Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
PLMerite
Remember, when seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.
http://www.kcbs.com/Oakland-Police-Worried-About-Increased-Vigilantism/2043948
Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
April 21, 2008 | Bob Melrose
OAKLAND, Calif. (KCBS) -- Oakland police are worried that more and more
people will take the law into their own hands, after two store owners shot
two robbers in recent days. People have a right to protect themselves, but
things can get out of hand quickly if everyone starts packing a weapon, said
Deputy Police Chief Dave Kozicki.
"That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people will
engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
A 22-year-old Oakland man was shot at least three times and critically
wounded when he tried to hold up a liquor store Saturday night. And an
18-year-old Pittsburg teenager was shot and wounded when he tried to rob a
store last Thursday night.
JoeSpareBedroom
news:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01...
Wounded. How sad. Pass the Kleenex.
Bill Smith
It makes you wonder when a Deputy Police Chief can't seem to tell the
difference between vigilantism and self-defense.
Bill Smith
"There are four kinds of homicide; felonious, excusable, justifiable,
and praiseworthy"
Ambrose Bierce
Bert Hyman
<stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people
> will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense and
vigilantism.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
PLMerite
"Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A88BD4F42C...@216.250.184.7...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/22/BAO5109V45.DTL
Burglar shot: 'We're going to defend ourselves,' neighbor says
4/22/8 | Marisa Lagos,Charles Burress, Chronicle Staff Writers
A North Oakland resident shot and critically injured a suspected burglar
this morning in the resident's home, police said, the third time in a week
that a would-be crime victim in the city has fought back with gunfire.
The shooting happened about 8 a.m. in a home on the 600 block of 59th Street
near Shattuck Avenue, police spokesman Officer Roland Holmgren said. Police
did not immediately release the name of the suspect or the resident.
Today's shooting took place a block from where 59th Street resident Patrick
McCullough shot and wounded a 15-year-old boy outside his home in February
2005 after 15 young men surrounded him in his front yard, shouting, "Kill
the snitch." The shooting capped a series of confrontations between
McCullough and young men who police believed were drug dealers.
"We're going to defend ourselves by any means necessary," said McCullough,
who is running for Oakland City Council, said after today's shooting. He was
not home at the time of the shooting but said he returned quickly after
receiving a call from his alarmed wife.
He said residents and businesses need to arm and defend themselves because
Oakland lacks enough police officers and effective anti-crime programs,
including productive opportunities for young people.
RD (The Sandman)
news:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01:
Damn, what a shame. Such a waste of good gang banging.
--
RD (The Sandman)
War is absolute hell.....but to give in
to terrorism is much, much worse
Bert Hyman
<stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
> He said residents and businesses need to arm and defend themselves
> because Oakland lacks enough police officers and effective anti-crime
> programs, including productive opportunities for young people.
Ah... no "productive opportunities for young people".
Too bad about the electrified fence surrounding Oakland that prevents
these ambitious young folks from finding jobs elsewhere.
Felix D.
>
>
>
> http://www.kcbs.com/Oakland-Police-Worried-About-Increased-Vigilantism/2043948
>
>
>
> Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
> April 21, 2008 | Bob Melrose
>
> OAKLAND, Calif. (KCBS) -- Oakland police are worried that more and more
> people will take the law into their own hands, after two store owners shot
> two robbers in recent days. People have a right to protect themselves, but
> things can get out of hand quickly if everyone starts packing a weapon,
> said Deputy Police Chief Dave Kozicki.
>
> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people will
> engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
Maybe if Oakland had a fully staffed and functioning police department
things wouldn't be as bad as they are. Throw in a political establishment
that sees police as the problem and not a solution (Ron Dellums), a failed
street culture, and a non-existent family structure, all centered in not
more than two zip codes in Oakland - yeah, they ought to worry about
vigilantism because a lot of folks have just plain had it.
Oakland has a long history of average people defending themselves with the
firearms they weren't supposed to have, and in most cases it's kept quiet.
Jim Yanik
news:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01:
>
> Remember, when seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.
>
>
>
> http://www.kcbs.com/Oakland-Police-Worried-About-Increased-Vigilantism/
> 2043948
>
>
>
> Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
> April 21, 2008 | Bob Melrose
>
> OAKLAND, Calif. (KCBS) -- Oakland police are worried that more and
> more people will take the law into their own hands, after two store
> owners shot two robbers in recent days. People have a right to protect
> themselves, but things can get out of hand quickly if everyone starts
> packing a weapon, said Deputy Police Chief Dave Kozicki.
They ALWAYS make this claim,and it has yet to happen.
>
> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people
> will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
Hey,maybe then crime will decrease.Once it becomes unsafe for criminals.
Tough s#!t for them.
>
> A 22-year-old Oakland man was shot at least three times and critically
> wounded when he tried to hold up a liquor store Saturday night. And an
> 18-year-old Pittsburg teenager was shot and wounded when he tried to
> rob a store last Thursday night.
The ODCs should get MEDALS.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Morton Davis
Bama Brian
Heh! Since the Oakland PD is useless at keeping good order in the town,
it's up to "We the People...". If the Oakland PD thinks it's
vigilantism, then perhaps we need less Oakland PD and more good citizens.
Oakland has been this way for some sixty years now. I recall back in
the Halloween of 1978 going over to a friend's house in Oakland. (I
started living in the SF/Oakland area back in 1963) As normal, some
kids came to the door. Then a young male, perhaps 16 to 18 years old,
decided to burst right in past my wife and my friend's wife who were at
the door. But when he saw me standing there, beyond the door and to the
left holding a quarterstaff at the ready position, he reversed course
and went immediately back outside. He never did get any candy. Or the
lumps I was ready to give him.
--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
Bama Brian
It was an Oakland cop, back in the '80's who was interviewed on Bay area
TV, showing a T-shaped belt buckle knife, who intoned ominously that the
only purpose for this knife was to kill people.
>
> Bill Smith
>
> "There are four kinds of homicide; felonious, excusable, justifiable,
> and praiseworthy"
>
> Ambrose Bierce
Bama Brian
The fence doesn't matter. Those who want out, get out and have a
reasonable chance of success.
Chad
> <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
>
>> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people
>> will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>
> Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense and
> vigilantism.
>
Maybe a cop on the job there would know what is vigilantism and what is self
defense in these cases better than you.
Just because you might think you have a right to shoot anyone that threatens
you in any way doesn't mean the law does or should say that.
Chad
news:3vmdnV76AfTmS5PV...@earthlink.com...
> Bert Hyman wrote:
>> In news:3RuPj.3411$nb4.2241@trnddc08 "PLMerite"
>> <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
>>> He said residents and businesses need to arm and defend themselves
>>> because Oakland lacks enough police officers and effective anti-crime
>>> programs, including productive opportunities for young people.
>>
>> Ah... no "productive opportunities for young people". Too bad about the
>> electrified fence surrounding Oakland that prevents
>> these ambitious young folks from finding jobs elsewhere.
>
> The fence doesn't matter. Those who want out, get out and have a
> reasonable chance of success.
>
What fence are you guys talking about???
Google was no help :\
Benj
> It was an Oakland cop, back in the '80's who was interviewed on Bay area
> TV, showing a T-shaped belt buckle knife, who intoned ominously that the
> only purpose for this knife was to kill people.
Come on! I just don't get you bigoted guys! Two children loose their
future being shot by guns and you are celebrating! The only way to
stop vigilantism is to ban guns right now! The only purpose of a gun
is to kill. They are no different from knives or pointy sticks which
also are to kill. Only when Oakland is free from guns will the
killings stop! It's time for some common sense laws that will take
the guns away from these victims. You gunloons are all uneducated,
racist, insensitive trailer trash! Children dying and you are singing
the praises of the guns. You are all insane!
(Tee Hee)
Buck Mulligan
>"Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns9A88BD4F42C...@216.250.184.7...
>> In news:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01 "PLMerite"
>> <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people
>>> will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>>
>> Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense and
>> vigilantism.
>>
>
>Maybe a cop on the job there would know what is vigilantism and what is self
>defense in these cases better than you.
Obviously not. Just reading the definition would tell you that.
>Just because you might think you have a right to shoot anyone that threatens
>you in any way doesn't mean the law does or should say that.
You'll not the story didn't say anything about the owners being
charged and arrested. Now, why don't you take a look in the California
Penal Code and see if you can find where it's illegal to shoot someone
who is robbing you in your store.
Take your time.
_______________
"The FACT is that the majority of criminals, even in the
the good, old US of A, DO obey gun control laws. This is
proven by most criminals NOT being charged with any firearm
offenses, ergo they have broken no gun control laws."
