K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 52,792
- 46,612
- 136
It would take the police at least 10 minutes to get to my house if I called. That is if they are even remotely close.
All the cops would be doing is writing some reports and possibly picking up a body by the time they got here, one way or another.
All the cops would be doing is writing some reports and possibly picking up a body by the time they got here, one way or another.
Anytime someone decides to break into your home to take stuff, they have made a decision that their desire for your stuff trumps their concern for their safety (or yours), since they cannot guarantee that there will not be a struggle. And in cases like this I'm a believer in the golden rule: ie my desire to keep my stuff trumps my concern over their safety. If it was feasible, it wouldnt be a question of introducing them to Mr L. Slugger, or Mr Ruger, I'd prefer to introduce them to Mr Claymore. Of course, that isnt entirely practical, and leads to a lot of drywall repair, so Mr Forty-Five A.C.P. will have to do 
.
Someone participating in a home invasion values property over human life, at which point I value property more than their life. Thats the bottom line.
.Someone participating in a home invasion values property over human life, at which point I value property more than their life. Thats the bottom line.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,584
- 985
- 126
Originally posted by: Mookow
Anytime someone decides to break into your home to take stuff, they have made a decision that their desire for your stuff trumps their concern for their safety (or yours), since they cannot guarantee that there will not be a struggle. And in cases like this I'm a believer in the golden rule: ie my desire to keep my stuff trumps my concern over their safety. If it was feasible, it wouldnt be a question of introducing them to Mr L. Slugger, or Mr Ruger, I'd prefer to introduce them to Mr Claymore. Of course, that isnt entirely practical, and leads to a lot of drywall repair, so Mr Forty-Five A.C.P. will have to do
Someone participating in a home invasion values property over human life, at which point I value property more than their life. Thats the bottom line.
You would lose that battle in a courtroom unless the perp was armed. You cannot shoot or assault an unarmed person just for stealing your stuff.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Police and law abiding citizens fear them too!
Unfortunately, in practice, it tends to be similar to similar to shutting up wackos and idiots without stepping all over the First Amendment. Putting up with idiots and wackos, until they actually do something to limit the rights of other people, is the cost of living in a free society.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,391
- 19,709
- 146
I didn't make it clear because I thought it was common knowledge here. That's understandable.
But even that mistake misses the point. One of my managers was killed. She followed the robber's demands, and he still killed her.
The point here is that armed robbers have NO regard for your life. They are not simply stealing your (or your boss') money, they are putting your life at dire risk. IF I can find an opening, I will take them down. Up until that opening I will comply. I'm not stupid, merely determined to NOT be a victim.
I think you're overanalyzing a simple stickup. If you want to make it a matter of rights being violated, then go ahead, try and talk up the mugger and get shot. But honestly, I'll hand over my wallet and still be in control of the situation. Incidentally, by complying you are not 'handing over your life,' you're handing over a wallet. There's quite a difference. Secondly, the guy holding you up for your wallet is interested in one thing: your wallet. He could care less about the ability he has to kill you or not. The gun is simply a device which puts the control over the situation in your hands - but YOU have the choice whether or not to exercise the bit of control you have over the situation by either doing something smart (handing him the wallet) or stupid (trying to pull a fast one). The choice is obvious for those of us who don't panic in such a situation.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,391
- 19,709
- 146
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: Mookow
Anytime someone decides to break into your home to take stuff, they have made a decision that their desire for your stuff trumps their concern for their safety (or yours), since they cannot guarantee that there will not be a struggle. And in cases like this I'm a believer in the golden rule: ie my desire to keep my stuff trumps my concern over their safety. If it was feasible, it wouldnt be a question of introducing them to Mr L. Slugger, or Mr Ruger, I'd prefer to introduce them to Mr Claymore. Of course, that isnt entirely practical, and leads to a lot of drywall repair, so Mr Forty-Five A.C.P. will have to do
Someone participating in a home invasion values property over human life, at which point I value property more than their life. Thats the bottom line.
You would lose that battle in a courtroom unless the perp was armed. You cannot shoot or assault an unarmed person just for stealing your stuff.
A person can use whatever force they need to use to stop the attack if they feel their life is threatened. A 90lb woman can easily get away with shooting an unarmed attacker who enters her home.
That said, the best defense is to explain it this way: Why should the obligation be put upon me to determine if the robber is armed when my life is threatened by a home invader? By the time I figure that out, I could very well be shot.
Thankfully, laws in most states do NOT make the home owner determine whether or not the intruder is armed before taking measures to protect themselves and their family.
