Man calls 911, then shoots burglars while on the phone with 911

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: exdeath
...
I wouldn't have resorted to deadly force immediately myself, but I assure you they would have been leaving with nothing more than what they came with and I would have one upped their resistance every step of the way. For example, I'd force them with legal physical obstruction to relinquish the property but if they pulled a knife or gun or otherwise approached me, I would shoot them. They wouldn't be dead over a VCR, they would be dead because they threatened my life while I was in the process of legally retaining my belongings from intruders on private property.

I disagree on the popular view that life is not worth property. I exchange a portion of my LIMITED LIFESPAN in the form of labor in order to earn that property and pursue my life and happiness the way I see fit. Am I not entitled to enjoy my life and labor without someone else taking it from me in any measurable quantity?

When someone takes the property I earned with my blood, sweat, and tears, they are essentially taking the precious hours of my life that I traded and can never get back in order to earn that property. I will not stand to have someone take what would be hundreds of hours of my life in a matter of seconds because they feel entitled to the rewards of my labor.

You are the first person other than myself I have ever heard make that argument.

:thumbsup::beer:

Probably because it's kind of a silly argument. Following that logic, I can kill someone for cutting me off in traffic. After all, the other driver is forcing me to spend more of my LIMITED LIFESPAN than I planned on getting where I want to go. Isn't that really the same argument? I spent $2000 on that laptop your stealing, and since it would take me a fair amount of labor to earn another $2000, I have the right to kill you to prevent you from stealing...is that about right? In other words, ANY amount of "wasted time" on my part is equivalent to you stealing part of my limited lifespan, so I'm justified to take the rest of yours? Needless to say, the idea isn't all THAT unappealing...the guy in front of my at Starbucks takes a really long time to decide what he wants, shooting him in the head would save me a lot of time in the morning. But somehow it just doesn't seem like a good way to run a society.

Cutting me off in traffic (providing there's no safety issue) is a loss of maybe 1 second. Stealing a $2000 computer is a loss of 200 hours (at my current pay), which is roughly 8 full days...it's theft of a week of my life. Now let me ask you this: if you had a terminal disease and were 100% guaranteed to die in a set amount of time, and someone killed you one week early would you be more angry about dying, or about the loss of the week? Personally, knowing that I was born to die, I'm much more bothered by the theft of my time, which is the only valuable commodity a human has. Time is absolutely everything.

Furthermore I make the choice to live in a city or not, to go to a coffee shop or not, etc. If I don't want to lose those moments I can simply make coffee at home or live in the country. Nothing I do can stop someone else from robbing me however. It's a choice they make, whereas the others are choices I made.

+1

I choose to drive in public traffic and spend 45 mins driving someplace. I chose to wait in a line of indecisive asshats or go somewhere else. In fact I don't like it and prefer to go out as little as possible and keep to myself. That is a choice I make.

I don't chose, however, to have someone try to pull me out of my car and car jack me or invade my home or stick their hand in my pocket or choose to have my belongings not be there when I get home. When someone else makes those choices for me, they are crossing a line and risking their own safety. My safety, comfort, happiness, property, or whatever, comes first when a foreign party chooses to invade my personal space (or that of a mutual third person such as a neighbor, stranger in need, family member, etc).

Taking of property against ones will is only acceptable as punishment and compensation towards someone who instigated a wrong doing against property toward someone else first.

A persons life, and therefore body, is the most important piece of property a person owns. If someone wants to take my property, they are putting their property up for grabs as well, up to and including the right to their body and it's proper functioning.

Now I am fully aware of the law and careful in it's implementation. I'm not going to shoot someone for trying to walk off my property with an object that belongs to me on both moral and legal grounds. However I must insist that they leave with nothing more than they came with. Bottom line is they will not take my property, period, end of story. I hope that only physical confrontation or threat of law enforcement involvement is enough to change their mind and end things peacefully.

If however they resist and persevere in their attempt to take said property from me, until they escalate to the point that deadly force is necessary to now protect myself as well while I pursue my property, I am more than happy to oblige and lawfully escalate in return to maintain control of the uninvited confrontation. So when I shoot someone, it's not for stealing my stereo. It would be because they tried to kill me while I tried to recover that stereo. Two completely different events.

Saying that my attempt to reclaim my property is enticing and provoking the criminal to violence and that I should just let him take it is wrong, as I am totally within my rights to retain my personal property from theft. It is the criminal who initiates the wrong doing by first stealing, and then again by choosing of his own free will to upgrade it to extortion and threat of force when all he had to do was put it down. It's the criminal who makes the choice that his life is worth a $100 stereo when he pulls that knife or gun out. The property owner is never obligated in any way to relinquish his property.

The whole "eye for an eye" type of punishment is viscerally appealing, I suppose, I just don't trust the average Joe Blow to play judge, jury and executioner. Defending yourself is one thing, but acting as the hand of justice is something else. I'm not arguing that the criminal should have the right to steal your stereo, but that doesn't mean you should have the right to kill him if he does.

That said, what you were talking at the end of your post is different. Again, we're talking about defense, not punishment. To use a more basic example, if someone snatches my wallet and attempts to run down the street with it, I have no problem at all chasing him and using whatever violence necessary to regain my wallet. For that matter, if I see a purse snatcher grab a woman's purse and run towards me, I'd have no problem tackling his dumb-ass as he runs by. I think the same idea should apply to your home as well. The difference between that and punishment is that while I should have the right to STOP the purse snatcher to get the purse back, if I get it back and he starts running away, I don't have a right to shoot him in the back of the head to punish him for purse snatching. It's the intent, not so much the methods, that seem important here.

