"I Just Panicked"

[Boats]

But changing the subject from tactics and legalities a bit, did anyone notice this: (fans of STOPPING POWER TAKE SPECIAL NOTE)

He hit each of these guys with a Ruger .44, presumably a .44 mag, and they died.

Yeah. One only drove away and the other crawled off into the woods. These were kills, but they weren't exactly stops.

 

[spacemanspiff]

kimber45, correct me if i'm wrong (seems to happen frequently), but does the scripture you quoted not mention something about it being at night? i seem to recall that the mosaic laws about home invasions only referenced the justifiable killing at night having no bloodguilt.
any other death that occured unintentionally required the killer to escape to a city of refuge, lest the family of the deceased come for revenge. that killer was to stay in the city of refuge until the priest there died, and after that the custom was to let bygones be bygones i suppose. kind of like 'house arrest'.

the israelites justice system was geared to take a BG's life only when the BG committed murder. least thats how i recall it. i might be completely wrong.

 

[Kimber45]

It does state that if the sun hath shone forth upon him, there is bloodguilt but then goes on to state that he must make compensation and if he is caught with what he has stolen in his hand that he must make double compensation. My interputation (for what it is worth) is one should not be a vigialante verses defending what is his.

 

[Standing Wolf]

...told jurors he armed himself with a gun before going into the church but never expected to fire the weapon.

I don't expect ever to have to fire my carry gun, but wouldn't even consider carrying it if I weren't ready, willing, and able to defend my life and property. That's what it's for.

 

[uglymofo]

from Grampster: Maybe I'm just bellicose about criminals being shot by their victims while being caught in the act of robbing, pillaging,

Balog: Religious bashing hardly seems to be the "High Road" we hear so much about. You seem to be saying self defense is antithetical to Christianity, even though the text that forms the basis for all beliefs clearly states it is not.

Keith: It doesn't matter except in the most general sense since Mielke didn't see the gun anyway. It just shows that these guys weren't harmless kids on a prank. They were armed intruders who needed killlin' as they say in Texas.

Kimber45: Exodus 22:2 If a thief should be found in the act of breaking in and he does get struck and die, there is no bloodguilt for him.

Maybe it's just me. I don't have a problem at all, with what happened to the two burglars. Hell, if you're an 'uninvited' stranger prowling around in my house in the dark, you're gonna get shot. Twice. and I don't care if you're armed with bad breath, a pencil, or a flashlight. You're gonna have one of my kitchen knives in your hand with your dead eyes studyin' the ceiling. But I ain't a holy man. and I can shoot. and I've had practice and courses simulating the 'unknown' pressure. I've had to draw down twice. Once in 'life and death'. I know what 's gonna happen when I call the cops. ALL that comes as part of the responsibility of owning/carrying/pulling a gun, and I took on that responsibility and fulfilled my social duty. I'm not LEO, I'm just a guy on the street to y'all.

This idiot gunman moved UP from a .38 to a .44 because "it would be more of a deterrent". and by the way, that's ALL he is, is a gunman. Religion bashing has nothing to do with my stand. I maintain that this guy forsook his religion and its' beliefs for his own. with premeditation:

He said he felt more comfortable talking to strangers when he was carrying a concealed weapon, and had gotten a permit to do that after finding a couple intoxicated men in his parking lot. He had felt too threatened at the time to approach them, he said.

That's one HELL of an attitude for a man of any religion--- why approach them at all? why sweep a building if you're so scared of the general public you pack a .44?? He's the one who says he'd prefer to approach people only when he's packed. Where was this? Bosnia? Iraq? NYC after dark? No, he's in Alaska. Presumably, his normal daily routine consists of visiting all the usual sites and folks that a religious leader usually visits, seeing elderly in the hospital, counseling the troubled, maybe even walking skid row; and I"ll bet that ain't East Oakland at night.

