NationStates Jolt Archive

GAINESVILLE, Fla. -- A Gainesville man's lack of sight didn't stop him from defending his home from an intruder.

According to police, Cevaughn Curtis Jr., 28, broke into Arthur Williams' house in Gainesville at around 3 a.m.

Curtis, police said, knocked on the door, asked to be let inside but Williams refused. Curtis then tried to force his way into the home. The 75-year-old retired taxi dispatcher, who's been legally blind for the past 61 years, opened fire on the would-be-thief who kicked down his door, police said.

Police said Williams shot Curtis, who tried to flee but collapsed on the front porch, inthe left side of the neck. He was taken to a hospital in stable condition.

Police said Curtis was charged with burglary of an occupied residence and battery on a person over the age of 65.

Officials are praising Williams for protecting himself.

Wow, How does a blind man even hit someone, let alone in the neck?

Link (http://www.wesh.com/news/14437963/detail.html)

Legally blind. That can be a far cry from being completely unable to see.

that guy should be given a medal for being made of win.

There's an old man who walks by our house about every other day. He's ALWAYS wearing thick sunglasses, so we think he's blind. I've waved at him, and he waved back. I think he's echolocation.

Maybe the guy who shot the burglar was using echolocation to aim?

1: Awesome
2: In b4 gun debate
3: Legally blind people can have guns? WTF?

gah they ought to get more blind men in the armies ... less friendly fire incidents all round lol

(but yep there is a big difference between not being able to see at all and being legally blind)


and fair play to the man!! that punk ars3 thief wont be trying that again for a while now lol

1: Awesome
2: In b4 gun debate
3: Legally blind people can have guns? WTF?

It does seem a bit odd, doesn't it? But IIRC, the one time I applied for a gun licence, there was no requirement to provide proof of your vision status.

that guy should be given a medal for being made of win.

If that had happened in Britain, the blind man would be in prison now and the burglar would be suing for compensation!:sniper:

It does seem a bit odd, doesn't it? But IIRC, the one time I applied for a gun licence, there was no requirement to provide proof of your vision status.

Maybe being able to read the form is enough :p

Legally blind. That can be a far cry from being completely unable to see.

Oh no, I was only 90% accurate in my title:eek: Does it really matter?

Oh no, I was only 90% accurate in my title:eek: Does it really matter?

well the newspapers liked to over look the fact that legally blind people can in somecases still see a bit so i think you can be let off :D

Oh no, I was only 90% accurate in my title:eek: Does it really matter?

Hey, I was just trying to answer your question. No need to bite my head off.

Blindman is my favorite superhero.

Blindman is my favorite superhero.

Surely you mean Daredevil (http://www.gilesbowkett.com/images/daredevil_blue_jump.jpg)?

Hey, I was just trying to answer your question. No need to bite my head off.

I was being sarcastic.

If that had happened in Britain, the blind man would be in prison now and the burglar would be suing for compensation!:sniper:

You may recall that guns are illegal in Britain. I'm fairly certain that the police in the US would be having words with him if he'd used an illegally owned weapon to defend his home.

Surely you mean Daredevil (http://www.gilesbowkett.com/images/daredevil_blue_jump.jpg)?

Nah, that guy was a lawyer or something.

I'm talking about a cranky old blind dude in florida.

Nah, that guy was a lawyer or something.

I'm talking about a cranky old blind dude in florida.

Maybe he retired?

You may recall that guns are illegal in Britain. I'm fairly certain that the police in the US would be having words with him if he'd used an illegally owned weapon to defend his home.

baseball bats are legal over here ... if a blindman attacked a burglar with one hed end up in big trouble over here and possibly sued lol so if guns were legal with the way it stands now hed have been in trouble over here legal or not

baseball bats are legal over here ... if a blindman attacked a burglar with one hed end up in big trouble over here and possibly sued lol so if guns were legal with the way it stands now hed have been in trouble over here legal or not

Perhaps you could point out who in the UK has been successfully sued for defending their own property?

If that had happened in Britain, the blind man would be in prison now and the burglar would be suing for compensation!:sniper:

Then I guess it's a good thing that this happened in the US. It's also good that the criminal will survive, so that he will (hopefully) be able to learn from this while he spends his time in jail. BTW, since when has self defense been illegal in the UK? :p

Then I guess it's a good thing that this happened in the US. It's also good that the criminal will survive, so that he will (hopefully) be able to learn from this while he spends his time in jail. BTW, since when has self defense been illegal in the UK? :p

It's not, just that some people believe you should be able to hang, draw and quarter people for trying to break into your house.

