# Should We Do What They Tell Us?



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 20, 2007)

Yes, the Brass, or the Whores as my ex-Patrolman Sensei would call them, will advocate taken it, but I love  how the cheif pig thinks he can predict what would have happend. The  punk might have shot him and his Mom for the Hell of it, punks are getting worse, not better, many Gangs want their prospects to kill before granting full membership.

 Talk to street cops and you'll hear a different story.

 I went to summer school in a real bad are when I was 15, and because it was an instant expulsion for fighting, I basically let myself get hit and pushed around in an incedent.

 Well I end up in the Office with the Principle and the school Cop, when the Principle left the room, the cop told me, "You know you do have a right to protect yourself, you have a freebie  from me, he messes with you again, beat his *** and I will back your play."
  I did and he did, one ghetto punk found out that not all white boys are wimps and he got expelled for being a punk, the cop stood there and watched me beat him down and then pulled me off when I started to stomp on the jerk.
No Brass would ever condone that, but many a street cop like to see a Thug get what's coming.

 When an Authority figure tells  you to just take it, you need to think "Nazi" and disobey  that UnAmerican order.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 20, 2007)

Darth F.Takeda said:


> Yes, the Brass, or the Whores as my ex-Patrolman Sensei would call them, will advocate taken it, but I love  how the *chief pig *thinks he can predict what would have happened. The  punk might have shot him and his Mom for the Hell of it, punks are getting worse, not better, many Gangs want their prospects to kill before granting full membership.
> 
> When an Authority figure tells  you to just take it, you need to think *"Nazi" and disobey  that UnAmerican order.*



The two *bold* lines are out of order and uncalled for I think. Cops can face liability by telling the average citizen to fight back. It's the lawyers that'll jump on that opportunity quick as they can. But cops know that we average citizens are just not trained to handle situations like that. We can study martial arts all we want, we can be rational (_legal_) concealed weapon carriers and all of that but we do not have the (specific) training that they have, nor do we have their experience(s). 
Don't get me wrong, I'll fight back and fight back hard and hurt the suckers if they try to hurt me or mine. But I'll assess the situation best as I can and act on it or not act on it. But I'm not going to disobey a LEO if they're on the scene. It's not Nazism it's not even pacifism, it's plain common sense. They have their job(s) for a reason so that we the average joe-blow don't lose it and cause more casualties than necessary. They've seen more bad endings than good endings than you have so think upon that the next time they give you an "un-American" PIG order. Gang members are getting worse, sure. But it doesn't mean we have to either.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 20, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> The two *bold* lines are out of order and uncalled for I think. Cops can face liability by telling the average citizen to fight back. It's the lawyers that'll jump on that opportunity quick as they can. But cops know that we average citizens are just not trained to handle situations like that. We can study martial arts all we want, we can be rational (_legal_) concealed weapon carriers and all of that but we do not have the (specific) training that they have, nor do we have their experience(s).
> Don't get me wrong, I'll fight back and fight back hard and hurt the suckers if they try to hurt me or mine. But I'll assess the situation best as I can and act on it or not act on it. But I'm not going to disobey a LEO if they're on the scene. It's not Nazism it's not even pacifism, it's plain common sense. They have their job(s) for a reason so that we the average joe-blow don't lose it and cause more casualties than necessary. They've seen more bad endings than good endings than you have so think upon that the next time they give you an "un-American" PIG order. Gang members are getting worse, sure. But it doesn't mean we have to either.


 
What he said.  It's way over the top to refer to law enforcement as pigs and Nazis, and let's have a little context here:



> While acknowledging the gamble succeeded, authorities stressed that its safer to cooperate in such a case.
> Give them the money and give them the keys, Sheriff Harry Lee said. You make an insurance payment on your car, and nobody gets shot.


 
He wasn't giving an "UnAmerican order".  He was giving advice.  Nazi's don't do that.


----------



## JBrainard (Jun 20, 2007)

Darth F.Takeda said:


> When an Authority figure tells you to just take it, you need to think *"Nazi" and disobey that UnAmerican order*.


 


MA-Caver said:


> ...But I'm not going to disobey a LEO if they're on the scene. It's not Nazism it's not even pacifism, it's plain common sense. They have their job(s) for a reason so that we the average joe-blow don't lose it and cause more casualties than necessary. They've seen more bad endings than good endings than you have so think upon that the next time they give you an "un-American" PIG order. Gang members are getting worse, sure. But it doesn't mean we have to either.


 
I think the phrase "Civil disobedience is an act of patriotism" fits very well into this debate. "Taking it" and letting the authorities handle it later is very un-American, IMHO. But I must also say that yes, of course, if there is an LEO on the scene then you will do what they tell you to do. That is just common sense.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 20, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> I think the phrase "Civil disobedience is an act of patriotism" fits very well into this debate. "Taking it" and letting the authorities handle it later is very un-American, IMHO.


I have to disagree here. To fight for your life and the life of someone else close to you isn't just an American concept. But it's a judgement call. Eventually these guys get caught, especially if they're driving your car and the call goes out asap to the LEO's and specific directions as to where they were heading helps them quite a bit in stopping the guy. If the guy wrecks your car while being pursued it still doesn't matter, your insurance (unless of course you got just plain liability) will cover it and the guy still goes to jail. 
Civil disobedience isn't an act of patriotism, it's in defiance of patriotism. Following the laws of the land is being patriotic. If the laws turn against you then it's patriotic but (so far) that hasn't happened yet ... and I'm talking about a mass scale where curfews are enforced militarily and your basic rights as an American are taken away (speech, assembly, religion and so forth), fighting against that is patriotism. 

But patriotism is another topic altogether. We're talking about self defense against a criminal (that's not patriotism -- which by my definition is self-defense against a tyrannical government *ANY* government foreign or domestic) who is directly threatening you. It's a judgement call on whether or not to take action and which course of action that will be the least harmful to you and even the criminal themselves. 

I wish I can recall the exact quote (and the author) but it's something like: "... I am a civilized person, and anyone who attacks me is uncivilized... " There's *no* reason what-so-ever to stoop to their level of mentality. You stop that person by any means possible (not necessary) that will be the least harmful to you and yours. If that means letting them go and allowing the police to handle him then so be it. If you can (safely) subdue the criminal and hold/sit on them until the police arrive to make a proper arrest then so be it. 
How much value are you putting on your life?


----------



## tellner (Jun 20, 2007)

What JBrainard and Darth said, even if a few words might have been ill-chosen. Do what you believe you have to to go home in one piece. If the police departments had a tad of human decency and a little creativity they could say something like "There are serious legal and personal risks in fighting back. If you believe that you are in immediate danger and have no other reasonable choice you have the right to do what you need to to prevent yourself from being hurt, killed or victimized by a violent criminal." But they don't. Ever. I'm sorry if this sounds "anti-cop" but here it is:

Every profession has its group-think and common traits. Police are no exception. There's a certain sort of conservatism (not the national politics kind) that you see in many if not most officers. Creative lateral thinking is not all that common. Standard Operating Procedures, the safe way, what your training officer taught you and the way we've always done it are more the order of the day. So they'll do what they've always done and let the brass do what they've always done.

Look at what MA-Caver said. The cop could lose his job. You are supposed to risk your own irreplaceable life because someone, somewhere might have employment problems? I'm sorry. Protect the cop isn't that important to me. Letting good people get raped, kidnapped or killed to keep some faceless civil servant I've never met from having to get his wrists slapped by a review board of his peers - the most likely outcome - is a travesty. What's really at stake is that the city's insurance rates could be hiked. That's even less of a concern compared to innocent life. I should die to protect him while he isn't even required to lift a finger if he sees me being murdered just doesn't balance.

I respect many individual police officers. And I understand the systemic reasons for why the bureaucracies behave the way that they do. That in no way requires me to respect such a disgusting self-serving arrogant mindset. It works both ways. If the police collectively don't value my life enough to say "If your back's to the wall do what you have to to survive" while holding that their own officers can do the same at the merest hint of trouble I am under no obligation to give them any more consideration. 

In other words, I'll tip my hat to Officer Smith if he's a standup kind of guy. His job is frequently tedious and sometimes dangerous. But The Police as an institution? Not as long as they consider my life worth not even a word of advice they'd give one of their own. Let the FOP lobby for that kind of change and I'll change my tune in a heartbeat. But the "Cops get to carry anywhere even retired cops" law was supposed to pave the way for national CCW for the rest of us. So far the silence from the police unions and their members has been deafening.

It goes both ways. If your lives are worth defending so are ours.


----------



## Yeti (Jun 20, 2007)

tellner said:


> What JBrainard and Darth said, even if a few words might have been ill-chosen. Do what you believe you have to to go home in one piece. If the police departments had a tad of human decency and a little creativity they could say something like "There are serious legal and personal risks in fighting back. If you believe that you are in immediate danger and have no other reasonable choice you have the right to do what you need to to prevent yourself from being hurt, killed or victimized by a violent criminal." But they don't. Ever. I'm sorry if this sounds "anti-cop" but here it is:
> 
> Every profession has its group-think and common traits. Police are no exception. There's a certain sort of conservatism (not the national politics kind) that you see in many if not most officers. Creative lateral thinking is not all that common. Standard Operating Procedures, the safe way, what your training officer taught you and the way we've always done it are more the order of the day. So they'll do what they've always done and let the brass do what they've always done.
> 
> ...


 
I think you missed MA Caver's point entirely. I disagree almost entirely with what you've written here, and find your attitude to be problematic at best - but so be it - to each his own. And yes, your message seems pretty "anti-cop" to me - or at the very least "anti-establishment". If that's your opinion, why apologize for it?


----------



## tellner (Jun 20, 2007)

Ah, so you believe that the police should never say that it's alright to defend yourself? 

And you believe that a risk of raising the city's insurance rates if someone takes that advice is a fair trade for innocent live lost because people take the department's advice and die?

And you believe that it is right that we should die for a city's insurance rates while the police are under no legal obligation to defend us even if they see a murder in progress?

And believing that real human lives are worth saving and defending makes me against the police or at least against social order? 

If my life is more important to me than the convenience of a bureaucracy or I say that collectively the profession of "police officer" has its blind spots I am against the police?

I'm not sure we should settle for that sort of a world. But I suppose that makes me some sort of terrible anarchist just like Madison, Jefferson and Franklin.


----------



## JBrainard (Jun 20, 2007)

tellner said:


> I respect many individual police officers. And I understand the systemic reasons for why the bureaucracies behave the way that they do. That in no way requires me to respect such a disgusting self-serving arrogant mindset. It works both ways. If the police collectively don't value my life enough to say "If your back's to the wall do what you have to to survive" while holding that their own officers can do the same at the merest hint of trouble I am under no obligation to give them any more consideration....But the "Cops get to carry anywhere even retired cops" law was supposed to pave the way for national CCW for the rest of us. So far the silence from the police unions and their members has been deafening. It goes both ways. If your lives are worth defending so are ours.


 
This part of Tellner's post jumped out at me. Before I make a rather bold statement, I will present an illistration: To the best of my knowledge about Oregon law, if a criminal breaks into my home and I consider him to be a threat, I can shoot him... once. If I shoot him twice, it's excessive force. Many, but not all, cops would unload their entire clip on a criminal who has broken into a home and is threatening the people who live there. In these two situations, I will get procescuted in some form or another, and the cop will get a month paid holiday, I mean suspension 
What is my point? That there is an intense double standard when it comes to the actions of LEO's and citizens excersising their undeniable right to protect themselves and theirs. Some of this is inherent in the system and I fully understand that. But on the other side of the coin you can find some complete crap.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 20, 2007)

Darth F.Takeda said:


> Yes, the Brass, or the Whores as my ex-Patrolman Sensei would call them, will advocate taken it, but I love how the cheif pig thinks he can predict what would have happend. The punk might have shot him and his Mom for the Hell of it, punks are getting worse, not better, many Gangs want their prospects to kill before granting full membership.
> 
> Talk to street cops and you'll hear a different story.
> 
> ...


----------



## tellner (Jun 20, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> Before I make a rather bold statement, I will present an illistration: To the best of my knowledge about Oregon law, if a criminal breaks into my home and I consider him to be a threat, I can shoot him... once. If I shoot him twice, it's excessive force.



Not exactly. The actual Statute says that one has an affirmative defense if one uses deadly force to stop a burglary against a dwelling. It doesn't say how many shots. It doesn't detract from your point. What would be a bad shoot for you or me might well be excused for an officer by Internal Affairs. I can't shoot someone who makes a "furtive movement". A police officer can.


----------



## theletch1 (Jun 20, 2007)

tellner said:


> Ah, so you believe that the police should never say that it's alright to defend yourself?
> 
> And you believe that a risk of raising the city's insurance rates if someone takes that advice is a fair trade for innocent live lost because people take the department's advice and die?
> 
> ...


Tellner, knock it off!  I'm a conservative and I'm not supposed to agree with you.  But here you go, making sense and all.  Man, can you get someone all conflicted or what?


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 20, 2007)

Actually he is taken a true conservative opinion, self relience, the right to protect yourself, and  putting good people first and criminals in a hol are very old school Conservative principles.

More and more, I like Tellner, label him Liberal or Conservative if you want, but the guy has great points.


----------



## tellner (Jun 20, 2007)

theletch1 said:


> Tellner, knock it off!  I'm a conservative and I'm not supposed to agree with you.  But here you go, making sense and all.  Man, can you get someone all conflicted or what?



It's all part of my Secret Plan for World Domination. If I can confuse everyone they will be defenseless against the Hopping Hordes of my Warty Toad Minions 

Seriously, Left, Right, Liberal, Progressive, Conservative and all the rest are labels used by those who would divide us to increase their own power. People of good will are people of good will and usually want pretty much the same things for their families and communities. When they can quiet the dogmatic part of the brain that wants to be led and actually sit down and work together on the important things it's amazing how much they have in common.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 20, 2007)

tellner said:


> It's all part of my Secret Plan for World Domination. If I can confuse everyone they will be defenseless against the Hopping Hordes of my Warty Toad Minions
> 
> Seriously, Left, Right, Liberal, Progressive, Conservative and all the rest are labels used by those who would divide us to increase their own power. People of good will are people of good will and usually want pretty much the same things for their families and communities. When they can quiet the dogmatic part of the brain that wants to be led and actually sit down and work together on the important things it's amazing how much they have in common.


 

YES!

My FMA teacher and I are from differnt  sides of the Politicol spectrum, but when we sat down and stated "What I would want if I ran things, we were pretty much in agreement.
1. Kids are number 1- Better education (way more money for it and higher standards for teachers. No adult TV till after 10pm.

2. A Strong and big Military, so when we do go to war, we win by ovewhellming force.  Just like in a fight, mercy should only be granted from a position of supreme domination, never before.

  We just vote for differnt jerks.


----------



## SKB (Jun 20, 2007)

OK, this conversation went way out there. I think you guys missed something really important. The kid shot the guy twice and the bad guy lived! Someone needs to teach the kid how to shot!!!! Two in the chest and one in the head!!!


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 20, 2007)

2 in the chest, 2 in the head,  2 in the pelvis as well.


----------



## Yeti (Jun 20, 2007)

tellner said:


> Ah, so you believe that the police should never say that it's alright to defend yourself?
> 
> And you believe that a risk of raising the city's insurance rates if someone takes that advice is a fair trade for innocent live lost because people take the department's advice and die?
> 
> ...


 
I'm glad it comes so easy for you to put words in my mouth, although it seems your powers of deduction leave a lot to be desired. 

Here's what I do believe. I believe you and I are on very different pages about this matter and while I would actually welcome a discussion with you about it, there is nothing to be accomplished by using this forum to do so. Plus I fear it wouldn't make for interesting reading for many others.


----------



## SKB (Jun 20, 2007)

Darth F.Takeda said:


> 2 in the chest, 2 in the head, 2 in the pelvis as well.


 
Ok you have to work your way up or down. If you go up then down they might say you shot the guy to much!!!! 

You guys need to remember what LEOs can and can not do or say is a reflection of what society tells us we can do. Some agencies can not use choke holds since they are a mean thing to do to the bad guys............. and like any other group there are LEOs who are just plain idiots........ and some times it does appear all the idiots rise to the top! I really think you guys should yell at the lawyers!!!!!!


----------



## MaartenSFS (Jun 21, 2007)

Darth F.Takeda said:


> Yes, the Brass, or the Whores as my ex-Patrolman Sensei would call them, will advocate taken it, but I love how the cheif pig thinks he can predict what would have happend. The punk might have shot him and his Mom for the Hell of it, punks are getting worse, not better, many Gangs want their prospects to kill before granting full membership.
> 
> Talk to street cops and you'll hear a different story.
> 
> ...


 
Amen. Though I hardly think that it applies to Americans only. It applies to *men.* You know, that small minority with dangling sexual organs, though often lacking ball-shaped aparatus'.


----------



## MaartenSFS (Jun 21, 2007)

Darth F.Takeda said:


> YES!
> 
> My FMA teacher and I are from differnt sides of the Politicol spectrum, but when we sat down and stated "What I would want if I ran things, we were pretty much in agreement.
> 1. Kids are number 1- Better education (way more money for it and higher standards for teachers. No adult TV till after 10pm.
> ...


 
Sounds like China, you Communist bastards.  Except that they don't show adult programmes until after 12:00 and not on television, but in the cinema.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 21, 2007)

Well, at least I know it's not you who went off to the mods, crying about being offended by my above post's.

Very Communist of someone here, who instead of counter pointing my post, runs off to a Mod, like they were ratting out someone to the KGB?

This is the very kind of weak thinking would discourage bravery like the 17 year old young man showed. The whole "Let someone else fight my battles." mindset of the cowardly, weak and diserving of the oppression such thinking will encourage.


----------



## MJS (Jun 21, 2007)

Folks,

These posts have been split from the other thread regarding the 17yo defending himself against the carjacking.  I wanted to give these posts their own section, as it seems the discussion was drifting to another subject.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jun 21, 2007)

Alot of posts, so rather than reply to each one, I'll just throw in my .02. 

Do we have a right to protect ourselves, our property, our family?  Sure.  However, I still believe that some good common sense should be used.  The cops are here for a reason, and I don't think that having them tell someone to disregard the law and have a free for all, is the right thing to do.  If that was the case, why have police at all? 

Mike


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2007)

An interesting and lively discusssion! I can't add much as our laws and perception of police officers is perhaps different from yours. I'm thinking that your very senior police officers/officials are political appointees? 

The view that the police forces are public servants which _you_ pay for to protect citizens and deal with crime doesn't come across very much either in these posts or articles we see from the States at all.

We are told not to tackle criminals, the few cases where a non police officer has, that person has been killed or badly injured. It makes total sense to leave crime to those we pay to deal with it as they are also the ones trained for the job.

We had a high profile case a while back where tow lads broke into a man's house and he shot them, one died. Much was made of the 'defending an Englishman's castle' stuff and saying the home owner shouldn't have been prosecuted and sent to prison. On closer investigation, which of course the media didn't bother with, it turned out that the home owner had several illegal weapons, had threatend to kill his own brother as well as other neighbours and had shot one of the burglars in the back as he was leaving the house. He was prosecuted for manslaughter because he had not at any time been in danger of his life nor was he threatened, he had exceeded what was deemed reasonable force. Police spokesmen pointed out that every other case where a burglar had been injured or even killed by the householder in this country had not been prosecuted as investigation.

The law in this country allows reasonable force to be used both by the population to defend themselves and by the police to arrest and detain a suspect. The advice not to 'have a go' is wise and is usually adhered to with good reason.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jun 21, 2007)

MJS said:
			
		

> Do we have a right to protect ourselves, our property, our family? Sure. However, I still believe that some good common sense should be used. *The cops are here for a reason, and I don't think that having them tell someone to disregard the law and have a free for all, is the right thing to do. If that was the case, why have police at all? *


 
So are you saying if a cop (whether street-level or Brass) were to encourage someone to defend themselves and not comply with the demands of a criminal that it would be telling them to disregard the law? I'm sure I'm misinterpreting your statement (at least I hope so).

This type of situation happened several months ago here in my town. The clerk at a liquor store shot a man who tried to rob him at gunpoint (the bad-guy shot at the clerk as well). The clerk survived and was not charged with any crime as his actions were ruled a justified use of force. However, the police chief said that "he should not have taken the law into his own hands."
When I heard this statement from the chief, I lost any respect I might have had for him. Such an attitude (unfortunately all to common among high-level LE) is pathetic. 

Complying with the instructions of a criminal may be the best choice _in some cases_. However, each situation is going to be different so I do not feel that it is something that should be encouraged as a standard practice. If all you're going to do is submit, than why waste time training for self-defense? To "go along until/unless he tries to hurt you" is foolhardy because once he has made that decision and starts to implement it, you are way behind the curve and probably will not catch up in time. The only time I will submit is if I have not yet been presented with the opportunity to either flee safely, or to respond with overwhelming force until the threat has been neutralized.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2007)

We have armed robberies  but NO shopkeeper has a weapon behind the counter, we have very few houshoulders who have weapons, if they do the guns will be locked in a secure cabinet as the law demands. Fighting back unarmed against a gun is foolhardy if not very stupid so the advice to give them the cash or whatever is wise.


"This type of situation happened several months ago here in my town. The clerk at a liquor store shot a man who tried to rob him at gunpoint (the bad-guy shot at the clerk as well). The clerk survived and was not charged with any crime as his actions were ruled a justified use of force. However, the police chief said that "he should not have taken the law into his own hands."
When I heard this statement from the chief, I lost any respect I might have had for him. Such an attitude (unfortunately all to common among high-level LE) is pathetic"

This couldn't happen here and I don't understand how it could be deemed pathetic, what if it had turned out the other way? Whatever happened a person was dead, okay one was a thief who threated another with a gun but is life that cheap that you kill everyone who threatens? Taking a life should be regarded as an awful thing to do whatever the circumstances. When we get used to taking life without a thought we are as a civilisation in trouble.

Recently a unarmed man tackled an armed raider and was shot and severely wounded for his trouble. The police said it was brave but foolish.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 21, 2007)

Like so many other issues in self-defense, there are too many variables to have a stock answer to any situation.  Should we always blindly follow authority?  That is, in my mind, as foolish as always blindly disobeying authority - they are two sides of the same coin.  The person(s) in a particular situation need to determine _for themselves_ what the appropriate response should be - and no second-guessing from people who are not present for the situation can change that.

In the situation that started this thread before the split, about the 17 year-old boy who took a gun from an attacker and used it against him, I stated that I didn't know whether to be impressed or horrified - and I stand by that.  Do I think he should have sat by and allowed his mother's car and money to be taken?  I can't say - _because I wasn't there_.  I will say, however, that his choice of action could have gone horribly astray - would we all be sitting here debating if he should have taken action had the 17 year-old, rather than the criminal, been the one to receive multiple gunshot wounds?  It's hard to say... but I doubt it.  Hindsight is 20/20, and _since his actions were effective_, quite a few people are applauding this boy's actions - and to a certain extent I'm one of them, because too many criminals rely on people's willingness to avoid involvement and potential injury - but at the same time, such choices can go horribly wrong.

The same holds true for workers in any emergency service - no matter how much training a person receives, you cannot know how you will react to a particular stressor until you are exposed to that stressor.  For untrained people, the risk is greater - and in general, the understanding of possible outcomes is much less.

As martial artists, we can train people, teach them skills, simulate scenarios as realistically as possible, etc. - but in the end, there is no way to know how a particular person will react until a situation occurs.  For myself, I will not automatically discard or choose _any_ potential course of action until I absolutely must, nor will I advocate that my students automatically discard or choose any potential course of action, simply because of who they are (or are not) responding to.


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Jun 21, 2007)

Un-American!  Un-Canadian, inhuman!  I know exactly what it's like.  Take high school.  You have no right to self defense.  You _do _get expelled for fighting back.  They don't care.  They want to run a tight ship and ignore the details.  I wonder if it's in the authority figure's (principal, student councillor, whoever decides) job description to be ignorant of these things or if it's a personal thing.  Don't get me wrong, I've had bad experiences that have soured me on it.  I will back my child up in a situation like that and pull him out of the school as a statement of their incompetence.  Private school's expensive though...
Violence is unnacceptable.  So why do the A-holes get a free ride so often in public school?  I'm not much for conspiracies but do they pay bullies to keep student moral low and spirits broken?  I have to wonder.  I apoligize to those I've lumped in here who mean well but AAAAARGHHHHH!!!  One violent act on another human being=10 years, no parole.  Second offence=life imprisonment with the option of execution.  All we need is a better way of judging wether someone is guilty or not.  Is that why we have such light penalties?  In case we're wrong?  Or is it a benefit of the doubt thing?  If ten years for being stupid isn't enough, throw that person away!  They just want to make trouble, be a big man at the cost of peaceful people.  I understand it's idealistic but I shouldn't _have_ to fight, ever.  Period.  Until they quit "condoning" and "encouraging" violence, we should have full leeway to make them pay for a _very_ stupid mistake.  Just my $.02.


----------



## tellner (Jun 21, 2007)

MJS said:


> Alot of posts, so rather than reply to each one, I'll just throw in my .02.
> 
> Do we have a right to protect ourselves, our property, our family?  Sure.  However, I still believe that some good common sense should be used.  The cops are here for a reason, and I don't think that having them tell someone to disregard the law and have a free for all, is the right thing to do.  If that was the case, why have police at all?
> 
> Mike



I think you're under a few misapprehensions here on the basic facts


The police are not here to protect us. The many court rulings have been unanimous. They are required to investigate crimes after the fact. They are required to arrest people for whom a warrant has been issued. They are not required to protect any individual citizen under any circumstances.
The standard police advice really is based more on the dictates of the legal profession or ignorance than anything else. The last thirty years of criminological research are unanimous on the risks of flight, resistance and compliance. The law enforcement community is aware of those findings.
Nobody in this case did anything that was against or "ignored" the law other than the robber. The defender took immediate action based on a reasonable fear that he or his mother was about to be murdered.
Justice Frankfurter said that self defense is "the most fundamental" human right. That is what happened here. Even the most enthusiastic supporters of that right on this thread don't seem to go beyond its strict parameters.
Another great jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, said "Calm reflection is not possible in the face of the upraised knife." That's what we had here. The kid had to make a split-second life-or-death decision. He was not engaging in a "free for all".
In the other related thread exactly the same things apply, and the pizza parlor employees showed much more restraint than many reasonable people would have.


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Jun 21, 2007)

Right and wrong are not in a policeman's job description.  Upholding the law is.  Police were invented as the watch.  The watch protect the rich.  I've met policemen who try to do right and I've met policemen on a power trip.  Policemen, I think, are supposed to be unpleasant because if they end up coming for a visit, it's supposed to be bad news (glad to see them when the violence breaks out thoug...).  A lot of policemen, I think, are understandably (not necessarily justifiably) in bad moods.  They deal with A-holes and punk teenagers all day.  I'm impressed some are as good as they are at keeping an approachable attitude.  Don't get me wrong, I'd definitely rather have them than not!


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2007)

Job description of the British bobby:-


[SIZE=-1]JANE'S POLICE REVIEW CAREERS - APRIL 27, 2007 [/SIZE]
*Join the police*



The police service offers a wide range of worthwhile and rewarding career paths for PCs, Special constables, community support officers and police staff. These roles offer many opportunities for a first rate career and the chance to give something back to your community. 
*Becoming a police officer *
As a police officer you will be expected to undertake a range of duties to reduce crime and the fear of crime. You will play a vital role in supporting victims and witnesses, providing reassurance and confidence to victims of crime, *protecting the public from criminals and anti-social behaviour.* 
Other rolesFor more information on becoming a community support officer, Special constable or other roles within the police service see www.policecouldyou.co.uk 


Of course there's my lot! http://www.modpoliceofficers.co.uk/default.asp


----------



## tellner (Jun 21, 2007)

I'd love to albeit in the States. I even did well on the tests. But when they heard "cancer patient" it suddenly went downhill.


----------



## MJS (Jun 21, 2007)

kenpotex said:


> So are you saying if a cop (whether street-level or Brass) were to encourage someone to defend themselves and not comply with the demands of a criminal that it would be telling them to disregard the law? I'm sure I'm misinterpreting your statement (at least I hope so).
> 
> This type of situation happened several months ago here in my town. The clerk at a liquor store shot a man who tried to rob him at gunpoint (the bad-guy shot at the clerk as well). The clerk survived and was not charged with any crime as his actions were ruled a justified use of force. However, the police chief said that "he should not have taken the law into his own hands."
> When I heard this statement from the chief, I lost any respect I might have had for him. Such an attitude (unfortunately all to common among high-level LE) is pathetic.
> ...


 
IMO, 99% of the time, when you and I are involved in a thread, it seems to me that we're on the same page.  Perhaps a slight misunderstanding here.  Please let me explain.  I read the first post here in this thread, and took it as the cops encouraging the public to do things which are against the law.  In the first post, the OP states that the officer stood there while he beat up another person, only breaking it up when it seemed to really escalate.  Isn't it the job of a LEO to prevent things like this?  

There have been many times on here, in which I've read stories of people fighting back and have tipped my hat to them.  Someone shooting a suspect for robbing their store is no different than if I defended myself against someone trying to mug me.  Then again, every time you hear of a situation like the one you mention, the cops always say what you stated.  You never hear them say fight back.


----------



## MJS (Jun 21, 2007)

tellner said:


> I think you're under a few misapprehensions here on the basic facts
> 
> The police are not here to protect us. The many court rulings have been unanimous. They are required to investigate crimes after the fact. They are required to arrest people for whom a warrant has been issued. They are not required to protect any individual citizen under any circumstances.
> The standard police advice really is based more on the dictates of the legal profession or ignorance than anything else. The last thirty years of criminological research are unanimous on the risks of flight, resistance and compliance. The law enforcement community is aware of those findings.
> ...


 
1) So the phrase "To Protect and To Serve" means nothing anymore?  Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that if a cop drives by a man on the street getting mugged at knife point, he could keep on driving by?

3) I was basing my reply on the first post in this thread, not what the 17 yo did regarding the gun.  Again, it was a judgement call.  In a case like that, the person needs to decide if acting is a wise or poor choice.

4-6) All regarding the other post.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 21, 2007)

I know alot of Law Enforcement people and have been in the field myself way in the past.  In general these are hard working people who are performing an incredibly difficult and dangerous job.  Like all people who serve they generally and unfortunately do not get to deal with the best people all the time.  They also on top of this have people constantly monday morning quarterbacking their ever move.  Most of the LEO's that I know will tell you exactly what they feel you can do in a violent encounter and still be within the legal limits of the law.  In general they give very good advice and want people to be safe and sound and to live good productive live's.  

        As to doing exactly what they tell you in regards to self defense and personal protection?  Well in the end and in the moment you have to make your own decisions based on the unique circumstance that you are presented with.  No one *but you* can make this *decision* and hopefully your training, morals and the advice you were given along the way will kick in and you will survive and still be within the legal limits of the law.  Personally I think that every person studying martial arts/science should talk to many different people and police, lawyers, judges, etc. to gain an idea of how to protect themselves best.  Do not limit yourself to one point of view or one individual persons perspective.


----------



## tellner (Jun 22, 2007)

MJS said:


> 1) So the phrase "To Protect and To Serve" means nothing anymore?  Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that if a cop drives by a man on the street getting mugged at knife point, he could keep on driving by?



"To Protect and To Serve" is just the motto of the LAPD. Adam-12 and Dragnet got it national recognition. It has absolutely no legal content whatsoever. It means as much as most corporate mottoes. 

The simple answer is that yes, the cop could drive on by. There is a long series of court cases. They are unanimous in their conclusions. Combine the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity with the bedrock principle that the police are there to investigate crimes and act on warrants, not protect any individual citizen absent some sort of personal services contract. The law is very clear. They have no legal obligation to protect you. They may choose to or they may not. And when they do not no law is broken and a lawsuit against them will fail.  It really is as simple as that.

There was a case here not too many years ago. Three police officers watched someone get knifed to death. They did not get involved. They took notes and arrested the suspect later. The lawsuit was quickly thrown out on precisely the grounds outlined above. By taking notes and investigating the crime after the fact they had discharged their legal obligation.

I've been to a number of police training events over the years. At every one of them at least one older presenter says, usually in almost exactly these words "First you go home. Then your partner goes home. Then the citizen goes home. Then the bad guy goes home." When it comes to keeping people alive you are #3. That's not necessarily a bad thing. The job is dangerous enough without taking extra risks when you think there's a good chance you'll get hurt. Pull back and call for backup is S.O.P. for many situations in departmental policy manuals. If someone dies (cf. Columbine) that's regrettable. It's not necessarily contrary to what the officers were told to do. And it's neither against the law nor grounds for a suit.

In the end you are the one who is responsible for your own safety. The police are not. Even if they wanted to be they couldn't do the job. US Presidents have the best personal security in the world. They still get shot at. Sometimes they get hit. 

Criminals do bad things to people. When that happens to you most of your options are bad. They don't include things like "honor", "fairness" or time for calm, clear in depth reflection. That's why the legal tradition of self defense is the way it is with terms like "choice of evils" and "affirmative defense". Killing people is bad. It is less bad than letting innocent people be killed or maimed by violent criminals. It would normally be wrong to kill anyone, but in this case it's a perfect legal defense if the jury believes you.

None of the people in either of the cases we're talking about went wild, took the law into their own hands or did anything else wrong. They all acted well within the tradition of self defense against "the immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or serious bodily injury." They did not do the police department's job. It's not the police department's job to prevent crimes from happening although it's a happy thing when it does. They did their own job according to the traditions of US and English Common Law. The kid with the samurai sword may have technically exceeded his authority once the burglar had left the house and was running away. But a case could be made in his defense.

In the pizza parlor case the employees would certainly have walked if the manager had cut the robber's throat like he was a kosher chicken. He had a gun and was wrestling for control of it. He had already pointed it at innocent people. A reasonable person in the manager's situation knowing what the manager knew could reasonably have concluded that innocent people were in immediate danger and that severe measures were the only safe way to stop the danger.

If the robber had been knocked unconscious and been tied up and they had gutted, cleaned, skinned and jointed him it would have been another matter. At that point he was not a danger. Further action was not reasonable self defense. Up until that point? They acted with extreme restraint by just cutting and whacking him a little and dragging him outside. Personally I would have at least restrained and possibly searched him and called the police. I wouldn't trust him not to have another gun and not to come back. Best to have him where the authorities can pick him up and take him away.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 22, 2007)

And the above is why good cops, who do put their lives on the line to protect others, should be recognized.

The above might be correct but it is still wrong, a good cop will protect others.

 My  Sensei has collected  a good set  of scars from doing things  like pulling people out of burning buildings,rescueing kids in precarious  situations, stopping assults and other crimes in progress.

 Then their is the more friendly stuff, like delivering a couple of babies,  finding lost kids and  being a  positive  influence on some of the kids  on his beat.

  As an aside, he says he never ate a donut the whole time he was in uniform, he always hated that stereotype  and was not going to fall into it.

  God bless those of you cops who truly protect and serve, and I'll refrain from saying what those who don't can do.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jun 22, 2007)

MJS said:


> IMO, 99% of the time, when you and I are involved in a thread, it seems to me that we're on the same page. Perhaps a slight misunderstanding here. Please let me explain. I read the first post here in this thread, and took it as the cops encouraging the public to do things which are against the law. In the first post, the OP states that the officer stood there while he beat up another person, only breaking it up when it seemed to really escalate. Isn't it the job of a LEO to prevent things like this?
> 
> There have been many times on here, in which I've read stories of people fighting back and have tipped my hat to them. Someone shooting a suspect for robbing their store is no different than if I defended myself against someone trying to mug me. Then again, every time you hear of a situation like the one you mention, the cops always say what you stated. You never hear them say fight back.


thanks for the clarification


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 22, 2007)

The police party line about civilians arming themselves and defending themselves can seem annoying, but it makes solid sense from a purely tactical perspective.

I was never in special forces or SWAT, but I've had the privilege and pleasure of training with and befriending several people with experience in one, the other, or both.  One rule all of them seem to agree on is *never arm an untrained person*.  That scene in the movies where the soldier gives the journalist a gun so they can get out?  Won't happen.  Utrained, armed people are going to confuse the situation and get you shot.  Now, if that journalist had a CCW or military training, he gets your spare piece in a new york second, but the rule stands:  _*never arm an untrained person.

*_For the police department to go public saying 'sure, guys, if some skell steps up to you, blaze away.  thanks for saving us the trouble'....that's arming the untrained _at a society-wide level._

No wonder they don't want to do that in print.  Not for the general public.  However, just like the journalist with the CCW, you rarely see a reasonable, trained individual getting in real trouble for legitimate self-defense.  I've used my skills in an embarassingly wide number of situations, and never once got cited or charged by the officer on scene.  Most people I know have the same experience for legitimate self-defense.

In short, there's a legitimate reason for the party line.  And if you defend yourself for legitimate reasons, most often you'll find the personal line is rather different for people with training, intelligence and good sense.  Especially if you're polite to the officer when he shows up and asks you about it.


----------



## MJS (Jun 22, 2007)

tellner said:


> "To Protect and To Serve" is just the motto of the LAPD. Adam-12 and Dragnet got it national recognition. It has absolutely no legal content whatsoever. It means as much as most corporate mottoes.
> 
> The simple answer is that yes, the cop could drive on by. There is a long series of court cases. They are unanimous in their conclusions. Combine the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity with the bedrock principle that the police are there to investigate crimes and act on warrants, not protect any individual citizen absent some sort of personal services contract. The law is very clear. They have no legal obligation to protect you. They may choose to or they may not. And when they do not no law is broken and a lawsuit against them will fail. It really is as simple as that.
> 
> There was a case here not too many years ago. Three police officers watched someone get knifed to death. They did not get involved. They took notes and arrested the suspect later. The lawsuit was quickly thrown out on precisely the grounds outlined above. By taking notes and investigating the crime after the fact they had discharged their legal obligation.


 
Here are a few things I found for some PD's here in CT.

New Britian Police Dept.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*



			Our Mission
		
Click to expand...

*


> [/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]It is the mission of the New Britain Police Department to provide quality policing services that emphasize fairness, integrity, and professionalism, to protect lives and property and by using the community policing philosophy, to enhance the quality of life in our neighborhoods by partnering with citizens.[/FONT]


 
Code Of Ethics


New Haven Police Dept.

Letters 

*04/11/07*
_from Teresa D. Davidson

_I want to commend one of your fine police officers, Officer Steve McMorris, Badge #224. I live on Oliver Road and for two days they have been repairing our street.
Today, I had to do some grocery shopping. When I returned, I had to park on the opposite side of the street. I carried two packages to the corner, the officer took them from me so I could go back to the car for the other two. I returned and the officer took my two packages and walked me back to my home.
I have very high regards for the police. I had two uncles, John Doyle and Peter Quinn, plus a cousin John Doyle, who were cops many years ago . . .
Please extend my sincere thanks to your officer . . . Keep up the good work.


*03/19/07*
_from Mary K. Weigand_

I would like to send a hearty commendation to your department for the generosity of *Officer William Barone* who stopped, as he drove by, to shovel my front steps for me. You probably know already what a credit he is to the department and to the City.



*01/04/07*
_from Carol Cyr_ 
It&#8217;s not very often that we see good deeds being done and it&#8217;s even less often that people write you a letter about it. Yesterday I witnessed a very kind act by one of your female officers; she was driving car #85 on 1/03/07.  
I was driving towards the train station at around 4:00 and suddenly, without any obvious reason, the two lanes of traffic stopped. I looked ahead and saw car #85 stopped with the lights going. She got out of her car and helped a man in a wheelchair cross the busy street. She even got him onto the sidewalk and turned him in the right direction before waving goodbye to him. This brought tears to my eyes, it was such a simple and kind act but one that we rarely see today. 
Please find out who this officer is and tell her thank you from me and let her know that she is appreciated and making a difference in our city.


I'm not sure of the PDs where you live, but as you can see from what I linked, there is obviously a big difference.  Seems to me that there is a big focus on protecting the public and community police/service.  Additionally, there have been many times when police officers in the city in which I work, have come across active fights in progress and have stopped.

Mike


----------



## SKB (Jun 22, 2007)

If officers stood around and watched a guy get stabbed then the situation is more about what the officers are made of then what they are supposed to do! If you ask around you'll find a lot departments want counslers with guns and not COPS. When I was a kid the cops would smack us upside the head if we were being dumb! Now days they want to know how someone feels about the situation first. 

Your right Tellner everyone is responsable for their own protection to start with. The police can not be every where all the time. And just like any other group of people police departments are made up of all types of people. But you can't say all the police are for is to stand there and find out what happen after the fact. Some thing like a school shooting or almost any situation is more complicated then most people realize. You can't just run in guns blazing to ever situation!!


----------



## BrandiJo (Jun 23, 2007)

I think the plice are still good and still deserve our respect and trust. Yesterday i had a flat tire in 40 mins from my destanation and 30 from my home. I was stuck my tire iron is damn near impossibly to use... (a whole 6 inches of levrage) and a state trooper pulled behind me, put on my spare and then excorted me to the nearest gas station and tire repair shop to get my tires fixed ( i had one blow out and one severly dmged) Did he have to stop? nope, i had help on the way, did he have to be nice and calm me down and reassure me that it would be ok, did he have to drive behind me going 40 mph to insure that i got to saftey, no, but he did and he made me feel alot better about being stuck and alone and with one unuseable tire and one tire that shouldnt be used. ​


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 23, 2007)

That's a cool cop, Hell that's a cool person period.
In Va, we have State Troopers who's primary job is to help motorist, one helped me  year  ago,  when my  truck broke down and it was 10 degrees outside.


----------



## BrandiJo (Jun 23, 2007)

lol oh ya cant forget middle of summer in Nebraska i think it was somewhere around 90 degrees out


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 24, 2007)

Darth F.Takeda said:


> That's a cool cop, Hell that's a cool person period.
> In Va, we have State Troopers who's primary job is to help motorist, one helped me  year  ago,  when my  truck broke down and it was 10 degrees outside.


To clarify -- VA State Police Motorist Assistance Aides are not Troopers; they're non-sworn personnel who provide a number of services to people who have trouble in a few portions of the state (where traffic congestion is the worst).  By doing so, they get motorists who are suffering from minor mechanical problems back on the road -- or they at least reduce the chance of the breakdown or crash causing more traffic problems.

And, for what it's worth, Troopers in VA are NOT merely "highway patrol ticket writers."  They have full law enforcement authority state-wide, and are often the primary police response in many parts of the state where the locals are overburnened, or just shut down after a certain hour.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 24, 2007)

I did not know that, I assumed (bad) that they were by the fact that they have a firearms.

  That be a  pretty  cool  job  and a good way  to serve.

  I remember  New  York State Troopers were the only LEO's in certian ares  as well, but  I was a child  then. I remeber my step dad and I  went to a Trooper Barricks to report a  break  in  at his shop.


----------



## MJS (Jun 24, 2007)

The State Police in CT are allowed to take their cars home with them.  They can be used for personal use as well.  Part of that privilege means that technically they're on duty even when they're not offically working.  So, if an off duty CSP Trooper comes across an accident, disabled motor vehicle, erratic operation, etc., they have to stop.


----------



## jdinca (Jun 24, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> An interesting and lively discusssion! I can't add much as our laws and perception of police officers is perhaps different from yours. I'm thinking that your very senior police officers/officials are political appointees?
> 
> The view that the police forces are public servants which _you_ pay for to protect citizens and deal with crime doesn't come across very much either in these posts or articles we see from the States at all.
> 
> ...


 
I'm constantly baffled at the protection some criminals get. You break into another persons home and you get what you deserve. If you are just a burglar and have no intention of hurting anybody, too bad. What are you doing in their home in the first place and why should you be afforded ANY legal protection in that situation whatsoever? You broke the law, entered their home with intention to do harm, even if it was just by stealing their belongings and you'd paid the price. Guess you shouldn't have done that in the first place. 

If you choose to break into someones home, you should be well aware that your life is now forfeit if you come up against an armed homeowner and he chooses to take it. Yes, that's harsh but it's not the homeowner who set up the situation, it's the criminal. Remember the line from the Baretta theme song? "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time". Well, the "time" may very well be an immediately imposed death sentence.


----------



## BrandiJo (Jun 24, 2007)

We have a moterist assist thing as well, but lol they whernt there when i needed them i got a real life sworn in highway patrol guy who at first i thought was going to ticket me for sitting on the side of the interstate ​


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 24, 2007)

BrandiJo said:


> We have a moterist assist thing as well, but lol they whernt there when i needed them i got a real life sworn in highway patrol guy who at first i thought was going to ticket me for sitting on the side of the interstate ​


I've changed more than one tire to help someone, when other demands on my time let me.  But the idea of the civilian, unarmed motorist assistance units is that they can do that sort of thing, freeing up cops for "real police work" that civilians can't do, and to keep traffic moving...  Many of the motorist assistance aides also have appropriate experience with auto mechanics to provide real assistance in a breakdown.


----------



## BrandiJo (Jun 25, 2007)

yeah, they are great i see them all the time on the interstate


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 25, 2007)

jdinca said:


> I'm constantly baffled at the protection some criminals get. You break into another persons home and you get what you deserve. If you are just a burglar and have no intention of hurting anybody, too bad. What are you doing in their home in the first place and why should you be afforded ANY legal protection in that situation whatsoever? You broke the law, entered their home with intention to do harm, even if it was just by stealing their belongings and you'd paid the price. Guess you shouldn't have done that in the first place.
> 
> If you choose to break into someones home, you should be well aware that your life is now forfeit if you come up against an armed homeowner and he chooses to take it. Yes, that's harsh but it's not the homeowner who set up the situation, it's the criminal. Remember the line from the Baretta theme song? "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time". Well, the "time" may very well be an immediately imposed death sentence.


 
I'm sorry but we don't think like that. We abolished the death sentence a long time ago.  Breaking into a house does not make your life forfeit. the law is in place to punish the burglar, you cannot take the law into your own hands because then you become as bad as the lawbreaker. In this country you are allowed to use 'reasonable' force to defend yourself and your property. Killing someone was not reasonable force in that case, he shot a boy in the back and killed him. The boys shouldn't have been there but they don't deserve to die for that. The householder is not judge, jury and executioner.We have laws that are over a thousand years old, tried and tested by time. Life has to be sacrosanct, yes even a lawbreakers life.   
 If you end up killing someone in defence of your life and/or loved ones, the police and courts will still investigate. This is to deter people killing each other under the guise of it being self defence. Taking a life even a burglars life should be a matter of grave concern not a 'hey whatever' and a shrug of the shoulders.I find that quite appallingly callous.Yes I would find it so if I were burgled too.


----------



## jdinca (Jun 25, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> I'm sorry but we don't think like that. We abolished the death sentence a long time ago. Breaking into a house does not make your life forfeit. the law is in place to punish the burglar, you cannot take the law into your own hands because then you become as bad as the lawbreaker. In this country you are allowed to use 'reasonable' force to defend yourself and your property. Killing someone was not reasonable force in that case, he shot a boy in the back and killed him. The boys shouldn't have been there but they don't deserve to die for that. The householder is not judge, jury and executioner.We have laws that are over a thousand years old, tried and tested by time. Life has to be sacrosanct, yes even a lawbreakers life.
> If you end up killing someone in defence of your life and/or loved ones, the police and courts will still investigate. This is to deter people killing each other under the guise of it being self defence. Taking a life even a burglars life should be a matter of grave concern not a 'hey whatever' and a shrug of the shoulders.I find that quite appallingly callous.Yes I would find it so if I were burgled too.


 
I'm not sure where you get the opinion that I'm saying "hey, whatever". We're talking about devastating consequences for the shooter, as well as the criminal who set up the situation in the first place. The bottom line is, had his home not been violated with malicious intent, the criminals life would have never been in jeopardy and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Once you choose to break into someones home, you should know very well that the consequence could be you losing your life. I prefer not to have to wait until a weapon is pulled on me and have to "outdraw" the bad guy. We're not talking on the street here, we're talking about the sanctity of somebodies home. It probably wasn't necessary to pull the trigger in this case but I have much less sympathy for the criminal who was shot than I do the victim who's home was violated. I prefer to put the rights of the victim ahead of the rights of the dirtbag who chose to break and enter. If he didn't want to risk his life, he shouldn't have done the crime in the first place.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 26, 2007)

I begin with the assumption that the right of self-defense exists. There exist many in the world who do not. This entry is not for them.
Also let us cast aside affiliations of this or that political party on the issue and merely look at the issue itself as that is all that interests me and all that is relevant to this entry.
It's very easy to understand my beliefs about this issue once I have explained them to you:

The first point of my central belief system is centered on the premise that every human being has rights. You may, if you wish, say that they come from a god, or from nature, or from written law, as suits your preference, but the underlying premise is that they are THERE, irrespective of their form.

The second point is that whatever the number of rights one possesses, they all stem from the right to EXIST, and to try to preserve that existence. This is simple brain-dead logic; one can neither possess nor exercise ANY rights if one does not exist.
Now , the last time I tried explaining this to someone who was less interested in hearing my view as in ridiculing it, this is the point at which I had this incredibly intelligent person interrupt me with"Yeah, well y'know what? Y'know what?....."
He waited for me to say "what". I thought that was cute....ly retarded.
"Yeah, y'know what? But you just said everybody had the right to exist, so if you shoot 'em that's hypocrisy, so you're just as bad, yeah, so there".
So I will answer that here as well: 
No.
It is not "Just as bad, yeah, so there."
Self-defense is NOT the moral equivalent of homicide.
The person defending themselves from death or grievous bodily harm has not made the same decision as the person who has already demonstrated the ability, opportunity and intent to kill him/her. 

The concept that both these people should be held to the same standard should be self-evident in its sheer ludicrousness.

How does my belief system tie into this? It ties into this because when a person decides to make an unjustified attempt to remove another person's right to exist( in plain English this is called assaulting or murdering them), that person has chosen to arrogate to themselves a right that they do not possess, and in so doing sacrifices their right to exist that the innocent person who has done NO wrong, and deserves to live, may live.

So no, I see absolutely no sane reason why the criminal has any right, or need, to receive sympathy or even the remotest consideration at that point. This person chose their actions, and thus their potential, and deserved, fate, with both eyes open and should be 100% subject to the whim of Fate if they've burned up enough karma that their number's up that day for doing so. You made your grave, now lie in it. Since they made the conscious choice that they did not wish to be useful citizens in life let them serve a useful purpose with their death.( "Hey! You other aspiring crooks! I tried that and look what happened to ME!")

And before anyone even starts in on the cowboy fantasy ********--This is nothing to do with "wanting to be judge and jury" or "taking the law into one's own hands" or "Needing to prove one's manhood", wherever the **** THAT came from.

This is strictly, and only, about experiencing a threat or reasonably perceived threat to the right to exist, and stopping it from occurring, so that no more innocent lives are harmed--just as clinically and emotionally detached as a surgeon removing a cancerous tumor(the two are, in my view circumstantially identical)--A human cannot break the Human Contract in any worse way than this, and this action must be stopped. 

 If you can do it by running, mission accomplished, if you are one of the top one-tenth-of-one-percent who are smart enough to try "just restraining" an armed attacker, stupid enough to try it, and lucky enough to survive, good--stupid, but good. If it means using whatever armed or unarmed means you must to push his "off-switch" and be done with it, too bad so sad. As unfortunate as that would be, it is in my estimation far, far worse to show such extreme disrespect for the sanctity of (innocent) life by allowing it to be STOLEN( and that's what it is). 

This I think is what differentiates US/UK thought on the matter--The overview Tez gave of how home invaders are looked at would fall under the old Americanism of "Giving a sucker an even break", so to speak.

That being said, an earlier poster was 100% correct that blindly obeying any "party line" is equally as undesirable as blindly DISobeying it. If you are not there to see the situation develop, YOU DO NOT KNOW THE SITUATION.

Bear in mind most LEOs responding to a call are in EXACTLY that boat--they don't and at this point can't, care why someone is like they are or who had a ****ed up childhood, they just know either someone's hurt or there's a body on the floor. You getting in their way while they need to get a handle on things is also *N*ot *C*ool in ther same way not defending yourself is *N*ot *C*ool.


----------



## SKB (Jun 26, 2007)

Good post Andy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 26, 2007)

Great post Brother Rant!


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 27, 2007)

I believe it's pointless for me to post anymore on this thread as we have widely differing views and you are unable to understand mine as is made clear by your deciding what my views are. It hasn't the slightest bit to do with give a sucker an even break at all. It's more in the mould of how can killing people 'legally' put over the message that killing people is wrong?

  We have no more sympathy for lawbreakers than you do, we just don't believe killing people makes things any better. 

I will only point out that the case I was talking about the householder had illegal shotguns, shot someone in the back without checking first if it was a burglar or _his brother who he had already threatened to kill._The police had previously been called out to the house. The plain fact was he wanted to kill someone. The burglar did not deserve to be the one killed, he deserved to be tried and sentenced to a prison sentence with hope of reform *not for his sake but for ours because that's what makes us better than the criminals.* *Okay he will probably carry on his life of crime but we did the right thing. That's what makes us civilised. *

Keep your wild west frontier mentality of retribution, we will keep to Socrates ..
"At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst."

We may not be perfect but we must at least strive to have higher feelings than holding life so cheap.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 27, 2007)

I guess the wires are crossed on both ends( ah, the joy of a text only medium). I was speaking to the thread in general and it is my error if if that wasn't clear, if I came across as "deciding what your views were", that's my bad and I do apologize.

But it's the same thing from your post: "Retribution" is nothing to do with my post. I won't lie to you and deny that anyone over here feels as you describe, but again, speaking for myself, and knowing there are others like me, this is simply about removing the cancer before it can spread any more, ASAP. 

Now, if someone had had some crime commited upon them  or had lost someone to an act of violence, and went after them *after* the fact, *That* would be retribution, and while understandable, that would be wrong. I am talking about "clear and present danger".

The specific shooting case you describe would also not be a successful self defense claim over here, believe it or not.( Whoever it was broke and ran, in which case there is no more attack).From what you describe he also violated *R*ule *N*umber *F*our that even the most basic idiot should know about firearms( Identify your target and what is beyond it before you shoot). If it came across that I condoned this particular person's actions, that is also not the case, although I will shed no tears for those shot, either. You play chicken long enough, you fry.

I would caution against "We" will do this and "you" can keep that" sort off statements though--I was speaking only for myself and do not claim to represent my country, and that can set a discussion down a very polarized path, and the viewpoints are starkly enough contrasted as it is.

I do agree with you that , at this point, I don't expect agreement, but it doesn't have to turn into a fight.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Firstly I can argue from a 'we' point of view as this country chose to abolish the death penalty. 

You also maybe cannot unless you have lived in the UK understand what it is to live in a country where thankfully guns are still a rare thing. The police are still not routinely armed and for the public to have handguns in their house is something unheard of. Shotguns used for hunting or clay pigeon shooting are licensed by the police and must be kept in secure cabinets. A good deal of the country outside the big cities are still able to leave their doors unlocked. Gun crime is creeping in sadly, we seem to be importing a gun culture from America but not on the scale seen there.

Secondly, no human being has the *right* to kill another human being, to believe you do leads to the madness and evil of the Nazis and their ilk.
Yes we kill for various reasons, self defence, fear, retaliation,by accident, by war etc but we must be very clear about these reasons many of which are justified but do not give us a right to kill. Someone may attack me or my family and I kill them in self defence, I should be able to explain my reasons for killing this person so that it will be deemed justified and _unavoidable._There is no *right* to kill though sadly that may have been the *correct* action to take. The right to do something in law and the correct thing to do are two different concepts.

Is there a right to defend yourself? Absolutely, but again you can't approach it as your right to kill even though your actions may lead to a death. Everyone must be accountable in law or else you will have anarchy. I don't dispute your right to bear arms but I do dispute your_ right_ to kill.


----------



## SKB (Jun 27, 2007)

Beleive it or not but 'we' also have to go to court if we kill someone and we had better be able to exsplain why it happen. I think the right we are talking about is the right to defend yourself. Everyone has the right to defend themself. On the death penalty issue........ I've spent a lot time around criminals and I wish the death penalty was used a bit more! Criminals go to prison and the staff inside of the prison have to deal with them for the rest of the criminals life. Some get it and do not come back to prison, most do not and they just make other people victims when they commit more crimes.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 27, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Firstly I can argue from a 'we' point of view as this country chose to abolish the death penalty.


 
I was referring to the tendency I see on another forum I used to frequent that whenever a US/UK self defense/legal issue thing crept up, it took maybe half a page before one side or the other takes something they don't like about the other( and it's almost alwayys the gun thing) and away we go off topic and into flame wars, until 2 and 3 pages go on and, well, it can be summed up the polite way like this:

"Brits!" (middle finger):angry: "Yanks!" (first two fingers):angry:

And there's no need and I want to get it off that road.

Good thing too, because lo and behold.............





			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> You also maybe cannot unless you have lived in the UK understand what it is to live in a country where thankfully guns are still a rare thing. The police are still not routinely armed and for the public to have handguns in their house is something unheard of. Shotguns used for hunting or clay pigeon shooting are licensed by the police and must be kept in secure cabinets. A good deal of the country outside the big cities are still able to leave their doors unlocked. Gun crime is creeping in sadly, we seem to be importing a gun culture from America but not on the scale seen there.


 

*shakes head* I am not talking now about guns. I am talking about self defense across the whole spectrum. Guns are just one more key to one more door on that spectrum.



			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> Secondly, no human being has the *right* to kill another human being, to believe you do leads to the madness and evil of the Nazis and their ilk.
> Yes we kill for various reasons, self defence, fear, retaliation,by accident, by war etc but we must be very clear about these reasons many of which are justified but do not give us a right to kill. Someone may attack me or my family and I kill them in self defence, I should be able to explain my reasons for killing this person so that it will be deemed justified and _unavoidable._There is no *right* to kill though sadly that may have been the *correct* action to take. The right to do something in law and the correct thing to do are two different concepts.
> 
> Is there a right to defend yourself? Absolutely, but again you can't approach it as your right to kill even though your actions may lead to a death. Everyone must be accountable in law or else you will have anarchy. I don't dispute your right to bear arms but I do dispute your_ right_ to kill.


 
Actually if you go over what I said in my first post :



			
				Andy Moynihan said:
			
		

> when a person decides to make an unjustified attempt to remove another person's right to exist( in plain English this is called assaulting or murdering them), that person has chosen to arrogate to themselves a right that they do not possess, and in so doing sacrifices their right to exist that the innocent person who has done NO wrong, and deserves to live, may live.


 
I said the same thing, I'm not talking about a "right " to kill but rather a *duty* to PREVENT unjust killing( the attacker arrogating to themselves the right to remove an innocent's right to exist, which is a "right" they do not possess), though it may require "going all the way".

I think if we were actually able to meet and talk we'd find we agree on more than we disagree.

Going back over the thread it looks like where things got sticky was over the point of home invasion and the degree of force to be used. You appear to take the view that it should not warrant a deadly force response and cite the case of our aforementioned idiot as an example( and I agreed with you, he handled it wrong as soon as the kid ran, and in his behavior in front of others prior to the incident). I didn't weigh in on that one just then, but I am of the view that I am not going to be the one to take chances that they "may" only be there to steal something. That being said, if I had drawn, and the kid had ran, under the laws of my country I have to let him regardless of if he has anything of mine or not.

Between the home invasion bit and the degree of sympathy to be shown to the criminal actually appear to be the only two instances where you and I seem to part company on any philosophical level.

Does this somewhat help uncross the wires?


----------



## bydand (Jun 28, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> You also maybe cannot unless you have lived in the UK understand what it is to live in a country where thankfully guns are still a rare thing. The police are still not routinely armed and for the public to have handguns in their house is something unheard of. Shotguns used for hunting or clay pigeon shooting are licensed by the police and must be kept in secure cabinets. A good deal of the country outside the big cities are still able to leave their doors unlocked. Gun crime is creeping in sadly, we seem to be importing a gun culture from America but not on the scale seen there.



Actually Tez3, the same thing can be said from our standpoint as well about not understanding the others viewpoint.  Unless you have lived in the States, you cannot understand that a good deal of this country outside of the big cities do *not* lock their doors either.  House key? I would be hard pressed to find mine honestly, and I know that everybody in the neighborhood I live in don't have theirs either on a daily basis.  It is all part of the whole neighbors looking out for each other culture that does still exist and flourish in MOST parts of the country here.  

As for the drool monkey that used deadly force when it wasn't needed or warranted, was wrong on so many levels.  Do I advocate shooting somebody for breaking into my home?  NO!  Do I advocate for the right to protect my family with the use of deadly force if the *NEED* arises? YES!  Different situations; if you only want my crappy TV or material items, take them and leave - Make a move toward my kids bedrooms and continue to do so after a warning, I'll drop them in their tracks without a hesitation because there are small, trusting, defenseless people relying on me to keep them out of harms way, down that hallway.

I agree with Andy, I think person to person there would be a whole lot less difference in standing on things than there first appears, and a lot more agreement on different issues.  Never totally agree, but shoot I don't always agree with my wife on issues either.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 28, 2007)

I took issue with, as I've already said, the statement "If you choose to break into someones home, you should be well aware that *your life* *is forfeit* if you come up against an armed homeowner and he *chooses *to take it."
  The word 'chooses' indicates a situation that isn't threatening to the householders but where the householder is in control and chooses to kill a burglar. This wasn't about self defence where there isn't a choice this is about killing someone just because they broke into your home. No one wants a burgler but just because they want to nick your tv doesn't mean you have to kill them! 

I rarely state things blandly as you seem to think. I started my sentence  "You also *maybe* cannot unless you have lived in the UK understand ........." I did not say you *have *to live in the country.I said maybe you have to.

I haven't and nor would I start posting inflammatory comments to start a USA v UK flame war on this forum. I find that ridiculous and vaguely hurtful. The 'gun' thing as you called it, is an emotive issue on both sides. 

.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 28, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> I haven't and nor would I start posting inflammatory comments to start a USA v UK flame war on this forum. I find that ridiculous and vaguely hurtful. The 'gun' thing as you called it, is an emotive issue on both sides.
> 
> .


 
I know you didn't have that intention. I was concerned about successive posts by additional parties which could lead that way (because I've seen it before on the other board I used to moderate for). I wanted to divorce the gun issue out of the main point for the very reason you cite, that it *is* emotive, in my experience to the point of derailing previous discussions like this where it's come up, my intention was not, in any way,  to attack you, or to seem to be trying to take you to task or "play moderator"(though it might have crept in, old habits and all that)  and I'm sorry if you read it that way, I will try to communicate better in future.

Things would be so much better if everyone would just agree to love cats.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 28, 2007)

I don't go into arguments like that simply because I'm _always_ right so there! :lol2:

I lurve cats!


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 28, 2007)

People who hate cats will come back as mice in their next life. Fact.


----------



## Carol (Jun 28, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Things would be so much better if everyone would just agree to love cats.



AMEN!!


----------



## bydand (Jun 28, 2007)

Tez,

Didn't mean to come across like I thought you were trying to stir the pot, I've read way, way too many of your posts to think you would do that.  Sometimes I HATE the electronic medium for communication purposes, just too easy to read in my own preconceved notions and thoughts instead of "hearing" what the other has really meant.  I knew what you were saying, but didn't come across too well myself.  I didn't mean somebody HAD to live here to "get" it, I mean it jeeze even our own media doesn't get it most of the time, what I should have said  was, "It would be helpful to live here to really understand".

The whole cat thing ... Guess I'm destened to be a mouse next time around.  At least it is a step up from being a donkey this time


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 29, 2007)

No worries! I've been rushing what I write when I shouldn't, we've got a big MMA show on 7th July and the stress is big time! At the beginning of the week we had 20 bouts on, yesterday morning only 10! We expect drop outs but thats ridiculous, last night it was 14! the show is dedicated to the soldiers who didn't come back alove from Iraq and we are raising money for the Army Benevolent Fund.One of our fighters is an Army medic who had a bad time out there plus a couple of army instructors are fighting who lost lads they had trained before. As you see violence sadly a big part of our lives here at the moment.
Both my instructor and I are old enough to have served in Northern Ireland at the peak of the Troubles there, without going into it too much, the senseless and horrific violence there leaves a feeling that some people regard life, any life as cheap and it just upset me that someone could actually choose to kill someone rather than apprehend them. Of course if you have to defend yourself you do but it was the tone of that particular post that got to me more than anything else.

By the way my instructor hates cats too and horses! I love both!


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 29, 2007)

I thought I should probably expand a bit on the N Ireland thing as it pertains to this thread. 
The paramilitaries of both sides have set themselves up as judge, jury and excutioners. The people don't go to the police, too intimidated usually by their own 'side', so they go to the paramilitary ie terrorists for 'justice' when they've been the victim of a crime. These terrorists then carry out punishment beatings, kneecapping or kill the suspected criminal. Many of these paramilitary gangs are in fact criminal gangs involved in drugs, prostitution and all the usual stuff. Despite what the public believed there were actually few, on either side, who were actually fighting for idealistic reasons.
I know this isn't widely known in America as it isn't in the UK!


----------



## Carol (Jun 29, 2007)

Tez, you've spoken volumes with these posts.  Thanks for sharing the info, and thanks for your service :asian:


----------



## bydand (Jun 29, 2007)

Tez, you bring up a good point.  I think a lot of us over here, and I am one for sure, forget the amount of violence you guys live with daily over there.  We just do NOT live with the daily thought and reality of terrorism here in the States like you do over there.  We have the gangs and other baddies, but they pale in comparison to the organized, well financed and armed terror groups you Brits deal with day after day. 

Wish you well on your upcoming MMA show and wish I could be over there to show some support for your guys and girls who didn't come back either whole or at all. :asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 29, 2007)

Exposure to prolonged violence can make you go one way or another I think,you value life more or you have no regard for life. 
A car bomb was defused in London this morning set to go off when the people came out of the nightclubs.

It would be so much fun to have you guys at the show! - fighting?  what I will do is pass on all your good wishes to the Garrison Commander when we hand over the money. I think I should start another thread seeing if we can 'twin' with any martial arts club attached to an American military unit!

ooo! total thread hijack, sorry ( well not very lol) :angel:


----------



## jdinca (Jun 30, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> I took issue with, as I've already said, the statement "If you choose to break into someones home, you should be well aware that *your life* *is forfeit* if you come up against an armed homeowner and he *chooses *to take it."


 
Those were my words, not Andy's. If a burglar breaks into a home in the middle of the night, wakes up the homeowner who sees a stranger in a darkened hallway and gets shot by the homeowner, it's the criminal who put himself in that situation. The homeowner has the *right* to defend himself, his family and his home, even if that means taking a life. He should not have to ask "are you here to kill me, or just rob me?" before pulling the trigger. If by exercising his right to self defense, he kills the criminal, then it's on the bad guy, not the homeowner. If the bad guy puts up his hands, or runs away, then the trigger shouldn't be pulled. 

I'm not talking about shooting a kid in the back while he tries to run away here, I'm talking about being in a situation where you don't know what the intent is. Killing someone should be an absolute last resort, but you shouldn't have to play a game of 20 questions before determining that your life is threatened. I give a great deal more leeway here to the elderly.



Tez3 said:


> The word 'chooses' indicates a situation that isn't threatening to the householders but where the householder is in control and chooses to kill a burglar. This wasn't about self defence where there isn't a choice this is about killing someone just because they broke into your home. No one wants a burgler but just because they want to nick your tv doesn't mean you have to kill them!


 
No it does not indicate a situation that isn't threatening to the householders. The homeowner could "choose" not to pull the trigger and lose his life instead, or be beaten, or raped, or forced to watch as his loved ones are beaten and raped. The homeowner could "choose" to pull the trigger to prevent that from happening. Remember, we're talking about a situation where the intent is not known, nor if the intent is going to change because the "just a burglar" is now confronted by the homeowner/witness.

The burglar should have no feeling that he has the right of free passage through somebodies home, just because he's only going to steal their belongings. Taking a life should be the last choice but if confronted with no other option, or unsure whether or not your life is truly in danger, you should be able to make that choice. The victim should not have to determine the victimizers intent before defending himself.

I don't own a gun Tez3 and I doubt I ever will. There are nights I forget to lock my front door and I would love to go back to the days where that wasn't even an issue, but it is. I live in a safe neighborhood but I've still had two cars broken into in my driveway. If I have to defend my home, I will do everything I can to do so without taking a life but if that's the only way, and I choose to do so, then that's the way it will be.

Btw, if it weren't for the prevalence of guns in this country, we'd still be a British colony. :uhyeah:


----------



## jdinca (Jun 30, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> I thought I should probably expand a bit on the N Ireland thing as it pertains to this thread.
> The paramilitaries of both sides have set themselves up as judge, jury and excutioners. The people don't go to the police, too intimidated usually by their own 'side', so they go to the paramilitary ie terrorists for 'justice' when they've been the victim of a crime. These terrorists then carry out punishment beatings, kneecapping or kill the suspected criminal. Many of these paramilitary gangs are in fact criminal gangs involved in drugs, prostitution and all the usual stuff. Despite what the public believed there were actually few, on either side, who were actually fighting for idealistic reasons.
> I know this isn't widely known in America as it isn't in the UK!


 
I can definitely see how living through this would sensitize a person towards vigilantyism (is that even a word?) but that's not what this discussion is about. In the above situation, you and I are on the same page.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 30, 2007)

How about this?

 Those who feel they dont have the right to kill an intruder, then dont, see if he takes your TV, or peice out of your wife or child.

 The rest of us can make our own choice as to whether to shoot him in the back of the head, cleave him with a Kukri, or beat him down with a bat.

 We will all just have to live (maybe not in the first case) with our decisions.

 Rual America rocks because if you do have to kill an intruder, you can bury him in the woods and noone has to know a thing=)
(Lime, more than 6 feet deep, throw some rocks over the carcass.)


----------



## Kacey (Jun 30, 2007)

From your first post, in which you appeared to be advocating disobeying authority because you disagree with some of the reactions to your own actions (bold added):



Darth F.Takeda said:


> Yes, the Brass, or the Whores as my ex-Patrolman Sensei would call them, will advocate taken it, but I love  how the cheif pig thinks he can predict what would have happend. The  punk might have shot him and his Mom for the Hell of it, punks are getting worse, not better, many Gangs want their prospects to kill before granting full membership.
> 
> Talk to street cops and you'll hear a different story.
> 
> ...



From your most recent post, in which you seem to be advocating murder, and the covering up of that murder, as the only appropriate response to an intruder:



Darth F.Takeda said:


> How about this?
> 
> Those who feel they dont have the right to kill an intruder, then dont, see if he takes your TV, or peice out of your wife or child.
> 
> ...


I do not disagree with the portion of your latest post which I bolded; I do, however, find your open espousal of murder - especially in the fashion you have stated - to be heinous.  Heaven forbid anyone ever enter your home uninvited with a non-violent intent - for myself, I have no interest in murder as a means of preventing theft - that's why I have insurance, as nothing I own is worth dying for; preventing assault on myself or my loved ones is a different issue, and provokes a different, and stronger, response.  

I fail to see, however, how you shifted from advocating disobeying authority in all instances - regardless of circumstance - to advocating murder as the only solution - regardless of circumstance.  Are you equating these two concepts?  Saying that murder is the only possible solution?  And when, and how, did we shift from disobeying authority to home invasion?

Vigilantism is illegal - as much to protect the public from persons such as yourself, who apparently consider yourselves above the law, as to uphold the law itself.


----------



## bydand (Jun 30, 2007)

Darth F.Takeda said:


> How about this?
> 
> Those who feel they dont have the right to kill an intruder, then dont, see if he takes your TV, or peice out of your wife or child.
> 
> ...



You know, it is just posts like this that make everybody that lives in the country or rural area look like a bunch of uneducated hillbillies; we are not damn it!  That may have been an acceptable attitude in 1807, maybe even 1857, but you know, this is 2007 now.  The whole <spitting a stream of brown tobacco juice through missing front teeth> "Wa, ba-God, I'd jus shoot the Sum-btch show up my place, dat'd teach em!"<spits on boots again> is, or should be, a long-gone way of thinking.  Protect your family and yourself sure; blow somebodies brains out over a TV or anything that can be replaced at Wally World or K-Farts?  Darn, hope I get too sit on the jury to put that psycho away from society for a LONG time.

I wasn't going to post a reply, but it just grated on me the more I thought about it.  I am a long, long way from being a tree-loving, criminal hugging, type of person, but thank you God, I have at least evolved out of the Neanderthal stage.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 30, 2007)

I am advocating shooting someone who is in my house, when totally uninvited, that is not murder that is defense of one's home, murder is when you plan to kill someone and then carry out that plan.
 I am advocating killing, not murder, there is a difference.

 And maybe I was being funny about the Rural America commnet and maybe I was not, but there are many bodies  of intruders and other offenders in deep holes than you might think in rural America, many out there do beleive in "No Tresspassing! Those found here after dark will be found here in the morning!"

 Now the mere presence of someone in my house is surly not a reason to kill them, this gets very situational, but if they are in my house, when my family is sleeping, if he is in the middle of the house, I will give him 1 chance to drop to his knees and put his hands on his head, if he moves in anyway I see as threatening, he gets blasted. If I catch them near my children's room he will be shot in the nearest available target, be it his face or the back of his head.

  Anyone still remeber little Jessica Lundsford in Fla, who was kidnapped by a crackhead right out of her house, with the grandparent's there?

 You want to give an animal like that any chance or quarter?
 You can say yes here and umong your enlightend freinds, but deep down, you know I am right that people like that should die.

 People used to be told to not enter the homes of others uninvited, there is no reason to walk into anothers house without permission. People used to accept the consequences of such actions.

 Your way of thinking gives the criminal to many advantages, you give him entry, position, operational tempo and the upper hand, he might be ready to kill you with out thought, you better be able to preempt, or be yet another person whos martial training was a waste of time.

 And you should get a job writting for John Edwards, the way you play with words and statements is worthy of Orwell.

 Yes I advocate disobeying Authority when it hampers my ability to defend myself, my family or the way things are going, my society, I do not and have not advocated disobeying all laws.

 I am not advocating going out and looking for a criminal to kill, I am advocating killing a criminal if you must, WHEN THEY COME AT YOU OR YOUR'S.

 Are you a martial artist or a moralist? The martial arts were originally devised by warriors and those who wished to protect themselves from horrible assults, all this Kane from Kung Fu morality is a realitivly new thing, yes it existed before, by those who were ruthlessly stomped in the end, but most martial arts that survived were not moralistic religeons, they were methods to sripple capture and mostly kill, all the BS is about 100 years old or less.

 I can almost hear the coffee shop whine in your voice while saying this, prey for the status quo we have today, as you might be fortunate enough not to come acroos an intruder at 2am, but if the status quo crumbles, your attitude will make you a slave, a catmite or food.

A Hard line (with the training and willingness to back it up) defends a loving and safe home.
A soft line defends nothing and invites Preditors.

SHUGYO!


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 30, 2007)

bydand said:


> You know, it is just posts like this that make everybody that lives in the country or rural area look like a bunch of uneducated hillbillies; we are not damn it! That may have been an acceptable attitude in 1807, maybe even 1857, but you know, this is 2007 now. The whole <spitting a stream of brown tobacco juice through missing front teeth> "Wa, ba-God, I'd jus shoot the Sum-btch show up my place, dat'd teach em!"<spits on boots again> is, or should be, a long-gone way of thinking. Protect your family and yourself sure; blow somebodies brains out over a TV or anything that can be replaced at Wally World or K-Farts? Darn, hope I get too sit on the jury to put that psycho away from society for a LONG time.
> 
> I wasn't going to post a reply, but it just grated on me the more I thought about it. I am a long, long way from being a tree-loving, criminal hugging, type of person, but thank you God, I have at least evolved out of the Neanderthal stage.


 

Never chewd tabacco in my life.
  I have lived in rural NY, West Va and rural Va, along with an urban South Florida and Northern Va.

Now where did I say **** about killing a guy running out of the house with a TV, keep jumping at straws.

 You post pics of your kids on the internet and you question my judgement on home defense?

 So smart guy, you going to ask someone in your house at 2am why he is there before getting the drop on him? Hope he does not drop low and put a round or 2 in your belly.

 I hope you dont live throught the screaming of your wife and kids.
(I really hope nothing bad like this ever happens to anyone, but it does.)

 It's because of those very real possabilities that I would probably shoot him outright, if found in my home after dark.

 I would not kill over a TV, but I might have my wife hold the rifle while I run out and get whats mine back


----------



## bydand (Jun 30, 2007)

I like the "coffee shop whine" phrase.   I am about as redneck as you can get, cannot stand the whole "give them a chance" mentality and never once said I wouldn't defend myself or my family, and that does include pulling the trigger (you can take you pick of which one of my weapons I should use, there is a rather good selection to chose from.)  Martial Artist? yes - Judge, jury and executioner? No.   

Part of the Martial Arts is knowing when to act, and the level of response that is warranted, not just full bore right out of the gate, if that isn't what is called for.  Jeeze, it looks like another JA to add to ignore.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 30, 2007)

Actually  the Coffee shop whine was a response to Kacey, not you Hawse.=)

Ignore me all you want, but you know that manytimes, there is no time to play force levels, pull the trigger or dont is about all there is.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 30, 2007)

Darth F.Takeda said:


> Actually  the Coffee shop whine was a response to Kacey, not you Hawse.=)
> 
> Ignore me all you want, but you know that manytimes, there is no time to play force levels, pull the trigger or dont is about all there is.



I don't drink coffee; so - no coffee shop whine here  and I notice that you still haven't answered my question, about how you got from disobeying authority to advocating murder... call it whatever you like, justify it to yourself however you like; I do notice, however, that you have backed down somewhat from your previous statement (bolded):



> Originally Posted by *Darth F.Takeda*
> 
> 
> How about this?
> ...





Darth F.Takeda said:


> I would not kill over a TV, but I might have my wife hold the rifle while I run out and get whats mine back



Or maybe you can't see the inherent contradiction in these posts... or  you've chosen to ignore it, the same way you've advocated ignoring law enforcement.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 30, 2007)

There is no contradiction, I said if you dont want to use deadly force then dont, as it's a free country untill Hilary takes over. If you feel it is warrented and the best tacticle decision, then kill the badstard.

 I have not backed down from anything, you just want me to agree with your approach to life and combative siutuations.

 Not going to happen, you place value on scumbags lives, I dont. I have lived amongst to many of them to value their lives IF they make the step to harm me and mine.

 I am not advocating murder, again you are using emotional symantics. Murder is planing and carrying out someones death.
I am advocating killing an intruder that you feel is out to harm you, I have already said I am not advoacting shooting a kid ruinning with a TV, someone in my house @2am is up to no good, probably harm to me and mine, killing him is the right thing to do, no one used to question this, liberalisim and lawyers  getting scumbags off and helping to sue people, made it an issue, it used to be a giving.

 Good night, argument over for now on my end.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 17, 2007)

Bump... highlighting threads on use of force.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 20, 2007)

I just don't understand why one wouldn't use deadly force on a home intruder who displays the intention of causing harm. I don't just feel that it is a right, I kind of feel that if your capable, that it is a responsibility.

Just my random thoughts...


----------



## tellner (Oct 20, 2007)

Cruentus said:
			
		

> I just don't understand why one wouldn't use deadly force on a home intruder who displays the intention of causing harm. I don't just feel that it is a right, I kind of feel that if your capable, that it is a responsibility.



If he has the intention but not the ability I wouldn't.
If he runs or shows utter surrender when confronted I wouldn't. 
If he is made incapable of hurting innocents without being injured or killed I wouldn't.
If I honestly thought some measure other than deadly force would do I wouldn't.

"Can" and "should" are two very different things. So are "I could probably get away with it" and "I don't have any other realistic choice."

You never have a responsibility to kill someone in normal civilian life. You may be justified. You may be required to by circumstances or your job. But it is still the "choice of evils". I'd rather not kill anyone. If I have to I hope that I do it efficiently and with as few repercussions as possible. It's not your job to kill people whom you think are threats or criminals. That's the job of the State. You have the right to protect yourself and to use extreme measures if you think it is necessary and nothing else will work. 

Only a brute or a fool looks for _opportunities_ to do so or kills when less lethal measures suffice.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 20, 2007)

Well of course "ability, opportunity, and intent" as well as having no other viable choice are all factors that need to be present to justify reasonable use of deadly force. Splitting hairs on wording aside, my point is that if it is justified, then why NOT do it? It seems that one has a duty to use deadly force if someone is in the home and it is justifiable, especially if there are other inhabitants (wife, child, etc.) in the home as well.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 20, 2007)

tellner said:


> You never have a responsibility to kill someone in normal civilian life.


 
Sorry, but I disagree. If a capable civilian is the only line of defense available at the time to stop a deadly threat, and deadly force is the only reasonable way of doing so, then I think that the responsibility does fall in the hands of that civilian.

And of course, when I say that responsibility, I am not saying "you have the responsibility to kill someone" as you worded it; I am saying "you have the responsibility to stop the threat with deadly force if that is the only reasonable option." This may seem like splitting hairs as well, but there is a big difference...

C.


----------



## tellner (Oct 20, 2007)

Cruentus, look at what I actually wrote. 

I said that deadly force may be the only correct option. If so, take it. If he's not capable of hurting you intent or not or surrenders or flees or your honest assessment of the situation says lesser means suffice then don't drop the hammer. In other words, don't kill anyone you don't have to. 

If you're saying that you would kill someone who fits one of those criteria and further that you have some sort of responsibility to do so, you've crossed a very important line from self defense to something a lot uglier.

Suppose it went to trial and you said "He was running away. I wasn't in danger any longer, but I shot him anyway." 

Or "No, I didn't think he could hurt me. But I had a responsibility to kill him."

Or "I drew on him and told him to drop whatever he was holding. He did it. He raised his hands, turned around, got onto his knees and lay on the ground when I instructed him to. Then I put one in the back of his head because I thought it was my duty to zip him."

Do you see any difference between those and legitimate self defense?


----------