This may seem like splitting hairs, but it's not. The first part of your post, and many of the comments in this thread, seem to indicate that you and others think killing is an appropriate way to PUNISH someone for trying to steal your stereo or your neighbor's stereo. While I have little problem with the eventual use of deadly force being necessary in the process of defending yourself or your home, I think that's different from going into the situation with the express intent of killing someone as punishment. From the comments made by the homeowner in the OP, it seems very likely he belonged to the latter group.

Of course the other consideration is that you are not John McClain, and real life is not a Die Hard movie. If you violently confront a criminal, there is every possibility that YOU will wind up seriously hurt or dead. Whatever feelings you may have about the value of the criminal's life, surely you value YOUR life more than your $100 stereo. I don't think this is a legal argument, but it's a practical one, and one most folks never seem to consider. If you can protect your property, that's great, but if it requires you to seriously risk your life to do so...then you're just being dumb.

I agree 100%. If you chase and they give up and run, the confrontation ends. As I said, getting the property back and being at a 0% net loss is the goal. What you didn't address is what is acceptable if you give chase as you described and the resist by escalating and threatening your life. If you tackle the guy does he have a right to pull a gun on you to "defend himself" in the act of snatching the purse because you tackled him and are you mandated by law to give up at that point? Or do you have a right to escalate in turn and shoot him first, not for stealing the purse, but for threatening you while you were doing the right thing in stopping a crime?

Shooting them is called for if during your rightful chase they confront you with a threat to your life, ie: you have a gun on you but it's the last thing on your mind, you tackle the guy and get the purse and start to walk away, and he draws a gun on you. Your comments?

Regarding your last paragraph I'm not saying that everyone can or should confront a criminal. I know that I personally have the credentials, the capacity mentally and physically, and I am also willing to risk my life for that $100 stereo not for the value of the property, but the principle of being a slave and subservient victim versus a free man.

The difference is I don't seek to impose that philosophy on everyone else via legislation. It's not for everyone. I don't care if someone else chooses differently and decides to just let the guy go with his property without even a chase on foot. However there are people who don't feel that I should be allowed to do anything to defend myself, my property or my neighbor, and seek legal means to bar me from that option, and that is what I will not tolerate.

When is the last time someone proposed a law that mandated you confront an intruder or have a gun in your home and threatened to put you in jail if you didn't make an effort to stop the guy?

Yet on the other side, how often do you hear: its not worth it, just let it go, it should be illegal, run away, you should go to jail if you defend your property, etc.

I will let you choose to give up your property and let the guy get away if you let me choose to chase the guy and risk my life to get my property back.

It's that one sided one philosophy for all view that irks me most.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
...

I think you're seeing it as two extremes when in reality it's a gradient. I almost never meet a true pacifist, and neither do I usually meet a bloodthirsty killer (though I have met both). Instead I meet people with different thresholds of violence. In my experience that threshold is usually established (or at least modified) by their personal experiences.

While I myself detest violence I recognize its necessity in real world applications. I therefore act reasonably to deter it, but when its use is required I am willing to apply it absolutely with no fear of regret. Just like I see in others this is largely due to my own experiences.

That's all I'm saying, it IS a gradient. I don't like the "black or white" mentality under which the only allowable options are sheep or rabid wolf. I think we agree, I was just saying that the "rabid wolf" extreme is just as dangerous as the "sheep" extreme.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: exdeath
...
I agree 100%. If you chase and they give up and run, the confrontation ends. As I said, getting the property back and being at a 0% net loss is the goal. What you didn't address is what is acceptable if you give chase as you described and the resist by escalating and threatening your life. If you tackle the guy does he have a right to pull a gun on you to "defend himself" in the act of snatching the purse because you tackled him and are you mandated by law to give up at that point? Or do you have a right to escalate in turn and shoot him first, not for stealing the purse, but for threatening you while you were doing the right thing in stopping a crime?

Shooting them is called for if during your rightful chase they confront you with a threat to your life, ie: you have a gun on you but it's the last thing on your mind, you tackle the guy and get the purse and start to walk away, and he draws a gun on you. Your comments?

If they threaten your life, of course you have a right to defend yourself. As purse snatching is illegal, it's not "defending yourself" if you attack someone trying to stop you. I think we agree on this, what I was objecting to was the idea of taking it farther than you have to in order to exact revenge or punishment on the criminal. Taking it as far as you need to in order to retrieve what was stolen or defend yourself is totally acceptable.

Regarding your last paragraph I'm not saying that everyone can or should confront a criminal. I know that I personally have the credentials, the capacity mentally and physically, and I am also willing to risk my life for that $100 stereo not for the value of the property, but the principle of being a slave and subservient victim versus a free man.

The difference is I don't seek to impose that philosophy on everyone else via legislation. It's not for everyone. I don't care if someone else chooses differently and decides to just let the guy go with his property without even a chase on foot. However there are people who don't feel that I should be allowed to do anything to defend myself, my property or my neighbor, and seek legal means to bar me from that option, and that is what I will not tolerate.

When is the last time someone proposed a law that mandated you confront an intruder or have a gun in your home and threatened to put you in jail if you didn't make an effort to stop the guy?

Yet on the other side, how often do you hear: its not worth it, just let it go, it should be illegal, run away, you should go to jail if you defend your property, etc.