Perhaps you could point out who in the UK has been successfully sued for defending their own property?

Or their life. The victim had no idea what the criminals intentions were while the criminal was kicking down the door. It may just be a simple burglary, but since the criminal KNEW there was an occupant at home, he may have had plans to take care of the witness.

Or their life. The victim had no idea what the criminals intentions were while the criminal was kicking down the door. It may just be a simple burglary, but since the criminal KNEW there was an occupant at home, he may have had plans to take care of the witness.

Regardless of their intentions, the point still stands. I don't recall a single incident where someone in the UK was successful sued for attacking an intruder.

Perhaps you could point out who in the UK has been successfully sued for defending their own property?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=474025&in_page_id=1770

http://www.bsdgb.co.uk/index.php?Information:The_Law_Relating_to_Self_Defence
(first paragraph)

googled ... arrested for defending himself... and ticked UK ... those were on the first page


there is also the case of one man whos farm was harrassed so much that he turned his house into traps to catch burglars etc (removed steps in stairs etc) ... and im 90% certain he ended up in jail when a burglar got killed

thank goodness suiing is only just starting to happen over here ... so cases are a bit rare but im sure there must be one out there (i cant remeber one to be honest but trust me it is only a matter of time)

One of labours new things to win votes is to actually change the law so its on the side of the victim if he defends him self in situations like disturbing a burglar in his house etc

It's good he was able to defend himself, but...

But I have to admit I find the idea of a legally blind person being able to own a firearm somewhat disturbing. That's the sort of thing that shouldn't occur. That's not to say they can't have a self-defense weapon--indeed, I'd be more than willing to have someone design one that doesn't require sight--but I don't think it's sensible for legally blind people to own firearms.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=474025&in_page_id=1770

http://www.bsdgb.co.uk/index.php?Information:The_Law_Relating_to_Self_Defence
(first paragraph)

googled ... arrested for defending himself... and ticked UK ... those were on the first page


there is also the case of one man whos farm was harrassed so much that he turned his house into traps to catch burglars etc (removed steps in stairs etc) ... and im 90% certain he ended up in jail when a burglar got killed

thank goodness suiing is only just starting to happen over here ... so cases are a bit rare but im sure there must be one out there (i cant remeber one to be honest but trust me it is only a matter of time)

One of labours new things to win votes is to actually change the law so its on the side of the victim if he defends him self in situations like disturbing a burglar in his house etc

Arrested for suspicion of a crime (suspicion of causing serious bodily harm) ≠ successfully sued for defending their property.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=474025&in_page_id=1770

Can't you read? I asked if anyone had been successfully sued. This man - Patrick Walsh - has not been sued. Nor has he been convicted of any crime. Being arrested =/= being convicted. Next time you try and quote a source, try and make sure it actually supports the point you are making, ok?

EDIT: Credit to Gun Manufacturers, he made the point first.

http://www.bsdgb.co.uk/index.php?Information:The_Law_Relating_to_Self_Defence
(first paragraph)

What on Earth does that have to do with my challenge to find someone sued for self defense?

there is also the case of one man whos farm was harrassed so much that he turned his house into traps to catch burglars etc (removed steps in stairs etc) ... and im 90% certain he ended up in jail when a burglar got killed

Indeed. While the eyewitness evidence in unsuprisingly conflicting, it is believed that Tony Martin was aware that burglars were on his property and rather than threaten them with his weapon, he instead waited in the dark for them to break in and shot them. The law provides the public with the right to defend themselves and their property as a last resort. Tony Martin used it as his first resort.

thank goodness suiing is only just starting to happen over here ... so cases are a bit rare but im sure there must be one out there (i cant remeber one to be honest but trust me it is only a matter of time)

What do you mean suing is just starting to happen?

did re-edit

and heres a brit that shot a burglar and killed him that went to jail

http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,,1014620,00.html

Can't you read? I asked if anyone had been successfully sued. This man - Patrick Walsh - has not been sued. Nor has he been convicted of any crime. Being arrested =/= being convicted. Next time you try and quote a source, try and make sure it actually supports the point you are making, ok?



What on Earth does that have to do with my challenge to find someone sued for self defense?



Indeed. While the eyewitness evidence in unsuprisingly conflicting, it is believed that Tony Martin was aware that burglars were on his property and rather than threaten them with his weapon, he instead waited in the dark for them to break in and shot them. The law provides the public with the right to defend themselves and their property as a last resort. Tony Martin used it as his first resort.