And where is his religion in all this? What happened to 'Thou shalt not kill?' (let's apply for a CCW instead). Most religions I'm familiar with (and admittedly I'm no authority, but I think I can claim this without error--) believe that taking a life is one of the bigger sins, or, "necessities" under the correct conditions. "the church grants dispensation in certain situations"...A panic-stricken milktoast with a gun investigating a noise ain't one of them. I submit that I have never met a truly religious man so lacking in confidence in his faith as to believe that everyone who doesn't look "prim" is a personal threat. We're not talking about my beliefs, but his--if he was truly a religious man, where is the optimism in the human spirit and his god that at least a holy man should project? I submit that it rests in his CCW license and his revolver, and not in his character.

Somebody point to a religious leader (of any minor stature, and not in the public limelight and therefore not a 'general' target of assassination) who packs a gun 'just in case' rather than have faith in his God and the proscribed beliefs of his faith. And then tell me that that same holy man has taken the responsibility of attending defense shooting courses, handgun safety, knows the legal ramifications of pulling a gun.

Pull all the facts out and twist them any way you like; change them to put this shooter in his best and most sympathetic light. They don't alter the fact that this was a gunman, so lacking in confidence (in daily contact) that by his own admission he needed a CCW, who, without any thought for his fellow man, bought a handgun and assumed he could handle himself and any situation that arose, with a gun in his hand. What did religion have to do with this incident except that he denied his religion by his premeditated actions? Did the perps get what they deserved? Sure, but it shouldn't have happened the way it did--by someone professing to be religious.

By the way Balog, I don't need to prove "some small knowledge" to you in order to post. You need to understand what constitutes a truly religious believer. This guy was no more than a thug with religious expertise.

 

[RANash]

Mr Mofo,

Are you saying that anyone who professes faith in God shouldn't use a gun for self-defense because he should trust in God to protect him? And if he does use a gun he shows that his faith is non-existent or weak?

If that's your point (and maybe I'm misunderstanding), it reminds me of an old joke:

It seems that there was a very bad flood and the water was rising in house of a firm believer in the Lord, to the point where he had to go to the second floor. He prayed for the Lord to save him, and a man in a boat came by and said, "Climb out the window and get into my boat and I'll take you to safety!" The believer said, "No! I'm trusting in the Lord to save me!" So the man with the boat left.

The water kept rising, and our believer had to go up to the third floor. Another man in a boat came by and said, "Climb out the window and get into my boat and I'll take you to safety!" The believer said, "No! I'm trusting in the Lord to save me!" So that man with the boat left.

The water kept rising, and the believer had to climb up on the roof. A rescue chopper came overhead, and with a bullhorn, a member of the crew shouted down, "We'll throw down a rope ladder! Climb up and we'll take you to safety!" The believer said, "No! I'm trusting in the Lord to save me!" So the chopper left.

The water kept rising, and swept the man away and he drowned. He went to heaven and stood before the Lord. He said, "Lord, I was trusting You to save me! Why didn't you?

The Lord answered, "I sent you two boats and a helicopter! What more did you want!

My point is that it is a misunderstanding to expect God to do everything for us. We have a responsibility to use the tools, abilities, and opportunities that God gives us. God has given me the ability to shoot, the ability to buy guns and ammo, the ability to get training, and the ability to use these tools to protect myself and my family. It is not necessarily a lack of faith for a believer to carry or use a gun.

Anther point, is this: Because a man is called to the ministry, doesn't mean that he thinks he has it all together spiritually. It simply means that he believes God wants him to care for the spiritual needs of others as a full-time calling. Maybe this guy was fearful, and a stronger, more mature faith would have healed that. Well, God works over time. We come to Him as a mess, and as we grow in faith and wisdom, we change. When you meet a Christian who's a jerk, just remember, that without the Lord he would be an even bigger one!

 

[uglymofo]

RA,

I'm not clear within myself where the line is drawn for a religious leader to pack. That's not my point. I do know one thing---in this instance, this guy applied for a CCW and packed as a crutch to help his confidence, and he did it with complete disregard for the rest of humanity, under the assumption that "everything would work out" if he ever pulled. That's evident by his obvious lack of of training, his legal "composure" (talking to the cops, etc. after the shooting). To me, that reaffirms his lack of ethics, and, if you will, his break with religious thought, benevolence, belief, whatever you want to call it; he choose himself first by the action of buying a gun and by the inaction of not taking any training (at least, possibly demonstrated by his neophyte behaviour before, during, and after the shootings). He damned to haphazard luck all the rest of society he'd encounter. THAT is not a religious man; at least, in my mind, he's no one who should claim a faith in God to the extent of "leading" a congregation.

He did everything wrong, including shooting 2 guys he didn't even know were armed. As far we know, their physical presence was the threat. What threat? He packed a gun to go find a problem. If he does as he's taught, they're out the door, maybe with some of his property when the cops show up. Instead, he goes to investigate, "John Wayne-ing it" at his best. He knew where his wife was; neither she nor he were in imminent danger when he started out with his gun. He didn't give a damn about anyone but his property. What preacher do you know that'd argue with you over property and brandish to prove his point? That's no preacher. And without training, this guy's not even a responsible gun owner.

Does a religious man using a gun constitute an 'unfaithful' or weak person? No. Does a religious "leader" toting a gun everywhere CCW'd with (this guy's psyche and lack of character) constitute an unfaithful or weak person? You betcherr _ss. He should be stripped of his leadership role; he should serve time. Religion is not part of this shooting.

And by the way, is someone with a CCW who, (by their own admission) demonstrates that they panic under stress, and cannot explain their actions afterward--is that person allowed to maintain their CCW?

 

[Keith]

He did everything wrong, including shooting 2 guys he didn't even know were armed.

I don't have a problem at all, with what happened to the two burglars. Hell, if you're an 'uninvited' stranger prowling around in my house in the dark, you're gonna get shot.

Interesting, two diametrically opposed statements about the same event. Apparently because this guy represents some religious symbol with which you have a problem, you think he's in the wrong. However, had it been you, the shooting would have been totally righteous...

Keith

 

[spacemanspiff]

if he was truly a religious man, where is the optimism in the human spirit and his god that at least a holy man should project? I submit that it rests in his CCW license and his revolver, and not in his character.

so priests and pastors should never arm themselves? they should trust in god for protection, not in guns? sounds similar to other elitist opinion, doesnt it?
"oh those silly civilians should trust in law enforcement for their protection!"

uglymofo, sad to say that your posts in this thread have lumped you in with the other armchair commandos. you think you would have done so much better than this man did. yet can you really sit there and tell us that your confidence comes from within your character, and not your guns or training?

and what do you know about alaska and the crimes committed up here? sounds like you know neither the place, nor those who live here. do you believe that there should be a minimum percentage of crimes committed in an area before CCW is allowed?
had this pastor been unarmed, and injured or killed, i bet a shiny nickel you'd be in the thread saying 'well he was an idiot to be unarmed.'

 

[Horsesense]

Ugly…, you do bring up some points worth considering. The fact that the man was a preacher or a storeowner or farmer should have no bearing upon the actions taken.

You seem to have a keen sense of justice (that’s good) you can rest assured that justice will be served. The God this religious man serves will see that total and complete justice will be served, not only regarding the events of the night in question but in every lie he has ever told, every lustful thought etc etc a day of reckoning in which every secret sin will brought to light and due punishment dealt out. On the other hand… if the guy is a true Christian…justice has already been served, on the cross. What can wash away all my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

This forum probably is not the place for further "religious discussion" but if you would like to discuss sin, righteousness, justice, mercy and faith just PM me.

 

[BluesBear]

And where is his religion in all this? What happened to 'Thou shalt not kill?'

Actually the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is in reality just one of the many mistranslations occuring in the King James Bible. If you go back to the original text, which I believe was written in Greek, (Even though there are those who actually think the Bible was written in English) and translated it correctly it would read, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder."

Now there is a HEAP of difference between Killing and Murdering.


Now, I, for one, am not gung ho on turning this into a discourse on Christianity, or any other religion, but, if you're going to spout the Bible, please read all of it, especially the parts that deal with self defense, justice as well as crime and punishment.

You can't bad-mouth the antis about only using/twisting certain phrases from a document to suit their own agenda and then do it yourself. Makes no difference if your quoting the Bible or the Constitution.

Just my 2¢, (put it in the collection plate)



Edited to add.. EXCUUUUUUSSSSSSSEEEEE Me Horsesense, I stand corrected in that the original text was in Hebrew and not Greek. Being from Kentucky we mostly spoke English and American. You must forgive me but that particular Sunday School class and Bro. Zuberer's Sermon about it, occured over 35 years ago for me. For some reason I felt even at that young age that it was something worth remembering. Perhaps there was also a Greek translation that we compared it to also.

Also, I will not be bullied into deleting this or any post.
IF you are the scholar you act like you are you might agree that there are some areas of the KJV that differ from other translations, the number of Horses mentioned somewhere is the other one that sticks in my mind. It was not my intention to try and discredit any version of the Holy Bible. Just that the intent of the Thou Shalt Not Kill part (Commandment 6) is open to debate and discussion. In fact the version of the Bible that rests on my nightstand (about the same distance away from me while sleeping as the Telephone and the Mossberg) says in Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder." and the footnote states "murder. The Hebrew for this verb usually refers to a premeditated and deliberate act."

 

[Ivanimal]

I believe every man religious or otherwise has th right to protect his property. What has not been mentioned here is what might have happened if he were asleep and they decided to attack him and his wife. These human varmints had no respect for his property and were brazen in their actions, not to mention outnumbering him 3 to one.

Only God can truly judge this man, It is my opinion they should be offering this man praise and not a trial.

 

[BluesBear]

Horsesense,

Please stop trying to bully me with Private Messages.
If you have something to debate, do it in the forum. Do not waste my time with PM I will no longer accept them from you.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

Just to throw one more wrench into the works:

My understanding is that the first written form of the Old Testament was actually written in Aramaic.

Gee, this topic has drifted a bit, eh?

Here's what I see.

1. I -- and many others -- believe that a man has a moral right to shoot and kill trespassers. Crime should be deadly dangerous.

2. On the other hand, the law doesn't always see it that way.

In MN, where I live, deadly force is only authorized against threat of GBH or death, or in stopping a felony in a home.

In AK, where this incident took place...

A person...may use...deadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be a burglary in any degree occurring in an occupied dwelling or building.

(http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter81/Section350.htm)

So it sounds like although shooting these guys inside the building is legit, shootin' `em while they run away in the yard isn't.

The poor pastor panicked. Pity.

 

[Balog]

Mpayne: Most of the Old Testament is in Hebrew. I believe some of it is Aramaic, but the majority is Hebrew (a friend is getting set to attend seminary and he takes quite a bit o' Hebrew). The New is mostly koine(sp?) or common Greek (as opposed to the classical Greek found in Homer's works). And the KJV is both A)inherently inaccurate in places & B)written in archaic language that is very easy to read incorrectly. It's like picking up Milton or Shakespeare. You can get most of it, but a lot of the words aren't used or are used differently.

 

[Balog]

Oh and re Christians and RKBA: Check out Luke 22 IIRC. Jesus instructs his disciples to buy swords to carry for self-defense, even if they have to self the cloak off their backs. It should be noted that at this time it was illegal for Jews to carry a concealed weapon without Roman permission (sound familiar?). So not only is the Messiah instructing his disciples to go armed, he's also telling them to break the law to do so. Remember also that when they came to take Him, Peter was illegally carrying a sword. While Jesus reproved him for attacking one of the people when he had been told not to, no objection is made to his having the weapon in the first place.

 

[spacemanspiff]

Jury must decide whether pastor acted reasonably

By SHEILA TOOMEY
Anchorage Daily News

(Published: October 24, 2003)
A pistol-packing preacher used deadly force to defend an unoccupied building containing little of value and killed two men who were just trying to get away, prosecutor Bob Collins said Thursday as the case against Big Lake minister Phillip Mielke wrapped up and went to the jury.

Actually, countered defense attorney Jim Gilmore, the preacher is a mild-mannered man who quietly carried a gun for self-defense and used it in a "totally unexpected, out-of-control situation" in which he was forced to shoot two burglars as they rushed him inside his own church.

