Burgulars "Need Protection?

[MarkF]

My Wife and I are NRA members and recieve American Rifleman and Freedom First (both NRA publications) Both magazines have the "Armed Citizen" section telling stories of how the average Joe fought back an attacker, robber, car-jacker etc... with a fire arm. I enjoy reading of these exploits, its nice to see the bad guys getting what they desrve. The problem is: The NRA never finishes the story, you never see how the "Armed Citizen" was dragged through the court system, spent $40,000 - $100,000+ of their own money to defend themselves, and how many innocents end up doing time and loosing the right to ever own a firearm for the rest of their lives just for defending themselves and their family against an armed bad guy.

I support the NRA but dont like the way they glorify ordinary law abiding citizens using a gun to defend themselves without telling the whole story.

 

[MarkF]

You think CT is bad, In MA you can only use your gun in self defence if YOUR life is in danger, and the perp better have a loaded gun on them.

For instance if you are carrying a legal handgun and the 7-11 you are in is experiencing their morning hold up, the bad guy can have a gun to the clerks head, but if you shoot the bad guy your screwed since YOUR life wasn't in danger. Same goes for your family.

 

[bmoeller]

Originally posted by MarkF



For instance if you are carrying a legal handgun and the 7-11 you are in is experiencing their morning hold up, the bad guy can have a gun to the clerks head, but if you shoot the bad guy your screwed since YOUR life wasn't in danger. Same goes for your family.

It's a bunch of BS. The perps should have NO rights in cases like that, other than the "innocent til proven guilty", nothing else. If you are defending someone whose life is in jepordy, like a salesclerk or your family/friends you shouldn't be the one in trouble.



I get the Am. Rifleman also. You're right about not normally writing about the aftermath.

 

[drawson]

The biggest problem we have right now is that there is no deterance(sp) to committing a crimes. The crocks have it better in jail than they do on the street. They can sit on there butts, get three squares a day, watch TV, and if there isn't something they like they sue for what they want. Just a couple of weeks ago some scum bag lit a fire in one of the canyons here on the wasatch front and then walk right down and turned himself in to the first fireman that showed up!! His reason it was too hot out side and he wanted to go to the airconditioned jail. His fire burnt 2000 Acres and came really close to taking alot of good families homes.



One of these days someone need to wake up a smell the coffee!!! Crocks don't have rights they gave them up when they committed there crimes. It costs all of us tax payer billions a year to keep these scum bags in there great living jails.



What is 1 billion Lawyer and liberals at the bottom of the ocean?





A great start!!!!

 

[merryman]

WHOA up here guys

A lot of what has been said in this thread is true, but a bunch of it has got to fall in the "urban yarn" area.



As most of you know, I spent in excess of 30 years on the bench and before that 7 years trying cases, I remain fairly familiar with the courts.



There are problems in the courts, but most of them are due to the actions in the State Capitols;



Liberal legislatures

Judges have increasing limits on their aurthority, due to legislators passing ever more restrictive statutes; in Oregon now, Judges have VERY little lattitude in imposing sentence. The sentences are set by the legislature with very narrow limits. A sentence outside those limits is simply void. In Oregon now, no matter how many prior convictions a criminal has had, if he enters a home when no one is there and takes everything in it, the MAXIMUM sentence a Judge may impose is 10 days. Try to give him more than 10 days and it means nothing, he is released in 10 days.

Many judges hate the restriction as much as the public, but the legislators pass laws like that and then while running for re-election, yell about how lenient the Judges are. Un fortunately Judges ARE becoming more and more liberal, i. e. soft on crime.



Liberal Governors

Most Judges come to the bench by appointment. When a Judge dies, retires, or just resigns, it is usually not at the end of his term of office, so the Governor appoints a lawyer to fill that position till the next election(most jurisdictions) That person has a great advantage in that next election. Oregon is controlled by the population center which is Eugene to Portland; that area has so much of the states population that it controls the rest of the state completely. That area is very liberal and it elects our Governors.

Since I left full time service, our very liberal Governor has appointed four judges in the county I served in. At least three of them are former ACLU members and one was an ACLU state president, another was a local ACLU officer. Each of them were enthusiastic defense lawyers before our Gov. concluded they were the kind of people he wanted on the bench.



Elect liberal Governors and that is who you get for Judges and they do look at the criminal as a victim of all of us.



Elect liberal legislators and thats the kind of laws you have to live under.



If you don't like these results, help elect conservative legislators and Governors. , they are the ones who run the states including the state judiciary

Vaughn:{

 

[srenfro]

Been a Cop for 12 years, no worrds have rang more true than what Merryman just posted.



Now for an observation. Dpucket I would ventiure to guess that your attitude gets you in more trouble than anything. Lose the attitude and you probably wouldn't have the problems with the Police you do. Also if you can make a blanket statement about hateing all police because there's to many of them doing the samething, what heck does that mean? If that was the case you wouldn't have to worry about having your home burglarized or your car stolen or feeling the need to carry protection just to go to the conveinence store.



