An earlier post asked the question of what to do with a captured perp. I was more than suprised at the number of replies that suggested that the respondent would inflict ANY harm in the suggested scenario. Several THR members came through with what I expected of the responsible gun community. (See below.) That is to never explain your intent with regards to home defense in a public forum. The replies that were posted were just what the anti-RKBA folks feed on to show that the majority of pro-gun rights members are just looking for the chance to shoot somebody. Weather or not this is true is not the point, of course it is untrue, but the perception from the other side is critical. We, as a minority group, cannot afford to appear to the general public as anything less than cool and calm when it involves firearms.
What we post here is potentially what the rest of the world sees as representing how we think and what values we hold. If I were an attorney litigating some civil case where a perp was shot, I would scour the gun boards for just the kind of posts I’m referring to. I would present these to the jury as proof that the intent of the shooter was not protection of self and family, but to “shoot first and ask questions later”. I do not think we could find an all pro-gun jury from a typical jury pool.
That you as a pro-RKBA, gun-owning, trained shooter have thought through what you would do is both smart and admirable. To telegraph this to anyone in a public forum is, IMHO, somewhat irresponsible both to yourself and the RKBA community as a whole.
Jeff White said it best,
“It seems that there is a lot of talk here on a public forum that would be more appropriate over some adult beverages among close friends.
No flames intended here...just like some members to think a bit before they post to a public forum.”
“Talk to a lawyer about the laws in your jurisdiction. You just might be surprised at how few times you can use deadly force.”
“... it's the advice of every CCW instructor I've ever heard of. It's advice formulated on the basis of years of experience with court cases. AND, it's not just the criminal prosecution that may result, you also have to worry about civil suits. So even in Tejas, I wouldn't want to have some attorney get ahold of a witness that had heard me say something like, "If anyone breaks into MY house, they aren't leaving alive! I'm going to shoot first and ask questions later!"
“I see no reason to give any enemies any possible edge. I'm not going to.”
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
If you enjoyed reading about "Cooler Heads..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
March 18, 2003, 06:29 PM
You're right, some folks just like running off at the mouth.
March 18, 2003, 06:47 PM
Image counts, folks.
Every election is a battle for two things:
Getting out the vote of your like-minded base.
Winning over the mushy middle.
You must do both to win. And this is true in the RKBA battle. Given that we keep hearing that there are 80 million gun owners in America, I'd say we are doing an abysmal job on item #1.
Let's try to do better on BOTH.
March 18, 2003, 06:49 PM
Okay, just for the record ...
if anybody ever tears my door off its hinges, or breaks out a window to get in my house, I will put on a pot of coffee and we will sit down and have a chat about the difficulties in his life. Like maybe he just got out of jail for the 14th time and hasn't had time to look for a job yet. Or maybe he has issues with his mother and can only release his frustrations by raping teenage girls and/or grown women.
Maybe I can offer some helpful suggestions about how to deal with his problems, like getting out of my house right this instant. If that doesn't work, I will shoot the bastard.
edit: that's my story and I'm sticking to it ...
March 18, 2003, 07:10 PM
What are you telling me? I don't like this! I want to be Batman. I stayed up all night making my cape and everything (even the little bat ears on the mask). But, but I have sooo much to prove.
You mean I DON'T get to go around shooting people because I have a gun? This can't be; it's not what they told me in the gun shoppe where we were discussing about how we weren't cowards and our days in SEEL Team 37.5.
jr, I don't believe you for a minute. Problem #2 is just fiction. It does not exist because I choose not to believe so if I cover my ears and go "nah, nah, nah, . . . . ", it doesn't exist and I get to stomp my feet and talk about how macho I am.:D
March 18, 2003, 07:12 PM
That's tellin' 'em Tallpine!
March 18, 2003, 07:27 PM
Good points. Self defence in most jurisdictions means that lethal force can be used ONLY if there is a real and immediate threat of death or grevious bodily harm to yourself or another innocent person.
Use of force is always THE LAST option.
March 18, 2003, 08:08 PM
Here in Colorado we have what is colorfully known as the "Make-my-day" law, which states that the resident of a dwelling may use the degree of force necessary to prevent bodily harm to themselves or other occupants of the dwelling, up to and including the use of lethal force. No requirement for all possible retreat before use of force, et al, etc etc... The courts have interpreted this to cover forcefull entry as evidence of intent to inflict bodily harm, so we are pretty well covered here. Home invasions are rather rare here, most of those that do occur are committed by that peculiar variety of street gang that likes to dress in dark colors, drive well marked vehicles with pretty lights and have a propensity to commit crimes under the color of the law.
