- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Somewhere along the way, the American citizen became convinced that we were just too civilized to do such things anymore and that we should have professionals do that duty for us through government. Even at that early beginning, they were mainly night watchmen, process and warrant servers, jail guards, and few were even armed. And as with all things government, the ones attracted to such jobs wanted more power, more authority, more control, more laws, etc., etc. And they soon made it illegal and unacceptable for us to protect ourselves and our communities.
Now, what do we have? I was lucky enough (in my opinion) to grow up in a time and place in which posses were still used by the county sheriffs, people didn't welcome ATF agents sneaking around their properties, an abuser might hear a knock at his door around 10 PM only to open his door and find a dozen or so men outside his door that then proceeded to demonstrate what abuse really was or to be woken from his bed to learn the same lesson. Thieving from neighbors just wasn't allowed to go unpunished, murderers seldom got very far, and a few people were told that it would be better for all concerned if they moved away.
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with what the neighbor in this case did nor with the result to the attacker. If this happened more often we'd live in a better world.
Know the law, stay within it unless you have a good reason for venturing outside it, and have an arrangement with a lawyer knowledgeable in the field!
Sometimes it doesn't help to be the good guy......
What Zenphamy described was not mob rule or as it is more commonly called today Majority rule. Each person had the right to retaliate to force used against them, or not, as they saw fit. Freedom can only exist when one has the right to use force but only when force is initiated upon them. In this story only that natural right was used.
A society which removes that right can only have majority rule, or tyranny. They are both the same thing.
Let me educate you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFI...
Men write laws... but the fundamental bedrock of the republic is not being written by men.
Let me reiterate what I said...
"not being written by men."
The fundamental bedrock of the republic *was already written* by men. What we call 'the law' is not "the Law". The laws we pass, the host of regulations are like text files in a computer's memory, whereas the Constitution is carved in marble.
http://youtu.be/DioQooFIcgE
We saw this over and over in the SF Bay Area... and esposed by the media... where we're supposed to lett he criminal element run rampant, nave their way,because it's supposedly "safer" for them to get away with their crime and go forth to do even worse mayhem. Why not a chorus of the poor abused criminal and it's society's fault... I can't wait until we see his pictures as a sweet 9 year old child, not the thug he had become...
The guy toox exactly the right action - eliminate the threat. Thug in control of a 3000 lb deadly weapon? History of disregard gor others? Likely off to do other violent crime in his newly-stolen gangsta-mobile? Hopefully the find the jacker. Face down in a ditch somewhere, becoming a nutritional resource for buzzards.
The point is that the "imminent danger" of any violent criminal is not over with one act. Once they get away with one, it just encourage them to do more. TN needs to get that squared away so the perps can be eliminated by law-abiding citizens when necessary.
From one vet to another, I understand your point of view, just don't totally agree with it.
So as I read the article cold, I braced myself, half-expecting to read that the shooter was arrested for some libtard zero tolerance = zero common sense law on the books.
I was relieved to read that he was not. The carjacker's family may still sue the shooter, though. Such has happened before.
Failing that, then it is the height of chivalry for potent neighbors to step in and do for her what she could not do for herself. Not everyone is inclined to be armed; not everyone wants to be physically tough. One should not try to cram everybody into a single pigeonhole - you have the freedom to be strong in ways other than physical. It is enough that there are people who are who are willing to step up to the plate and protect their neighbors.
If the law rules that these noble individuals are 'wrong' and 'have broken the law' then it is the law that is wrong.
Jan
(a 61 year old woman who spent yesterday having a blast fighting a bunch of 20 year old guys - and a couple of 60 year old guys too...)
I was waiting for someone to make your first point. Yes, it's good that someone defended her - it would have been more satisfying had she saved herself.
I'm curious, though, why you say that hand-to-hand would have been the best way.
I'm also curious when you say that it is enough that there are people willing to protect others. That sounds like relinquishing control over your own safety; you are then asking for something bad to happen to you.
I one is not willing to defend his life, how much does he value it?
While 'power' is a prerequisite for 'chivalry', it does not have to be physical power. Many people do not fit into that mold - and should not need to be. In a civilization, enough people need to be martially powerful to protect the people who are not. (This is formalized as 'the military'.) The people who are artists and scientists and authors should be able to work in peace. Almost anyone will defend his own life; but people should not have to do that. It is important that we should BE legally ALLOWED to defend ourselves - and our friends (and our property, as far as I am concerned). We can have police professionals, but we have to have the right to defend ourselves respected by the Law.
My initial paragraph was poorly phrased - I did mean that it would have been nice for the 'helpless little old lady' to have blown the guy away or smashed him to bits. I did not mean to indicate a preference of methodology. Don't you sometimes long for the doddering blue haired old lady to pull out an Uzi and take out the gang that cornered her? It would be such a lovely story.
My point was, though, that it was OK for her not to be a smasher-basher...she was obviously someone who was considered worthy of being protected by her neighbors. I am not a neurosurgeon; random hypothetical neurosurgeon is not a martial artist. I can defend the surgeon and J. Noble, scrawny lawyer, can defend me in court. We can cooperate and create a civilization.
Jan
Yes, societies need many types of people, with different inclinations and abilities - and man is a tool-using animal who can use different types of tools.
What I always object to is anything that sounds like it's not in accord with the fact that it is a person's responsibility to defend his own life. Being both tool-using and social, we CAN make agreements with each other about who has primary responsibility for what task - but such agreements should not supersede our own responsibilities.
I choose to use a tool, rather than my hands or my body because I am somewhat breakable and I'd rather the bad guy hits the floor 20 feet from me.
I really believe that practicing in conditions as real as possible is the best preparation.
I should have asked this question first: what part of the aftermath concerns you?
So go back to your karate class, RevJay!
Jan
Sorry for the late reply, been out of "Gulch" country for a while.
Welcome back. I hope that whatever kept you away was pleasant and not dire. We have been chuffing along here without you, but it is good to hear from you again.
Jan
If you did not understand the above message, let me hand the comm to my 3% Neanderthal and let it repeat it in your native tongue: Ug ur im habba habba Bwak! Mmmm.
...always nice to chat...
Ugh Jan
If the answer is no, then why the issue with doing do in our incorrect and unnatural society? It will only be through the people demanding correct and natural society that we will get it. This person in the article did just that with their actions.
_Nicely_ put, XenokRoy.
A variation of what every teacher knows: act as if there is no question about whether students will do as you ask, and they will do as you ask. [It helps to have a rep for reasonability-]
I'm sorry, but "property" in this case can be a life or death matter. This is why horse thieves were hanged in the old west. A horse meant the difference between life and death.
My property is a reflection of my time and hence my life.
Unless I wilfully give it, stealing constitutes a type of murder since I have a limited amount of time to reconstruct lost life.
Case-in-point: Car thieves in New Jersey travel to New York to steal. WHY? Because the mob will hunt them down like dogs and take care of the problem.
I would absolutely use deadly force to save a life but not someone else's property, esp if I didn't completely understand the situation. As you say, there are probably details not included in the article that might explain the use of force.
Yes, that's for sure.
And there's property, and property. My stereo, camera, computer, things like that are replaceable. There are other things that have enough "attached sentimental value" that I would be willing to protest their theft with deadly force.
Explain to me how I can replace my minivan on my current income with my current bills?