INSANE FISH - how police rule!!
N9NWO
It has nothing to do with seafood. And like most cop legends in Chicago,
everyone's got a different version of how it started. Some say the Insane
Fish was the brainchild of beat cops intent on screwing over Internal
Affairs. Others think it's a term coined by Marine Unit members who wanted
a cool name for their golf league T-shirts. The rest of us are willing to
acknowledge the 14th District tactical unit as the original founding Fish.
In a city that has over two hundred gangs (numbers that grow daily), the
14th District has more than its share. The Spanish Gangsters, Insane
Unknown and Children of Satan are just a few of the gangs that provide
equal-opportunity crime. While membership may vary according to location or
ethnicity, most gangs favor names that pledge allegiance to Satan, hint at
royalty and/or are a testimonial for mental illness. As often as new
factions spring up, the hardest part is keeping score.
At the local cop watering hole one night, tac officers Trafford and
Danovich tried to figure it out.
"Went through my court log for last period," Danovich noted. "Out of all
the gang arrests, twenty of 'em were some kind of devils or demons, nine
were Kings, Counts or Lords, eighteen were gangster something-or-others,
and all the rest were insane. Insane Unknown. Insane Cobras. Insane
ViceLords. Like they're poster boys for some asylum, fer Crissakes. How
come it's cool to say you're nuts?"
"I know what you mean," Trafford agreed. "Remember those girls we stopped
last week? Four thirteen-year olds who called themselves a gang. 'Sisters
of the Insane.' What the hell is that?"
"Probably what my sisters were called when we were growing up." Danovich
sipped his suds. "Only back then, anybody called you a nut to your face got
the shit kicked out of him."
"Amen to that," toasted Cypher, the cop on the next stool. "The good old
days, when things made sense."
"I lock up one more 'banger who belongs to some 'Insane' set, I think I'll
go nuts myself," Danovich continued.
"You're halfway there already. It'll be a short trip." Winking, the
bartender set down another round. "Don't think any of you guys are wrapped
too tight. Maybe you're crazier than they are."
"Fuckin' A!" Trafford chortled. "And there's more of us than them!"
"Fuckin' A!" Up and down the bar, glasses were raised in toast.
"They may be swimmin' in the pond," someone slurred. "But it's OUR pond,
and we're the baddest mothers in it!"
"Hell, yes!" Danovich drained his glass. "Biggest fish in the pond!"
"The Blue Fish!" someone yelled.
"INSANE Fish!" shouted another. "Insane Fish rule!"
"Fuckin' A!" Danovich thumped the bar. "We're the Insane Fish! Biggest and
baddest in the pond."
It was a joke that got funnier with each beer, but the name stuck. From
that night forward, the tac officers of 14 were the Insane Fish. They left
memos to each other initialed 'I.F.' Developed their own secret handshake
and 'gang sign' in parody of the 'bangers they locked up. Growled "Fish
rule!" from the loudspeakers of tac cars passing on the street. It was just
a joke, something to laugh about through the course of their watch. And
like most cop jokes, it spread throughout the department.
"Heard anything about a bad new gang setting up?" Trafford inquired of his
unit commander, affecting a serious tone. "Intelligence we've gotten so far
is that these guys are some major bad-asses. Wanna take down the whole damn
district." The commander hadn't heard of the Insane Fish, but took it under
advisement. And when a raw haddock was found, rotting under the front seat
of his personal car, he considered it a sign. A blatant attempt by this new
gang to intimidate the police, he figured. And sent out a memo the very
next day, apprising the Gangs Unit of this latest development. The people
in Gangs thought he was one tuna short of a salad.
But the Insane Fish were hitting the streets in a big way. What was the
point of being a gang if you couldn't spread the word? The 14th district
tac guys decided it was time to stir up the pond.
Cruising through the 'hood one night, Trafford and Danovich spotted a
couple Imperial Gangsters lounging on the corner "Yo, Homes," called
Danovich. "Heard a new set's about to take over your turf. Got the guns,
got the finest bitches, gonna put you outta business. Whatcha think about
that?"
"I think you're nuts, man!" scowled one of the 'bangers.
"Bingo!" chuckled Danovich.
"Insane Fish!" Trafford told them. "Better watch your back."
Other cops dropped hints while doing the paperwork after their arrests.
"What set you run with, man?" they'd ask the sullen gangbanger.
"You know what I am, man. I been arrested like twenty times before."
"You ain't Insane Fish, are you?"
"Insane Fish? Never heard of 'em."
"You will."
"You crazy, man. These Fish, what are they? A Black gang? White?"
"They're EVERY color, bro. A friggin' rainbow gang. The Fish are some bad
mothers and they're gonna take you down."
Within a week, the gangs of the 14th District were on full Fish alert.
Nobody was going to take them down, especially not some newcomers with a
wimpy name like Fish. What kind of gang name was that?
News of the Fish spread citywide. Although our department has approximately
13,000 members, word travels fast. Every cop out there could relate to it.
As the biggest fish in the pond, we routinely swim in troubled waters. The
Insane Fish were ready to shake up the bottom feeders. Those of us who work
the street - either beat cars, tactical, or gang cops - anyone who wears
the badge was counted as a member. We thought it was a hoot.
In the Deuce, - the tough 2nd District and home of the brutal Robert Taylor
housing projects, street cops drew fish outlines on the grimy windows of
abandoned cars. Area gangs who discovered the 'gang symbol' viewed it as
the first step of a hostile take-over and hastily scheduled a war council.
Whoever these damn Fish were, wherever they were, it was going to be a
vicious battle.
After that, there was an outbreak. All around the city, random acts of
fishiness were being committed daily by this anonymous new gang. And
because the department brass, like the street gangs, had no clue regarding
the Fish's real identity, they were just as concerned.
Memos started to fly through Department mail, all of them pertaining to the
vicious new gang. The Chief of Patrol demanded all available intelligence
on the Insane Fish. The Training Academy Director questioned the Research
and Development Unit as to whether Fish information would be included in
the next Gang Crimes Training Seminars. One of the Assistant Deputy
Superintendents thought the Fish posed a hollow threat. Assuming that they
were surly vegetarians, he said, "How violent can they be if they don't eat
meat? Probably a bunch of wimps who eat quiche and toss water balloons."
Internal Affairs launched a covert investigation of the Fish phenomenon
following a frantic phone call from a north side district commander. He'd
found a huge, hideous carp's head propped on the seat of his private office
toilet, an act he might have considered just an odd coincidence except for
one thing. In the carp's mouth was a cigar - his preferred brand - and
scrawled on the seat, an ominous message: "You shit with the fishes."
After twenty-two years on the job, the Commander recognized a warning when
he saw one. It meant only one thing - that the Insane Fish had somehow
infiltrated the Department. If they were able to breach his inner sanctum,
who knew where they'd strike next? These maniacs had to be stopped.
Across the city, street cops were embracing their status as Insane Fish.
Some proud members even began to display their membership in cryptic ways.
Small fish outlines were found scribbled in the corner of arrest reports.
The daily stacks of citations sent to Traffic Court now displayed phantom
fish signs along with vehicle description and license plate number. Fish
tie tacks appeared on uniform ties, fish T-shirts on tac and gang cops.
Noting the small fish outline on one officer's shirt, a watch lieutenant
told him, "I like to get in a little fishing myself when I get the chance.
Rainbow trout and bluegill, mostly. How about you?"
"I don't catch fish. I AM fish," replied the cop as he headed for the tac
office.
The lieutenant turned to the desk sergeant. "What the hell did that mean?
Is that guy another stress-disorder or what?"
"I think it's a religious thing," the sergeant shrugged. "Y'know, like the
loaves and the fishes Jesus passed out? I seen a lot of those fish signs
lately. Maybe these guys been hanging out at the Chaplain's ministry."
On the city's southeast side, disgruntled drug dealers found fish symbols
spray-painted on the doors of their dope houses. They were not amused.
Those fishy bastards were moving closer, they told each other. Time to take
some offensive action. But it was hard to take any action against an
invisible enemy.
The Fish follies continued. And, as happens with most large gangs, splinter
factions began to form. After work one night, some 4th District cops had a
few beers and a major epiphany. Although they'd always be loyal Insane
Fish, why not distinguish themselves from the rest? It would be their own
South side chapter. Glasses were raised in unanimous approval. And two or
three or six beers later, they came up with their chapter name: the Smelts
of Satan. Not to be outdone, other districts followed with their own
chapter names.
The 23rd District's Avenging Alewives, the Mo-fo Mackerels of the 15th, and
the Blowfish Blues from the 7th were some of the more inspired titles, and
the few remembered after the stewed Fish sobered up. It didn't matter. It
wasn't chapters or names that was important, only the morale boost that the
Insane Fish provided. It made us a family again. Proud to be part of the
team, brothers and sisters who watch each others' backs. A concept they
taught us back at the Academy, one that sometimes fades with the reality or
the politics of the job.
Almost twenty-five years after it began, the Insane Fish concept is still
going strong. These days, new recruits are regaled with Fish war stories
from Day One at the Academy, where grinning instructors demonstrate our
'secret gang sign.' It's about family, they tell the recruit classes.
Insane Fish are our Police family.
And what would a family be without the occasional prank - hijinks usually
aimed at the senior members? Or, in this case, those that carry the most
rank.
Like the Area Chief who arrived unexpectedly at the Twelfth District one
morning,and announced a roll-call inspection. One during which he lumbered
along the rows of assembled officers, nastily writing up each one for minor
infractions like unpolished shoes, an unofficial pen in the official
uniform pocket, or hair that curled over the collar. All bullshit charges,
the day watch agreed later. Boss's busy work to justify his salary. A
hostile display definitely not in keeping with the brotherly Fish
philosophy. Partnered together on Beat 1212, Wade and LaCloche couldn't
agree more.
"The Chief wrote up a few coppers, now they'll give him some more gold
braid for his friggin' uniform."
"Probably the only thing that makes him cream. Bet he had to change his
underwear afterward."
Spotting the Chief's immaculate new car gleaming in the district lot, the
two cops smirked. It was time to make a statement in the name of Insane
Fish everywhere.
They headed toward their beat, which included Fulton Market - a bustling
stretch of meat houses, fish markets, and the long shipping docks for the
finest food purveyors in the city.
Pulling up to the rear dock of the Seven Fathoms Fish Company, LaCloche
snickered.
"Nice car the chief had, doncha think?"
"A fucking gem," Wade agreed. And waved to the dock manager who approached
their car.
"How ya doin', Vito? Whatcha got that's good today?"
"Depends on who it's for," grinned the short mustached man. He'd known
these cops for ten years and recognized that look.
"A special friend," Wade replied. "So damn special he wears gold braid up
his ass."
"This friend of yours - he'd like something special, or deluxe?" Vito
pointed to a row of sealed waste buckets.
LaCloche frowned, considering. "Deluxe, I'd say. How 'bout it, Wade?
Wouldn't you say he's a deluxe kinda guy?"
"Fuckin' A. He's a deluxe motherfucker if I ever saw one!"
Vito nodded.
"Those first three buckets - mostly fish heads and guts. Next two are old
product - wasn't shipped on schedule and now it's spoiled. But the next
four...." Shaking his head, Vito rolled his eyes. "That's the shipment from
a truck that had a blown refrigeration unit. Our loaders opened that truck,
two of 'em passed out from the stink. A smell bad enough to be a deadly
weapon!"
Wade nodded judiciously.
"That'll work, Vito. Exactly what we need."
"Whatever you want, guys. How many you need? One bucket or two?"
"Two buckets, Vito. This is definitely a two bucket kinda guy."
Heading back to the district parking lot, LaCloche shook his head.
"Two buckets is a LOT. One woulda been plenty."
"One for the front seat, one for the back. " Turning smoothly into the
alley, Wade drove around to the rear of the lot . "We're making a
statement, remember,"
Just ahead was the chief's car, shining like a precious jewel.
"Fuckin' A!" agreed LaCloche.
They reached for the buckets. Insane Fish rule.
Copyright 2000 by Gina Gallo
Heard her on WLS tonight.
I am in love.
M. Simon
Funniest Fish story I ever heard.
Simon
=======
M. Simon Space-Time Productions http://www.spacetimepro.com
Free CNC Machine Control Software
Free Source Code
Control the World From a Parallel Port
Lou Boyd
crimes? They are our employees and should be fired and jailed if
something like that actually happened.
--
Lou Boyd
"M. Simon" wrote:
>
> Funniest Fish story I ever heard.
>
> Simon
> =======
(fish story snipped)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Michael Zarlenga
: What's funny about police acting like gangsters and committing multiple
: crimes?
I'm wondering the same thing.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Lenny Stover
Michael Zarlenga wrote in message ...
Fish Rule !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
John A. Stovall
The violation of basic rights are not the thing for sophomoric
statements.
Grow up and come back.
IMHO, the Area Chief would be justified in shooting them on the spot
when Wade and LaCloche attacked his property.
******************************************************************
"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed,
law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at,
controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by
creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom or the virtue to do so. To be
governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted,
registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed,
licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed,
corrected, punished."
Pierre Proudhon
Lenny Stover
John A. Stovall wrote in message ...
>The violation of basic rights are not the thing for sophomoric
>statements.
What's this? A friggin politician?
>Grow up and come back.
Fish rule!!
>IMHO, the Area Chief would be justified in shooting them on the spot
>when Wade and LaCloche attacked his property.
It wasn't his property, dickwad...it was city property. And he was the
warlord of the Insane Fish anyway, so he had it coming. Turned his back on
his fellow fishes, no loyalty, I say! Writing up a street cop because he
doesn't have an "official pen in his official shirt pocket?" Hummmph! He
swims with the fishes no more.
IMPERIAL WESTSIDE GANGSTER GUPPIES !!!
FISH RULE !!
Peter White
"John A. Stovall" <john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ss3snso8kc76uv8rn...@4ax.com...
> statements.
>
>
> when Wade and LaCloche attacked his property.
>
paragraphs 1 and 3?
PW
Lenny Stover
N9NWO <21...@gte.net> wrote in message ...
>: I had the
>: impression that the car belonging to the Area Chief was a city
>: vehicle, but looking back at the story, there is no clear indication.
Ooops. My bad, I forgot that everybody doesn't know Chicago. Yep, the Area
Chief's car would be an unmarked city vehicle.
>Did you read the other two posts? One: MY FIRST... HIS LAST
>was about her first shooting, four days out of the academy. The
>other, NIGHT MOVES, was about responding to a shooting then
>having to kill the girlfriend. Read them.
I did....they were friggin great. Already contacted Gina with my
compliments.
M. Simon
<bo...@fairborn.dakotacom.net> wrote:
>What's funny about police acting like gangsters and committing multiple
>crimes? They are our employees and should be fired and jailed if
>something like that actually happened.
>--
>Lou Boyd
I will agree that Prohibition is a major cause of mis-policing. And a
major financier of gangs. On both sides of the law.
Still it was a funny fish story.
John A. Stovall
<lst...@westerncom.net> wrote:
>
>John A. Stovall wrote in message ...
>
>>The violation of basic rights are not the thing for sophomoric
>>statements.
>
>What's this? A friggin politician?
>
>>Grow up and come back.
>
>Fish rule!!
>
>>IMHO, the Area Chief would be justified in shooting them on the spot
>>when Wade and LaCloche attacked his property.
>
>It wasn't his property, dickwad...it was city property. And he was the
>warlord of the Insane Fish anyway, so he had it coming. Turned his back on
>his fellow fishes, no loyalty, I say! Writing up a street cop because he
>doesn't have an "official pen in his official shirt pocket?" Hummmph! He
>swims with the fishes no more.
>
>IMPERIAL WESTSIDE GANGSTER GUPPIES !!!
>FISH RULE !!
Property is Property. Once you cross that line you are just part of
the problem.
John A. Stovall
<pet...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"John A. Stovall" <john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:ss3snso8kc76uv8rn...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:54:04 -0500, "Lenny Stover"
>> <lst...@westerncom.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The violation of basic rights are not the thing for sophomoric
>> statements.
>>
>> Grow up and come back.
>>
>> IMHO, the Area Chief would be justified in shooting them on the spot
>> when Wade and LaCloche attacked his property.
>>
>Ummm...am I the only one who sees a fundamental contradiction between
>paragraphs 1 and 3?
>
Please explain, even thought this has nothing to do with my post.
Peter White
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:03:11 GMT, "Peter White"
> <pet...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John A. Stovall" <john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:ss3snso8kc76uv8rn...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:54:04 -0500, "Lenny Stover"
> >> <lst...@westerncom.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> The violation of basic rights are not the thing for sophomoric
> >> statements.
> >>
> >> Grow up and come back.
> >>
> >> IMHO, the Area Chief would be justified in shooting them on the spot
> >> when Wade and LaCloche attacked his property.
> >>
> >Ummm...am I the only one who sees a fundamental contradiction between
> >paragraphs 1 and 3?
> >
>
>
Sure, and no flame intended. Shooting a person for a property crime is a
violation of basic human rights, in that it states that protection of
inanimate property is more important than protection of human life.
PW
>
>
John A. Stovall
<pet...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"John A. Stovall" <john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:08dsns4eouvplf0u8...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:03:11 GMT, "Peter White"
>> <pet...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"John A. Stovall" <john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >news:ss3snso8kc76uv8rn...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:54:04 -0500, "Lenny Stover"
>> >> <lst...@westerncom.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The violation of basic rights are not the thing for sophomoric
>> >> statements.
>> >>
>> >> Grow up and come back.
>> >>
>> >> IMHO, the Area Chief would be justified in shooting them on the spot
>> >> when Wade and LaCloche attacked his property.
>> >>
>> >Ummm...am I the only one who sees a fundamental contradiction between
>> >paragraphs 1 and 3?
>> >
>>
>> Please explain, even thought this has nothing to do with my post.
>>
>Sure, and no flame intended. Shooting a person for a property crime is a
>violation of basic human rights, in that it states that protection of
>inanimate property is more important than protection of human life.
>
Not in the Great State of Texas see our penal code. If you don't have
a right to property you have no rights. Isn't your body and life your
property?
That property was earned with the hours of ones life. He who steals
my property steals my life. How would you feel about may say taking
5 years off your life span, 10 minutes, where do you draw the line?
Brain Death
<john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote:
>The violation of basic rights are not the thing for sophomoric
>statements.
>
>Grow up and come back.
>
>IMHO, the Area Chief would be justified in shooting them on the spot
>when Wade and LaCloche attacked his property.
Under the laws of most states cops are justified in using deadly force
only to protect themselves and others in imminent danger of being
killed. They are not justified in using deadly force to protect
property, or to punish those who have already damaged property.
I agree with the basic point expressed that cops have no business
engaging in illegal activities. However, the horseplay described
sounds more like something out of MASH--practical jokes. I had the
impression that the car belonging to the Area Chief was a city
vehicle, but looking back at the story, there is no clear indication.
BD
Peter White
"John A. Stovall" <john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:j2esnss88oqjipq0j...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:05:44 GMT, "Peter White"
> <pet...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John A. Stovall" <john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:08dsns4eouvplf0u8...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:03:11 GMT, "Peter White"
> >> <pet...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"John A. Stovall" <john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:ss3snso8kc76uv8rn...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:54:04 -0500, "Lenny Stover"
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The violation of basic rights are not the thing for sophomoric
> >> >> statements.
> >> >>
> >> >> Grow up and come back.
> >> >>
> >> >> IMHO, the Area Chief would be justified in shooting them on the
spot
> >> >> when Wade and LaCloche attacked his property.
> >> >>
> >> >paragraphs 1 and 3?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Please explain, even thought this has nothing to do with my post.
> >>
> >Sure, and no flame intended. Shooting a person for a property crime is a
> >violation of basic human rights, in that it states that protection of
> >inanimate property is more important than protection of human life.
> >
>
> Not in the Great State of Texas see our penal code. If you don't have
> a right to property you have no rights. Isn't your body and life your
> property?
>
"The land or property cannot be protected or *recovered* by *any* other
means" (emphasis mine).
So if you're insured, or there is *any* other means to recover your
property, you can't shoot.
I also note that the crimes covered in 9.42 (2) (A) are "arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime;" and do not include simple theft or
shoplifting, or for that matter, leaving a fish head on a chair.
While a Grand Jury may refuse to indict, we really don't want to gamble on
that, do we?
> That property was earned with the hours of ones life. He who steals
> my property steals my life. How would you feel about may say taking
> 5 years off your life span, 10 minutes, where do you draw the line?
>
Sure, I'll draw the line. Objects can be replaced, human life cannot. Off to
the side, I'll add that I've killed before, and come close on other
occaisions. Scrubbing graffitti left in the night does not even come close
to matching that act and its aftermath.
PW
N9NWO
: > >> statements.
: > >>
: > >> Grow up and come back.
: > >>
: > >> IMHO, the Area Chief would be justified in shooting them on the
spot
: > >> when Wade and LaCloche attacked his property.
: > >>
: > >Ummm...am I the only one who sees a fundamental contradiction between
: > >paragraphs 1 and 3?
: > >
: >
: >
: Sure, and no flame intended. Shooting a person for a property crime is a
: violation of basic human rights, in that it states that protection of
: inanimate property is more important than protection of human life.
The guy I work with had his bucket truck broken into Sunday
night. They took the carburetor (700 dual), the battery and cut
the battery cables. If he finds out who did this, he will harm them.
He has done this in the past. The last guy he used a pair of vise
grips on the guy's knuckles until he talked. Now the guy remembers
every time he uses that hand.
Look we work hard for our property. Insurance will not pay for
many things that stolen, especially if there is a deductible. What
gives these punks the right to violate us?
Do sometime like this to the criminal element and you will die
very horribly.
N9NWO
a
: > >violation of basic human rights, in that it states that protection of
: > >inanimate property is more important than protection of human life.
: >
: > Not in the Great State of Texas see our penal code. If you don't have
: > a right to property you have no rights. Isn't your body and life your
: > property?
: >
: Okay. Section 9.42 (3) (A) Deadly force to protect property...allowed
when
: "The land or property cannot be protected or *recovered* by *any* other
: means" (emphasis mine).
:
: So if you're insured, or there is *any* other means to recover your
: property, you can't shoot.
:
: I also note that the crimes covered in 9.42 (2) (A) are "arson, burglary,
: robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
: mischief during the nighttime;" and do not include simple theft or
: shoplifting, or for that matter, leaving a fish head on a chair.
:
: While a Grand Jury may refuse to indict, we really don't want to gamble
on
: that, do we?
Fuck the Grand Jury. Hell, half the murders in this country
are never solved anyway. If the criminal element can get
away with revenge, so can we.
Besides, with enough money you can get away with murder.
OJ did. So did Clinton.
: > That property was earned with the hours of ones life. He who steals
: > my property steals my life. How would you feel about may say taking
: > 5 years off your life span, 10 minutes, where do you draw the line?
: >
: Sure, I'll draw the line. Objects can be replaced, human life cannot. Off
to
: the side, I'll add that I've killed before, and come close on other
: occaisions. Scrubbing graffitti left in the night does not even come
close
: to matching that act and its aftermath.
Fuck with my property and I will kill you. Want to live,
keep away.
And if you think that is hard, try stealing from the
typical drug lord.
N9NWO
: >statements.
: >
: >Grow up and come back.
: >
: >IMHO, the Area Chief would be justified in shooting them on the spot
: >when Wade and LaCloche attacked his property.
:
: only to protect themselves and others in imminent danger of being
: killed. They are not justified in using deadly force to protect
: property, or to punish those who have already damaged property.
