15 States Expand Right to Shoot in Self-Defense

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: BigJ
[The infamous slogan "To Protect and Serve" has mysteriously vanished from police cars and departments across the nation over the past decade. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because the courts have ruled that the police have absolutely no obligation to protect any individual citizen. Want an example? Look up Warren v. District of Columbia.

So you are saying they wouldn't and shouldn't come in this siutation? Either way, it's a moot point. The guy was already trespassing. And, clearly, much of what cops do is still related to protecting.

I'm saying nothing of the sort, and I don't see how you could reach that conclusion from me saying that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to protect individual citizens. Are you purposely trying to misconstrue my statements?

Want more links to examples of this? It's a radical site, but gets the point across:
http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html

Much of what the cops do may be related to protecting, but they have absolutely none, zero, zilch, nada, not one iota of obligation to protect an individual citizen. You are responsible for your own saftey.

It is anything but a moot point.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: BigJ
[The infamous slogan "To Protect and Serve" has mysteriously vanished from police cars and departments across the nation over the past decade. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because the courts have ruled that the police have absolutely no obligation to protect any individual citizen. Want an example? Look up Warren v. District of Columbia.

So you are saying they wouldn't and shouldn't come in this siutation? Either way, it's a moot point. The guy was already trespassing. And, clearly, much of what cops do is still related to protecting.

I'm saying nothing of the sort, and I don't see how you could reach that conclusion from me saying that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to protect individual citizens.

Want more links to examples of this? It's a radical site, but gets the point across:
http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html

Much of what the cops do may be related to protecting, but they have absolutely none, zero, zilch, nada, not one iota of obligation to protect an individual citizen. You are responsible for your own saftey.

Yeah, I agree with that. The law is mainly meant to protect them from lawsuits relating due to claims of inadequate protection. But that in no way means that you shouldn't call them in a situation like this. So I'm not sure why this even entered this debate?

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: BigJ
[The infamous slogan "To Protect and Serve" has mysteriously vanished from police cars and departments across the nation over the past decade. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because the courts have ruled that the police have absolutely no obligation to protect any individual citizen. Want an example? Look up Warren v. District of Columbia.

So you are saying they wouldn't and shouldn't come in this siutation? Either way, it's a moot point. The guy was already trespassing. And, clearly, much of what cops do is still related to protecting.

I'm saying nothing of the sort, and I don't see how you could reach that conclusion from me saying that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to protect individual citizens.

Want more links to examples of this? It's a radical site, but gets the point across:
http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html

Much of what the cops do may be related to protecting, but they have absolutely none, zero, zilch, nada, not one iota of obligation to protect an individual citizen. You are responsible for your own saftey.

Yeah, I agree with that. The law is mainly meant to protect them from lawsuits relating due to claims of inadequate protection. But that in no way means that you shouldn't call them in a situation like this. So I'm not sure why this even entered this debate?

It entered into the debate because a person has a legal right to protect themselves in situations of danger. He should not have to hide in his room, scared of every noise in the house while he waits an hour for the police to show up.

No offense, but you have to be bat ****** wacky to:
1) Stick around after someone tells you they're getting a firearm because they feel threatened and don't want you on their property
2) Lunge at a person when they're pointing a firearm at you and force your way into their house

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: BigJ
No offense, but you have to be bat ****** wacky to:
1) Stick around after someone tells you they're getting a firearm because they feel threatened and don't want you on their property
2) Lunge at a person when they're pointing a firearm at you and force your way into their house

I've made no claims on the other guy's intelligence. I just think this was not a siutation where a gun should have entered the picture. The old man escalated the situation way beyond what was necessary.

BTW, you're also assuming that the old guy's story is even true. As far as we know he never said he was going to get a gun and the other guy never made a move against him.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Amused
Rosenbloom was told to leave. He did not. He entered the house in a threatening manner without permission. He was warned that the home owner was armed and STILL violated his rights by not leaving his property and threatening him.

Mr Allen, a former cop, BTW, was within his rights.

Funny how the New York Times painted a completely different picture, isn't it?

My problem with the situation is the fact that he closed the door, fetched the gun, and then came back to continue the confrontation. Both accounts agree on this. If he truly felt his life was in danger he would have never re-opened the door. Why didn't he just lock the door and call the police? He had no reason at all to get a gun and escalate the situation.

If you're still on my property after I've told you to leave, YOU are the one continuing the confrontation.

