Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

But don't shoot to defend yourself........

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by 2dogs, Jan 4, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 2dogs

    2dogs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,865
    Location:
    the city
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30327

    Defending the castle

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: January 4, 2003
    1:00 a.m. Eastern


    © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


    A man's home is his castle, yes? But with no moat, how do you protect it? With a firearm, naturally.

    These days, however, protecting your home can be a crime.

    Just ask Mark Freamon, a Long Island homeowner who was recently busted after defending his domicile from a suspected burglar with a .22 pistol, as a story from the Dec. 29 New York Post details.

    Last Saturday, a man clambered through Freamon's window. "Suddenly a body crashes through, I'm panicked, the adrenaline was rushing, and I instinctively racked the slide, pointed it to the middle [of the intruder] and fired four shots," Freamon recounts.

    The thug fell back and split for safer environs while Freamon called 911 to report the incident. Bad mistake.

    When police showed up, they said his gun was unlicensed. Now Freamon is facing weapons-possession charges. Worse, says the Post story, "Police also seized three legally owned rifles from Freamon's house, which he said had been burglarized before."

    Police later apprehended the intruder, who suffered minor wounds (the .22 isn't a hefty weapon, after all). But by seizing Freamon's guns, they put him in a spot. "This leaves me in a bad situation; now I'm unarmed," he said. Penalized for protecting his home and then left defenseless in a house with a history of burglaries – such a deal.

    What's nuts about situations like this is the police. Where were they? Not at Freamon's house when his uninvited guest showed up. If Freamon didn't have the gun, what might have happened?

    "[Y]ou never know what these people are capable of," said Freamon. "I would have been a whole lot sorrier had I not done it."

    With the police flat-footing it in different locales than Freamon's living room, what was he supposed to do? The answer is, apparently, whatever the thug wanted.

    Laws that prevent people from protecting their properties empower crooks, because the Freamons of the world cannot otherwise ward them off. Put guns in the hands of homeowners, however, and they are empowered to repel the barbarians from their castle gates.

    Unfortunately, people who push for laws like those that Freamon ran afoul of don't see it that way. They see citizens as mainly reliant upon government for protection.

    "The government-control advocates want us to place our fate in the hands of the state," writes WND Editor in Chief Joseph Farah in his new book, "Taking America Back." "Our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor should be entrusted to the police for protection, they say."

    Farah sets up his discussion of firearms ownership with a case in which a burglary was underway when police were called. Officers responded, checked out the scene and left – completely unaware that the burglars and victims were still in the building. The intruders, beyond looting the family silver, also raped and abused the people present – even a little girl.

    Devastated that the police hadn't protected them, the victims sued the authorities. Their devastation was made complete when they lost their case. The court basically ruled that the police cannot be held liable for not protecting people.

    So here's the double whammy: Americans are increasingly being bullied by gun-grabbers to resign their home and personal defense to the police. But the courts say the police can't be held responsible if citizens get the shaft for putting their trust in the cops for naught. In other words, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    The police couldn't have protected Freamon. The attack on his home was sudden. It needed a sudden response – something police are usually in no position to give (it's not as though thugs give law enforcement their itineraries).

    So where does that leave people afraid of getting screwed with no recourse? Illegally owning guns.

    Free people must defend their own property, and the government must not hinder them. If it does, many otherwise law-abiding citizens will simply break the law. Thus, in the name of stopping crime, gun-grabbers turn innocent people into lawbreakers. And they're fine with that – after all, they hate guns. It's not much of a stretch to assume they care little for those who own them.

    But own them we must. As Farah says in "Taking America Back," "Safety and security can only be achieved when individuals take responsibility for themselves." In most cases, no one else can, no one else will. Individuals must have access to firearms and must be able to use them in defense of their lives and properties.

