Aragon
member
Do you actually know what a "straw man argument" is?
What are armed citizens in Balitmore doing?
- Thread starter Redstate
- Start date
- Status
Do you actually know what a "straw man argument" is?
Snejdarek
Member
I've seen how generally under-equipped the American riot cops are, nevertheless, do they use the "pepper paint ball" in US?
The Czech cops use it both to mark the violent rioters for arrest (and possible later prosecution if they have camera records) as well as to lower their resolve.
The Czech cops use it both to mark the violent rioters for arrest (and possible later prosecution if they have camera records) as well as to lower their resolve.
Snyper
Member
Let's don't play word games:
Snyper
Member
If a business owner is inside his business, and someone breaks in to rob said business, MD law allows the use of deadly force to prevent a "violent robbery"
"Castle Doctrine" makes no difference in whether the right to use deadly force applies.
In defending one's self, you are also defending the property.
You don't lose that right when you leave your "castle"
TimSr
Member
Yes, its creating a position that nobody has taken (like shooting theives and looters) and then arguing against it.
TimSr
Member
I think everybody is aware of the difference. A theft can esily turn into a robbery when the thief meets resistance. Most thieves operating under "looters amnesty night" do not wish to become robbers, hence the reason a business owner might want to be in is business.
The rules don't change after business hours. You try to stop a shoplifter, and he displays a weapon, you are protecting yourself, not what he was trying to steal.
To answer the pepper ball question - yes.
It also killed an innocent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Victoria_Snelgrove
It also killed an innocent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Victoria_Snelgrove
Aragon
member
That's not entirely it...
Officers'Wife
Member
Not a word game, theft and robbery have very precise terms and are synonyms only in a very very general sense. Human beings are classed as any mammal belonging to the species of human beings. Ergo a man is human and a woman is human but if the man has a baby it's an inhuman event even though a female human has one some like every five minutes. ( I know, she ought to be stopped.) While man, woman and human are synonyms, they are hardly interchangeable.
Added thought: As for shooting thieves, that's barbaric! We need to go back to the English custom of publicly hanging them.
Snyper
Member
In "legal terms" maybe, in the context of this thread, not so much.
MD law allows you to use deadly force to prevent "robbery" and "burglary".
A business owner in his place of business would be justified in using it against a violent intrusion
Snyper
Member
It's all about context, not science fiction
Officers'Wife
Member
Hallelujah, the scales have fallen from his eyes!!!
And in the context of this thread there is a diff large between theft and robbery. Peace be to you brother, please add to the collection plate on your way out.
notaglockfanboy
Member
You should ask yourself the same question. I didn't figure you would do the right thing and apologize like a man. You literally put words in my comment that simply were not there and cannot bring yourself to admit your wrongdoing.
Armybrat
Member
Best thing I read in this thread was Snejdarek's info about the Czech police use of pepper/paintball guns to discourage the miscreants. 
You missed the post of the judge (long time lurker and first time poster - his words). He set the record straight although some still don't want to accept the way things are. They may find out that there are these people that try to make sure you do follow the rules even if you don't believe in them. They're called police, district attorneys and judges.
And again killing someone over a Twinkie is something I hope I'm never going to do. I hope I never have to kill anyone for any reason. I want the right to defend myself when someone else isn't following the rules but to shoot someone without a mighty good reason would make me sick the rest of my life. Killing someone for any reaons would be very hard on me. I know our soldiers are trained to do such things and they do what the country asks of them. But to shoot a looter is something I just can't do whether there are legal consequences or not. To be honest I'm not even sure I would shoot to defend my own life. I would shoot to defend my wife or my kids though.
danez71
Member
When the argument is weak... apparently things are made up.
Here's your quote he initially referenced.
No one here is portraying the criminals as saints. YOU said that. YOU fabricated that out of thin air. He didn't need to put words in your mouth. YOU spewed it out all by yourself.
