Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Man shoots at robber, misses.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Strike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    53

    Man shoots at robber, misses.

    This is bad in more ways than one. http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crime...nife-stole-it/


    Sent from my iPhone.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    I just cannot say this enough. Range Time. Range Time. Range Time. If you are going to carry a tool, know how to use it effectively. Probably would have gone down a bit different if he had been OC instead of concealed.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  3. #3
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    Probably would have gone down a bit different if he had been OC instead of concealed.
    Agree 100%, if the victim would have been OCing the guy would probably have not pulled the knife and said no thanks to the phone only.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    140
    First off, the seller should have drawn and shot immediately once the knife was pulled, not while the thief was running away. I know in my state it's illegal to shoot someone that is not a threat to your life or is not causing you great bodily harm, ie a guy running away from you. This sounds like a mindset/training issue.
    Scott

    Glock 23
    White Hat iwb MaxTuck Holster

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    The fella should consider himself lucky that he was deprived of his firearm only. OC would have likely prevented this incident in the first place.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Regular Member Cubex DE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    111
    This is why CC'ing doesn't deter crime. The only one who had the "element of surprise" was the bad guy.

    As already pointed out, he should not have shot at someone who was running away and was not a danger to him. He could have chased him I suppose, without drawing.

    Also, I'm not surprised he missed. The bad guy was running away from him, and he only fired once, which means either logic got the better of him and he stopped firing, or the bad guy rounded a corner and he no longer had a shot.

    Either way, "range time" doesn't help if the only practice you get is how to stand in one spot with no cover and shoot at a target that is standing in one spot with no cover. Combat is significantly different, both parties are moving, exchanging fire, and using cover and concealment. People like to think that, because they can hit a stationary man-sized target from 50 yards when they are calm and have ample time to breathe and acquire their target, they can hit a real person who is moving, ducking, dodging, diving, sprinting, and maybe even shooting back.
    Jesus thought it was more important to be armed than well dressed:

    Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his
    scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.~Luke 22:36

    (Emphasis mine.)

    (Note that the word "garment" here refers to an outer cloak, equivalent to today's sport coats or
    suit jackets in that they both provided warmth and conveyed a certain level of sophistication.)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubex DE View Post
    This is why CC'ing doesn't deter crime. The only one who had the "element of surprise" was the bad guy.
    The intent of CC isn't to deter crime, it's for personal defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cubex DE View Post
    As already pointed out, he should not have shot at someone who was running away and was not a danger to him. He could have chased him I suppose, without drawing.
    By going after him, he would no longer be a reluctant participant. This isn't usually viewed well, see Zimmerman case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cubex DE View Post
    Also, I'm not surprised he missed. The bad guy was running away from him, and he only fired once, which means either logic got the better of him and he stopped firing, or the bad guy rounded a corner and he no longer had a shot.

    Either way, "range time" doesn't help if the only practice you get is how to stand in one spot with no cover and shoot at a target that is standing in one spot with no cover. Combat is significantly different, both parties are moving, exchanging fire, and using cover and concealment. People like to think that, because they can hit a stationary man-sized target from 50 yards when they are calm and have ample time to breathe and acquire their target, they can hit a real person who is moving, ducking, dodging, diving, sprinting, and maybe even shooting back.
    I completely agree. There is far more to training than shooting at a piece of paper.
    Scott

    Glock 23
    White Hat iwb MaxTuck Holster

  8. #8
    Regular Member bmg50cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    WA - North Whidbey/ Deception Pass
    Posts
    307
    Should have used ebay. Then again, don't own an iPhone and it won't get stolen, silly hipsters.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottE View Post
    The intent of CC isn't to deter crime, it's for personal defense.

    ~SNIPPED~

    B
    My brother has a pair of Belgian Malinois dogs. They are not human companions. They are guard dogs. His place sits on 3 acres, fenced. My brother has posted the legal requirements concerning the presence of these guard dogs on the fence.

    Now Scotty. Let's say you had a desire to enter that property. In which scenario would you be more likely to attempt an entry:

    A. Signs up, no dogs present....

    or

    B. Signs up, at least two large dogs present, and able to respond in a split second?

    My brother doesn't keep those dogs to attack people as a means of self protection. He has them as a deterrence to possible harm. Much more responsible than concealing the presence of the dogs, safer for all involved, effective. They serve as a deterrent to those maybe intending harm, and as those two dogs are not concealed, they are able to do their job without having to be first loosed. You step into their domain, you will be greeted. No cumbersome cage doors to deal with, no obstructions to hamper their quick and effective delivery of service.