    Not allowing such is like giving intruders engraved invitations to storm our castles.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
  2. Tady45

    Tady45 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    117
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    We are the world's Police where we take it upon ourselves to protect the innocent against criminals, dictators, etc. Yet, when it comes to protecting our own homes from these same types, all bets are off...If this guy does not fire those rounds, who knows what happens? I will never understand this logic. We are at the mercy of entrenched liberalism. It will take years & years to right this sinking ship. The NRA and other similar groups should throw in a few bucks for this guy to use in his defense. A good jury however, will also help...



    Larry :banghead:
     
  3. Redlg155

    Redlg155 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,724
    Location:
    NW Florida
    Perhaps I'm missing something here, but the weapon used was a unlicensed weapon. The article also states that three legal owned rifles were seized...but it does not state that they were registered. A big difference between legally owned or legally registered.

    I understand what the article is getting at, but to put it plain and simple, if you choose to live somewhere that requires you to register your weapons and you use the weapon, then you have to suffer whatever legal problems may arise if you chose to not register the weapon. It doesn't matter that you were legal in defending your home, it does matter that you did it with an illegal weapon.

    The police didn't leave him defenseless. He left himself defenseless by refusing to comply with the laws of that area. Don't like the laws?.either do something about it or move.

    Good Shooting
    Red
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2003
  4. para.2

    para.2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    253
    Location:
    New Mexico
    This same sort of thing happened to Bernie Goetz, who shot some muggers in the subway in NYC. The shooting was righteous, but the jury convicted him of owning/carrying an unregistered firearm.
    Seems a competent defense should have introduced the doctrine of competing harms. Might be harder to make work in this case, because he also had access to several legally held firearms, but still worth a shot.:confused:
     
  5. schmo

    schmo Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    23
    "... Freamon called 911 to report the incident. Bad mistake."

    Be smart people; there are all kinds of enemies.
     
  6. 4v50 Gary

    4v50 Gary Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    18,527
    Good article.

    BTW, trying to cover up a shooting only exacerbates your problems. While I think it good that the involved firearm is surrendered for ballistics (and returned after the shooter is cleared of wrongdoing), the seizure of other firearms is questionable. Who gave them permission to search the house. Restrict the cops to the scene (immediately involved area). Bear in mind that anything is plain sight is fair game for prying eyes.
     
  7. sanchezero

    sanchezero Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    555
    I hate to be a pain in the rear :)eek: yeah right :) ) but does anyone have any additional info on this?

    A legal precendent like this, even civil, ought to be pretty potent ammo for the RTKBA crowd.
     
  8. Airwolf

    Airwolf Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    630
    Location:
    Southern PRK
  9. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,882
    Red nailed it.
     
  10. telewinz

    telewinz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,305
    Location:
    Ohio
    Reglg155 is right

    Illegal pistol, illegal rifles, whats the problem? He knowingly broke the law. In a nation ruled by laws which ones do we pick and choose? I regret what happened, the solution is to change the laws or move. The voters approved the law (I don't agree with their judgement) and the legal system is doing its duty. Police can't protect us, they report crime (after the fact). That must be why I VOTE for pro-gun representitives and don't live in New York. Sad situation but certainly not a new one.
     
  11. 2dogs

    2dogs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,865
    Location:
    the city
    but does anyone have any additional info on this?

    sanchezero

    Also you may want to check out a book called "Dial 911 and Die"- you can get it through the www.jpfo.org - it gives court cases on a state by state basis- a real eye opener.
     
  12. Mastrogiacomo

    Mastrogiacomo Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    2,376
    Location:
    Boston
    Maybe if he didn't have an unlicensed weapon they wouldn't have taken away his other firearms? Mabye he wouldn't be facing the problems that currently loom ahead? Foolish on his part.:uhoh:
     
  13. Dennis Olson

    Dennis Olson Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    27
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Here's my VERY personal opinion:

    I do NOT have to DIE (or watch a member of my family killed) while I stand by helplessly, in order to satisfy any statist, unconstitutional "law".

    Sounds like an SSS scenario to me...

    (Shoot, shovel, shut-up)

    JMHO - YMMV
     
  14. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Now you know why I don't live in New York.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page