-Phil Smythe, demonstrating what
passes for proof and logic in
Australian debate circles.
JoeSpareBedroom
news:480ee602$0$13949$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Situation: You're stocking shelves in your widget store when in comes a
robber with a gun.
Question: How do you know he's not going to shoot you, even if you give him
whatever he asks for?
Kent Finnell
He worked late nights as a supervisor of a small chain of
stop'n'robs and was coming home at o'dark thirty. He lived
off of a main road that has car lots on the city side and
the numbered streets intersect it at odd (not 90 degree)
angles. He stopped before crossing the main road and a
goblin ran up to his door, screaming obscenities. There was
a Metro cop parked across the main road, about half a block
to the right.
My friend moved the newspaper that was over his Colt .45
semi-automatic. The goblin quickly disappeared back into
the darkness.
After my friend made his left turn, the cop blue lighted him
and pulled him over. My friend covered the pistol, rolled
down his window to talk to the cop. This was before
Tennessee became a "shall issue" state.
The cop glanced inside the car and asked, "Is there a gun
under that paper?"
"Yes, sir."
"I thought so. I've never seen anyone run backwards so fast
in my life. Have a nice night."
Sometimes just a show of potential force is enough, but my
friend was ready and able to step it up, still is even
though he's going blind.
--
"No law ever written has stopped any robber, rapist or
killer,
like cold blue steel in the hands of their last intended
victim."
-W. Emerson Wright.
------
Kent Finnell
From the Music City, USA
JoeSpareBedroom
news:rFyPj.132324$yE1.67384@attbi_s21...
Maybe dead bodies entail a lot more paperwork. Everybody hates paperwork.
Rider
> Remember, when seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.
>
>
> Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
> April 21, 2008 | Bob Melrose
>
> OAKLAND, Calif. (KCBS) -- Oakland police are worried that more and more
> people will take the law into their own hands, after two store owners shot
> two robbers in recent days. People have a right to protect themselves, but
> things can get out of hand quickly if everyone starts packing a weapon, said
> Deputy Police Chief Dave Kozicki.
>
> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people will
> engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
Gosh, that would be awful if people started taking care of themselves
and looking out for each other.
Next thing you know, there wouldn't be any crime and the Police would
be out of a job.
Regards
Chris Morton
>Just because you might think you have a right to shoot anyone that threatens
>you in any way doesn't mean the law does or should say that.
Here's a bit of unsolicited advice: If you don't want to get shot, try to avoid
pointing guns at people while wrongfully demanding things to which you are not
entitled. Just ask Arthur Buford... you know to hold a seance, right?
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/3692
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with
210lb. rapists.
Chris Morton
Maybe they're just different crooks, on a public retainer, like the Chicago
Police Department.
Bill Smith
wrote:
It was metaphorical, ask your mom.
Michael Ejercito
> Remember, when seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.
>
>
> Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
> April 21, 2008 | Bob Melrose
>
> OAKLAND, Calif. (KCBS) -- Oakland police are worried that more and more
> people will take the law into their own hands, after two store owners shot
> two robbers in recent days. People have a right to protect themselves, but
> things can get out of hand quickly if everyone starts packing a weapon, said
> Deputy Police Chief Dave Kozicki.
>
> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people will
> engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>
> A 22-year-old Oakland man was shot at least three times and critically
> wounded when he tried to hold up a liquor store Saturday night. And an
> 18-year-old Pittsburg teenager was shot and wounded when he tried to rob a
> store last Thursday night.
street.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> Innews:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01"PLMerite"
>
> <stock...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
> > "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people
> > will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>
> Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense and
> vigilantism.
into their own hands, such as conducting warrantless searches,
torturing suspects, committing perjury in court, and other things.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> "Bert Hyman" <b...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9A88BD4F42C...@216.250.184.7...
>
> > Innews:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01"PLMerite"
>
> >> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people
> >> will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>
> > Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense and
> > vigilantism.
>
> Maybe a cop on the job there would know what is vigilantism and what is self
> defense in these cases better than you.
>
> Just because you might think you have a right to shoot anyone that threatens
> you in any way doesn't mean the law does or should say that.
Michael
Bama Brian
So if a robber bursts into a store, waves a gun, and yells, "Give me
your money!", the shopkeeper ought to call the Oakland police chief to
decide whether he should protect himself?
Once the shopkeepers in Oakland start having to ask that question,
pretty soon there won't be any shopkeepers left in Oakland.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Michael Ejercito
> In article <480ee602$0$13949$afc38...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Chad says...
>
> >Just because you might think you have a right to shoot anyone that threatens
> >you in any way doesn't mean the law does or should say that.
>
> Here's a bit of unsolicited advice: If you don't want to get shot, try to avoid
> pointing guns at people while wrongfully demanding things to which you are not
> entitled. Just ask Arthur Buford... you know to hold a seance, right?
>
> http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/3692
This is what Toby Hoover said.
Toby Hoover, director of the Toledo-based Ohio Coalition Against Gun
Violence, questioned whether shooting Buford was the only option.
"We have a 15-year-old kid here," Hoover said. "Was he doing something
wrong here? It sounds like it. Is the first resort to shoot?"
JoeSpareBedroom
> Chad wrote:
>> "Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A88BD4F42C...@216.250.184.7...
>>> In news:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01 "PLMerite"
>>> <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people
>>>> will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>>> Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense and
>>> vigilantism.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe a cop on the job there would know what is vigilantism and what is
>> self defense in these cases better than you.
>>
>> Just because you might think you have a right to shoot anyone that
>> threatens you in any way doesn't mean the law does or should say that.
>
> So if a robber bursts into a store, waves a gun, and yells, "Give me your
> money!", the shopkeeper ought to call the Oakland police chief to decide
> whether he should protect himself?
>
> Once the shopkeepers in Oakland start having to ask that question, pretty
> soon there won't be any shopkeepers left in Oakland.
Best to wait and see what the robber has in mind. Did you catch this
yesterday? CNN had a link to the story:
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/15955036/detail.html
That's what happens when the robber isn't shot first.
JoeSpareBedroom
Right. It's best to wait to see what the "anyone" has in mind while waving a
gun at you. That's what you're saying.
Just one problem: If you psychic powers are a little weak on that particular
day, bad things can happen.
Read this:
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/15955036/detail.html
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
>
> A 22-year-old Oakland man was shot at least three times and critically
> wounded when he tried to hold up a liquor store Saturday night. And an
> 18-year-old Pittsburg teenager was shot and wounded when he tried to rob a
> store last Thursday night.
At least that's what we're told. That they were robbers. Is there a
video that confirms it?
Chad
news:nbbu04pv4un5fiepi...@4ax.com...
> In talk.politics.guns "Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns9A88BD4F42C...@216.250.184.7...
>>> In news:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01 "PLMerite"
>>> <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people
>>>> will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>>>
>>> Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense and
>>> vigilantism.
>>>
>>
>>Maybe a cop on the job there would know what is vigilantism and what is
>>self
>>defense in these cases better than you.
>
> Obviously not. Just reading the definition would tell you that.
>
The quoted story doesn't give a lot of detail about the crimes, I don't see
how anyone could say it's obvious either way if Kozicki's comment about
vigilantes is valid or not.
>>Just because you might think you have a right to shoot anyone that
>>threatens
>>you in any way doesn't mean the law does or should say that.
>
> You'll not the story didn't say anything about the owners being
> charged and arrested. Now, why don't you take a look in the California
> Penal Code and see if you can find where it's illegal to shoot someone
> who is robbing you in your store.
>
> Take your time.
Without much expertise in Cali law, I'll take a bet that you don't have a
right to shoot "anyone that threatens you in any way", or should not, as I
said.
Chad
news:%FGPj.1953$NU2...@news01.roc.ny...
Weighing that up against the increased chances of violence occurring in the
situation, or the store owner having the gun taken and used against him
sometime, because he has it on hand all the time, maybe the risk of personal
injury is less overall.
That said, if I owned a widget shop in an area that was prone to robberies,
I probably would feel safer having a weapon. Actually I'm not sure how I
would feel, can only guess.
I wasn't saying store owners should not have guns, just agreeing with the
police officers concern about gun owners acting like vigilantes or taking
the law into their own hands too quickly.
Chad
news:c444f3cb-f669-448e...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Yeah.. and I assume you agree that's not a good thing either?!.
JoeSpareBedroom
Chad, there's only one kind of store where anyone has any business walking
in a showing a gun in their hand: A gun store. In a gun store, the person
MIGHT be looking to trade in the gun, or have it repaired. In any other
store, a person who pulls a gun has explicitly requested that you kill
him/her. And I do mean "explicitly". Not maybe, not probably, but
explicitly.
This it what can happen if you think it's a good idea to wait and see how
things play out:
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/15955036/detail.html
You will now disagree with what I've just taught you.
Chad
That's a sensational way to frame it BB! :)
The story didn't tell us anything about how the 2 crimes mentioned
occurred.. but a police officer said they caused him to be concerned about
vigilante justice.
People wanted to ridicule that officer's opinion based on nothing but
assumptions and made up examples like yours.
Chad
Chad
Horrible story, but the exception does not prove the rule.
And it doesn't change the fact that vigilantism is the tactic of the lawless
and those that have given up on the idea a safe law-abiding society.
JoeSpareBedroom
First of all, it's not all that rare for victims to be shot during
robberies. Without statistics (which I don't have time to go looking for,
and you won't go looking for), we can't use the word "exception" in a valid
way here.
Next: Are you suggesting that all armed store owners take a wait-and-see
attitude when someone pulls a gun? Wait and see if they get shot, and then
do what's necessary? Or, what? What would be your plan if you were an armed
store owner?
JoeSpareBedroom
Let's assume for the moment that the robberies happened as Brian described
in his hypothetical example. We can play a game with that assumption because
robberies *DO* happen that way.
Do YOU think the word "vigilante" applies to such situations if the store
owner doesn't say a word, but shoots the robber dead immediately?
Here are a couple of standard definitions:
: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime
summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly :
a self-appointed doer of justice
Chad
>
> You will now disagree with what I've just taught you.
>
If you already know the result why bother posting at me!
JoeSpareBedroom
I'm a keen observer of people.
I'm still interested in hearing some of your alternative ideas for handling
an armed robber.
Chad
I think we need to view each incident on it's own merits. So no, I don't
think a shop keeper should always be automatically protected from
prosecution for killing someone they see as a threat. If that's what you are
suggesting with your example.
Why does being a pro-gun person on this news group so often seem to mean you
must deny any respect for human life?
Does being branded a "criminal" suddenly mean a person has no human rights
to a pro-gunner??
Kent Finnell
Look up the definition of "vigilante." Never mind, from
www.wikipedia.org
John Longenecker, author of The Case For Nationwide
Concealed Carry of Handguns, has a different take, and
explains why the term Vigilante cannot apply to individuals
who resist in self-defense. Longenecker points to the
underhanded activities that earned the Vigilantes their
place in history by intimidating the abolitionists who
opposed Slavery. Longenecker says what meets the test of
Vigilante:
1. The acts would have to be outside the law, as in acting
without court order or other lawful action. Legally,
individuals may intervene to stop a crime in progress. But,
where operating without authority was what Vigilante was all
about, enforcing the law or responding in self-defense does
have authority in the U.S.
2. The acts would have to be without a redeeming social
purpose, i.e. cannot be a mistake, for instance.
3. The acts would have to be unrighteous, such as a wrong
act fighting for a wrong cause. Keeping slavery alive would
be one such example.
4. The acts would have to include a killing, and an unlawful
killing at that.
5. The acts would have to be a conspiracy, or some sort of
committee action which escalates the hasty, mob rule
mentality with little restraint.
"Fundamentally," Longenecker explains, "Vigilante was
killing to silence people for political purposes."
Self-defense cannot be vigilante because individuals may use
up to lethal force when in reasonable apprehension of grave
danger. They are thereby not taking the law into their own
hands when lethal force is allowed.
======================
The details of the laws regarding self-defense vary from
state to state. California has some of the most screwed up
gun laws in the nation (excluding Illinois and D.C.), but
the basic is that force can be met with equal force or if
the potential victim is in reasonable fear of great bodily
harm or death, lethal force may be used.
Texas, IIRC, allows lethal force if an intruder breaks in at
night but quibbles about daylight entry. In Tennessee, the
reasonable person criteria is used and lethal force MAY be
used where ever the potential victim has a legal right to be
... home, car, business, sidewalk. In other words,
self-defense trumps a whole lot of the criminal's "rights."
The Oakland Police Chief is blowing smoke.
JoeSpareBedroom
You have to adopt a new mindset when you decide to own a gun for defense.
Here's how I see things. There are two types of armed criminals. The first
kind is clear of mind (no drugs) and has made a conscious choice to take on
certain risks. He's prepared to deal with the risks. I am the risk. Since I
have no idea if he intends to kill me after robbing my home, I will help him
to (quite literally) absorb the risks he's chosen. His human rights vanished
the moment he entered the house.
The second type of armed robber is not rational. He's probably either under
the influence of drugs, or stealing to get money for drugs. When I smoked
cigarettes, I'd sometimes venture out in some pretty insane winter weather
to buy more. That's irrational. I can't imagine what a heroin user must go
through in similar situations, but I know they're not rational. If there's
an irrational person in my home with a gun, and we haven't been properly
introduced, I will kill him without any offer of clemency.
Most of the time, if there's a moth or bee in the house, I'll catch it with
a cup & a piece of paper, and release it outdoors.
Chad
I don't plan to go looking for stats either, but surely you aren't arguing
that the vast vast majority of gun crime victims who comply do not get shot?
> Next: Are you suggesting that all armed store owners take a wait-and-see
> attitude when someone pulls a gun? Wait and see if they get shot, and then
> do what's necessary? Or, what? What would be your plan if you were an
> armed store owner?
>
No, I was suggesting that the Oakland police officer quoted was in a better
position to say if the crimes in the story should cause worry about
vigilantism than the smartass types posting here that he was obviously
foolish.
Chad
:)
I didn't disagree with what you said.
As far as alternatives to deal with armed robbers, there is a myriad of
options from smoke blanket systems to private security guards, all of which
you could argue would not be effective for all people in all situations,
just like a gun. A gun does not have to be the first option, or even worse
the only option, a shopkeeper takes to protect their business.
If the community attitude was simply less tolerant toward people using guns
as the first option, I think less people would die without an increase in
crime.
And if the community in general increased it's respect for guns and life, I
think we would see a substantial decrease in youngsters taking up guns
against others for no good.
Chad
JoeSpareBedroom
I said no such thing. But, you're missing the point: When a robber's
standing in front of you with a gun, you have absolutely NO IDEA whether
he's going to pull the trigger. I'm happy to see that you are not
disagreeing with that fact, but unhappy to see that you're not responding to
it at all.
>> Next: Are you suggesting that all armed store owners take a wait-and-see
>> attitude when someone pulls a gun? Wait and see if they get shot, and
>> then do what's necessary? Or, what? What would be your plan if you were
>> an armed store owner?
>>
>
> No, I was suggesting that the Oakland police officer quoted was in a
> better position to say if the crimes in the story should cause worry about
> vigilantism than the smartass types posting here that he was obviously
> foolish.
Many years ago, some diamond dealer in Manhattan shot a robber, and the news
stories read almost the same way, except the police were saying something
like "We'd prefer this didn't happen, but oh well." I don't care what the
cops think, though. Unless I can push a magic button and have them here in
1.2 seconds, the cops don't matter.
JoeSpareBedroom
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:GvLPj.2034$Cn4...@news02.roc.ny...
>> "Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:480f83b4$0$13946$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>
>>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:v0LPj.2030$Cn4....@news02.roc.ny...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You will now disagree with what I've just taught you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you already know the result why bother posting at me!
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm a keen observer of people.
>>
>> I'm still interested in hearing some of your alternative ideas for
>> handling an armed robber.
>>
>
> :)
>
> I didn't disagree with what you said.
>
>
> As far as alternatives to deal with armed robbers, there is a myriad of
> options from smoke blanket systems to private security guards, all of
> which you could argue would not be effective for all people in all
> situations, just like a gun. A gun does not have to be the first option,
> or even worse the only option, a shopkeeper takes to protect their
> business.
What the hell is a smoke blanket??? And, security guards? Nice idea, but
too many small businesses couldn't afford them.
> If the community attitude was simply less tolerant toward people using
> guns as the first option, I think less people would die without an
> increase in crime.
People are already intolerant of criminals with guns. Criminals don't care,
though.
> And if the community in general increased it's respect for guns and life,
> I think we would see a substantial decrease in youngsters taking up guns
> against others for no good.
>
> Chad
Too many kids get no guidance at home. Wanna adopt a half dozen and never
let them near their scumbag parents again?
http://www.pbs.org/fmc/interviews/moynihan.htm
Chad
I understand exactly how you feel. Someone came into our garage and stole my
sons bicycle a while back and I felt violated enough to know I would love to
teach the person a lesson if I got my hands on them.
But that is exactly why victims don't get to set the punishments, most of us
can't be dispassionate and reasonable when it involves a crime against
ourselves or family.
