Right to defend yourself?

  • PATRONS: Did you know we've a chat function for you now? Look to the bottom of the screen, you can chat, set up rooms, talk to each other individually or in groups! Click 'Chat' at the right side of the chat window to open the chat up.
  • Love Gotmead and want to see it grow? Then consider supporting the site and becoming a Patron! If you're logged in, click on your username to the right of the menu to see how as little as $30/year can get you access to the patron areas and the patron Facebook group and to support Gotmead!
  • We now have a Patron-exclusive Facebook group! Patrons my join at The Gotmead Patron Group. You MUST answer the questions, providing your Patron membership, when you request to join so I can verify your Patron membership. If the questions aren't answered, the request will be turned down.
WrathWilde, I am sorry to say but the "three strikes and your out" laws are not being implemented. I have an uncle who has done made three strikes several times over. They still give him no more than six months, If even that much. Those tougher penalties do not work because they keep rolling on each other to avoid those sentences or they make a plea bargain. My felon uncle was almost murdered back in 2002 or 2003 an dthose bastards tried to cut a plea. If it were not for the fact that our family insisted that no plea bargain be accepted they would have accepted one. I used to work with two people who were imprisoned for felonies, one was a repeater on his third involving a weapon, both were plead down and received no more than eight years maximum. that did not include early release for good behavior. The system is on a rehabilitate while incarcerated policy. They get educatuion and training, paid for by our taxes. I cannot afford the training that they get. They get exercise equipment that is paid for by our taxes. I cannot afford the equipment that they get to use. They get cable tv that our taxes pay for. There are people working legitemate jobs who cannot afford that. Why should they get all of this paid for by our tax dollars when there are more legitimate workers out here who cannot have that stuff. I say take it away from those criminals and give it to the law abiding citizens who cannot afford it as a reward for staying legitimate. We need to get tougher on criminals like we were before the fifties. If they want skill training then they prove that they are worthy. An extreme few actually come out of prison and become useful members of society under the rehabilitate method as opposed to the hard time policy. Look at the 1800's more inmates came out and became prominent members of society. Lawyers (John Wesley Hardin), and even law enforcement (Wyatt Earp).

Making drugs legal and heavily taxing it will not come close to ending the black market on them. Look at alcohol, guns, cigarettes. Those are legal to purchase yet there is still a large black market supply and demand for them. Why do you ask? They exist to avoid the taxes. And do you honestly believe that people will stay for their rehab for addiction? I would and do not. Law enforcement cannot be organized to better protect anyone all the time. It is impossible. the only one who can protect you 24/7 is yourself. Noone else is capable. Police did not prevent my uncle from almost being killed. he almost died several times in the first 24 hours. The police were not able to prevent a good friend of mine from being mudered. The police did not prevent me from being assaulted, I did that myself. they only responded when they realized what was transpiring. If it had turned lethal it would have been too late. They were only two minutes drive from us.

The main point is that no matter how many laws you have, how many cops are on the streets, crime will exist. I do feel that we should try a more proactive approach to reaching out to the kids in the schools and try to keep them in it and out of the gangs. the job market in this country diminishing more and more rapidly, especially after NAFTA is only maiking things worse. The highest crime rates we had were during the depression. no jobs and no future. Also, many of those who worked in the alcohol trade during prohibition turned to illegal liquor manufacturing of booze. Irt was al they knew, and there was nothing else for them they had to feed their families. I honestly believe that prohibition helped , in a big way, to bring about The Great Depression. Many are trying, though they may not realize it, to bring about another one that will be worse than the last one by outlawing cigarettes, guns, and (to those it may offend sorry) porn.

May the gods grant you great brews,
Gerald
 
Just to muddy the waters a bit...

How serious an offense should possession of child pornography be?

Based on a number of recent kidnapping/rape/murders of children that have occurred and the fact that I have children that could be victimized, I am for really stiff penalties. What do the rest of you think?

Happy Wednesday,
Pewter
 
quote author=NeadMead

If they want skill training then they prove that they are worthy.
I agree! For violent offenders forget set sentences, They do not get released until they can demonstrate that they can be productive members of society. This means passing a series of tests and conditions to be eligible. Murderers would not be eligible and would be kept separate. Ideally first time offenders would be kept in separate facilities so that they would not be influenced and intimidated by repeat offenders. At each stage the conditions for release become harder.