What do you mean suing is just starting to happen?

alright i got the suing bit slightly wrong but its only a matter of time .... britian has only recently picked up the US suiing bug .... currently we are flooded with adverts to sue for work injuries and car crashs etc (no win no fee type things) .... suiing by anyone but (big?) companies was relitvly unknown over here until just a few years ago

I remember seeing some film >.< with hulk hogan in where he threatened to pick up a car and move it out the way ... and the blokes said they wouldnt fight him but sue him for any damge... i laughed at that .... but it prob would have happened in the USA if he had of damaged it ..... until a few years ago that would never have happened in the UK

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=474025&in_page_id=1770

http://www.bsdgb.co.uk/index.php?Information:The_Law_Relating_to_Self_Defence
(first paragraph)

googled ... arrested for defending himself... and ticked UK ... those were on the first page


there is also the case of one man whos farm was harrassed so much that he turned his house into traps to catch burglars etc (removed steps in stairs etc) ... and im 90% certain he ended up in jail when a burglar got killed

thank goodness suiing is only just starting to happen over here ... so cases are a bit rare but im sure there must be one out there (i cant remeber one to be honest but trust me it is only a matter of time)

One of labours new things to win votes is to actually change the law so its on the side of the victim if he defends him self in situations like disturbing a burglar in his house etc

Neither of those two links provide any evidence of the sort.

I'd link a link to your "case" as I think you're remembering a guy who shot someone who was running away. Which is totally different.

The next bit is just waffle

The law is on the side of the victim, just not on the side of him if he shoots someone dead as they try to run away.

It's good he was able to defend himself, but...

But I have to admit I find the idea of a legally blind person being able to own a firearm somewhat disturbing. That's the sort of thing that shouldn't occur. That's not to say they can't have a self-defense weapon--indeed, I'd be more than willing to have someone design one that doesn't require sight--but I don't think it's sensible for legally blind people to own firearms.

http://ask.yahoo.com/20021031.html

We don't know what condition he has, that causes him to be labeled as legally blind. Maybe he just has a visual field of less than 20 degrees diameter (10 degrees radius).

There's an old man who walks by our house about every other day. He's ALWAYS wearing thick sunglasses, so we think he's blind. I've waved at him, and he waved back. I think he's echolocation.

Maybe the guy who shot the burglar was using echolocation to aim?

Yeah, that's real likely.
:headbang::sniper::mp5::rolleyes:

http://ask.yahoo.com/20021031.html

We don't know what condition he has, that causes him to be labeled as legally blind. Maybe he just has a visual field of less than 20 degrees diameter (10 degrees radius).

That would act as a natural crosshair. :p

alright i got the suing bit slightly wrong but its only a matter of time .... britian has only recently picked up the US suiing bug .... currently we are flooded with adverts to sue for work injuries and car crashs etc (no win no fee type things) .... suiing by anyone but (big?) companies was relitvly unknown over here until just a few years ago

I'd don't know where you studied tort law (or delict, as we call it in Scotland) but I have spent quite a while studying the subject and in the 75 years that the modern concept of delict has existed, I've never heard such a ridiculous claim that suing was only done until recently by companies. Indeed, the first and most important delict case, Donoghue v Stevenson was brought up by a private individual.

That would act as a natural scope. :p

Fixed it for you. :p

http://ask.yahoo.com/20021031.html

We don't know what condition he has, that causes him to be labeled as legally blind. Maybe he just has a visual field of less than 20 degrees diameter (10 degrees radius).

True. Perhaps instead of a broad-spectrum ban on legally blind people owning firearms, we should instead go for a case by case basis.

Still, even a visual field that limited would make for problems if one is not careful.

True. Perhaps instead of a broad-spectrum ban on legally blind people owning firearms, we should instead go for a case by case basis.

I could agree with a case by case evaluation.

Still, even a visual field that limited would make for problems if one is not careful.

Anytime ANYONE (regardless of their level of sight) shoots a firearm, they should be careful, and follow the 4 rules of safe firearms handling.

I could agree with a case by case evaluation.
Oh goodie. It's nice to get that sort of thing solved. I like talking with other people who support gun ownership that also have no problem with sensible control. It's rather rare, especially in this area.



Anytime ANYONE (regardless of their level of sight) shoots a firearm, they should be careful, and follow the 4 rules of safe firearms handling.

Indeed. I just meant they'd need to be careful above and beyond that.

Neither of those two links provide any evidence of the sort.

I'd link a link to your "case" as I think you're remembering a guy who shot someone who was running away. Which is totally different.

The next bit is just waffle

The law is on the side of the victim, just not on the side of him if he shoots someone dead as they try to run away.

put a link on page two just before your reply to a news report when Tony Martin got released after shooting the burglar

Drunken waffle ftw lol .... but was just saying suiing didnt really happen over here much until a few years ago so i was probably wrong about the suing (for now ask me in a couple of years times lol)

Depends how much force the victim uses ... if he uses to much force the victim gets done .... guess thats the difference between shooting a burglar and putting a load of rounds into him

Depends how much force the victim uses ... if he uses to much force the victim gets done .... guess thats the difference between shooting a burglar and putting a load of rounds into him

It's the difference between reasonable force and unreasonable force. Which seems sensible to me.

agrees and thats what the big discussion is about over here now(and only now are the goverment talking about changing the law) .... alot of britian was annoyed that tony martin went to prison for shooting a burglar

Oh goodie. It's nice to get that sort of thing solved. I like talking with other people who support gun ownership that also have no problem with sensible control. It's rather rare, especially in this area.

I try to keep an open mind when sensible control is mentioned (although there have been times, I've been pigheaded and stubborn when the subject comes up :(). I have no problem with the NICS check, the 14 day waiting period in CT for rifles and shotguns (for those without a CT pistol permit or a CT hunting license, like me), and barring convicted felons and people adjudicated mentally incompetent from owning them. Reviewing a legally blind persons case before deciding if he/she can safely own/operate a firearm sounds reasonable to me (since there is more than 1 definition of legally blind).



Indeed. I just meant they'd need to be careful above and beyond that.

Ah, I see. :)

agrees and thats what the big discussion is about over here now(and only now are the goverment talking about changing the law) .... alot of britian was annoyed that tony martin went to prison for shooting a burglar

'A lot of Britain' lacked the true facts of the case, because 'a lot of Britain' reads The Sun/Mail/Express and other sensationalist drivel.

Just disband the police and put bounties in criminals to move the economy(with maybe getting them alive giving better rewards than getting them dead), after all it seems the cops are more effective in quelling protests than in getting the real bad guys into jail. I wonder why libertarians always consider Welfare and Education first but never thought about cutting off taxes from this? Police is more of a tool of the government than an instrument to protect the people, and education, health and welfare have much to contribute in reducing violence.

Getting arrested for ridding the society of scum is just a way for lawyers to not lose too many customers.

agrees and thats what the big discussion is about over here now(and only now are the goverment talking about changing the law) .... alot of britian was annoyed that tony martin went to prison for shooting a burglar

I didn't agree that shooting someone trying to flee is reasonable. It's unreasonable. So he went to jail. The law is fine.

seriously Sirmomo1 it is a biggish issue over here (enough to try for votes on) as people know they can end up in jail if it goes wrong defending them selves

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7015502.stm
thats from less than a month ago (before a potential election time)

If its a vote winner and being used now ... its got to say there are problems and thats its a worry for brits about defending there homes?

seriously Sirmomo1 it is a biggish issue over here (enough to try for votes on) as people know they can end up in jail if it goes wrong defending them selves

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7015502.stm
thats from less than a month ago (before a potential election time)

If its a vote winner and being used now ... its got to say there are problems and thats its a worry for brits about defending there homes?

No, people are idiots. People went to see "Norbit".

And no one goes to jail for defending themselves.

No, people are idiots. People went to see "Norbit".

Not me. Thankfully, I read the reviews, and decided that was one movie I didn't want to see. :)

you might be right but thats not the way brits feel in which case i yield


(and not heard of norbit but i guess it wasnt very good?)

you might be right but thats not the way brits feel in which case i yield


(and not heard of norbit but i guess it wasnt very good?)

http://www.apple.com/trailers/dreamworks/norbit/

Apparently, all the funny parts of the movie were shown in the trailer. :(

ah im an idiot (and definatly in english defense law by the looks of it even though brits dont feel the law is on there side when infact it is) ..... but theres no way my taste is bad enough to have seen that :D

thanks for the link! (i think :D)

1: Awesome
2: In b4 gun debate
3: Legally blind people can have guns? WTF?
Watch "The Blues Brothers". Pay attention to the part where Ray Charles shoots at that kid trying to steal the guitar. Ray could do with a little more time at the range.

