self-defence (instead of relying on the government to use force in his defence) is always wrong. Note that I use the British English spelling of "defense" because this seems to be an attitude common among Commonwealth governments, from Canada to the UK to Oz.

[oneshooter]

46. But, just like the US, if they fail in that endeavor then it's "sorry, better luck next time" .

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abin Sur]

41. From the article: "The act was considered self defense and the man was never charged"

Given that the shooting resulted in a dead repeat felon (who had previously killed a man in Georgia, as per the article)...all's well that ends well, as the Bard said!

[iverglas]

50. from me: who cares?

An assault/homicide can be EXCUSED IN LAW and still not be morally acceptable.

Lots of things are legal and not morally acceptable. I'll bet you can even think of some.

Of course, since you're revelling in the death of a human being (wasn't somebody in this thread denying this phenomenon?), maybe you can't.

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. I don't *rejoice* in it, but I find it morally acceptable.

Stapleton's poor decision making was what got him killed, and those upset about this and similar accounts of armed self-defense
are no better than England's 'Clivenden Set' of the 1930's or Stalin apologists like Walter Duranty and Lillian Hellman.

Doesn't matter if others suffer, so long as their finer sensibilities are not offended....

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

87. Your ire is duly noted, and will be given all due consideration n/t

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

58. I can't remember you ever finding any armed self-defense morally acceptable. N/T

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

62. just by the bye

I would have been entirely morally justified in killing the person who abducted me if I could not have escaped the situation.

He was pretty certainly going kill me -- after abducting and choking and overpowering and sexually assaulting a woman in an isolated location, a man who then orders her out of the car to go "for a walk in the woods" can pretty reasonably be assumed not to be planning a picnic -- so, with that reasonable apprehension, and no reasonable alternative for avoiding it, I would have been entirely justified.

As it was, I was able to escape -- a much surer way of avoiding death than gambling on coming out ahead in a who-kills-whom-first scenario, and thus both the intelligent and the moral choice in the circumstances.

Had the circumstances been different, and had it come down to who-kills-whom-first, I would have been both legally and morally justified in using whatever force was necessary to avert death, even if it caused his.

I don't know, personally, anyone else who has ever experienced such a situation. It actually isn't something that happens to most people in a dozen lifetimes. So I can't offer personal knowledge of any such life-and-death situation to give an opinion about.

It just happens to be my opinion that lying in wait for burglars with a gun and planning to use the gun on a burglar if one feels it is necessary just ain't moral. Putting one's self at risk intentionally and then finding it "necessary" to kill somebody ... nah. Not necessary. Not necessary to put one's self at risk.

And no, walking down the street, working in a gas bar, etc. etc., is not putting one's self at risk intentionally in the same way. Nonetheless, pretty much everything we do does put us at risk of harm. I can do myself an injury walking across a room. But we generally tend to avoid risk, rather than seek it out, don't we?

[GreenStormCloud]

65. Instead you GAMBLED on being able to escape.

Since you were unarmed and untrained hand-to-hand self defense, escape was pretty much your only option. You were lucky. But it was still a gamble that could have gone wrong in many different ways.

If you had been armed you would have had other options which may have had better odds than trying to outrun the thug.

The armed employee staying in the building is morally no different than a professional armed guard spending the night guarding the place.

[iverglas]

68. how many times?

If I had been hitchhiking around southwestern Ontario with a gun, you can be 100% damned sure that the guy driving around southwestern Ontario abducting and assaulting women would have had a gun too, and the sense to draw first.

My odds would in fact have been infinitely worse.

Ye gods and little fishies. Honestly.

Also, if I had been in a society where hitchhiking university students had access to handguns and carried them around, nobody would ever have picked up a hitchhiker.

So there's an example of why firearms control advocates think that the carrying of firearms degrades a society.


The armed employee staying in the building is morally no different than a professional armed guard spending the night guarding the place.

If the professional armed guard is also in an unsecured building, same diff.

Arranging and planning for the use of a firearm to dispatch a burglar after the fact, rather than taking measures to prevent burglary -- doesn't matter who the actor is.

Where I'm at, security guards don't carry firearms. So that answers that question.

[gejohnston]

71. Kind of simplistic

Not even a 100 percent chance in the US. Draw first? Been watching too many B westerns.

People pick up hitch hiking university students and others in the US, so I am kind of skeptical of your vision.

That said, it is not a matter of killing. You had every moral right to resist and escape by whatever means possible. The goal is to stop the attack. If he retreats without being shot or stabbed, so much the better. If you wound and call medical and police, that works. If he happens to die in the process, he had no business abducting and assaulting women to begin with. Now if he is stopped and you execute him, that we agree.

[iverglas]

75. not at all

I am talking about someone who was driving around the countryside looking for women to abduct. If he had had ready access to a handgun (a rifle would have been rather awkward in a passenger vehicle), why on earth would he not have had the foresight to obtain one?

In the incident prior to me, he abducted two young women and intimidated them into compliance by threatening to kill one if the other ran away, and wielding a large wrench or some such to back up his threat. Why would he not have chosen to wield a handgun instead if he had access to it? He let them go. But obviously he had escalated by the time he abducted me. He showed no indication of letting me go.

In the intervening thwarted incident, one of the three teenagers he picked up pulled a hairbrush on him. No, I am not making that up. ;) He decided that discretion was the better part of valour and let them out, and fortunately they also reported the incident. We don't know whether there were others who didn't.

I don't think too many people pick up hitchhikers anywhere these days. I'm talking about 1974 here, the waning days of the heyday of hitchhiking in North America.

There's close to zero chance that anyone one might pick up hitchhiking in Canada would have a firearm. I don't think the chances are that low in the US, or at least the perceived chances. There's little reason to assume that someone one saw hitchhiking in the US would not have a firearm, I'd say.

If I had had a firearm, I would hardly have waited to use it until he decided to order me out of the car. And when trapped in a locked car with no way of getting out, shooting dead would be pretty much one's only option once one started. And I still say it is absurd to imagine that someone who had embarked on the course of action that one was engaged in would not have brought his own gun to that gunfight if they had been so readily accessible that I had one.

[gejohnston]

77. good question

A lot of thugs don't have such foresight. People do a lot of things that defies what seems like "common sense".
Reminds me of a shooting call one of my brothers went to, they were both cops. The would be attacker had big muscles. She had a .25 caliber pistol. He went to the hospital and she was charged and fined for concealed pistol (when getting a concealed carry permit in Wyoming was as about as easy as getting one in New Jersey.} She paid her couple of hundred dollar fine. Another was a breaking and entering. Burglar had the crowbar he used to break in. My brother subdued him with mace and night stick.
When I was in Jr. High, I knew a kid that decided to do himself in. Parents had the usual hunting rifles and maybe a couple of pistols. Had his own hunting rifle. Instead of taking the painless way, he decided to drink battery acid instead.

I like the teens and the hairbrush. I read in the paper a while back about one of the few DSUs these days. Home invader break in apartment, occupant retreats to her bedroom and locks it and calls 911. He breaks through, she amputates his arm with a sword.

[GreenStormCloud]

72. Doesn't work that way down here.

There are lots of strongarm sexual assaults down here. Sometimes, but not usually, the woman is armed and the would-be strongarm rapist gets a bad suprise. Down here most people over 21 have access to guns, yet people still pick up hitchhikers, although the practice is not encouraged.

Down here security guards may or may not be armed, depending upon the contract. I have worked as an armed security guard before. The pay is a bit higher for armed guards.

[iverglas]

76. I'd like to see your statistics

There are lots of strongarm sexual assaults down here.

Your breakdown as between family, friends, acquaintances, co-workers, employers, housemates, dates ... and strangers.


Actually, I was referring to anyone who had been in any kind of life-or-death or even life-threatening situation. I had a client who was murdered by her sister's estranged husband, a gang-involved drug dealer with access to an illegal handgun. Other than that, nobody that I've known, not any similar situation.


On third thought, I indirectly knew Barbara Schlifer:

http://www.schliferclinic.com/schliferClinic.html (click History)

The Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic was opened in memory of Barbra Teena Schlifer, a young lawyer who was murdered in Toronto on the day of her call to the Bar of Ontario on April 11, 1980. Barbra was returning home from celebrating, when she was brutally sexually assaulted and murdered in the basement stairwell of her apartment building. Her senseless death sent shock waves through Toronto and across the country.

She was a little behind me and went to a different law school, but her boyfriend at the time had been a coworker of mine in the govt a few years earlier. This kind of incident is very rare here, of course.

Our latest notorious individual along those lines is Col. Russ Williams ... google him if you haven't read of him.

[GreenStormCloud]

80. FBI stats at this site:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/rapemain

[iverglas]

82. how useful

Now, would you like to provide the actual information I actually asked for?

"Forcible rape" includes incidents where the "force" was "threat of force"; all it actually means is "non-consensual".

"Rapes by force comprised 93.0 percent of reported rape offenses in 2010" means versus "statutory rape".

There is no information at the site you linked to about the use of weapons in the commission of the offence, even.

The offence obviously covers situations in which the offender was known to the victim (including family, friends, etc.)

That is what I'm asking you.

By way of example on the weapon issue, here are Canadian figures for 2009:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11292/tbl/tbl2-eng.htm

Sexual assault - level 3 - aggravated 139
Sexual assault - level 2 - weapon or bodily harm 351
Sexual assault - level 1 - 20,982

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11292-eng.htm#a8

A description of the offences:

http://www.edmontonpolice.ca/CommunityPolicing/PersonalPropertyCrimes/SexualAssault/WhatisSexualAssault.aspx

(level 2) Sexual Assault With a Weapon/Threats to a Third Party/Causing Bodily Harm Section 272
Every person commits an offence who, in committing a sexual assault
- Carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation of a weapon
- Threatens to cause bodily harm to a person other than the complainant
- Causes bodily harm to the complainant, or
- Is a party to the offence with any other person

(level 3) Aggravated Sexual Assault Section 273
Every one commits an aggravated sexual assault who, in committing a sexual assault
- Wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant

Perhaps the situation in the US is enormously different, and women need to fear gun-wielding sexual assailants behind every bush ... it's just that I don't really think so.

[iverglas]

85. oh, if only I hadn't had to restart my Firefox

I'd be able to repeat what I said in the deleted post verbatim, since I violated no rule then and I would be violating no rule now.

Don't remember now, though.

But I still could not care less what you claim to remember or not remember, and I am no more interested in your attempted character assassination based on nothing that is true than I was when I wrote the post in question.

[Abin Sur]

79. "Revelling"? That seems a bit strong...

It's not as if I'm throwing a party. On the other hand, there are people whose death is cause for a quick posting to the effect of, "He's dead? Good!"

By all appearances, this is such a time.

[iverglas]

83. seems a bit ugly

But you're the one doing it.

On the other hand, there are people whose death is cause for a quick posting to the effect of, "He's dead? Good!"

I revelled in the death of Francisco Franco. Others revelled in the death of Jerry Falwell. Both died of natural causes; no one was revelling in their killing.

I'm sure there were many who revelled in the death last week of Clifford Olson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Olson
He too died a natural death.

Revelling in the KILLING of an individual is really a different matter, and that's what we have in this case, no matter how you would like to dance around it.

[Abin Sur]

89. Potato potahto

I'm sure there were many who revelled in the death last week of Clifford Olson

I'd never heard of him, so I read the Wikipedia article. Assuming it's accurate, I'm glad he's dead. I'd have been gladder had he been knifed in prison decades ago.

Revelling in the KILLING of an individual is really a different matter, and that's what we have in this case, no matter how you would like to dance around it.

Who's dancing? Rather than quibble about exact meaning of "revel", I'm happy to clear this up for you. Regarding the killing of the perp in the OP:

Bravo. Well done. Hip-hip hurrah. Good show. Jolly good.

Clear enough?

[PavePusher]

42. Yes we should all have to cage ourselves into self-made prisons....

in order to protect criminals.

Civilized, my ass.

[iverglas]

51. or hell, you could just leave your stuff lying around on the front lawn

and hope that you are the quickest draw on the block.

[gejohnston]

52. why quickest draw?

just have trip wires connected to claymore mines surrounding the stuff.

[iverglas]

54. yeah, except

it actually is illegal to lay traps. At least, in the civilized jurisdictions I'm familiar with ...

[gejohnston]

69. I am sure it is illegal everywhere

in North America, but leaving stuff on the front lawn as bait is not the same as hanging out to catch a robber.

[iverglas]

70. well that's a very fine line

People may put stuff on their front lawn because they want to. No different from people putting equipment in a building. Up to people where they put their stuff, right?

[gejohnston]

73. point is

in truly civilized society, one can leave his stuff where ever without it getting ripped off, and sociopaths are removed from society.

[iverglas]

74. not so

A truly civilized society is sophisticated enough to realize that there actually are not simple solutions to complex problems.