I think it's similar when it comes to trusting the victim to decide when or
if it's actually reasonable to take another life. They probably aren't in a
position to make rational decisions on the matter most of the time, so carte
blanche rights to take a life if threatened in any way seem dangerous to me.
Chad.
Chad
JoeSpareBedroom
If I'm not here, they can take the whole damned house. I'm not going to hunt
them down and kill them. But, if I'm here, then there is no logical or
intelligent option other than killing the robber. When I replace the ugly
carpet in three of my rooms, I may adopt a different plan, though. Or, order
the thing into the kitchen before executing it.
Chad
news:jOLPj.35769$%15.3...@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
Ok I get your point, vigilante can only apply if the shooter is acting
illegally.
If the Oakland officer understands the definition correctly, he must be
thinking there is some argument about the self-defense angle in those
cases.... or he is just blowing smoke as you say.
Chad
Herb Martin
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:NdLPj.1966$NU2....@news01.roc.ny...
>> First of all, it's not all that rare for victims to be shot during
>> robberies. Without statistics (which I don't have time to go looking for,
>> and you won't go looking for), we can't use the word "exception" in a
>> valid way here.
>>
>
> I don't plan to go looking for stats either, but surely you aren't arguing
> that the vast vast majority of gun crime victims who comply do not get
> shot?
If either of you looks for the stats you will find that people who
FIGHT back with FIREARMS do better (on average) than
those who fight back in other ways or who comply.
Fighting back with a firearm is your best statistical chance to avoid
injury (and if you are armed you can choose NOT to use it, but it
doesn't work the other way around.)
Chad
I guess I am not so responsive to that idea as of course I would be scared
witless being theatened with a gun in my face, and I'd probably be so
"offended" afterward I would like to shoot or hurt that person if I could.
But I just don't beleive thinking about how we should react to a crime
should be done from a victim's point of view.
As an example, someone posted this story about a 15 year old who was shot
dead when he pulled a gun on CCW permit holder;
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/3692
I don't have any criticism for the shooter in that story, but I don't like
that society has come to the point where we must accept that children can be
justifiably killed like that. Working on changing that situation is a lot
harder than taking up more guns to react to it though.
Chad
LOL.. the bathroom would probably be an easier cleanup ;-))
Chris Morton
>I think it's similar when it comes to trusting the victim to decide when or
>if it's actually reasonable to take another life. They probably aren't in a
>position to make rational decisions on the matter most of the time, so carte
>blanche rights to take a life if threatened in any way seem dangerous to me.
When you're in danger of life and limb, NOBODY knows better than YOU do.
If you don't want to get shot, don't put me in reasonable fear of life and limb.
It's as simple as that. I live my life day in and day out, WITHOUT making
people think that they're in imminent danger of being murdered by me. Give it a
try, I'm sure you can do it too. If NOT, then you'd better resign yourself to
getting hurt, whether by the police or private citizens.
If you come into my home, or accost me on the street with a weapon, that's a
CHOICE on your part. Choices have consequences. One of the likely consequences
of credibly and immediately threatening my life or limb is getting shot.
I have UTTERLY no duty, legal or moral, to put life and limb at risk to protect
YOU from your OWN actions. You don't have to like that. It doesn't matter.
Asserting that I have a duty to risk my life to protect you as an assailant
while engaged in a felonious assault will get you a very cold reception from the
legal system here in Ohio.
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with
210lb. rapists.
Kent Finnell
> "Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:jOLPj.35769$%15.3...@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:480f7b06$0$17510$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> message
>>
YES! Spiking a Nerf football and doing a victory dance!
JoeSpareBedroom, you may join me in a victory lap, but no
back flips from the car top.
Chris Morton
>If the community attitude was simply less tolerant toward people using guns
>as the first option, I think less people would die without an increase in
>crime.
But you seem VERY tolerant of people INITIATING criminal violence against
innocent victims. It's legitimate SELF-DEFENSE against criminal violence which
seems to exercise you. It appears to me that you don't want "less" (sic) people
to die; rather you want DIFFERENT people to die, namely the VICTIMS of violent
crime rather than the perpetrators of it.
>And if the community in general increased it's respect for guns and life, I
>think we would see a substantial decrease in youngsters taking up guns
>against others for no good.
That's nice. How are you planning to go about that?
What about people who LIKE to hurt others? Why would THEY stop? What if they
don't?
I don't have the slightest control over how strangers raise their children.
What I DO have control over is whether I'm going to let someone physically harm
me. I refuse to let people harm me, and if it takes shooting them to prevent
that, then I'm perfectly willing to do so. One MORE time: criminal violence is
a CHOICE. Choices have CONSEQUENCES. One of the consequences of putting others
in reasonable fear of life and limb is getting SHOT. Don't want to get shot?
Don't do that. So simple, even an AT&T employee can do it.
Chad
> "Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote in message
> news:480f8bf4$0$17509$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:GvLPj.2034$Cn4...@news02.roc.ny...
>>> "Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:480f83b4$0$13946$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>
>>>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:v0LPj.2030$Cn4....@news02.roc.ny...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You will now disagree with what I've just taught you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you already know the result why bother posting at me!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm a keen observer of people.
>>>
>>> I'm still interested in hearing some of your alternative ideas for
>>> handling an armed robber.
>>>
>>
>> :)
>>
>> I didn't disagree with what you said.
>>
>>
>> As far as alternatives to deal with armed robbers, there is a myriad of
>> options from smoke blanket systems to private security guards, all of
>> which you could argue would not be effective for all people in all
>> situations, just like a gun. A gun does not have to be the first option,
>> or even worse the only option, a shopkeeper takes to protect their
>> business.
>
>
> What the hell is a smoke blanket??? And, security guards? Nice idea, but
> too many small businesses couldn't afford them.
>
>
A Fog Blanket alarm might be more correct;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q1hBbOBoGU
>
>> If the community attitude was simply less tolerant toward people using
>> guns as the first option, I think less people would die without an
>> increase in crime.
>
> People are already intolerant of criminals with guns. Criminals don't
> care, though.
>
>
>> And if the community in general increased it's respect for guns and life,
>> I think we would see a substantial decrease in youngsters taking up guns
>> against others for no good.
>>
>> Chad
>
>
> Too many kids get no guidance at home. Wanna adopt a half dozen and never
> let them near their scumbag parents again?
> http://www.pbs.org/fmc/interviews/moynihan.htm
>
Kind of interesting... he makes it sound like he is a lone voice.
Chris Morton
>I don't plan to go looking for stats either, but surely you aren't arguing
>that the vast vast majority of gun crime victims who comply do not get shot?
So what are you saying? That I should ASSUME that anyone who puts me in
reasonable fear of life and limb WON'T hurt me? WHY should I do that? Here's a
newsflash: when you rob somebody you employ violence OR THE CREDIBLE THREAT of
same to coerce someone into reasonably believing that they're in danger of life
and limb in order to dispossess them of something. Why should I, AGAINST THE
STRENUOUS EFFORTS OF MY ASSAILANT, not take his threat at face value? Why
should I trust in the good sense and decency of someone who uses violence or its
threat to forcibly take things which don't belong to them?
>No, I was suggesting that the Oakland police officer quoted was in a better
>position to say if the crimes in the story should cause worry about
>vigilantism than the smartass types posting here that he was obviously
>foolish.
He's not worried about "vigilantism". He's worried that people will take
responsibility for themselves, diminishing the power of the governmental
apparatus of which he is a part.
Chris Morton
>Why does being a pro-gun person on this news group so often seem to mean you
>must deny any respect for human life?
Why does being anti-gun on this news group so often seem to mean you must deny
any respect ONLY for the human life of a VICTIM of violent crime?
>Does being branded a "criminal" suddenly mean a person has no human rights
>to a pro-gunner??
Does being branded a "victim" suddenly mean a person has no human rights to an
anti-gunner?
Violent criminals assert an imaginary "human right" to put others in reasonable
fear of life and limb in order to coerce them into some behavior. The law
recognizes no such "right". On the contrary, it recognizes my REAL right to
defend from deadly force with deadly force. Don't like that? Don't put me in
reasonable fear of life and limb. That's SO simple there's at least a 50%
chance that even Britanny Spears could comprehend it.
Chad
ROFL... I know it's bloody unusual for anyone to concede anything in this
newsgroup, but settle down or your boobies will pop out!! :p
Chris Morton
>Horrible story, but the exception does not prove the rule.
What's your 100% reliable technique for distinguishing between the "exception"
and the rule when it comes to armed robberies? What do you "win" if you guess
wrong?
>And it doesn't change the fact that vigilantism is the tactic of the lawless
>and those that have given up on the idea a safe law-abiding society.
And it doesn't change the fact that submission to illegitimate violence and
oppression is the tactic of the slave and the coward who have given up on the
idea of human rights and human decency for those who DON'T prey on their fellow
man.
PLMerite
"Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote in message
news:480f7b06$0$17510$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>
> the situation, or the store owner having the gun taken and used against
> him sometime, because he has it on hand all the time, maybe the risk of
> personal injury is less overall.
Gun grabbers always have some fantasy about the bad guys "taking the gun
away from" their vicitm.
This is of course avoided by the victim shooting the criminal immediately
upon his instigation of the crime.
Regards, PLMerite
--
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
PLMerite
>> "Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A88BD4F42C...@216.250.184.7...
>>> In news:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01 "PLMerite"
>>> <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people
>>>> will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>>>
>>> Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense and
>>> vigilantism.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe a cop on the job there would know what is vigilantism and what is
>> self defense in these cases better than you.
>>
>> Just because you might think you have a right to shoot anyone that
>> threatens you in any way doesn't mean the law does or should say that.
>
>
> robber with a gun.
>
> Question: How do you know he's not going to shoot you, even if you give
> him whatever he asks for?
I've got a better question: Why should I have to put up with the
inconvenience of finding out when I can just shoot the prick at the outset?
Regards, PLMerite
Kent Finnell
match tape measurements with Cousin Dolly.
--
JoeSpareBedroom
Meanwhile, the victim and robber are doing what?
>>> If the community attitude was simply less tolerant toward people using
>>> guns as the first option, I think less people would die without an
>>> increase in crime.
>>
>> People are already intolerant of criminals with guns. Criminals don't
>> care, though.
>>
>>
>>> And if the community in general increased it's respect for guns and
>>> life, I think we would see a substantial decrease in youngsters taking
>>> up guns against others for no good.
>>>
>>> Chad
>>
>>
>> Too many kids get no guidance at home. Wanna adopt a half dozen and never
>> let them near their scumbag parents again?
>> http://www.pbs.org/fmc/interviews/moynihan.htm
>>
>
> Kind of interesting... he makes it sound like he is a lone voice.
At the time, the researcher WAS a lone voice. Read it again. Not much has
changed. People still think "the educational system" needs revamping. Nobody
wants to be politically incorrect and say "Some parents are worthless, some
homes suck and produce kids who are at best illiterate, and at worst,
criminals."
JoeSpareBedroom
news:VqNPj.13960$pH4.3860@trnddc06...
Inconvenience is an understatement. Do you have any idea how bad the
magazine selection is in most hospitals? I'd rather be dead.
JoeSpareBedroom
Well, not that I give a damn about anything in the bible, but it does
suggest that wayward kids be stoned to death by the village elders for
certain infractions which don't seem very serious.
RD (The Sandman)
in
news:542daaa3-8a12-4fa9...@l25g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 22, 4:40 pm, "PLMerite" <stock...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> A 22-year-old Oakland man was shot at least three times and
>> critically wounded when he tried to hold up a liquor store Saturday
>> night. And an 18-year-old Pittsburg teenager was shot and wounded
>> when he tried to rob a store last Thursday night.
>
> At least that's what we're told. That they were robbers. Is there a
> video that confirms it?
Oh, do you think the witnesses were simply confused? Or that the store
owners just decided on their own......damn, I think I will shoot someone
today and claim that they were robbing the place.
--
RD (The Sandman)
War is absolute hell.....but to give in
to terrorism is much, much worse
RD (The Sandman)
news:480f78fb$0$13948$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
> "Buck Mulligan" <bkmul...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:nbbu04pv4un5fiepi...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns9A88BD4F42C...@216.250.184.7...
>>>> In news:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01 "PLMerite"
>>>> <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that
>>>>> people will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>>>>
>>>> Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense
>>>> and vigilantism.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe a cop on the job there would know what is vigilantism and what
>>>is self
>>>defense in these cases better than you.
>>
>> Obviously not. Just reading the definition would tell you that.
>>
>
> The quoted story doesn't give a lot of detail about the crimes, I
> don't see how anyone could say it's obvious either way if Kozicki's
> comment about vigilantes is valid or not.
>
>
>
>>>Just because you might think you have a right to shoot anyone that
>>>threatens
>>>you in any way doesn't mean the law does or should say that.
>>
>> You'll not the story didn't say anything about the owners being
>> charged and arrested. Now, why don't you take a look in the
>> California Penal Code and see if you can find where it's illegal to
>> shoot someone who is robbing you in your store.
>>
>> Take your time.
>
> Without much expertise in Cali law, I'll take a bet that you don't
> have a right to shoot "anyone that threatens you in any way",
I doubt that is the same situation as someone attempting to rob the store
or someone in it.
or
> should not, as I said.
I can agree with you on that if we can agree on the circumstances.
RD (The Sandman)
news:480f7b06$0$17510$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%FGPj.1953$NU2...@news01.roc.ny...
>> "Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:480ee602$0$13949$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> "Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9A88BD4F42C...@216.250.184.7...
>>>> In news:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01 "PLMerite"
>>>> <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that
>>>>> people will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>>>>
>>>> Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense
>>>> and vigilantism.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe a cop on the job there would know what is vigilantism and what
>>> is self defense in these cases better than you.
>>>
>>> Just because you might think you have a right to shoot anyone that
>>> threatens you in any way doesn't mean the law does or should say
>>> that.
>>
>>
>> Situation: You're stocking shelves in your widget store when in comes
>> a robber with a gun.
>>
>> Question: How do you know he's not going to shoot you, even if you
>> give him whatever he asks for?
>>
>
> Weighing that up against the increased chances of violence occurring
> in the situation, or the store owner having the gun taken and used
> against him sometime, because he has it on hand all the time, maybe
> the risk of personal injury is less overall.
>
> That said, if I owned a widget shop in an area that was prone to
> robberies, I probably would feel safer having a weapon. Actually I'm
> not sure how I would feel, can only guess.
>
> I wasn't saying store owners should not have guns, just agreeing with
> the police officers concern about gun owners acting like vigilantes or
> taking the law into their own hands too quickly.
What is "too quickly"? That definition is where much of the problem may
lie.
RD (The Sandman)
news:480f8bf4$0$17509$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:GvLPj.2034$Cn4...@news02.roc.ny...
>> "Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:480f83b4$0$13946$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>
>>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:v0LPj.2030$Cn4....@news02.roc.ny...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You will now disagree with what I've just taught you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you already know the result why bother posting at me!
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm a keen observer of people.
>>
>> I'm still interested in hearing some of your alternative ideas for
>> handling an armed robber.
>>
>
>:)
>
> I didn't disagree with what you said.
>
>
> As far as alternatives to deal with armed robbers, there is a myriad
> of options from smoke blanket systems to private security guards, all
> of which you could argue would not be effective for all people in all
> situations, just like a gun. A gun does not have to be the first
> option, or even worse the only option, a shopkeeper takes to protect
> their business.
>
> If the community attitude was simply less tolerant toward people using
> guns as the first option, I think less people would die without an
> increase in crime.
I think the reverse would be true. The honest person would be held back
based on community mores and the criminal simply wouldn't give a shit.
He would feel that the community would perhaps already dislike him since
he it actively participating in crime.
> And if the community in general increased it's respect for guns and
> life, I think we would see a substantial decrease in youngsters taking
> up guns against others for no good.
Here I agree. However, the youngsters taking up guns for no good are not
usually the ones from Joe Sixpack's house. Over 70% of the homicides,
for example, involve either drug or gang activity or both.
There is an interesting table in a study called Urban Delinquency &
Substance Abuse by the Justice Department. Here is a URL:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/urdel.pdf
Note Figure 13 and its write up on p18.
RD (The Sandman)
news:480f8fa2$0$30461$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
> I think it's similar when it comes to trusting the victim to decide
> when or if it's actually reasonable to take another life. They
> probably aren't in a position to make rational decisions on the matter
> most of the time, so carte blanche rights to take a life if threatened
> in any way seem dangerous to me.
I am not aware of any state which gives carte blanche right to take a
life if threatened in any way. The vast majority of them (I haven't
checked them all) base their use of deadly physical force on the
"reasonable person" theory. That means that if a *reasonable* person
would be in fear of *immediate* loss of life or serious bodily harm to
themselves or an innocent third party, then they may use deadly physical
force to offset or negate that threat. That fear must be expressed and
conveyed successfully to the police, a county or district attorney, a
judge, a jury (grand or other wise) etc.. depending on how far up the
chain it goes. Failure to convince others that the fear was reasonable
will most likely result in a long time at Stony Lonesome on Bubba's dance
card.
Some states also have other reasons for use of deadly force. In Ariona,
other reasons could be sexual molestation of a child, rape, some forms of
burglary or arson of an occupied dwelling. You really have to check your
state laws as your mileage may vary.
Bottom line....no state that I am aware of allows deadly force for simply
a percieved threat of any kind.
Chris Morton
>A Fog Blanket alarm might be more correct;
Stop bullets, does it?
Michael Ejercito
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:%FGPj.1953$NU2...@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
>> >news:480ee602$0$13949$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >> "Bert Hyman" <b...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> >>news:Xns9A88BD4F42C...@216.250.184.7...
> >>> Innews:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01"PLMerite"
>
> >>>> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people
> >>>> will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>
> >>> Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense and
> >>> vigilantism.
>
> >> Maybe a cop on the job there would know what is vigilantism and what is
> >> self defense in these cases better than you.
>
> >> Just because you might think you have a right to shoot anyone that
> >> threatens you in any way doesn't mean the law does or should say that.
>
> > Situation: You're stocking shelves in your widget store when in comes a
> > robber with a gun.
>
> > Question: How do you know he's not going to shoot you, even if you give
> > him whatever he asks for?
>
> Weighing that up against the increased chances of violence occurring in the
> situation, or the store owner having the gun taken and used against him
> sometime, because he has it on hand all the time, maybe the risk of personal
> injury is less overall.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> In article <480f7f15$0$30464$afc38...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Chad says...
>
> >Horrible story, but the exception does not prove the rule.
>
> What's your 100% reliable technique for distinguishing between the "exception"
> and the rule when it comes to armed robberies? What do you "win" if you guess
> wrong?
>
> >And it doesn't change the fact that vigilantism is the tactic of the lawless
> >and those that have given up on the idea a safe law-abiding society.
>
> And it doesn't change the fact that submission to illegitimate violence and
> oppression is the tactic of the slave and the coward who have given up on the
> idea of human rights and human decency for those who DON'T prey on their fellow
> man.
>
Michael
Chris Morton
>I guess I am not so responsive to that idea as of course I would be scared
>witless being theatened with a gun in my face, and I'd probably be so
>"offended" afterward I would like to shoot or hurt that person if I could.
That indicates to me that you're an irrational person with poor impulse control.
That's YOUR problem and shouldn't impact MY right to defend MYSELF.
>But I just don't beleive thinking about how we should react to a crime
>should be done from a victim's point of view.
Then whose, the PERPETRATOR?
>As an example, someone posted this story about a 15 year old who was shot
>dead when he pulled a gun on CCW permit holder;
>http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/3692
>
>I don't have any criticism for the shooter in that story, but I don't like
>that society has come to the point where we must accept that children can be
>justifiably killed like that. Working on changing that situation is a lot
>harder than taking up more guns to react to it though.
What would you prefer? That Arthur Buford be alive and his victim be dead?
That little imbecile made a CHOICE, and NOT for the first time. He was on
probation for a previous armed robbery. He won't be committing any more and
that's a GOOD thing. Nobody's fault but his own too.
Chris Morton
>Weighing that up against the increased chances of violence occurring in the
>situation, or the store owner having the gun taken and used against him
>sometime, because he has it on hand all the time, maybe the risk of personal
>injury is less overall.
Have YOU ever taken a loaded gun from someone while it was aimed at you?
If it's as easy as you make it out to be, why couldn't the store owner just
snatch it right back?
Scout
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> "Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote in message
> news:480ee602$0$13949$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> news:Xns9A88BD4F42C...@216.250.184.7...
>>> In news:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01 "PLMerite"
>>> <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people
>>>> will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>>>
>>> Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense and
>>> vigilantism.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe a cop on the job there would know what is vigilantism and what is
>> self defense in these cases better than you.
>>
>> Just because you might think you have a right to shoot anyone that
>> threatens you in any way doesn't mean the law does or should say that.
>
>
> Situation: You're stocking shelves in your widget store when in comes a
> robber with a gun.
>
> Question: How do you know he's not going to shoot you, even if you give
> him whatever he asks for?
As a clerk in a local gas n' go found out a few years ago, even total and
complete compliance doesn't mean they are going to leave you alive, as the
video shows the suspect's last act was to calmly and deliberately shoot her
in the head. She was dead before she hit the floor.
Sometimes, money and goods aren't the only thing they are going to take.
Michael Ejercito
<me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:%FGPj.1953$NU2...@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
>
> > "Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote in message
> >news:480ee602$0$13949$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >>news:Xns9A88BD4F42C...@216.250.184.7...
> >>> Innews:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01"PLMerite"
>
> >>>> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people
> >>>> will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>
> >>> Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense and
> >>> vigilantism.
>
> >> Maybe a cop on the job there would know what is vigilantism and what is
> >> self defense in these cases better than you.
>
> >> Just because you might think you have a right to shoot anyone that
> >> threatens you in any way doesn't mean the law does or should say that.
>
> > Situation: You're stocking shelves in your widget store when in comes a
> > robber with a gun.
>
> > Question: How do you know he's not going to shoot you, even if you give
> > him whatever he asks for?
>
> As a clerk in a local gas n' go found out a few years ago, even total and
> complete compliance doesn't mean they are going to leave you alive, as the
> video shows the suspect's last act was to calmly and deliberately shoot her
> in the head. She was dead before she hit the floor.
>
> Sometimes, money and goods aren't the only thing they are going to take.
Michael
Scout
> "Bama Brian" <eddy...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:hMSdnehq0JGWx5LV...@earthlink.com...
>> Chad wrote:
>>> "Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9A88BD4F42C...@216.250.184.7...
>>>> In news:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01 "PLMerite"
>>>> <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people
>>>>> will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>>>> Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense and
>>>> vigilantism.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe a cop on the job there would know what is vigilantism and what is
>>> self defense in these cases better than you.
>>>
>>> Just because you might think you have a right to shoot anyone that
>>> threatens you in any way doesn't mean the law does or should say that.
>>
>> money!", the shopkeeper ought to call the Oakland police chief to decide
>> whether he should protect himself?
>>
>> Once the shopkeepers in Oakland start having to ask that question, pretty
>> soon there won't be any shopkeepers left in Oakland.
>>
>> When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
>>
>> --
>> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
>> George Santayana, 1863 - 1952
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bama Brian
>> Libertarian
>
> That's a sensational way to frame it BB! :)
>
> The story didn't tell us anything about how the 2 crimes mentioned
> occurred.. but a police officer said they caused him to be concerned about
> vigilante justice.
>
> People wanted to ridicule that officer's opinion based on nothing but
> assumptions and made up examples like yours.
I would assume the officers comments were based more in reality if we could
find that these clerks had been charged by the DA.
Until then, I'm going to assume they were a righteous shoot and the cop's
comments are unfounded.
Scout
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's assume for the moment that the robberies happened as Brian
>>>> described in his hypothetical example. We can play a game with that
>>>> assumption because robberies *DO* happen that way.
>>>>
>>>> Do YOU think the word "vigilante" applies to such situations if the
>>>> store owner doesn't say a word, but shoots the robber dead immediately?
>>>>
>>>> Here are a couple of standard definitions:
>>>>
>>>> : a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish
>>>> crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as
>>>> inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think we need to view each incident on it's own merits. So no, I don't
>>> think a shop keeper should always be automatically protected from
>>> prosecution for killing someone they see as a threat. If that's what you
>>> are suggesting with your example.
>>>
>>> Why does being a pro-gun person on this news group so often seem to mean
>>> you must deny any respect for human life?
>>>
>>> rights to a pro-gunner??
>>
>>
>> Here's how I see things. There are two types of armed criminals. The
>> first kind is clear of mind (no drugs) and has made a conscious choice to
>> take on certain risks. He's prepared to deal with the risks. I am the
>> risk. Since I have no idea if he intends to kill me after robbing my
>> home, I will help him to (quite literally) absorb the risks he's chosen.
>> His human rights vanished the moment he entered the house.
>>
>> The second type of armed robber is not rational. He's probably either
>> under the influence of drugs, or stealing to get money for drugs. When I
>> smoked cigarettes, I'd sometimes venture out in some pretty insane winter
>> weather to buy more. That's irrational. I can't imagine what a heroin
>> user must go through in similar situations, but I know they're not
>> rational. If there's an irrational person in my home with a gun, and we
>> haven't been properly introduced, I will kill him without any offer of
>> clemency.
>>
>> Most of the time, if there's a moth or bee in the house, I'll catch it
>> with a cup & a piece of paper, and release it outdoors.
>>
>
> I understand exactly how you feel. Someone came into our garage and stole
> my sons bicycle a while back and I felt violated enough to know I would
> love to teach the person a lesson if I got my hands on them.
>
> But that is exactly why victims don't get to set the punishments, most of
> us can't be dispassionate and reasonable when it involves a crime against
> ourselves or family.
>
> I think it's similar when it comes to trusting the victim to decide when
> or if it's actually reasonable to take another life.
If you don't know when you have a reasonable fear for your life.....then
you're already brain dead.
> They probably aren't in a position to make rational decisions on the
> matter most of the time, so carte blanche rights to take a life if
> threatened in any way seem dangerous to me.
Then you shouldn't subject anyone to having reasonable cause to fear your
actions against them. Otherwise, you assume this risk because we can not
expect people to be mindreaders.
Scout
>>> "Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9A88BD4F42C...@216.250.184.7...
>>>> In news:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01 "PLMerite"
>>>> <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people
>>>>> will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>>>>
>>>> Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense and
>>>> vigilantism.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe a cop on the job there would know what is vigilantism and what is
>>> self defense in these cases better than you.
>>>
>>> Just because you might think you have a right to shoot anyone that
>>> threatens you in any way doesn't mean the law does or should say that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> waving a gun at you. That's what you're saying.
>>
>> Just one problem: If you psychic powers are a little weak on that
>> particular day, bad things can happen.
>>
>> Read this:
>> http://www.theindychannel.com/news/15955036/detail.html
>>
>
On the contrary, it shows that you simply can never assume that your well
being and safety is in any manner a consideration for that criminal. If it
truely were, do you think they would be threatening you???????
Hello?
> And it doesn't change the fact that vigilantism is the tactic of the
> lawless and those that have given up on the idea a safe law-abiding
> society.
It isn't vigilantism. It is self defense. And IMO prohibiting or public
disapproval of reasonable self defense is a sure sign of a highly sick
society which will not long endure.
Scout
>>> lawless and those that have given up on the idea a safe law-abiding
>>> society.
>>
>>
>> robberies. Without statistics (which I don't have time to go looking for,
>> and you won't go looking for), we can't use the word "exception" in a
>> valid way here.
>>
>
> I don't plan to go looking for stats either, but surely you aren't arguing
> that the vast vast majority of gun crime victims who comply do not get
> shot?
Perhaps this will answer your question.
"A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm OR WHO HAD NO WEAPON. "
<emphasis added>
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief
Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and
Firearm Theft
More get shot complying with violent criminals than do using a gun in self
defense.
Enough said.
Scout
>> standing in front of you with a gun, you have absolutely NO IDEA whether
>> he's going to pull the trigger. I'm happy to see that you are not
>> disagreeing with that fact, but unhappy to see that you're not responding
>> to it at all.
>>
>>
>
> witless being theatened with a gun in my face, and I'd probably be so
> "offended" afterward I would like to shoot or hurt that person if I could.
>
> should be done from a victim's point of view.
On the contrary, I think that is EXACTLY how we should react to a crime.
After all, the victim wasn't doing anything wrong, they were simply going
about their lives when this criminal CHOSE to victimize them.
So tell me, since you don't think we should look at crime from the victims'
POV, exactly which POV do you think we should use?
>
> As an example, someone posted this story about a 15 year old who was shot
> dead when he pulled a gun on CCW permit holder;
> http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/3692
>
> I don't have any criticism for the shooter in that story, but I don't like
> that society has come to the point where we must accept that children can
> be justifiably killed like that.
Really? Would he have been justified if the person who pulled the gun on him
was 18? 21? 45? 55?
How old exactly does the criminal have to be before it is acceptable to act
in self defense against a real and immediate threat to life/limb?
I have a suggestion though for all such children out there. If you don't
want to get shot then don't pull a gun on someone.
>Working on changing that situation is a lot harder than taking up more guns
>to react to it though.
So we should just accept kids watching up to us sticking a gun in our face
and doing whatever they want to us, including cold bloodied murder?
So let me ask you a serious question. If pulling a gun on someone isn't in
your opinion enough justification to act in your own defense, at what point
do you think it does become acceptable?
Scout
>> "Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:480ee602$0$13949$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> "Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9A88BD4F42C...@216.250.184.7...
>>>> In news:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01 "PLMerite"
>>>> <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people
>>>>> will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>>>>
>>>> Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense and
>>>> vigilantism.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe a cop on the job there would know what is vigilantism and what is
>>> self defense in these cases better than you.
>>>
>>> Just because you might think you have a right to shoot anyone that
>>> threatens you in any way doesn't mean the law does or should say that.
>>
>>
>> robber with a gun.
>>
>> Question: How do you know he's not going to shoot you, even if you give
>> him whatever he asks for?
>>
>
> the situation, or the store owner having the gun taken and used against
> him sometime, because he has it on hand all the time, maybe the risk of
> personal injury is less overall.
>
> robberies, I probably would feel safer having a weapon. Actually I'm not
> sure how I would feel, can only guess.
>
> I wasn't saying store owners should not have guns, just agreeing with the
> police officers concern about gun owners acting like vigilantes or taking
> the law into their own hands too quickly.
If they do, then we already have the solution. They are charged with
manslaughter, 2nd degree murder or 1st degree murder depending on the
particulars of the cause.
Have any such charges been filed or even considered by the DA?
If not then it isn't taking the law into their own hands, nor acting like
vigilantes, but simply acting to legally defend themselves. If anyone
considers that a bad thing, then they are not right in the head.
Scout
> in a showing a gun in their hand: A gun store. In a gun store, the person
> MIGHT be looking to trade in the gun, or have it repaired. In any other
> store, a person who pulls a gun has explicitly requested that you kill
> him/her. And I do mean "explicitly". Not maybe, not probably, but
> explicitly.
Even in a gun store it is generally advisable to inform the personal that
you will be bringing a gun into the store unless it is in a holster or a
carrier of some sort, or before you remove the gun if it's not obvious that
there is a gun in that carrier.
Scout
>>>>>
>>>>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:v0LPj.2030$Cn4....@news02.roc.ny...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you already know the result why bother posting at me!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm a keen observer of people.
>>>>
>>>> I'm still interested in hearing some of your alternative ideas for
>>>> handling an armed robber.
>>>>
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> I didn't disagree with what you said.
>>>
>>>
>>> As far as alternatives to deal with armed robbers, there is a myriad of
>>> options from smoke blanket systems to private security guards, all of
>>> which you could argue would not be effective for all people in all
>>> situations, just like a gun. A gun does not have to be the first option,
>>> or even worse the only option, a shopkeeper takes to protect their
>>> business.
>>
>>
>> too many small businesses couldn't afford them.
>>
>>
>
>
So let's see. I walk into your store. I approach the cash register, pull my
gun and stick it in your face. Assuming I don't blow your brains out when
you push the button, how many times do you think I could shoot you in the 5
seconds before visibility is near zero.
Further why would I carry the expense of a security guard who can do nothing
more than I could do for myself?
If he's unarmed then he's little more than another bystander. If he's armed,
then we are right back to where we started.
Scout
I would expect that in many cases such a "fog" bank would cause the criminal
to shoot simply because of the sudden unexpected nature of it. Assuming he
doesn't shoot you for going for the button in the first place.
Bert Hyman
<cbs...@safemail.com> wrote:
> "Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A88BD4F42C...@216.250.184.7...
>> In news:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01 "PLMerite"
>> <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people
>>> will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>>
>> Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense
>> and vigilantism.
>>
>
> Maybe a cop on the job there would know what is vigilantism and what
> is self defense in these cases better than you.
Not likely.
Not likely at all.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Felix D.
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8dMPj.2039$Cn4....@news02.roc.ny...
> "Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote in message
> news:480f8bf4$0$17509$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> As far as alternatives to deal with armed robbers, there is a myriad of
>> options from smoke blanket systems to private security guards, all of
>> which you could argue would not be effective for all people in all
>> situations, just like a gun. A gun does not have to be the first option,
>> or even worse the only option, a shopkeeper takes to protect their
>> business.
>
>
> What the hell is a smoke blanket??? And, security guards? Nice idea, but
> too many small businesses couldn't afford them.
Oakland's first response to this crime wave was to propose that the city
hire four armed security guards to patrol in the high crime areas.
Why not hire four more cops? Aren't they supposed to be the city's "armed
security guards?"
Kent Finnell
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
message news:GeQPj.3492$nb4.1197@trnddc08...
>
>>
>> Chad, there's only one kind of store where anyone has any
>> business walking in a showing a gun in their hand: A gun
>> store. In a gun store, the person MIGHT be looking to
>> trade in the gun, or have it repaired. In any other
>> store, a person who pulls a gun has explicitly requested
>> that you kill him/her. And I do mean "explicitly". Not
>> maybe, not probably, but explicitly.
