On the other side of the coin

[Spidey]

Not if you are at home.

It’s a well known fact that the vast majority of home burglaries happen when nobody is home, therefore the idea that the intruder just might be after you and not your TV is much greater.

And nobody has the time to figure out if that person who just crawled thru your basement window is after you or just a dumbass that doesn’t realize that someone is home.

[woodchip]

vision, If you were a woman and a man broke into your house with God knows what intent, I'm sure you'd rethink that opinion. If I were a man however, I'd be more likely to tackle and beat the crap out of the guy instead of killing him, then let the law deal with him properly afterwards. If that intruder breaks in and is armed, the situation changes drastically. Shoot first and ask questions later.

oh this old chestnut again.

Most people who break into your home just want your TV.

And now you expect homeowners to be mind readers. Nice way to get killed. I wonder if you understand what Castle Doctrine law is. Anyone who breaks into a home does so with the knowledge they might forfeit their life.

[callmeslick]

the Castle Doctrine is an excuse to shoot Black People, at least in practice. The arguments for adoption of same are based on the same paranoia around breakins, when it has been long proven that virtually ALL break-ins are with the intent to steal small portable objects of value. In other words, the Castle Doctrine is used to apply a death sentence to petty theft.

[callmeslick]

of course, if you support for President someone who wanted to execute an innocent 15 year old, Woody's position is consistent:

Reason #112 that Donald Trump isn't fit to be called human, let alone Mr President:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... e-new-york

[Sergeant Thorne]

the Castle Doctrine is an excuse to shoot Black People, at least in practice. The arguments for adoption of same are based on the same paranoia around breakins, when it has been long proven that virtually ALL break-ins are with the intent to steal small portable objects of value. In other words, the Castle Doctrine is used to apply a death sentence to petty theft.

The Castle Doctrine is to protect the homeowner from legal repercussions, in the event they have to shoot an intruder. Within the last 5 years there was a break-in within a block from my house, and he was shot by the elderly gentleman who lives in the home because he advanced instead of retreating (after kicking in the door). I am a fan of the Castle Doctrine (and Stand Your Ground), because I've heard of other cases where it dragged on and was a huge hassle for the homeowner, with the anti-firearm political climate working to peg them as some sort of murder, just for protecting their own property and life! No one is forcing these assholes to break into people's homes. You want to live in a state with the Castle Doctrine... don't break-and-enter. That was easy. There is no justification, and there should be no down-playing of breaking-and-entering.

[callmeslick]

so, breaking and entering should be a capital offense with no trial, Thorne? Sorry, I'll pass.

[Tunnelcat]

vision, If you were a woman and a man broke into your house with God knows what intent, I'm sure you'd rethink that opinion. If I were a man however, I'd be more likely to tackle and beat the crap out of the guy instead of killing him, then let the law deal with him properly afterwards. If that intruder breaks in and is armed, the situation changes drastically. Shoot first and ask questions later.

oh this old chestnut again.

Most people who break into your home just want your TV.

Really? Sometimes people go bonkers, then break into your home, stab you to death just for being in the way, and then take your car. One of the victims in the home this guy broke into was an 80 year old lady who was no threat at all and she died for just being in this guy's way.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dining-o ... d=39034337

so, breaking and entering should be a capital offense with no trial, Thorne? Sorry, I'll pass.

Yes. Any homeowner must assume the worst if someone is breaking into their home. Better them than you.

[callmeslick]

don't get me wrong, TC, I'm not suggesting inviting them to stay and have muffins. I am suggesting that legally justifying murder isn't a good exercise either, especially when we end up with Stand Your Ground giving us the death of Treyvon Martin and others, and the Castle Doctrine being promoted by bigots and gun nuts. It is time for our society to chill out, not go paranoid.

oh, and from the post above, it would seem that you don't grasp the meaning of the word 'most'. Just because some rare outlier makes the news(precisely because the event WAS a rare outlier) doesn't mean that MOST break-ins aren't about quickly grabbing portable valuables. I'd suspect those make up OVER 99% of all break-ins, which translates into 'most'.

