Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 15
    Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago
    A lot of us ask the question, 'What's happened to our rights, our liberties, our government, our police, etc' ? When this country was founded under the Constitution, there were no police. Men and communities were expected to protect themselves and did through their militias and their sheriffs with the help of voluntary posses.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by wiggys 9 years, 7 months ago
      unfortunately the women were hurt, but the guy is DEAD and that is all that matters.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by RonC 9 years, 7 months ago
        From a legal aspect the good guy is lucky the women were hurt. In most states the car jacker's right to life trumps individual property rights. Meaning you can't kill a guy for stealing an SUV. Had the women not been injured or the vehicle used as a weapon the guy running for prosecutor could very well have a different view. The prosecution of good guys using guns to help people is so frequent now the NRA offers insurance to provide legal council when you are arrested or sued.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 7 months ago
          If you own a gun and are willing to use it, you should immediately take a course on the legal use of force in your area, as well as other areas you expect to be. Some states have wide "stand your ground" laws, in which a person in fear of life or property can respond with lethal force, even outside his house. Others have more restrictive laws, including the ones which still hold that someone attacked cannot respond except with equal force - the bad guy has a stick, the defender can use his gold club, but not his firearm.
          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......
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 7 months ago
      Mob rule can cut both ways.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • 10
        Posted by XenokRoy 9 years, 7 months ago
        Mob rule is what we have today. Not by gun, but by law. It does cut both ways. Everyone is loosing.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • 10
        Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago
        Mob rule has nothing to do with what I describe above. These men weren't drunk, they weren't carried away by emotion, and they weren't out of control berserkers. They were honest, everyday common men that took responsibility for the environment of their lives. There were other shiftless, drunkard, lazy, and unthinking men around as well--but as long as they lived within lines that didn't hurt others, they were allowed to live as they wanted.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 7 months ago
          You're saying it's mob rule only if the participants are drunk or overwrought. I'm calling any majority rule without protections against tyranny of the majority mob rule.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago
            Ahh, but again, these men weren't the majority. They were simply the ones that did what was necessary in order to defend their lives, families, and properties instead of relying on someone else to do it for them. Those men weren't needful, urbanites--most were WWI and WWII vets. Instead of needing protection, they were their own protection.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 7 months ago
              It doesn't matter if they were urban or rural. A criminal justice system, even and flawed one, is better than the rule by knights and gangs. Rule of law is better than rule by people.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago
                Those men and their actions had absolutely nothing to do with rule, nor was it democracy in action (mob rule). It was simply reactive force applied as self defense in a controlled and well thought out manner. As to rule of law being better than rule by people -- people write law, so I fail to see the distinction. It appears that you're more concerned about which people determine the law and it's application. As to a flawed criminal justice system being better than what I've gone to pains to describe to you in some detail -- a flawed criminal justice system is a flawed justice system for the individual and his natural rights.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 7 months ago
                  " I fail to see the distinction."
                  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.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago
                    Ehh, not going there Hiraghm. Law should only be based on individual and natural rights, as laid out in the Declaration and the Constitution including the right of the people to act as a Militia for their own protection.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 7 months ago
                      I'm not going "there" either Zenphamy.

                      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.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 15
    Posted by richrobinson 9 years, 7 months ago
    I think this had the best possible outcome. The man assaulted a 60 year old woman to steal her car. He intentionally injured another woman in an attempt to escape. He was clearly willing to use force to get what he wanted. He initiated force. Had he gone straight to the hospital it's possible he would have lived. It sounds to me that the fewest number of people possible were hurt by this guy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 9 years, 7 months ago
    The jacker posed a real and viable threat to others, as evidenced by throwing woman A out of the car and hitting woman B with a car. He obviously didn't care what he did to hurt people as long as he could get away with his crime.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 7 months ago
    A simple case of defending the innocent from the guilty. I people were allowed to be armed and advertise the fact, there would be far less car-jackings and other violet crimes. When the criminal knows that he will be in jeopardy if he attempts his criminal act, he'll be far less inclined to do so.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WillH 9 years, 7 months ago
    Personally I think this had the very best possible ending. Legally it will depend on state law. Here in Tennessee if the bad guy was heading away from the crime and you shoot at him you are liable because the immanent danger to others has passed. The guy may have left 20 injured, but if he is not a threat at this moment you cannot shoot at this moment. The legality of the situation will vary from state to state, but I think he did the right thing. You also must remember that in many states it is not acceptable to defend property with deadly force. I really do not know enough about the law in AZ to say anything more definite.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by RevJay4 9 years, 7 months ago
      It sucks to live in states like TN with the "imminent danger" thing. So the perp gets to live another day to continue his criminal ways on others.
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ WillH 9 years, 7 months ago
        I can understand that point. There is more than one side to it. Personally I have a legal permit to carry a sidearm, and I carry one everyday. I have been in the military and I fully know what it is to pull a trigger. I could not take a life to protect anything I have that is replaceable. I am not disagreeing with you though, because that decision should be mine, and not made for me by the government, state or federal.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by RevJay4 9 years, 6 months ago
          Totally agree, to a point. If the perp is willing to attempt to remove you forcibly from your property to steal it, the perp needs to be stopped before he kills or seriously injures someone. The perps don't actually care who is the way of what they want nor who gets hurt in the process.
          From one vet to another, I understand your point of view, just don't totally agree with it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ WillH 9 years, 6 months ago
            I think it depends on the situation. If I walk out of my house to find someone stealing my car I am certainly not going to shoot him. If I am in my car and he attempts to carjack me I am more likely to shoot him. For me it depends on the threat to me or my family vs. the threat of stolen property.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years, 7 months ago
    Gave up on trying to get the video to play. Have been having trouble to get other things on my PC to work today.
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnmahler 9 years, 7 months ago
    Praise God for our Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms. I thank God for Mr. Gonzalez who acted and used his rights to save his neighbor. I am sorry when anyone dies, but it is obvious that when you violate Society's laws and conduct expectations you will suffer consequences. It was appropriate the perpetrator of the crime passed away, saving countless tax dollars and criminal prosecution and incarceration costs.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 7 months ago
    The best solution would have been for the '60 year old woman' to pull a gun out of her purse and blow the guy away when he tried to yank her out of her car. Or, if no gun handy, beat him unconscious hand-to-hand. That would have been the best way.

    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...)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 7 months ago
      jlc -
      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?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 7 months ago
        Winterwind - In True Grit (I saw the old version with John Wayne), there were two chivalric heroes: Rooster Cogburn and J, Noble Daggett (the cameo role scrawny lawyer). The movie is entirely about the former, but I remember a mention that the latter had stood off the railway company by himself for the townsfolk (in spite of better offers from the railway).

        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
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 7 months ago
          thanks for clarification, 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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by RevJay4 9 years, 7 months ago
            Winterwind, like you, I prefer to not get that close to a perp where I have to use my hands or feet to stop whatever the perp is attempting. Thus, I legally carry a firearm and know how to use it effectively. I just hope I never have to use it. I'm not sure how I would handle the aftermath.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 7 months ago
              RevJay - Do you run realistic scenarios with anyone? It's best not to run them with the significant other. We know of a range just outside Denver that runs what they call a "black site", a warehouse in which they set up scenarios and shoot AirSoft pistols. They will tailor your scenarios, and it would be very useful to run some in which the shooting is not the end to see what reactions you have, and to whom [and when!].
              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?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by RevJay4 9 years, 7 months ago
      Since when is 60 elderly? Hope ya had a good time fighting the 20 y,o. and the 60 y,o., too. My wife is your age and I have never crossed her path when she is totally ticked off. I know better. Her brother taught her to defend herself when she was a kid and she can still kick some booty.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 7 months ago
        Bravo for your wife - and for you. One of the reasons I am not secretive about my age is to make a one-woman-lobby against pigeonholing oneself due to a social label. Many people have real health concerns, but these can strike at any time and should not be assumed unduly because an age milestone has been passed. So I brag about it...and hope that someone will say, "Well, if that 5'7" 61-year-old woman can do that...So can I!"

        So go back to your karate class, RevJay!

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by RevJay4 9 years, 6 months ago
          Actually, jlc, I prefer not to get that close to anyone who is threatening. I prefer the distance method of defense, double tap style.
          Sorry for the late reply, been out of "Gulch" country for a while.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 6 months ago
            Granted that the best martial arts defense is for your attacker to take one look at you and decide to commit sepaku...and granted that a 'long arm' is better than 'close contact'. Nonetheless, bare hands is the only weapon form you will always have with you, and the ability to be capable in that context is not to be scorned.

            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
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 7 months ago
          I'm secretive about my age because nobody will believe you when you tell them you're over 23,000 years old... and let's not get into the whole "Neanderthal" issue.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 6 months ago
            Did you think you actually had to 'tell' people this in order for them to know it? It has been clear all along.