I will let you choose to give up your property and let the guy get away if you let me choose to chase the guy and risk my life to get my property back.

It's that one sided one philosophy for all view that irks me most.

I don't think it should be a legal requirement that you do or not do things along those lines. You're right, one size does not fit all. Like I said, I would go after a purse snatcher or someone who grabbed my wallet unless I thought they had a gun (I'm good, but I'm not that good, and my state doesn't give out concealed carry permits very readily). I would not, however, expect an unarmed 110 lb woman to do the same thing. Whatever works for each person is OK with me, as long as they stay under the bar of not playing Judge Dredd.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...
Perhaps I'm wrong, it certainly wouldn't be the first time. But while I don't disagree with your philosophy, it has been my experience that people who go around boasting of that philosophy very rarely seem to actually follow it. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is good advice, but saying you are one of those "rare people" who believes in it usually seems to mean that you are just ITCHING for a chance to smack someone with that big stick. Since overt aggression is somewhat taboo in our society, the folks who still want to behave that way find some clever philosophy to hide behind, but very rarely do they actually seem to really believe it.

I am not making any judgments about you in particular, like I said, there are always exceptions to every rule. I'm just explaining the reasoning behind my initial statement. Violence and death are indeed real facts of life, my problem is with people who seem like they would be upset if they weren't.

Like I said, I might be biased by my own experiences, which mostly revolve around martial arts. Because of the philosophy inherent in most older martial arts, the "pro-violence" folks stand out pretty well. And it's real obvious what the difference is. You get the people there because they want to know how to defend themselves barehanded if they ever have to and you get the people who want to learn how to hurt people. It seems like a minor difference, but it's not. The former group trains in the hope of never having to use what they know, while the latter group will be disappointed if they don't get an opportunity to visit violence on someone. And in my experience, the latter group is not insignificant and they are just as bad for society as a whole as the pacifists who think violence is never the solution.

Indifference and respect is more like it. I use my martial arts in competition and my vast arsenal at the range to get my kicks and use my skills as often as possible.

I'm not eager to use either against another person. I'm no more eager to engage in violence against another person anymore than I am to have them break into my house and steal from me. However I'm cold and indifferent to the idea of using it in principle. I feel neither excitement nor remorse, rather I accept that it was simply an unfortunate situation, but one that was going to end in my favor one way or another with the least effort on my part.


There are very few people like that in my experience, and I tend to agree with your view. Life experience and maturity is the issue with what you proposed.

I on the other hand am against the norm in that the more powerful I make my car, the less likely I am to drive aggressively or speed ridiculously. Go figure.

I've commented to the contrary (ie: said I wish more criminals would kill to steal so people would start growing a pair and defend themselves) but I don't mean it literally. It's more of accepting that it would take extreme circumstances to wake people up and instill a self assertive mentally and confidence that so many people lack. To break our society out of the sheep mold it's presently in.

I used to do martial arts competitions, but I no longer am really interested in competitive martial arts...I tend to think they focus on the wrong things. I'm still trying to unlearn the bad habits I picked up fighting in a ring that don't work quite so well in real life. So maybe THAT'S what I was picking up on, clearly we have a bit of a philosophical difference somewhere 🙂

But I do think we agree on this more than we disagree. However, I don't think the "grow a pair" problem is as much an issue as some people think. It seems quite popular to assume that everyone other than a small, elite group (which of course the speaker ALWAYS belongs to) is a sheep, but I don't think that's really all that true. Most people I've met seem willing to defend themselves, the problem is more that they don't know how. Suburban commando pronouncements aside, we live in a pretty safe society, learning how to REALLY defend yourself is not all that popular an activity.

It's not so much growing a pair as the political ramifications that would ensue from such a scenario...

People who have been exposed to "the real world" and have had the need to defend themselves or their property effectively are more likely to assert individual responsibility, gain confidence as a productive member of society, and be self reliant and less dependent and subservient to government. And the more likely they are to act against legislation that seeks to ban guns or criminalize people, who defend themselves or their property and exercise their natural rights, and more supportive of legislation that enforces individual responsibility, etc. In other words, more people being victims of crime, ironically, would have positive impacts on society. A wake up call for the "Brady Bunch" if you will.

The more sheltered our society becomes and less likely someone is to be a victim of a crime, the more complacent people get, the more they look down on violence and feel we are too civilized and sophisticated for our own good and violence in any form isn't necessary, if not outright unacceptable. This in turn invites and encourages more violence and crime by those who prey on the weak. Until people become a victim themselves enough times to realize that the public policies they supported interfered with their ability to protect themselves and their property, and actually promoted more crime instead of less, and swing the other way.

There will always be a symbiotic relationship in the form of a pendulum between peace and violence in human history and the sooner people accept and understand that the better of our society will be and the less government interference in our lives we will have. Just what the founding fathers of this country and its Constitution intended.

Think about it, would we need all these bureaucracies like "homeland security" and this mess with the airline industry and it's excessive focus on security had legislation and government intervention not play nanny and restrict ordinary citizens natural and Constitutional rights?

Or for that matter, would 9/11 have happened at all, had ordinary citizens been armed that day without excessive government regulation that made them defenseless and contemplating their deaths? Yet how many people are nervous and scared around weapons and don't support weapons on planes? I for one trust my fellow citizens, and statistically on on a plane of 300 armed citizens, while it might be easier for a terrorist or criminal to also have a gun without it being questioned, that are disproportionately larger percentage of those people are, like me, willing to stand up and do something. Having a weapon emboldens criminals doing "the wrong thing", should it not embolden citizens with an equal advantage to do "the right thing" ?

It's more convoluted to scribble around the pages going out of your way to avoid the circle than to simply color in the circle and admit it's the only way to color it.

"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure, and in some cases I have, that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy." -Jeff Cooper

 

[exdeath]

Another example is the VT shooting.

The students directly involved and many of the community support conceal carry on campus and have for some time.

Yet who is getting in their way and constantly fighting legislation that would allow them to do so legally?

Not the students, thats for sure. More like sheltered shelf righteous administrators who are calling the shots from afar who think they know whats best more than the people who were in those classrooms.

I think the protest they did on campus where they walked around with their empty holsters should have been filled and loaded holsters. What are they going to do, confront and arrest 100,000 armed students who are just going to school and minding their own business? And if they did what about the 500,000 non students who would protest the actions of the government and police at that point? It would be political suicide, the administration would have no choice but to buckle, and laws against conceal carry on campus would be effectively meaningless and powerless.

But "the law, it's illegal", blah blah blah cry cry cry I hear people crying... Black people refusing to drink from the colored fountain or give up their seats on buses, those acts were also illegal, to put it into perspective where I'm going with this...

 

[Moonbeam]

There is always a danger that some lunatic will go berserk and start killing people with a gun. Is it better he or she do so among people who are armed or people who are not? How many will be killed in the latter case. How many will be shot accidentally in the former stopping the gunman?

You do consider, also I hope, you liberals out there, that the fear of being shot by some mad man is in part a projection of your own self hate as much if not more, really, that that the self hate of some other will lead him actually to kill you. It's interesting, no, that you probably trust yourself with a gun, but not that evil other.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is always a danger that some lunatic will go berserk and start killing people with a gun. Is it better he or she do so among people who are armed or people who are not? How many will be killed in the latter case. How many will be shot accidentally in the former stopping the gunman?

You do consider, also I hope, you liberals out there, that the fear of being shot by some mad man is in part a projection of your own self hate as much if not more, really, that that the self hate of some other will lead him actually to kill you. It's interesting, no, that you probably trust yourself with a gun, but not that evil other.

Yeah, we should arm all college kids because once every few years a whacko goes nuts and starts shooting. There's a rational basis for legislation. Let's not consider what happens when college kids, prone to acts of stupidity, get drunk most nights of the week and walk around armed. You've lowered the already remote likelihood a madman will kill 30 people by substituting the possibility of thousands of essentially unsupervised teenagers running around armed. Do you remember college if you went? How many fights there were at bars, school events, and parties? Now add guns.

As to public perception, polls taken after VT showed essentially no movement at all on either side of the gun control debate, i.e. gun control advocates didn't suddenly wake up and realize more guns needed to be in the hands of students to prevent isolated incidents of psychopathy.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: exdeath
Yes, and I'm just as vocal about communists like Hillary and my wish for confrontation with factions of the government who also think it's acceptable to steal when the necessary power to tax is abused.

But would you go out and kill a politician over it?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is always a danger that some lunatic will go berserk and start killing people with a gun. Is it better he or she do so among people who are armed or people who are not? How many will be killed in the latter case. How many will be shot accidentally in the former stopping the gunman?

You do consider, also I hope, you liberals out there, that the fear of being shot by some mad man is in part a projection of your own self hate as much if not more, really, that that the self hate of some other will lead him actually to kill you. It's interesting, no, that you probably trust yourself with a gun, but not that evil other.

Yeah, we should arm all college kids because once every few years a whacko goes nuts and starts shooting. There's a rational basis for legislation. Let's not consider what happens when college kids, prone to acts of stupidity, get drunk most nights of the week and walk around armed. You've lowered the already remote likelihood a madman will kill 30 people by substituting the possibility of thousands of essentially unsupervised teenagers running around armed. Do you remember college if you went? How many fights there were at bars, school events, and parties? Now add guns.

As to public perception, polls taken after VT showed essentially no movement at all on either side of the gun control debate, i.e. gun control advocates didn't suddenly wake up and realize more guns needed to be in the hands of students to prevent isolated incidents of psychopathy.

No one is arguing that we arm college students. We're simply saying that concealed handgun licensees not be legally barred from carrying their handguns on campus. You do realize there's a difference between "all college students" (ie: the drunk, crazy people you're so scared of,) and "concealed handgun licensees" (who are statistically less likely to go on a shooting spree than a police officer) right?

Plus you seem to live in an imaginary world where the guns aren't already on college campuses. They're already there, they're just illegal. Surely you didn't imagine that a sign or a law would magically keep guns out, or make Joe Criminal say, "Aw shucks, I'd better take my gun back home." Fortunately, at the same time, there are the good guys among us who realize that those laws and rules are bogus, and carry our firearms at all times for everyone's sake. And there's even some sensible schools (Texas A&M) that give written permission for students and faculty to carry on campus. Did you hear about the shooting spree at Texas A&M? Oh wait, there wasn't one.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: exdeath
Yes, and I'm just as vocal about communists like Hillary and my wish for confrontation with factions of the government who also think it's acceptable to steal when the necessary power to tax is abused.

But would you go out and kill a politician over it?

The blood of tyrants.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: exdeath
Yes, and I'm just as vocal about communists like Hillary and my wish for confrontation with factions of the government who also think it's acceptable to steal when the necessary power to tax is abused.

But would you go out and kill a politician over it?

The politicians are merely a face for the people who support them and put them there. As much as politicians take the blame for poor social policies, it's actually the people who support those politicians and those policies that should rightfully take the blame.

In the case of an actual civil war, yes, everyone is fair game. Would I actively go out looking for a politician I disagree with in a time of peace for the sole purpose of engaging in violence? Absolutely not, as among other things it would be premeditated murder and assassination.

But I do draw the line at my door step however, peace time or not. Should a politician, or his or her cronies, for example, start going door to door to enforce a gun ban or high performance motor vehicle ban or something like that, I would stand my ground and defend myself from unconstitutional infringement at all costs.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: exdeath

But I do draw the line at my door step however, peace time or not. Should a politician, or his or her cronies, for example, start going door to door to enforce a gun ban or high performance motor vehicle ban or something like that, I would stand my ground and defend myself from unconstitutional infringement at all costs.

In such an event, I'd be taking the fight to them. Police cars don't stand up so well to IEDs. If you just sit there and wait for them to take us out one at a time, we lose.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: exdeath

But I do draw the line at my door step however, peace time or not. Should a politician, or his or her cronies, for example, start going door to door to enforce a gun ban or high performance motor vehicle ban or something like that, I would stand my ground and defend myself from unconstitutional infringement at all costs.

In such an event, I'd be taking the fight to them. Police cars don't stand up so well to IEDs. If you just sit there and wait for them to take us out one at a time, we lose.

It started one at a time in 1775 and it didn't bode well then 😉

Anyhow I said in the event of an actual civil war, anything goes in the fight against the opposing ideology. Such an encounter exists only because the other faction has attempted to enforce upon you their ideology, one that is diametrically and irreconcilably opposed to yours. It makes sense in a time of war to eliminate all such opposition to ensure your way of life and ensure that such a stalemate of politics does not occur again in the near future. As I said before, might doesn't make right, it merely determines the prevailing ideology.

However I would still defend my home with the same ferocity even in a time of peace if confronted on my own property. For example, civil war or or not, if someone forces entry into my home to confiscate my rightful property, I don't care who they are or that they declared my preexisting property illegal on their own terms, they are going down regardless of what is going on anywhere else. It isn't ANYBODY'S place to dictate what other people do or own in the context and bounds of their private property.

Anyhow... venturing off topic sort of, in that we are now talking about government stealing and violating your rights and the appropriate responses, rather than 'ordinary people' stealing. Same difference to me. Government in this country IS comprised of 'ordinary people', not untouchable deities. People are too quick to forget that and view anything related to 'government' as the magic hand of a god whose mandate is absolute.

Other than all that? I'm just like everyone else, I just want to mind my own business, go to work, earn money, pay taxes for carrier groups and roads (but not participate in wealth redistribution or subsidize pregnant illegal immigrants health care so they can afford Escalades), go to school, pay my own bills, go home and play some video games of my choosing, drive my car of my choosing, hit the range or the gym with weapons or activities of my choosing, raise a family some day the way I want to, and just generally live my life and be left the fuck alone from everyone else.

Don't want people like me shooting an intruder? Then YOU stop him from coming into my house (same applies to a consenting neighbor in defense of a third party). Once that foot crosses the door you as a society surrender your chance, and admittedly fail with your non violent alternatives and I don't want to hear it anymore.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: exdeath
...

It's not so much growing a pair as the political ramifications that would ensue from such a scenario...

People who have been exposed to "the real world" and have had the need to defend themselves or their property effectively are more likely to assert individual responsibility, gain confidence as a productive member of society, and be self reliant and less dependent and subservient to government. And the more likely they are to act against legislation that seeks to ban guns or criminalize people, who defend themselves or their property and exercise their natural rights, and more supportive of legislation that enforces individual responsibility, etc. In other words, more people being victims of crime, ironically, would have positive impacts on society. A wake up call for the "Brady Bunch" if you will.

The more sheltered our society becomes and less likely someone is to be a victim of a crime, the more complacent people get, the more they look down on violence and feel we are too civilized and sophisticated for our own good and violence in any form isn't necessary, if not outright unacceptable. This in turn invites and encourages more violence and crime by those who prey on the weak. Until people become a victim themselves enough times to realize that the public policies they supported interfered with their ability to protect themselves and their property, and actually promoted more crime instead of less, and swing the other way.

Whoa, there, chief. I am all in favor of a safer and more civilized society, even if it comes at the cost of people treating violence as an every day part of life. Keeping society dangerous just so people accept the use of violence seems like circular logic if violence is only permissible as self defense. If there is nothing to defend against, what need is there of self defense? I'm not suggesting we should delude ourselves and think we've won the battle just so we can declare it over, but I think we're better off trying to develop a civilization where violent self defense is hardly ever necessary.

Your "productive member of society" philosophy is exactly what I was talking about before. It's this bizarre idealization of violence that turns it from a necessary evil into a character building activity that we should not only encourage, but preserve. Reality may sometimes dictate the need for violent self defense, but that is neither desirable nor a necessary part of society. To the extent we can eliminate it, we should. The history of civilization is mostly one of a growing distance from "rule of the strongest". Because, your pronouncements aside, the guy with the strongest sword arm and a willingness to use it has not historically been a very good person. Warriors may be necessary to defend a society, but it's the scientists and philosophers and others like them who BUILD that society. And if we no longer need the warriors, I certainly won't shed a tear. I'd much rather not have the need to keep a weapon in my home than the ability to do so.

There will always be a symbiotic relationship in the form of a pendulum between peace and violence in human history and the sooner people accept and understand that the better of our society will be and the less government interference in our lives we will have. Just what the founding fathers of this country and its Constitution intended.

Think about it, would we need all these bureaucracies like "homeland security" and this mess with the airline industry and it's excessive focus on security had legislation and government intervention not play nanny and restrict ordinary citizens natural and Constitutional rights?

Or for that matter, would 9/11 have happened at all, had ordinary citizens been armed that day without excessive government regulation that made them defenseless and contemplating their deaths? Yet how many people are nervous and scared around weapons and don't support weapons on planes? I for one trust my fellow citizens, and statistically on on a plane of 300 armed citizens, while it might be easier for a terrorist or criminal to also have a gun without it being questioned, that are disproportionately larger percentage of those people are, like me, willing to stand up and do something. Having a weapon emboldens criminals doing "the wrong thing", should it not embolden citizens with an equal advantage to do "the right thing" ?

It's more convoluted to scribble around the pages going out of your way to avoid the circle than to simply color in the circle and admit it's the only way to color it.

"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure, and in some cases I have, that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy." -Jeff Cooper

Let's not take this too far, having a gun (or any other weapon) doesn't make you a Navy SEAL. Having a bunch of untrained people with guns on a plane is an extremely bad idea. The need for professionals is never going to go away. That doesn't mean individuals shouldn't be able to defend themselves, but this idea of disbanding the police and turning armed citizens loose seems like a bad idea to me. I, for one, do NOT trust my fellow citizens...mostly because I happen to interact quite often with my fellow citizens. Most of them are decent enough people, but certainly not the only people I'd want to rely on in a dangerous situation. I don't question your willingness "to stand up and do something", I question your ability to do it in a way that doesn't put everyone around you in MORE danger. Let's face it, you act like you think you're Rambo...that does not bode well for your ability to not get a bunch of people killed when they didn't have to die.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Let's not take this too far, having a gun (or any other weapon) doesn't make you a Navy SEAL. Having a bunch of untrained people with guns on a plane is an extremely bad idea. The need for professionals is never going to go away. That doesn't mean individuals shouldn't be able to defend themselves, but this idea of disbanding the police and turning armed citizens loose seems like a bad idea to me. I, for one, do NOT trust my fellow citizens...mostly because I happen to interact quite often with my fellow citizens. Most of them are decent enough people, but certainly not the only people I'd want to rely on in a dangerous situation. I don't question your willingness "to stand up and do something", I question your ability to do it in a way that doesn't put everyone around you in MORE danger. Let's face it, you act like you think you're Rambo...that does not bode well for your ability to not get a bunch of people killed when they didn't have to die.

Have you ever been to a range with 1000s of people on a weekend outing? Try the Ben Avery range in Phoenix, Arizona and look around. No Rambos or SEALs there. Just your average fellow citizens.

Most of your fellow citizens have more experience and acquired training and discipline with firearms than criminals for certain, and more often than not, even your average police officer recruit who faces time, training, and budget restrictions. This is particularly true of the vocal enthusiasts who actually advocate an armed populace, and as such, the only people that would be carrying weapons are those enthusiasts. People who don't already have guns, don't want guns, or have never been around guns, are not likely to suddenly crave guns and violence and feel compelled to be the sole savior of their community just because the law changes.

A change in law is merely a symbolic gesture that formalizes what is already the accepted norm, provides clout in the legal system when such events do occur, and establishes and reinforces the right to self defense and the right to bear arms as a universal right of the people. You are not going to have people who shouldn't have guns or people with no experience with them suddenly carrying them and craving a reason to use them.

You are subscribing to the fallacy that because someone is designated as a "police officer" they are somehow superior or more qualified in something than a 'mere civilian', as if it's another step on some kind of caste system. That "police officer" may be your neighbor who never handled a weapon or participated in politics or law before he enrolled in the academy 3 months ago due to sudden unemployment. He has a sidearm because it's standard issue, but all he does is push papers and write tickets, yet you are relying on him to be the only person with a gun in a time of crises. It could also be some psychotic trigger happy lunatic who got kicked out of boot camp and missed his dream to kill people, but found an alternative outlet in the local SWAT team where he can fulfill his fantasy of walking around an unarmed city populace while bearing automatic weapons and body armor.

But you have been trained to instinctively and unconditionally trust and accept those people as a superior because they wear uniforms? They are people just like everyone else. Having a badge or uniform does not automatically make them more responsible or capable with weapons. For every example you bring up that shows a civilian making the problem worse than it needed to be I can counter with examples of trusted officials doing the same. The Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents both resulted in excessive loss of life on both sides because a trigger happy government official couldn't wait for an excuse to shoot somebody. Carrying a badge does not absolve someone of their humanity and their capability for making mistakes and exercising poor judgment.

And lets assume for a moment that police are godly and can handle everything perfectly. It sure didn't stop the VT shooting... how long before there were even armed police on the scene? And once they got there how long did it take for them to act, for fear of "agitating the shooter" or "creating chaos or a hostage situation" (when people were already being shot as fast as possible anyway)?

I didn't advocate disbanding the police. Someone has to be the final indifferent arbitrator in a conflict and record the paper work. Merely more sharing of community responsibility amongst it's populace rather than immediately deferring all problems to a 'higher authority'. The feeling that somebody shouldn't do something, or be allowed to do something, because they don't have a badge. That is the 'sheep', 'the peon', and 'subject' syndrome. The only difference between you or I, and a police officer, is we EXPECT the person being paid to do something. The person sitting next to you doesn't HAVE TO but his ability to do so should not be impaired or discouraged.