    Now it's true somebody might try to steal those two dogs, just like an open carrier being a target for a gun grab. Or shoot them. I'd certainly welcome legitimate reference of either happening with any frequency in Minnesota Scotty.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottE View Post
    The intent of CC isn't to deter crime, it's for personal defense.
    The intent of OC is to do both. WIN!

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottE View Post
    The intent of CC isn't to deter crime, it's for personal defense. <snip>
    Correct it is for personal defense. But most of the CC community rely on the statement that they will surprise the bad guy. This is false. If one is CC then the only way for the bad guy to find out about the means of personal defense is to be surprised first by the bad guy (I am sure in this instance he was CC with his knife) and then you must deploy your firearm for defense. By the time this methodology works itself out the crime is well underway and it is very likely that the firearm has been fired. Furthermore, most of the CC community rely on the premise that if you draw your firearm only if you plan to fire, thus producing a violent scenario.

    Contrast this to the OC crowd that wishes to avoid confrontation all together by providing a clear deterrence.

    I have sold many things on Craigslist. I have met at a public place every time except once and always with my firearm in clear view. I would suggest that by doing this I have deterred any surprises against myself.
    Live Free or Die!

  12. #12
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Anyone know who the shooter is?
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottE View Post
    The intent of CC isn't to deter crime, it's for personal defense. <snip>
    CCer, attacked by thug wielding a knife. Will a thug desiring to commit a crime attack a OCer by wielding a knife to gain compliance from his victim?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    My brother has a pair of Belgian Malinois dogs. They are not human companions. They are guard dogs. His place sits on 3 acres, fenced. My brother has posted the legal requirements concerning the presence of these guard dogs on the fence.

    Now Scotty. Let's say you had a desire to enter that property. In which scenario would you be more likely to attempt an entry:

    A. Signs up, no dogs present....

    or

    B. Signs up, at least two large dogs present, and able to respond in a split second?

    My brother doesn't keep those dogs to attack people as a means of self protection. He has them as a deterrence to possible harm. Much more responsible than concealing the presence of the dogs, safer for all involved, effective. They serve as a deterrent to those maybe intending harm, and as those two dogs are not concealed, they are able to do their job without having to be first loosed. You step into their domain, you will be greeted. No cumbersome cage doors to deal with, no obstructions to hamper their quick and effective delivery of service.

    Now it's true somebody might try to steal those two dogs, just like an open carrier being a target for a gun grab. Or shoot them. I'd certainly welcome legitimate reference of either happening with any frequency in Minnesota Scotty.
    I have a Rottweiler for the same reason.

    I understand the point of your post, but there is a difference in most states between protecting your property, and trying to "deter" crime on out on the streets. I don't mind it to a point, but it can be taken too far - just ask Zimmerman, I bet he wishes he would have remained a reluctant participant. I carry for personal protection only, and I take that responsibility very seriously. I'm not of the mindset that I as a gun carrier am now here to deter crime.
    Scott

    Glock 23
    White Hat iwb MaxTuck Holster

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottE View Post
    I have a Rottweiler for the same reason.

    I understand the point of your post, but there is a difference in most states between protecting your property, and trying to "deter" crime on out on the streets. I don't mind it to a point, but it can be taken too far - just ask Zimmerman, I bet he wishes he would have remained a reluctant participant. I carry for personal protection only, and I take that responsibility very seriously. I'm not of the mindset that I as a gun carrier am now here to deter crime.
    It sure would be convenient to deter crime that may be perpetrated against me rather than trying to stop a crime in progress against me. Just saying.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottE View Post
    I'm not of the mindset that I as a gun carrier am now here to deter crime.
    The only crime most open carriers are attempting to defer are crimes against our person or our family, I doubt you will find anyone that is looking to play superhero or even neighborhood watch involving being openly armed.