            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
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 9 years, 7 months ago
    This is how it should be, no, "Book em Danno", just wipe them out. No cost to citizens for a trial, a man defends not just property, but his wife. As it should be. This recent idea that we should just hand over property we have bought with dollars earned is ridiculous. The looter should die, there would be fewer try it. The catch is when the UN Agenda 21 wipes out the idea of property rights, then we are all lost. Our community has had a rash of burglaries over the past year, which the Sheriff seemed not to mention to the paper, even though he had a description and partial plate number. Finally, the thief pulled an armed robbery in a nearby town and headed back here. The Police dept. put out the description and the guy was caught. Some law enforcement does not enforce, as in our case. It likely is a drug user making certain people local richer. We sometimes are left with no option but to defend our own property and family..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 7 months ago
    Without more details this is a tough one. I am 100% behind everyone's natural right to protect themselves, their property and even a neighbors life but not sure that I would use my weapon to save a neighbors property. For me, I think I would not want to open myself up to the legal aspects of a shooting for someone else's property. There are many circumstances that may cause me to make a different decision but they are not included in this article. My 2 cents.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
      The thief wounded an innocent woman with a stolen car, aka a weapon, after grabbing and throwing another out of her own car in her own driveway. He abused two woman and then drove off in a stolen deadly weapon.... to hurt how many more??? He obviously has no regard for life or property of others and is on a rampage. The neighbor did the right thing and probably saved others. We should all have such good neighbors.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago
        Yes shrug; the woman he knocked to the ground was the wife of the neighbor, but even leaving that out of the equation, his actions were correct. Looters of the nature described by the actions of the car-jacker should receive the consequences of their actions. +1
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 7 months ago
        I cannot disagree with you. See my reply to CG. All I can say on this is I was not there and don't have enough info to know what I would do. May have or may not have used this kind of force. I just don't like to judge without the entire picture and there are only a few people that know all the details. One is dead.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 7 months ago
          a reasonable position when not all the facts are known. We should all think about what WE would do, so that we don't have the "deadly dither" when we're in the midst of an emergency and have to think about whether it's really worth it to use deadly force to defend a neighbor's property. There's very little time to ponder when you're in the heat.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by XenokRoy 9 years, 7 months ago
      You strike upon the problem. If there were no civil punishment for protection of self and property there would be no risk. In that natural and correct society would you have any issues protecting another persons property?

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 7 months ago
        I don't disagree with you at all. If we could eliminate the legal nightmare people could protect their property without becoming a victim of our complex legal system.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 7 months ago
        Huzzah!
        _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-]
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 7 months ago
      You steal my car, I can't get to work. I lose my job. I lose my apartment. I then have nowhere to keep my belongings.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by teri-amborn 9 years, 7 months ago
        I agree.
        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by teri-amborn 9 years, 7 months ago
      This scenario comes under the category of neighborhood watch. Once the criminal element realizes that your neighborhood isn't going to go down without a fight, they will go elsewhere.
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 7 months ago
      "there property and even a neighbors life but not sure that I would use my weapon to save a neighbors property"
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 7 months ago
        My statement was not meant to condemn the shooter. I do believe we have to have faith in the individual. My statement is more how I have trained myself to think prior to drawing a weapon. I would not want to open myself up to the legal nightmare that shooting someone would bring just for their property. In fact I may not open myself to the scrutiny for my own property. Much would be dependent on the situation. But one thing is for sure there would be no hesitation if I believe a life was in danger with the exception of places that post no weapons allowed. Then it would be just my own or a friend or family that would get my protection.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 7 months ago
          and this is why we should all be running scenarios in our head in every location - what will I do if.....because a robbery gone bad can become a life-threatening situation instantly.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
            Yes...and it amazes me that after a situation so many will monday morning quarterback and never consider that perhaps the victims HAD thought about this or a similar "what-if" scenario to be prepared. There was an incident recently that made me think of this...people jumping to conclusions because they can't fathom anyone actually thinking or planning what-to-do. I'll try to remember what incident I'm referring to.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
        You're wife is on the ground with a head injury...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by peterchunt 9 years, 7 months ago
          Property can be replaced, but a life cannot. I support defending yourself, but this might have been going to far. I may not have all the facts, but I base my opinion on what was made available.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 9 years, 7 months ago
            yes, I see that deadly car crash when the police chase him down crashing into several cars and running them off the road. I find it interesting that we often have disagreement about what constitutes self-defense. It's curious. I wonder if otherwise like minded people disagreed this much at the founding. I wonder what has changed, other than the level of crime? If the property is forcibly taken from you and you or someone else is physically harmed, why would you hesitate? Thieves count on that
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 7 months ago
            as I said to edweaver, a reasonable response to not knowing just what happened.
            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 7 months ago
            Explain to me how I can replace the chair my father gave to my mother for their 50th anniversary 3 months before his death?

            Explain to me how I can replace my minivan on my current income with my current bills?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo