King William and Queen Kate jail all who object to burglery, home invasion and murder by piratenews

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Point being this: The idea that it's acceptable to defend personal property with violence or homocide is an american cultural value of the post industrial age. It's not a universal nature of human beings. Some britains would like to see such a policy and believe in britain, but it's long not been the rule.

You ask me, that right there is proof that the British are insane.
If anyone with the will can simply take from you, what do you have, really ?
Not a goddamn thing.

Lemme impart some knowledge to you, a window on the world from which I sincerely hope many of you never have to look from...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WisdomFromTheGutter

There's a lesson in this, and it's one you don't learn in an ivory tower in your gated community with your savings account and pension plan and assurance you'll eat today and not catch a bullet.
You learn it DOWN HERE.

You know what it is ?
Simple, really.

PROPERTY *IS* LIFE.

That bullshit story about "it's not worth your life" - don't even, lemme explain this to you.

Case Example: The car - most folk in the ghetto, they ain't got one, and the few that do are usually what we call legacy wheels, either dumped on them by the folks as a backhanded parting gift when they were kicked out the door on magic-number-eighteen and left to flounder, or as a relic of better times before you fell to the bottom, but either way something YOU HAVE NO MEANS TO REPLACE - EVER.

And boy howdy do you *need* that thing - bad enough dodging around the automatic rejection reflex of most employers even learning you live down there, usually determined by phone extension, what with the abysmal public transportation system and the stimgata of using it, simply HAVING your own wheels buys you at least a CHANCE, at least an interview, as opposed to your application resting in the bottom of a trash bin, and they WILL ask you, in part to deliberately weed out those who don't.
That rustheap is your LIFELINE, your only hope of ever squaring up and making it out of that hole, you understand ?

Insurance ? - don't make me laugh, even IF you kept it up and paid it, they wouldn't pay half enough to replace it, and remeber what I said about legacy wheels, the registrations long out of date and you sure as hell can't magic up the money for all the "bullshit costs" associated with a vehicle purchase oh hell no, not to mention the massive insurance deposit since you didn't pay it last time, cause when the bills come due and it comes to rent or car insurance, rent is gonna win - you GET something for it, as opposed to paying dear for a measly promise you KNOW is a lie, and all the more BECAUSE you live in the ghetto, a nice little trap to help keep rats like you where they belong, away from the "better people", which everyone to some degree participates in socially if not legally.
Which is why your ass won't be gettin a loan, neither - not with no ghetto address even if you didn't have bad credit/no credit, the sharks won't touch you, the word friend has no meaning here and if your family gave a rats ass about you, you wouldn't BE here.

So when some asshole throws down on you and demands you hand it over, the ONLY difference between him shooting you in the head, and taking your wheels - is how long it's gonna take, you understand ?
And if you come out on top, best not linger, since not only will you face questions about the iron in your hand, and lack of yessa massa imma good little drone paperwork, but you'll lose your legacy wheels just as quick to the boys in blue when they run your license (expired) and registration (out of date, no insurance), won't you ?
About the only fortunate part is that once you've moved on, nobody is gonna tell the badges jack shit, and one more body down here won't mean a damn thing, just another dead thug, goes in the drug-related file and moulders, forgotten, much like his life, which don't you know, probably went a lot like yours, only he fell further, maybe wasn't as lucky - and while we all pretend, that didn't have jack diddly shit to do with drugs, and we all know it... put a hundred rats in a cage with food for ten, same damn thing is gonna happen, and we let it, hell, we set it up that way, on purpose.

Which is what it's all about, and everything, EVERYTHING, you have is just one more edge to cut your way through, maybe be one of the lucky ones, maybe climb out, from your legacy wheels to your pistol, your tools, all the way down to your plates and tablewear, cause when you're so far down that things like salt and toilet paper are luxuries, that shit matters, in both a real and pyschological sense.

Ain't a matter of whether it's "worth" your life - your stuff *IS* your life, when you can't just bip on down to the mall and replace it.
Welcome to the cold, hard reality of the american dream.

Oh, and while you're up there dancing to the masters tune, with a car and a house and a bunch of other stuff you don't even really own - cause you were a good little peon and fortunate besides, so the bankers let you play with their toys while pretending ownership, and you toe the line and kiss the right asses as they waltz by your cubicle, better watch your step, cause it's a long fall from there, and you could wind up....

Down Here.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 2:05 AM

DREAMTROVE

It's a hereditary monarchy.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 3:22 AM

DMAANLILEILTT

I don't get your point. The Prime Minister said that they wouldn't prosecute those who used resonable force. So the point is kind of moot.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 8:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
The Prime Minister said...

You got a lot more faith in such folk than I do, that's for damn sure.

Quote:
resonable force

Generally meaning none - see, when you use force, there's this little problem with the other guy escalating the amount he's willing to use.

And when you're in your own home, defending your own turf, your own stuff, that ends one of two ways - either you trump him and he flees, or somebody dies.

The idea that "reasonable force" is less than lethal, when the perp *IS* willing to escalate it to lethal level against you is as idiotic as the concept of shooting-to-wound, the DEFENDER doesn't make that damn decision, as soon as the perp flees it's over for them.

So you're taking a force assessment wholly in the hands of the AGGRESSOR, and laying responsibility at the feet of the DEFENDER, and that's bullshit.