Mielke, 44, is charged with manslaughter in the April 24 deaths of Chris Palmer, 31, and Francis Jones, 23. There is little dispute over the facts of the case. Palmer and Jones were burglarizing Big Lake Community Chapel about 5 a.m. when Mielke heard a suspicious noise over an intercom system hooked up between the church and his home across the road. He armed himself and went to investigate.

The three men ended up together in a small, dark arctic entry. Mielke says he ordered the intruders to stop and then fired when they kept coming.

The issue is whether Mielke acted reasonably.

Jurors also may consider a lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide.

As might be expected, the prosecution and defense described two very different men Thursday as they tried to persuade jurors to vote their way.

According to Collins, Mielke is a fearful man obsessed with security who entered the chapel early that morning planning to shoot the intruder he knew was there.

"He's a person who needs a gun before he can talk to a stranger," Collins said. He noted Mielke's testimony that he once avoided talking to two drunks loitering in the church parking lot because he wasn't armed.

"Does a reasonable person feel they need a gun to approach another person?" Collins asked jurors. "He needs a gun to give him courage."

When Mielke strapped on his .44-caliber handgun and went to investigate the thunk he heard over the intercom, he found an empty car idling in the brush off the chapel parking lot. Obviously someone was in the church, Collins said. That's when a reasonable person would have called Alaska State Troopers rather than enter a darkened building by himself, setting up a potentially deadly situation.

Mielke wanted to shoot the intruder, Collins charged.

Ridiculous and unreasonable, Gilmore replied. Just imagine that call to 911, he urged jurors. When the dispatch operator asked, "What is the nature of your emergency?" Mielke would say: 'Well, I heard a noise. It could be inside or outside. It could have been a car door slamming.' "

What was the likely response, Gilmore said, mimicking a dismissive dispatcher: " 'Thank you, Mr. Mielke. Please call us again when you hear another noise that could have been inside or outside, or a car door.' "

"You don't want to call wolf," Gilmore said. "His job is to see if there's something fishy going on at the church, inside or out."

At first, things looked fine. Then he heard voices from the basement and shouted over the intercom to his wife, Helen, to call 911, Gilmore said. But she didn't hear him.

Almost immediately, Jones and Palmer came rushing up the basement stairs at him, Gilmore said.

"It was like a bear charging," Gilmore said. "The critical feature of this event (is) it happened in a matter of seconds ... and it happened in the dark. ... His fear that caused him to pull the trigger was reasonable under the circumstances."

"These guys were running out of the building," Collins replied. Mielke obviously believes "it's OK to shoot first and ask questions later and hope the people you shot deserved to be shot," said Collins, adding that the preacher had no idea who was coming up those steps. It could have been scared kids.

"They showed absolutely no aggression toward him except to try to run away," Collins said.

If he was acting in self-defense, why did Mielke empty his gun out a window at Jones' back as the mortally wounded man fled toward the idling car? Collins asked. "Once he started shooting, he couldn't stop shooting. ... This is the act of someone who isn't going to let them get away."

And in the end, what was the point of it all? Collins asked. "There were no assets worth a life-or-death decision in that church." The burglars were stealing donated food the church planned to give away, Collins said. "You don't take a gun to protect some old doughnuts. ... Those are not the actions of a reasonable person."

Daily News reporter Sheila Toomey can be reached at [email protected].
====================


its obvious where that prosecutor stands on self defense shootings. good luck to Pastor Mielke.

 

[Quartus]

Balog is correct. Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, parts in Aramaic, including part of the book of Daniel which was written by Nebuchadnezzer.

Yup. Nebuchadnezzer.


New Testament in Koine Greek.


The KJV incorrectly translates the commandment as "Thou shalt not kill." in the Exodus passage, and CORRECTLY translates it as "Thou shalt do no murder." in Matthew 19. (Jesus quoting some of the commandments.)

There are about 9 or 10 words for taking life in Hebrew, I'm told. One for killing in battle, one for state executions, one for killing in self defense, etc. And one for unlawful killing. That's the word that is used. Murder.


ugly, I think I understand your displeasure with this guy - it does read like he was walking around scared most of the time.. I see no conflict with preparing to defend oneself against criiminals, and having faith in God. I use seatbelts and I have insurance, not because I don't trust in God, but because I have a responsiblity to take care of things.