  17. #17
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottE View Post
    First off, the seller should have drawn and shot immediately once the knife was pulled, not while the thief was running away. I know in my state it's illegal to shoot someone that is not a threat to your life or is not causing you great bodily harm, ie a guy running away from you. This sounds like a mindset/training issue.
    The story is kinda short, we don't know for sure when the shot was fired. The phone owner should have never told police he fired a shot, just reported the phone stolen.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 10-18-2012 at 01:43 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  18. #18
    Regular Member Cubex DE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by bmg50cal View Post
    Should have used ebay. Then again, don't own an iPhone and it won't get stolen, silly hipsters.
    I doubt that a large chunk of OCDO users, myself included, could be considered "hipsters" by any stretch of the imagination. Can we get back on topic, please?

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottE
    The intent of CC isn't to deter crime, it's for personal defense.
    OC deters crime from happening in the first place, and helps you resolve the situation in your favor if deterrence fails.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottE
    I'm not of the mindset that I as a gun carrier am now here to deter crime.
    I don't think anyone is talking about patrolling the streets and scaring away drug dealers when we talk about OC deterring crime. We are obviously talking about deterring criminals from choosing us as targets, by making it clear that we are not going to be easy to take down. Criminals want easy targets so they can get what they want without a fight; OC'ers are obviously not going to give in to a criminal so easily. CC'ers tend to think that criminals will specifically choose those who OC to "execute," but they fail to realize that most criminals don't even consider killing people, even those who are heavily armed. They just want an easy score.

    A byproduct is that crime in general is deterred, since it makes criminals realize that every person is a potential carrier, they just happened to notice this one person this one time. This isn't the point, however.

    CC'ers fail to realize that their method of carry only gives them a way to respond to a crime that is already in progress, while OC helps to keep it from happening in the first place.
    Jesus thought it was more important to be armed than well dressed:

    Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his
    scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.~Luke 22:36

    (Emphasis mine.)

    (Note that the word "garment" here refers to an outer cloak, equivalent to today's sport coats or
    suit jackets in that they both provided warmth and conveyed a certain level of sophistication.)

  19. #19
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    With the information available it seems he only violation is a gross misdemeanor

    Tacoma Municipal Code
    8.12.010 Disorderly persons defined and enumerated.
    The following persons are hereby declared to be disorderly persons:
    6. Any person, except the police officers of the City, engaged in the lawful discharge of their duty, and persons practicing at target shooting in a duly licensed shooting gallery who shall fire off or discharge any bomb, gun, pistol, or firearm of any kind within the City limits.
    RCW 9.41.230 Aiming or discharging firearms, dangerous weapons.

    (1) For conduct not amounting to a violation of chapter 9A.36 RCW, any person who:
    (b) Willfully discharges any firearm, air gun, or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place, or in any place where any person might be endangered thereby. A public place shall not include any location at which firearms are authorized to be lawfully discharged; or
    A similar incident occurred in Yakima County last year and no charges as he was not in a restricted discharge of firearms area.
    Last edited by BigDave; 10-18-2012 at 02:45 PM.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  20. #20
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329

    Man shoots at robber, misses.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    With the information available it seems he only violation is a misdemeanor

    Tacoma Municipal Code
    8.12.010 Disorderly persons defined and enumerated.
    The following persons are hereby declared to be disorderly persons:
    6. Any person, except the police officers of the City, engaged in the lawful discharge of their duty, and persons practicing at target shooting in a duly licensed shooting gallery who shall fire off or discharge any bomb, gun, pistol, or firearm of any kind within the City limits.

    A similar incident occurred in Yakima County last year and no charges as he was not in a restricted discharge of firearms area.
    Except there's this.

    9.41.230 Aiming or discharging firearms, dangerous weapons.
    (1) For conduct not amounting to a violation of chapter 9A.36 RCW, any person who:

    (a) Aims any firearm, whether loaded or not, at or towards any human being;

    (b) Willfully discharges any firearm, air gun, or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place, or in any place where any person might be endangered thereby. A public place shall not include any location at which firearms are authorized to be lawfully discharged; or

    (c) Except as provided in RCW 9.41.185, sets a so-called trap, spring pistol, rifle, or other dangerous weapon,

    although no injury results, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

    So it's actually a gross misdemeanor.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I think the law needs to change in that state .... why shouldn't you be able to shoot a guy who just stole a $300 item from you?

    Cold weather shooting is the hardest .. maybe the shooter was just cold.

    The guy pulled a knife on someone, ample evidence to support he would do it again...so its preventive medicine as far as I am concerned.