Plus as I pointed out, if you're poor and cannot so easily replace what you have, then what you have *IS* as important as your life, some of it, and since you don't get to pick what the agressor takes....
*sigh*

Ok, maybe imma havin trouble getting this across, perhaps I need another analogy here.

If you were a diabetic and had a stock of insulin but no ability to obtain more whatever - and someone tried to rob you of it, thus condemning you to a slow death, would you not use lethal force in defending your stuff ?

Mind you, England might be different, but as I understand it, there's dirt poor folk in every country - unless y'all know something you ain't telling me.

-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 1:55 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Defense of property is not justifiable cause for violence under British law. This isn't radical, it's pretty long accepted.

Good. Rape the Queen...or stab er with a stick. No law agin it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 2:38 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
I don't get your point. The Prime Minister said that they wouldn't prosecute those who used resonable force. So the point is kind of moot.

Not so much. Mr. Flanagan made bail yesterday, but he's still charged with suspicion of murder.

Meanwhile, another suspect in the attempted burglary has been released without charge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-13916190

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 7:44 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

In the US you are allowed to shoot someone/stab them, whatever, if they're in your house robbing you or trying to get in to hurt you/take from you. Now in actuality the government discourages this a lot, tries to get people not to do it, which isn't fair, but people are still technically allowed to do it. So sometimes charges will be talked about but they usually get dropped.

Yeah Frem, we believe similarly to how you do (though maybe not as vehimentaly about the salt and toilet paper aspect). If someone is stealing something that pertains to your livelyhood, your means of making a living and supporting yourself/family then I can understand someone shooting and killing. I don't think its the choice that I personally would make, but I can see how someone would make that choice especially if they are poor and this is their only shot of making it.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:07 PM

This is a beat up BS story. You are allowed to use reasonable force, which means that you can't pock someone full of bullet holes if they try to nick you bike. That would be excessive use of violence.

You'll be questioned if you injure someone, of course you will. Same as in the US. Whether you get jailed or not is another matter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 1:38 AM

DREAMTROVE

There was a case a few years back while I was in England of a man who was sentenced to life in prison for shooting a burglar.

There was a lot of debate about it, but I got that the basic british value set was in line with the decision, because it sent a clear message to the people. Life>property, which is part of a value hierarchy.

If you look at other countries, you find radically different valuations. The Israelis view life of their citizens as paramount, but destroy palestinian properties all the time. The Chinese govt. thinks of its population as disposable. I'm afraid in the US we weigh lives against dollars. Our leaders cannot stop doing so even when they're talking about the war, and neither can our media heads: I've heard both say unfortunate things like "the thousands of [american] young men and women that have lost their lives, and what's worse... the trillions of dollars we have lost..."

Compare the Chilean attitude towards disaster relief to the American and the Chinese. I find myself torn between these value sets, not particularly clinging to the American one.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 1:50 AM

while I take your point, I don't think either PN or the Daily Telegraph are reliable sources of information.

From wikipedia
Reasonable force

Opinions differ on what constitutes a reasonable amount of force, but in all cases, the defendant does not have the right to determine what constitutes "reasonable force" because the defendant would always maintain they acted reasonably and thus would never be guilty. The jury, as ordinary members of the community, must decide the amount of force reasonable in the circumstances of each case. It is relevant that the defendant was under pressure from imminent attack and may not have had time to make entirely rational decisions, so the test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including what they believed about the circumstances, even if mistaken. However, even allowing for mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force. The classic test comes from the Jamaican case of Palmer v The Queen, on appeal to the Privy Council in 1971:

"The defense of self-defense is one which can be and will be readily understood by any jury. It is a straightforward conception. It involves no abstruse legal thought. ...Only common sense is needed for its understanding. It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but may only do, what is reasonably necessary. But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances. ...It may in some cases be only sensible and clearly possible to take some simple avoiding action. Some attacks may be serious and dangerous. Others may not be. If there is some relatively minor attack it would not be common sense to permit some action of retaliation which was wholly out of proportion to the necessities of the situation. If an attack is serious so that it puts someone in immediate peril then immediate defensive action may be necessary. If the moment is one of crisis for someone in imminent danger he may have [to] avert the danger by some instant reaction. If the attack is all over and no sort of peril remains then the employment of force may be by way of revenge or punishment or by way of paying off an old score or may be pure aggression. There may no longer be any link with a necessity of defense... If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."

In R v Lindsay (2005) AER (D) 349, the defendant who picked up a sword in self-defense when attacked in his home by three masked intruders armed with loaded handguns, killed one of them by slashing him repeatedly with that sword. The prosecution case was that, although he had initially acted in self defense, he had then lost his self-control and demonstrated a clear intent to kill the armed intruder. In fact, the defendant was himself a low-level cannabis dealer who kept the sword available to defend himself against other drug dealers. The Court of Appeal confirmed an eight-year term of imprisonment. In a non-criminal context, it would not be expected that ordinary householders who "go too far" when defending themselves against armed intruders would receive such a long sentence.
[edit] Beliefs

The modern law on belief is stated in R v Owino (1996) 2 Cr. App. R. 128 at 134:

A person may use such force as is [objectively] reasonable in the circumstances as he [subjectively] believes them to be.

To gain an acquittal, the defendant must fulfil a number of conditions. The defendant must believe, rightly or wrongly, that the attack is imminent. Lord Griffith said in Beckford v R:

"A man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike."