But walking around scared, as it seems this guy may have been, certainly is NOT trusting. That's called a failing. It's common to all of us. It says nothing about the validity of his faith - it does say that his faith is weak.

OTOH, while I understand your point, it really isn't fair of YOU, not beliveing in this man's religion, to dictate to HIM how his religion must be lived out. If you don't know the rules by which he tries to live, you have no basis for criticising him for failing to abide by those rules. And it certainly isn't fair for you to impose YOUR rules on him, and then complain when he doesn't live up to them.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

Mpayne: Most of the Old Testament is in Hebrew. I believe some of it is Aramaic, but the majority is Hebrew

Whoops. You are precisely correct.

 

[Horsesense]

I sent you PM’s because it’s off topic AND I didn’t want to humiliate you in public. I saved both PM’s and would gladly forward them to anyone who is interested in the subject. Basically I was trying to get you away from parroting ignorant statements you heard years ago on an inappropriate board.

Perhaps the High Road would start a Theology Board.

BTW I have only sent five PM’s in the whole time I have been at the high road, just for the record

 

[Brian Dale]

The only statement using a religious reference that I have to make, in any language, in this thread is that I'm glad that God gave me sense enough not to (a) break into someone's place, and then (b) rush at the dweller therein, (c) together with another person (because 2-on-1 is always a fair bet to be a lethal threat, even barehanded). I'd expect to get shot if I did that.

That I wouldn't be breaking in at all myself is not my point here. It's a drag that their rushing him frightened him enough that he kept on shooting. Could he be sure that the 2nd guy wasn't coming back in through the window to attack him again? He certainly couldn't be sure that they were not carrying weapons. He should have paid more attention to Rule 4, except that he had been under attack, and there was a possibility that the attack was continuing. I wasn't there; I can't see what he saw.

Grampster said it right.

 

[uglymofo]

I should probably let this go; this'll be my last post here. I respond only to correct glib allegations left by others, i. e.,

Keith

quote:He did everything wrong, including shooting 2 guys he didn't even know were armed.



quote: I don't have a problem at all, with what happened to the two burglars. Hell, if you're an 'uninvited' stranger prowling around in my house in the dark, you're gonna get shot.



Interesting, two diametrically opposed statements about the same event. Apparently because this guy represents some religious symbol with which you have a problem, you think he's in the wrong. However, had it been you, the shooting would have been totally righteous...

Yes, I think he's wrong, but not because I have a "problem with a religious symbol". He's an idiot gun owner, who, without reason, crossed the road to an unoccupied building and shot two men over property. By his own admission, no lives were at stake when he went and got his gun. Secondly, he's a man hiding behind his religion. Thirdly, I never said my shooting would be "totally righteous". I insinunated that if I killed a burglar in my house the killing would be "justified" by the "evidence". I am no holy man, and don't pretend to be. It's unfortunate Keith decided to take one sentence quotes out of context; he should spend more time learning to read for thoroughness, content and comprehension.

Spacemanspiff

if he was truly a religious man, where is the optimism in the human spirit and his god that at least a holy man should project? I submit that it rests in his CCW license and his revolver, and not in his character.

so priests and pastors should never arm themselves? they should trust in god for protection, not in guns? sounds similar to other elitist opinion, doesnt it?
"oh those silly civilians should trust in law enforcement for their protection!"

uglymofo, sad to say that your posts in this thread have lumped you in with the other armchair commandos. you think you would have done so much better than this man did. yet can you really sit there and tell us that your confidence comes from within your character, and not your guns or training?

and what do you know about alaska and the crimes committed up here? sounds like you know neither the place, nor those who live here. do you believe that there should be a minimum percentage of crimes committed in an area before CCW is allowed?
had this pastor been unarmed, and injured or killed, i bet a shiny nickel you'd be in the thread saying 'well he was an idiot to be unarmed.'