March 18, 2003, 08:22 PM
I'm sorry. I thought the goal of forums like these was to share experience and wisdom. If we are concerned always about scaring the horses, should we not also ban posts concerning the effectiveness of particular weapons, how to deal with situations, reports on what has or hasn't worked, etc?
March 18, 2003, 09:03 PM
jrhines is trying to help the cause, people.
Broadcasting about how you can't wait untill you get your first justifiable homicide can't possibly help with the RKBA fight.
There are sites where people openly discuss this kind of stuff but it doesn't seem appropriate here.
With Freedom Comes Responsibility.
March 18, 2003, 09:13 PM
If I were an attorney litigating some civil case where a perp was shot, I would scour the gun boards for just the kind of posts I’m referring to. I would present these to the jury as proof that the intent of the shooter was not protection of self and family, but to “shoot first and ask questions later”. I do not think we could find an all pro-gun jury from a typical jury pool.
If I ever do have to shoot someone... I hope you're the one representing the family. :rolleyes: I can see it now, "ladies and germs of the jury -- I submit as prosecution evidence A, this printout from the internet. Judge please ask the jury members to stop laughing at me, I'm serious and this is no laughing matter -- the defendant shot my clients son, just when he was turning his life around."
You'd be better off getting some video of Gunsite or LFI or something like that... you know, the traing where you shoot at human images and yell commands at the paper "perp". Really makes you look like a loonie, and video trumps paper every time (then again rock beats video, and paper covers rocks... hmmm.)
I'm mean really, we musn't actually speak about the real reason we own guns now -- to stop the people who are trying to hurt us.
March 18, 2003, 09:40 PM
We, as a minority group, cannot afford to appear to the general public as anything less than cool and calm when it involves firearms.
1.) I doubt firearms owners are a minority in America.
2.) Although I don't advocate irresponsible jibber-jabber and/or braggadocio, nothing we say or do—or don't say or don't do—will ever persuade anti-Second Amendment bigots to change their purported "minds."
3.) I believe people who put up with crime deserve to be criminals' victims, and comport myself accordingly.
March 18, 2003, 11:33 PM
lapidator, you might try reading the thread in question (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13510) before you comment.
Pay particular attention to the word "kill" and the word "stop", which you used. You might be barking up the wrong tree here.
(then again rock beats video, and paper covers rocks... hmmm.)
March 18, 2003, 11:34 PM
Is there a reason you started a whole new thread instead of continuing the argument on the old thread? :confused: :confused:
March 18, 2003, 11:41 PM
1.) I doubt firearms owners are a minority in America.
Until the duck hunters and casual plinkers wake up and smell the storm troopers, we ARE a minority!
March 19, 2003, 01:07 AM
I don't care if some anti-lurker thinks I'm a meanie.
Why worry about what the other side thinks? They misrepresent facts, and oh yeah they wish to destroy my rights. I'd rather have frank discussion with those of a like mind. That's why we use this forum. I read the thread and no one is talking about lying in wait or boobie traps, just good old home defense and possible scenarios The antis would ban being able to talk about guns if they could. We can't live our lives being concerned about upsetting the enemy. (by enemy, I mean anti RKBA types)
March 19, 2003, 01:20 AM
Is there a reason you started a whole new thread instead of continuing the argument on the old thread?That's what I'm wondering, too.
March 19, 2003, 01:36 AM
Is there a reason you started a whole new thread instead of continuing the argument on the old thread?
The original thread was asking what to do with a home invader.
This thread is a plea to post responsibly.
March 19, 2003, 08:32 AM
Several THR members came through with what I expected of the responsible gun community. (See below.) That is to never explain your intent with regards to home defense in a public forum.
The above was not a plea to post reasonably. It was a statement that we should never discuss what we should do in a give scenario. That essentially eliminates a good deal of the information sharing that this site is all about, no?