The time factor is important. If there is an opportunity to retreat or to obtain protection from the police, the defendant should do so, thereby demonstrating an intention to avoid being involved in the use of violence. However, the defendant is not obliged to leave a particular location even if forewarned of the arrival of an assailant (see duty to retreat). Furthermore, a defendant does not lose the right to claim self-defense merely because they instigated the confrontation that created the alleged need for self defense. A person who kills in the course of a quarrel they started might still act in self-defense if the 'victim' retaliates or counterattacks. In Rashford (2005) AER 192, the defendant sought out the victim, intending to attack him in revenge for an earlier dispute, but the victim and his friends responded out of proportion to the defendant's aggression. At this point, the defendant had to switch from aggression to defense. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant will only lose the defense by being the aggressor throughout. The question is whether the defendant feared that he was in immediate danger from which he had no other means of escape, and if the violence he used was no more than appeared necessary to preserve his own life or protect himself from serious injury, he would be entitled to rely on self-defense. On the facts, the jury's decision to convict was not unsafe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 2:26 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Interesting that everyone seems to consider this just an attempted property crime. If four masked men broke into my home late at night I'd be more concerned with - and more apt to act to defend - the safety of my family than of my TV. Since they're already breaking the law, I have no reason to believe they'll politely take the silver and just leave.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 2:37 AM

And where does it say that you would have to do it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 4:35 AM

Keeping order in every verse

The UK laws are quite clear on reasonable force. You have every right to defend yourself and your property with a force necessary to ward the offenders off.If you feel you are in danger for your person or your family and can prove this in a court of law, there is no jury in the land that will convict you.
But that process of law still has to be maintained. You cannot just write it off as said!!!This man will go to court, as is the law, but he will not be imprisoned for it.That is why we have the jury system. If the opposite occurs, then I will be the first to cry FOUL. lets wait and see what happens before we start denegrating the justice system.
The law isn't built on knee jerk reactions.It must go through proper process to be respected and effective.
It won't always get it right, but does any system?

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 4:52 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
And where does it say that you would have to do it?

Pretty much with several folk in this thread claiming this was just a burglary and that the gentleman who killed the thug was not justified because he was only protecting his property.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 7:05 AM

I think that the entire argument for gun-control has fallen apart.

Guns are tools. Like a hammer. You can use a hammer to build a house, repair your friends home, build a playground for your children.

Or. You can use a hammer to bash someones head in.

Its the person holding the tool, and what they do with it, which is actually important.

Guns are tools whose purpose is to shoot a piece of lead into something else. That something else may be a deer (for food), or an assailant trying to hurt your family, or steal what you worked for.

It could also be used to send a piece of lead into an unarmed victim.

From my reckoning, the British people gave up their ability to say "NO" to their government, and any other criminal, when they allowed themselves to be disarmed.

I would hope the day never comes here to America, where a man could be charged with murder (and possible life in prison) for shooting the person raping his daughter, or his wife,

or stealing from him,

or assaulting him,

or a hundred other horrors that evil people do to others.

But you never know. There are always going to be people who just don't want the responsibility of, well ANYTHING. They would rather have someone else take care of them. Even when those "others" can't. Or won't.

These people would rather be a victim then have the burden of responsibility for themselves, or others. You know the absolute worst part? They want YOU to be the same way they are. And they are willing to FORCE you into that broken state of being.

*Went on kind of a rant here, sorry. Just makes me sad and a bit angry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 7:35 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by SkyDiveLife:

From my reckoning, the British people gave up their ability to say "NO" to their government, and any other criminal, when they allowed themselves to be disarmed.

I would hope the day never comes here to America, where a man could be charged with murder (and possible life in prison) for shooting the person raping his daughter, or his wife,

or stealing from him,

or assaulting him,

or a hundred other horrors that evil people do to others.

I see an awful lot of people who seem to be taking this single case in the UK as being the standard for ALL such cases in the UK.

I can show you a man tried here in Austin for MURDER for putting four bullets into a guy who was trying to break into his truck. He wasn't just arrested on suspicion of murder, or questioned about it; he was charged, indicted, and had to stand trial for shooting and killing a thief who was unarmed and who was breaking into an SUV that the owner wasn't in at the time.

Should we claim that the U.S. wants to imprison everyone who tried to defend their property?

(By the way, the guy was acquited, but it wrecked him emotionally and ruined him financially, so I guess he really "won" a lot by protecting his shitty SUV, huh?)

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 8:42 AM

Kwicko wrote: "I can show you a man tried here in Austin for MURDER for putting four bullets into a guy who was trying to break into his truck...."

Do you have a link? Or any information on this case? I would really like to see it as, if it were true, I intend to give the Austin authorities a piece of my mind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 10:13 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

DT, right on:

Quote:
Defense of property is not justifiable cause for violence under British law. This isn't radical, it's pretty long accepted. .... The idea that it's acceptable to defend personal property with violence or homocide is an american cultural value of the post industrial age. It's not a universal nature of human beings.

Oooops, I see reading further down that you made the same argument I am re: Afghanistan. Looks like you have a good grasp of perspective.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 10:14 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Frem,

Quote:
You ask me, that right there is proof that the British are insane.

