you loot, I shoot

Btw., could this: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/LawAndJusti...3914709&page=1

Have anything to do with the changes that monsterhunter noted? Or the "evolution" of law-enforcement as demonstrated by CoLawman?

[Ambush Master]

The State of Texas!!!

Someone grabbing a lawnmower out of a yard constitutes "Petty Theft", a misdemeanor. You are cleared to "Brandish" a firearm and "Threaten", but not to use Deadly Force.

Once the "Plane" of any "Portal" of a Residence or place of Business is crossed and a theft takes place, it becomes a Burglary, which is a Felony!!!

When a Felony takes place, Deadly Force is JUSTIFIED!!!!

OK, these dudes ripped off a home, that luckily was not occupied!!! Next time, what will happen when the homeowner(s) are present!!! It has been seen and proven in the DFW area, that they have gotten bolder and bolder with an escalation in violence against the RESIDENTS!!!

By the act of these perps, they are showing the path that they wish to head down, and the citizen that stops them is PREVENTING future violence on their fellow Law Abiding Citizens!!!

What it has come down to, is that if these people are not stopped, innocent lives WILL be lost.......it's just a matter of time.

The LEOs can't be everywhere, and if I am in a store, gas station, driving down my block and see a crime in progress, I will engage!!

Thankfully the Laws here are now affording protection to those that make a "Justifiable Shoot"!!

Later.
Martin

[monsterhunter]

Originally Posted by CoLawman

Our founding fathers were wrong on several issues, which eventually led to amendments to the constitution. A few glaring examples of them being wrong;

Not until 1865 was slavery abolished.
Not until 1870 was "Race no bar to vote" amendment passed.
Not until 1920 were women given the right to vote.!

Historical facts with the dates? Yes.

"...glaring examples of them being wrong." Are they wrong, or is it a product of the culture of the time. Slavery has been an issue since recorded history. I don't agree with it, but I'm also living at a much later time. "Race no bar to vote" was not new in every state. Again, was a fragile new union able to embrace this concept at this period? Women given the right to vote...another cultural concept not ready to be embraced by all in 1775-1776. My point here is that they were only wrong in you opinion.

Originally Posted by CoLawman

In no way am I denigrating the greatness of our founding fathers. They were not immune to influences of their time and place. While writing such phrases as "unalienable rights" they failed to consider how ludicrous and hypocritical those words were,considering the elephant in the room serving them refreshments.

I agree completely with the first part of this. IMHO, it's a fact. The second part about "ludicrous and hypocritical" to me is your opinion and not a fact (based of the first part if nothing else). They cannot be expected to think with a 21st century mind set. Their circumstances, not only in time and culture, but in the fragile state of putting together a union.

Originally Posted by CoLawman

We no longer hang horse thieves! I believe that is a good thing. We no longer lynch people, again a good thing. Since around 1978 or 1979 we no longer give police the authority to shoot a "fleeing felon". Once again a good thing.

We don't hang horse thieves. You said that was your belief. I'll give you that sir. Your stated opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong here: lynching was mainly accomplished by a mob, forcibly taking a suspect from the custody of law enforcement and enacting punishment without a trial. I don't believe "we" did this. Unruly mobs exist today and they sometimes kill, taken from law enforcement or no. Not shooting a fleeing felon a good thing. Your opinion it is a good thing? Yes. A fact that it is good, debatable. My opinion? No.

Originally Posted by CoLawman

I believe our grandchildren and great grandchildren will look back at some of our archaic laws and wonder how we could have been so primitive. Abortion comes to mind.

I look at how things are becoming and wonder what is happening to us. Some changes are for the better. However, concerning our response to crime, theft is becoming such a non issue that few are deterred. About a hundred years ago, the going rate was eight years for each count. It seems now it is hard to get a petty theft even filed. How many chances do we give someone these days? Enough to victimize the innocent time and time again. How many horse thieves (or car thieves) get picked up on their first offense? Most I've captured make it a routine. The consequences are minimal.

Originally Posted by CoLawman

If a cop is not allowed to shoot under the same circumstances, then a murder has occurred.