March 19, 2003, 09:57 AM
I think you expressed exactly what I was thinking. I own many guns and have a ccw. I carry but I don't boast about it even in front of gun groups. Do I think we have a right to own guns, sure, but I don't feel the need to flaunt it by bragging about what I'm going to do to a BG. Defend yourself if you need to but all the macho talk is only setting yourself up for a civil law suit that your will not be able to defend yourself against by shooting your gun.
Be prepared for all troubles- physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually and legally.
March 19, 2003, 10:29 AM
BK-"I thought the goal of forums like these was to share experience and wisdom."
Yes, that was what I was trying to do. Guess I missed the mark.
SW- "I doubt firearms owners are a minority in America."
By we, I meant people who are involved in the RKBA struggle. Firearm ownership does not imply sensitivity to or agreement with 2nd amendment issues. We are indeed a minority.
Yohan, Blackhawk - See BamBam's response. (Thanks for reading BB.)
BK- "That essentially eliminates a good deal of the information sharing that this site is all about, no?"
Yeah, I guess it does. Will I miss that kind of information? Most likely not. But if we go back and read the original post, the question was what do I do with a perp held at bay. Some folks answered that question. Far too many (IMO) strayed into the realm of what I consider macho posturing, detailing when and where to shoot. That this is useful and interesting information and opinion is beyond debate. That it is in keeping with the subject and scope of this board is, likewise, undisputed. That it is wise and supports our long-term objectives, I wonder.
Again I defer to Jeff White. If you want to discuss these topics in this detail, come over to my place (I'm easy to find, I don't hide behind a handle), have the libation of your choice, you show me yours and I'll show you mine, and we'll while the time away. But not in a public forum where I don't know who's listening.
March 19, 2003, 10:40 AM
Just a quick note...
Why a new thread? The old thread was under Strats and Tactics. This topic, I belive, had more to do with general THR discussion. Nothing special... BamBam and Quartus figured it out. It's amazing how smart a fellow is when he agrees with you!
March 19, 2003, 10:44 AM
My plan is to tie them up and let my wife nag them to death. :D
March 19, 2003, 10:45 AM
If you want to discuss these topics in this detail, come over to my place (I'm easy to find, I don't hide behind a handle), have the libation of your choice, you show me yours and I'll show you mine, and we'll while the time away.
I'll let the snide remark about a handle pass, except to say that many of those on this board know exactly who I am and where to find me. As for discussing these things in person, I'm sure you know that any such conversations constitute potential admissions of a party opponent, and to the extent there is a hypothetical lawsuit arising from a shooting, you have just now made yourself a target of discovery. After all, you have an open invitation to anyone on this board to discuss the issue.
Sort of defeats the purpose of the self-censorship you propose, doesn't it?
March 19, 2003, 10:50 AM
Yeah Buzz, your right, you win.
March 19, 2003, 10:58 AM
My plan is to tie them up and let my wife nag them to death.
:D :D :D
FWIW, I haven't read the other thread (yet) but I think that it is reasonable for somebody to say that they would shoot an intruder if they feared for their lives.
I think that just hearing somebody in my house in the middle of the night would be pretty terrifying, let alone encoutering said scumbag in the hallway leading to where my family resides. I would not hesitate to pull the trigger if my family was in any danger, but I would, if the situation permitted, give the intruder the chance to get out without getting shot.
As far as other people talking about it, just as I have done, I think it gives people the opportunity to express what their frame of mind concerning the subject is, and it gives the other members of the forum the opportunity to disagree with them or make other suggestions.
I think that many people join these boards and have somewhat naive or inexperienced impressions about what they can and cannot do, and it is our priviledge and responsibility to help them to grow into the role of armed citizen.
It makes for lively discussion anyway... :evil:
March 19, 2003, 11:05 AM
A friend of mine makes armor and weapons (Tony Swatton, if you're in CA check out Sword and the Stone). He had a guy show up wanting a full suit of titanium armor, when asked for what.. he wanted to hang around in north hollywood and right wrongs....
Needless to say, Tony refused to do it..the easiest way.. explaining that it would cost $70,000 ;-)
March 19, 2003, 11:18 AM
I think that alot of you are getting het up over nothing. JRhines makes a very good point*.
Here are a couple of quotes I pulled from the referenced thread:
"Shoot (the perp) 3-4 times then stick that rusty .22 I found in his hand."
"I plan to shoot most anyone who breaks into my home at night, regardless."