In fact all this said, most officers in the field and in the line of fire who I've spoke with (ie; not office workers and traffic officers) personally support armed civilians and people protecting themselves and their property, even if their orders and the law disagrees and they are forced to do their job and arrest you. Their view is pretty much the same as most people here, that they side with the shooter and screw the criminals, but the law is unfortunately the law in some places, and they would have to arrest you even if they didn't personally feel it was warranted.

 

[Hannover]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Came across Dallas AM 570 this morning. Horn was no-billed by a grand jury.

Also, under SB378 which went into effect last year:
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9. Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

So he's a free man, and free of civil liability, just as I predicted. Thieves and bad guys all over Texas are shaking in their boots. 😀

Do you have any links with more information ?
Everything that I've seen says that it will be weeks before the GJ evens looks at the case.
I've seen and heard nothing from the Houston media and I can't find anything about it using Google news search.

Please help me out here...

 

[Hannover]

Still no charges against Pasadena man who killed suspected burglars
Link - No charges yet
10:06 AM CST on Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Pasadena police were still compiling their report on the shooting and planned to present the case to Harris County prosecutors within the next two weeks, police spokesman Vance Mitchell said Monday. From there it is expected to be presented to a grand jury. In the meantime, Horn remains uncharged.

I'm calling BS on the no-bill until someone puts up a reliable source. There is no way it could have happened this quick and the only press it got was on a Dallas talk radio show.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: exdeath
...
Have you ever been to a range with 1000s of people on a weekend outing? Try the Ben Avery range in Phoenix, Arizona and look around. No Rambos or SEALs there. Just your average fellow citizens.

Most of your fellow citizens have more experience and acquired training and discipline with firearms than criminals for certain, and more often than not, even your average police officer recruit who faces time, training, and budget restrictions. This is particularly true of the vocal enthusiasts who actually advocate an armed populace, and as such, the only people that would be carrying weapons are those enthusiasts. People who don't already have guns, don't want guns, or have never been around guns, are not likely to suddenly crave guns and violence and feel compelled to be the sole savior of their community just because the law changes.

A change in law is merely a symbolic gesture that formalizes what is already the accepted norm, provides clout in the legal system when such events do occur, and establishes and reinforces the right to self defense and the right to bear arms as a universal right of the people. You are not going to have people who shouldn't have guns or people with no experience with them suddenly carrying them and craving a reason to use them.

You are subscribing to the fallacy that because someone is designated as a "police officer" they are somehow superior or more qualified in something than a 'mere civilian', as if it's another step on some kind of caste system. That "police officer" may be your neighbor who never handled a weapon or participated in politics or law before he enrolled in the academy 3 months ago due to sudden unemployment. He has a sidearm because it's standard issue, but all he does is push papers and write tickets, yet you are relying on him to be the only person with a gun in a time of crises. It could also be some psychotic trigger happy lunatic who got kicked out of boot camp and missed his dream to kill people, but found an alternative outlet in the local SWAT team where he can fulfill his fantasy of walking around an unarmed city populace while bearing automatic weapons and body armor.

But you have been trained to instinctively and unconditionally trust and accept those people as a superior because they wear uniforms? They are people just like everyone else. Having a badge or uniform does not automatically make them more responsible or capable with weapons. For every example you bring up that shows a civilian making the problem worse than it needed to be I can counter with examples of trusted officials doing the same. The Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents both resulted in excessive loss of life on both sides because a trigger happy government official couldn't wait for an excuse to shoot somebody. Carrying a badge does not absolve someone of their humanity and their capability for making mistakes and exercising poor judgment.

And lets assume for a moment that police are godly and can handle everything perfectly. It sure didn't stop the VT shooting... how long before there were even armed police on the scene? And once they got there how long did it take for them to act, for fear of "agitating the shooter" or "creating chaos or a hostage situation" (when people were already being shot as fast as possible anyway)?

I didn't advocate disbanding the police. Someone has to be the final indifferent arbitrator in a conflict and record the paper work. Merely more sharing of community responsibility amongst it's populace rather than immediately deferring all problems to a 'higher authority'. The feeling that somebody shouldn't do something, or be allowed to do something, because they don't have a badge. That is the 'sheep', 'the peon', and 'subject' syndrome. The only difference between you or I, and a police officer, is we EXPECT the person being paid to do something. The person sitting next to you doesn't HAVE TO but his ability to do so should not be impaired or discouraged.

In fact all this said, most officers in the field and in the line of fire who I've spoke with (ie; not office workers and traffic officers) personally support armed civilians and people protecting themselves and their property, even if their orders and the law disagrees and they are forced to do their job and arrest you. Their view is pretty much the same as most people here, that they side with the shooter and screw the criminals, but the law is unfortunately the law in some places, and they would have to arrest you even if they didn't personally feel it was warranted.

Why does everything have to be black and white? I am not saying that having a badge turns you into some sort of crime fighting superhero, nor am I saying that civilian gun owners are a bunch of braindead cowboys. But the fact is that while civilians CAN get a lot of training and experience with firearms, there is nothing that REQUIRES them to. The barriers to entry are pretty low for civilian gun ownership, much lower than that of the police. This doesn't mean there can't be good civilians and bad police officers, but having SOME sort of filter in place gives me a little more confidence for the individual dealing with certain dangerous situations.