[Sergeant Thorne]

so, breaking and entering should be a capital offense with no trial, Thorne? Sorry, I'll pass.

Breaking and entering shouldn't be at all. You totally twist the issue. I untwisted it for you once. Law-abiding citizens should have the protection of the law in defense of their property and their lives, and shouldn't be subject to lengthy prosecution (punishment). Trials serve a purpose when a crime is committed outside of the courtroom. When you break into someone's home in a state with the Castle Doctrine, you're in the court room, and you are guilty. Best to fall on your face in a very non-threatening way and plead with the jury before the hammer falls on the judge. Here's a winning idea for everyone looking to live a long and happy life: don't even go there... A person's home is their sanctuary, and a place of safety. No one should be violating that, and no one should be asking you to allow or show leniency toward future violations.

The problem is not the Castle Doctrine, it's a society that coddles criminality (like you're doing here). If this can be seen as a law that targets and kills black people, then there is a serious problem, and it isn't with this law... Offering statistics on the live-ability of being a victim who offers no effective resistance just makes you guys a really pathetic part of the problem.

[Spidey]

I think calling someone acting in what they believe to be self-defense a murderer is a little extreme.

Don’t ya think…..nahhhh, because that’s the way you like to play things.

[woodchip]

oh, and from the post above, it would seem that you don't grasp the meaning of the word 'most'. Just because some rare outlier makes the news(precisely because the event WAS a rare outlier) doesn't mean that MOST break-ins aren't about quickly grabbing portable valuables. I'd suspect those make up OVER 99% of all break-ins, which translates into 'most'.

You would suspect wrong (as usual):

A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglar-
ies and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

So I have to wonder slick, how many people followed your advice and mis-information where you posted this absolute crap. You want to be one of the 266k, thats your business, Just don't try to influence other people by coming up with ignorant facts like you know what you are talking about.

[callmeslick]

So, I read your link, in its entirety, and when you take all break-ins, attempted and completed, of all types, the incidence of assault, which in most cases is 'Simple Assault', which can be as little as verbal threat or pushing, is around 3.2%, not 1% as I suggested. From there, you extrapolate into fantasy boogie-man scenarios. Want my full advice? ★■◆● the weapon and get a dog. That simple.

[Ferno]

Really? Sometimes people go bonkers, then break into your home, stab you to death just for being in the way, and then take your car. One of the victims in the home this guy broke into was an 80 year old lady who was no threat at all and she died for just being in this guy's way.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dining-o ... d=39034337

While reading the story, did you not notice that this spree took place in three different areas? And the collision happened beforehand, in his own car? And that he checked himself into a hospital the day before?

No. You didn't. Did you?

This isn't a case of someone 'going bonkers'. No, this is a guy with a serious mental health issue, who had an episode when he was involved in a collision. Not to mention, he's only a part of a group of 23 people in the entire united states with a serious problem. So your chances of meeting someone like that are infinitesimally small.

You're letting a perceived threat get the better of you. And what you've said does not negate my point.

----------

Castle Doctrine law hangs on the word 'reasonably', which means proof beyond a shadow of a doubt must be demonstrated to both judge and jury in order for the defendant to be acquitted of murder or manslaughter.

How this law is used to acquit people of shooting unarmed persons, who CLEARLY have shown that they present no threat is something that will be disussed and debated for some time.

[Top Gun]

All things being equal, I'd much rather defend my property with the business end of a Louisville Slugger. Far less potential for inadvertent murder or self-harm.

[woodchip]

So, I read your link, in its entirety, and when you take all break-ins, attempted and completed, of all types, the incidence of assault, which in most cases is 'Simple Assault', which can be as little as verbal threat or pushing, is around 3.2%, not 1% as I suggested. From there, you extrapolate into fantasy boogie-man scenarios. Want my full advice? ★■◆● the weapon and get a dog. That simple.

Want my advice slick, learn to read better. What part of the 266k were victims of violent crimes do you not understand?

[Ferno]

Want my advice slick

no one wants your advice.

[Sergeant Thorne]

All things being equal, I'd much rather defend my property with the business end of a Louisville Slugger. Far less potential for inadvertent murder or self-harm.

Home run! There's always the possibility that you're bringing a Louisville Slugger to a gunfight... That would be a sinking feeling.

[callmeslick]

I don't know.....there have been times, after reading here for a bit, where self-harm would have been entirely possible
had I left a baseball bat laying around.

[vision]

A good beating, or a bullet, followed by jail time would do more good than all of the romantic and "compassionate" words you could get out...

Just like Jesus would do? Dishing out "tough-love" is something simple-minded people practice. Sorry, that's not the way forward for better civilization.

It's very important to understand that some actions are deserving of death...

I can't think of a single thing that is worthy of death. I'm not someone swayed by primitive feelings like revenge. I also don't give up on people as easily as most, and I think everything can be forgiven.

Myself, I pretty much draw the line for compassion at attempting to harm another person.

This is exactly the line where being compassionate is most important.

Christian morality is not a free pass for evil men to do whatever they want, or a reversal of Old Testament judgements. Jesus Christ set an example when he died for us (to save us from Buddhism, among other things, BTW)...

Ok, that's just funny. I don't even know how to respond to something so silly.

Someone who threatens another person's life, unprovoked, hasn't just made a bad decision, they have gone so far down the wrong road that they are in danger of being deserving of DEATH themselves.

Yeah, that might have been a popular idea in the past but today we have a wealth of research to explain some of our behaviors and it what causes us to make one decision over another.

[Ferno]

It's very important to understand that some actions are deserving of death...

Anyone else smelling the double standards here?

[Tunnelcat]

No. You didn't. Did you?

This isn't a case of someone 'going bonkers'. No, this is a guy with a serious mental health issue, who had an episode when he was involved in a collision. Not to mention, he's only a part of a group of 23 people in the entire united states with a serious problem. So your chances of meeting someone like that are infinitesimally small.

You're letting a perceived threat get the better of you. And what you've said does not negate my point.

Yes, the guy had serious mental issues. Yes, our great and grand capitalist medical system failed him miserably. I'm sorry this country treats mentally ill people so shoddily. But this guy did crash his car into someone's home, then broke into that house and then killed one 80-year old defenseless woman and seriously wounded her daughter, then stole THEIR car (since he wrecked the one he was driving when he crashed into their house) and drove on to a mall and proceeded to kill and maim even more people before an off-duty policeman shot him dead. You'll notice that the guy IS STILL DEAD at the hands of law enforcement. Since our system in the U.S. doesn't have any good treatment for those who are mentally ill, they're more likely to be shot by the police, die in jail, or killed by a homeowner defending him or herself. That's our sad current state of affairs.

I'm not saying it's right to kill mentally ill people. It's a horrible fact that we as a civilized nation now throw out on the streets those who are mentally ill or sick, or worse, dump them into prison. What would be right is to have a medical system that could help them out and give them a better life before they assault or kill other people. Since we don't currently have a system like that, nor can we currently afford one anyway, most of these mentally ill people that attack other people will invariably be shot and killed by the police or rot in jail. If they break into a home, any homeowner in their right mind will defend themselves if possible. If that means shooting the intruder, so be it. It's my life and the life of my family's against theirs when it comes down to brass tacks. I will not allow myself to be willfully be assaulted or murdered by anyone who breaks into my domicile, mentally ill or not.

[Ferno]

so you're upset that mentally ill people don't get the treatment they deserve, but don't really care that you may have to shoot a mentally ill person.