>
> Even in a gun store it is generally advisable to inform
> the personal that you will be bringing a gun into the
> store unless it is in a holster or a carrier of some sort,
> or before you remove the gun if it's not obvious that
> there is a gun in that carrier.
>
with a firearm have the action open (revolvers with the
cylinder out) and the ammo or magazine in hand and held in a
non-threatening manner. Most of the employees have handguns
on their hips.
While a pawn shop nearby was robbed of several guns and the
owner shot, the owner didn't take the precautions that
regular gun stores do. The 3 punk kids were quickly caught
and then quickly released. Ain't connections wonderful
(they're good boys who made a mistake, according to their
parents).
--
"No law ever written has stopped any robber, rapist or
killer,
like cold blue steel in the hands of their last intended
victim."
-W. Emerson Wright.
------
Kent Finnell
From the Music City, USA
Buck Mulligan
>"Buck Mulligan" <bkmul...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:nbbu04pv4un5fiepi...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns9A88BD4F42C...@216.250.184.7...
>>>> In news:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01 "PLMerite"
>>>> <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people
>>>>> will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>>>>
>>>> Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense and
>>>> vigilantism.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe a cop on the job there would know what is vigilantism and what is
>>>self
>>>defense in these cases better than you.
>>
>> Obviously not. Just reading the definition would tell you that.
>>
>
>The quoted story doesn't give a lot of detail about the crimes, I don't see
>how anyone could say it's obvious either way if Kozicki's comment about
>vigilantes is valid or not.
Gee, it seems obvious to everyone else. They guy was in his store,
that means he didn't go looking for the guy, he came to him. He was
robbing him. That's pretty clear, and it's pretty clear it's not, by
definition, the act of a vigilante.
>>>Just because you might think you have a right to shoot anyone that
>>>threatens
>>>you in any way doesn't mean the law does or should say that.
>>
>> You'll not the story didn't say anything about the owners being
>> charged and arrested. Now, why don't you take a look in the California
>> Penal Code and see if you can find where it's illegal to shoot someone
>> who is robbing you in your store.
>>
>> Take your time.
>
>Without much expertise in Cali law, I'll take a bet that you don't have a
>right to shoot "anyone that threatens you in any way", or should not, as I
>said.
If a guy comes into my store and tried to rob me, you bet your sweet
ass I have a right to kill him.
_______________
"The FACT is that the majority of criminals, even in the
the good, old US of A, DO obey gun control laws. This is
proven by most criminals NOT being charged with any firearm
offenses, ergo they have broken no gun control laws."
-Phil Smythe, demonstrating what
passes for proof and logic in
Australian debate circles.
Jim Yanik
why go to the expense of renting a cop,to protect a robber's "rights" over
yours? why such a concern for criminals?
("rights" that he forfeits the instant he threatens you)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Jim Yanik
news:3OudnT7yu_zgRpLV...@comcast.com:
is a security guard going to protect your life as much as you would
yourself?
I would not rely on that.He might decide the money isn't worth the risk,at
the worst possible time.
also,security guards being highly visible,they would be the first ones
shot.That has already happened,BTW.
this is a great read,very informative;
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352006,00.html
by John Lott Jr.
Bama Brian
> "Bama Brian" <eddy...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:hMSdnehq0JGWx5LV...@earthlink.com...
>>> "Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9A88BD4F42C...@216.250.184.7...
>>>> In news:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01 "PLMerite"
>>>> <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people
>>>>> will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>>>> Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense and
>>>> vigilantism.
>>>>
>>> Maybe a cop on the job there would know what is vigilantism and what is
>>> self defense in these cases better than you.
>>>
>>> threatens you in any way doesn't mean the law does or should say that.
>> money!", the shopkeeper ought to call the Oakland police chief to decide
>> whether he should protect himself?
>>
>> Once the shopkeepers in Oakland start having to ask that question, pretty
>> soon there won't be any shopkeepers left in Oakland.
>>
>> When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
>>
>> --
>> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
>> George Santayana, 1863 - 1952
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bama Brian
>> Libertarian
>
> That's a sensational way to frame it BB! :)
>
> The story didn't tell us anything about how the 2 crimes mentioned
> occurred.. but a police officer said they caused him to be concerned about
> vigilante justice.
We didn't get a lot of details, no. But it was pretty clear from the
story that both incidents involved armed robbers and small stores. The
first one was a liquor store; the second store was not defined. Both
robbers were armed.
And the cop cited is the Oakland Deputy Chief Dave Kozicki.
> People wanted to ridicule that officer's opinion based on nothing but
> assumptions and made up examples like yours.
No assumptions there, Chad. Are you sure you read all of the original
story?
Here's a link:
http://www.kcbs.com/Oakland-Police-Worried-About-Increased-Vigilantism/2043948
Bama Brian
>>>>> assumptions and made up examples like yours.
>>>>>
> blanche rights to take a life if threatened in any way seem dangerous to me.
Chad, all one can do is to train for the eventualities.
For example, if we get a grease fire in a pan in the kitchen, throwing
water on it is a VERY bad idea. Trying to throw the burning grease down
the drain is likewise bad. Picking up the pan and trying to get outside
is even worse. Having a lid ready to put on top of the pan is probably
best, followed by having a fire extinguisher ready.
Arguing with an armed robber is a VERY bad idea. Trying to take the gun
away is likewise a bad idea. Official stats tell us that the best way
is to use deadly force to stop the attack; such a response results in
the least harm statistically to the victim.
Self defense training teaches us to shoot until the attack stops. If
that results in the death of the criminal, that's just TFB. BTW, the 22
year-old who held up the liquor store in Oakland was shot three times -
but survived.
If the criminal survives, the risk is two-fold. First is to your
wallet. Lawyers ain't cheap, and in a state like CA, you're going to
need the best just to stay out of jail no matter how clear-cut the
incident. Second assault on your wallet; if the criminal survives, he's
likely to sue you.
IOW, having to shoot someone has its own serious consequences - but I'd
rather be tried by twelve than carried by six, as the saying goes.
And I do agree with others here who think that someone who assaults you
with a deadly weapon has surrendered his most basic human rights.
Bama Brian
>>> "Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9A88BD4F42C...@216.250.184.7...
>>>> In news:MPtPj.3288$Ks1.257@trnddc01 "PLMerite"
>>>> <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time, that people
>>>>> will engage in vigilantism," said Kozicki.
>>>> Someone needs to tell this guy the difference between self defense and
>>>> vigilantism.
>>>>
>>> Maybe a cop on the job there would know what is vigilantism and what is
>>> self defense in these cases better than you.
>>>
>>> Just because you might think you have a right to shoot anyone that
>>> threatens you in any way doesn't mean the law does or should say that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> a gun at you. That's what you're saying.
>>
>> Just one problem: If you psychic powers are a little weak on that
>> particular day, bad things can happen.
>>
>> Read this:
>> http://www.theindychannel.com/news/15955036/detail.html
>>
>
> Horrible story, but the exception does not prove the rule.
>
> And it doesn't change the fact that vigilantism is the tactic of the lawless
> and those that have given up on the idea a safe law-abiding society.
Chad, I just got done posting a list of 31 court decisions, all the way
up to the Supreme Court, all saying the same thing: That the police
have no duty whatsoever to protect the individual, even when the police
know that someone is being, or will be harmed.
Do you want the list?
Please note that the nationwide average police response time to a 911
call is from six to seven minutes.
So while we would all like to be able to live without fear, it may be
that one day a criminal hunts us out. In that day, it is quite
literally going to be up to us - and not to the cops.
In that story in Indianapolis, ask yourself where was the armed security
guard for the bank? I'd bet the answer is real simple: That the bank's
accountants decided it is cheaper to let a robber get away with some
cash now and again, than it is to pay two armed security guards full-time.
Bama Brian
>> robberies. Without statistics (which I don't have time to go looking for,
>> and you won't go looking for), we can't use the word "exception" in a
>> valid way here.
>>
>
> I don't plan to go looking for stats either, but surely you aren't arguing
> that the vast vast majority of gun crime victims who comply do not get shot?
>
>
>> attitude when someone pulls a gun? Wait and see if they get shot, and then
>> do what's necessary? Or, what? What would be your plan if you were an
>> armed store owner?
>>
>
> No, I was suggesting that the Oakland police officer quoted was in a better
> position to say if the crimes in the story should cause worry about
> vigilantism than the smartass types posting here that he was obviously
> foolish.
Deputy Chief Kozicki likes being in the news. Go here for another of
his inane comments:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/23/MN8I10A2UG.DTL&feed=rss.news