Article

2010-05-11 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Uncle Phester 2010-05-11 14:46|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 "Pulling a gun on a criminal generally is not a good idea. Law enforcement officials would never condone it..."

Maybe there. But in AZ, the police are as likely to give you an award for your "cost saving idea" of air conditioning some offender, so the public doesn't have to pay for his upkeep.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-05-11 19:16|| 2010-05-11 19:16|| Front Page Top

#2 "Pulling a gun on a criminal generally is not a good idea. Law enforcement officials would never condone it..."

Then they're idiots.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-05-11 19:19|| 2010-05-11 19:19|| Front Page Top

#3 Just do your best not to kill the guy, and don't forget your actions could land you in court, which has the final say on what's "justified."

Shooting someone or taking a life is a "grave" responsibility (no pun intended). I don't think that anyone who carries a firearm, is in the military, or who is a police officer doesn't take this as the most serious of responsibilities. No one wants to shoot another person. There are times it is indeed justified. I can think of several situations that had the victim had a firearm, a terrible crime might have been prevented. Tragedy for them, their families and friends might have been avoided. The MSM seldom gets this right.

Posted by JohnQC 2010-05-11 19:42|| 2010-05-11 19:42|| Front Page Top

#4 If you have to shoot, then you should be shooting to kill.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2010-05-11 20:42|| 2010-05-11 20:42|| Front Page Top

#5 "Pulling a gun on a criminal generally is not a good idea. Law enforcement officials would never condone it..."

Not here in Texas.

Posted by Secret Asian Man 2010-05-11 20:53|| 2010-05-11 20:53|| Front Page Top

#6 That's why we, for now, still have a right to jury trial. When the 'professionals' are unable or unwilling to provide security in one's person, one's family, or one's property, the community can ensure that its the criminal and not the citizen who pays the price.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-05-11 21:25|| 2010-05-11 21:25|| Front Page Top

#7 Law enforcement doesn't condone it and the public defender is on the criminals' side. You're alone. Shoot to kill.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-05-11 21:32|| 2010-05-11 21:32|| Front Page Top

#8 If you kill the intruder, that is one less witness to testify against you.
Also, as someone else said somewhere, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2010-05-11 22:11|| 2010-05-11 22:11|| Front Page Top

#9 If you have to shoot, then you should be shooting to kill.

I would shoot to stop, not kill. Of course, the best way to stop the person is to hit whatever presents the best target, which is generally the center of mass. And of course, you can't stop shooting unless you're absolutely positively sure they are no longer a threat. Or you run out of ammo.

So, unfortunately, shooting to stop may well get the criminal killed, but that risk falls more on the criminal than the person doing the stopping.

Posted by gorb 2010-05-11 23:10|| 2010-05-11 23:10|| Front Page Top

23:53 gorb
23:51 CrazyFool
23:47 JosephMendiola
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:45 gorb
23:40 JosephMendiola
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:26 trailing wife
23:19 JosephMendiola
23:10 gorb
23:04 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:54 gorb
22:51 JosephMendiola
22:50 Frank G
22:48 gorb
22:40 rammer
22:40 JohnQC
22:36 gorb
22:36 SteveS
22:34 JosephMendiola
22:28 Super Hose
22:20 JosephMendiola
22:15 JosephMendiola
22:13 SteveS