I don't think you have the right to get pissed off at law enforcement if they shoot a mentally ill person with that contradictory stance.


the problem I see here is there's this assumption being demonstrated that anyone who breaks into your home is hell bent on the sole purpose of ending your life. And using a freak incident as justification just makes me shake my head.

Real life is NOT a hollywood action flick. You're not going to be dealing with Raoul, Burnham and Junior.

Hell, look at it this way TC. If you did shoot someone dead in your home and it turned out they were coerced into doing it, under the influence, or in some way not in control of their own actions, would you be happy with killing someone's son or daughter? How would you explain it to their bereaved mother that you just took away their family member?

[Spidey]

And on the other side of the coin, and to be fair…nobody here has stated that they are just going to shoot first and ask questions second. (look at the stats woody posted…most intruders leave the premises alive and well.)

I for one would never shoot someone for trying to steal from me, or simply being in my home…but after giving fair warning to vacate the premises, and the intruder continuing forward instead…I will shoot to kill.

[vision]

…I will shoot to kill.

One day I hope you work your way up to "shoot to incapacitate," especially if you've had a reasonable amount of time to confront someone.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Just to throw it out there, so we're not being irresponsible here: "shoot to incapacitate" is probably not something a shooting instructor would ever recommend, because when someone is closing the distance in spite of your drawn weapon, not shooting for "center mass" is a terrible risk. Being accurate on a moving target in a high-stress situation with most pistols is the stuff of movies.

This kind of thing is for people who are trained in being awesome, and have put in a minimum of 200 hours watching old westerns.

[Ferno]

nobody here has stated that they are just going to shoot first and ask questions second. (look at the stats woody posted…most intruders leave the premises alive and well.)

really?

Explain this, then.

I will not allow myself to be willfully be assaulted or murdered by anyone who breaks into my domicile, mentally ill or not.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Good job, detective Ferno... there's no conflict there.

[Ferno]

Good job, detective Ferno... there's no conflict there.

It's hilarious when someone says that no one made a certain claim that can be seen by all. It's like the light is red and they act like it's green.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Her statement does not preclude a verbal warning or ultimatum, Ferno.

[Ferno]

Her statement does not preclude a verbal warning or ultimatum, Ferno.

what are you talking about?

[Tunnelcat]

so you're upset that mentally ill people don't get the treatment they deserve, but don't really care that you may have to shoot a mentally ill person.

I don't think you have the right to get pissed off at law enforcement if they shoot a mentally ill person with that contradictory stance.


the problem I see here is there's this assumption being demonstrated that anyone who breaks into your home is hell bent on the sole purpose of ending your life. And using a freak incident as justification just makes me shake my head.

Real life is NOT a hollywood action flick. You're not going to be dealing with Raoul, Burnham and Junior.

Hell, look at it this way TC. If you did shoot someone dead in your home and it turned out they were coerced into doing it, under the influence, or in some way not in control of their own actions, would you be happy with killing someone's son or daughter? How would you explain it to their bereaved mother that you just took away their family member?

If someone broke into my house while I was at home, the first thing I'd do is arm myself if I had the forewarning or the opportunity. If the intruder refused to leave, I would attempt to hold him or her at gunpoint for the police. If that person charged at me or my family, I would shoot them without hesitation, period, because I value my own life at that moment, not theirs. If they ran out, I'd let them go, then call the police with a description. Now, if I was alone in the house, I'd be far more likely to shoot first out of fear, especially at night. That's not something I can think rationally about, or control, at the spur of the moment, no matter the intentions or mental state of the intruder.

Maybe that's why you live in Canada. You can trust far more people and be far more confident with their intentions than we can down here in the Wild West of Anarchy. The U.S. has turned into a dog eat dog world and it sucks. Now, you either have to defend yourself, or end up robbed blind and/or dead, because there are a lot of bad people with bad intentions or those who are just plain desperate and the police and our social support services are underfunded, understaffed and overworked.

