TEXAS GUN NUT MURDERS MAN KNOCKING ON HIS DOOR
www.mantra.com/jyotish
KPRC
Click2Houston.com
Monday, August 27, 2001
A man was shot and killed Monday when he accidentally
banged on the wrong apartment door, according to Houston
police.
[...]
When Jose Diaz, 26, woke up about 45 minutes later, he
approached what he thought was his apartment and began
loudly knocking on the door. Instead, it was an apartment
a few doors away.
[...]
Police said that the apartment resident got his gun when
he heard the commotion outside his door. . . . Diaz was
pronounced dead on the scene . . .
[...]
This is only an excerpt -- read the complete news at:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/kprc/20010827/lo/893677_1.html
News Plus
http://www.mantra.com/newsplus
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post
may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the
opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law
and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Panchaang for 9 Bhadrapad 5102, Monday, August 27, 2001:
Vrisha Nama Samvatsare Dakshinaya Jivana Ritau
Singha Mase Shukla Pakshe Indu Vasara Yuktayam
Moola Nakshatra Vishakumbha-Priti Yoga
Taitila-Gara Karana Dashamee Yam Tithau
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
Dese...@mojave.net
PLMerite
<address....@web.site www.mantra.com/jyotish (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote
in message news:violence-06...@news.mantra.com...
> Man Killed At Wrong Apartment
>
> KPRC
> Click2Houston.com
> Monday, August 27, 2001
>
> A man was shot and killed Monday when he accidentally
> banged on the wrong apartment door, according to Houston
> police.
> [...]
> When Jose Diaz, 26, woke up about 45 minutes later, he
> approached what he thought was his apartment and began
> loudly knocking on the door. Instead, it was an apartment
> a few doors away.
> [...]
> Police said that the apartment resident got his gun when
> he heard the commotion outside his door. . . . Diaz was
> pronounced dead on the scene . . .
> [...]
> This is only an excerpt -- read the complete news at:
You managed to "excerpt" out this important part, fakir:
"When the resident open the door slightly, Diaz kicked the door open, so the
resident fired twice, according to officials."
Maybe you would have approached the situation differently - on your knees,
maybe - but I don't see that this person did anything unreasonable under the
circumstances.
Dr. Jose Mariachi
>Man Killed At Wrong Apartment
>
>This is only an excerpt -- read the complete news at:
>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/kprc/20010827/lo/893677_1.html
What Jay goes out of his way not to reveal to you- what he carefully
cuts out- is the following "excerpt."
"Police said that the apartment resident got his gun when he heard the
commotion outside his door. When the resident open the door slightly,
Diaz kicked the door open, so the resident fired twice, according to
officials."
This drunken attacker deserved to die. It does my heart good to know
that the normally unflappable "Dr. Jai" now has to lie.
Dr. Jose Mariachi
http://209.25.215.117/Mariachi.html
Lev 20:27
Deut. 18:9
Surah Luqmaan 31:34
Al-Qur’an, 6:159
Al-Qur’an, 31:34
harmony
opened the door despite hearing commotion (lack of education - he should
have called police), used the gun without warning for the victim to correct
himself. (Lack of education).
<address....@web.site www.mantra.com/jyotish (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote
in message news:violence-06...@news.mantra.com...
Robert Frenchu
>It seems that the man who died made a mistake. (Lack of education). The man
>opened the door despite hearing commotion (lack of education - he should
>have called police),
LOL When someone knocks loudly on your door, do you call the police?
They must love you.
>used the gun without warning for the victim to correct
>himself. (Lack of education).
You must watch a lot of TV. You don't "warn." people. When they try to
attack you, you stop them.
AntisDoLie
"Now, now, Nice Mugger! Wow, what a big knife! Um, I'm warning
you...Ouch! That hurt, now I'm giving you fair warning, you better..."
SLICE
THUD
<crickets>
Jim
Robert Frenchu
I forgot Jazzzman's crucial self-defense step- vomit on the attacker.
If you're lucky, he'll slip and fall and rupture a disc or something.
harmony
Robert Frenchu <robert_frenchu@ya-take_out-hoo.com> wrote in message
news:dplqotsvbcqo07mvp...@4ax.com...
>
> >It seems that the man who died made a mistake. (Lack of education). The
man
> >opened the door despite hearing commotion (lack of education - he should
> >have called police),
>
> LOL When someone knocks loudly on your door, do you call the police?
Yes, I would get my gun, grab my cordless phone and locate myself
strategically and make a quick phone call. My hope would be to have him
arrested which I can't do it myself, and I wouldn't have to shoot him. Also
I would fire a warning shot if situation permitted. This is part of
education.
Robert Frenchu
>
>Robert Frenchu <robert_frenchu@ya-take_out-hoo.com> wrote in message
>news:dplqotsvbcqo07mvp...@4ax.com...
>> > "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in <3b8d5528$1@Orion> :
>>
>> >It seems that the man who died made a mistake. (Lack of education). The
>man
>> >opened the door despite hearing commotion (lack of education - he should
>> >have called police),
>>
>> LOL When someone knocks loudly on your door, do you call the police?
>
>Yes, I would get my gun, grab my cordless phone and locate myself
>strategically and make a quick phone call.
And when he kicks your door in before the cops get there, then what?
> My hope would be to have him
>arrested which I can't do it myself, and I wouldn't have to shoot him. Also
>I would fire a warning shot if situation permitted. This is part of
>education.
No, this is how you die.
Panhead
One has to wonder where people like "harmony" get their
education.
What's this "warning shot" stuff?
Where does she fire it?
Does she care where the bullet lands when she indiscriminately
fires off a round into the heavens or sheet rock?
The large part of a persons torso is where I would try to place
my first "warning shot."
If that didn't "warn them" enough, I'd park a few more rounds
into a more vital organs, like their brain...[providing they had
one)
And by the by, "harmony", You CAN make a "Citizens Arrest!"
Just place or point the muzzle of your gun to the criminals head
and calmly say "FREEZE, SHIT SUCKER! You only have the right to
say "Br-r-r-r-r-r" now!"
scube
>> address....@web.site www.mantra.com/jyotish (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in
> <violence-06...@news.mantra.com> :
>
>>Man Killed At Wrong Apartment
>>
>
>>This is only an excerpt -- read the complete news at:
>>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/kprc/20010827/lo/893677_1.html
>
>What Jay goes out of his way not to reveal to you- what he carefully
>cuts out- is the following "excerpt."
>
>"Police said that the apartment resident got his gun when he heard the
>commotion outside his door. When the resident open the door slightly,
>Diaz kicked the door open, so the resident fired twice, according to
>officials."
>
>This drunken attacker deserved to die. It does my heart good to know
>that the normally unflappable "Dr. Jai" now has to lie.
>
>Dr. Jose Mariachi
Speaking of lying, where in the story does it say the apartment dweller was
attacked?
Are you making things up again, Doc Proc?
scube
SnipeUNblu
banged on the wrong apartment door, according to Houston
police.
[...]
When Jose Diaz, 26, woke up about 45 minutes later, he
approached what he thought was his apartment and began
loudly knocking on the door. Instead, it was an apartment
a few doors away.
[...]
Police said that the apartment resident got his gun when
he heard the commotion outside his door. . . . Diaz was
pronounced dead on the scene . . .
[...] >>
A gun nut or was it a DRUNK NUT who caused this crap. Your "GUN NUTS" posts
do not impress me.
MIKE
Dr. Jose Mariachi
If you read the story, you would see that the door was KICKED IN.
Normally- at least in my neighborhood- when a door is kicked in it's
not a prelude to "Would you like to purchase some cookies?"
harmony
Dr. Jose Mariachi <DrJoseM...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:varept06d7an9rf0j...@4ax.com...
W. E. Woods
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" wrote:
>
> Man Killed At Wrong Apartment
>
> KPRC
> Click2Houston.com
> Monday, August 27, 2001
>
> A man was shot and killed Monday when he accidentally
> banged on the wrong apartment door, according to Houston
> police.
> [...]
> When Jose Diaz, 26, woke up about 45 minutes later, he
> approached what he thought was his apartment and began
> loudly knocking on the door. Instead, it was an apartment
> a few doors away.
> [...]
> Police said that the apartment resident got his gun when
> he heard the commotion outside his door. . . . Diaz was
> pronounced dead on the scene . . .
> [...]
> This is only an excerpt -- read the complete news at:
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/kprc/20010827/lo/893677_1.html
Of course you snipped out the truth, you lying scumbag.
"Police said that the apartment resident got his gun when he heard the
commotion outside his door. When the resident open the door slightly,
Diaz kicked the door open, so the resident fired twice, according to
officials."
"DIAZ KICKED IN THE DOOR."
YOU ARE A LYING SACK'O'SHIT!
"1260 foot-pounds divided by the weight of the problem equals the length
of the solution."
William A. Levinson
W. E. Woods
Screw you. You lie badly.
"Police said that the apartment resident got his gun when he heard the
commotion outside his door. When the resident open the door slightly,
Diaz kicked the door open, so the resident fired twice, according to
officials."
It's right there in the story, punk.
W. E. Woods
harmony wrote:
>
> I think the door probably did not meet the building code.
I think you are being silly, at least I hope you are.