Making drugs legal and heavily taxing it will not come close to ending the black market on them. Look at alcohol, guns, cigarettes. Those are legal to purchase yet there is still a large black market supply and demand for them. Why do you ask? They exist to avoid the taxes.

As I said the markets would still exist, but they would be greatly diminished. The cost to manufacture these drugs is very low, even with a 100 to 200% tax through the legal channels chances are they'd still beat street prices of today. To give an example... 10 years ago a hit of acid in Northern California would cost you anywhere from $4 to $8 dollars. However if you knew the right people, within one or two steps of the manufacture, a sheet of 100 hits could be had for $65. Which I'm sure was still a huge markup for the manufacture. (I'd be surprised if it cost more than $2 to make) You have to remember these are small operations, drug companies could turn them out for a lot less. So even with a sales tax of 200%, and the retailer making an excellent profit reselling at $65 per sheet, you'd be looking at $2 a hit, still well under the street price, making a black market much less financially attractive.

And do you honestly believe that people will stay for their rehab for addiction?
I would think many more than do today, because the taxes collected from the sales would be paying for it. It would be a no cost option. It's only when the addiction has triggered unlawful behavior that incarceration and mandatory rehab are required. If you are addicted, but choose not to go into rehab, that is your prerogative... as long as you stay on the right side of the law.

Law enforcement cannot be organized to better protect anyone all the time. It is impossible. the only one who can protect you 24/7 is yourself.
I agree completely! But the reality right now is that it is the Illegal drug trade that is supporting the majority of criminal activity. If we could take away even 3/4 of the illegal activity through legal channels... this country would be in much better shape.

Wrathwilde
 
WW,

But which drugs do you make legal and which do you disallow? Acid can have very long lasting negative impacts. I think the same is true of almost any of the hard stuff. I have a hard time lumping weed in with crack or meth...

Your thoughts?
 
Pewter_of_Deodar said:
Every convienience store clerk has the right to never have a gun pointed at them while they work. Every woman has the right to never be raped. Our laws and law enforcement need to be structured to assure those rights are protected.

This isn't true at all. I don't think you understand exactly what a right as granted by the state is. While I appreciate your sentiment, living in a crime free state isn't a right at all. It's a nice utopian dream that we all can aspire to, but we all will face dangers in our lives and that includes crime.

For instance; If not being assialed at gun point were actually a right, then all those convience clerks would be able to sue the local municipalities for denying them their civil rights. Clearly, that's not the case. Nor is expecting the government to bail you out of any and all situations. The state isn't our big sugar daddy that is suppose to keep us safe from everything. You still have that responsibility. It's yours alone. OSHA, Law Enforcement and crossing cadets may help to make your life more safe, but it's your responsibility to look out for number one. If you get hurt at work, try suing OSHA, see how far that gets you. No one is responsible for you, but you.
 
And I have doubts that you know any drug addicts. It does not matter who is paying for it, they will not voluntarily stay. I know this for a fact. i know many drug addicts. that includes my uncle who was almost murdered. As far as drug crimes, legalizing drugs will not eliminate them. You will still have drug addicts commiting acts of violence. You will also see a significant increase in DUI accidents. More people will driving while high on cocaine, meth, heroine, or something else adding to traffic fatalities and injuries. I say no more pampering the criminal element. They prey on fear. We need to make them fear us not the other way around.
 
Just chiming in after catching up...

I have martial arts training and I NEVER had any qualms about learning those techniques that will stop someone PERMANENTLY if executed properly. And learning them so that they are as instinctual as possible. If I am ever in a situation where it is between X or me and we are that close together - ie. physical contact that is of the nature preceding something like rape - it sure as HELL ain't going to be me that goes down.

I also own a Ruger SP101 .357 5 shot revolver. It usually hangs from my bedpost, hidden behind the headboard. In the bag it is in, there are FOUR speed loaders. It took me 2+ years from the time that I received my CCP to actually buy a gun. Reason being, I couldn't in my own mind and heart decide that YES - if I am in fear of my life but there is 1, 2, 3 feet between X and me that I will do what it takes to make X STOP as in PERMANENTLY One morning, I woke up and apparently my subconcious had made the decision that yes, I could. Hence the purchase.

Re the discussion of rights to not be raped, not have guns pointed at them while working - it is not about the right to not have those things happen it is about the right we all should have to live our lives without fear of our fellow man. Yes, thats a utopian view of the world, and may never come in my lifetime. Yes rapists should be killed, no not castrated, killed - sorry, I don't want to pay for that person to exist. Drugs should be legalized, but those amoral activities that occur due to that need to be punished severely - rehab on the taxpayers dime is NOT the answer.

Harsh - yep. My opinion - yep.

Holly
 
i have many guns all but 2 are kept unloaded and in a safe
i have the 38.special by ruger in the wifes night stand
and a 12 gauge street sweeper loaded and at my bed side.

on april 24 i my brother and my wife will be taking a course for concealed carry. i dont know if ill use it but i will encourage her to

ill let you guys and gals know how it turns out

not only do they try to make you compentent with your weapon they tell you the laws in your state an the best gun to carry to work with in those laws

peace
and prays that those of you that are armed my never halve to do the unthinkable
 
NeadMead said:
And I have doubts that you know any drug addicts.

I grew up in Southern California, when I was in 5th grade I was one of two kids who didn't smoke pot. I have spent my entire life surrounded by drug users, and participated for many many years. I've had a friend die from a contaminated batch of heroin, seen a couple of my best friends go to jail. But your right, of the hundreds and hundreds of drug users I've known the addicts have been far and few between, and that's my point... they are a incredibly small percentage. I have tried just about everything but heroin, I lived in a party house (parties every night for several years) The People who were inclined to drug relate crime were those that got involved in dealing before they finished HS. Take away that financial incentive and they would be forced to become more responsible, The addiction was easier to start when dealing because the quantities on hand were much greater.

Wrathwilde
 
Prohibition has always worked so well in the past. [/sarcasm] Likewise, legislating morality will only lead to pointing out how vapid and hypocritical the laws and lawmakers are. Really, alcohol and tobacco are fine but we have to draw the line there because... why?

Frankly, people should have the right to poison themselves on whatever chemical they care to. Clearly the current solution isn't working. There are more drugs on the street and in the schools than there ever has been. Perhaps we should try a different approch, one that shuts down the black market and maybe we'll keep the drugs away from our kids.

But this seems to be a seperate topic from that of self defense. I do think that if all the drug money didn't go to the criminal element, there would be much less crime. I think people are wrong when they attribute drug fueled crime to "heroin addicts stealing your TV to fund their habit". Real drug crime is fueled by the massive amounts of cash that allow dealers and syndicates to buy automatic weapons, bribe, and terrorize the streets with turf warfare.

If it wasn't for prohibition, the name Al Capone wouldn't be in our history. All types of prohibitions do nothing but fund organized crime.
 
kash said:
Likewise, legislating morality will only lead to pointing out how vapid and hypocritical the laws and lawmakers are.

My step dad was a Prosecuting Asst. Deputy District Attorney. According to my Mom... and this is while they were still married, Cocaine use was rampant in the district attorneys office... but they didn't mind prosecuting the hell out of the average joe who got caught with possession. Likewise, the biggest drug dealer in the county had most of the Cops on the take (a number of which were meth heads). He supplied a good portion of the bay area with meth from what I understand. The DEA traced the drugs to our county and put a lot of heat on the local force to come up with a name, they all knew who the DEA was looking for... Instead of ratting him out they asked him to cease production for a few months until the DEA went away. He told them to go to hell, he had incriminating evidence on most of the police force, the DA's office, the judges and that if he went down they all went down. This didn't go over too well and I found out from my mom, who had it directly from my step dad, that the local police force then set about hiring an officer to kill the said dealer. They found an Officer from L.A. that had several kills under his belt and had been kicked off the L.A. police force for repeated instances of using excessive force. They then set this officer out to continually harass the dealer until he could find an opportunity to kill him without witnesses. They then planted a knife on him... the officer claimed the shooting was justified. The officer was placed on leave, cleared of any wrong doing and then took his family and left the county.
In another instance... my best friends brother ran drugs for a dispatcher at the sheriffs office.

kash said:
I do think that if all the drug money didn't go to the criminal element, there would be much less crime. I think people are wrong when they attribute drug fueled crime to "heroin addicts stealing your TV to fund their habit". Real drug crime is fueled by the massive amounts of cash that allow dealers and syndicates to buy automatic weapons, bribe, and terrorize the streets with turf warfare.

This is very true.. and they don't care where their market comes from or how old they are... and if you're a cute girl it doesn't matter how young you are (I've heard bragging as low as twelve) they'll trade you drugs for sex until they get tired of you. For those of you who don't think we should move the drug business into legal channels... do you think trading drugs for sex with underage girls happens very often at your local (taxed and regulated) pharmacy? I assure you it happens all the time with the illegal drug dealers.

Wrathwilde
 
Does the law REALLY expect us to determine how badly we might be hurt based on the weapons the intruder is displaying or how big he is and then decide what would be reasonable? Obviously it does in some states.

No. When the law says "reasonably believes," the question is not whether you were _right_ in thinking that you were in fear of death or serious bodily injury (and how serious is "serious," anyway), but whether a reasonable person in your shoes would have thought the same thing. The reasonable person standard takes into account the fact that you have to make a split-second decision, that it's your house in the middle of the night, and any other circumstances. Also, "necessary and proportionate force" (the hoary old common-law standard) doesn't necessarily mean that you can't fight a knife with a gun. It might in your jurisdiction, or it might just mean that you can't

Also, keep in mind that tort standards can be different than criminal standards (i.e. you could imagine a jurisdiction where you would succesfully defend a homicide charge on the basis of self-defense, but still lose the subsequent tort suit. Or, where you get convicted of homicide but win the tort suit.) And when people are saying that this demands tort reform: a person getting sued doesn't mean anything about the tort system. Nothing. All it means is that they can fill out a piece of paper, file it with the clerk of court, pay a filing fee, and serve it on the defendant. Getting sued says nothing to the merits of the claim, and plenty of people file claims that they will lose. If the plaintiff wins and the decision is upheld on appeal, then you can start talking about reforming your jurisdiction's tort laws. If you think you shouldn't have to pay to defend, that's another question that we can talk about. However, if you want to say that "loser pays" should be the rule (as it is in many non-American jurisdictions), you should also ask if you should pay Wal*Mart's legal bill if you file a lawsuit against them and lose (say a discrimination claim, against a worker). Their lawyers charge $500 an hour, and aren't looking for any kind of efficiency as to how many hours they work.

Finally, a comment on the "rights of the criminal." Many posters have expressed the sentiment that a burgalar forfeits his right to live the moment he enters your home. You could, however, imagine a case where an unarmed youth breaks into a house at night and the homeowner shoots him in the back just as he's making off with the fine silver. Is that really the result we want to encourage? Is that homeowner's silver worth more than a teenager's life? This isn't about "coddling" the criminal; that person, if caught, will be prosecuted and punished. It's about a moral judgment that the loss of a human life is an inherently bad thing and that the taking of that life should only happen if there's no other option reasonably available. It's about recognizing that people aren't perfect (homeowners or burgalars), and we'd rather have people sort out their differences with lawyers than with guns. Instead of imagining yourself the homeowner, take a moment to imagine yourself as the parent of the burgalar. Yeah he did a stupid thing, but was it really so bad that he deserved to die for it?
 
Cool thread, here in Florida they just changed the law so if you think you life is in danger from an attacker you can fight back as a first resort instead of using flight as a way out of the confrontation. In other words if you were attacked the old law expected you to try to get away as a first response instead of using deadly force. Now deadly force has become the first option under the new law. If some thug breaks into my house while I'm here they will probably get shot at with either a 30-06 hunting rifle or a Colt Woodsman depending on what I pick up first. If somebody jumps me, well I wrestled for five years in college and high school. It was a long time ago but some of the moves became automatic. I also will play Hannible Lecter, tell the attacker that I'm going to eat his face off and then try to do just that. Hopefully I'll enjoy a quite and peaceful life, after hunting for years death of any sort is distasteful to me. If it comes to either my loved ones and myself or some creep, well I am more than ready to pour some bleach in the gene pool.
 
chiashurb said:
Is that really the result we want to encourage? Is that homeowner's silver worth more than a teenager's life?
Maybe! If I worked hard for it or it was a family heirloom, what right does some kid with no morals have to take it?