A sophisticated society realizes that individual behaviours result from a whole range of social, economic, genetic, developmental and other factors and works to address the factors that can be influenced by societal action, and deal with the problems that remain in ways that are likely to be effective and that also respect individual rights.

And a sophisticated society knows that you don't "solve" problems that consist of individual behaviours. You deal with them.

If the problem is violent crime, for instance, locking people away once the crime has been committed hardly solves the problem.

The right wing is notoriously simplistic in its "solutions" to problems, and equally unsuccessful.

Why so many others in the world have figured out that these simplistic "solutions" to the problem of criminal behaviours simply don't work, and often do more harm than good (if only in the costs they impose on a society), but the US lags behind so far in this regard, none of us knows.

Well, there are known factors. The influence of the Puritans is a big one. And the success of right-wingery in general in the US is another.

[gejohnston]

78. criminality in general maybe

but these places have always had lower crime rates for at least 100 plus years. While I agree that there are many complex economic, social, cultural, and historical factors that lead to criminality, sociopaths are something different. Not all of them are street criminals, there are many on Wall Street. They are indeed born, not made.
I am a strong believer of rehabilitation and better reintegration. There are still a minority that are true sociopaths, those few can not be allowed to be free unless there is a cure. I feel the same way about pedophiles.

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
http://www.bookslut.com/scarlet_woman_of_selfhelp/2005_03_004676.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder#Sociopathy

The left has its share of simplistic solutions. Gun control being one of them.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. It's a seriously bad part of the town.

Cops don't respond there. Not in anything under 10 minutes, at least. Probably not even to 'shots fired'. So, not an exaggeration; it's a REALLY bad part of town.

AS for whether it is acceptable to 'wait for it', it may be the individual's only option. That or pack up shop, and get out. At my wife's old work, the burglars defeated bars, and ADT, and got out before ADT responded to the 'phone line isn't working' alert. These are people's livelihoods. It's sort of an existential threat, if you think about it.

[iverglas]

53. dunno

If I'm going to store expensive equipment in a seriously bad part of town, I'm going to put bars on the windows and install steel doors.

That's what the bad guys do.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2011/07/15/mb-biker-gang-war-manitoba.html


The Redlines SUpport Crew, street-level
enforcers for the Hells Angels, operate
out of a building in an industrial park
on Bowman Avenue (Winnipeg). CBC


Security cameras monitor the doorways at
the clubhouse for the Redlined Support Crew
at an industrial park in Elmwood. CBC

I was looking for a pic of the gang "clubhouse" in my old home town, London, Ontario, but it seems to have become ancient history.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. They managed to skirt our camera.

Barely entered the field of view. Thieves are not all, entirely stupid, unfortunately. Wish that they were.

A solution might have been more cameras, or better placement, but as a pharmacy, there's a customer service trade-off to appearing like fort knox as well. Subtle is better.

But effective is better too.

[iverglas]

67. appearing like Fort Knox

Yes, well, I was talking about the power equipment people in the news report. ;)

[gravity556]

57. Why should the individual who is there LEGALLY

have to wait to see what the person who is there ILLEGALLY pulls out of his pants? Try this-the next time you get pulled over, jump out of your car, start advancing toward the cops and then make a furtive movement toward your waistband. Just keep in mind that the cops don't have to wait to see a gun to use deadly force. Your advancing on armed individuals and then reaching for your waistband are both aggressive moves, and cops have learned that waiting to see usually ends up with a cop being shot before his partner can kill the bad guy. Some lessons are written in blood.

[iverglas]

63. why is that the only question you can think of to ask?

Damn, a lot of people have some big ego problems, it strikes me.

Why should I have to walk in the other direction when I see someone carrying a big stick coming toward me down a dark alley?

Well hmm. Maybe because I'd prefer not to get beaten by a stick. I don't have to do anything, but if I'm minimally intelligent, I'll turn around rather than stand on my "rights".

So the question I see is: why would somebody camp out in a commercial building in a very bad neighbourhood when there is every reason to believe that someone unsavoury will be breaking into it?

Not minimally intelligent, if you ask me.

And to do it with a gun, i.e. with the full intention of shooting somebody: not moral.

[GreenStormCloud]

66. Would it make a difference if the person staying in the building...

...was a professional armed guard?

[ileus]

81. He shouldn't and he doesn't need to....stop the threat any way you have.