Reality of Gun Ownership

[Pushrod]

There is no use arguing with him, he doesn't even agree that we are endowed with Basic Rights, but only privileges granted by the legislature. That in itself, shows what kind of person he is.

 

[iamanmpd]

If they're still there, they're still a threat. Even if they're running away, they're a threat for coming back.

It simply cannot pass a common sense test to suggest that an appropriate level of defense becomes inappropriate the moment the criminal turns to leave. On that logic, any person you go to pull over for speeding should be instantly let go the moment they fall under the speed limit.

Your the only one who is saying the "moment" a person turns to leave. You want to interpret what you want to interpret. The person experiencing the event would have to determine if the person was running away or not.

Who is saying anything about letting the burgular go? I think there is a huge differnce between killing a person who is running away from a property crime, and a traffic citation.

 

[Lugnut]

I'm not sure, about a seminar or recommendation. They may do a safety check?

Thanks I'll look into it further.

 

[This_person]

Your the only one who is saying the "moment" a person turns to leave. You want to interpret what you want to interpret. The person experiencing the event would have to determine if the person was running away or not.

Who is saying anything about letting the burgular go? I think there is a huge differnce between killing a person who is running away from a property crime, and a traffic citation.

So, as they're turning to run, it's still okay? Hand on the door? When they say "don't shoot me, bro, I'm leaving"? Door knob turning, through the door?

When does it become wrong to defend (with a gunshot) your home from an intruder who is committing a crime and is now "fleeing"? What is that moment?

Because, there must be one. If it's okay to defend your home with a gunshot, but not a fleeing criminal (your words, not mine), then there is some point where it goes from right to wrong. What is that point?

 

[2ndAmendment]

Ok, so you are a range officer. That would mean that you are in one county, not the three, or you are shooting with rookies who may be learning to shoot.

No rookies. Veterans of the force.

Have you ever been with officers on dynamic shooting drills? Transition drills? If not, then I again state my position that you no not what you speak of!

Yes, I have. Some are good. Some are not.

Again, if the scores of at least one of the agencies in Southern Maryland are averaging 88%, I would say that MOST of the officers in that agency are accurate. That is factual information.

Glad. Some do not seen to train as well or as much as others.

The cop that bragged about going a hundred is a jackass. What did you do about it? Are you just one to critisize or are you a man and do the right thing? Changing lanes without a signal is not against the law, it has to be an unsafe lane change. It is the policy of at least two of the Southern Maryland Agencies that when responding to certain code calls, you turn your emergency equipment on to clear traffic, then turn it off once traffic is cleared. Don't be angry at the officers for obeying their policy.

I told him he was wrong to do that. Got a, "who are you to tell me that" look.

Always signal your intention when turning or changing lanes

Also see Md statute 21-604 paragraph c.

I understand that clearing the intersection on a call and then turning off the lights if on a silent call, but when the officer pulls into a store parking lot and goes shopping, I don't think that counts. Certainly blowing through a red light or a stop sign on the way home doesn't count and I've seen that done multiple times by a cop that lives in my area.

And to your last sentence, you show you are prejudiced there, by stating that the some officers who abuse their power put the rest under a cloud. Why not judge the individual?

OK. I'll give you that one. But I have seen many officers doing unsafe driving; many. More than those that seem to be obeying the law. But, you are right, they are individuals.

 

[iamanmpd]

Because, there must be one. If it's okay to defend your home with a gunshot, but not a fleeing criminal (your words, not mine), then there is some point where it goes from right to wrong. What is that point?

It goes from right to wrong when the intruder is fleeing, not intruding.

 

[iamanmpd]

No rookies. Veterans of the force.

Yes, I have. Some are good. Some are not.

And that is a change from your original post where you said MOST are not good.

I told him he was wrong to do that. Got a, "who are you to tell me that" look. Also see Md statute 21-604 paragraph c.

I don't need to look at it, I know what it says. Many many years ago I wrote a ticket to someone who failed to signal before changing lanes and the juge found the person not guilty because no other vehicles were effected by the lack of signal. Unless the lane change effects other vehicles, it is not required. Perhaps you should read the law.

I understand that clearing the intersection on a call and then turning off the lights if on a silent call, but when the officer pulls into a store parking lot and goes shopping, I don't think that counts. Certainly blowing through a red light or a stop sign on the way home doesn't count and I've seen that done multiple times by a cop that lives in my area.

Is this like the exageration of MOST cops.....

OK. I'll give you that one. But I have seen many officers doing unsafe driving; many. More than those that seem to be obeying the law. But, you are right, they are individuals.

And that is all I need. Sorry your application was rejected. Better luck next time.

 

[This_person]

It goes from right to wrong when the intruder is fleeing, not intruding.

So, that moment is the moment they turn around away from you?

The moment they reach the door?

The moment they go through the door?

How do I, the homeowner who is being stolen from, define "fleeing"? What criteria do I use to meet the SMCop definition of when it goes from right to defend my home and family to wrong to defend my home and family?

 

[iamanmpd]

So, that moment is the moment they turn around away from you?

The moment they reach the door?

The moment they go through the door?

How do I, the homeowner who is being stolen from, define "fleeing"? What criteria do I use to meet the SMCop definition of when it goes from right to defend my home and family to wrong to defend my home and family?

That is something you have to define. I can't define it for you. That is what you don't get. You want a text book answer for something that is dynamic.

The answer is when a reasonable person would believe they are fleeing.

 

[This_person]

That is something you have to define. I can't define it for you. That is what you don't get. You want a text book answer for something that is dynamic.

The answer is when a reasonable person would believe they are fleeing.

My point to you is pretty much exactly that - there is no "right" answer. You cannot just say that it's okay to shoot to defend your home, except if it's not. It either is okay, or it's not okay. There is no defined moment when it changes from okay to not okay. You finally seem to recognize that, which is good.

 

[2ndAmendment]

And that is a change from your original post where you said MOST are not good.
.

You don't read well do you. I clarified my first post saying that most of the police officers that I have shot with or watched shoot are not very good, accurate. I maintain that.

I don't need to look at it, I know what it says. Many many years ago I wrote a ticket to someone who failed to signal before changing lanes and the juge found the person not guilty because no other vehicles were effected by the lack of signal. Unless the lane change effects other vehicles, it is not required. Perhaps you should read the law..

I did read the law. If I am able to observe the lane change because my vehicle is following or in the next lane, then I am affected. More arrogance by you.

Is this like the exageration of MOST cops.....
.

Not an exaggeration, I followed the cop into the store. He was shopping. I also followed the cop who lives in my area. He was going home; pulled into his driveway.

And that is all I need. Sorry your application was rejected. Better luck next time.

And why would I want to be a cop? I have not since I was probably six. I also wanted to be a train engineer once, but I got over that, too, at about the same age. I am very happy and successful and probably make 3 times what you do.

You are a prime example of the arrogance that many cops exhibit. You come off as thinking you are above others because you are a cop. So as an individual, you come off as the kind of cop that is arrogant and above the law. No wonder my comments hurt you so badly.

Bye. No need to converse with anyone, cop or not, that is so stuck on themselves and their profession that they are blind to the fact that the way they act is observable by all around and effect the opinion of them, their cohorts, and their profession.

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

That is something you have to define. I can't define it for you. That is what you don't get. You want a text book answer for something that is dynamic.

The answer is when a reasonable person would believe they are fleeing.

So there isn't a textbook answer for a VERY slight variation in action that can either send you to jail, or not even get you charged.

That's great to know.

 

[iamanmpd]

So there isn't a textbook answer for a VERY slight variation in action that can either send you to jail, or not even get you charged.

That's great to know.

If you are not smart enough to determine if a guy is running away or posing a threat than perhaps you should not own a firearm?

 

[iamanmpd]

Not an exaggeration, I followed the cop into the store. He was shopping. I also followed the cop who lives in my area. He was going home; pulled into his driveway.

And why would I want to be a cop? I have not since I was probably six. I also wanted to be a train engineer once, but I got over that, too, at about the same age. I am very happy and successful and probably make 3 times what you do.

Hmm....lets see, by the previous paragraph you have a perverse habit of following police officers, you want to shoot with them, you critisize them behind their backs while pretending to be their friends. I don't know, that seems to me to be someone who is jealous.

You are a prime example of the arrogance that many cops exhibit. You come off as thinking you are above others because you are a cop. So as an individual, you come off as the kind of cop that is arrogant and above the law. No wonder my comments hurt you so badly.

And there it is again. When a police officer doesn't agree with you, he or she must be arrogant. Thats right because right wing extremest like yourself only believe in free speech for themselves, everybody else should remain quiet.

Bye. No need to converse with anyone, cop or not, that is so stuck on themselves and their profession that they are blind to the fact that the way they act is observable by all around and effect the opinion of them, their cohorts, and their profession.

Your opinion of cops was already predisposed prior to you ever speaking with me. You are the person that lumped cops into one category, and continue to do it because you believe I am a police officer so you want to make me out as a bad person. No problem with me. I don't mind calling ideologues like yourself who don't believe in what this country is all about out. Good, leave. You lost this argument as you always do because your points are based on not real life experience, but how you want the rules to be different for you and your believers. See ya!

 

[This_person]

If you are not smart enough to determine if a guy is running away or posing a threat than perhaps you should not own a firearm?

If you are not smart enough to determine if a person is a threat to a law abiding citizen or not, perhaps you should not be a law enforcment official. :shrug:

 

[Larry Gude]

...

If you are not smart enough to determine if a guy is running away or posing a threat than perhaps you should not own a firearm?

...and right there is the root of the problem; the US constitution has NO conditions on the rights and protections we ALL have from the power of government.

Free speech is not only for those 'smart' enough.

Keeping and bearing arms is not only for those 'smart' enough.

The only time an individual loses his or her rights is when they have violated the rights of another because, baring that, a violation of some one else's rights, 'smart' enough becomes a judgement of the government which is against and is the basic purpose OF the constitution; keeping the GOVERNMENT in check because it is NOT 'smart' enough to be trusted to judge you or I and whether or not you or I are 'smart' enough to have this right or that, absent the violation of someone else's rights. Which is why they are called 'rights'.

The last thing that should matter when we're talking about criminal behavior is the rights of the criminal; THEY crossed the line. If their victim got scared or was unsure or slips and blows the bad guy away, too bad for him. If the shooter is a citizen in good standing and has exercised their rights properly, without harming others, it is WRONG to place a burden on THEM to act perfectly when THEY have been attacked, robbed or threatened.

Not being experienced at making threat assessments while being robbed is NOT unconstitutional. Robbing someone is.

 

[iamanmpd]

If you are not smart enough to determine if a person is a threat to a law abiding citizen or not, perhaps you should not be a law enforcment official. :shrug:

But I can absolutely determine if a person is a threat to another person. I do it every day. You just want to hold your hand held and to be told what to do in a hypothetical situation. I am telling you there is no exact answer for the millions of caviat's to each situation. You have to decide what to do for yourself. It's time to grow up.

 

[iamanmpd]

Keeping and bearing arms is not only for those 'smart' enough.

Never said it was, I am a firm believer in the second amendment.

The last thing that should matter when we're talking about criminal behavior is the rights of the criminal; THEY crossed the line. If their victim got scared or was unsure or slips and blows the bad guy away,(unless that citizen is a police officer) too bad for him. If the shooter is a citizen in good standing and has exercised their rights properly, without harming others, it is WRONG to place a burden on THEM to act perfectly when THEY have been attacked, robbed or threatened.

I never said anything contrary to what you just said.

Not being experienced at making threat assessments while being robbed is NOT unconstitutional. Robbing someone is.

I never said you had to be an expert or even experienced at making a threat assesment. My position earlier and now is that I don't believe a burgular should be executed for the crime of burglary. I believe one should defend themselve and their home. They are two separate issues. I never once said it is wrong for a property owner to use whatever force is appropriate to defend themselves.

 

[Larry Gude]

...

QUOTE]=iamanmpd;3512352]

Never said it was, I am a firm believer in the second amendment.



I never said anything contrary to what you just said.



I never said you had to be an expert or even experienced at making a threat assesment. My position earlier and now is that I don't believe a burgular should be executed for the crime of burglary. I believe one should defend themselve and their home. They are two separate issues. I never once said it is wrong for a property owner to use whatever force is appropriate to defend themselves

I didn't say you did. You questioned whether someone is 'smart' enough or not and now you are using the word 'appropriate'. My point is that, given a law abiding citizen, 'smart' and 'appropriate' should not matter, at all. The constitution does not provide for 'smart' and 'appropriate'. If someone makes a mistakes, slips, is scarred, angry, worried the bad guy will come back, go get his buddies, whatever, the home and property owner is not, in my view, in any way, shape or form responsible, in any way, to the bad guy. If they, being the one attacked, robbed, you name it, slip, twitch, get mad, get scared, whatever, if they shoot the bad guy, I say too bad for the bad guy.

If you've done nothing in your past that showed you ever violently violated other peoples rights, used weapons unsafely or recklessly, and you shoot a burglar in the back and choose to walk up and finish him off, maybe you've gone too far, maybe you didn't, but YOU, as my law abiding fellow citizen, made the call and I am obligated to trust you and hold the criminal ENTIRELY responsible for what happens to him for violating YOUR rights.

It is NOT reasonable to hold you responsible for your heart rate, your emotions, your experience level in such a terrifying and ugly situation. You choose to let 'em go, that is also OK with me. YOU were there. You are the GOOD guy. If it's my kid that robs you, all I can do is be grateful if you don't shoot them and feel bad if you do. In either or any case, it is my kid that did wrong; not YOU.

 

[This_person]

But I can absolutely determine if a person is a threat to another person. I do it every day. I can't remember EVER charging someone with a crime who was defending themselves. You just want us to hold your hand and tell you what to do in a hypothetical situation. I am telling you there is no exact answer for the millions of caviat's to each situation. You have to decide what to do for yourself. It's time to grow up.

I can determine if someone is a threat to me or mine.

YOU seemed to be uncertain.