This isn't about "coddling" the criminal; that person, if caught, will be prosecuted and punished. It's about a moral judgment that the loss of a human life is an inherently bad thing and that the taking of that life should only happen if there's no other option reasonably available. It's about recognizing that people aren't perfect (homeowners or burgalars), and we'd rather have people sort out their differences with lawyers than with guns. Instead of imagining yourself the homeowner, take a moment to imagine yourself as the parent of the burgalar. Yeah he did a stupid thing, but was it really so bad that he deserved to die for it?

Maybe he shouldn't die, but should he be breaking into your house? Where were his parents then? He is acting as they taught or didn't teach him.
And actually, it is about coddling him. Most likely he wouldn't be caught, and you would be the one losing out.
I couldn't amagine being his parents because my kids would not break into a house, having been taught right from wrong.
The bottom line is: If he hadn't broken into your house (also breaking the law), he would be fine, wouldn't he?

I know this sounds like I am a hard-*ss, but I don't break into houses and steal property, do you? Why should I not have the right to defend my property? The criminal made his choices, one of which was to break into a house where someone might be armed.

Just my 2 cents,
Brian

PS I am now climbing off of my soap box.
 
You're missing the point. It's not about the "kid with no morals" (or maybe he's a kid with no food) has a right to your heirlooms; it's about the sanctity of life. It's about acknowleding that he did a bad thing, but making a moral or sociological call that he doesn't need to die for it.

Your statement about apprehending the burglar presents a false dilemma* of shooting the kid or him being caught. There are plenty of situations imaginable where you don't shoot the kid, and he gets caught. For instance your home burglar alarm, if you have one, alerts the police and they show up before he leaves. Or you call the cops and give the license plate number of his getaway car, and they catch him.

To coddle is "to treat in an indulgent or overprotective way."** Are you saying that it would be indulgent or overprotective to treat somebody who causes you a monetary loss in any way other than trying to kill them? Would it be acceptable to you to have a loaded spring gun that automatically shoots people who try to enter your home when you're not there? What about your garage? Your toolshed? A self-storage locker?
 
With apologies for the triple-post

On the other hand, some data that support your point can be found here: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t4192004.pdf

Nationally, 12.9% of burglaries reported to police are cleared by arrest. So your'e right, that the burgalar has a decent chance of escaping. I still maintain, however, that this calls for a re-examination of our law-enforcement system, if anything, rather than vigilante justice (shooting the offender.)
 
Re: With apologies for the triple-post

chiashurb said:
Nationally, 12.9% of burglaries reported to police are cleared by arrest. So your'e right, that the burgalar has a decent chance of escaping. I still maintain, however, that this calls for a re-examination of our law-enforcement system, if anything, rather than vigilante justice (shooting the offender.)

Perhaps you misunderstand law enforcement. It is not about protecting the population but about catching the criminals. We are left to protect ourselves. Police officers will tell you this, themselves. You would need almost as many police officers as citizens in order to prevent crime from happening.

Are you saying that it would be indulgent or overprotective to treat somebody who causes you a monetary loss in any way other than trying to kill them?

No I am not saying that. I am saying that anyone who illegally breaks into my house cannot expect to be able to just walk off with my belongings. I am perfectly happy with giving the criminal the chance to drop the items he has taken. If he does not, he once again has made his choice. How many chances do you want to give someone who insists on breaking the law? (That is coddling someone).

We are all thinking individuals; we all make our own decisions and have to live with the results. If you don't like the results, make a different decision!

As someone who has been robbed (and had my grandfathers watch, which was priceless to me, stolen.), I will not let that happen again (if I can prevent it)! Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

And yes I think life is precious, but once again... Nobody forced him into me house, did they?

It all boils down to how responsible you think people are for their actions. If they aren't, then you are right. Open your doors and let them take everything!

Brian