This isn't about having some respect for people just because they wear uniforms or disliking average citizens because they don't...this isn't a populist issue. It's all about practicality, and the fact is that when there is no barrier to entry, there is no reason to expect very good quality. Sure, the armed civilian on my plane MIGHT be a great guy who's good to have in a dangerous situation, but he MIGHT be a complete dipshit who's way more likely to accidentally kill me and the rest of the passengers than any terrorist who might happen to be there. But since the only requirement for gun ownership is the ability to take a couple hundred bucks to the local gun store, what reason do I have to trust any Joe Sixpack who does so?

I'm not saying this is an argument against armed citizens, I'm saying this is an argument against armed citizens acting like trained professionals when the situation calls for that. For what it's worth, I don't think your average cop should carry on an airplane either, it's an environment that requires special skills to safely use a firearm. Many other situations do not require such training to be more dangerous to the bad guy than to the good guys, and in that case, I don't care who carries what. Don't try to generalize, not every situation is exactly the same.

 

[exdeath]

I do agree, there are plenty of people who have no business with a gun who I wouldn't be comfortable around if they had one.

My point is the people advocating things like guns on campus (or planes or whatever) are people who own, carry, and use guns proficiently and responsibly for years already, who simply want to extend that right to a few places where it is still restricted where they and their friends are vulnerable. Also the CCW courses required to be licensed to carry concealed on campus act as the filter you desire. The safety principles including quickly drawing from a concealed location, knowing what is behind or around your target, the target qualification scoring, and education on the laws regarding use of force, are all similar if not identical to that which police are required to pass, and are even organized and sponsored by police departments.

Legal carry on campus wouldn't change much. The people who want to carry will if they aren't already. The people who carry illegally already who might use their gun to resolve personal disputes will continue to do so. And gun fearing sheep will be paranoid for about a week before they completely forget their peers are packing heat after subconsciously accepting that their peers aren't killing each other every day as they expected...

Well, at least no more paranoid than they already are right now of who will be the next Seung-Hui Cho, when guns on campus aren't legally sanctioned...

Exposure to violence at some point in ones life and utmost respect and discretion for guns and their legitimate use, and awe and respect of the power to take life is absolutely normal and healthy. Outright fear and paranoia of any and all weapons and denial that violence can and will occur in our society regardless of good intentions, is a psychiatric disorder.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Nebor

Well, the grand jury disagreed with both of you, Horn is a free man. :thumbsup:

Free if he doesnt have a conscious, free if his kids can accept his barbaric murdering ass, free if he doesnt care about others think of him.

Personally I think he is a piece of shit who murdered these guys for his sick needs rather than wait the 60 seconds it took for the cops to get on scene.

Dont sound like free to me. :|

He waited 7 minutes for the police show up. For all he knew they were never coming. He did the best he could to stop those men.[/quote]


3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or


I would argue that he did not have a reasonable expectation that the property would not be recovered. He was told that the cops were on the way.

If he stayed in the house like he was told, they would be alive and the property would have been recovered.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Nebor

Well, the grand jury disagreed with both of you, Horn is a free man. :thumbsup:

Free if he doesnt have a conscious, free if his kids can accept his barbaric murdering ass, free if he doesnt care about others think of him.

Personally I think he is a piece of shit who murdered these guys for his sick needs rather than wait the 60 seconds it took for the cops to get on scene.

Dont sound like free to me. :|

He waited 7 minutes for the police show up. For all he knew they were never coming. He did the best he could to stop those men.

3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or


I would argue that he did not have a reasonable expectation that the property would not be recovered. He was told that the cops were on the way.

If he stayed in the house like he was told, they would be alive and the property would have been recovered.

[/quote]

Hah, stolen property is very rarely recovered.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Hannover
Still no charges against Pasadena man who killed suspected burglars
Link - No charges yet
10:06 AM CST on Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Pasadena police were still compiling their report on the shooting and planned to present the case to Harris County prosecutors within the next two weeks, police spokesman Vance Mitchell said Monday. From there it is expected to be presented to a grand jury. In the meantime, Horn remains uncharged.

I'm calling BS on the no-bill until someone puts up a reliable source. There is no way it could have happened this quick and the only press it got was on a Dallas talk radio show.

I dont see anything either.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Hannover
Still no charges against Pasadena man who killed suspected burglars
Link - No charges yet
10:06 AM CST on Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Pasadena police were still compiling their report on the shooting and planned to present the case to Harris County prosecutors within the next two weeks, police spokesman Vance Mitchell said Monday. From there it is expected to be presented to a grand jury. In the meantime, Horn remains uncharged.

I'm calling BS on the no-bill until someone puts up a reliable source. There is no way it could have happened this quick and the only press it got was on a Dallas talk radio show.

I think you're right. I've been trying to turn up more info on it all day and can't find anything. 😕

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Nebor
[

Hah, stolen property is very rarely recovered.

You seem to like to ignore facts when it suits you.

Fact- Police on the way
Fact- Police arrive 60 seconds after the guys are shot

Stolen property is rarely recovered but because of the unique circumstances in this case, it more than likely than not it would have been. That is the only question here.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Nebor
[

Hah, stolen property is very rarely recovered.

You seem to like to ignore facts when it suits you.

Fact- Police on the way
Fact- Police arrive 60 seconds after the guys are shot

Stolen property is rarely recovered but because of the unique circumstances in this case, it more than likely than not it would have been. That is the only question here.

I would argue that the police only decided it was a priority call after the shots were fired.