Perhaps the guy possesses blindsight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight).

You may recall that guns are illegal in Britain. I'm fairly certain that the police in the US would be having words with him if he'd used an illegally owned weapon to defend his home.

The burglar was shot with a LEGALLY owned shotgun. Not all guns are illegal in Britain, only handguns and automatic weapons. :mp5:

The burglar was shot with a LEGALLY owned shotgun. Not all guns are illegal in Britain, only handguns and automatic weapons. :mp5:
If you have a license, you're right, you can get a double-barrelled shotgun or a bolt-action rifle (Did you know that a bolt-action version of the G36 has been made available here in the UK?). Otherwise, any and all firearms are illegal.

Wow, How does a blind man even hit someone, let alone in the neck?
Practice.

Practice.
I would more guess "sheer luck".

3: Legally blind people can have guns? WTF?
But if you don't give everyone guns, then you are depriving them of their god given right to fire wildly at people they assume to be threats!

This thread is older than the blind man.. where did it come from?!

Unless I am suffering my daily case of deja vu.

But if you don't give everyone guns, then you are depriving them of their god given right to fire wildly at people they assume to be threats!
You're right. Guns are a serious problem, they cause crime and suicide and accidents. This "wild west" shootout could have all been avoided had this man simply declared his house a Gun Free Zone and put up signs. And if that didn't work he could have called the police and they would have arrived before the intruder had a chance to hurt him or take anything.

Wow, How does a blind man even hit someone, let alone in the neck?

Link (http://www.wesh.com/news/14437963/detail.html)

Legally blind means you've got 20/200 vision or worse, even if wearing glasses. I used to have 20/200 vision without glasses and I could get around just fine when I took them off. I couldn't read street signs, and even the walk/don't walk signs were only distinguishable by color, but I could recognize people a block away and only bothered with glasses for TV when watching something with subtitles.

Legally blind means you've got 20/200 vision or worse, even if wearing glasses. I used to have 20/200 vision without glasses and I could get around just fine when I took them off. I couldn't read street signs, and even the walk/don't walk signs were only distinguishable by color, but I could recognize people a block away and only bothered with glasses for TV when watching something with subtitles.
I'm not legally blind and watching tv without subtitles without my glasses might as well be an exercise in futility.

Perhaps the guy possesses blindsight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight).

Until I clicked, I thought that was a D&D reference.

You're right. Guns are a serious problem, they cause crime and suicide and accidents. This "wild west" shootout could have all been avoided had this man simply declared his house a Gun Free Zone and put up signs. And if that didn't work he could have called the police and they would have arrived before the intruder had a chance to hurt him or take anything.
Ignoring the fact you didn't get blatantly obvious sarcasm, I fail to see why some one declared legally blind should be able to own a gun. I'm pretty sure they can't drive, so why give them something more dangerous on pretense of defense?

Until I clicked, I thought that was a D&D reference.

It would have been a much more entertaining reference if it was.

You're right. Guns are a serious problem, they cause crime and suicide and accidents. This "wild west" shootout could have all been avoided had this man simply declared his house a Gun Free Zone and put up signs. And if that didn't work he could have called the police and they would have arrived before the intruder had a chance to hurt him or take anything.

Finally some reason, from the mouth of one of the dirty Americans nonetheless.

Finally some reason, from the mouth of one of the dirty Americans nonetheless.

bann-ed, I was just wondering, have you ever actually been banned?

bann-ed, I was just wondering, have you ever actually been banned?

My reply is as sarcastic as the post I quoted, because I sometimes cause confusion with my inarticulate mastery of syntax, tone, and such.

I have been banned, but only the automatic thing that happens when you don't know you have to log in to NationStates as opposed to just the forum to keep your nation alive. This happened to me about 4 times already, but now I know better. :p

Reported as gravedig...

My reply is as sarcastic as the post I quoted, because I sometimes cause confusion with my inarticulate mastery of syntax, tone, and such.

I have been banned, but only the automatic thing that happens when you don't know you have to log in to NationStates as opposed to just the forum to keep your nation alive. This happened to me about 4 times already, but now I know better. :p

oh yeah sorry I haven't really been following the thread or anything I was just wondering. I've been banned 4 times also, but I was banned by the moderators.

Wow, How does a blind man even hit someone, let alone in the neck?

Link (http://www.wesh.com/news/14437963/detail.html)

Legally blind. That can be a far cry from being completely unable to see.

Yeah. Either that (Dododecapod's post) or just a lucky shot.