W. E. Woods
harmony wrote:
>
> It seems that the man who died made a mistake. (Lack of education). The man
> opened the door despite hearing commotion (lack of education - he should
> have called police), used the gun without warning for the victim to correct
> himself. (Lack of education).
No, the resident was right. Feel free to "educate" the next person that
kicks in your door. Good luck.
W. E. Woods
I like, "Move and you're part of the wall" backed up with the sound(s)
of a twelve guage pump.
--
harmony
chance that your personal safety would not be jeopardized, would you still
shoot a criminal just because he is in your range? Brave man is supposed to
have a big heart.
W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B9957EB...@ix.netcom.com...
John Tibbs
--
For NRA membership inquiries dial toll-free
1-877-672-2000 or for hearing impaired
1-877-672-8331
Protect your freedom! Join Now!
Those who would give up their freedom for tempory
security deserve neither!
Ben Franklin
inson
John Tibbs
www.mantra.com/jyotish
"harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
> Come on Woods, show some humanity.
Gun nuts don't have any humanity to show -- they are
single-minded about causing more violence.
> If you felt that there was a reasonable
> chance that your personal safety would not be jeopardized,
> would you still shoot a criminal just because he is in your range?
> Brave man is supposed to have a big heart.
Gun nuts aren't brave, they're cowards. Do you really
think that they have any organ in their body larger than
the caliber of the firearms they so dearly love? No,
they don't have a big heart.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
John Tibbs
--
INFO YOU CAN USE:
For NRA membership inquiries dial toll-free
1-877-672-2000 or for hearing impaired
1-877-672-8331
Protect your freedom! Join Now!
Those who would give up their freedom for tempory
security deserve neither!
Ben Franklin
<address....@web.site www.mantra.com/jyotish (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote
in message news:violence-109...@news.mantra.com...
Dr. Jose Mariachi
>In article <3b99cbbc@Orion>,
> "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
>> Come on Woods, show some humanity.
>
>Gun nuts don't have any humanity to show -- they are
>single-minded about causing more violence.
That sounds so not unlike certain vedic astrologers. Are you sure
you're not projecting your own beliefs and desires onto others?
Oh, you *ARE* ?!?!?!
Yeah, we thought so.
no one of consequence
Dr. Jai Maharaj <j...@mantra.com> wrote:
]In article <3b99cbbc@Orion>,
]> Come on Woods, show some humanity.
]
]Gun nuts don't have any humanity to show -- they are
]single-minded about causing more violence.
But enough of you projecting your inhumanity upon those you hate.
]> If you felt that there was a reasonable
]> chance that your personal safety would not be jeopardized,
]> would you still shoot a criminal just because he is in your range?
]> Brave man is supposed to have a big heart.
]
]Gun nuts aren't brave, they're cowards. Do you really
]think that they have any organ in their body larger than
]the caliber of the firearms they so dearly love? No,
]they don't have a big heart.
More vitriol from a hatemonger.
--
|Patrick Chester wol...@io.com |
|"...could you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?" |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.|
W. E. Woods
harmony wrote:
>
> Come on Woods, show some humanity. If you felt that there was a reasonable
> chance that your personal safety would not be jeopardized, would you still
> shoot a criminal just because he is in your range? Brave man is supposed to
> have a big heart.
Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about? At no time have I
said I would shoot someone just because he was "in range."
W. E. Woods
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" wrote:
>
> In article <3b99cbbc@Orion>,
> "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
> > Come on Woods, show some humanity.
>
> Gun nuts don't have any humanity to show
You are completely nuts.
Mort Davis
W. E. Woods wrote in message <3B9DC7C4...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
>
>harmony wrote:
>>
>> Come on Woods, show some humanity. If you felt that there was a
reasonable
>> chance that your personal safety would not be jeopardized, would you
still
>> shoot a criminal just because he is in your range? Brave man is supposed
to
>> have a big heart.
>
>Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about? At no time have I
>said I would shoot someone just because he was "in range."
>
Depends on the situation. A guy has a knife. He just stabbed someone
multiple times. You come on the scene as the victim drops. He turns to stab
someone else. You have a clear shot. I'd take it.
-*MORT*-
W. E. Woods
Yep, and that's not "just because he's in range."
scube
>> sc...@hood.com (scube) wrote in <dNak7.710$r65....@news2.mts.net> :
>
>>In article <sm6notkiv0g0bflj8...@4ax.com>, Dr. Jose Mariachi
>><DrJoseM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> address....@web.site www.mantra.com/jyotish (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in
>>> <violence-06...@news.mantra.com> :
>>>
>>>>Man Killed At Wrong Apartment
>>>>
>>>
>>>>This is only an excerpt -- read the complete news at:
>>>>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/kprc/20010827/lo/893677_1.html
>>>
>>>What Jay goes out of his way not to reveal to you- what he carefully
>>>cuts out- is the following "excerpt."
>>>
>>>"Police said that the apartment resident got his gun when he heard the
>>>commotion outside his door. When the resident open the door slightly,
>>>Diaz kicked the door open, so the resident fired twice, according to
>>>officials."
>>>
>>>This drunken attacker deserved to die. It does my heart good to know
>>>that the normally unflappable "Dr. Jai" now has to lie.
>>>
>>>Dr. Jose Mariachi
>>
>> Speaking of lying, where in the story does it say the apartment dweller was
>>attacked?
>>
>> Are you making things up again, Doc Proc?
>
>If you read the story, you would see that the door was KICKED IN.
If YOU read the story with any clarity, you'd see the door was "kicked open."
IOW, the door was opened for him, he didn't "kick it in."
I hope you can understand the difference, Doc.
>Normally- at least in my neighborhood- when a door is kicked in it's
>not a prelude to "Would you like to purchase some cookies?"
>
>Dr. Jose Mariachi
In my neighbourhood, when someone is making a huge commotion and banging on
the door, you don't open it and say "Hello, are you here to kill me?"
scube
scube
Where in the quote does it say that the cowardly gunner was attacked?
scube
Dr. Jose Mariachi
>In article <jerepto4qecha3l0v...@4ax.com>, Dr. Jose Mariachi
><DrJoseM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> sc...@hood.com (scube) wrote in <%b_k7.789$r65....@news2.mts.net> :
>>
>>> I agree, using 'reasonable force' is acceptable if somebody enters your
>>>residence in a violent manner. But still, the occupant should have at least
>>>issued a warning before he pulled the trigger.
>>
>>Warnings are good for TV shows and other fantasy situations. Why on
>>earth should a person warn someone who is attacking them? In the time
>>it takes to warn them they'll be on you, specifically in this case,
>>where the man was standing near the door.
>>
>>No, anyone who is kicking your door in needs to stopped.
>
> A clue for the stupid: When someone is banging on your door and you don't
>know who's on the other side, DON'T OPEN IT!
When he heard a commotion outside his door, he armed himself and went
to look. Not everyone dials 911 and cowers under their bed, waiting
for someone to help them.
Dr. Jose Mariachi
http://209.25.215.117/Mariachi.html
Lev 20:27
Deut. 18:9
Surah Luqmaan 31:34
Al-Qur’an, 6:159
Al-Qur’an, 31:34
Sudras (Untouchables Hindus) Holocaust Museum
http://www.dalitstan.org/holocaust/
Dan
immature. Who could trust him in a fire fight? No one.
Dr. Jose Mariachi <DrJoseM...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<rg1lptosie4jmn9il...@4ax.com>...
Bruce Mills
: >If you read the story, you would see that the door was KICKED IN.
: If YOU read the story with any clarity, you'd see the door was "kicked
: open." IOW, the door was opened for him, he didn't "kick it in."
: I hope you can understand the difference, Doc.
Most front doors I know of open inwards, therefore, if it were "kicked
open", it was "kicked in[wards]".
HTH, HAND.
: In my neighbourhood, when someone is making a huge commotion and banging on
: the door, you don't open it and say "Hello, are you here to kill me?"
So, now you are going to tell people who they can and can't open their
doors for?
Fascist.
Bruce
--
"Molon Labe" (ancient Greek for "Come and get them")
- Leonidas, King of Sparta to Xerxes, King of Persia,
battle of Thermopylae, 480 BC.
dg...@hotmail.com
> In article <sm6notkiv0g0bflj8...@4ax.com>, Dr. Jose Mariachi
<snip>
>
> Speaking of lying, where in the story does it say the apartment dweller was
> attacked?
>
> Are you making things up again, Doc Proc?
From the linked article:
"Police said that the apartment resident got his gun when he heard the
commotion outside his door. When the resident open the door slightly,
Diaz kicked the door open, so the resident fired twice, according to
officials."
If you open your front door a crack and the guy standing there kicks
it in, that's pure self defense. You don't wait until you're helpless
to start self-defense.
dg...@hotmail.com
So no, the door wasn't "opened for him," the door was cracked opened
SLIGHTLY, and the intruder kicked the door open the rest of the way.
>
> I hope you can understand the difference, Doc.
From a self defense point of view, absolutely no difference. The
barrier to my residence is sacrosanct. Opening it a crack to see
who's at the door is in no way any kind of invitation to enter. A man
who then kicks the door open the rest of way has offered prima facie
evidence of his willingness to do me physical harm. There is no
justification for delaying self defense proceedings at this point. If
you let a violent intruder get established in your living room and
start attacking, you are hopelessly behind the power curve.
This is exactly the M.O. -- the "push-in robbery" -- that home
invasion robbers often use. From the home-owner's point of view, a
home invasion must be assumed. Delay can be fatal.
Now, in actual fact, that (probably) wasn't the intention. But
there's no way for the home-owner to know that. The drunken intruder
precisely simulated a home invasion attack, therefore it was ENTIRELY
his fault.
The home-owner was completely blameless. Quite frankly, I'm a little
surprised you would disagree.
dg...@hotmail.com
Right there. "Attack" is not simply swinging a fist. A violent
kick-in of my front door when I'm standing there IS an attack.
Fight Racism
1.Church is "two bodies, one Black, one white- separate and divided.
2.Sudras (Untouchables Hindus)
Hindu Church is "two bodies, one Brahmin Hindu , one Untouchable Hindu
separate and divided.
The holocaust was sponsored by "Christians".
American slavery was "justified" by "Christians".
Please visit:Fight White Power
Fight Brahmin Hindu Power
Fight Imperialism
Fight Racism
M. L. Davis
Fight Racism wrote in message ...
Better start punching yourself in the mouth because you are a racist.
-*MORT*-
Bruce Mills
: The home-owner was completely blameless. Quite frankly, I'm a little
: surprised you would disagree.
You forget that scube is a Canadian anti-gun nut...police and government
here actively discourage "self defense".
"... protection of life is NOT a legitimate use for a firearm
in this country sir! Not! That is expressly ruled out!".
Justice Minister Allan Rock,
"Canadian justice issues, a town hall meeting"
Taped at the Triwood community centre in Calgary Dec.1994
Just because he is dead wrong, doesn't make him any less right.
Karl Jungblut
get it. Maybe you should make it more plain like...
Actually I think it's impossible to make it any more plain. I just hope that
he/she/it has an attack of temporary intelligence. I say 'it' because it could
have been a neutered wild pig making that remark. A wild pig however would not
take neutering kindly. Perhaps it was a rock lobster? Do they have sex? Have
they different sexes? Can they get it on with a crab? If you left a stone
unturned would it be a stone crab or a rock lobster? I love the smell of
cyberspace in the morning. There. I think I'm OK now.
and the flowers bloom like madness in the spring
Val Adams
Itchy Bitchy Spider
--
"Trust in God; but keep your powder dry."
"Karl Jungblut" <karlju...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010919052339...@mb-ms.aol.com...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
scube
The door was open for the victim so he could state his business, much the
same as the door would be opened for a door-to-door salesman, police officer,
what have you.
>> I hope you can understand the difference, Doc.
>
>From a self defense point of view, absolutely no difference. The
>barrier to my residence is sacrosanct. Opening it a crack to see
>who's at the door is in no way any kind of invitation to enter. A man
>who then kicks the door open the rest of way has offered prima facie
>evidence of his willingness to do me physical harm. There is no
>justification for delaying self defense proceedings at this point. If
>you let a violent intruder get established in your living room and
>start attacking, you are hopelessly behind the power curve.
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the victim didn't even get a foot past the
door. I get the impression he was shot the second the door was allegedly
kicked open and he perished in the hallway.
>This is exactly the M.O. -- the "push-in robbery" -- that home
>invasion robbers often use. From the home-owner's point of view, a
>home invasion must be assumed. Delay can be fatal.
That's true. But if someone is going to barge into a residence and overwhelm
the occupant, the last thing he is going to do is bring attention to his crime
by making a "commotion" and alerting others in the apartment complex while
attempting to gain entrance.
You think he'd be little more discret and low-key while attempting a home
invasion.
>Now, in actual fact, that (probably) wasn't the intention. But
>there's no way for the home-owner to know that. The drunken intruder
>precisely simulated a home invasion attack, therefore it was ENTIRELY
>his fault.
If the home owner had any training he would have taken a step back with the
gun drawn on his target and evaluated the situation. If he would have afforded
himself just that split second he could have averted this tragedy.
>The home-owner was completely blameless. Quite frankly, I'm a little
>surprised you would disagree.
I wouldn't go so far to say that he is completely blameless. After all, he is
the one who pulled the trigger and killed an innocent, unarmed man. But then,
at the same time, I wouldn't want to see him serve any time for the shooting,
either. But I would prohibit him from owning a firearm until he takes some
form of training on how to properly use a firearm before he kills another
unarmed American.
scube
scube
wrote:
He perceived an attack, and when the door was allegedly kicked open he
panicked and shot an unarmed man not once but twice.
That to me is an act of a coward.
scube
Lance Stewart
evidence and who corroborated it?
For some it seems, to read is to believe ...
"scube" <sc...@hood.com> wrote in message
news:7CDCD14ED0E26923.8DDE0ED3...@lp.airnews.net...
scube
>scube (sc...@hood.com) wrote:
>: >If you read the story, you would see that the door was KICKED IN.
>
>: If YOU read the story with any clarity, you'd see the door was "kicked
>: open." IOW, the door was opened for him, he didn't "kick it in."
>
>: I hope you can understand the difference, Doc.
>
>Most front doors I know of open inwards, therefore, if it were "kicked
>open", it was "kicked in[wards]".
>
>HTH, HAND.
Attempting to pawn off two seperate meanings as one makes you look like a
dumbass gun whore.
Whoops, I forgot....you are.
>: In my neighbourhood, when someone is making a huge commotion and banging on
>: the door, you don't open it and say "Hello, are you here to kill me?"
>
>So, now you are going to tell people who they can and can't open their
>doors for?
I was just offering some common sense advice; advice I'd pass on to my kids
if I had any.
Btw, do you instruct your children to open the door at any time of day to
anyone who knocks?
>Fascist
No need to sign your posts, I already know what you are.
scube
scube
>dg...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>: The home-owner was completely blameless. Quite frankly, I'm a little
>: surprised you would disagree.
>
>You forget that scube is a Canadian anti-gun nut...
Just because I can take care of myself without the use of a gun doesn't mean
that I'm anti-gun.
>police and government here actively discourage "self defense".
Another lie courtesy of our resident Canadian gun whore.
Proof of his blatant lie:
Boy won't be charged in death of teen
Thu, Sep 20, 2001
By Bruce Owen
A Winnipeg family is outraged a 17-year-old boy won't be charged with killing
Andrew Sinclair.
"How stupid can they be?" sister Kelly Sinclair said. "How can he get away
with it? We're going to fight this. It isn't over with."
Crown attorney John Peden said yesterday no charges would be filed against
the 17 year old as evidence collected by homicide detectives and physical
evidence support the claim he acted in self-defence when Sinclair tried to rob
him at knifepoint early Saturday morning.
The youth armed himself with a piece of wood he found at the Toronto Street
scene and hit Sinclair, also 17, once in the back of the head as Sinclair came
at him with the knife, police said.
The single blow put Sinclair on the ground and the youth fled the scene.
'Always carried a knife'
Sinclair's pregnant girlfriend found him unconscious a short time later and
he was taken to hospital where he died several hours later. A knife was found
at the scene.
"My brother always carried a knife," Kelly Sinclair said. "But he didn't go
around jacking people. He didn't do that kind of thing."
Police have said Sinclair was likely intending to break into vehicles in the
area just before the altercation.
Kelly Sinclair said her brother just stepped outside for a cigarette, and was
not a thief. "Why did this guy have to hit him in the head? Why could he not
have hit him in the legs?"
Peden said the 17-year-old youth's statement was consistent with physical
evidence -- there were no eyewitnesses -- and that he only used enough force
to defend himself.
"He appeared to demonstrate remorse to the police," Peden said.
He added the Sinclair family was given his name and phone number so they
could discuss the Crown's decision, but as of yesterday afternoon they had not
contacted him.
Major Crimes Staff Sgt. Doug Lofto said as of now the file is closed, but
investigators would consider any new evidence.
>"... protection of life is NOT a legitimate use for a firearm
> in this country sir! Not! That is expressly ruled out!".
> Justice Minister Allan Rock,
> "Canadian justice issues, a town hall meeting"
> Taped at the Triwood community centre in Calgary Dec.1994
>
>Just because he is dead wrong, doesn't make him any less right.
>
>Bruce
At least Mr.Rock has the balls to reply to those who ask questions. That's a
lot more than I could say for you, chickenshit.
scube
scube
>> sc...@hood.com (scube) wrote <ANAp7.33$gD1....@news2.mts.net> in
> talk.politics.guns. :
>
>>In article <jerepto4qecha3l0v...@4ax.com>, Dr. Jose Mariachi
>><DrJoseM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> sc...@hood.com (scube) wrote in <%b_k7.789$r65....@news2.mts.net> :
>>>
>>>> I agree, using 'reasonable force' is acceptable if somebody enters your
>>>>residence in a violent manner. But still, the occupant should have at least
>>>>issued a warning before he pulled the trigger.
>>>
>>>Warnings are good for TV shows and other fantasy situations. Why on
>>>earth should a person warn someone who is attacking them? In the time
>>>it takes to warn them they'll be on you, specifically in this case,
>>>where the man was standing near the door.
