| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/24/2013 01:37:57 PM · #851 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
oh yeah well what do you do if a clan of trans-sexual nazi eskimos surround you. |
...In Canada, the Inuit would probably take offence to being called "eskimos"
Ray |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 01:40:08 PM · #852 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
It's not about "stuff". If I could somehow know with near certainty that someone is not a threat, they can take my stuff, because stuff is replaceable. However, since I'm not a mind reader, I will err on the side of caution with respect to my safety and that of my family and respond accordingly. If a person has broken into my house or otherwise threatened my safety, unless they turn tail and run or become compliant and lay face down on the floor with their hands in sight, I can't afford to assume they are not a threat. |
,,, I wonder what went through This man's mind following his actions on a perceived threat.
Ray |
Know your target. It's no different than the idiots who go out "hunting" and shoot into the bushes where they "thought they heard/saw a deer" and it turns out to be his buddy or another hunter. It's why there's a high powered light on my defensive weapons.
Why was his son sneaking around? He had to know his dad was armed.
My friend's dad was a longtime LA County Sheriff and a Vietnam vet. From what my friend told me, he'd been through some serious shit doing both jobs and was a bit "jumpy" sometimes. When my friend came home late at night, he knew damn well to ID himself before he went inside if his dad was home.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2013 02:08:58 PM · #853 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Why was his son sneaking around? He had to know his dad was armed. |
And why was that rape victim wearing a push-up bra and a mini-skirt? She had to know she was turning men on... Come ON, dude! |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 02:10:45 PM · #854 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Or is he Bear_Music, who can't hear it when you pump your shotgun, and doesn't know you're behind him? |
You've just nailed one of my deepest fears right on the head; and it's not even the "homeowners" I'm afraid of, it's the COP who will think I'm ignoring him and get jumpy. Remind me to talk about traffic stops and deaf people some day... |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 02:21:43 PM · #855 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
My friend's dad was a longtime LA County Sheriff and a Vietnam vet. From what my friend told me, he'd been through some serious shit doing both jobs and was a bit "jumpy" sometimes. When my friend came home late at night, he knew damn well to ID himself before he went inside if his dad was home. |
I would argue that someone who's a bit "jumpy" sometimes should probably not have a loaded gun in the home. |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 06:12:47 PM · #856 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by Spork99:
My friend's dad was a longtime LA County Sheriff and a Vietnam vet. From what my friend told me, he'd been through some serious shit doing both jobs and was a bit "jumpy" sometimes. When my friend came home late at night, he knew damn well to ID himself before he went inside if his dad was home. |
I would argue that someone who's a bit "jumpy" sometimes should probably not have a loaded gun in the home. |
Probably not, but it was part of his job and back then no one knew anything about PTSD or things like that. You were expected to suck it up and do your job. |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 08:03:38 PM · #857 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I think every state should have the castle law. It would help to protect the law abiding citizen from prosecution while defending his/her property. |
Or just feeling threatened in your home, or near your home, or your car, or your office, or in your neighborhood, or pretty much anywhere you have business. The Castle doctrine can be used even when there is no threat and you are far far from home. Kill now, ask questions later.
Imagine that you have been having an affair with a married woman and her angry husband shows up your house unarmed but angry. Go get your gun and kill him. No problem, you are just defending your castle. Enjoy
Or lets say some one steals from your tip jar. Chase him down with your car, then shoot him in the back until he dies. Your tip jar on your Taco truck is also your castle.
David McDaniel in 2010 argued with a taxi driver over the change he was due. He was shot to death. Though he was unarmed the castle doctrine protected the killer cabbie, because he felt McDaniel was trying to steal his property. Had only McDaniels shot first he could have put up the exact same defense that the taxi driver used, after all the survivor gets to tell his story.
"Even if somebody is just stealing from your front yard, and they are not threatening anybody, (and) there's no threat of being hurt at all, you can kill them, if it's reasonably necessary protecting your property," |
Brennan - if you didn't post links I'd think you make up this sh!t. Castle doctrine law does NOT allow you you indiscriminately kill someone for stealing from you. In Tutaro's link it clearly states "imminent threat of death" and in the other article a university professor's opinion does not carry the weight of Law. The use of deadly force REQUIRES that the person being threatened resonably concludes that they are in immediate threat of death or crippling injury. All the castle doctrine does is say that you do not have to RETREAT to avoid that threat. That you may stand your ground and defend yourself against the threat of death or crippling injury. Without the threat of death or crippling injury (rape is considered equivalent to crippling injury), there can be no justified use of deadly force. I have posted this a number of times. Either you do not believe me or you are being deliberately inciteful and deceitful or you are being stubborn. Justified deadly force requires a deadly or crippling threat.
If you want to demonstrate events where people got away with murder (like OJ)or a number of other less profile cases where juries returned not guilty verdicts or prosecuotrs chose not to prosecute, that is one thing - but to claim that anyone can just shoot somebody in your front yard and claim they were stealing from you and get away with it, is simply not true per the law.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2013 08:14:04 PM · #858 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
[The current debate isn't really hinging around that, though. I don't have a real quarrel with people who respond to a home invasion [i]by racking a round up[/i]. That's appropriate. Protecting your family is good. |
I really wish some of these stereotypes and misnomers would be understood to be false.
1. racking a round is a Hollywood action. No serious gun handler I know would do this. It is stupid.
a. it removes the round you should have already had in the chamber
b. it takes precious time
c. it gives your location, thus negating your tactical advantage
d. criminals are not afraid of guns - they are around them all the time
2. if "racking a round" was truly effective then we should be doing it on the battlefield and saving a bunch of lives on both sides. |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 08:29:01 PM · #859 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I really wish some of these stereotypes and misnomers would be understood to be false.
1. racking a round is a Hollywood action. No serious gun handler I know would do this. It is stupid.
a. it removes the round you should have already had in the chamber
b. it takes precious time
c. it gives your location, thus negating your tactical advantage
d. criminals are not afraid of guns - they are around them all the time
2. if "racking a round" was truly effective then we should be doing it on the battlefield and saving a bunch of lives on both sides. |
So you keep your guns around your house with a round chambered? Wow!
you might want to look at the NRA gun safety rules
"3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
Whenever you pick up a gun, immediately engage the safety device if possible, and, if the gun has a magazine, remove it before opening the action and looking into the chamber(s) which should be clear of ammunition. If you do not know how to open the action or inspect the chamber(s), leave the gun alone and get help from someone who does."
I have always kept my guns dry, always. When needed I would grab my shot gun, get my ammo (stored n a different location) drop in a few rounds and rack one into the chamber. It is a sound that works outside the movies.
Have you ever chambered a round in a tense situation? I have had it done in my presence. It turns out criminals are afraid of guns, anyone who is not an idiot is afraid of a shotgun being used in anger. The sound of a pump action shotgun can quite a loud argument. Really, it works.
And you last point really is amazing. Battlefields and everyday life have almost nothing in common. uniforms, kill or be killed, shoot on sight, please don't think that is life in America.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2013 08:32:58 PM · #860 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Why was his son sneaking around? He had to know his dad was armed. |
And why was that rape victim wearing a push-up bra and a mini-skirt? She had to know she was turning men on... Come ON, dude! |
Sneaking around in another man's bedroom, regardless of his relationship to you, while he's sleeping just isn't smart and you really can't compare that to the ridiculous claim that the way a girl dresses means she wants to be raped.
I based that comment on the linked article, which left out a lot of information. Further reading on the case revealed some other facts, in particular, that they were staying at the hotel together and that both men were policemen. The father was a retired police captain who was working part time. So yeah...it sounds like the dad f'ed up, but any details about an investigation or further reporting on the case were scarce. |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 08:33:52 PM · #861 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Brennan - if you didn't post links I'd think you make up this sh!t. Castle doctrine law does NOT allow you you indiscriminately kill someone for stealing from you. |
As you can see in the links, no matter if it ought to or not, it does "allow you you indiscriminately kill someone for stealing from you." It shouldn't, but it does. |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 08:39:34 PM · #862 |
Enough is enough - Diane Feinstein
Quote from teh article; "If the slaughter of 20 babies does not capture and hold your attention, then I give up because I don't know what else will,"
How many babies were aborted today in the US? 3 thousand 6 hundred.
How many were aborted yesterday? 3 thousand 6 hundred.
How many tomorrow? 3, 600
Over 10,000 precious innocent lives lost and defended by this woman, this administration, many of you posters here as tantamount to a "woman's RIGHT!!!!" Such utter hypocrisy. This is about controlling guns. NOT innocent lives.
The recent shootings were Columbine, Virginia Tech, Auroa, Tucson, Oak Creek and Newton.
Columbine, Armed with a pistol, a 9mm carbine (10 round magazine) and two sawed-off shotguns, // Virginia Tech 2 pistols, Aurora AR 15, shotgun, pistol, Tucson Glock 19 and Oak Creek Springfield 9mm semiautomatic handgun , Newton ΓΆ€“ 4 handguns at least one report.
So what would Diane's decades old assault on weapons have stopped? Nothing. The carbine used in columbine had a 10 round magazine. The handguns are not banned except limiting their capacity to 10 rounds but only a couple of those guns had more than 10 round magazines anyway (15 rds). The movie theater used an AR15 with a 100 round drum magazine that jammed. The shotgun was the primary weapon with the handgun only "at the scene" and not used. So again - what exactly is this renewal of the assault weapons ban going to do to stop anything? Not much except make a bunch of people feel better about not addressing the real problem which is inner city gang related violence typically associated with drugs and territory.
Hypocrisy? I vote yes. |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 08:48:29 PM · #863 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Flash:
I really wish some of these stereotypes and misnomers would be understood to be false.
1. racking a round is a Hollywood action. No serious gun handler I know would do this. It is stupid.
a. it removes the round you should have already had in the chamber
b. it takes precious time
c. it gives your location, thus negating your tactical advantage
d. criminals are not afraid of guns - they are around them all the time
2. if "racking a round" was truly effective then we should be doing it on the battlefield and saving a bunch of lives on both sides. |
So you keep your guns around your house with a round chambered? Wow!
you might want to look at the NRA gun safety rules
"3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
Whenever you pick up a gun, immediately engage the safety device if possible, and, if the gun has a magazine, remove it before opening the action and looking into the chamber(s) which should be clear of ammunition. If you do not know how to open the action or inspect the chamber(s), leave the gun alone and get help from someone who does."
I have always kept my guns dry, always. When needed I would grab my shot gun, get my ammo (stored n a different location) drop in a few rounds and rack one into the chamber. It is a sound that works outside the movies.
Have you ever chambered a round in a tense situation? I have had it done in my presence. It turns out criminals are afraid of guns, anyone who is not an idiot is afraid of a shotgun being used in anger. The sound of a pump action shotgun can quite a loud argument. Really, it works.
And you last point really is amazing. Battlefields and everyday life have almost nothing in common. uniforms, kill or be killed, shoot on sight, please don't think that is life in America. |
Thank you for the link to the NRA safety rules. Had never seen them before and was totally unaware that one should keep their firearms unloaded.
Criminals do not fear guns. Go into the prisons and ask them? My training has shown those interviews and concluded that criminals do not fear the gun - they fear a resolutely armed citizen prepared to use it. Again it comes back to the person not the tool. |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 08:54:57 PM · #864 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Flash:
I really wish some of these stereotypes and misnomers would be understood to be false.
1. racking a round is a Hollywood action. No serious gun handler I know would do this. It is stupid.
a. it removes the round you should have already had in the chamber
b. it takes precious time
c. it gives your location, thus negating your tactical advantage
d. criminals are not afraid of guns - they are around them all the time
2. if "racking a round" was truly effective then we should be doing it on the battlefield and saving a bunch of lives on both sides. |
So you keep your guns around your house with a round chambered? Wow!
you might want to look at the NRA gun safety rules
"3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
Whenever you pick up a gun, immediately engage the safety device if possible, and, if the gun has a magazine, remove it before opening the action and looking into the chamber(s) which should be clear of ammunition. If you do not know how to open the action or inspect the chamber(s), leave the gun alone and get help from someone who does."
I have always kept my guns dry, always. When needed I would grab my shot gun, get my ammo (stored n a different location) drop in a few rounds and rack one into the chamber. It is a sound that works outside the movies.
Have you ever chambered a round in a tense situation? I have had it done in my presence. It turns out criminals are afraid of guns, anyone who is not an idiot is afraid of a shotgun being used in anger. The sound of a pump action shotgun can quite a loud argument. Really, it works.
And you last point really is amazing. Battlefields and everyday life have almost nothing in common. uniforms, kill or be killed, shoot on sight, please don't think that is life in America. |
I keep my defensive weapons loaded too, with a round in the chamber. It's locked away unless I'm carrying or I need it. And you'd better bet that the Glock on the police officers belt has one in the chamber too.
I've never heard of anyone who knows about firearms used for self defense suggest that they should be kept otherwise. In a stress situation, that surge of adrenalin when you realize the situation you're in means your fine motor skills are going to be for shit. The last thing you want to be doing while someone is doing a hot prowl burglary at your house is fumbling around trying to load your gun or find your ammo.
Try it. Do what the Marines do. Sprint 100yd, do pushups as fast as you can for 30 sec and then do 30 sec of jumping jacks...then immediately try loading your weapon. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2013 08:59:01 PM · #865 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Have you ever chambered a round in a tense situation? I have had it done in my presence. |
You must not be a revolver guy. Kind of hard to "rack a round" into a revolver or a side by side shotgun. I guess one could open the cylinder and flick it closed like they do in the movies. That'll certainly scare the bejesus out that criminal who just broke down my locked door or window.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2013 09:05:18 PM · #866 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Flash:
Brennan - if you didn't post links I'd think you make up this sh!t. Castle doctrine law does NOT allow you you indiscriminately kill someone for stealing from you. |
As you can see in the links, no matter if it ought to or not, it does "allow you you indiscriminately kill someone for stealing from you." It shouldn't, but it does. |
Absolutely no where in any of my many many hours (decades) of training or teaching have I ever heard, read, saw or taught anything other than "justified use of deadly force REQUIRES the imminent and immediate threat of death or grave (Crippling) injury. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 12:29:20 AM · #867 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Absolutely no where in any of my many many hours (decades) of training or teaching have I ever heard, read, saw or taught anything other than "justified use of deadly force REQUIRES the imminent and immediate threat of death or grave (Crippling) injury. |
I harbour no doubt whatsoever that indeed such is the case, but sadly the interpretation of what constitutes such justified use is left with the person who feels threatened.
Trust me when I say that I have been in some very stressful situations and can attest to the fact that we do not all react in the same manner, particularly in civilian life. The perception of some people to certain situational factors can have some very dire consequences. The end results may not be based on malicious intent, but the fact remains that there may be only one version of the account that will be heard.
Ray
|
|
|
|
01/25/2013 12:39:17 AM · #868 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Flash:
Absolutely no where in any of my many many hours (decades) of training or teaching have I ever heard, read, saw or taught anything other than "justified use of deadly force REQUIRES the imminent and immediate threat of death or grave (Crippling) injury. |
I harbour no doubt whatsoever that indeed such is the case, but sadly the interpretation of what constitutes such justified use is left with the person who feels threatened.
Trust me when I say that I have been in some very stressful situations and can attest to the fact that we do not all react in the same manner, particularly in civilian life. The perception of some people to certain situational factors can have some very dire consequences. The end results may not be based on malicious intent, but the fact remains that there may be only one version of the account that will be heard.
Ray |
"intrepretation" is done by the court and the judicial system - to me the process of investigating and prosecuting (or not) is dependent upon the law and the law is quite clear that the threat of death or grave injury be imediately present and imminent for the justified use of defensive deadly force. For anyone posting here to suggest or imply or state that gunowners have open season on anyone stealing from them (per the castle doctrine) is simply not true. The law says otherwise and if a gunowner violates the law - even in a percieved act of self defense - they must still answer to the law.
As an experienced LEO you certainly know that there is always evidence. That evidence will either support or refute the "version" of events being told. Intentionally lying to responding officers or investigators rarely ever turns out well. Due to cognitive dissonance, auditory exclusion, or other physio-psychological factors following a violent encounter, specifics may be (and often are) remembered or recalled out of sequence - but to intentionally lie about the event is nearly always detrimental.
Message edited by author 2013-01-25 05:54:07. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 03:39:19 AM · #869 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Flash:
I really wish some of these stereotypes and misnomers would be understood to be false.
1. racking a round is a Hollywood action. No serious gun handler I know would do this. It is stupid.
a. it removes the round you should have already had in the chamber
b. it takes precious time
c. it gives your location, thus negating your tactical advantage
d. criminals are not afraid of guns - they are around them all the time
2. if "racking a round" was truly effective then we should be doing it on the battlefield and saving a bunch of lives on both sides. |
So you keep your guns around your house with a round chambered? Wow!
you might want to look at the NRA gun safety rules
"3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
Whenever you pick up a gun, immediately engage the safety device if possible, and, if the gun has a magazine, remove it before opening the action and looking into the chamber(s) which should be clear of ammunition. If you do not know how to open the action or inspect the chamber(s), leave the gun alone and get help from someone who does."
I have always kept my guns dry, always. When needed I would grab my shot gun, get my ammo (stored n a different location) drop in a few rounds and rack one into the chamber. It is a sound that works outside the movies.
Have you ever chambered a round in a tense situation? I have had it done in my presence. It turns out criminals are afraid of guns, anyone who is not an idiot is afraid of a shotgun being used in anger. The sound of a pump action shotgun can quite a loud argument. Really, it works.
And you last point really is amazing. Battlefields and everyday life have almost nothing in common. uniforms, kill or be killed, shoot on sight, please don't think that is life in America. |
Thank you for the link to the NRA safety rules. Had never seen them before and was totally unaware that one should keep their firearms unloaded.
Criminals do not fear guns. Go into the prisons and ask them? My training has shown those interviews and concluded that criminals do not fear the gun - they fear a resolutely armed citizen prepared to use it. Again it comes back to the person not the tool. |
Hey flash....I myself love weapons..... I have them for defence and other reasons. When a weapon is in my house it is loaded, however, I do not keep one in the chamber and the safety is always on. That is for my safety if noone is actually breaking in etc. I do keep them ready to go.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2013 04:15:07 AM · #870 |
Just ask yourself...What would Lunchbox Joe do?
|
|
|
|
01/25/2013 04:15:24 AM · #871 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
[The current debate isn't really hinging around that, though. I don't have a real quarrel with people who respond to a home invasion by racking a round up.. That's appropriate. Protecting your family is good. |
I really wish some of these stereotypes and misnomers would be understood to be false. |
You got to forgive me, I'm not an expert in the nuances of terminology here. All I meant was, it's OK by me if people respond to an actual, honest-to-God home invasion by bringing a loaded weapon into play. It's got nothing to do with "stereotypes". I wasn't visualizing scaring the bejeezus out of your perp by chambering a round. I'm well aware revolvers and shotguns don't chamber rounds, also. I've shot both.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2013 07:46:40 AM · #872 |
| Wow. Reading what happened on this thread overnight. Just wow. All I can say is that yesterday I was for allowing people to keep guns with reasonable limits. After reading what you guys wrote overnight, I'm pretty sure I don't want any of you to have any guns ever. None of you guys are capable of being responsible gun owners. Keeping guns around the house with rounds chambered? Pointing loaded weapons at people who are breaking into your cars? A guy shooting is son is the son's fault, because he should have known that dad was jumpy and was going to shoot him. Sheesh. You guys make an excellent case for why gun owners can't have nice things. |
|
|
|
01/25/2013 08:15:32 AM · #873 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Thank you for the link to the NRA safety rules. Had never seen them before and was totally unaware that one should keep their firearms unloaded. |
Wow......just freakin' wow....
|
|
|
|
01/25/2013 08:21:21 AM · #874 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Try it. Do what the Marines do. Sprint 100yd, do pushups as fast as you can for 30 sec and then do 30 sec of jumping jacks...then immediately try loading your weapon. Good luck. |
And yet again......we are *not* talking about a wartime scenario. To a certain extent, you guys have to a certain extent managed to convince me that you've at least thought some of these situations through, and that you may be able to save your own lives and your families', but by the same token, I don't want any of y'all for neighbors, either.
I can appreciate where you guys with your adamant refusal to budge on giving up your guns are coming from, but the whole "taking away rights" thing just simply does not fly.
You need to come up with some truly justifiable reasoning, because the longer you guys talk about shooting people ransacking you cars and keeping guns with chambered rounds on hand in the house, the scarier you sound.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2013 08:40:12 AM · #875 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Wow. Reading what happened on this thread overnight. Just wow. All I can say is that yesterday I was for allowing people to keep guns with reasonable limits. After reading what you guys wrote overnight, I'm pretty sure I don't want any of you to have any guns ever. None of you guys are capable of being responsible gun owners. Keeping guns around the house with rounds chambered? Pointing loaded weapons at people who are breaking into your cars? A guy shooting is son is the son's fault, because he should have known that dad was jumpy and was going to shoot him. Sheesh. You guys make an excellent case for why gun owners can't have nice things. |
Please read everything before you go off making mountains out of molehills.
I don't keep loaded guns just laying "around the house" as you seem to have misunderstood.
On my defensive weapons, first, there are safety mechanisms on the guns themselves. Second, they are stored inside a locked storage cabinet that only I can access. The storage cabinet is bolted to the house from the inside. These are the recommendations I got from an expert in using firearms for self defense. This person also happens to be a police officer and I've gotten the same advice from other police officers and security experts. Since you seem to think you know more about it than they do, I suggest you start teaching people the right way and telling everyone else that they're wrong.
The weapons I use for hunting are also locked up, unloaded and the ammo is secured under a separate lock.
Yes, I'd point a loaded weapon at someone stealing my car...that's a far cry from shooting them. I'll sit and watch them drive off without shooting unless they do something to indicate they are a threat to my person. Why anyone would steal my piece of crap car is beyond me though. Why point it at them? Simple. Reaction time. If you're that close and do not have your weapon ready, they can reach you before you have time to draw, aim and fire. The FBI says an assailant will take 1.5 seconds to cover 21 ft.
My post wondering about why the man's grown son was creeping around in his hotel room was based on the original article which did NOT say anything about why the son was in his father's hotel room. |
|