Either of these quotes could at worst be construed as a statement of intention to commit murder. Not a really great idea from a legal standpoint. More importantly, saying these kind of things makes you look like an irresponsible, bloodthirsty paranoiac. The pro-gun movement can do without that kind of propaganda.
I'm not suggesting that the topic of deadly force should be off-limits (quite the contrary, the thread in question contained some really good advice and information.) I'm just imploring the THR community at large to think hard before they post.
* - In case the identical last name didn't tip everyone off, JRhines is my father. Family gotta stick together, right? ;)
March 19, 2003, 11:23 AM
I'm not suggesting that the topic of deadly force should be off-limits
Except, that's pretty much what your father suggested, or did everyone just misintepret the following?
That is to never explain your intent with regards to home defense in a public forum.
March 19, 2003, 11:26 AM
It seemed pretty clear to me that he was simply saying that a public forum is not the place to run your mouth about what a stone cold killer you consider yourself.
March 19, 2003, 11:40 AM
Buzz, I'm surpised at you! Aren't you a lawyer? You shoiuld understand the importance of words! The discussion, both on that thread and this, is not about whether or not you shoot.
It's about the words we use. "shoot to kill" vs. "shoot to stop".
It's about juvenile comments like putting a rusty .22 in his hand.
Which language is more likely than the other to get you facing murder charges?
Which language is going to influence undecided lurkers the right way? Which is going to influence them the wrong way?
It's not about dyed-in-the-wool antis? Yeah, it's about them, too. No, you aren't going to change their minds - they haven't got any to change. BUt you CAN refrain from giving the enemy his ammunition!
And Delta, you are the worst of all with that nagging crack! Have you no respect for the Constitution? Or do you only support the 2nd Amendment? That same Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, too!
March 19, 2003, 11:56 AM
Buzz said "...or did everyone just misinterpret the following?"
I guess, consular, that EVERYONE did. As I said, you win. But I find it interesting that you question a mistake that everyone else has made and not a misinterpretation on your part. English is my mother tongue, but I probably left considerable ambiguity in my point of view. For that, I apologize.
March 19, 2003, 12:08 PM
I'm not buying into this.
One, I don't believe in appeasing the antis. I agree with buzz_knox: this forum is for the exchange of information, not to script a politically correct facade.
Two, I think the folks in the middle are intelligent enough to not make ridiculous conclusions from strident posts on the Internet. If they weren't that intelligent, they'd be antis. The way to win over the undecided is to take them shooting, not filter our posts through a pc-checker, grammar checker, and spelling checker. I think it is sufficient to ask that we don't post threads advocating doing anything illegal, and this forum does a very good job of that. I'm going to qualify that last statement by observing that some things seem illegal, but actually are not, given that the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land, and some state or local laws are unconstitutional and are therefore invalid.
Three, if the antis don't find what they need here in the way of useful quotations or facts, they'll just make them up. They do that already.
In fact, my favorite tool to determine which side in a dispute is in the right: I look to see which side has to lie and make up "facts" to support their case ("300 children a day ...").
March 19, 2003, 12:21 PM
Yes, I am an attorney and am very familiar with the power of words. That's why I make my jokes clear and my advice reasonable.
However, you all are also misrepresenting this thread. It isn't about the wording or phrases used, it's about whether topics should be discussed at all. At least, that's how it started off, although efforts have now been made to argue that's not the intent.
For those who say the antis could use what we say against us, please be honest enough to recognize that the existence of this forum itself is anathema to them. Comments about the need for training to be responsible have been mischaracterized as well, to show that "even trainers believe the majority of people shouldn't have guns." No matter what we say, they will turn it against us. So, does that mean that those of us who can afford training should keep our mouths shut and not pass on information to those who can't afford it, and who must rely on forums such as this for their advice and counsel?
Finally, for those who keep harping on comments made by some, you should also acknowledge that in nearly every instance when a person crossed the line, someone else jumped up to correct them. This forum does self-correct to a large extent, and that self-correction mitigates the potential damage that could be done by a statement, by determining whether or not the statement was intended as a joke, or was made from ignorance.
By the way, the whole "shoot to kill" vs. "shoot to stop" is for our benefit, not the antis. It is intended to remind us that our goal is to stop unjustified aggression towards the innocent, not to seek revenge. Legally, it has no effect whatsoever as every use of a firearm against another person is either attempted homicide or actual homicide. Whenever you shoot at another human being, you are shooting to kill as a matter of law. The wording really doesn't make a difference to anyone but us, and the trick is to make the jury understand that and become part of "us."
March 19, 2003, 12:29 PM
I just reviewed the other thread for the first time and except for a couple of remarks that I at least take as jokes, I don't see much of a problem. Certainly not enough of a problem to justify a separate thread. Comments about planting evidence were rebutted, more correct advice was offered, and things "self-corrected" as expected.
By the way, Quartus, you might want to go back and delete your jokes. A jury might think you weren't taking it serious enough, especially when you commented about different kinds of smiles. And your comment that semantics and word play are everything could indicate that testimony you give would be carefully tailored for effect not truth.
For the record, I'm not busting on you. But I just thought it would be nice to point out that while you go after others comments as not being appropriate, it would be VERY easy to take what you say and use it for a nefarious purpose.
March 19, 2003, 12:32 PM
I'll get my MOM to nag the intruder to death. She'll read off all sorts of stories about gun accidents and other stories from liberal housewife magazines that claim guns are bad and why he shouldnt have one. Eventually, either the cops will show up, or the perp will run himself through with a lamp to end the suffering.
March 19, 2003, 12:35 PM
That's not funny, Kharn. You can shoot him, stab him, strangle him, or break his neck. But sicking your mom on him? That's cruel and totally uncool. Besides, if your mom is anything like mine, the poor guy wouldn't even have a chance to defend himself.
March 19, 2003, 01:03 PM
I have 20 years in LE. Thank you for being a voice of reason.
Many here have disagreed with you vehemently, and I certainly support their right to do so. (Although I might question their wisdom)
However, YOU have the right to express what you (and I) consider reasonable and well thought out opinions on a very critical subject.
Please keep up the good work, and don't be intimidated by the disagreements.
March 19, 2003, 01:33 PM
Buzz, what jokes about smiling? The one about my brother? If that isn't clearly a joke, I don't know what is! :what:
Uh, it's followed by, "But seriously,..."
I just reviewed the other thread for the first time
That explains a lot.
It isn't about the wording or phrases used, it's about whether topics should be discussed at all.
Buzz, you need a vacation.
March 19, 2003, 01:36 PM
I need a vacation? Why? Because I accurately represented the jist of this thread, or because I'm right? :)
As for reviewing the thread, I misspoke. As my participation in it on two occasions, indicated, I have reviewed it before. I should have said "having reviewed it again."
March 19, 2003, 03:28 PM
I'm not for censorship. And I don't think that we shouldn't discuss these subjects here. Where else are we supposed to discuss them? My point was that comments (even joking ones) about how we would shoot an intruder out of hand were more appropriate in a private group, not posted to a public forum, where anyone can see them and use them against you if you are unfortunate enough to be involved in a defensive shooting. I felt that some of the comments made were of the type that could be used against the poster should the worst happen. Especially in the context of the rest of the thread.
In my mind's eye, I saw some THR member who had been put in the postition of having to shoot an intruder in his home seeing his or her post come back to haunt them as the attorney for the plaintiff produced the thread ion question and said "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendent was a vigilante wannabe and I can prove it. Here in this thread on THR he stated that "it didn't matter, anyone who entered his home was dead". There were many good posts in that thread speaking of better ways to handle it. If the defendant hadn't taken that attitude, my client, whose poor son may well have grown up to be Secretary General of the UN once he got over his meth addiction would still be alive. It's only fair that you award her all of the defendants earnings to compensate her for the loss of her son's companionship.
As for posting under your own name or a screen name, it's your choice. I post under my own name because that's what Rich asked when he started TFL.
I think that there are some things we shouldn't publically joke about as they could come back to haunt us. Hence my comment about watching what we say. What's appropriate over drinks among friends, might be very inappropriate on a public forum.
March 19, 2003, 04:07 PM
Subsequent posts can be the saving grace to comments like that. It allows you to state that your prior statement was made in the spur of the moment, without full consideration, or based on a lack of knowledge of the legal implications. Once you were corrected, your opinion changed. That's the dangerous part of opinions formed prior to the occurrence, because people are free to change what they think. Prior statements are only good if they go to facts, or to deep seated beliefs, which are less susceptible to change.
If you enjoyed reading about "Cooler Heads..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!