[Ferno]

If someone broke into my house while I was at home, the first thing I'd do is arm myself if I had the forewarning or the opportunity. If the intruder refused to leave, I would attempt to hold him or her at gunpoint for the police. If that person charged at me or my family, I would shoot them without hesitation, period, because I value my own life at that moment, not theirs.

Seems like a reasonable response

If they ran out, I'd let them go, then call the police with a description. Now, if I was alone in the house, I'd be far more likely to shoot first out of fear, especially at night. That's not something I can think rationally about, or control, at the spur of the moment, no matter the intentions or mental state of the intruder.

But this, is what gets people into so much trouble. Acting out of fear instead of keeping a calm head. People can make the worst decisions when fear takes over. People see things that just aren't there, because their brains fill in information without them realizing it.

Maybe that's why you live in Canada. You can trust far more people and be far more confident with their intentions than we can down here in the Wild West of Anarchy. The U.S. has turned into a dog eat dog world and it sucks. Now, you either have to defend yourself, or end up robbed blind and/or dead, because there are a lot of bad people with bad intentions or those who are just plain desperate and the police and our social support services are underfunded, understaffed and overworked.

This is a joke, right? I understand that your social net is all but fucked, but I've been down to the states quite a few times and honestly... it's not much different than it is here.

And besides, we have our own bad neighborhoods aswell. but we don't go around telling everyone to arm themselves because everyone you meet could be a somali pirate. And again, no one's addressing the core point to all this, which is: Is it worth it to shoot someone over property, when it can be recovered?

[callmeslick]

The U.S. has turned into a dog eat dog world and it sucks. Now, you either have to defend yourself, or end up robbed blind and/or dead, because there are a lot of bad people with bad intentions or those who are just plain desperate and the police and our social support services are underfunded, understaffed and overworked.

where the feck do YOU live? I can say, pretty confidently, that while less than perfect, there is NO scenario ANYWHERE in the US remotely close to what you state. You have just falling for the fear mongering of the past 30 years and developed some sort of twisted hysteria, TC. Yes, there are 'bad people', but a lot? Hell no, most people are completely harmless. The VAST majority, in fact. Yes there are always desperate individuals, and while social services have been stretched by decades of 'government bad' bullcrap, police budgets aren't really hurting, overall. I repeat, where do YOU live? Can you give examples of these waves of bad people overrunning your area as you paint it to be?

[sigma]

If someone broke into my house while I was at home, the first thing I'd do is arm myself if I had the forewarning or the opportunity. If the intruder refused to leave, I would attempt to hold him or her at gunpoint for the police. If that person charged at me or my family, I would shoot them without hesitation, period, because I value my own life at that moment, not theirs.

I think an orange jumpsuit would put on you, and not criminals. Criminals more often than not, have the documents to the judges that they are mentally ill blue blacks, who are the secret agents of the police, and you deliberately and maliciously wanted to kill them, to harm the national security of the United States.

[Tunnelcat]

The U.S. has turned into a dog eat dog world and it sucks. Now, you either have to defend yourself, or end up robbed blind and/or dead, because there are a lot of bad people with bad intentions or those who are just plain desperate and the police and our social support services are underfunded, understaffed and overworked.

where the feck do YOU live? I can say, pretty confidently, that while less than perfect, there is NO scenario ANYWHERE in the US remotely close to what you state. You have just falling for the fear mongering of the past 30 years and developed some sort of twisted hysteria, TC. Yes, there are 'bad people', but a lot? Hell no, most people are completely harmless. The VAST majority, in fact. Yes there are always desperate individuals, and while social services have been stretched by decades of 'government bad' bullcrap, police budgets aren't really hurting, overall. I repeat, where do YOU live? Can you give examples of these waves of bad people overrunning your area as you paint it to be?