:
: I agree with the basic point expressed that cops have no business
: engaging in illegal activities. However, the horseplay described
: sounds more like something out of MASH--practical jokes. I had the
: impression that the car belonging to the Area Chief was a city
: vehicle, but looking back at the story, there is no clear indication.
Did you read the other two posts? One: MY FIRST... HIS LAST
was about her first shooting, four days out of the academy. The
other, NIGHT MOVES, was about responding to a shooting then
having to kill the girlfriend. Read them.
Peter White
Greg--two words: colon hydrotherapy.
PW
Gunner
wrote:
>>
>> Please explain, even thought this has nothing to do with my post.
>>
>Sure, and no flame intended. Shooting a person for a property crime is a
>violation of basic human rights, in that it states that protection of
>inanimate property is more important than protection of human life.
>
>PW
Hummm you define MY television as LESS valuable than the life of the strung
out brain burned addict that wants to steal it? MY Television? His life? Not
even a close match. He tries to steal it... he will find out exactly how much
value I place on his life. And it will be.. give the proper circumstances..
somewhat Less than that of the TV.
And, factor in.. all the hard goods that he has already stolen, all that he
WILL steal, and the folks that he will mug and terrorize, and perhaps even
kill.. and he comes out WAY short on the value end of the deal.
Gunner
--------------------------
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
Rosies Page http://rosie.acmecity.com/flower/277/
homepage http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/gunner
Gunner
>: Sure, I'll draw the line. Objects can be replaced, human life cannot. Off
>to
>: the side, I'll add that I've killed before, and come close on other
>: occaisions. Scrubbing graffitti left in the night does not even come
>close
>: to matching that act and its aftermath.
>
>Fuck with my property and I will kill you. Want to live,
>keep away.
>
>And if you think that is hard, try stealing from the
>typical drug lord.
Point, set and Match to N9
N9NWO
Might work. Plus it has the effect of being
a symbolic rape.
I still like using a cordless drill to do knee capping.
Lou Boyd
> Sure, and no flame intended. Shooting a person for a property crime is a
> violation of basic human rights, in that it states that protection of
> inanimate property is more important than protection of human life.
Each person should be the judge of the value their own life just as each
person knows the value of their own property. If you value your life
you'll leave my property alone since I have no reason to value your life
more than you do.
--
Lou Boyd
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "John A. Stovall" <john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:08dsns4eouvplf0u8...@4ax.com...
> > <pet...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"John A. Stovall" <john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > >news:ss3snso8kc76uv8rn...@4ax.com...
> > >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:54:04 -0500, "Lenny Stover"
> > >> <lst...@westerncom.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> statements.
> > >>
> > >> Grow up and come back.
> > >>
> > >> IMHO, the Area Chief would be justified in shooting them on the spot
> > >> when Wade and LaCloche attacked his property.
> > >>
> > >paragraphs 1 and 3?
> > >
> >
> >
> Sure, and no flame intended. Shooting a person for a property crime is a
> violation of basic human rights, in that it states that protection of
> inanimate property is more important than protection of human life.
>
ANY person who steals from me is, in essance, stealing the time which
it took for me to make or acquire that object. A person who subsists
on theft is morally no different than an 1800's slave owner.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
Noah Simoneaux
(piggybacking)
>>Sure, and no flame intended. Shooting a person for a property crime is a
>>violation of basic human rights,
Does he mean those fictitious rights which seem to evaporate when they
are taken away? I've always wondered about that. Seems funny for
people to go on and on about basic human rights or something like
that, and pretend that those rights mean something other than a
description of how we'd like things to be. The universe doesn't seem
to even pay any attention to rights, basic human or otherwise.
in that it states that protection of
>>inanimate property is more important than protection of human life.
Most thinking people decide for themselves what is important. Value,
as most people know, is subjective, and that includes relative value.
>Hummm you define MY television as LESS valuable than the life of the strung
>out brain burned addict that wants to steal it? MY Television? His life? Not
>even a close match. He tries to steal it... he will find out exactly how much
>value I place on his life. And it will be.. give the proper circumstances..
>somewhat Less than that of the TV.
Oh, no. You're not playing that liberal game. They hate it when you
refuse to play along with their game. If they can sneak some
assumptions past you they'll try to act as if those were proven facts
rather than unproven assumptions.
(snip)
Noah Simoneaux
Sergeant Rock
satire & turn a very funny fictional short story into something evil &
sinister. Back on you meds people.
Sgt. Rock
Panhead
What amazes me is that YOU have told others that you are a cop
for so long that even YOU believe it now!
Get a lobotomy.
Sergeant Rock
wrote:
When you care to put your money where your mouth is, get back to me.
Casper Milquetoast
Gunner wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:05:44 GMT, "Peter White" <pet...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Please explain, even thought this has nothing to do with my post.
> >>
> >Sure, and no flame intended. Shooting a person for a property crime is a
> >violation of basic human rights, in that it states that protection of
> >inanimate property is more important than protection of human life.
> >
> >PW
>
> Hummm you define MY television as LESS valuable than the life of the strung
> out brain burned addict that wants to steal it? MY Television? His life? Not
> even a close match. He tries to steal it... he will find out exactly how much
> value I place on his life. And it will be.. give the proper circumstances..
> somewhat Less than that of the TV.
>
> And, factor in.. all the hard goods that he has already stolen, all that he
> WILL steal, and the folks that he will mug and terrorize, and perhaps even
> kill.. and he comes out WAY short on the value end of the deal.
>
> Gunner
Precisely, Gunner. He's arguing that the "person" stealing your TV has a human
life that has human rights and some value.
Humans have jobs.
Humans work for a living, createing goods or providing services.
Humans are NOT parasites.
Anything that is a parasite cannot be human.
Any parasite is fair game.
Does a leech have human rights?
If not, why should a thief have human rights?
Don't be silly, Peter.
--Casper
Panhead
I'm ready.
Regarding what?
Your mental health bills?
That you are actually a law enforcement officer?
I have and carry more coins in one small pocket daily, that are
worth more than you earn in two weeks, pop-corn pusher.
Robert Frenchu
>On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:02:56 -0400, Panhead <panmy...@intac.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Private Pebbles, AKA Sergeant Rock wrote:
>>>
>>> What amazes me is how the kooks can not recognice a peice of fictional
>>> satire & turn a very funny fictional short story into something evil &
>>> sinister. Back on you meds people.
>>
>>What amazes me is that YOU have told others that you are a cop
>>for so long that even YOU believe it now!
>> Get a lobotomy.
>
>When you care to put your money where your mouth is, get back to me.
<yawn> Hey Rock, does the flashing Blue Light still trigger your
seizures?
--
Cool "Sgt. Rock" Quotes....
"Rock is my real name. You want me? Lets go."
"I'd enjoy giving you a sample of my wrath fat boy!"
"Bring it on maggot."
"May Santa bring you pukes a backbone. You need one.
Seasons beatings"
"I'll be the overdeveloped 6-6 guy with the crew cut"
"I knew you would run & hide. I'm here waiting punk."
"I'd love to cross paths with you."
"Yeah? You won't be laughing at my FIST!"
"Shut up punk! <slap>"
"I know a few broken ribs might change your attitude."
"I'll fix your fingers so you never type again."
"You need some busted up ribs bad!! Perhaps some broken fingers."
"You get in my neighborhood & I'll see you find out the hard way."
"Do you need to be smacked around to get it through your head?"
"You need to have the snot knocked out of you."
"Yeah? I grab you by the hair & ram your forehead agaist my badge so
hard it will leave my badge number imprinted right below the hair
line. Then ya can remember me."
"I could choke the dog shit out of you & throw your sorry ass in
jail after you broke the law & resisted arrest. Perhaps a baton
solo on your head."
"Well c'mon dude, let's gun fight. I'm calling you out. You want me?"
Frank Ney
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> to write:
>In alt.law-enforcement Lou Boyd <bo...@fairborn.dakotacom.net> wrote:
>: What's funny about police acting like gangsters and committing multiple
>: crimes?
>
>I'm wondering the same thing.
Indeed. I read this story and thought "Rampart Division."
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B LPWV NRA(L) ProvNRA GOA CCRKBA JPFO
--
"You don't expect governments to obey the law because of some
higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because
they know that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged."
-Michael Shirley
Just Say No to Gestapo Tactics http://www.freespeech.org/justsayno
Abuses by the BATF http://www.hamnet.net/~n4zhg/batfabus.html
L. Neil Smith for President! http://www.lns2000.org
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.12
GAT d- s:+ a35 C$ L++>++++$ P+ W++ N++ o-- K- w>--- O(++) M-
PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+ 5++ X+ R tv+ b+++ DI+++ UF++ D++ G e+*
h* r++ y?*
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
Jamie Petrone's hostage (Andrea Hall) yesterdsay in Orlando,
FL - Petrone at least had the good taste to commit suicide
shortly thereafter.
An eight year "veteran" of the Orlando Police Dept. and
"certified sniper" (?) managed to kill Petrone's hostage,
a relatively new tactic in police procedure - eliminating
the need for protracted and embarrassing stand-offs.
------------------------------------
Peter White
"Gunner" <gun...@cyberg8t.com> wrote in message
news:397f6346...@news.uia.net...
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:05:44 GMT, "Peter White" <pet...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Please explain, even thought this has nothing to do with my post.
> >>
> >Sure, and no flame intended. Shooting a person for a property crime is a
> >violation of basic human rights, in that it states that protection of
> >inanimate property is more important than protection of human life.
> >
> >PW
>
> Hummm you define MY television as LESS valuable than the life of the
strung
> out brain burned addict that wants to steal it? MY Television? His life?
Not
> even a close match. He tries to steal it... he will find out exactly how
much
> value I place on his life. And it will be.. give the proper
circumstances..
> somewhat Less than that of the TV.
>
I've watched more than one strung out brain burned addict breathe his last.
I've watched them die of overdoses, stabbings, shootings and sudden heart
attacks. And each and every time, I've seen the spark of humanity evaporate.
Your television? Millions like it, and if you really need to, you'll replace
it. His life? Absolutely unique, and it will never come again.
> And, factor in.. all the hard goods that he has already stolen, all that
he
> WILL steal, and the folks that he will mug and terrorize, and perhaps even
> kill.. and he comes out WAY short on the value end of the deal.
>
Rationalizing? We execute people now for what they *will* do? We execute
people for what they might have done? We make the leap from a stolen TV to
"perhaps even kill"? It sounds like you realize that the TV just isn't that
important, so you're looking for anything else you can hang on this guy.
Hoping that approach will ease your concience.
Look, I've been to war. That's not what we're talking about here. I've
killed as a LEO, and that was in defense of innocent life. I see a stark
difference between protecting the innocents and protecting an unfeeling
collection of wires. Maybe I look at it as not lowering those people who
need protection down to the level of the boob tube.
PW
> Gunner
Peter White
"Casper Milquetoast" <go...@barf.org> wrote in message
news:397EABB9...@barf.org...
>
>
> Gunner wrote:
> Precisely, Gunner. He's arguing that the "person" stealing your TV has a
human
> life that has human rights and some value.
>
> Humans have jobs.
> Humans work for a living, createing goods or providing services.
> Humans are NOT parasites.
> Anything that is a parasite cannot be human.
> Any parasite is fair game.
> Does a leech have human rights?
> If not, why should a thief have human rights?
>
It's more simple than all of that. Humans have souls.
PW
Sergeant Rock
wrote:
>> When you care to put your money where your mouth is, get back to me.
>
> That you are actually a law enforcement officer?
>
> I have and carry more coins in one small pocket daily, that are
>worth more than you earn in two weeks, pop-corn pusher.
When you are ready to put all that wealth where you mouth is, get back
to me..
Peter White
"Lou Boyd" <bo...@fairborn.dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:397E9F6D...@fairborn.dakotacom.net...
> Peter White wrote:
>
> > Sure, and no flame intended. Shooting a person for a property crime is a
> > violation of basic human rights, in that it states that protection of
> > inanimate property is more important than protection of human life.
>
> person knows the value of their own property. If you value your life
> you'll leave my property alone since I have no reason to value your life
> more than you do.
>
the other.
Sorry and sad that y'all (not just you, Lou) feel that way. You guys need to
know that this cop isn't going to shoot the guy fleeing with your TV. Nor,
on the other hand, am I going to shoot your kid for busting mailboxes with a
baseball bat.
PW
--
> Lou Boyd
Peter White
> >
> >Fuck with my property and I will kill you. Want to live,
> >keep away.
> >
> >And if you think that is hard, try stealing from the
> >typical drug lord.
>
> Point, set and Match to N9
Really? So, Gunner, why didn't you just shoot your ex? Committed a series of
property crimes, didn't she? Likely to do the same thing again, isn't she?
What's the difference?
There isn't a difference. And the same level of compassion that made you
respond to her bedside is the level which should be extended to all human
life.
PW
Marksman
"Panhead" <panmy...@intac.com> wrote in message
news:397F0BB0...@intac.com...
> Private Pebbles, AKA Sergeant Rock wrote:
> >
> > What amazes me is how the kooks can not recognice a peice of fictional
> > satire & turn a very funny fictional short story into something evil &
> > sinister. Back on you meds people.
> >
>
>
> What amazes me is that YOU have told others that you are a cop
> for so long that even YOU believe it now!
> Get a lobotomy.
>
Why waste your time with a K-Mart rent-a-cop?
Robert Frenchu
I see you are turning your nose up at this sniper's certification.
In today's world, just *try* to get a sniping job without
certification- it can't be done. And if you do somehow manage it,
it'll be with some podunk police department in some two horse
backwater of a town.
That's why I started
Bob's Close Cover Before Striking School of Sniping.
For only $29.95, you'll get extensive training in the art of sniping.
Best of all, you don't have to quit your present job, because we do it
all through the mail! When you complete your course, you get a
suitable-for-framing genuine Sniping Certificate with your choice of a
Grinning Death's Head or Lon Horiuchi.
These certificates are recognized by ALL law enforcement agencies in
the U.S. Enroll the whole family today!
--
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
Robert Frenchu
>When you are ready to put all that wealth where you mouth is, get back
>to me..
Ready for what, Rock? You know what happened the last time you tried
to get physical...
Gunner
<Robert_Frenchu*REMOVE*@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><yawn> Hey Rock, does the flashing Blue Light still trigger your
>seizures?
You mean he is a stock boy at K-Mart? Cool! Ive always wanted that job....
Panhead
I saw a weed wacker filament replacement pack there for sale and
thought he might be able to cut me a deal.
My bad.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> What's funny about police acting like gangsters and committing multiple
> something like that actually happened.
care to name any mention of a crime commtted by officers in the story?
Be specific.
Panhead
>
> Sgt...@rock.org (Sergeant Rock) wrote:
>
> >When you are ready to put all that wealth where you mouth is, get back
> >to me..
>
> Ready for what, Rock?
I asked the same thing.
>You know what happened the last time you tried
> to get physical...
Yer not gonna mention that thing in the public bathroom where he
and George Michales....eewwww!
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "N9NWO" <21...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:ZQsf5.2151$fd7.4...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
>
> Greg--two words: colon hydrotherapy.
>
> PW
Do you, peter white, have a feces fixation...
Prince Imrahil
Robert Frenchu <Robert_Frenchu*REMOVE*@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> <snip>
> These certificates are recognized by ALL law enforcement agencies in
> the U.S. Enroll the whole family today!
LOL! I got my "sniper's" degree from Sally Struthers a few years back. I
tell you what man, I can't shoot any straighter because of it, but when I
dick around and kill and innocent person I just show my gold highlighted
"sniper's" degree and it's like a get out of jail free card baby!
Let's say your in a hurry to get to the donut shop for a taxpayer
subsidized free meal. It's just a huge hassle to wait and wait in line for
up to several minutes! Do what I do. Illegally enter and take over an
apartment or any room across the street (visibility is sorta important, but
not so much). Next, get your patented "sniper's" high powered rifle (I
ordered mine from Daymark for 3 payments of $19.95 plus a one time shipping
fee of $8.95) and just shoot all the people in line ahead of you! Sure,
there's bound to be some collateral damage, but that's the price you pay
when your america's finest. You might even hit all the people working there
and not have to bother with filling out your hand-out free meal forms!
David
Aaron R. Kulkis
And of exactly what value is the soul of a parasite?
Peter White
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@alt.net> wrote in message
news:397F3E58...@alt.net...
> Peter White wrote:
> >
> > "N9NWO" <21...@gte.net> wrote in message
> > news:ZQsf5.2151$fd7.4...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> >
> > Greg--two words: colon hydrotherapy.
> >
> > PW
>
> Do you, peter white, have a feces fixation...
>
PW
Peter White
>
> And of exactly what value is the soul of a parasite?
>
Nor yours.
Bill
figured - "they're both are civilians so I can't go wrong shooting ether
one. Plus I'm a cop they can't do more then slap me on the wrist if
it's the wrong one."
Henry Glenworthy wrote:
> Another Lon Horiuchi Sniper School graduate blew away
> Jamie Petrone's hostage (Andrea Hall) yesterdsay in Orlando,
> FL - Petrone at least had the good taste to commit suicide
> shortly thereafter.
>
> An eight year "veteran" of the Orlando Police Dept. and
> "certified sniper" (?) managed to kill Petrone's hostage,
> a relatively new tactic in police procedure - eliminating
> the need for protracted and embarrassing stand-offs.
>
> ------------------------------------
Frank Ney
White" <pet...@worldnet.att.net> to write:
>> > Greg--two words: colon hydrotherapy.
>> >
>> > PW
>>
>> Do you, peter white, have a feces fixation...
>>
>Naw, I just thought that he could stand a good scrubbing. :)
With a half-molar lye solution...
Frank Ney
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@alt.net> to write:
>> What's funny about police acting like gangsters and committing multiple
>> crimes? They are our employees and should be fired and jailed if
>> something like that actually happened.
>
>care to name any mention of a crime commtted by officers in the story?
>
>Be specific.
I'll start off with two counts of vandalism.
Robert Frenchu
Rob Robertson
>
> "Henry Glenworthy" <Henry Glenw...@xteleport.com> wrote:
>
> >Another Lon Horiuchi Sniper School graduate blew away
> >Jamie Petrone's hostage (Andrea Hall) yesterdsay in Orlando,
> >FL - Petrone at least had the good taste to commit suicide
> >shortly thereafter.
> >
> >An eight year "veteran" of the Orlando Police Dept. and
> >"certified sniper" (?) managed to kill Petrone's hostage,
> >a relatively new tactic in police procedure - eliminating
> >the need for protracted and embarrassing stand-offs.
>
>
> In today's world, just *try* to get a sniping job without
> certification- it can't be done. And if you do somehow manage it,
> it'll be with some podunk police department in some two horse
> backwater of a town.
>
> That's why I started
>
> Bob's Close Cover Before Striking School of Sniping.
>
> For only $29.95, you'll get extensive training in the art of sniping.
> Best of all, you don't have to quit your present job, because we do it
> all through the mail! When you complete your course, you get a
> suitable-for-framing genuine Sniping Certificate with your choice of a
> Grinning Death's Head or Lon Horiuchi.
You mean,... there's a difference?
> These certificates are recognized by ALL law enforcement agencies in
> the U.S. Enroll the whole family today!
>
> --
>
> If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
> And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
> Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
_
RR
John A. Stovall
<pet...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@alt.net> wrote in message
>news:397F3FF1...@alt.net...
>>
>> And of exactly what value is the soul of a parasite?
>>
>Not my place to say.
>
>Nor yours.
Why not?
*****************************************************
"Keep clear of the dupes that talk democracy
And the dogs that talk revolution,
Drunk with talk, liars and belivers.
I believe in my tusks..........."
Stars Go over the Lonely Ocean
Robinson Jeffers
John A. Stovall
<pet...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
snipped
>It's more simple than all of that. Humans have souls.
Proof please? If he has an immortal soul, killing him doesn't have
much effect does it.
Lou Boyd
>
> "Lou Boyd" <bo...@fairborn.dakotacom.net> wrote in message
> news:397E9F6D...@fairborn.dakotacom.net...
> > Peter White wrote:
> >
> > > Sure, and no flame intended. Shooting a person for a property crime is a
> > > violation of basic human rights, in that it states that protection of
> > > inanimate property is more important than protection of human life.
> >
> > Each person should be the judge of the value their own life just as each
> > person knows the value of their own property. If you value your life
> > you'll leave my property alone since I have no reason to value your life
> > more than you do.
> >
> Fascinating that we find the cop on the one side, and the good citizens on
> the other.
>
> Sorry and sad that y'all (not just you, Lou) feel that way. You guys need to
> know that this cop isn't going to shoot the guy fleeing with your TV. Nor,
> on the other hand, am I going to shoot your kid for busting mailboxes with a
> baseball bat.
There are a lot of excellent, upstanding, and moral law enforcement
officers. They are in the majority with only a small percentage of bad
ones. The problem I have is the way the good ones tend to try to
protect the bad ones when they're discovered and especially when they're
not publicly discovered. Police should recognize that a person can be a
criminal whether they're wearing a uniform or not. I would think good
police would be the first to condem the bad ones but that doesn't seem
to be the way it works.
I don't think that we're on different sides. No, I won't shoot someone
for stealing my tv or busting a mailbox either. I would shoot someone
who has broken into my house if that person is a threat to my or my
family's safety. They do not have to have already harmed my wife,
daughter, or myself. Perhaps their intent was only to steal the TV.
I'm not a mindreader and won't take that chance. You as a police
officer are very unlikey to be at my house to protect me. Dialing 911
and cowering in the corner until you arrive is not adequate. I would
expect you to protect your family in your house though. If you're not
home I hope your wife can protect herself. In those cases the life of
the trespasser is of far less significance than the life of our
families. Maybe you don't feel that way, but if you don't I feel sorry
for your wife and children.
Lou Boyd
>
> Lou Boyd wrote:
> >
> > What's funny about police acting like gangsters and committing multiple
> > crimes? They are our employees and should be fired and jailed if
> > something like that actually happened.
>
> care to name any mention of a crime commtted by officers in the story?
supervisors car. At least it would dramatically lower the car's
value. The car was probably city property, not that it matters. Did I
miss something?
Michael Zarlenga
:> What's funny about police acting like gangsters and committing multiple
:> crimes? They are our employees and should be fired and jailed if
:> something like that actually happened.
: care to name any mention of a crime commtted by officers in the story?
Destruction of property.
: Be specific.
Dumping two buckets of fetid fish remains into a car.
Is that specific enough?
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Jerry Watson
But you'd have the time to run down to WallMart to buy a gun off of the rack
were it not for those stinking 3 or 7 day waiting periods for background
checks, eh? Maybe it would help save time if you could order a Saturday
night special over the phone, and have it delivered like a Domino's pizza?
How about if the Commies parachute into your back yard, have you taken the
time to install the punji stakes, or are you going to do that at the last
minute too?
jdw
Panhead
>
> Panhead <panmy...@intac.com> wrote:
>
> >Robert Frenchu wrote:
> >>
> >> Sgt...@rock.org (Sergeant Rock) wrote:
> >>
> >> >When you are ready to put all that wealth where you mouth is, get back
> >> >to me..
> >>
> >> Ready for what, Rock?
> >
> > I asked the same thing.
> >
> >>You know what happened the last time you tried
> >> to get physical...
> >
> >Yer not gonna mention that thing in the public bathroom where he
> >and George Michales....eewwww!
> >
>
> One word... "Baaaaaa aa aa aa aa!"
Oh!
"That" thing.
Did that fence ever get repaired?
Peter White
"Lou Boyd" <bo...@fairborn.dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:397F57B8...@fairborn.dakotacom.net...
> There are a lot of excellent, upstanding, and moral law enforcement
> officers. They are in the majority with only a small percentage of bad
> ones. The problem I have is the way the good ones tend to try to
> protect the bad ones when they're discovered and especially when they're
> not publicly discovered.
My experience is not representative of the entire nation. But, what I see
most often from cops is a hesitancy to pass judgement until definitive facts
are in. After that, they're quite vocal. No one I know wants to work with
someone who's brutal, or a thief, or what-have-you. And I especially don't
want those people policing my family's community, or responding to my
mother's call for assistance.
Police should recognize that a person can be a
> criminal whether they're wearing a uniform or not. I would think good
> police would be the first to condem the bad ones but that doesn't seem
> to be the way it works.
>
> I don't think that we're on different sides. No, I won't shoot someone
> for stealing my tv or busting a mailbox either. I would shoot someone
> who has broken into my house if that person is a threat to my or my
> family's safety. They do not have to have already harmed my wife,
> daughter, or myself. Perhaps their intent was only to steal the TV.
I agree completely. Anyone who forces his way into an occupied structure is
a clear threat to the occupants. Weapons abound, from the poker in the
fireplace to kitchen knives, to the screwdriver he used in busting the lock.
You're foolish to bet your kids on his harmless intent.
> I'm not a mindreader and won't take that chance. You as a police
> officer are very unlikey to be at my house to protect me. Dialing 911
> and cowering in the corner until you arrive is not adequate. I would
> expect you to protect your family in your house though. If you're not
> home I hope your wife can protect herself. In those cases the life of
> the trespasser is of far less significance than the life of our
> families. Maybe you don't feel that way, but if you don't I feel sorry
> for your wife and children.
>
I don't feel that way at all; see above. That scenario isn't a case of
protecting the TV, it's a case of protecting the occupants. What, something
like 1/2 the houses in the US have firearms? What is the mindset of the man
who forces his way into an occupied home with that kind of stat? If it can
be done in safety, maybe he gets a warning. But regardless, he gets stopped
before he can touch the residents.
PW
Sergeant Rock
<bo...@fairborn.dakotacom.net> wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>>
>> Lou Boyd wrote:
>> >
>> > What's funny about police acting like gangsters and committing multiple
>> > crimes? They are our employees and should be fired and jailed if
>> > something like that actually happened.
>>
>> care to name any mention of a crime commtted by officers in the story?
>
>Destruction of property by the dumping of rotten fish into their
>supervisors car. At least it would dramatically lower the car's
>value. The car was probably city property, not that it matters. Did I
>miss something?
>
Yeah, it was a fictional story...
Lou Boyd
> But you'd have the time to run down to WallMart to buy a gun off of the rack
> were it not for those stinking 3 or 7 day waiting periods for background
> checks, eh? Maybe it would help save time if you could order a Saturday
> night special over the phone, and have it delivered like a Domino's pizza?
>
> How about if the Commies parachute into your back yard, have you taken the
> time to install the punji stakes, or are you going to do that at the last
> minute too?
If the Commies parachute into my back yard they're probably comming to
negotiate a purchase of superior firearms :-)
Gunner
wrote:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@alt.net> wrote in message
>news:397F3FF1...@alt.net...
>>
>> And of exactly what value is the soul of a parasite?
>>
>Not my place to say.
>
>Nor yours.
>
>PW
Ill tell you what. We can let the Supreme being sort out the value of the
deceased individuals soul. We can assume that the Supreme being will return
the soul to the next level of incarnation, or hell, or heaven. Its the
corporeal body we are forced to deal with. His soul, can not harm or help me..
but his body can.
Gunner
>>
>> --
>> Aaron R. Kulkis
>> Unix Systems Engineer
>> ICQ # 3056642
>>
>
>
--------------------------
Gunner
wrote:
>
>"Gunner" <gun...@cyberg8t.com> wrote in message
>news:397f6346...@news.uia.net...
>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:05:44 GMT, "Peter White" <pet...@worldnet.att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Please explain, even thought this has nothing to do with my post.
>> >>
>> >Sure, and no flame intended. Shooting a person for a property crime is a
>> >violation of basic human rights, in that it states that protection of
>> >inanimate property is more important than protection of human life.
>> >
>> >PW
>>
>> Hummm you define MY television as LESS valuable than the life of the
>strung
>> out brain burned addict that wants to steal it? MY Television? His life?
>Not
>> even a close match. He tries to steal it... he will find out exactly how
>much
>> value I place on his life. And it will be.. give the proper
>circumstances..
>> somewhat Less than that of the TV.
>>
>Yes, I do define your television as less valuable that his life. You see,
>I've watched more than one strung out brain burned addict breathe his last.
>I've watched them die of overdoses, stabbings, shootings and sudden heart
>attacks. And each and every time, I've seen the spark of humanity evaporate.
>Your television? Millions like it, and if you really need to, you'll replace
>it. His life? Absolutely unique, and it will never come again.
And so are wild flowers, snowflakes, puppies at the pound being euthanized,
and grains of sand. I didnt force that individual to harm me. I didnt force
that individual to harm others. He made those choices himself. He, considers
his needs to be of more import than the rights of others, so not only shows
contempt for society as a whole, but for individuals he harms.
I too have killed in war, and as a LEO. Ive held a dying child in my arms, as
well as a dying comrade, and the crying weeping widow of a shop keeper as he
lay dead on the floor of his store..killed by a petty thief with a heroin
addiction.
90% of all crimes are commited by repeat offenders..that 10% hardcore
untreatable, unredeemable. Thinning that group out, when necessary, makes life
much easier on society as a whole...
Your BS about killing for what he MIGHT do.. was not my intent.. but for what
he was currently doing.. and based on documentable data.. the chances of him
continuing on and on and on in his depridations.. are great.
You put down rabid dogs, and for the same reasons..
Fault? It was not the fault of the mad dog he became a danger to society. But
it IS the fault of that criminal. He made certain choices, largely based on
the risk factor of his actions. His actions, to him are seldom risky. Hence
multi-multi repeat offenders. If you terminate him, in the act of a crime
against you.. he will never harm another again.
And before you start babbling about killing people for stealing apples from
street corners.. consider this: in the sceanario given.. the theft of my TV
set...
He has to enter my home, my castle to do it.
He has to know, that doing so, brings the risk of being caught by the
homeowner.
He knows that in most places.. the risk is to the homeowner.. as he will do
whatever is necessary to prevent being caught, or brought to justice.
Including killing the homeowner.
He made all those choices freely before he entered my home.He consiously made
the decision to harm ME if caught violating my most sacred place... my home.
At this point.. he made the decision, to become OUTLAW.. outside the
protections of the law and bounds of society, and disregard my home, my life,
my property. He chose to disregard the framework of society as well. He chose
to become a danger to myself, my family, and society.
>
>> And, factor in.. all the hard goods that he has already stolen, all that
>he
>> WILL steal, and the folks that he will mug and terrorize, and perhaps even
>> kill.. and he comes out WAY short on the value end of the deal.
>>
>Rationalizing? We execute people now for what they *will* do? We execute
>people for what they might have done? We make the leap from a stolen TV to
>"perhaps even kill"? It sounds like you realize that the TV just isn't that
>important, so you're looking for anything else you can hang on this guy.
>Hoping that approach will ease your concience.
I have no need to rationalize. I only have the need to protect myself, my
family, and society. I have NO need to 'hang something else on this guy". We
are not talking about some 13yr old on a dare, but a career criminal. Deal
with it.
>Look, I've been to war. That's not what we're talking about here. I've
>killed as a LEO, and that was in defense of innocent life. I see a stark
>difference between protecting the innocents and protecting an unfeeling
>collection of wires. Maybe I look at it as not lowering those people who
>need protection down to the level of the boob tube.
>
>PW
>> Gunner
And maybe, I do not look at it as elevating those people whom are dangers to
myself, and my family, to the level of the boob tube.. the "poor misguided"
"cant help themselves" "its not their fault" " unique individuals"
Every mad dog, every deranged sun struck scorpion is a unique individual as
well. Its sad, that they must be dealt with. Its sad, that some individuals in
our society have placed themselves in such a position as well.. but the need
to deal with them, is no less significant.
I do appreciate where you are coming from. Truely. But I also have a valid
side to the story. I have not advocated purges, pograms etc.. but the dealing,
with a mad dog. Your values are as valid as mine, and based on perhaps
different concepts of humanity. You believe in the basic goodness of the
individual, and most people have some goodness in them.I too believe in the
basic goodness of the human species.
Even Jeffery Dahmer was loved by the kids he performed in his clown suit for.
Does the value of Jeffery Dahmer, to society, go up or down, when balanced by
the many people he tortured, mutilated, killed and ate? After all.. he had
some good in him...
Its individuals we are dealing with.. and in any species.. there are
individuals, whom need putting down.Sad but true.
Deal with it.
Gunner
Gunner
wrote:
>> Point, set and Match to N9
>
>Really? So, Gunner, why didn't you just shoot your ex? Committed a series of
>property crimes, didn't she? Likely to do the same thing again, isn't she?
>What's the difference?
>
>There isn't a difference. And the same level of compassion that made you
>respond to her bedside is the level which should be extended to all human
>life.
>
>PW
My wife.. bless her pointy little head.. is not a career criminal. She makes
no point to disregard the life, rights and safety of society as a whole. Our
hypothetical tv stealer does..see my other posts on this.
The likely hood of my ex-commiting other crimes against others, is virtually
nil. We cannot say that about our hypothetical criminal can we?
Frank Ney
Boyd <bo...@fairborn.dakotacom.net> to write:
>There are a lot of excellent, upstanding, and moral law enforcement
>officers. They are in the majority with only a small percentage of bad
>ones. The problem I have is the way the good ones tend to try to
>protect the bad ones when they're discovered and especially when they're
>not publicly discovered.
Then they are, by definition, not "good."
They are part of the problem.
N9NWO
: > >>
: > >Sure, and no flame intended. Shooting a person for a property crime is
a
: > >violation of basic human rights, in that it states that protection of
: > >inanimate property is more important than protection of human life.
: > >
: > >PW
: >
: > Hummm you define MY television as LESS valuable than the life of the
strung
: > out brain burned addict that wants to steal it? MY Television? His
life? Not
: > even a close match. He tries to steal it... he will find out exactly
how much
: > value I place on his life. And it will be.. give the proper
circumstances..
: > somewhat Less than that of the TV.
: > And, factor in.. all the hard goods that he has already stolen, all
that he
: > WILL steal, and the folks that he will mug and terrorize, and perhaps
even
: > kill.. and he comes out WAY short on the value end of the deal.
: > Gunner
:
: Precisely, Gunner. He's arguing that the "person" stealing your TV has a
human
: life that has human rights and some value.
A good number of humans have no value what so ever.
It might have been better that they been aborted. All
we are doing is an retroactive abortion.
: Humans have jobs.
: Humans work for a living, createing goods or providing services.
: Humans are NOT parasites.
: Anything that is a parasite cannot be human.
: Any parasite is fair game.
: Does a leech have human rights?
: If not, why should a thief have human rights?
:
: Don't be silly, Peter.
good points.
Noah Simoneaux
>There isn't a difference. And the same level of compassion that made you
>respond to her bedside is the level which should be extended to all human
>life.
I certainly hope you'd feel the same way if you lived next door to
some of the better specimens of criminal we have. Maybe someone like
Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy?
Noah Simoneaux
Not For Smoking!
<zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>In alt.law-enforcement Lou Boyd <bo...@fairborn.dakotacom.net> wrote:
>: What's funny about police acting like gangsters and committing multiple
>: crimes?
>
>I'm wondering the same thing.
I'm sure the Ramparts cops felt just like Insane Fish.
DEBBIE KOWALSKI
"Noah Simoneaux" <no...@yournet.com> wrote in message
news:397fd6a...@news.preferred.com...
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:45:26 GMT, "Peter White"
> <pet...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> (snip)
>
> >There isn't a difference. And the same level of compassion that made you
> >respond to her bedside is the level which should be extended to all human
> >life.
>
> I certainly hope you'd feel the same way if you lived next door to
> some of the better specimens of criminal we have. Maybe someone like
> Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy?
>
protection of property. For simplicity's sake, we've been using a
hypothetical TV. Nowhere have I ever suggested that one should give up the
right of self-defense, or defense of an innocent third party.
Cannibals/serial murderers don't even come into the picture...
Back to the follies....
PW
DEBBIE KOWALSKI
Ah. So by taking your TV, he's actually harming *you*. You'll have the
hospital and doctor bills to show this? Oh, not a *physical* injury...you
mean, then that you'll be seeking mental health care. No, of course not.
Some spiritual retreat to a monastary is in order, then.
I know that you meant none of the above. But I find it telling that you use
the same verbage for a missing TV as I might for a broken bone. It's just a
TV. It isn't an extension of your being. We can rebuild it, we have the
technology.
I didnt force
> that individual to harm others. He made those choices himself. He,
considers
> his needs to be of more import than the rights of others, so not only
shows
> contempt for society as a whole, but for individuals he harms.
>
Again, you project human qualities on inanimate objects. The stolen goods
become "individuals" he harms. The priorities you're describing, the
equivalences you've drawn, are simply wrong.
> I too have killed in war, and as a LEO. Ive held a dying child in my arms,
as
> well as a dying comrade, and the crying weeping widow of a shop keeper as
he
> lay dead on the floor of his store..killed by a petty thief with a heroin
> addiction.
>
Right. I believe you. (Really, no sarcasm at all.) But that being the case,
how can you put *things* on the same level as comrades, children and
shopkeepers? "I'll avenge my comrades."--perfectly reasonable. "I won't rest
until I find the scum who took your child's life"--I'm with you, maybe even
leading the way. "I'll track down and kill the man with your TV, if it's the
last thing I do."---whoops, lost me on that one.
> 90% of all crimes are commited by repeat offenders..that 10% hardcore
> untreatable, unredeemable. Thinning that group out, when necessary, makes
life
> much easier on society as a whole...
Right. "When necessary". When we protect and preserve the lives of
innocents. Justice is built on a *balance*, a redressing of wrongs. There's
no balance in equating property with people.
> Your BS about killing for what he MIGHT do.. was not my intent.. but for
what
> he was currently doing.. and based on documentable data.. the chances of
him
> continuing on and on and on in his depridations.. are great.
Ummm, I thought it was your BS. And you did it again when you morphed from
"currently doing" into "chances of him continuing".
> You put down rabid dogs, and for the same reasons..
> Fault? It was not the fault of the mad dog he became a danger to society.
But
> it IS the fault of that criminal. He made certain choices, largely based
on
> the risk factor of his actions. His actions, to him are seldom risky.
Hence
> multi-multi repeat offenders. If you terminate him, in the act of a crime
> against you.. he will never harm another again.
>
> And before you start babbling about killing people for stealing apples
from
> street corners.. consider this: in the sceanario given.. the theft of my
TV
> set...
Is *that* the only hang-up you and I are having? See below.
> He has to enter my home, my castle to do it.
> He has to know, that doing so, brings the risk of being caught by the
> homeowner.
> He knows that in most places.. the risk is to the homeowner.. as he will
do
> whatever is necessary to prevent being caught, or brought to justice.
> Including killing the homeowner.
> He made all those choices freely before he entered my home.He consiously
made
> the decision to harm ME if caught violating my most sacred place... my
home.
>
> At this point.. he made the decision, to become OUTLAW.. outside the
> protections of the law and bounds of society, and disregard my home, my
life,
> my property. He chose to disregard the framework of society as well. He
chose
> to become a danger to myself, my family, and society.
>
Frankly, I agree with most of what you've written above, but might have
phrased it differently. Someone who would enter an occupied home, given the
number of armed households, given the obvious reactions of parents when
children are threatened, given the number of weapons laying about (kitchen
knives, etc) is a clear and present danger to everyone in the structure. He
should be dealt with swiftly, before he has the chance to so much as touch a
resident.
But all that deals with the innocent people present. When he's running down
the street, carrying that 21" Sony, it's different. He's no threat to anyone
at that point. Shooting him just to protect that property is right out.
See, now you're talking about dangers to people, and I'm fully with you.
And, before you get too huffy, I have never referred to misguided, helpless
or faultless criminals. "Unique", yes, but you've agreed on that point.
> Every mad dog, every deranged sun struck scorpion is a unique individual
as
> well. Its sad, that they must be dealt with. Its sad, that some
individuals in
> our society have placed themselves in such a position as well.. but the
need
> to deal with them, is no less significant.
>
> I do appreciate where you are coming from. Truely. But I also have a valid
> side to the story. I have not advocated purges, pograms etc.. but the
dealing,
> with a mad dog. Your values are as valid as mine, and based on perhaps
> different concepts of humanity. You believe in the basic goodness of the
> individual, and most people have some goodness in them.I too believe in
the
> basic goodness of the human species.
> Even Jeffery Dahmer was loved by the kids he performed in his clown suit
for.
> Does the value of Jeffery Dahmer, to society, go up or down, when balanced
by
> the many people he tortured, mutilated, killed and ate? After all.. he had
> some good in him...
>
Nit--John Wayne Gacy was the clown. Jeff was the drugging homosexual rapist
cannibal murdered in prison.
> Its individuals we are dealing with.. and in any species.. there are
> individuals, whom need putting down.Sad but true.
> Deal with it.
>
Naturally, I have dealt with it.
PW
DEBBIE KOWALSKI
merely have a failure to communicate.
If the selection of a hypothetical TV immediately caused you to start
thinking home invasion, innocent residents inside, no time to sing "Kumbya",
then it was a poor example.
I wrote: "Shooting a person for a property crime is a violation of basic
human rights, in that it states that protection of inanimate property is
more important than protection of human life."
My point was that we do not shoot down thiefs, vandals or what-have-you
purely in the defense of property. It never entered my mind that the above
statement might be thought to apply to an invasion of an occupied home. More
along the lines of seeing Johnny Doper running away with your Sony in hand.
OTOH, if you think Tennesse v Garner was a mistake, and clerks should just
cap shoplifters when the exit alarm sounds, we can continue.
PW
Don Barzini
"N9NWO" <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
>
> A good number of humans have no value what so ever.
> It might have been better that they been aborted.
Indeed, greggie. Starting with you.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Noah Simoneaux
<b-d.ko...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
(snip)
>Okay, let's try again. My argument was with respect to killing people in
>protection of property. For simplicity's sake, we've been using a
>hypothetical TV. Nowhere have I ever suggested that one should give up the
>right of self-defense, or defense of an innocent third party.
>Cannibals/serial murderers don't even come into the picture...
That's the problem, though. If someone breaks into your house some
night they won't be wearing a nametag saying, "Hi, I'm Bob, and I'm
Just Here for your TV".
Even without that problem, I see no reason I should value a burglar's
life more than I value my TV. Value is subjective, and people keep
basing their argument on human life's "absolute" value, which doesn't
exist, except in our imaginations. If human life was special to the
universe it wouldn't be as easy to kill us as it is to kill the other
animals. For example, if a human and a dog walk in front of a fast
moving car, both stand a very good chance of being killed.
Noah Simoneaux
<b-d.ko...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
(snip)
>Ah. So by taking your TV, he's actually harming *you*.
Not physically, but he is taking from you something you cannot
replace, the time it took to buy that tv and the time it takes to
replace it.
You'll have the
>hospital and doctor bills to show this? Oh, not a *physical* injury...you
>mean, then that you'll be seeking mental health care. No, of course not.
>Some spiritual retreat to a monastary is in order, then.
I don't generally worry about spiritual things, and it doesn't look
like most criminals do either.
>I know that you meant none of the above. But I find it telling that you use
>the same verbage for a missing TV as I might for a broken bone. It's just a
>TV. It isn't an extension of your being. We can rebuild it, we have the
>technology.
You can replace it, but you can't replace the time it costs you.
TANSTAAFL applies here, too. Someone stealing your property is
stealing your time.
(snip)
>Again, you project human qualities on inanimate objects. The stolen goods
>become "individuals" he harms. The priorities you're describing, the
>equivalences you've drawn, are simply wrong.
Are they? Do you have a priority ruler? Since value is subjective his
can't be any more wrong than anyone else's. People usually decide for
themselves what they value, since they generally pay the consequences
of that choice.
>Right. I believe you. (Really, no sarcasm at all.) But that being the case,
>how can you put *things* on the same level as comrades, children and
>shopkeepers? "I'll avenge my comrades."--perfectly reasonable. "I won't rest
>until I find the scum who took your child's life"--I'm with you, maybe even
>leading the way. "I'll track down and kill the man with your TV, if it's the
>last thing I do."---whoops, lost me on that one.
Yet you still call his choice wrong? By implication that would mean
your choice is right? I'd like to see some proof of that, since I've
never seen any evidence proving any value is objective.
(snip)
>Right. "When necessary". When we protect and preserve the lives of
>innocents. Justice is built on a *balance*, a redressing of wrongs. There's
>no balance in equating property with people.
Apparently, balance is subjective, too.
(snip)
>But all that deals with the innocent people present. When he's running down
>the street, carrying that 21" Sony, it's different. He's no threat to anyone
>at that point. Shooting him just to protect that property is right out.
Only out of the lines you've chosen to draw. People often forget that
the lines we draw aren't real.
>> >Rationalizing? We execute people now for what they *will* do? We execute
>> >people for what they might have done? We make the leap from a stolen TV
>to
>> >"perhaps even kill"? It sounds like you realize that the TV just isn't
>that
>> >important, so you're looking for anything else you can hang on this guy.
>> >Hoping that approach will ease your concience.
(snip)
>> I do appreciate where you are coming from. Truely. But I also have a valid
>> side to the story. I have not advocated purges, pograms etc.. but the
>dealing,
>> with a mad dog. Your values are as valid as mine, and based on perhaps
>> different concepts of humanity. You believe in the basic goodness of the
>> individual, and most people have some goodness in them.I too believe in
>the
>> basic goodness of the human species.
Now that's something that is very subjective. Human history shows that
humans are not that good, at least not that I can tell.
>> Even Jeffery Dahmer was loved by the kids he performed in his clown suit
>for.
Yeah, and he loved the kids too. :/
>> Does the value of Jeffery Dahmer, to society, go up or down, when balanced
>by
>> the many people he tortured, mutilated, killed and ate? After all.. he had
>> some good in him...
I'd rate Dahmer's value as somewhere in the negative value area.
(snip)
Noah Simoneaux
<b-d.ko...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Okay Gunner, having waded through that last tome, it occurs that we may
>merely have a failure to communicate.
>
>If the selection of a hypothetical TV immediately caused you to start
>thinking home invasion, innocent residents inside, no time to sing "Kumbya",
>then it was a poor example.
>
>I wrote: "Shooting a person for a property crime is a violation of basic
>human rights, in that it states that protection of inanimate property is
>more important than protection of human life."
No matter how many times you repeat that one it doesn't make it more
true. Importance is subjective, and where we choose to draw that line
is up to each of us until someone comes up with an Importance Ruler.
>
>My point was that we do not shoot down thiefs, vandals or what-have-you
>purely in the defense of property. It never entered my mind that the above
>statement might be thought to apply to an invasion of an occupied home. More
>along the lines of seeing Johnny Doper running away with your Sony in hand.
>
>OTOH, if you think Tennesse v Garner was a mistake, and clerks should just
>cap shoplifters when the exit alarm sounds, we can continue.
Most people consider shooting someone in their home a different matter
from shooting someone in a store.
Bill Vojak
: Another Lon Horiuchi Sniper School graduate blew away
: Jamie Petrone's hostage (Andrea Hall) yesterdsay in Orlando,
: FL - Petrone at least had the good taste to commit suicide
: shortly thereafter.
Bonner County ID just asked an appeals judge to re-evaluate
the ruling preventing them from prosecuting Horiuchi. Bonner
County ID really really wants to put Horiuchi in jail on
manslaughter or murder charges.
Bill Vojak
Panhead
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:23:52 GMT, "DEBBIE KOWALSKI"
> <b-d.ko...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Okay Gunner, having waded through that last tome, it occurs that we may
> >merely have a failure to communicate.
> >
> >If the selection of a hypothetical TV immediately caused you to start
> >thinking home invasion, innocent residents inside, no time to sing "Kumbya",
> >then it was a poor example.
> >
> >human rights, in that it states that protection of inanimate property is
> >more important than protection of human life."
>
> true. Importance is subjective, and where we choose to draw that line
> is up to each of us until someone comes up with an Importance Ruler.
> >
> >My point was that we do not shoot down thiefs, vandals or what-have-you
> >purely in the defense of property. It never entered my mind that the above
> >statement might be thought to apply to an invasion of an occupied home. More
> >along the lines of seeing Johnny Doper running away with your Sony in hand.
> >
> >OTOH, if you think Tennesse v Garner was a mistake, and clerks should just
> >cap shoplifters when the exit alarm sounds, we can continue.
>
> Most people consider shooting someone in their home a different matter
> from shooting someone in a store.
Indeed. IMHO, if somebody comes into my house while I'm there,
without permission, or with the intent to steal my "stuff" I'm
gonna shoot them.
I'll let a jury decide the outcome instead of the coroner.
After all, why should I have to take the chance that the
criminal is just going to stop with taking my stuff?
Casper Milquetoast
DEBBIE KOWALSKI wrote:
I don't think you're getting what's being said here.
Our lives are composed of seconds, of minutes, of hours. We trade those
seconds/minutes/hours for things that we want and need to survive. A TV is an
example. In order to buy it, I had to work. Probably, oh, ten hours or so,
depending on how NICE a TV it is.
The guy taking the TV is taking MORE than just a TV. He is taking those ten
hours, ten hours I cannot get back no matter how much nicotine I avoid, no
matter how much beef I refuse. And he is taking my dignity. And he is taking
away the innocence of my little boy, who, at age three, feels pretty safe in his
environment.
Your bad guy is a bad guy. If he wants to continue living, all he has to do is
get a job like a real person. Until he does, he's not a real person. He's just
a parasite. If I could just spray for these human parasites and be confident
that that would keep them away, I would. But that doesn't work. In fact,
nothing -- not incarceration, not severe talking to, not restriction of THEIR
rights -- has ever worked as well at keeping away these human parasites as the
threat of death.
So "threat of death" it is.
Unless you personally wish to guarantee that anything stolen from my home will
be replaced by YOU, including my dignity and the innocence of my son, my
suggestion is that you don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
>
> I didnt force
> > that individual to harm others. He made those choices himself. He,
> considers
> > his needs to be of more import than the rights of others, so not only
> shows
> > contempt for society as a whole, but for individuals he harms.
> >
> Again, you project human qualities on inanimate objects. The stolen goods
> become "individuals" he harms. The priorities you're describing, the
> equivalences you've drawn, are simply wrong.
>
Inanimate objects? To which to you refer? "Individuals?" "Others?"
The thief isn't harming the TV. But he IS harming the victim of the theft.
If you don't think so, can I have your TV? Not even if I stick a gun up your
nose? (Not that I would...because I HAVE A JOB!)
>
> > I too have killed in war, and as a LEO. Ive held a dying child in my arms,
> as
> > well as a dying comrade, and the crying weeping widow of a shop keeper as
> he
> > lay dead on the floor of his store..killed by a petty thief with a heroin
> > addiction.
> >
> Right. I believe you. (Really, no sarcasm at all.) But that being the case,
> how can you put *things* on the same level as comrades, children and
> shopkeepers? "I'll avenge my comrades."--perfectly reasonable. "I won't rest
> until I find the scum who took your child's life"--I'm with you, maybe even
> leading the way. "I'll track down and kill the man with your TV, if it's the
> last thing I do."---whoops, lost me on that one.
>
It's got nothing to do with "things".
I believe I understand now. You simply are willing to put up with anything, any
type of abuse, in order to avoid damaging another human being. Man, that'll be
convenient. They would have loved you in Warsaw in WWII. The SS wouldn't even
have needed guns. They would have just linked arms and marched toward the
trains to the camps, and you would have felt compelled to get in the train
rather than pick up a rock and use it on one of them.
Have you heard the term "sheeple", dear?
>
> > 90% of all crimes are commited by repeat offenders..that 10% hardcore
> > untreatable, unredeemable. Thinning that group out, when necessary, makes
> life
> > much easier on society as a whole...
>
> Right. "When necessary". When we protect and preserve the lives of
> innocents. Justice is built on a *balance*, a redressing of wrongs. There's
> no balance in equating property with people.
>
True. And there's no balance in equating the GUILTY with the INNOCENT.
Criminals VOLUNTARILY give up any rights they had previous to becoming
criminals.
>
> > Your BS about killing for what he MIGHT do.. was not my intent.. but for
> what
> > he was currently doing.. and based on documentable data.. the chances of
> him
> > continuing on and on and on in his depridations.. are great.
>
> Ummm, I thought it was your BS. And you did it again when you morphed from
> "currently doing" into "chances of him continuing".
Please look up the current recidivism rate. People who commit crimes and get
away with it continue committing crimes until stopped. And, no, prison isn't
stopping them. Guns occasionally stop them on a permanent basis and FREQUENTLY
stop them on a temporary basis.
Tell me: what is YOUR solution. Do pick something that hasn't been tried and
proven useless, just to be innovative, won't you?
Legally, that would be true. Morally? I doubt it. There's an old saying, a
riddle:
"A thief is shot in the night. Whose hand is on the bow?"
The answer, of course, is that the thief's hand is on the bow. He has chosen to
disregard the law, therefore the law shouldn't be used as a shield to protect
him.
Not really.
Somewhere, out there, some guy is sitting there with a 21" Sony. And he's
thinking, "Well, that was easy. I could get anything this way! I'm going to
get a gun next time and go after the really good stuff. Hell, lots of people
don't lock their doors when they're home. It would save a lot of time if I
could just grab one of the kids, stick a gun up the kid's nose and make Mommy
and Daddy tell me where the goodies are!"
Every kid that ended up as an adult that took hostages was once an innocent.
Somewhere along the way, they started stealing small. But when they decide to
move up in the world, they start to steal big. People get in the way. People
get hurt.
Save your compassion for people who don't prey on others in ANY sense. I don't
give a crap if they're stealing Fort Knox or ten bucks from the church poor
box: every crime they get away with, every time someone doesn't stop them just
gives them encouragement. And they stop worrying about the victims getting
hurt.
--Casper
--For pete's sake, this is so simple, I can't understand why you're not getting
it.
Old Biker
>
> Bonner County ID just asked an appeals judge to re-evaluate
> the ruling preventing them from prosecuting Horiuchi. Bonner
> County ID really really wants to put Horiuchi in jail on
With all due sympathy for those wanting to put Horiuchi in jail, I still
don't understand why nobody is putting forth a similar effort toward
punishing the BATF agent who set this whole fiasco in motion to get
revenge on Weaver for refusing to snitch for him. He's the one who told
the federal marshals that Weaver was a Green Baret with an army of
skinheads and that lie led them to adopt inappropriate tactics that got
both Sammy Weaver and Marshal Deagan killed. Then he repeated that lie,
precipitating the engagement orders that led Horiuchi to kill Ms Weaver.
If there is a culprit, he's it ... anybody recall his name? See what I
mean?
Chas
>Then he repeated that lie,
> precipitating the engagement orders that led Horiuchi to kill Ms Weaver.
> If there is a culprit, he's it ... anybody recall his name? See what I
> mean?
Wouldn't that be a capital crime?
Similar thing in Denver; It looks like Joseph Bini, a patrol officer,
gave at least two perjured affidavits that resulted in death and injury
(both on the same day)- the first was the swat raid on Ismael Mena
(resulting in his death- innocent man, wrong house; lots witness
conflicts about what happened) and another swat raid later in the day
against a 72 yr. old woman (wrong house, no dope).
He's being tried for perjury, but with a death as the result of a felony
in progress, isn't that capital murder?
Oh yeah, and his snitch too-
Chas
http://members.xoom.com/kilap/Keepsafe.htm
http://members.xoom.com/kilap/cane.html
http://members.xoom.com/kilap/monkey.html http://www.kuntaosilat.com/
http://members.tripod.lycos.com/coloradojail/index.htm
Julian
<pet...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Gunner" <gun...@cyberg8t.com> wrote in message
>news:39806465...@news.uia.net...
>> >
>> >Fuck with my property and I will kill you. Want to live,
>> >keep away.
>> >
>> >And if you think that is hard, try stealing from the
>> >typical drug lord.
>>
>> Point, set and Match to N9
>
>Really? So, Gunner, why didn't you just shoot your ex? Committed a series of
>property crimes, didn't she? Likely to do the same thing again, isn't she?
>What's the difference?
>
>There isn't a difference. And the same level of compassion that made you
>respond to her bedside is the level which should be extended to all human
>life.
>
>PW
>
>
Even Gary Graham's? life? F him.
JD
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@alt.net> wrote in message
> news:397F3FF1...@alt.net...
> >
> > And of exactly what value is the soul of a parasite?
> >
> Not my place to say.
If the parasite is leeching off of me, I have every right
to take whatever action is necessary to relieve myself of
the burdens he is placing upon me.
Hint: Nobody has a right to enslave me by stealing from me.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:35:22 -0400, an orbiting mind control laser caused
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@alt.net> to write:
>
> >> What's funny about police acting like gangsters and committing multiple
> >> something like that actually happened.
> >
> >care to name any mention of a crime commtted by officers in the story?
> >
>
> I'll start off with two counts of vandalism.
what part of NAME THE CRIME do you not understand.
You have not pointed out any crime, you have merely named
the classification of a crime.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Lou Boyd wrote:
> > >
> > > crimes? They are our employees and should be fired and jailed if
> > > something like that actually happened.
> >
> > care to name any mention of a crime commtted by officers in the story?
>
> supervisors car.
Did they dump it into the vehicle? or did they merely place
a container of fish in the vehicle.
The fact is, it wasn't stated. My guess is, they put a trash
bag in the back seat.
> At least it would dramatically lower the car's
> value. The car was probably city property, not that it matters. Did I
> miss something?
Yeah, you missed where you made an assumption by following your
imagination and then alleging that what you imagined was written
in the text.
>
> --
> Lou Boyd
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Aaron R. Kulkis <aku...@alt.net> wrote:
> :> What's funny about police acting like gangsters and committing multiple
> :> crimes? They are our employees and should be fired and jailed if
> :> something like that actually happened.
>
> : care to name any mention of a crime commtted by officers in the story?
>
>
> : Be specific.
>
> Dumping two buckets of fetid fish remains into a car.
That was your imagination.
Where does it state that they "dumped" the fish into the car.
All that is said is that they purchased the fish, intending to
use them to make an odor in the supervisor's vehicle.
This task can just as easily be accomplished by putting the fish
in a heavy-duty garbage bag, and placing it in the back seat.
>
> Is that specific enough?
Not hardly.
You failed to specifically cite the commision of the act.
>
> --
> -- Mike Zarlenga
Frank Ney
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@alt.net> to write:
>> >care to name any mention of a crime commtted by officers in the story?
>> >
>> >Be specific.
>>
>> I'll start off with two counts of vandalism.
>
>what part of NAME THE CRIME do you not understand.
>
>You have not pointed out any crime, you have merely named
>the classification of a crime.
Thirty days in the box for being an asshole.