Maybe it's different now, but in the past the Brits didn't have the same attitude toward guns as our society does (few countries do, actually). Ergo, KILLING someone for robbing you wasn't something that automatically came to mind. I wish we more like them in that respect, actually, but given the prevalence of robbers with the easy ability to kill you, it wouldn't work here.

Unfortunately, it is most common for us (and people of any other country) to judge others by our culture In Afghanistan, stealing was (still is?) punished by the cutting off of the right hand, which in essence meant death because they ate in a communal bowl and the right hand was the only hand allowed in the bowl (given the other was for going to the bathroom). We might well consider them savages; the Brits might well consider US savages/insane. As Dman said:

Quote:
The Prime Minister said that they wouldn't prosecute those who used resonable force.

The Afghans considered cutting off a hand "reasonable force", America has gotten to where defending one's home by killing is "reasonable force". The Brits think differently. Who's right? I'd say the culture of the time determines what's appropriate. Bearing in mind the Brit police didn't even USE guns years ago, while we were busy shooting up the Wild West. Do we have the right to judge who is right and who is wrong?

In Afghanistan, as here, violence is more prevalent than in some other countries, so defending what you have means stronger violence. As you pointed out, in the poorer areas, each thing is vital, so defending it CAN become a matter of life or death for the person. Given virtually everywhere in Afghanistan is poor, same there. The difference is that Afghanistan is a relatively primitive culture and one would hope if their standard of living rises, violence would lessen. Sadly, we're going the other direction.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 10:15 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Magons:

Quote:
This is a beat up BS story. You are allowed to use reasonable force, which means that you can't pock someone full of bullet holes if they try to nick you bike. That would be excessive use of violence.

I agree. But "reasonable force", as I said, differs from culture to culture. Personally, I wish force, as used in the US, WAS more "reasonable", but the possibility of that ever being true is long behind us, I'm afraid.

Thanx for the info on reasonable force; I do see how it's tricky to decide on the spot what is "reasonable", and your information shows that and is valid. Nonetheless, I think it's an American concept that killing anyone who enters your home to rob you is okay (I wonder how many who did were actually prosecuted?).

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 10:16 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ooo, well said PK:

Quote:
lets wait and see what happens before we start denegrating the justice system.

The law isn't built on knee jerk reactions.It must go through proper process to be respected and effective.

It won't always get it right, but does any system?

How frighteningly reasonable; I'm guessing that won't sit well with some, especially PN, who hates Britain along with just about everyone else. He'd rather condemn than reason, it seems to me.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 10:17 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sky:

Quote:
I would hope the day never comes here to America, where a man could be charged with murder (and possible life in prison) for shooting the person raping his daughter, or his wife,

or stealing from him,

or assaulting him,

or a hundred other horrors that evil people do to others.

You'll never need to worry about that, as it'll never happen here Guns are too ingrained in our thinking and always have been. Maybe it's something to do with Britain having had centuries to evolve, while we are still new, and our coming to being involved defending ourselves and arming everyone. NOT saying one is better than the other, just culturally interesting to me. However:

Quote:
There are always going to be people who just don't want the responsibility of, well ANYTHING. They would rather have someone else take care of them. Even when those "others" can't. Or won't.

These people would rather be a victim then have the burden of responsibility for themselves, or others. You know the absolute worst part? They want YOU to be the same way they are. And they are willing to FORCE you into that broken state of being.

I disagree; I think there are many people who value human life and would seek ways to defend themselves short of killing.

You know, I've never met anyone who is in favor of disarming the public entirely. I'm sure there are some, but I think this argument always ends up being "they want to take your guns away from you" as the only "other side". Perhaps I represent those who don't like guns, don't like how prevalent they are in our society or how easily they're utilized, but who don't want them "taken away", just more reasonable constraints. ANY constraints, even on guns that are unquestionably intended for nothing other than killing PEOPLE, or 30-round clips is met immediately with "they want to take away our guns!" I think the majority of people merely would like some of the more violent weapons curtailed, but have no desire to disarm everyone unilaterally.

And it's not about lack of willingness to take responsibility, in my opinion. I believe most anyone, if they have the means to do so, would step up to protect themselves and their families. Your statement, to me, is the usual diss at people who disagree with using guns everywhere and anywhere; that they are cowards and want "to take away our guns". It's not valid as far as I'm concerned, it's knee-jerk reaction and prejudice.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 10:23 AM

Niki2:

You seem to think that "reason" can be used on the unreasonable.

That a thug, who breaks into your home with the intent to steal your valuables can be reasoned with, should he find you home.

Or, that the impoverished youth who puts a gun to your head at a stoplight, will just kindly let you out, so he can steal your car?

Or, that a person raping you (as I believe you are a woman) will take the time to patiently put on a condomn before inserting himself, forcibly, inside of you.

I disagree.

Nor do I believe that any of these things should be allowed to happen.

As silly and funny as it sounds, a 9(mm), or a .45 beats 911 every single time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 10:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SkyDiveLife:
Kwicko wrote: "I can show you a man tried here in Austin for MURDER for putting four bullets into a guy who was trying to break into his truck...."

Do you have a link? Or any information on this case? I would really like to see it as, if it were true, I intend to give the Austin authorities a piece of my mind.

I'm going to have to do some digging. It was a few years back, and it was a big deal.