The only one that should apologize "like a man" is you for doing it, denying it, and attacking him.... and then choosing to make up more stuff by accusing him of putting words in your mouth.
As a side note:
I remember a case in AZ about 10 yrs ago. The resident shot someone that had broke into their garage (the side door was unlocked). He ended up going to jail because the judge decided that the garage wasn't "living space" and therefor didn't qualify as part of the castle doctrine. Since the criminal wasn't armed, he also considered it a disproportionate use of force. I don't know if he appealed or not.
You may want to rethink your chest thumping just a little bit.
....................
That ol' saying of ' The loudest ships in the harbor are the ones with empty hulls' could be applied to this thread.
Look at the posts that were the 1st to say things like "MD is a disarmed state", "getting a gun is nearly impossible in MD", "the Constitution guarantees personal property rights", "most states allow you to kill someone for stealing your stuff"
All of those inaccurate statements have been disproven.
rodensouth
Member
If I cannot be in the place that I own, and not defend it with MY life, then this countries laws should change.
I'm not talking about shooting anyone in the street, but once they break in, do they have NO responsibility?
I will have my wife and dogs long gone if I have enough time, but I have the right to stay if I wish, just as they have the right to loot.
When honest people give up, I'm afraid the evil will prevail in the end.
Someone could steal my car, and I'd watch it drive away, but bust a window to my place and swarm in????
I've tried to understand that view and cannot. I must be too simple minded.
I'm not talking about shooting anyone in the street, but once they break in, do they have NO responsibility?
I will have my wife and dogs long gone if I have enough time, but I have the right to stay if I wish, just as they have the right to loot.
When honest people give up, I'm afraid the evil will prevail in the end.
Someone could steal my car, and I'd watch it drive away, but bust a window to my place and swarm in????
I've tried to understand that view and cannot. I must be too simple minded.
Last edited:
danez71
Member
Actually, I think that's a good simple example.
See someone on your front yard carrying your power tools...? Probably not worth killing over and if you did you'd probably go to jail.
See angry people swarming in through the busted out window in your livingroom and you shoot .....?
Waaaaaaay better chance of getting 'atta boys'.
You have this in quotes, can you find the original?
How interesting. You value the lives of your wife and children more than the life of a murderous, brutal thug(s), but you quite possibly value the life of a murderous, brutal thug(s) more than you value your own life.
If you value the life of a merciless attacker more than you value your own life (and responsibilities to your family), you might well end up like this man someday.
To each his own, of course.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/black-mob-attacks-white-man-in-baltimore-suburb/
L.W.
rodensouth
Member
Danez, I appreciate your feeling my example, but want to state that I don't want to get at " the boys" or ANYBODY. I just want to be free and left alone and unharmed.
Last edited:
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
I love all the posts which just assume that by staying in harms way and making a stand, they'll come out on top. The core reason why defending mere property with lethal force is a bad idea is because your use of lethal force can quite easily get you killed, either by a pack of zombies or by an unseen assailant who gets lucky while you are distracted. Unless it is immediately necessary for your survival, getting killed over your own stuff is kind of silly, from a "lost opportunity cost" perspective, but maybe that's because I'm still young and accumulating wealth.
FWIW, the US won the revolutionary war using "cheap, cowardly" tactics like sniping, ambushes, strategic retreats, and making examples of sympathizers. We had no bones over running when we needed to. But, an offensive war is a poor analogy to defense of self or property.
TCB
FWIW, the US won the revolutionary war using "cheap, cowardly" tactics like sniping, ambushes, strategic retreats, and making examples of sympathizers. We had no bones over running when we needed to. But, an offensive war is a poor analogy to defense of self or property.
TCB
I dont believe Danez is saying "AT" anyone, the term "atta boy*" is a slang spelling of "that a boy" implying approval, and in this case, that its appropriate that one would defend their house and not be condemned legally or morally for doing so.
*http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=attaboy
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