Sir, are you kidding? Neither one of us can make this judgement. Do I think this guy extended himself beyond the scope of the law? It sure appears so. Murder? That's for a jury presented with more of the facts that what we have here.

Originally Posted by CoLawman

I would like to add, again, I am fully supportive of residents being allowed to use deadly force against an intruder. Totally different set of circumstances.

I agree with you here as a matter of fact, at least the way the laws are written in my area. Do I like it personally? Not at all.

All I was trying to convey was that some of the above is not all fact. There appears opinions mixed in with them, which also appeared to me to be stated as facts.

[monsterhunter]

Originally Posted by Greenhat

Btw., could this: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/LawAndJusti...3914709&page=1

Have anything to do with the changes that monsterhunter noted? Or the "evolution" of law-enforcement as demonstrated by CoLawman?

Sir,

My opinion is both. The criminals are getting harder as law enforcement, at the direction of the liberal minded, gets softer. How many cop killers would be out on the street today and killing, if the penalties they faced (for their prior crimes) were a hundred years older?

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Ambush Master

It has been seen and proven in the DFW area, that they have gotten bolder and bolder with an escalation in violence against the RESIDENTS!!!

By the act of these perps, they are showing the path that they wish to head down, and the citizen that stops them is PREVENTING future violence on their fellow Law Abiding Citizens!!!

What it has come down to, is that if these people are not stopped, innocent lives WILL be lost.......it's just a matter of time.

AM has gotten to the root of the issue:
If society back-steps, criminals will advance.

Tolerating criminal behavior, for the sake of de-escalation, does not work.
We need only to look at the methods employed by terrorists on 9/11 to understand this.

I do not know where the line should be drawn in these shoot/no-shoot situations.
These situations are not the problem, they are the symptom.

The problem is: criminals, like terrorist, are encouraged over the course of their career by retreat.
The solution is: fight back against, or intervene upon, all criminal behavior, no matter how petty, every time. Never cooperate. Never tolerate.

Offering no resistance to criminals is the same as "appeasement" in the early stages of WWII.
Don't pass the buck to the next victim.

All citizens should be enouraged to act like the citizen-sovereigns they are and defend their country against domestic threat.

[HOLLiS]

Martin, I again completely agree.

Long ago I was driving home at night, I saw in a parking a group of young men grab a gal and pulled her into the back seat of a car. This was in California and I did not have a weapon of any kind. I spun around and pulled in to that parking lot confronting the young men. A friend who was also driving by pulled up too .

We separated the boys and the gal, only to find out, they where just playing around. The gal got pretty choked up that some strangers would actually stop and do something.

I am really glad it worked out the way it did, I was not sure what I was going to do, but I was going to do something. Not my most intelligent move, I just did not see any other options.

[mdb23]

Originally Posted by Greenhat

I'm not King, will never be King, and have absolutely no desire to inflict my value system on others.

Understood. However, my point was that a blanket statement such as "lethal force should be authorized to protect proporty" is useless unless we can find a practical way to implement it and codify it into law.

We all can see that there are very undesireable consequences to authorizing lethal forces in the case of all thefts (juveniles, extremely minor or petty thefts), so we need to hash out a workable law if we want it to be taken seriously. Nobody wants their 13 year old to be shot and killed for pocketing a peice of Double Bubble in a convenience store, so where do we draw the line?

If we cannot or will not come up with something practical, then we have to look at the theory itself as unreasonable.

[monsterhunter]

GratefulCitizen,

I agree with you completely. I once responded to an elderly lady who had been beaten down by a teenager as he took her purse. She didn't resist. He did it as he was snatching it from her arm.

Most of these criminals, in my experience, are predators. They prey on the weakest and do not count on someone stepping up.

Hollis,

My hat is off to you. Well done sir on coming to the aid of a stranger.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Enough of the soapbox for me. Goodnight all.

[mdb23]

Originally Posted by Greenhat

Btw., could this: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/LawAndJusti...3914709&page=1

Have anything to do with the changes that monsterhunter noted? Or the "evolution" of law-enforcement as demonstrated by CoLawman?

I would say that it has much more to do with the weaponry that the criminals now have access to.

Years ago, when we found a thug with a gun, it was a Raven arms .25, a Saturday Night Special, A Lorsen, or some other small caliber, off name piece of crap. Now, these dudes are packing AKs, M4s, Mac10s, and even Uzis. More firepower, better ammo, and the ability to put more rounds down range on us in a short period of time.... not only that, they are rounds that will shred our vests...

Back in March, I got into a car chase with 3 dudes that had jsut mowed down 5 people in a drive by. The rear passenger leaned out on me with an M4, 200 round drum mag attached, and lit me and my partner up at 4 points during the chase. that didn't happen 10 years ago.

I chased a felon the other day who wrecked out, took off, and broke into a home to try to hide from me. Had an Uzi (loaded) in the car.

A buddy of mine got sprayed with a Mac10 earlier this year.

Our training and tactics are better than they have ever been (LE as a whole), and we aren't "going soft," we are just facing new weaponry that wasn't in the arsenal a decade ago.

Originally Posted by mdb23

Understood. However, my point was that a blanket statement such as "lethal force should be authorized to protect proporty" is useless unless we can find a practical way to implement it and codify it into law.

I have never understood this fascination with "codify it into law".

We don't need laws to live by. We need morals and values. Those aren't defined by laws, they are defined by people.

It's simple. John Wayne said it in "The Shootist" as well as it can be said.

"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them."

As for the bits about criminals and how they are armed? During prohibition, criminals were rather well armed as well. The difference was that law enforcement agencies like the FBI, etc. took it to wage war on those criminals instead of worrying about the legal ramifications of dealing with them. I don't blame you, LEOs need to be aware and concerned with their careers and the consequences of their actions on their careers. With that in mind, you shouldn't be too concerned with citizens who are willing and able to make a difference.

[CoLawman]

[QUOTE=monsterhunter;190132]

Historical facts with the dates? Yes.

"...glaring examples of them being wrong." Are they wrong, or is it a product of the culture of the time. Slavery has been an issue since recorded history. I don't agree with it, but I'm also living at a much later time. "Race no bar to vote" was not new in every state. Again, was a fragile new union able to embrace this concept at this period? Women given the right to vote...another cultural concept not ready to be embraced by all in 1775-1776. My point here is that they were only wrong in you opinion.

I appreciate you giving me the sole credit for recognizing the need to amend the constitution. But it would not be fair for me to take any of the credit. I would say that the amendments to the constitution were a result of the "will of the people." You might want to examine the requirements under proposition and ratification to amend the constitution. This should clear up any misuderstanding regarding my opinion being solitary.

I agree completely with the first part of this. IMHO, it's a fact. The second part about "ludicrous and hypocritical" to me is your opinion and not a fact (based of the first part if nothing else). They cannot be expected to think with a 21st century mind set. Their circumstances, not only in time and culture, but in the fragile state of putting together a union.

Obviously, not all the founding fathers were in favor of slavery. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and John Jay were outspoken critics of slavery,as were many other notables. In fact John Adams never owned a slave. So much for the argument that they could not be expected to think with a 21st Century mindset.

We don't hang horse thieves. You said that was your belief. I'll give you that sir. Your stated opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong here: lynching was mainly accomplished by a mob, forcibly taking a suspect from the custody of law enforcement and enacting punishment without a trial. I don't believe "we" did this. Unruly mobs exist today and they sometimes kill, taken from law enforcement or no. Not shooting a fleeing felon a good thing. Your opinion it is a good thing? Yes. A fact that it is good, debatable. My opinion? No.

Okay it is settled then, my opinion, is in fact, nothing more than an opinion supported by my understanding of the facts. I really do find it tedious to end or begin each sentence with IMO. I would like everyone just to treat my opinions as nothing more than an opinion. I will not, nor will my heirs, be responsible for the attachment of too much importance in my stated opinions.

I look at how things are becoming and wonder what is happening to us. Some changes are for the better. However, concerning our response to crime, theft is becoming such a non issue that few are deterred. About a hundred years ago, the going rate was eight years for each count. It seems now it is hard to get a petty theft even filed. How many chances do we give someone these days? Enough to victimize the innocent time and time again. How many horse thieves (or car thieves) get picked up on their first offense? Most I've captured make it a routine. The consequences are minimal.

Thanks for doing what you can in serving your community.

Sir, are you kidding? Neither one of us can make this judgement. Do I think this guy extended himself beyond the scope of the law? It sure appears so. Murder? That's for a jury presented with more of the facts that what we have here.

I can. Does it matter to Mr. Horn what I think? Nope, unless they call me in to work the case. You state that it appears he extended himself beyond the scope of the law. If he did, then what would the offense be since lives were taken by a person who extended himself beyond the scope of the law?

All I was trying to convey was that some of the above is not all fact. There appears opinions mixed in with them, which also appeared to me to be stated as facts.

I agree that some of my post was an opinion based on facts. I further agree that all of my facts were consistent with my opinion.

John Adams also believed that only the "select" should serve in government, that the majority of the people were incapable of doing so, or deserving of the rights of franchise (the vote). He was the last of the Federalist Presidents, and Frederalism has often been compared to monarchy.

Not exactly a 21st Century view, now is it?

[CoLawman]

Originally Posted by Greenhat

John Adams also believed that only the "select" should serve in government, that the majority of the people were incapable of doing so, or deserving of the rights of franchise (the vote). He was the last of the Federalist Presidents, and Frederalism has often been compared to monarchy.

Not exactly a 21st Century view, now is it?

And his opinion was not a majority opinion. Much like your opinion regarding who is deserving of the right to vote. So if I understand the intent of your question, my answer would be; No, your opinion is not exactly a 21st Century view. I would go even further and state that your view was not even a popular view in the 18th Century.

[jwt5]

Originally Posted by mdb23

I would say that it has much more to do with the weaponry that the criminals now have access to.

Years ago, when we found a thug with a gun, it was a Raven arms .25, a Saturday Night Special, A Lorsen, or some other small caliber, off name piece of crap. Now, these dudes are packing AKs, M4s, Mac10s, and even Uzis. More firepower, better ammo, and the ability to put more rounds down range on us in a short period of time.... not only that, they are rounds that will shred our vests...

Back in March, I got into a car chase with 3 dudes that had jsut mowed down 5 people in a drive by. The rear passenger leaned out on me with an M4, 200 round drum mag attached, and lit me and my partner up at 4 points during the chase. that didn't happen 10 years ago.

I chased a felon the other day who wrecked out, took off, and broke into a home to try to hide from me. Had an Uzi (loaded) in the car.

A buddy of mine got sprayed with a Mac10 earlier this year.

Our training and tactics are better than they have ever been (LE as a whole), and we aren't "going soft," we are just facing new weaponry that wasn't in the arsenal a decade ago.

Doesn't this type of thing have to do with escalation? Back in the day criminals started carrying revolvers, so the police started to. Then the criminals started carrying semiautos, so the police did. The criminals then moved to higher caliber weapons, so the police wear body armor. Now the criminals have automatic weapons, so the police now carry assault rifles.

IMO, it's not the police that need to change tactics, it's the courts and the lawyers that allow these people to get off for minor things. Example: They arrested a guy a few weeks back in Miami for exposing himself to a minor. Turns out he had been arrested somewhere around 60 times before that for the same thing. How is he still allowed to walk around free?

Also I believe the politicians need to keep their hands out of police work just like they need to keep their hands out of the military. I think a lot of police departments are hindered not by their officers, but by the policies inflicted on them due to people outside trying to control things and worrying about re-elections and playing nice.

As far as the guy in the OP, I agree with most, he was stupid and should be locked up for it.

[mdb23]

Originally Posted by Greenhat

I have never understood this fascination with "codify it into law".

We don't need laws to live by. We need morals and values. Those aren't defined by laws, they are defined by people.

Then enact laws that reflect the morals and values. Simply put, you cannot imprison someone for breaking a moral belief.... You need a legal system with well defined laws in order to operate a criminal justice system.

Regarding the prohibition, organized crime members were extremely well armed... I'm referring to the arms that I am taking of of Joe Blow street level thug, who has no organizational involvement.