Paul Hackett defends property with AR.

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Manedwolf

member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
3,693
Location
New Hampshire
Good show, I say. Though note the media bias. ASSAULT RIFLE ZOMG! :rolleyes: This apparently happened in November, but the details are just out now, and he's not all that happy about the release of them. I wouldn't be, either.

Indian Hill lawyer and former congressional candidate Paul Hackett - armed with a loaded assault rifle - chased down three men in a car after it crashed into a fence at his home in the early morning hours of Nov. 19. The driver was charged with failure to maintain reasonable control, driving under suspension and carrying a concealed weapon - a pair of brass knuckles found in his pocket - according to the Indian Hill police.
Click to expand...

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070110/NEWS01/701100339/-1/CINCI

"Paul is distressed, however, that his privacy has been invaded and that the secrecy of the grand jury has been violated," said Greg Moore, a lawyer who works in Hackett's office.
Click to expand...
 
PAul Hackett? A Democrat? WITH AN ASSAULT WEAPON?

HOW CAN THIS BE??!!??

:neener: :what:

OK, tongue in cheek. Glad to see stories in the news about reasonable people using reasonable methods to defend their safety and property, and having it handled, err, reasonably!
 
Indian Hill lawyer and former congressional candidate Paul Hackett - armed with a loaded assault rifle - chased down three men in a car after it crashed into a fence at his home in the early morning hours of Nov. 19.
Click to expand...

I'm pry one of the most gung-ho, defend your house, shoot first, ask questions later guys here, and I don't see how that is even the slightest bit reasonable.

If I chased down a a couple guys who had just bushwacked one of my fences with my friggin AK, I'd be in jail right now....
 
If it was library books the culprits were making off with, Hackett could've holed them with impunity.;)

Biker
 
While it might not be legal, I find nothing morally wrong with going out to confront vandals while carying a gun.

*Note: I do not mean threatening them, pointing it at them, or chasing them if they try to run.

If some one is destroying my property, I am going to tell them to stop. If it is dark, there is a group, or they have weapons, then I am going to bring a weapon with my to defend myself if they decide to go from vandalism to assault.

This is what my moral sense tells me is right, unfortunately the Law in many places does not agree.:fire:
 
"PAul Hackett? A Democrat? WITH AN ASSAULT WEAPON?
HOW CAN THIS BE??!!??"

Dunno....Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and the Bushes didn't get them all banned perhaps? If a Dem is pro-gun, I've got little disagreement with them
 
Not only did he chase them down, he had them on the ground at gun point. If he isn't going to be charged criminally, there are likely lawyers already talking to those three guys.

Texas law is a bit more lenient if guys are on your property at night, but not down the road.
 
If anyone else had done that they would be answering alot of questions. He lives in the richest part of Cincinnati, is a lawyer and ex-congressional candidate, so he's getting a pass.

But what was he thinking? He chases down the guys with an AR-15 and holds them on the ground. What was he going to do if they resisted, or got up and started runnning? Shoot them in the back for crashing into his fence?
 
If he gets off does that mean that if the f%#^%&s that keep smashing my mailbox get a little surprise next time I'm in the clear?:rolleyes:

Josh
 
If you read the article about his actions, you will notice that there is no mention that his political party affiliation was Democrat. I am positive that if he was a Republican it would have appeared in every third sentence. Not only that, his party affiliation would have been fodder for all the late-night comedians who would have made smirking references to Dick Cheney, The NRA, Iraq war, etc. Oddly enough, this incident hasn't shown up on their radar. Imagine that. Double standard anyone:barf::banghead: ?
 
Paul Hackett got sabotaged by the national Dems in his race against Sherrod Brown for the Dem nomination for US Senator-Ohio.

His stance on guns at least was better than Brown's or Dewines.
 
I got a laugh the other day at the range/gunshop when I heard a clerk telling a potential customer that a Springfield M1A would make the perfect HD gun. Assault rifles have their place in anyones safe but I just dont see them as HD guns (I mean .308 for HD :eek: ). Chasing them down the street with a AR wasnt the right move at all IMO.
 
308 WIN is a good caliber for home defense if you can handle it.

A 165 grain HPBT is a wicked HD round.
 
Chasing them down the street with a AR wasnt the right move at all IMO.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with that. I'm all for home defense... but this does not qualify according to the articles description of the event.

He gave chase with an AR-15 for what amounts to property damage. Just doesn't appear rational to me.
 
I dont want to come off like I am focusing on the type of gun he used. It would have been the same to me if he had chased them down the street with a old single shot 12 gauge. I think if a person forces their way into your home then you have a right to shoot. I dont think you have a right to hold a guy at gun point because he hit your fence. As far as .308 for HD goes over penetration is my big fear about it.
 
Don't worry about penetration.

Stop the threat first or you may not be alive to worry about it!

Use enough gun to stop an attacker.
 
Don't worry about penetration.
Click to expand...

I worry about my neighbors. I'd prefer to not kill a baby a house or two over, thanks.

If you're using a .308 for home defense in a suburban or urban area with the full knowledge of just how many walls that round can go through, then I consider that downright criminal endangerment. And if you used one, and DID hit a neighbor in the next house when it carried happily on through a number of walls, I'd have no trouble with you being charged with manslaughter or 2nd degree murder. IMO, .308 is a battle rifle or SHTF round, suitable only for HD in TOTALLY rural, isolated areas where there's no nearby houses at all.

Your right to self defense does not include willful endangerment of the lives of those who live around you.
 
Bigjake, What Are You Talking About?

If I chased down a a couple guys who had just bushwacked one of my fences with my friggin AK, I'd be in jail right now....
Click to expand...

Um, no, not unless you are a felon. :uhoh:

Certainly where you live it is not against the law to chase down criminals after you notice them perpetrate a crime, is it? :confused:

It doesn't say he shot them! :rolleyes:
 
Chasing down criminals might not be illegal; however, using force or the threat of force to effect a "citizen's arrest" definitely can be.

But what gets me is just how incredibly stupid Hackett was. If the guys had resisted his "arrest" and he'd shot them, his celebrity [hopefully] wouldn't have saved him from a murder or manslaughter trial. He's lucky it did save him from an assault trial.

Guns are for self defense, not defense of your property, not for pursuing people who flee damaging your property,and certainly not for pretending to be a soldier. And don't even get me started about his Iraq-war claims.

080204kerryjohn.jpg
 
Force

Chasing down criminals might not be illegal; however, using force or the threat of force to effect a "citizen's arrest" definitely can be.
Click to expand...


Really?

There is no such thing as an arrest without use of force or the threat of force.

Please cite something rather than just running off at the mouth uncontrollably.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Hackett in rifle controversy
Replies
1
Views
424
Beagle-zebub
B
K
  • Locked
(OH) (Paul) Hackett part of gun incident
Replies
5
Views
1K
Justin
Justin
Back
Top