I'm sorry slick and ferno. I've been kind of depressed lately. It just seems that this country is rotting from within and our current politics is a symptom of that. Maybe it's just my perceptions and the changing times, maybe not. Things always change I guess, and each generation tends to hate it. But I see so much violence on the TV news. I see far too many homeless people wandering around, even kids, suffering and sometimes getting into trouble, even in my own little town, people that used to have jobs and homes. I see too much hard drug-caused bad behaviors, theft and violence. I see too many people who don't think the rules apply to them, so they go ahead and drink and drive or even text and drive and still kill and hurt people. I see a nation that still can't get over it's racist past, even though it thinks it's gotten past it. I see a healthcare system that's crumbling with no solution at hand for the vast majority of the people. I see mentally ill people walking the streets left out like so much garbage. I see students who can't afford a higher education, who end up in debt with no jobs and living with their parents. I see a Congress that won't do it's job for the people, only for the special interests and lobbyists when it suits them. I see a shrinking middle class and the good jobs that used to support it disappear into a global economy, jobs which are not coming back. I see a giant military industrial complex that wants to profit off of more and more wars and no one seems to realize it. I see a crazy, rich, egotistical bully about to get voted into the office of the president who may give them the war prize theyso desire. Kind of sucks, doesn't it?

[Spidey]

Well one bright spot...at least the MIC produces good paying middle class jobs.

[callmeslick]

TC, I don't have the time right now to go through your list one by one, with specific examples, but virtually everything you decry about the current status quo in America has been decades in the making and obvious since day one. Mental health? Reagan opened the floodgates by ordering that people not be warehoused in mental hospitals(good idea), and then not providing any funding for their care on the outside(bad implementation). Elections have gotten further from actual issues for decades, healthcare costs have been skyrocketing since the late 1980s, etc,etc. I guess you have some sympathy for a moment or two of being morose at the current state, but have to wonder where you were while all this stuff was developing? Not one thing you named was a new problem, unique to the 21st century.

[Ferno]

I'm sorry slick and ferno. I've been kind of depressed lately. It just seems that this country is rotting from within and our current politics is a symptom of that. Maybe it's just my perceptions and the changing times, maybe not. Things always change I guess, and each generation tends to hate it. But I see so much violence on the TV news. I see far too many homeless people wandering around, even kids, suffering and sometimes getting into trouble, even in my own little town, people that used to have jobs and homes. I see too much hard drug-caused bad behaviors, theft and violence. I see too many people who don't think the rules apply to them, so they go ahead and drink and drive or even text and drive and still kill and hurt people. I see a nation that still can't get over it's racist past, even though it thinks it's gotten past it. I see a healthcare system that's crumbling with no solution at hand for the vast majority of the people. I see mentally ill people walking the streets left out like so much garbage. I see students who can't afford a higher education, who end up in debt with no jobs and living with their parents. I see a Congress that won't do it's job for the people, only for the special interests and lobbyists when it suits them. I see a shrinking middle class and the good jobs that used to support it disappear into a global economy, jobs which are not coming back. I see a giant military industrial complex that wants to profit off of more and more wars and no one seems to realize it. I see a crazy, rich, egotistical bully about to get voted into the office of the president who may give them the war prize theyso desire. Kind of sucks, doesn't it?

Depressed? well that sucks. sorry to hear and at least you were able to vent a bit. always good in my book. But try to remember that what you see on the news is a very very small sliver of what's going on in the country, and keep in mind what I said about the perceived threat outweighing the real threat.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I sympathize with all of that, TC, and if it makes you feel any better it's not just you or your generation. The truth is you or your generation are just quicker to see it for what it is, and the younger generation, for the most part, is just really lacking in perspective.

I don't want to derail, but it's my opinion that of all of the candidates that have a shot in this election, Trump is actually the least likely to go to war. I'm certain this is at least true for some of the future conflicts that have been in the works with this administration (Russia, Syria, Iran, Korea, ...). I feel that most of our military activity under Obama has been illegitimate, so I would be very happy to see it all come to an end.

[Ferno]

I don't want to derail, but *derails it anyways*