>>>
>>>No, anyone who is kicking your door in needs to stopped.
>>
>> A clue for the stupid: When someone is banging on your door and you don't
>>know who's on the other side, DON'T OPEN IT!
>
>When he heard a commotion outside his door, he armed himself and went
>to look. Not everyone dials 911 and cowers under their bed, waiting
>for someone to help them.
>
>Dr. Jose Mariachi
Actually, when he heard a commotion outside his door, being the coward he is,
he armed himself and went to look. He was then startled by someone unfamiliar
to him, panicked and shot a unarmed man who meant no harm.
Btw, if you want to see who this American hero is, just go to your local gun
shop and you'll see him as he is now the NRA poster-child for 2001.
scube
Dr. Jose Mariachi
>In article <1dfeqtovo5da47127...@4ax.com>, Dr. Jose Mariachi
><DrJoseM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> sc...@hood.com (scube) wrote <ANAp7.33$gD1....@news2.mts.net> in
>> talk.politics.guns. :
>>
>>>In article <jerepto4qecha3l0v...@4ax.com>, Dr. Jose Mariachi
>>><DrJoseM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> sc...@hood.com (scube) wrote in <%b_k7.789$r65....@news2.mts.net> :
>>>>
>>>>> I agree, using 'reasonable force' is acceptable if somebody enters your
>>>>>residence in a violent manner. But still, the occupant should have at least
>>>>>issued a warning before he pulled the trigger.
>>>>
>>>>Warnings are good for TV shows and other fantasy situations. Why on
>>>>earth should a person warn someone who is attacking them? In the time
>>>>it takes to warn them they'll be on you, specifically in this case,
>>>>where the man was standing near the door.
>>>>
>>>>No, anyone who is kicking your door in needs to stopped.
>>>
>>> A clue for the stupid: When someone is banging on your door and you don't
>>>know who's on the other side, DON'T OPEN IT!
>>
>>When he heard a commotion outside his door, he armed himself and went
>>to look. Not everyone dials 911 and cowers under their bed, waiting
>>for someone to help them.
>>
>>Dr. Jose Mariachi
>
> Actually, when he heard a commotion outside his door, being the coward he is,
>he armed himself and went to look.
No, as a responsible citizen he armed himself and went to look, just
like a policeman who went to look would not be a coward.
>He was then startled by someone unfamiliar
>to him, panicked and shot a unarmed man who meant no harm.
Which is why the criminal kicked the door in. He was really just
selling chocolates.
> Btw, if you want to see who this American hero is, just go to your local gun
>shop and you'll see him as he is now the NRA poster-child for 2001.
I don't believe anyone knows what you are referring to.
news user
> Actually, when he heard a commotion outside his door, being the coward he is,
>he armed himself and went to look. He was then startled by someone unfamiliar
>to him, panicked and shot a unarmed man who meant no harm.
Or he may have wondered if a neighbour was in some kind of altercation
and needed his aid. Perhaps he should have just gone and hid under his
sheets and shat himself eh? Perhaps it's right that women can be raped
on the street in broad daylight because noone has the balls to
intervene.
And we don't know (or I certainly don't) the exact nature of the
"commotion". Could it have been that the defender was concerned that
someone outside his door might be in need of aid? An epileptic
perhaps? An old lady with a weak heart? A diabetic going hypo?
> Btw, if you want to see who this American hero is, just go to your local gun
>shop and you'll see him as he is now the NRA poster-child for 2001.
>
> scube
Scube, if you think that if someone is within a few feet of you and
you can just "step back and raise your gun and wait to see what the
situation is", it's *you* that needs the training. Life isn't like a
martial arts film where time slows down when the fighting starts. Your
attacker will be on you and overwhelm you within a second.
Just as being drunk is no excuse for killing someone with your car, it
is no excuse for attempting to forcefully entering someone's home,
whether deliberately or by mistake.
If you want to argue that this guy never attempted to forcefully enter
the defenders home, that is another matter.
Rich
dg...@hotmail.com
Is any of that ambiguous?
>
> >> I hope you can understand the difference, Doc.
> >
> >From a self defense point of view, absolutely no difference. The
> >barrier to my residence is sacrosanct. Opening it a crack to see
> >who's at the door is in no way any kind of invitation to enter. A man
> >who then kicks the door open the rest of way has offered prima facie
> >evidence of his willingness to do me physical harm. There is no
> >justification for delaying self defense proceedings at this point. If
> >you let a violent intruder get established in your living room and
> >start attacking, you are hopelessly behind the power curve.
>
> I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the victim didn't even get a foot past
> the
> door. I get the impression he was shot the second the door was allegedly
> kicked open and he perished in the hallway.
Then the defender did in fact do the right thing, tactically.
>
> >This is exactly the M.O. -- the "push-in robbery" -- that home
> >invasion robbers often use. From the home-owner's point of view, a
> >home invasion must be assumed. Delay can be fatal.
>
> That's true. But if someone is going to barge into a residence and overwhelm
> the occupant, the last thing he is going to do is bring attention to his
> crime
> by making a "commotion" and alerting others in the apartment complex while
> attempting to gain entrance.
>
> You think he'd be little more discret and low-key while attempting a home
> invasion.
We don't know if it was in fact a home invasion. Indeed, the
assumption is that the guy was drunk and thought it was his friend's
apartment. The point is, it exactly resembled a home invasion.
>
> >Now, in actual fact, that (probably) wasn't the intention. But
> >there's no way for the home-owner to know that. The drunken intruder
> >precisely simulated a home invasion attack, therefore it was ENTIRELY
> >his fault.
>
> If the home owner had any training he would have taken a step back with the
> gun drawn on his target and evaluated the situation. If he would have
> afforded
> himself just that split second he could have averted this tragedy.
No offense, but that's simply nonsense. Have YOU had tactical
training in this regard? No? Then how do you know what's possible or
advisable? It's impossible to say what was possible after the
disorientation and loss of balance of having the door violently kicked
open when you're standing right there. Remember, front doors open
inward, so the door would possibly have struck him.
If someone is charging toward you (or about to charge toward you) at
very close range, it is the WRONG thing to do to try to hold him at
gunpoint. He's way too close, and your reaction time will never be
sufficient. In reality, it takes a definite, measurable minimum
amount of time for a human to react to stimulus. When someone is only
a few feet away, they can move and grab your gun faster than you can
pull the trigger, a fair percentage of the time.
Further, he wasn't starting with the gun aimed, thus the reaction time
was even slower. Do a web search on "Tueller Drill" for more
explanation.
In short, if you're attacked at point blank range, the last thing you
want to do is try to hold him at gunpoint. If you're lucky, you have
time to get off one decently aimed shot.
>
> >The home-owner was completely blameless. Quite frankly, I'm a little
> >surprised you would disagree.
>
> I wouldn't go so far to say that he is completely blameless. After all, he
> is
> the one who pulled the trigger and killed an innocent, unarmed man.
No, the intruder was NOT innocent. His actions precipitated all of
this. He presented the exact appearance of a home invasion. That he
was drunk and this was possibly inadvertant is completely irrelevant.
>But then,
> at the same time, I wouldn't want to see him serve any time for the shooting,
> either. But I would prohibit him from owning a firearm until he takes some
> form of training on how to properly use a firearm before he kills another
> unarmed American.
Well, thank goodness that someone else, who does know about the
tactics of self defense, and not you, is making that decision. You're
making a judgment -- a wrong judgment, it must be said -- about a
subject you don't really know anything about.
The resident did the right thing, and is absolutely blameless.
dg...@hotmail.com
<snip>
> >> >It's right there in the story, punk.
> >>
> >> Where in the quote does it say that the cowardly gunner was attacked?
> >
> >Right there. "Attack" is not simply swinging a fist. A violent
> >kick-in of my front door when I'm standing there IS an attack.
>
> He perceived an attack, and when the door was allegedly kicked open he
> panicked and shot an unarmed man not once but twice.
How do you know it was panic? It sounds as if you have a preconceived
anti-gun notion that is coloring your opinion.
At the split second of the attack, there's no way to know if your
attacker is unarmed. Most push-in home invaders have the gun hidden,
so you'll answer the door. They kick the door in, knocking you back
or down, then draw their weapon. You have a tine amoutn of time to
react, and remember that reacting is always slower than acting.
>
> That to me is an act of a coward.
That to me is the correct act, given the input stimulus. When
something looks exactly like a home invasion, and when you have a
split second to react, he made the right decision. "Right" not in
terms of the post mortem of the events, but "right" in terms of the
facts that were in front of him at the time.
W. E. Woods
He kicked the door in, scube. You are an apologist for criminals. Well,
that or a piece of shit. Hm.
W. E. Woods
Lance Stewart wrote:
>
> I presume the dead guy didnt say much in his own defence? Who provided the
> evidence and who corroborated it?
Post in sequence so people can read your puerile scube supporting
nonsense in proper order.
--
W. E. Woods
He WAS attacked by every sensible thouight in the world and acted in
seld defense.
> That to me is an act of a coward.
No doubt, but you are an idiotic fool trying to convince people you are
worth paying attention to. At least he acted. You, OTOH, would rather
see people you should be defending dead or worse. Go to it, scube. Your
genes don't seem to want to be passed on.
scube
Is that how responsible, level-headed, sane individuals answer the door --
with a gun in their hand?
>>He was then startled by someone unfamiliar
>>to him, panicked and shot a unarmed man who meant no harm.
>
>Which is why the criminal kicked the door in. He was really just
>selling chocolates.
First off, he wasn't a criminal. And secondly, the door was "kicked open,"
not "kicked in."
Please get your facts straight in the future.
Thank you.
>> Btw, if you want to see who this American hero is, just go to your local gun
>>shop and you'll see him as he is now the NRA poster-child for 2001.
>
>I don't believe anyone knows what you are referring to.
>
>Dr. Jose Mariachi
Go check out the NRA page and you'll see how they glamorize death.
That's what I was referring to.
scube
scube
>On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 06:53:10 GMT, sc...@hood.com (scube) wrote:
>> Actually, when he heard a commotion outside his door, being the coward he is,
>>he armed himself and went to look. He was then startled by someone unfamiliar
>>to him, panicked and shot a unarmed man who meant no harm.
>
>Or he may have wondered if a neighbour was in some kind of altercation
>and needed his aid. Perhaps he should have just gone and hid under his
>sheets and shat himself eh? Perhaps it's right that women can be raped
>on the street in broad daylight because noone has the balls to
>intervene.
there was no altercation and no reason whatsoever for him to arm himself,
other than the fact that he was scared. And when people are scared or angry
they do stupid shit, especially when they have a gun in their hand.
To highlight that further, check out this local story about a nimrod with a
gun: http://www.canoe.ca/WinnipegNews/ws.ws-09-27-0024.html
>And we don't know (or I certainly don't) the exact nature of the
>"commotion". Could it have been that the defender was concerned that
>someone outside his door might be in need of aid? An epileptic
>perhaps? An old lady with a weak heart? A diabetic going hypo?
Or maybe he was blood-thirsty and wanted to kill an unarmed man who posed no
threat?
>> Btw, if you want to see who this American hero is, just go to your local gun
>>shop and you'll see him as he is now the NRA poster-child for 2001.
>>
>> scube
>
>Scube, if you think that if someone is within a few feet of you and
>you can just "step back and raise your gun and wait to see what the
>situation is", it's *you* that needs the training. Life isn't like a
>martial arts film where time slows down when the fighting starts. Your
>attacker will be on you and overwhelm you within a second.
Did the victim charge the gunner? No. In fact, the gunner had ample time to
analyze the situation before he pulled the trigger.
>Just as being drunk is no excuse for killing someone with your car, it
>is no excuse for attempting to forcefully entering someone's home,
>whether deliberately or by mistake.
You're right, there is no excuse for forcibly entering someone's home, just
as there is no excuse for killing someone based on an assumption.
>If you want to argue that this guy never attempted to forcefully enter
>the defenders home, that is another matter.
>
>Rich
I really question that. I mean, seriously, how many people do you know kick
the door open once it's already been opened?
I believe the gunner opened the door slightly, then the victim pushed it open
with his hand to enter the apartment thinking it was his friends. The gunner
then panicked and shot because he was unfamiliar with the individual and
thought he was about to be robbed.
But he dare not tell the police he panicked and goofed. So, to cover his ass,
he lied and said the door was violently kicked open so he could justify his
shooting.
scube
scube
It's questionable.
>> >> I hope you can understand the difference, Doc.
>> >
>> >From a self defense point of view, absolutely no difference. The
>> >barrier to my residence is sacrosanct. Opening it a crack to see
>> >who's at the door is in no way any kind of invitation to enter. A man
>> >who then kicks the door open the rest of way has offered prima facie
>> >evidence of his willingness to do me physical harm. There is no
>> >justification for delaying self defense proceedings at this point. If
>> >you let a violent intruder get established in your living room and
>> >start attacking, you are hopelessly behind the power curve.
>>
>> I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the victim didn't even get a foot past the
>> door. I get the impression he was shot the second the door was allegedly
>> kicked open and he perished in the hallway.
>
>Then the defender did in fact do the right thing, tactically.
If the victim died in the hallway then the gunner goofed, big time.
>> >This is exactly the M.O. -- the "push-in robbery" -- that home
>> >invasion robbers often use. From the home-owner's point of view, a
>> >home invasion must be assumed. Delay can be fatal.
>>
>> That's true. But if someone is going to barge into a residence and overwhelm
>> the occupant, the last thing he is going to do is bring attention to his crime
>> by making a "commotion" and alerting others in the apartment complex while
>> attempting to gain entrance.
>>
>> You think he'd be little more discret and low-key while attempting a home
>> invasion.
>
>We don't know if it was in fact a home invasion. Indeed, the
>assumption is that the guy was drunk and thought it was his friend's
>apartment. The point is, it exactly resembled a home invasion.
As I've said, you DON'T make a commotion in an enclosed complex while
attempting a home invasion. The last thing an individual wants to do is alert
others to his crime.
So, did his actions resemble a home invasion?
I think not.
>> >Now, in actual fact, that (probably) wasn't the intention. But
>> >there's no way for the home-owner to know that. The drunken intruder
>> >precisely simulated a home invasion attack, therefore it was ENTIRELY
>> >his fault.
>>
>> If the home owner had any training he would have taken a step back with the
>> gun drawn on his target and evaluated the situation. If he would have
>> afforded himself just that split second he could have averted this tragedy.
>
>No offense, but that's simply nonsense. Have YOU had tactical
>training in this regard? No? Then how do you know what's possible or
>advisable? It's impossible to say what was possible after the
>disorientation and loss of balance of having the door violently kicked
>open when you're standing right there. Remember, front doors open
>inward, so the door would possibly have struck him.
If the door struck him then he would have needed at least a second or two to
regain his balance. And in that time he would have noticed the intruder wasn't
rushing towards him and the likelihood of shooting at him while he was
standing in the doorway would have been nil. So, that said, I really have my
doubts the door was kicked open. I believe the door was "pushed open" and the
gunner panicked and shot an unarmed man.
>If someone is charging toward you (or about to charge toward you) at
>very close range, it is the WRONG thing to do to try to hold him at
>gunpoint. He's way too close, and your reaction time will never be
>sufficient. In reality, it takes a definite, measurable minimum
>amount of time for a human to react to stimulus. When someone is only
>a few feet away, they can move and grab your gun faster than you can
>pull the trigger, a fair percentage of the time.
I agree, if someone is charging you then you are left with really no other
option. But I highly doubt that happened in this case.
>Further, he wasn't starting with the gun aimed, thus the reaction time
>was even slower. Do a web search on "Tueller Drill" for more
>explanation.
Thanks. I'll look it up.
>In short, if you're attacked at point blank range, the last thing you
>want to do is try to hold him at gunpoint. If you're lucky, you have
>time to get off one decently aimed shot.
>
>> >The home-owner was completely blameless. Quite frankly, I'm a little
>> >surprised you would disagree.
>>
>> I wouldn't go so far to say that he is completely blameless. After all, he is
>> the one who pulled the trigger and killed an innocent, unarmed man.
>
>No, the intruder was NOT innocent. His actions precipitated all of
>this. He presented the exact appearance of a home invasion. That he
>was drunk and this was possibly inadvertant is completely irrelevant.
I guess it depends on what side of the fence you're on to how you view it,
because the way I see it, the home owner was the one who escalated a non
confrontational situation by first getting his gun -- which means he was in
fear -- then declining to inquire who was at his door before opening it.
If he would have left his gun alone or asked who was at the door instead of
opening it to see what the commotion was then the victim would be alive today
and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
>>But then,
>> at the same time, I wouldn't want to see him serve any time for the shooting,
>> either. But I would prohibit him from owning a firearm until he takes some
>> form of training on how to properly use a firearm before he kills another
>> unarmed American.
>
>Well, thank goodness that someone else, who does know about the
>tactics of self defense, and not you, is making that decision. You're
>making a judgment -- a wrong judgment, it must be said -- about a
>subject you don't really know anything about.
>
>The resident did the right thing, and is absolutely blameless.
Well then, I guess we agree to disagree.
Nothing wrong with that.
scube
scube
According to whom?
Oh, that's right. According to the shooter, the door was violently kicked
open.
Well, that may be satisfactory for you but I want a little more proof than
just his say-so.
>You are an apologist for criminals.
There was no criminal intent, so to label him a criminal is foolhardy.
>Well, that or a piece of shit. Hm.
I've been polite to you and this is how you repay me.
How....um, disappointing.
scube
Dr. Jose Mariachi
>>> Actually, when he heard a commotion outside his door, being the coward he is,
>>>he armed himself and went to look.
>>
>>No, as a responsible citizen he armed himself and went to look, just
>>like a policeman who went to look would not be a coward.
>
> Is that how responsible, level-headed, sane individuals answer the door --
>with a gun in their hand?
It is when they hear a commotion outside. I suggest you thoroughly
read the article before commenting further.
>>>He was then startled by someone unfamiliar
>>>to him, panicked and shot a unarmed man who meant no harm.
>>
>>Which is why the criminal kicked the door in. He was really just
>>selling chocolates.
>
> First off, he wasn't a criminal.
If he's kicking open doors that aren't his, he's a criminal, he just
isn't convicted yet.
>And secondly, the door was "kicked open,"
>not "kicked in."
> Please get your facts straight in the future.
> Thank you.
The door was closed, and it was kicked open. A door can be kicked open
AND be kicked in at the same time. It's all a matter of semantics. If
you truly wish to argue that the door was kicked open and not, in, I
will gladly concede that point just to move the conversation along.
>>> Btw, if you want to see who this American hero is, just go to your local gun
>>>shop and you'll see him as he is now the NRA poster-child for 2001.
>>
>>I don't believe anyone knows what you are referring to.
>
> Go check out the NRA page and you'll see how they glamorize death.
> That's what I was referring to.
I went to the NRA page (www.nra.org) and saw so such glamorization.
Please explain.
Dr. Jose Mariachi
http://209.25.215.117/Mariachi.html
Lev 20:27
Deut. 18:9
Surah Luqmaan 31:34
Al-Qur’an, 6:159
Al-Qur’an, 31:34
Sudras (Untouchables Hindus) Holocaust Museum
http://www.dalitstan.org/holocaust/
Hindu Women vs. Moslem Women
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/7368/w_hindu_comparative.htm
Hinduism: Inside & Out
http://www.geocities.com/~abdulwahid/hinduism/
dg...@hotmail.com
<snip>
> >"When the resident open the door slightly, Diaz kicked the door open"
> >
> >Is any of that ambiguous?
>
> It's questionable.
By what evidence? I read the article's facts at face value. Now, of
course, the article could be wrong or people could be lying, but
that's true of any report. If we assume that, then there's nothing we
can ever say about any DGU.
But the tacit agreement in this thread is that we're evaluating the
report as stated. Otherwise it's impossible to proceed.
>
> >> >> I hope you can understand the difference, Doc.
> >> >
> >> >From a self defense point of view, absolutely no difference. The
> >> >barrier to my residence is sacrosanct. Opening it a crack to see
> >> >who's at the door is in no way any kind of invitation to enter. A man
> >> >who then kicks the door open the rest of way has offered prima facie
> >> >evidence of his willingness to do me physical harm. There is no
> >> >justification for delaying self defense proceedings at this point. If
> >> >you let a violent intruder get established in your living room and
> >> >start attacking, you are hopelessly behind the power curve.
> >>
> >> I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the victim didn't even get a foot past the
> >> door. I get the impression he was shot the second the door was allegedly
> >> kicked open and he perished in the hallway.
> >
> >Then the defender did in fact do the right thing, tactically.
>
> If the victim died in the hallway then the gunner goofed, big time.
Please explain. Do you require the attacker to be within 2 ft before
self defense can be initiated?
>
> >> >This is exactly the M.O. -- the "push-in robbery" -- that home
> >> >invasion robbers often use. From the home-owner's point of view, a
> >> >home invasion must be assumed. Delay can be fatal.
> >>
> >> That's true. But if someone is going to barge into a residence and overwhelm
> >> the occupant, the last thing he is going to do is bring attention to his crime
> >> by making a "commotion" and alerting others in the apartment complex while
> >> attempting to gain entrance.
> >>
> >> You think he'd be little more discret and low-key while attempting a home
> >> invasion.
> >
> >We don't know if it was in fact a home invasion. Indeed, the
> >assumption is that the guy was drunk and thought it was his friend's
> >apartment. The point is, it exactly resembled a home invasion.
>
> As I've said, you DON'T make a commotion in an enclosed complex while
> attempting a home invasion. The last thing an individual wants to do is alert
> others to his crime.
Those are post hoc intellectual evaluations, made by you in the
comfort of your home. You're assuming the perfectly rational
criminal, acting in the perfectly rational way. But: a) criminals
often act stupidly, and b) it could be fatal to gamble on that.
>
> So, did his actions resemble a home invasion?
>
> I think not.
Well, I think so, and so did the resident. I prefer not to
"psychologize", but it seems clear to me that you and I read the same
article, and based on your somewhat anti-gun ideology, have somehow
inferred that he did the wrong thing. You're evaluating very
indecisive data post hoc and have seemingly decided accordingly.
You give way too much credit to home invasion robbers. But more to
the point, in the split second one has to react, one has to make the
best evaluation possible. When a stranger kicks in my front door, do
I *infallibly* know a home invasion is underway? No, of course I'm
not omniscient. But, is it a *reasonable* judgment? Yes. And if I
gamble wrong, will I suffer and maybe be killed? Yes. Certainly,
kicking in the front door is an unmistakably hostile movement.
The law, and any rational morality, does not expect or demand
omniscience. The law clearly refers to the "reasonable" fear that a
"reasonable" person would have that an attack is imminent, based on
the data available at the time. As such -- and the authorities agreed
-- the resident was "reasonable" in his actions.
>
> >> >Now, in actual fact, that (probably) wasn't the intention. But
> >> >there's no way for the home-owner to know that. The drunken intruder
> >> >precisely simulated a home invasion attack, therefore it was ENTIRELY
> >> >his fault.
> >>
> >> If the home owner had any training he would have taken a step back with the
> >> gun drawn on his target and evaluated the situation. If he would have
> >> afforded himself just that split second he could have averted this tragedy.
> >
> >No offense, but that's simply nonsense. Have YOU had tactical
> >training in this regard? No? Then how do you know what's possible or
> >advisable? It's impossible to say what was possible after the
> >disorientation and loss of balance of having the door violently kicked
> >open when you're standing right there. Remember, front doors open
> >inward, so the door would possibly have struck him.
>
> If the door struck him then he would have needed at least a second or two to
> regain his balance. And in that time he would have noticed the intruder
> wasn't
> rushing towards him and the likelihood of shooting at him while he was
> standing in the doorway would have been nil.
Oh, please. You don't know and can't know the tactical reality of
that situation. Every scenario is different. When an attack is
underway (real or perceived), there is no spare "second or two" to
evaluate.
This is all post hoc sophistry. You've read the article and are now
determined to force fit an "irresponsible gunowner" spin onto the
reluctant facts.
>So, that said, I really have my
> doubts the door was kicked open. I believe the door was "pushed open" and the
> gunner panicked and shot an unarmed man.
Well, your opinion is noted. The article said "kicked open." I'm not
sure what source of data you have that allows this leap of faith to
"pushed open."
Now, it might have happened exactly as you say -- or it might have
happened as written. How do you know?
>
> >If someone is charging toward you (or about to charge toward you) at
> >very close range, it is the WRONG thing to do to try to hold him at
> >gunpoint. He's way too close, and your reaction time will never be
> >sufficient. In reality, it takes a definite, measurable minimum
> >amount of time for a human to react to stimulus. When someone is only
> >a few feet away, they can move and grab your gun faster than you can
> >pull the trigger, a fair percentage of the time.
>
> I agree, if someone is charging you then you are left with really no other
> option. But I highly doubt that happened in this case.
Based on what, precisely, other than a seemingly predestined
conclusion based on an anti-gun bias?
It seems clear to me that you can't break loose from analysing based
on *after the fact* evidence (namely, the intruder was drunk, unarmed,
probably didn't mean any real harm). But this evidecen was not
available to the resident at the instant of the attack. He has to act
on what's presented to him.
>
> >Further, he wasn't starting with the gun aimed, thus the reaction time
> >was even slower. Do a web search on "Tueller Drill" for more
> >explanation.
>
> Thanks. I'll look it up.
The short version: human reactions take time, and in close quarters,
the actor usually has the edge on the reactor.
>
> >In short, if you're attacked at point blank range, the last thing you
> >want to do is try to hold him at gunpoint. If you're lucky, you have
> >time to get off one decently aimed shot.
> >
> >> >The home-owner was completely blameless. Quite frankly, I'm a little
> >> >surprised you would disagree.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't go so far to say that he is completely blameless. After all, he is
> >> the one who pulled the trigger and killed an innocent, unarmed man.
> >
> >No, the intruder was NOT innocent. His actions precipitated all of
> >this. He presented the exact appearance of a home invasion. That he
> >was drunk and this was possibly inadvertant is completely irrelevant.
>
> I guess it depends on what side of the fence you're on to how you view it,
> because the way I see it, the home owner was the one who escalated a non
> confrontational situation by first getting his gun -- which means he was in
> fear -- then declining to inquire who was at his door before opening it.
Well, I see the same facts differently. Answering the door when
you're not expecting anyone, with a gun is merely cautious, not
paranoid. If the intruder WERE a home invader, the resident would
have been very unhappy indeed if he had been unarmed.
Second, when someone kicks in the door, that IS the escalation.
Everything subsequent to that is reasonable reaction to that
escalation.
>
> If he would have left his gun alone or asked who was at the door instead of
> opening it to see what the commotion was then the victim would be alive today
> and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
But that's a fact that you have the luxury of knowing post hoc. The
resident at that moment did not have access to those facts. One can
always look into the past and say "if I had done X, then Y" -- when
those facts were unknown at the time. After all, if I had bought a
cetain lottery ticket or this or that stock yesterday, I'd be a
millionaire today. But telling me that TODAY has no value.
You have to look at the other possibilities: if the person at the door
WERE a home intruder, and the resident didn't come to the door armed,
then the resident would be dead today.
>
> >>But then,
> >> at the same time, I wouldn't want to see him serve any time for the shooting,
> >> either. But I would prohibit him from owning a firearm until he takes some
> >> form of training on how to properly use a firearm before he kills another
> >> unarmed American.
> >
> >Well, thank goodness that someone else, who does know about the
> >tactics of self defense, and not you, is making that decision. You're
> >making a judgment -- a wrong judgment, it must be said -- about a
> >subject you don't really know anything about.
> >
> >The resident did the right thing, and is absolutely blameless.
>
> Well then, I guess we agree to disagree.
>
> Nothing wrong with that.
Sure, as long as we don't attempt to legislate on this difference.
dg...@hotmail.com
<snip>
> >No, as a responsible citizen he armed himself and went to look, just
> >like a policeman who went to look would not be a coward.
>
> Is that how responsible, level-headed, sane individuals answer the door --
> with a gun in their hand?
Sure, depending on the neighborhood, and depending on how much you
want to prevent rare but hideous events like a home invasion.
>
> >>He was then startled by someone unfamiliar
> >>to him, panicked and shot a unarmed man who meant no harm.
> >
> >Which is why the criminal kicked the door in. He was really just
> >selling chocolates.
>
> First off, he wasn't a criminal.
No, he probably wasn't. But he simulated one.
> And secondly, the door was "kicked open,"
> not "kicked in."
Semantics. Doors open inward, so kicked open = kicked in. You
probably think that "kicked in" has to mean "broken down" but that's
not a necessary meaning.
dg...@hotmail.com
> In article <3bab5ec3...@news.starband.net>,
> rsthomas.de...@starband.net (news user) wrote:
> >On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 06:53:10 GMT, sc...@hood.com (scube) wrote:
> >> Actually, when he heard a commotion outside his door, being the coward he is,
> >>he armed himself and went to look. He was then startled by someone unfamiliar
> >>to him, panicked and shot a unarmed man who meant no harm.
> >
> >Or he may have wondered if a neighbour was in some kind of altercation
> >and needed his aid. Perhaps he should have just gone and hid under his
> >sheets and shat himself eh? Perhaps it's right that women can be raped
> >on the street in broad daylight because noone has the balls to
> >intervene.
>
> Did he hear anyone yell "RAPE!" No. Did anyone yell out "HELP!" No. IOW,
> there was no altercation and no reason whatsoever for him to arm himself,
> other than the fact that he was scared.
"Scared" ... or rationally cautious. Semantics.
> And when people are scared or angry
> they do stupid shit, especially when they have a gun in their hand.
But this is circular. You've decided to conclude he did something
stupid, based purely on your re-interpretation of what happened.
Then, having re-written the events of the article, now you say he
acted stupidly.
But there is no fact of that article that leads ineluctably to your
conclusion.
>
> To highlight that further, check out this local story about a nimrod with a
> gun: http://www.canoe.ca/WinnipegNews/ws.ws-09-27-0024.html
Unrelated events. Not probitive.
>
> >And we don't know (or I certainly don't) the exact nature of the
> >"commotion". Could it have been that the defender was concerned that
> >someone outside his door might be in need of aid? An epileptic
> >perhaps? An old lady with a weak heart? A diabetic going hypo?
>
> Or maybe he was blood-thirsty and wanted to kill an unarmed man who posed no
> threat?
Mean-spirited speculation, and also circular.
>
> >> Btw, if you want to see who this American hero is, just go to your local gun
> >>shop and you'll see him as he is now the NRA poster-child for 2001.
> >>
> >> scube
> >
> >Scube, if you think that if someone is within a few feet of you and
> >you can just "step back and raise your gun and wait to see what the
> >situation is", it's *you* that needs the training. Life isn't like a
> >martial arts film where time slows down when the fighting starts. Your
> >attacker will be on you and overwhelm you within a second.
>
> Did the victim charge the gunner? No. In fact, the gunner had ample time to
> analyze the situation before he pulled the trigger.
Speculation. Not probitive.
>
> >Just as being drunk is no excuse for killing someone with your car, it
> >is no excuse for attempting to forcefully entering someone's home,
> >whether deliberately or by mistake.
>
> You're right, there is no excuse for forcibly entering someone's home, just
> as there is no excuse for killing someone based on an assumption.
ALL acts are based on assumption. The question is, is the assumption
*reasonable* based on the facts evident at the time. I think so,
based on the story as written, and apparently so do the authorities.
>
> >If you want to argue that this guy never attempted to forcefully enter
> >the defenders home, that is another matter.
> >
> >Rich
>
> I really question that. I mean, seriously, how many people do you know kick
> the door open once it's already been opened?
In fact, that's a very common home invasion M.O. It's so common, it
merits a name of its own: the "push-in robbery." Perp gets homeowner
to open door a crack via some convincing story (like " my car broke
down" or "there's been an accident"). Then, when door is cracked
open, the perp viciously kicks it open all the way, using the
momentary trauma of the door hitting the victim to assert control.
>
> I believe the gunner
Do you really expect to be taken seriously using terms like "gunner?"
Doesn't that clearly lay the preconceived cards on the table?
>opened the door slightly, then the victim pushed it
> open
> with his hand to enter the apartment thinking it was his friends. The gunner
> then panicked and shot because he was unfamiliar with the individual and
> thought he was about to be robbed.
>
> But he dare not tell the police he panicked and goofed. So, to cover his
> ass,
> he lied and said the door was violently kicked open so he could justify his
> shooting.
And of course that's certainly a possibility. But that is not evident
in the facts as presented. You're read that into the facts to support
a preconceived bias. That is clearly circular.
Keep in mind that the authorities have no complaint, and they have
forensic experts that can easily sniff out a false explanation.
Jim Alder
I just wanted to thank you both for a most entertaining conversation. I
don't know how I missed it going on all month. That a guy could pound on an
apartment door in the middle of the night, not identify himself, and when
the door is opened, kick it the rest of the way in, yet still be considered
the 'victim' by some. Of course, I gather "scube" here is from some alien
planet like Canada. Maybe everything is different there.
I checked and the neighborhood this happened in was just north of Hobby
airport. I wouldn't live there if I had any choice in the matter, and I
sure wouldn't answer the door in the middle of the night without some kind
of backup.
Neither of you has considered the possibility that all is not as it has
been stated here. From the shooters point of view, he heard pounding on the
door. It doesn't say what time it was, but since the other guy was out
drinking, then slept in his car for almost an hour, I would assume it was
past my bedtime. When the person opened the door, it was kicked in the rest
of the way. At this point he should have given a warning? Your hand is on
the knob of a door being kicked in - that doesn't give a lot of time to
warn, you're inches away.
The possibility we're ignoring is that he wasn't drunk and trying to
find his own door? What if he was indeed a robber? His brother could have
run home at the first gunshot and concocted the story. True or false, the
apartment dweller would be greeted with the exact same circumstances. In
one he would have been justified, in the other he would have overreacted.
But how would he know which it was?
---
Never look a whore's gift in the mouth.
tos...@aol.com
ab...@aol.com
ab...@yahoo.com
ab...@hotmail.com
ab...@msn.com
ab...@sprint.com
ab...@earthlink.com
u...@ftc.gov
Pat Hines
What was in the mind of the trespasser is not relevant, he committed
criminal trespass with at least simple assault. Lethal force is
completely legal, and unfortunately for Diaz, he died as a result of HIS actions.
In the future I'd recommend to all that they enter apartment complexes
quietly and very gingerly knock on doors, instead of in a drunken
disorderly manner. That Diaz thought he could slam someone's door open
merely because he knew them is questionable, not the actions of the man
defending himself and his property.
Pat Hines
scube
That "commotion" was someone knocking on his door.
>>>>He was then startled by someone unfamiliar
>>>>to him, panicked and shot a unarmed man who meant no harm.
>>>
>>>Which is why the criminal kicked the door in. He was really just
>>>selling chocolates.
>>
>> First off, he wasn't a criminal.
>
>If he's kicking open doors that aren't his, he's a criminal, he just
>isn't convicted yet.
True story: About 6 or 7 years ago my girlfriend and I attended a Jets game
(NHL). After the game we went back to the car and I went to unlock her door. I
couldn't open it so I went to the drivers side, unlocked it and stepped
inside. I opened her door from the inside and she got in. I then placed the
key in the ignition, but before I tried to start it she mentioned we were in
the wrong car. Much to my surprise, she was right; we were in someone else's
vehicle -- my car was actually two rows back and about 5 cars down.
Now, since we entered an identical car accidentally, does that mean I'm a
criminal (car thief) who hasn't been convicted yet?
>>And secondly, the door was "kicked open,"
>>not "kicked in."
>> Please get your facts straight in the future.
>> Thank you.
>
>The door was closed, and it was kicked open.
The door was "open" and he kicked it open further -- allegedly.
>A door can be kicked open AND be kicked in at the same time. It's all a
>matter of semantics.
If someone were to kick the "door down," does that mean it fell off its
hinges?
No, of course not. What it implies -- just as kicking a "door in" implies --
is that it is forcibly opened while the door is closed (locked).
That clearly did not happen in this case.
>If you truly wish to argue that the door was kicked open and not, in, I
>will gladly concede that point just to move the conversation along.
Thank you.
>>>> Btw, if you want to see who this American hero is, just go to your local
> gun
>>>>shop and you'll see him as he is now the NRA poster-child for 2001.
>>>
>>>I don't believe anyone knows what you are referring to.
>>
>> Go check out the NRA page and you'll see how they glamorize death.
>> That's what I was referring to.
>
>I went to the NRA page (www.nra.org) and saw so such glamorization.
>Please explain.
>
>Dr. Jose Mariachi
If you noticed, they only post the feel good gun stories. There are no
accidental shootings, no road rage shootings, and no criminal shootings.
IOW, the impression they leave you with is: buy a gun, kill a bad guy, then
go out for supper with the family and celebrate your killing!
scube
Dr. Jose Mariachi
>In article <5aq8rt4sq7h59s79e...@4ax.com>, Dr. Jose Mariachi
><DrJoseM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> sc...@hood.com (scube) wrote <q0Us7.84$962....@news2.mts.net> in
>> talk.politics.guns. :
>>
<SNIP>
>>It is when they hear a commotion outside. I suggest you thoroughly
>>read the article before commenting further.
>
> That "commotion" was someone knocking on his door.
I beg to disagree. That would be described as "knocking on the door."
Why on earth would they describe "knocking on the door" as "a
commotion outside the door?" That doesn't make sense.
>>>>>He was then startled by someone unfamiliar
>>>>>to him, panicked and shot a unarmed man who meant no harm.
>>>>
>>>>Which is why the criminal kicked the door in. He was really just
>>>>selling chocolates.
>>>
>>> First off, he wasn't a criminal.
>>
>>If he's kicking open doors that aren't his, he's a criminal, he just
>>isn't convicted yet.
>
> True story: About 6 or 7 years ago my girlfriend and I attended a Jets game
>(NHL). After the game we went back to the car and I went to unlock her door. I
>couldn't open it so I went to the drivers side, unlocked it and stepped
>inside. I opened her door from the inside and she got in. I then placed the
>key in the ignition, but before I tried to start it she mentioned we were in
>the wrong car. Much to my surprise, she was right; we were in someone else's
>vehicle -- my car was actually two rows back and about 5 cars down.
>
> Now, since we entered an identical car accidentally, does that mean I'm a
>criminal (car thief) who hasn't been convicted yet?
An amusing anecdote to be sure, but you did not kick in the door to
gain entry.
>>>And secondly, the door was "kicked open,"
>>>not "kicked in."
>>> Please get your facts straight in the future.
>>> Thank you.
>>
>>The door was closed, and it was kicked open.
>
> The door was "open" and he kicked it open further -- allegedly.
That's called kicking in the door. Do you think for one moment that
the kicking of a door in ANY direction precedes a typical friendly
encounter?
>>A door can be kicked open AND be kicked in at the same time. It's all a
>>matter of semantics.
>
> If someone were to kick the "door down," does that mean it fell off its
>hinges?
Correct, that is what "kicking the door down" usually means.
> No, of course not. What it implies -- just as kicking a "door in" implies --
>is that it is forcibly opened while the door is closed (locked).
> That clearly did not happen in this case.
Again, any kicking of a door is a violent act, and kicking of a door
that doesn't belong to you is a criminal act.
<SNIP>
>>> Go check out the NRA page and you'll see how they glamorize death.
>>> That's what I was referring to.
>>
>>I went to the NRA page (www.nra.org) and saw so such glamorization.
>>Please explain.
>
> If you noticed, they only post the feel good gun stories. There are no
>accidental shootings, no road rage shootings, and no criminal shootings.
And is this news not reported in a similarly one-sided fashion by
Handgun Control and its ilk?
> IOW, the impression they leave you with is: buy a gun, kill a bad guy, then
>go out for supper with the family and celebrate your killing!
This may be the impression you are left with, and there is no way I
can argue that. However, I know of no one else left with the
impression that death should be celebrated. Furthermore, it's a
well-known and accepted fact that the taking of any human life- even a
criminal- is an emotional and sad occurrence from which one never
fully recovers.
news user
> True story: About 6 or 7 years ago my girlfriend and I attended a Jets game
>(NHL). After the game we went back to the car and I went to unlock her door. I
>couldn't open it so I went to the drivers side, unlocked it and stepped
>inside. I opened her door from the inside and she got in. I then placed the
>key in the ignition, but before I tried to start it she mentioned we were in
>the wrong car. Much to my surprise, she was right; we were in someone else's
>vehicle -- my car was actually two rows back and about 5 cars down.
>
> Now, since we entered an identical car accidentally, does that mean I'm a
>criminal (car thief) who hasn't been convicted yet?
Scube, that really is reaching. You didn't take the car so you are not
a thief. Pretty easy to understand
Now, if you couldn't get into the car so you picked up a rock and
broke the window, then realised it wasn't yours, you'd no doubt be
guilty of some kind of criminal damage.
> If you noticed, they only post the feel good gun stories. There are no
>accidental shootings, no road rage shootings, and no criminal shootings.
Err, so. They have an agenda. As do all the places where they only
post feel-bad stories
>
> IOW, the impression they leave you with is: buy a gun, kill a bad guy, then
>go out for supper with the family and celebrate your killing!
Hey, why go out for dinner when you have dead-bad-guy at home?
>
> scube
Rich
news user
<DrJoseM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>This may be the impression you are left with, and there is no way I
>can argue that. However, I know of no one else left with the
>impression that death should be celebrated. Furthermore, it's a
>well-known and accepted fact that the taking of any human life- even a
>criminal- is an emotional and sad occurrence from which one never
>fully recovers.
I don't know, this *is* just hearsay as far as I'm concerned but the
instructor at my CCW course stated that that's a fallacy and that most
who engaged in a justified shooting were perfectly fine afterwards. He
gave the impression that this was backed up by "studies". How true
this is, I don't know but it's food for thought. Unfortunately, no, I
don't have any cites.
Not that it makes any difference of course, you shoot a BG because you
fear for your life. Being dead is probably a worse kind of trauma than
a few nightmares.
Rich
John A. Stovall
snipped
>
> IOW, the impression they leave you with is: buy a gun, kill a bad guy, then
>go out for supper with the family and celebrate your killing!
Absolutely, once the paper work is over, steak and lobster and then
the city will hold a parade and crown me with a laurel wreath for
having acted in a socially responsible manner.
We should praise those who show civil virtue.
****************************************************
Non! Rien de rien...
Non, je ne regrette rien!
Ni le bien qu'on m'a fait,
Ni le mal. Tout ça m'est bien égal!
Non! Rien de rien...
Non, je ne regrette rien!
C'est payé, balayé, oublié,
Je me fous du passé!
"Non! Rien de rien"
Edith Piaf
In memory of the 1e REP
Dr. Jose Mariachi
>On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 04:35:08 -0700, Dr. Jose Mariachi
><DrJoseM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>This may be the impression you are left with, and there is no way I
>>can argue that. However, I know of no one else left with the
>>impression that death should be celebrated. Furthermore, it's a
>>well-known and accepted fact that the taking of any human life- even a
>>criminal- is an emotional and sad occurrence from which one never
>>fully recovers.
>
>I don't know, this *is* just hearsay as far as I'm concerned but the
>instructor at my CCW course stated that that's a fallacy and that most
>who engaged in a justified shooting were perfectly fine afterwards. He
>gave the impression that this was backed up by "studies". How true
>this is, I don't know but it's food for thought. Unfortunately, no, I
>don't have any cites.
Having only _wished_ people dead- which as far as I can tell has no
adverse effects- I can only repeat what I have read elsewhere. There
are probably people who suffer no ill effect at all after killing
someone. I can think of a few who participate here that might fall
into that category.
>Not that it makes any difference of course, you shoot a BG because you
>fear for your life. Being dead is probably a worse kind of trauma than
>a few nightmares.
Agreed. I would much rather live to suffer whatever consequences there
might be. :>
dg...@hotmail.com
<snip>
> If you noticed, they only post the feel good gun stories. There are no
> accidental shootings, no road rage shootings, and no criminal shootings.
Accidental shootings exist, but have been declining for 70 years, even
as population and gun stock has increased.
You'd be hard pressed to find any road rage shootings by CCW holders.
Ditto, criminal shootings by CCW holders.
> IOW, the impression they leave you with is: buy a gun, kill a bad guy, then
> go out for supper with the family and celebrate your killing!
I think everyone knows that's not the case.
W. E. Woods
At times, yes.
> >>He was then startled by someone unfamiliar
> >>to him, panicked and shot a unarmed man who meant no harm.
> >
> >Which is why the criminal kicked the door in. He was really just
> >selling chocolates.
>
> First off, he wasn't a criminal. And secondly, the door was "kicked open,"
> not "kicked in."
>
> Please get your facts straight in the future.
A distinction without a difference.
W. E. Woods
We are working with the information supplied in the article.
> >You are an apologist for criminals.
>
> There was no criminal intent, so to label him a criminal is foolhardy.
"No criminal intent?" That's laughable, scube.
>
> >Well, that or a piece of shit. Hm.
>
> I've been polite to you and this is how you repay me.
Not that I have seen.