Sorry, but I will not cower and wait for the police when there is an invader on my property who refuses to leave when told, and threatening me.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: BigJ
No offense, but you have to be bat ****** wacky to:
1) Stick around after someone tells you they're getting a firearm because they feel threatened and don't want you on their property
2) Lunge at a person when they're pointing a firearm at you and force your way into their house

I've made no claims on the other guy's intelligence. I just think this was not a siutation where a gun should have entered the picture. The old man escalated the situation way beyond what was necessary.

Like I said before, because the news articles are missing so many critical details on whether or not he should've actually went and got his firearm, it's hard to say if he actually escalated the situation or wanted to keep it from spinning out of control. If the younger gentleman is being verbally abusive, yelling threats and leers through the door, and is banging on the door, I don't think him getting his firearm is an overreaction.

However, if for example he was standing there waiting for the man with his arms crossed (extreme, but you get what I mean) in a calm manner, it completely escalated the situation.

As far as assuming what the guy said is true, I'm sure that the "victim" would've refuted it in at the very least the NYTimes article. On top of that, I'm sure the police would've commented on the person's claims.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: BigJ
No offense, but you have to be bat ****** wacky to:
1) Stick around after someone tells you they're getting a firearm because they feel threatened and don't want you on their property
2) Lunge at a person when they're pointing a firearm at you and force your way into their house

I've made no claims on the other guy's intelligence. I just think this was not a siutation where a gun should have entered the picture. The old man escalated the situation way beyond what was necessary.

BTW, you're also assuming that the old guy's story is even true. As far as we know he never said he was going to get a gun and the other guy never made a move against him.

This was investigated by the police and Allen was cleared. Obviously there was enough evidence to suggest his story was more truthful than Rosenbloom's

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: Amused
[Sorry, but I will not cower and wait for the police when there is an invader on my property who refuses to leave when told, and threatening me.

So you would pull a gun over an argument about trash? That's just stupid.

Originally posted by: Amused
This was investigated by the police and Allen was cleared. Obviously there was enough evidence to suggest his story was more truthful than Rosenbloom's

He's an ex-cop... this would have likely been the finding whether true or not.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Amused
[Sorry, but I will not cower and wait for the police when there is an invader on my property who refuses to leave when told, and threatening me.

So you would pull a gun over an argument about trash? That's just stupid.

Miss the bolded part? You really have a way of jumping to unfounded conclusions in this thread.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Amused
[Sorry, but I will not cower and wait for the police when there is an invader on my property who refuses to leave when told, and threatening me.

So you would pull a gun over an argument about trash? That's just stupid.

It's obvious that this was about far more than trash, and Rosenbloom was being far more aggressive than he claims. The NYT has made this out to be a trivial fight when in fact this was a feud brewing over several months and many things.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Amused
[Sorry, but I will not cower and wait for the police when there is an invader on my property who refuses to leave when told, and threatening me.

So you would pull a gun over an argument about trash? That's just stupid.

Miss the bolded part? You really have a way of jumping to unfounded conclusions in this thread.

It's still ulitmately an argument about trash. Maybe he threatened the guy, maybe he didn't. Either way, according to both accounts, no physical confrontation occurred until after the gun was pulled.


Look, nothing you guys have said has convnced me that it was a good idea to go get the gun. The guy didn't prevent him from closing the door, so at that point he should have just called the police. I wouldn't want to live next to either of these guys (or maybe you guys either ).

 

[CKent]

More than a bit extreme, but not surprising. We'll probably be having good ole' witch hunts again before long.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Amused
[Sorry, but I will not cower and wait for the police when there is an invader on my property who refuses to leave when told, and threatening me.

So you would pull a gun over an argument about trash? That's just stupid.

you bring a gun out when you don't know what will happen and you want to be protected. The older man brought a gun out because he doesn't know what will happen, but he probably does knows what a punch from a strong young man can do to a sixty year olds skull -- its not a good sight.

The only stupid thing in this whole ordeal is the guy who got shoot. Stop threatening older folks and let them be...

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Amused
[Sorry, but I will not cower and wait for the police when there is an invader on my property who refuses to leave when told, and threatening me.

So you would pull a gun over an argument about trash? That's just stupid.

Miss the bolded part? You really have a way of jumping to unfounded conclusions in this thread.

It's still ulitmately an argument about trash. Maybe he threatened the guy, maybe he didn't. Either way, according to both accounts, no physical confrontation occurred until after the gun was pulled.

If the police had concluded the pulling the gun was completely unnecessary and escalated the situation, Allen would've been charged with brandishing, along with other crimes.

Obviously the police felt he was justified in pulling the gun to begin with.

And again, this situation NEVER HAPPENS if the younger man leaves the property when instructed to.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Amused
[Sorry, but I will not cower and wait for the police when there is an invader on my property who refuses to leave when told, and threatening me.

So you would pull a gun over an argument about trash? That's just stupid.

Miss the bolded part? You really have a way of jumping to unfounded conclusions in this thread.

It's still ulitmately an argument about trash. Maybe he threatened the guy, maybe he didn't. Either way, according to both accounts, no physical confrontation occurred until after the gun was pulled.

So now the old man has to wait to be hit before he can defend himself? Cower in his home from an aggressive neighbor?

 

[Red Dawn]

Somebody comes to your door and pisses you off just shoot him and drag him into the house and claim that he was threatening you.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: eleison
you bring a gun out when you don't know what will happen and you want to be protected. The older man brought a gun out because he probably knows what a punch from a strong young man can do to a sixty year olds skull -- its probably not a good sight.

The only stupid thing in this whole ordeal is the guy who got shoot. Stop threatening older folks and let them be...

But you are ignoring that fact that he closed the door, went inside, got the gun, and re-opened the door. If were afraid of being punched, why open the door?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: eleison
you bring a gun out when you don't know what will happen and you want to be protected. The older man brought a gun out because he probably knows what a punch from a strong young man can do to a sixty year olds skull -- its probably not a good sight.

The only stupid thing in this whole ordeal is the guy who got shoot. Stop threatening older folks and let them be...

But you are ignoring that fact that he closed the door, went inside, got the gun, and re-opened the door. If were afraid of being punched, why open the door?

Because that's HIS property. Your ideal would have the elderly cowering in their homes afraid to enjoy their yards for fear of being hit by aggressive neighbors.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: Amused
So now the old man has to wait to be hit before he can defend himself? Cower in his home from an aggressive neighbor?

Again, you miss my entire point. The guy allowed him to close the door. So why even open it back up with a gun in hand? And drop the whole "cower" bit. It's amazingly lame. No one's asking him to cower, but why escalate the argument with a gun?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Amused
So now the old man has to wait to be hit before he can defend himself? Cower in his home from an aggressive neighbor?

Again, you miss my entire point. The guy allowed him to close the door. So why even open it back up with a gun in hand? And drop the whole "cower" bit. It's amazingly lame. No one's asking him to cower, but why eslacate and argument with a gun?

Because the man would not leave his property. Your property and rights do not end at your door, they end at your property line.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: Amused
Because the man would not leave his property. Your property and rights do not end at your door, they end at your property line.

Sorry, still not a good reason to involve a gun. This is the sort of mentality that results in situations like this and can come to no good end the vast majority of the time.

 

[Red Dawn]

The only problem with these laws is that a lot of assholes are going to use them as an excuse to commit murder. Oh well, we need the prison space for real criminals like those who smoke pot and snort coke.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

But you are ignoring that fact that he closed the door, went inside, got the gun, and re-opened the door. If were afraid of being punched, why open the door?

Its the mans home: he shouldn't have to cower in his own home... besides he already told the young man to leave. this is speculation, but after telling the young man about the firearm and after closing the door on the young man. The older man probably did not expect the young man to still be there.

However, just by being at the door, the young man has escalated the situation. He has proven either he is crazy (knows about the gun), or that he is willing to do harm -- why else is he still there... makes no sense. The old man has to work with those expectations for his safety...

-Eleison

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Thraxen

But you are ignoring that fact that he closed the door, went inside, got the gun, and re-opened the door. If were afraid of being punched, why open the door?

Its the mans home: he shouldn't have to cower in his own home... besides he already told the young man to leave. this is speculation, but after telling the young man about the firearm and after closing the door on the young man. The older man probably did not expect the young man to still be there.

However, just by being at the door, the young man has escalated the situation. He has proven either he is crazy (knows about the gun), or that he is willing to do harm -- else why else is he there... makes no sense. The old man has to work with those expectations for his safety...

-Eleison

It's also just as likely that the old man was fscking nuts and a real asshole.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Amused
Because the man would not leave his property. Your property and rights do not end at your door, they end at your property line.

Sorry, still not a good reason to involve a gun. This is the sort of mentality that results in situations like this and can come to no good end the vast majority of the time.

Oh yes, because, as you know, I've killed dozens of people on my front door step. :roll:

Sorry, but you're wrong. Allen had every right to defend himself AND his property. He should not be made afraid to open his front door at will.