Burglars Hit Home of Gun Owner ID’d by Newspaper—- A Different Consideration

image

This picture is to illustrate two different eventualities which are likely to be a consequence of the Journal’s decision to publish gun owner’s addresses and maps to their homes.  The one on the left is a smart person.  There’s no point of having a gun if it isn’t usable when needed.  The other is a person who keeps the guns locked away in a basement or something.  So, tell me what’s going to happen in both of these scenarios?

By now, we’ve all read about the gun owner, whose address was published by a New York newspaper, who has been burglarized. 

The residence in White Plains, was identified in an interactive map that identified the names and addresses individuals who have gun permits. It was published by The Journal News — a Gannett Co. newspaper.

The elderly homeowner, who legally owns weapons, was not at home at the time of the burglary.

“The police are doing a full investigation,” the unidentified man told NewsDay. Police said it appears the burglars targeted the homeowner’s gun safe.

Now, personally, I’m not that worried about nuts coming in my house in an attempt to steal my guns.  If they want to chance it ……. it’s often difficult to determine if someone is home or not at my house.  Criminals, typically, aren’t very bright, but even a thug should understand there’s a 50/50 shot at getting shot.  Smile   I try to aim for the right shoulder, but, my handgun pulls up and to my right.  And this is crux of my post.

The Journal has been warned, and should have known this sort of thing would happen.  If it occasions that some imbecile thug does break in a home where gun owners are present, we know that the odds are someone will get shot.  If the thugs surprise the gun owners and gain the advantage, they’ll likely get their guns.  If not, the thugs will likely get shot.  Odds are pretty good that if this occurs a few times, someone will die. 

I think in civil court, this is a slam dunk.  I think in criminal court a very strong case for depraved indifference can be made.  Lawyers to the ready.

About these ads
This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Burglars Hit Home of Gun Owner ID’d by Newspaper—- A Different Consideration

  1. Davet916 says:

    We knew this would probably happen. What I’m waiting for is a dramatic increase in crimes against the houses that weren’t on the list, especially violent crimes. The lawsuits should be incredible.

    Dave T

    • suyts says:

      No doubt. I know criminals aren’t that bright, but knowing the homes which don’t have guns, would seem to me, be the targets.

      • kelly liddle says:

        If I was a criminal I would be targeting the homes with guns. A gun has a far higher value than say a hot Ipad and not many would keep large sums of cash or jewellry, also depending on my criminal style it might be a tool of my trade. This is of course in a city setting where me walking past a couple of times a day to case the joint will not get noticed.

        • philjourdan says:

          Not all criminals are alike. But yes, some will target gun houses. Others (probably junkies and such) looking for a quick buck will target the defenseless homes.

          What it does is gives the criminal the added advantage of knowing what to expect. A shame that the Newspaper does not feel the same way about law abiding citizens. They do not post the location of convicted sex offenders, or names of known criminals in the area. Due to privacy concerns (so they say).

      • suyts says:

        Well, apparently, the burglars did something similar, but, for me, I’d go for the lower hanging fruit with less risk.

        Some guns don’t really have much value. I haven’t priced any recently, but the handgun I have was purchased for less than $100.

  2. leftinbrooklyn says:

    This has to even border on aiding and abetting.

  3. kelly liddle says:

    “I think in civil court, this is a slam dunk. I think in criminal court a very strong case for depraved indifference can be made. Lawyers to the ready.”

    To me 3 out of 5 people commenting here words to this effect is a worry especially if talking about the newspaper. The newspaper provided publically available information so I can’t see what they did wrong. (morally there are significant issues but no legal ones I can see if what Phil said to me has even an ounce of truth that “freedom of speech is (should be) absolute” So could someone sue the authority that released the information, well maybe but still can’t see that one unless there is a law against them releasing the information which might be the case.

    So suing culture in the US is a major problem and destroys productivity and free speech based on the comments above. Also the fact that given no dirrect link of anything people think of lawyers.

    • philjourdan says:

      Freedom of speech again is from government interference. What most people do not realize is that is all it pertains to. They will not be criminally prosecuted for publishing the information.

      BUT! The paper is harming another, so the other does have a civil action against them. We still have libel and slander laws (albeit not nearly as strong as those in the UK or Australia – thank god). Which means if you cause harm to another, you can be sued for damages. The government will not put you in jail for it, but you are liable.

      Remember: Freedom of Speech is from government prosecution – not freedom from responsibility.

    • kelly liddle says:

      Phil
      I can’t see how they in any way are directly harming another the newspaper only provided public information and unless they said all the people with registered guns are killers or something they have done nothing wrong. If someone is trying to somehow use the moral responsibility argument then every time a person is shot with a gun the manufacturer should be held accountable. Phil you might be right about slander type laws in Australia and UK, but about a possible case of suing the paper for damages it would be looked at in an Australian court for about 3 seconds. There are many ways to skin a cat as my father used to say. The effect if any court was to decide the newspaper was liable for anything in this case is to restrict what the newspaper can do (.imagine for arguments sake that there is a very corrupt politician with mob ties that murder people, publishing anything about him may cause deaths to people so the newspaper would be required to self sensor to avoid any civil suit later on).

      None of this means I agree with what they did and think it would have been better to recieve data without names and with part adresses possibly suburbs or maybe even streets but not full addresses and no names.

      • suyts says:

        In the US courts, there is a part that says, “What did you expect to happen?!?!??!?”

        Every action has consequences. Every utterance has consequences. This is no different.

        In the US civil courts, this is a win for the people who can show harm from the publishing. In criminal courts, it may be a bit more difficult, but not much more. What was the expected outcome from the publishing? Is it unreasonable to assume someone would act upon the maps to the homes of people they hate?

      • philjourdan says:

        It is called reckless disregard. I may know how to build a bomb, but if I then tell someone who uses it to commit murder, I have committed reckless disregard for human life – even though the information is publicly available. It is not what you say, but why you say it. The paper showed reckless disregard for the safety of the public. It does not matter if anyone could get the information from the authorities. Anyone did not get it and then make it available to everyone. The paper did.

        As for the gun manufacturers, they did not knowingly make the gun available to a criminal. Nor did they drop them from a helicopter onto a city street (a more appropriate analogy). The latter would get them into a lot of trouble (and rightly so) as it was reckless disregard. Some are trying to hold them liable, but so far all those cases have failed because there was no “defect” in the gun. It functioned as advertised. The defect was in the person using it.

        Civil prosecutions have a different standard than criminal ones. OJ was never convicted of the crime of murder in a criminal court, but he was held liable in Civil court. And that is where the paper fails.

        Finally, as far as slander/libel laws in the UK and Oz, I am no legal scholar in those lands. So I have only the reports of cases of slander/libel to go on. The level of proof in those countries, from what I have read, is not that you had to knowingly and with malice intentioned make a statement (which is almost impossible to prove and is the standard in the US, and hence why so few convictions), it is only that a false statement be made that causes harm be proven (a much easier standard). The difference is basically the “freedom of speech” in the US. Anyone here is a free to state his opinion – and as most know, opinions are not facts and therefore almost impossible to prosecute successfully.

  4. kim2ooo says:

    Obama Phone Lady Says: Darn Sure Won’t Vote for Obama Again!

    Yeah yeah! Lemmings never learn by experience.

  5. kim2ooo says:

    Powerful – NY Senator: We haven’t saved any lives tonight except the political life of a Gov. who wants to be president

    http://www.therightscoop.com/powerful-ny-senator-we-havent-saved-any-lives-tonight-except-the-political-life-of-a-gov-who-wants-to-be-president/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s