What I remember of it is that the guy's truck had been broken into several times before, he heard someone breaking in yet again, he got out of bed, got his gun, went downstairs, and chased the perp for four blocks before putting three or four rounds in his back, killing him.

On the one hand, I can understand his frustration; on the other hand, chasing the guy for blocks and shooting him in the back? Really?

Then again, the perp's sister didn't exactly do her brother any favors, testifying that "he was getting better", despite his having a long history of doing exactly this kind of break-in.

Main point being, even if you CAN murder the perp - or even if it really is in self-defense - you're going to spend just a metric shit-tonne of dollars defending yourself and proving the principle. I think the figure Frem came up with one time was something on the order of $30,000 or so, IF YOU'RE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED IN THE SHOOTING. What property of yours is worth that?

If it's truly self-defense, I'd take the shot in a heartbeat. If it's just a matter of someone breaking into my car, not so much. For those who don't know, I did have a car stolen - my weekend toy, a show car I built - and my point then was that, had I heard the perps breaking into it, I'd have gladly put a few rounds into the engine block from my upstairs window, rather than splatter my nice seats with their brains.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 11:00 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by SkyDiveLife:
Niki2:

You seem to think that "reason" can be used on the unreasonable.

That a thug, who breaks into your home with the intent to steal your valuables can be reasoned with, should he find you home.

Or, that the impoverished youth who puts a gun to your head at a stoplight, will just kindly let you out, so he can steal your car?

Or, that a person raping you (as I believe you are a woman) will take the time to patiently put on a condomn before inserting himself, forcibly, inside of you.

I disagree.

Nor do I believe that any of these things should be allowed to happen.

As silly and funny as it sounds, a 9(mm), or a .45 beats 911 every single time.

You've lost me here Sky. Before shooting a burglar/person trying to rape you, surely you would normally have the option of threatening to shoot them?

I don't understand this idea that you can't reason with them - if you've got a gun, and the opportunity to use it, surely you've also got the ability to threaten them with the use of it (in most cases)?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 11:20 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
What I remember of it is that the guy's truck had been broken into several times before, he heard someone breaking in yet again, he got out of bed, got his gun, went downstairs, and chased the perp for four blocks before putting three or four rounds in his back, killing him.

On the one hand, I can understand his frustration; on the other hand, chasing the guy for blocks and shooting him in the back? Really?

This would be treated as murder in the UK as well I believe. And I'm pretty ok with that... I recall a scene in the movie American History X that was like that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_History_X

Quote:
The film tells the story of two brothers, Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton) and Daniel "Danny" Vinyard (Edward Furlong) of Venice Beach in Los Angeles, California. Both are intelligent and charismatic students. Their father, a firefighter, is murdered by a black drug dealer while trying to extinguish a fire in a South Central neighborhood of Los Angeles, and Derek is drawn into the neo-Nazi movement. Derek brutally kills two black gang members whom he catches in the act of breaking into the truck left to him by his father, and is sentenced to three years in prison for voluntary manslaughter.

So it's not just Austin...

Would anyone here argue that this kind of killing is ok? Or maybe that it's morally reprehensible, but shouldn't be prosecuted by the law? :-S

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 12:22 PM

Umm, why are we so cavalier about assuming the perps intentions, especially when in most cases it's the fucking perp, someone already proven to have discarded the rules of society and the law, someone with every reason to lie - stating what those intentions were ?

For that matter, again, what's with the assumption that if they get what they want, they'll suddenly revert back to obeying those rules - many a burglary has turned into rape when the perp discovered the opportunity and a victim unwilling/unable to sufficiently resist.

No, once you cross the threshold of my doorway with ill intent of any kind, I am *not* going to play twenty fucking questions, and since my residence has only one door, and I'm in a fuckin wheelchair, the idea of flight is laughable - I WILL assume hostile intent and respond accordingly, IMHO a completely reasonable response when someone smashes down your door in the wee hours of the night.(1)

And yes, I consider any other viewpoint on the matter insane, and will not budge from this point.

-Frem
(1)-And we will leave no-knock raids and the rabid stupidity and venality of law enforcement for another time, to keep the topic clarified, thanks.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 1:02 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

I understand, and sympathise with your position somewhat.

But is there no step in between complete passiveness, and shooting to kill? A warning shot, or shot to wound? Is it that you're not prepared to take any chances - OR that the burglar deserves to be killed? My problem with the 2nd one is that you're then playing judge, jury + executioner.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 1:08 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sky,

Quote:
You seem to think that "reason" can be used on the unreasonable.

That a thug, who breaks into your home with the intent to steal your valuables can be reasoned with, should he find you home.

Or, that the impoverished youth who puts a gun to your head at a stoplight, will just kindly let you out, so he can steal your car?

Or, that a person raping you (as I believe you are a woman) will take the time to patiently put on a condomn before inserting himself, forcibly, inside of you.

I disagree.

Nor do I believe that any of these things should be allowed to happen.

As silly and funny as it sounds, a 9(mm), or a .45 beats 911 every single time.

Did I say anything LIKE that anywhere??? Has nothing to do with "reason", as far as I'm concerned, has to do with reasonable RESPONSE.

My entire point was that NOT having a gun, in America, isn't an answer because of our society's long-standing mentality. The bad guys have guns, so best defense is a gun yourself. NOT a 30-round clip, NOT an assault rifle, however. YOU seem to think that the only alternatives are "reason" or "killing" and that fits for everywhere. You've once again, it seems to me, devolved into the "all or nothing" mentality. Personally, I would have no problem threatening someone who endangers me or my family with a gun--that doesn't mean I ALWAYS have to pull the trigger. But I would if threatening didn't work, and I would shoot first if the robber had a gun.

Threatening that thug with a gun (or a knife, depending on the situation and what HE's got) would usually get rid of him; shooting him if it doesn't isn't a problem for me. MOST car jackings don't result in the person being killed, and again, I'd have no problem defending myself if I had the chance. What on EARTH a condom has to do with the discussion I can't imagine. I'd fight like hell if someone tried to rape me; I've held my own in situations short of rape, and in that case, the odds are against me having time to grab my gun anyway. Thumbs in the eyes and other sorts of self-defense have a better chance in that particular instance.

Nor am I grasping what you're trying to say. It seems to be connected to that idea of people letting themselves be a victim, which is all I was disagreeing with. I said quite clearly

Quote:
seek ways to defend themselves short of killing

--that does NOT exclude killing, please note, it merely indicates that, for example, were I to come home and find someone robbing my home, I wouldn't shoot them out of hand. I'd try to scare them away first, but only FIRST, and if it were possible to wound them rather than kill, I would.

I was arguing against the concept of

Quote:
a man tried here in Austin for MURDER for putting four bullets into a guy who was trying to break into his truck

That's the other extreme, just blasting away, which seems to be what you were promoting. That he

Quote:
chased the perp for four blocks before putting three or four rounds in his back, killing him

is something I would expect of Wulf, and you seem to be arguing that is the only solution to every problem, and if one doesn't agree with that, one is abrogating their responsibility. Middle ground, you know? What I'd call "reasonable resposne".

I agree with everything Mike said.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 1:09 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ahhh, as I read down, I see KPO gets it. Maybe you can understand it if I use his words:

Quote:
Before shooting a burglar/person trying to rape you, surely you would normally have the option of threatening to shoot them?

I don't understand this idea that you can't reason with them - if you've got a gun, and the opportunity to use it, surely you've also got the ability to threaten them with the use of it (in most cases)?

Thank you KPO.

On the other side is Frem:

Quote:
I WILL assume hostile intent and respond accordingly.... I consider any other viewpoint on the matter insane, and will not budge from this point

That's the other extreme, and I realize it's partly because of his past and where he lives, but I find it an abhorrent attitude. I don't live in black and white, where it's ALWAYS "kill or be killed". And as to

Quote:
what's with the assumption that if they get what they want, they'll suddenly revert back to obeying those rules

Good gawd, Frem, where has ANYONE indicated anything of the sort??? Or are you saying that anyone robbing my house should instantly be killed because they'll never be rehabilitated? Either way I disagree. The aim, for me, is to protect myself and my family; it's not up to me to judge whether they should live or die. What if it's one of those troubled kids you save, his first time, acting for all the reasons you know possible? Do you think that kid should be slaughtered out of hand, or chased four blocks and killed?

There's too much black and white in this discussion for me, aside from KPO it seems few are able to even conceive anything in the greys.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 4:29 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I think that these situations are such that each of us might respond differently and that's okay. If someone stole my stuff I wouldn't shoot. If someone was raping someone I love or killing them then yes I'd shoot. Now granted given my situation (lets be realistic) I wouldn't have a lot of control of where that bullet is going so I'd actually use shooting as a last resort since it would be easy enough to hit wrong. But in an AU world where that isn't an issue then I'd shoot a warning shot and then shoot a limb and then shoot to kill if the other two things didn't stop him/her. I'd much rather use the gun to threaten and gain compliance that way then use it to kill, but I would be willing if I needed to and I can understand that people get in situations where they feel they need to.

Now, if someone is stealing your truck and you catch them at it and you scare them away, then I don't think its right to chase them four blocks and then kill them. I should think that popping off some warning shots and yowling at them to get the rut away from your stuff or else they'll get it next time should be sufficient. But I wasn't there when it happened. Its pretty easy for us to judge when we're sitting at home in front of our computers and not in the situation.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2011 12:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Good gawd, Frem, where has ANYONE indicated anything of the sort???

All through the thread.

Punk sticks gun in your face, demands your stuff...
You give it him...
And everyone here seems to ASSUME he will not then fucking shoot you, when I saw it often enough in Baltimore to make me question the very sanity of anyone who believes that ?

I also take issue with the concept of warning shots or shooting to wound - firstoff that most people can't shoot for shit, especially under stress, and that for the most part our law doesn't really make that distinction as if you are justified in firing a warning shot, you are justified to blow a hole in them.

That's not me being black and white, that's the law, which will be ground into your very bones by someone like our resident shitheel prosecutor if you fire a warning shot at someone who was *not* an imminent and immediate provable threat to your life - guaranteed.

Same with shooting to wound - that presumes you can make the shot at all, and even so consider that even a lethally damaging shot may not STOP an attacker immediately, and if they weren't motivated to kill you before, they sure are now!
(Or they might flee, but you DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE)

Assuming you know what some unknown person will do, who may or may not be blitzed out of their head on mind altering substances, or a combination of adrenalin and fear - can be very deadly, to you.

That all ain't to say such is a decision I'd ever make lightly - it's just that ignoring the realities of the situation simply cause they are unpleasant is a recipe for disaster, believe it.