Heres my blanket statement: "All people who make posts like yours have criminal back grounds and are not very educated. "



And in the case of all those posts about friends of friends who's friends got jail time defending their property, remember you CAN NOT use deadly force to defend ones property. A blow to the head with a baseball bat is DEADLY FORCE. Tell your friends to aim lower next time.



Time to arm the people.

 

[mjendrejcak]

Originally posted by srenfro

And in the case of all those posts about friends of friends who's friends got jail time defending their property, remember you CAN NOT use deadly force to defend ones property. A blow to the head with a baseball bat is DEADLY FORCE. Tell your friends to aim lower next time.



Time to arm the people.

In the case of my friend it was a single swing to the gut. He was told in court he would still do time if he even slapped the guy.

 

[RustyJC]

Sounds to me like the problem is the homeowner lives in the wrong state. In Texas, we can use force to protect life and property. Cases such as described would typically be sent to the Grand Jury without charges where a no bill is issued. Criminally, that's the end of the story. From a civil law perspective, the bad guy could try to sue... ...



Rusty

 

[Rogue Ram]

I'll jump in on the law enforcement end of it... ... .....



Its pretty easy for me to understand the attitude of people like Dpucket. I've been in the cop business for over 17 years now, and the "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch" saying not only is true, it is going the opposite direction. Finding many cops of the current generation that will "do the right thing" (also referred to as "officer discretion") is getting impossible. Part of it is the changing of the times, and part of it is the stupidity in the hiring process many police agencies are engaging in. Cops are the first line in the justice system the public encounters when "it hits the fan". And if one idiot cop doesn't handle it right, it doesn't matter how it ends up, the cop and law enforcement in general will take the heat.



As a side note, I broke up a brawl between 2 drunks who were beefing with a homeowner who was not only lawfully on his property, but IN his fenced in patio... ... . he told the noisy drunks to move on, and they both came over the patio fence after him, trying to follow him in his house. When I got there, the 2 idiots attacked ME... ... after it was over, we found one drunks head opened up requiring stitches. Turns out when he came over the fence and tried to get into the citizens house, citizen took him across the head with a metal hoe ( the handle, not the blade), and the drunks retreated; that's when I got there.



As we were taking them away, an absolute *&%**^ of a Sergeant showed up, saw the head wound, and asked me why the citizen wasn't going to jail. Told him the straight of it, and he ordered me to arrest the homeowner!!!!! Told him AGAIN what happened, and cited State law; and he said "that's assault with a deadly weapon". I said NO, State law allows him to protect himself and his home from an attempted assault and burglary (door was open, and they were trying to follow him in, remember). He ordered me to arrest the homeowner or else!



Instead of arresting him, I cited him... ... . then gave him my card and told him in private to go hire a decent attorney and told him I was being ORDERED to do this and that I would testify it was SELF DEFENSE. He didn't know what to say... ... ..... I received a NASTY reaming from the District Attorney who could not believe I had cited the homeowner, what was wrong with me, etc... ... ... . case dismissed, justice not quite served, but homeowner off the hook but his wallet a little thinner.



Would I do it again? YES. While this case was clear cut, there is a huge difference between following the letter of the law and doing what is right.



Sorry for the long post. Rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. Besides, you might get me on your jury (been on a few, believe it or not).



R

 

[srenfro]

Theres no way we would of locked up the homeowner, especially if he said he feared for his life. The most that would of been done is the info would of been forwarded to the P. A. 's office and we'd asked that it be refused.



We have Sgt's like that too. And when I know their wrong I tell them to get $@%#*&. Fortunately, I've been backed by my Lt and Capt. on those few occasions and nothing has come of it except asked to show a little more diplomacy when disagreeing with the Sgt's.



Police work is getting to be more public relations and less enforcement and if those in control are not careful, things are going to get even more out of control.



Fear is the greatest deterrent.

 

[bmoeller]

Originally posted by srenfro

And in the case of all those posts about friends of friends who's friends got jail time defending their property, remember you CAN NOT use deadly force to defend ones property. A blow to the head with a baseball bat is DEADLY FORCE. Tell your friends to aim lower next time.

I would agree for the most part. I was referring to people not proprty.

Originally posted by srenfro

Time to arm the people.

It sure is.



If the crooks had to guess more on who's armed or not, crime would be reduced. If they think there is little to no risk "on the job" they would take it over someone who is armed and ready to defend ones self any day, unless they are totally stupid or trashed.

Originally posted by srenfro

Fear is the greatest deterrent.

Yep.

 

[Scot]

Some years ago a guy came into the Tarrant (Ft Worth TX) county courthouse and killed a lawyer and the judge or someone else. His trail and execution was quite swift. Had he done the same to any other group of people, he would have been out in a couple of years, assuming he ever got locked up in the first place.



Interesting double standard.



I would love to see some of these lawyers forced to have to provide room and board (in their own house) after they get some rapist ax murder off because the arresting officer forgot to cross a T or something.



rant off

 

[daveshoe]