I never said priests and pastors should never arm themselves. Try reading it again and let your brain kick in before you type. I said, and I quote for you since you can't read for content either:

I'm not clear within myself where the line is drawn for a religious leader to pack. That's not my point. I do know one thing---in this instance, this guy applied for a CCW and packed as a crutch to help his confidence, and he did it with complete disregard for the rest of humanity, under the assumption that "everything would work out" if he ever pulled. That's evident by his obvious lack of of training, his legal "composure" (talking to the cops, etc. after the shooting). To me, that reaffirms his lack of ethics, and, if you will, his break with religious thought, benevolence, belief, whatever you want to call it; he choose himself first by the action of buying a gun and by the inaction of not taking any training (at least, possibly demonstrated by his neophyte behaviour before, during, and after the shootings). He damned to haphazard luck all the rest of society he'd encounter. THAT is not a religious man; at least, in my mind, he's no one who should claim a faith in God to the extent of "leading" a congregation.

It's too bad such a lightweight armchair authority such as Spacemanspiff has attempted a personal rebuke with

your posts in this thread have lumped you in with the other armchair commandos. you think you would have done so much better than this man did. yet can you really sit there and tell us that your confidence comes from within your character, and not your guns or training?

Sorry Mr. Armchair Authority. I HAVE done better, in the only two occasions I've had to draw down on someone, as I said in my earlier post of October 24th, 2003 12:56 AM. You too, should go back and reread for content and comprehension. (On an aside, since my "experience" has been questioned, the "life and death" situation I referred to was a nighttime felony stop where I was a ride-along with a Berkeley PD. We pulled our guns (mine was the squadcar 12ga) on 3 in a windowless van (try that sometime, Spacemanspiff) who had a fourth, an 'alleged' kidnap victim. Yes, she was really a victim, and yes, no one was shot. The other incident I deem not "life and death" was when I was separated from my wife in the same house and the alarm went off. I cleared the house without shooting either her nor our visiting friend who inadvertantly set off the alarm. ) And more to the last point in the above quote, it matters not a damn where "my confidence comes from", so long as I have it and can determine in a rational manner when to pull the trigger. One thing's for sure, I know how to handle myself when I am armed and confronted by others who are truly a deadly threat.

As to his comment

and what do you know about alaska and the crimes committed up here?

about my experience with local crime in Alaska-- I'd have loved to have lived in "crime-ridden" Anchorage, rather than spend 11 years in Oakland, CA, where the PRK deems CCW self-defense a crime, and the murder rate is eight times higher in an average year.

Lastly, he says

had this pastor been unarmed, and injured or killed, i bet a shiny nickel you'd be in the thread saying 'well he was an idiot to be unarmed.'

You'd have lost your bet. Try to read for content, you'll do better. I have always maintained this guy was a thug hiding behind religious expertise; legally, he was an idiot for arming himself that night with the intention of shooting people in the sole defense of property. He was a thug for putting all of society in jeopardy by buying a gun and going home with it, disdaining training and practice to the damnation of all others. One thing no one can deny (no matter the political climate in Anchorage)-- the evidence provided by the police to the local district attorney could have been construed as two justifiable homicides; i. e., self-defense. However, the evidence was not found to be that clearcut, both because of the physical evidence and the stupidity of the shooter who blabbed his idiocy at will. If nothing else happens here, hopefully his court costs will break him financially; stupid people deserve to be punished for their stupidity. Send your nickle to him; or keep it yourself. Stupid people need everything charitable society will offer.

I'm done with this thread. I responded to the trolls and their out-of-context one liners and I'm gone.

 

[Keith]

This is about a shooting. It's not about "Holy Men" or how they should act vs how the rest of us should act.

Moderators - please close this thread as it has gone wildly off-topic!

I'll start a new thread on the subject when the jury comes back with a verdict in the next day or so. Perhaps we can leave the religion out of that one...

Keith

 

[P95Carry]

Moderators - please close this thread as it has gone wildly off-topic!

AGREED!!

 

[spacemanspiff]

He was a thug for putting all of society in jeopardy by buying a gun and going home with it, disdaining training and practice to the damnation of all others.

If nothing else happens here, hopefully his court costs will break him financially; stupid people deserve to be punished for their stupidity.

hows the air up there on that high horse of yours?