Now, if I had some nimrod kick down my door in the middle of the night, and I can see they are not visibly armed, and are ALONE - maybe, just maybe, even knowing I might be handing them a chance to shoot me first, I might still beam them with that gawdawful light I have attached to it and warn them off.

But if said putative assailant has pistol in hand and the shadows of a couple friends looming behind him, what exactly do you expect my half-blind, crippled ass to *DO* about it - they get no light, no rack of slide, no flick of safety switch, no warning whatever, nor am I legally obligated to give one since nefarious intent can be fully assumed at that point already.

But here's the punchline - she's not loaded with number four cube shot any more, but rubber ball shot, NOT as an act of mercy although I do abhor the notion of wasted life, but because I do not wish to needlessly endanger my fellow residents, or my property and the idea of having to clean some crackheads blood out of my carpet isn't a happy thought neither.
They WILL be incapacitated and possibly need medical attention (being hosed down by a drum-fed semi-auto shotgun will mess your day ALL up, rubber ball shot or not), and if I think a *lethal* response is required, which it damn well shouldn't be, but in case I missed one when I scuttle over to disarm them, there's the Bersa and a handful of Glazier rounds in it.

Your assumption of my motives is as foolish as your assumption of theirs.
And basing assumptions on how you WISH things were instead of how they are is up to you - but when folks start passing laws based on those assumptions, people die.

That's what offends me.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2011 12:49 AM

Missing the point. It's about using 'reasonable force' and then, being responsible for your actions.

I was burgarled 4 times. Never once did I even consider 'blowing the fuckers away'. Couple of damn junkies after a quick fix, to be pitied more than reviled. I moved on and have a life. They're probably dead or rotting in jail. If I was ever being personally threatened, or god help them, they went for my son, it would be a different story. People are worthing fighting over. Property, nah not so much.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2011 2:56 AM

Magonsdaughter wrote: "Missing the point. It's about using 'reasonable force' and then, being responsible for your actions. I was burgarled 4 times. Never once did I even consider 'blowing the fuckers away'. Couple of damn junkies after a quick fix, to be pitied more than reviled. I moved on and have a life. They're probably dead or rotting in jail. If I was ever being personally threatened, or god help them, they went for my son, it would be a different story. People are worthing fighting over. Property, nah not so much. "

The point I was trying to make was that if someone is already commiting a crime against you, it is the epitome of foolishness to believe that they will not CONTINUE to commit MORE crimes against you.

Also, if a criminal has a choice of 2 areas... The first, where they KNOW they will be shot if they are caught stealing, or the the second, where they know the owner MIGHT call the police (which gives them a window of oppurtunity to get away)... they will choose the second everytime.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2011 6:10 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

From what I see, this discussion isn't and won't get anywhere. Some of us feel one way, others feel differently. The only thing I find interesting is that those who advocate taking action see only one scenario: perp threatening property, person, family: Shoot to kill! On the other hand, those of us who feel the other way see multiple alternatives. Just interesting.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2011 6:23 AM

Niki2 wrote: "The only thing I find interesting is that those who advocate taking action see only one scenario: perp threatening property, person, family: Shoot to kill! On the other hand, those of us who feel the other way see multiple alternatives. Just interesting."

Well, yeah.

Someone comes on my property (illegally), attempts to steal what I have worked for, or threatens myself/family...

There is only one response to that.

I won't attempt to negotiate, to reason with, or to placate.

These people have shown themselves to be a threat to me and mine, and I will respond will deadly force.

I don't see how being a victim makes me morally superior. It just makes me a victim.

In point of fact, someone who allows themselves (and others) to be a victim (for whatever resaon) seems morally INFERIOR to someone who takes a stand.

IMHO

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2011 7:30 AM

Keeping order in every verse

Quote:
Originally posted by SkyDiveLife:
Niki2 wrote: "The only thing I find interesting is that those who advocate taking action see only one scenario: perp threatening property, person, family: Shoot to kill! On the other hand, those of us who feel the other way see multiple alternatives. Just interesting."

Well, yeah.

Someone comes on my property (illegally), attempts to steal what I have worked for, or threatens myself/family...

There is only one response to that.

I won't attempt to negotiate, to reason with, or to placate.

These people have shown themselves to be a threat to me and mine, and I will respond will deadly force.

I don't see how being a victim makes me morally superior. It just makes me a victim.

In point of fact, someone who allows themselves (and others) to be a victim (for whatever resaon) seems morally INFERIOR to someone who takes a stand.

IMHO

And when you take that stand and blow the fucker away, I guarantee you, you will then be fighting against all of his "Homeys" who will of course feel compelled to take their revenge on you.Ain't no way on earth that my shit is worth that much to be fighting a gang war. Fuck it and move to another neighbourhood, is my view.
And anyhow,talking big about blowin someone away is easier than actually doing it. Has anybody here actually killed someone in self-defense. And if you have, do you feel proud and untarnished by the experience???? Hot air and bullshit is what I hear. 99%of us would wet our knickers before even thinkin about pulling the trigger.
Owning a gun doesn't protect you from shit.Especially if you are up against someone who is actually PREPARED to use it, and not just pretend to be hard by talking about it.!!!!

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2011 7:56 AM

Peacekeeper wrote: "And anyhow,talking big about blowin someone away is easier than actually doing it. Has anybody here actually killed someone in self-defense?"

I cannot speak for others. But I have pulled my gun in self defense twice. I was lucky in that the simple showing of a gun, "deaded" the incident.

Once, when I came upon someone attempting to break into my car. I pulled my gun, and he ran.

The other, when I was home alone, and someone kicked in the door. They had a knife, I had a gun. They dropped the knife, and ran.

The first time I called the police, and most of the interview was spent on "if I was drunk, where was my permit, etc". Not on actually stopping the thief, or even catching him.

The second time, I just replaced the lock.

So, in point of fact, I chose NOT to kill. But, in both cases, neither thief had any of my valuables in-hand.

Yet. Had they actually HAD my valuables in-hand, I would have shot them. Had any family members been home at the time, I would have shot him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2011 8:05 AM

Keeping order in every verse

Quote:
Originally posted by SkyDiveLife:
Peacekeeper wrote: "And anyhow,talking big about blowin someone away is easier than actually doing it. Has anybody here actually killed someone in self-defense?"

I cannot speak for others. But I have pulled my gun in self defense twice. I was lucky in that the simple showing of a gun, "deaded" the incident.

Once, when I came upon someone attempting to break into my car. I pulled my gun, and he ran.

The other, when I was home alone, and someone kicked in the door. They had a knife, I had a gun. They dropped the knife, and ran.

The first time I called the police, and most of the interview was spent on "if I was drunk, where was my permit, etc". Not on actually stopping the thief, or even catching him.

The second time, I just replaced the lock.

So, in point of fact, I chose NOT to kill. But, in both cases, neither thief had any of my valuables in-hand.

Yet. Had they actually HAD my valuables in-hand, I would have shot them. Had any family members been home at the time, I would have shot him.

Yep, very commendable.If I had merely allowed the person robbing my place of work to make off with the stuff and just reported it to the police;instead of being the big hero and tackling him, I wouldn't have spent the last 20years with the lower half of my face sporting the massive slash mark he gave me. My God, that day was SOOOO fucking worth it.

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2011 8:10 AM

I don't think one has anything to do with the other.

Hearth and home, family and friends... vs work.

I commend you for standing up to robbery, and I'm sorry for your scar.

But I have to ask, why were you not sufficiantly armed to deal with the assailant?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2011 8:21 AM

Keeping order in every verse

Quote:
Originally posted by SkyDiveLife:
I don't think one has anything to do with the other.

Hearth and home, family and friends... vs work.

I commend you for standing up to robbery, and I'm sorry for your scar.

But I have to ask, why were you not sufficiantly armed to deal with the assailant?

Because I had no idea he was carrying until he ripped my face to pieces.If I had have known that, I would have stayed well clear.And if that had been at home, I would have turned to my family and got them out of harms way.THAT is more important than putting them more at risk by fighting a fire with another one!!!

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2011 9:26 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

PK, watch out. I suspect we have a

Could be wrong, but he seems intent on pushing buttons and nothing else. JMHO

Amusingly, he just made our point FOR us:

Quote:
I came upon someone attempting to break into my car. I pulled my gun, and he ran.... The other, when I was home alone, andsomeone kicked in the door. They had a knife, I had a gun. They dropped the knife, and ran

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2011 9:39 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Someone comes on my property (illegally), attempts to steal what I have worked for, or threatens myself/family...

In that sentence you've blurred together two things that are entirely different, in my mind.

Quote:
There is only one response to that.

I won't attempt to negotiate, to reason with, or to placate.

These people have shown themselves to be a threat to me and mine, and I will respond will deadly force.

But you just told us two stories where you ONLY SHOWED the gun to someone robbing you, and thus DIDN'T use deadly force (and it worked). You're contradicting yourself.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2011 2:05 PM

Quote:
The point I was trying to make was that if someone is already commiting a crime against you, it is the epitome of foolishness to believe that they will not CONTINUE to commit MORE crimes against you.

So in your view, all crimes are exactly the same, yes? If you see a jaywalker, you must blow them away, because they are committing a crime, and might decide to kill you at any moment, right?

Can you cite ANY sources that support your ludicrous claim that most burglars will become murderers if given the opportunity?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2011 2:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Someone comes on my property (illegally), attempts to steal what I have worked for, or threatens myself/family...

In that sentence you've blurred together two things that are entirely different, in my mind.

Quote:
There is only one response to that.

I won't attempt to negotiate, to reason with, or to placate.

These people have shown themselves to be a threat to me and mine, and I will respond will deadly force.

But you just told us two stories where you ONLY SHOWED the gun to someone robbing you, and thus DIDN'T use deadly force (and it worked). You're contradicting yourself.

It's not personal. It's just war.

Very good points, PK.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:17 AM

Kwicko wrote:

"So in your view, all crimes are exactly the same, yes? If you see a jaywalker, you must blow them away, because they are committing a crime, and might decide to kill you at any moment, right?

Can you cite ANY sources that support your ludicrous claim that most burglars will become murderers if given the opportunity?"

1. Not all crimes are the same.

2. The whole point is that you don't know if the person who broke into your home, assaulted you on the street, etc will do something more.

I really wasn't trying to make an issue of it. Just stating how *I* would handle these situations. You are free to handle them as you see fit.

But, again, please don't try and force your way of doing things on me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 29, 2011 4:25 AM