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: Mookow
Anytime someone decides to break into your home to take stuff, they have made a decision that their desire for your stuff trumps their concern for their safety (or yours), since they cannot guarantee that there will not be a struggle. And in cases like this I'm a believer in the golden rule: ie my desire to keep my stuff trumps my concern over their safety. If it was feasible, it wouldnt be a question of introducing them to Mr L. Slugger, or Mr Ruger, I'd prefer to introduce them to Mr Claymore. Of course, that isnt entirely practical, and leads to a lot of drywall repair, so Mr Forty-Five A.C.P. will have to do
Someone participating in a home invasion values property over human life, at which point I value property more than their life. Thats the bottom line.
You would lose that battle in a courtroom unless the perp was armed. You cannot shoot or assault an unarmed person just for stealing your stuff.
Actually, I just have to reasonably believe my life was in danger. All I have to say is "I thought I saw something in his hand, but it was dark and I guess was wrong" or "I thought I heard him pull a knife out of the drawer in the kitchen", etc. That establishes me having a reasonable fear for my life, and that satisfies Ohio law.
You didn't address my point and skirted it entirely. You claim is that the police are not there to protect us, and we must take the matter up into our own hands. This sounds somewhat like the underlying reasons for building up a state militia. :roll: I am also quite skeptical on your claims that 'disarming citizens' leads to an increase in crime because crime is a complex socio-economic issue with multiple variables, one of which is the targeted individual. Moreover, this 'disarmament' you suggest which happens doesn't seem to really be restricting the availability of firearms, sharp objects, or nonlethal weapons available to the consumer, so I don't really see where you are getting this correlation. Are you trying to say that because the government has removed your ability to purchase a fully automatic M-16 that you are more in danger of having your house broken into or your family threatened? Please.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,391
- 19,709
- 146
You missed my last post:
One of my managers was killed. She followed the robber's demands, and he still killed her.
The point here is that armed robbers have NO regard for your life. They are not simply stealing your (or your boss') money, they are putting your life at dire risk. IF I can find an opening, I will take them down. Up until that opening I will comply. I'm not stupid, merely determined to NOT be a victim.
The fact of the matter is, many people who comply are still shot and killed. Compliance does NOT mean you will survive the assault.
You can't kill someone for a property crime
Insurance will buy you a new car or you can sue the burglar.
If a thief were to go to court he wouldn't get the death penalty for stealing a car. You can't be judge jury and executioner.
IF you feel your life is in danger that is a totally different matter, and who wouldn't feel in danger, even if he was or was not armed is irrelevant, how am I to determine what kind of a threat he is by seeing him?
Now by jumping out a window and turning my back on him I'd put myself in danger, by not shooting to kill could also put me in danger as he may have a concealed weapon.
I see his point about the property thing BUT if I'm in a confrontation and that guy is not doing everything in HIS power to get out !?!?
Thats his problem not mine , and I'll choose my life over his everytime
Insurance will buy you a new car or you can sue the burglar.
If a thief were to go to court he wouldn't get the death penalty for stealing a car. You can't be judge jury and executioner.
IF you feel your life is in danger that is a totally different matter, and who wouldn't feel in danger, even if he was or was not armed is irrelevant, how am I to determine what kind of a threat he is by seeing him?
Now by jumping out a window and turning my back on him I'd put myself in danger, by not shooting to kill could also put me in danger as he may have a concealed weapon.
I see his point about the property thing BUT if I'm in a confrontation and that guy is not doing everything in HIS power to get out !?!?
Thats his problem not mine , and I'll choose my life over his everytime
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: Mookow
Anytime someone decides to break into your home to take stuff, they have made a decision that their desire for your stuff trumps their concern for their safety (or yours), since they cannot guarantee that there will not be a struggle. And in cases like this I'm a believer in the golden rule: ie my desire to keep my stuff trumps my concern over their safety. If it was feasible, it wouldnt be a question of introducing them to Mr L. Slugger, or Mr Ruger, I'd prefer to introduce them to Mr Claymore. Of course, that isnt entirely practical, and leads to a lot of drywall repair, so Mr Forty-Five A.C.P. will have to do
Someone participating in a home invasion values property over human life, at which point I value property more than their life. Thats the bottom line.
You would lose that battle in a courtroom unless the perp was armed. You cannot shoot or assault an unarmed person just for stealing your stuff.
Actually, I just have to reasonably believe my life was in danger. All I have to say is "I thought I saw something in his hand, but it was dark and I guess was wrong" or "I thought I heard him pull a knife out of the drawer in the kitchen", etc. That establishes me having a reasonable fear for my life, and that satisfies Ohio law.
So you're suggesting you make something up to skirt the law? That's just messed up.
would you like some #6 shot in rour testicles?/ Borwnong a5 xfull choke high brass #6 shot semi auto 5 shot. MMMM suffer now mm k?
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: Mookow
Anytime someone decides to break into your home to take stuff, they have made a decision that their desire for your stuff trumps their concern for their safety (or yours), since they cannot guarantee that there will not be a struggle. And in cases like this I'm a believer in the golden rule: ie my desire to keep my stuff trumps my concern over their safety. If it was feasible, it wouldnt be a question of introducing them to Mr L. Slugger, or Mr Ruger, I'd prefer to introduce them to Mr Claymore. Of course, that isnt entirely practical, and leads to a lot of drywall repair, so Mr Forty-Five A.C.P. will have to do
Someone participating in a home invasion values property over human life, at which point I value property more than their life. Thats the bottom line.
You would lose that battle in a courtroom unless the perp was armed. You cannot shoot or assault an unarmed person just for stealing your stuff.
And that is the $hitty part about the laws now days. The laws favor the criminals and try to protect their rights over anything else. If it's dark in my house and I see a person moving around going through my stuff, I can't be sure if that person is armed or not. I'm not going to stand up and say...."excuse me sir, are you armed, or do you mean to do harm to me or my family?" However I would also not just simply shoot anyone who was in my house at night, you can talk tough but in reality it would be a lot of guilt to live with if you killed somebody unreasonably. It's a tough situation for sure, but I would err on the side of my personaly safety (but not my possessions, I have insurance for that kind of stuff) over the safety of a criminal.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,584
- 985
- 126
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: Mookow
Anytime someone decides to break into your home to take stuff, they have made a decision that their desire for your stuff trumps their concern for their safety (or yours), since they cannot guarantee that there will not be a struggle. And in cases like this I'm a believer in the golden rule: ie my desire to keep my stuff trumps my concern over their safety. If it was feasible, it wouldnt be a question of introducing them to Mr L. Slugger, or Mr Ruger, I'd prefer to introduce them to Mr Claymore. Of course, that isnt entirely practical, and leads to a lot of drywall repair, so Mr Forty-Five A.C.P. will have to do
Someone participating in a home invasion values property over human life, at which point I value property more than their life. Thats the bottom line.
You would lose that battle in a courtroom unless the perp was armed. You cannot shoot or assault an unarmed person just for stealing your stuff.
Actually, I just have to reasonably believe my life was in danger. All I have to say is "I thought I saw something in his hand, but it was dark and I guess was wrong" or "I thought I heard him pull a knife out of the drawer in the kitchen", etc. That establishes me having a reasonable fear for my life, and that satisfies Ohio law.
You would lose a civil battle if his family sued you with that argument. How would you feel if his crack hoe GF took you to court and was awarded $1 million dollars for wrongful death. You yourself admitted that you were wrong in your post. A jury of 12 would surely side with her on that one.
That is unfortunate but I still maintain the view that the best way is to comply. Robbers are usually incredibly high-strung, nervous, and very easily frightened by the fact that they realize they have little control over the situation. Compound this with the fact that most are not professional criminals but mostly amateurs with guns, and you have a problem because the person being held up is usually not in the best of mental states and may panic, inadvertently doing something to send the wrong message to the robber - who will inevitably discharge his weapon. Common sense should dictate that the best way to handle the situation would be to have a clear head and stay calm, controlling the situation as much as you can. Trying to be a hero or as you said, being "determined not to be a victim" only causes more problems than it can solve. If you go in with such a gung-ho attitude, someone is going to get hurt...
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,391
- 19,709
- 146
OK, this is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. I, and my employees have been the victims of more armed robberies than you probably ever will. Your idealistic response is one you have been taught, not anything you know from experience. Think about that the next time you feel like bleating it out, OK?
Common sense ? stay calm? what am I an Ninja?
If he gets the drop on me I'd comply as that would be the best strategy, If I get the drop on him?
I'd better be seeing his backside or he's done
If he gets the drop on me I'd comply as that would be the best strategy, If I get the drop on him?
I'd better be seeing his backside or he's done
You're right there. I haven't been stuck up recently, or ever, for that matter. You do speak for experience, but that doesn't make you the gospel expert on the subject, because you and your employees are but a microcosm in the thousands of crimes which occur every year - and as idealistic as my train of thought may be, you cannot discount that it contains some elements of truth, as I am sure your experience does as well. Perhaps you are quick to discount someone's opinion simply because of a 'lack of experience,' if 'experience' in this case can be in any way beneficial. The fact remains that the next robbery at gunpoint you may experience (with any luck, never) may be completely different than the last dozen, and that your experience may prove completely worthless. Similarly, I may still get shot even if I comply or remain completely calm - but I'll take my chances with what I know will probably work, and I am sure you will do the same.
Neither one of us can control the situation entirely and the outcome is to some extent, luck of the draw.
This is why it behooves people to keep an unregistered or stolen pistol, or a nice sized knife in the closet. Criminal comes in my house, he's dead. No questions asked. And when the cops get there 5 minutes later, their going to find a stolen pistol in this robbers hands. Or a nice sized knife. But I assure you beyond the shadow of a doubt, they will find a body with a weapon.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter