Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First of all I'm not an animal that operates solely by instinct. I have in the past used words to get out of potentially harmful situations.
Other people do operate by instinct.
Words did not help this couple. How many words do you think they both said begging for their lives? Do you think she could talk after bleach was poured down her throat?
No, they get eaten if they stand their ground and they get eaten when they run. What if you cannot run that fast, ie most people not in their 20s and not male?
Quote:
Third I am certainly not carrying around a weapon at all times because that is unreasonable. If this is the point we have gotten to in this country I would just rather leave and move to one of the 103 countries with a lower homicide rate.
Then move now. You do not have the right to disarm the rest of us. You are no better than a criminal. I reject your right to tell me how to protect myself. How dare you!
Quote:
As for the laws I think too much of it has to do with perception of danger which is often very hard to prove either way.
Like the deceased with his pants around his legs and semen on your 5 year old daughter? Is that not clear cut enough for you?
No, it not hard to prove in most cases. Almost all cases of self defense have witnesses and hard corroborating evidence.
I would shoot someone who was threatening the life of my family, and maybe even someone who was threatening my own life but I would most surely not feel good or "justified" about it. It would still be absolutely terrible--not a "yee haw" boy moment or even a "protecting what's mine by golly" moment. (BTW, that is why I like the FX show Justified so much: because it questions the very idea of being justified for murder)
Its is normal to exult in victory over evil. I have felt this several times in my life. It is right and just and cleansing.
I do not buy into the side that says we should doubt ourselves and thereby cripple our emotional response.
Anger is good. So is exultation. Be human, be alive.
The laws should always support the victim and not protect the criminal. Society should make every effort to allow for criminals to be killed or injured during the course of their anti-social behavior.
Illegal activity is mentioned in laws concerning protection of person; it is not mentioned in the laws concerning protection of property oddly enough. The guy walked because a theft at night occurred, and there was nothing in the law that said he would not be justified in the killing if he was engaging in an illegal activity.
Personally, I have no problem at all with the concerning the justified use -- under Texas law -- of deadly force to protect against "theft in the nighttime." It is once again an example of how the great State of Texas places the rights of the law-abiding citizen as being more important than that of the criminal.
One can argue -- and I would agree on some levels -- if the whole issue was as simple as weighing the value of, say, one's hubcaps, over the value of a human life.
I don't most of us out here would shoot someone over hubcaps. Hold them at gun-point until the police arrive?, yes, but not kill them.
BUT? With that said, I am totally supportive of that the law in Texas reads as that the ultimate burden of deciding the outcome is placed upon the thief; that it be they who must work out whether or not their life is worth the theft.
Put another way, as in turning the question around a bit? What value is placed upon the constitutional right to be secure in ones home and property? Which would take precedence? The rights of the property owner or that of giving a literal license to steal to the criminal to take it away?
Actually, I would pretty much agree with you on that one...if the facts in the article are the whole truth. I don't think the justification for theft in the nighttime should cover illegal transactions. I would like to know more about the actual case, however. Lots of times on things like this there is more to it than is actually reported.
No, I'm not. I just think we should try to come as close to whatever we view as perfect (Christ or other) as possible. I was responding to a poster who avowed his own Christianity and then basically went in the exact opposite direction. I agree that perfection is impossible, but that is no reason to not get as close as you can. I would shoot someone who was threatening the life of my family, and maybe even someone who was threatening my own life but I would most surely not feel good or "justified" about it. It would still be absolutely terrible--not a "yee haw" boy moment or even a "protecting what's mine by golly" moment. (BTW, that is why I like the FX show Justified so much: because it questions the very idea of being justified for murder)
Your explanation is a reasonably good one, even if I don't totally agree with it in every single application.
Yes, if we are Christians, we should try to follow the teachings of Jesus. No problem at all on that broad point.
The only real problem I have with your points are that, you seem to believe, following your premises, that there are not justifications for taking a human life. In fact, there are (but yeah, I guess it depends upon our personal interpretation of the Bible and New Testament). To wit:
1. A combatant in a just war
2. Self-defense
3. Capital Punishment (although, yes, I know some will disagree with that one!)
The second one is really the relevant one applicable to this particular discussion, so I would be curious as to what this "show" you mention brings up, as in refutation of the right to use deadly force to protect ones' own life (and/or that of their loved ones...or even a third-party)?
Also, when you use terms such as "yee-haw" boys, can you give an example as per a particular incident you know of/read about and investigated/etc, where a person celebrated because they shot someone for protecting their life and property?
=BobTex;31258688]There are very few cases of that (misunderstanding of the situation) and I would imagine that the VAST preponderance of cases would involve a clear cut case of self defense. All the antis on here are conjuring up wild scenarios, escaping common sense totally while there is minimal evidence to support their claims.
Great points, Bob. When all comes out in cases of an armed citizen using deadly force, it is so very often that there was total justification and that the victim had a very reasonable grasp of the situation s/he was in. Matter of fact -- yep, fact -- the likelihood of an innocent person being shot by an armed civilian is noteably lower than one being shot by a police officer.
I hasten to add, that this fact is definitely not a slam on LEO but, really, a matter of common sense as to reason. For instance, an officer arrives on the scene of a "burglary in progress" call, or an "unknown trouble" dispatch.
The officer gets there -- not knowing what the hell to expect -- and the first thing seen if a guy running across the yard with a gun in his hand. When the officers (naturally and understandably) yells out something like "Stop, or I'll blow your head off...Drop the gun, NOW!" Then? The fellow turns with the gun in his hand, and is shot by the officer. But it turns out the guy was the innocent home-owner chasing the burgler.
And this general scenario has happened often enough to be more than just some irrelevant anomaly.
Point being -- as you allude to, Bob -- the average armed citizen, when in a situation of being confronted with the threat/potential of lethal violence -- is usually not subject to such ambiguity as to who is the "bad guy".
Quote:
The martial arts are potentially deadly in the hands of someone highly proficient ... so do you OK the taking of life with a choke hold or crushed trachea but not with a bullet??? And what about the elderly, frail, or just plain physically diminutive ... would they automatically be an overcomer with a high degree in their chosen fighting craft? I think you are grabbing at straws with such a weak argument. I think we should use WHATEVER advantage that is available to us. A firearm is a distinct advantage and with a little bit of situational awareness a surprise attack will almost never happen!
Again, my friend, right on the mark. To add to the absolute truths you wrote? I want to mention that, even with a young man in his prime, it takes years and years of training and constant practice to become so proficient in the martial arts that one could actually "disarm" an assailant hell-bent on taking your life/money/etc. For one thing, those willing to use force against another to accomplish their unlawful purposes, are usually very familiar with violence themselves. And know how to use a gun and a knife. If they didn't, they wouldn't be practicing their "trade."
And yep, for the elderly, frail, and/or, diminutive? A handgun is often the only hope they have to come out on top with the scum that prey on them.
BTW -- I know you and many others have probably read it, but for those who haven't? Here it is...and it brings up some things you say! Again, great post, Bob!
Here is the article: It is one of the best I have ever read. Titled "A Nation of Cowards" by Jeffery Snyder.
Great points, Bob. When all comes out in cases of an armed citizen using deadly force, it is so very often that there was total justification and that the victim had a very reasonable grasp of the situation s/he was in. Matter of fact -- yep, fact -- the likelihood of an innocent person being shot by an armed civilian is noteably lower than one being shot by a police officer.
*sorry, and embarrassed as hell for miswording the point*. I was typing in a hurried moment, so let me try again and get it right this time...
What I meant to say was:
Great points, Bob. When all comes out in most of these public cases of an armed citizen using deadly force, it is all too often presented by the MSM as being a situation of some "vigilante-type gun-nut" taking the law into law into their own hands.
However, when all the facts actually come out? Then it almost always turns out that the armed citizen was totally within their rights and had a very good grasp and understanding of the situation they were in, and used good judgement and understanding of the law.
A man can follow a teenager in his car, then when he runs, chase him. When the teenager stands his ground in self defense, it allows the assaulter to kill the teenager. That's the problem with "stand your ground". It doesn't take into account who is the original aggressor, it just blindly grants the right to self defense with deadly force the instant you feel threatened.
I could run up to you and start beating you, and as long as you fight back and I feel threatened, I can kill you.
A man can follow a teenager in his car, then when he runs, chase him. When the teenager stands his ground in self defense, it allows the assaulter to kill the teenager. That's the problem with "stand your ground". It doesn't take into account who is the original aggressor, it just blindly grants the right to self defense with deadly force the instant you feel threatened.
I could run up to you and start beating you, and as long as you fight back and I feel threatened, I can kill you.
For one thing? This particular "thread" you are on -- if you had read it -- was a mistake on my part in the sense, I neglected to post the poll with it. I said so, so started another one.
I hope this one gets closed so that the other one (where almost everyone is posting) is the primary one.
For another? LMAO. Your example is about the most ludicrous thing I have ever read. Not only does it make no sense whatsoever, it makes no sense whatsoever!
Here is a suggestion: Go to this one -- which is easily available, anyway -- to join the discussion and make your "points" (whatever they are).
And please re-post it in the exact same wording you did on this one. Oh man, this ought to be a good one! Where are you from, by the way? I can't help but ask..
Your explanation is a reasonably good one, even if I don't totally agree with it in every single application.
Yes, if we are Christians, we should try to follow the teachings of Jesus. No problem at all on that broad point.
The only real problem I have with your points are that, you seem to believe, following your premises, that there are not justifications for taking a human life. In fact, there are (but yeah, I guess it depends upon our personal interpretation of the Bible and New Testament). To wit:
1. A combatant in a just war
2. Self-defense
3. Capital Punishment (although, yes, I know some will disagree with that one!)
The second one is really the relevant one applicable to this particular discussion, so I would be curious as to what this "show" you mention brings up, as in refutation of the right to use deadly force to protect ones' own life (and/or that of their loved ones...or even a third-party)?
Also, when you use terms such as "yee-haw" boys, can you give an example as per a particular incident you know of/read about and investigated/etc, where a person celebrated because they shot someone for protecting their life and property?
I appreciate your carefully worded comments. To clarify, I wasn't referring to a real-life incident, but rather to hyperbolic board-speak. I think/hope that most people do value a human life more even than their own property, yet some people here seem ready and even a little titillated by the prospect of someone threatening their homes--as if its an opportunity to assert some masculine right of place. Of course we all have fantasies of self-protection, but most of us have the good sense not to attach them to some ideological project of "nation" or "rights." I would certainly defend my family if it was being attacked. I'd probably defend myself too. But in doing so, I would be meeting one imperfection (the violence of the perpetrator) with another (my own violence). Therefore, I would think of it as a situation in which no one wins and someone loses big.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To add to the absolute truths you wrote? I want to mention that, even with a young man in his prime, it takes years and years of training and constant practice to become so proficient in the martial arts that one could actually "disarm" an assailant hell-bent on taking your life/money/etc. For one thing, those willing to use force against another to accomplish their unlawful purposes, are usually very familiar with violence themselves. And know how to use a gun and a knife. If they didn't, they wouldn't be practicing their "trade." 