*PLONK*
Walter Daniels
<john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:49:24 -0500, "Lenny Stover"
><lst...@westerncom.net> wrote:
>>John A. Stovall wrote in message ...
>>>The violation of basic rights are not the thing for sophomoric
>>>statements.
First of all, you need to understand the *concept* of loyalty. It
means a *reciprocal* relationship. That means any "leader" who expects
loyalty and action from subordinates, is *required* to extend the same
behavior to them. WRiting someone up for "unofiicial pen," is not
"loyalty." it is sheer terrorism.
Not that I would under any circumstances _condone_ such behavior,
but it results in something called "fragging." In a situation, where
you expect subordinates (or buddies, for that matter) to protect you,
you don't "chicken s--t" them. You want them to just as interested in
protecting you, as you are. In practical terms that means you stop
"CS" nonsense, not commit it.
If you reverse what is _supposed to happen, you have "mistakes" in
dangerous situations. If it gets bad enough, someone "loses" an armed
grenade, into a tent or bunker.The problem is that some "leaders" have
forgotten where their "loyalties" should be. In the case of police, it
is to the *citizens, and fellow officers,* _not_ to politicians.
Politicians will cut them loose, in a time closely approximating 10 to
minus 20th seconds (so close to instantaneous, as to be irrelevant).
No politicians are out there dealing with the public, for them. It is
the "officers" they mistreat, who do so.
The "Chief" in question has already lost control, and should have
quit. But he was obviously so "dense," he needed an "invitation" to
make the correct decision. _I_ would have been terrified to be in a
gunfight/hostage situation, if I were he. I don't agree with the
"actions" described, but they could have been a lot less "friendly."
>>What's this? A friggin politician?
>>>Grow up and come back.
>>Fish rule!!
>>>IMHO, the Area Chief would be justified in shooting them on the spot
>>>when Wade and LaCloche attacked his property.
>>It wasn't his property, dickwad...it was city property. And he was the
>>warlord of the Insane Fish anyway, so he had it coming. Turned his back on
>>his fellow fishes, no loyalty, I say! Writing up a street cop because he
>>doesn't have an "official pen in his official shirt pocket?" Hummmph! He
>>swims with the fishes no more.
>>
>>IMPERIAL WESTSIDE GANGSTER GUPPIES !!!
>>FISH RULE !!
>
>Property is Property. Once you cross that line you are just part of
>the problem.
Considering that he had already passed the point of "seeing the t--d
floating in a punchbowl," he needed a wake up call. Cleaning up "fish
guts," is better than a dead officer. In HR terms, it is called
programmed action. If hints done't work, you tell them outright. If
that doesn't work, you give them time off. In this cases, subordinates
were put at risk, and therefore *his own* was, as well.
>******************************************************************
>"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed,
>law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at,
>controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by
>creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom or the virtue to do so. To be
>governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted,
>registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed,
>licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed,
>corrected, punished."
> Pierre Proudhon
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Walter Daniels FBN Graphics prints specialties in small quantities at
reasonable prices. Express your interests with a Custom printed T-shirt,
mug, mousepad, or carry bag. We cheerfully print in quantities as small
as one. Contact: fbng...@indy.net http://www.digiserve.com/fbngraphics/
Enter the bi-monthly design survey, and win a free mug.
Walter Daniels
<pet...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Casper Milquetoast" <go...@barf.org> wrote in message
>news:397EABB9...@barf.org...
>> Gunner wrote:
>> Precisely, Gunner. He's arguing that the "person" stealing your TV has a
>human
>> life that has human rights and some value.
>No, Casper, you miss it.
>It's more simple than all of that. Humans have souls.
Yes they do. However, they also have the "right" to pay for
excessively stupid behavior. ESB, is definewd as doing something
dangerous, without regard for *objective* consequences.
Now, I consider it Moderately Stupid Behavior, to leap out of
perfectly sound airplanes, with a piece of nylon, on your back. It
becomes ESB, when you do so, with a parachute *an unknown someone else
packed.* Breaking into homes, stealing purses/wallets/etc. is at
_best_, MSB. You run the risk that someone may take exception to your
actions.
If that person "takes exception" to your stealing/assault, you
cannot blame _them_, for *your* consequences. You decided to commit
the act, and disregarded the possible outcomes. Committing an ESB act,
often results in a local, "chlorination of the gene pool." I have no
obligation, to protect you, from the folly of your own actions. God
gave you *free will,* for just such a purpose.
>PW
Jerry Watson
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@alt.net> wrote in message
news:398119D0...@alt.net...
> a TV, then he has stolen the TIME that the owner took to earn whatever
> money it took to purchase that TV set.
>
> Thus, theft is slavery.
>
> Are you saying that those who practice slavery should be allowed to
> live?
>
>
> >
> > I didnt force
> > > that individual to harm others. He made those choices himself. He,
> > considers
> > > his needs to be of more import than the rights of others, so not only
> > shows
> > > contempt for society as a whole, but for individuals he harms.
> > >
> > Again, you project human qualities on inanimate objects. The stolen
goods
> > become "individuals" he harms. The priorities you're describing, the
> > equivalences you've drawn, are simply wrong.
>
>
> a TV, then he has stolen the TIME that the owner took to earn whatever
> money it took to purchase that TV set.
>
> Thus, theft is slavery.
>
> Are you saying that those who practice slavery should be allowed to
> live?
> a TV, then he has stolen the TIME that the owner took to earn whatever
> money it took to purchase that TV set.
>
> Thus, theft is slavery.
>
> Are you saying that those who practice slavery should be allowed to
> live?
You steal a lot of time by wasting a lot of people's time when they first
come on your posts and try to figure out what point you're trying to make.
How many times have you read "Catcher in the Rye?"
jdw
dc...@cheetah.net
<shra...@REMOVEenteract.com> wrote:
>In article <398104a0...@news.uia.net>, Gunner
>
>Personally, I am undecded as to what I should do, in such a case.
>
>If it takes me one week of work to earn the money to buy a television,
>is not the theft of that television equivalent to enslaving me for a
>week? I worked, he took what I worked for...
>
>OTOH, I really do not want to go to jail for the rest of my life over a
>television. ..........
The longer the periods of any
indecision occurs during a criminal
act, the easier it gets for the
criminal and the worse it gets for
the victim, both in numbers and the
pain it causes.
DCI
John A. Stovall
wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:26:32 +0100, John A. Stovall
><john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:49:24 -0500, "Lenny Stover"
>><lst...@westerncom.net> wrote:
>>>John A. Stovall wrote in message ...
>
>>>>The violation of basic rights are not the thing for sophomoric
>>>>statements.
>
> First of all, you need to understand the *concept* of loyalty.
I under strand the concepts of Honneur et Fidélité very well but not
illegal acts. That is why there isn't a 1st REP today.
What about "under law" don't you understand?
*****************************************************
"Keep clear of the dupes that talk democracy
And the dogs that talk revolution,
Drunk with talk, liars and belivers.
I believe in my tusks..........."
Stars Go over the Lonely Ocean
Robinson Jeffers
Gunner
<b-d.ko...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>Frankly, I agree with most of what you've written above, but might have
>phrased it differently. Someone who would enter an occupied home, given the
>number of armed households, given the obvious reactions of parents when
>children are threatened, given the number of weapons laying about (kitchen
>knives, etc) is a clear and present danger to everyone in the structure. He
>should be dealt with swiftly, before he has the chance to so much as touch a
>resident.
>
>But all that deals with the innocent people present. When he's running down
>the street, carrying that 21" Sony, it's different. He's no threat to anyone
>at that point. Shooting
I suspect... that we are on the same wave length.. but my poor attempts at
communication may have led us astray. I personally... would not shoot to kill
that individual, while he was running away with my hypothetical TV.. but if it
were legal.. I would shoot to stop him. Fleeing Felon etc.
I am quite comfortable with the "reasonable fear for your life" OR " Home
Invader" test for the use of deadly force.
However... if I were to catch said individual making legbail with said
applience.. and administered less than lethal "street justice", I feel that I
would be justified as well. On a practical and street wise level, it makes
mondo sense. Fear is the only deterent to most carreer criminals. And as we
are all aware.. fear of the Justice System, in most cases, is not any
significant deterent. Provably and demonstritivly.. fear of the homeowner is.
Witness the rise of Hot Burglaries in the UK, as opposed to the reduction of
HBs in states that have now loosened the requirements for the use of deadly
force (and have the armed population to carry it out) on burglars/Home
Invaders. Study after study, and poll after poll of criminals in prision have
repeatedly shown that the perp is far more afraid of the armed homeowner than
the Justice/LE system.
The problem with your concept of property values vs human life.. is not
necessarily the intrinsic value of the stolen item.. but the deeper core
ingrediants that make up the value system of the burglar. Sure, he wants
ideally to target a home that is not occupied, and may case the place to
insure that it appears to be unoccupied before entering. But... he knows fully
well, that he may wind up encountering a day-sleeper, etc. And takes that
chance. By making it far far more risky to make ANY attempt, said perp is far
less likly to make the attempt in the first place. If Joe Bobs buddy Sam gets
wacked doing a B&E, Joe Bob is far less likely to do the next one.
Ive never suggested hunting the TV Bandit down and sniping him from long
range,, or killing him in front of his family etc, but.. suggested that
shooting him in the commision of the "property" crime may not only be proper
in many cases, but desireable to society as a whole.
Regards
Allen James
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:11:17 GMT, "DEBBIE KOWALSKI"
> <b-d.ko...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >>
> >Frankly, I agree with most of what you've written above, but might have
> >phrased it differently. Someone who would enter an occupied home, given the
> >number of armed households, given the obvious reactions of parents when
> >children are threatened, given the number of weapons laying about (kitchen
> >knives, etc) is a clear and present danger to everyone in the structure. He
> >should be dealt with swiftly, before he has the chance to so much as touch a
> >resident.
> >
> >But all that deals with the innocent people present. When he's running down
> >the street, carrying that 21" Sony, it's different. He's no threat to anyone
> >at that point. Shooting
>
> I suspect... that we are on the same wave length.. but my poor attempts at
> communication may have led us astray. I personally... would not shoot to kill
> that individual, while he was running away with my hypothetical TV.. but if it
> were legal.. I would shoot to stop him. Fleeing Felon etc.
> I am quite comfortable with the "reasonable fear for your life" OR " Home
> Invader" test for the use of deadly force.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:54:00 GMT, fbng...@indy.net (Walter Daniels)
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:26:32 +0100, John A. Stovall
> ><john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:49:24 -0500, "Lenny Stover"
> >><lst...@westerncom.net> wrote:
> >>>John A. Stovall wrote in message ...
> >
> >>>>The violation of basic rights are not the thing for sophomoric
> >>>>statements.
> >
> > First of all, you need to understand the *concept* of loyalty.
>
> I under strand the concepts of Honneur et Fidélité very well but not
You know some asshole is losing when he has to start posing as
an intellectual because he pulls the French version of a common
word to try to appear as an intellectual.
Here's the deal.
If you can't talk aboutg "HONOR" and "FIDELITY", but instead,
must resort to Honneur et Fidélité, then you've fucking lost.
HANG IT UP, LOSER!
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Noah Simoneaux" <no...@yournet.com> wrote in message
> news:397fd6a...@news.preferred.com...
> > On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:45:26 GMT, "Peter White"
> > <pet...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > (snip)
> >
> > >There isn't a difference. And the same level of compassion that made you
> > >respond to her bedside is the level which should be extended to all human
> > >life.
> >
> > some of the better specimens of criminal we have. Maybe someone like
> > Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy?
> >
> Okay, let's try again. My argument was with respect to killing people in
> protection of property.
PROPERTY THEFT IS SLAVERY.
If someone lives their entire life stealing from others, then he
is treating everybody as slaves, whose sole purpose is to give
him stuff "I want it, you have it, it's fucking mine."
Fuck that. Such individual deserve to die.