  22. #22
    Regular Member bmg50cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    WA - North Whidbey/ Deception Pass
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubex DE View Post
    I doubt that a large chunk of OCDO users, myself included, could be considered "hipsters" by any stretch of the imagination. Can we get back on topic, please?
    This thread is OT, go patronize someone else. Not just hipsters, but petty malefactors like that gimcrack the iPhone as well.


    • Use eBay instead of Craigslist for items that can be shipped. eBay, requires no personal contact & transactions can be made using Paypal.
    • Meet all potential buyers & sellers during daylight hours. If you are unable to meet during the day, then find a well-lit public location.
    • Never go alone, always bring someone else along with you
    • Always bring your cell phone & arrive early.
    • You can meet in front of police station or even in the lobby without contacting police prior.
    • Do not give out your personal information. If you are able to, try to find out as much about the other person before doing business with them.
    • Be suspicious of those who are overly eager to meet in person. If they spend more time discussing where to meet instead of negotiating a price be aware.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I think the law needs to change in that state .... why shouldn't you be able to shoot a guy who just stole a $300 item from you?

    Cold weather shooting is the hardest .. maybe the shooter was just cold.

    The guy pulled a knife on someone, ample evidence to support he would do it again...so its preventive medicine as far as I am concerned.
    For stealing $300, no, I would not agree to changing the law to allow a shooting. Theft is not a capital offense.

    For armed robbery, however, I would be willing to change the law to allow a back shot. Off-the-cuff thinking anyway. I think police can use lethal force to apprehend a violent felon dangerous to the community. I would have to look it up. I vaguely recall that Tennessee vs Garner might have said "immeninent threat to the community." In any event, whatever the police are empowered to do, I would be inclined toward not witholding that power from the citizens who gave it to the police in the first place.


    ETA: I found Tennessee vs Garner.

    Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so...

    ...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given...


    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...71/1/case.html

    You know, on the surface it seems the court couldn't make up its mind. In the first sentence it uses the word immediate. But in the second it changes its tune.

    So, at the moment, subject to further consideration, I would say let the robbery victim shoot the fleeing dangerous felon to apprehend him. I'll think on it some more to see what ramifications come to mind.


    Side Note: Notice that the ivory tower justices practically erased the old common law doctrine that a burglary after dark was a violent crime. For space reasons I won't go into why it was considered a violent crime at one time, and probably still is in some places. Let me just say the reasoning for considering nightime burglary a violent crime was sound. Yet, the court just erased hundreds of years of common law tradition in one or two sentences. Moreover, the court even cited that the FBI classifies burglary as a property crime. Oh, great! An FBI bureaucrat can change 700 years of common law heritage! And, SCOTUS will use it as an excuse to bolster its argument! Great! Just ****ing geat!
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-19-2012 at 03:23 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    For stealing $300, no, I would not agree to changing the law to allow a shooting. Theft is not a capital offense.

    For armed robbery, however, I would be willing to change the law to allow a back shot. Off-the-cuff thinking anyway. I think police can use lethal force to apprehend a violent felon dangerous to the community. I would have to look it up. I vaguely recall that Tennessee vs Garner might have said "immeninent threat to the community." In any event, whatever the police are empowered to do, I would be inclined toward not witholding that power from the citizens who gave it to the police in the first place.


    ETA: I found Tennessee vs Garner.

    Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so...

    ...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given...


    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...71/1/case.html

    You know, on the surface it seems the court couldn't make up its mind. In the first sentence it uses the word immediate. But in the second it changes its tune.

    So, at the moment, subject to further consideration, I would say let the robbery victim shoot the fleeing dangerous felon to apprehend him. I'll think on it some more to see what ramifications come to mind.


    Side Note: Notice that the ivory tower justices practically erased the old common law doctrine that a burglary after dark was a violent crime. For space reasons I won't go into why it was considered a violent crime at one time, and probably still is in some places. Let me just say the reasoning for considering nightime burglary a violent crime was sound. Yet, the court just erased hundreds of years of common law tradition in one or two sentences. Moreover, the court even cited that the FBI classifies burglary as a property crime. Oh, great! An FBI bureaucrat can change 700 years of common law heritage! And, SCOTUS will use it as an excuse to bolster its argument! Great! Just ****ing geat!
    Uh, no, they did not, at least not in Missouri. RSMo 563.041.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  25. #25
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottE View Post
    The intent of CC isn't to deter crime, it's for personal defense.
    The best defense is to not need to defend yourself.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •