Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39

Thread: Looters prepare to loot during/after the storm.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Looters prepare to loot during/after the storm.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/037743_lo...e_tactics.html

    You loot, we shoot!

    Something is terribly wrong with the fabric of society when people think a deadly storm is the perfect opportunity to go on a looting spree. These city-dwelling gang bangers are, of course, counting on the citizens along the eastern seaboard being disarmed due to gun control laws. With 911 out of commission and peace officers completely occupied with other emergency tasks, citizens will be left on their own to protect their homes and families. The storm has taken away police protection, and the State has taken away their Second Amendment rights, so what do they have left to protect themselves from these armed looting gangs?

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037743_lo...#ixzz2AnPxRU7f


    The article is okay up until they give this bit of "advise"


    7) If and when you decide to pull the trigger, do not aim for the head or try to "shoot to kill." You are trying to shoot to STOP your target so that he cannot physically threaten you anymore. Killing should never be your goal, only stopping the attacker.

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037743_lo...#ixzz2AnQCkWm5

    ------------------------------------------


    What a bad idea. If you're going to shoot someone DO shoot to kill.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man
    The article is okay up until they give this bit of "advise"

    7) If and when you decide to pull the trigger, do not aim for the head or try to "shoot to kill." You are trying to shoot to STOP your target so that he cannot physically threaten you anymore. Killing should never be your goal, only stopping the attacker.
    ------------------------------------------
    What a bad idea. If you're going to shoot someone DO shoot to kill.
    Their advice is absolutely correct.
    If you intend to kill someone you are (also) committing a crime.
    Shooting to stop in many cases will also kill the attacker, but that's an unfortunate side effect and should never be wished for.
    (Plus, the head is a small target. Much easier to hit center mass, unless they're pretty much on top of you.)

    Having now posted your views on the subject in a public forum, I hope you are never involved in a defensive shooting where your attacker dies. The cops/DA will dig up things like this & use them against you.

  3. #3
    McX
    Guest
    a rather unsettling conversation i had with a Fed. very recently; apparently he is being deployed to an undisclosed location for the next 30 days. makes me wonder; why and where? hurricane help? appears rather timed to coincide with the elections, and perhaps the aftermath? time will tell.

  4. #4
    McX
    Guest
    and dont forget to stock up on plenty of this!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	dehydrated gun.jpe 
Views:	202 
Size:	13.0 KB 
ID:	9463  

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    Their advice is absolutely correct.
    If you intend to kill someone you are (also) committing a crime.
    Shooting to stop in many cases will also kill the attacker, but that's an unfortunate side effect and should never be wished for.
    (Plus, the head is a small target. Much easier to hit center mass, unless they're pretty much on top of you.)

    Having now posted your views on the subject in a public forum, I hope you are never involved in a defensive shooting where your attacker dies. The cops/DA will dig up things like this & use them against you.
    +1.

    #7 and #10 are spot on.

    I've shared this story on facebook, and implored my friends and family to please get self defense weapons and learn how to use them. Hopefully this may motivate those who've been saying "Oh I need to, eventually..." to get off their asses and do it.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The advice is good, just poorly worded.

    It is a matter of intent. The aim is the same. Shooting to stop, though, is clearly self-defense. Shooting to kill may be interpreted otherwise and result charges.

    Remember though, the aim is the same. Shoot to stop, realizing that where you are aiming will likely result in the death of the target, which of course, still stops him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    290
    A head is too small. So are legs. Shooting to kill is as silly as shooting to injure. I'll shoot to stop. If it's a zombie, I'll aim for the head. But until this storm spawns a zombie apocalypse, I'll aim for the biggest target- center mass.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Shoobee View Post
    Be careful when you shoot for the head. The LEOs who taught my defensive handgun class said you need to hit them in the triangle formed by the eyes and the nose, or else like in the case of Gabbie Giffords, the shots will deflect-off due to the skull being a spherical object.
    Read. He said he would shoot for the head if it is a zombie. Otherwise, IOW, ALWAYS, he will shoot for center mass.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Why does he need to be advised about shooting for the head if he essentially said that he would NOT?

    I can only assume that you failed to understand the irony he was painfully clearly using or that you simply were being contrary. Judging from the bulk of your posts, I am going with the second assumption.

    Moving on to yet something else. I have tired of dealing with the hateful inanity of your posts. I will instead enjoy the blank lines where your posts once resided. Would that John choose to make that state of affairs permanent in a way that all could enjoy. Bye.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Shooting looters is illegal, even during a period of declared emergency. There is no way you will convince a jury that the loss of a 72-inch flat-screen TV and three cases of beer constituted an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

    On the other hand, if you were looking for purely hypothetically theoretical ways to reduce the incidents of looting - which I'm sure we all understand is a purely academic exercise with no pratical application - pelvic, leg and gut shots would be what you would want. Leaving the wounded as cautionary signs to any who might follow, and all that. Unless yoyr looter can haul away the booty by themself, they are going to look for assistance - and when someone goes down they are going to look for the others to get that one to safety/treatment. Should the wounded looter be abandoned, all the others will look at the remaining members of the group and wonder if any of them can be counted on, or will the next one to be wounded also be abandoned. (Or at least that's what the insurgency/asymetric warfare manuals suggest.)

    When the popular press undertakes to spout off a perfectly sound and correct maxim in a way and setting it was never intended to cover, you get this sort of "advice" and the deflection of the conversation away from the important aspect of LACs remaining law-abiding even during periods of social disruption. Folks, civilization as you know it rests on your shoulders!

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  11. #11
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Shooting looters is illegal, even during a period of declared emergency. There is no way you will convince a jury that the loss of a 72-inch flat-screen TV and three cases of beer constituted an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

    On the other hand, if you were looking for purely hypothetically theoretical ways to reduce the incidents of looting - which I'm sure we all understand is a purely academic exercise with no pratical application - pelvic, leg and gut shots would be what you would want. Leaving the wounded as cautionary signs to any who might follow, and all that. Unless yoyr looter can haul away the booty by themself, they are going to look for assistance - and when someone goes down they are going to look for the others to get that one to safety/treatment. Should the wounded looter be abandoned, all the others will look at the remaining members of the group and wonder if any of them can be counted on, or will the next one to be wounded also be abandoned. (Or at least that's what the insurgency/asymetric warfare manuals suggest.)

    When the popular press undertakes to spout off a perfectly sound and correct maxim in a way and setting it was never intended to cover, you get this sort of "advice" and the deflection of the conversation away from the important aspect of LACs remaining law-abiding even during periods of social disruption. Folks, civilization as you know it rests on your shoulders!

    stay safe.
    I didn't fully read the article and I don't think you did either, since the article seems to be discussing how to protect your home from invaders looking to rob you.

    Pretty sure that shooting a(n illegal) home invader, regardless of their intent, is legal in most states.


    But let's also ignore that for the sake of this argument. You didn't specify those states, you made a general statement that shooting looters is illegal. Did you mean a specific state or group of states? If so, please elaborate.

    This certainly isn't entirely true in all states.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    I didn't fully read the article and I don't think you did either, .....
    You are correct. I read the word "looter" and the comments that followed the OP. Never read anything that suggested we would be dealing with home invaders.

    And just so you know, there are still a handful of states (can't remember off the top of my head and too lazy to look it up) that still have a duty to retreat even in the home. Also, how do you square your assertion with the home invader who kicks in your door but has nothing more harmful than a fluffy bunny rabbit in their hands as they begin ransacking your dry cereal stash?

    Yes, in the heat of the moment you personally might have thought that death or serious bodily injury was imminent, but remember that tyou are going to have to convince a jury sitting in a nice, safe courtroom in the middle of the day. My money is on them telling you they do not think your assessment was reasonable.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  13. #13
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    Their advice is absolutely correct.
    If you intend to kill someone you are (also) committing a crime.
    Shooting to stop in many cases will also kill the attacker, but that's an unfortunate side effect and should never be wished for.
    (Plus, the head is a small target. Much easier to hit center mass, unless they're pretty much on top of you.)

    Having now posted your views on the subject in a public forum, I hope you are never involved in a defensive shooting where your attacker dies. The cops/DA will dig up things like this & use them against you.
    Center mass is a kill shot.

    I don't have time to aim for limbs.
    Warning shots can get you arrested for illegal discharge of a firearm.

    And you never point your weapon at anyone you don't intend to kill that is basic safety.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    ...What a bad idea. If you're going to shoot someone DO shoot to kill.
    Nevermind that you are completely wrong on this one, but HOW do you do that?
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Center mass is a kill shot.

    I don't have time to aim for limbs.
    Warning shots can get you arrested for illegal discharge of a firearm.

    And you never point your weapon at anyone you don't intend to kill that is basic safety.
    Lots of people survive hits to center of mass. Besides, we more specifically shoot at center of exposed mass, which may not be center of actual mass, because we want the greatest chance of a hit in the least amount of time.

    It is the HIT that makes the threat reevaluate continuing the attack. We don't care if we kill or not. It just so happens that center of mass is where lots of necessary bits needed to survive are located, but that is their problem, not ours. I don't care if he dies from his wounds; I only care that he stopped his attack.

    Would you stop shooting if you knew your first shot was lethal, but it did not YET stop the attack? Of course not. You shoot to STOP, no more, and no less either!

    No one insinuated warning shots or aiming for limbs. These are not actually the best ways to STOP an attack.

    The safety rule is more correctly worded: "Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to see destroyed."
    Last edited by MAC702; 10-31-2012 at 02:41 AM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    ...Yes, in the heat of the moment you personally might have thought that death or serious bodily injury was imminent, but remember that you are going to have to convince a jury sitting in a nice, safe courtroom in the middle of the day. My money is on them telling you they do not think your assessment was reasonable...
    But, but, but, the cops said that and they got away with it!
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  17. #17
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    And just so you know, there are still a handful of states (can't remember off the top of my head and too lazy to look it up) that still have a duty to retreat even in the home.
    Which is why I said MOST states.

    As for your question about the person with the fluffy bunny rabbit:

    As I live in Texas, we'll apply this question to Texas law. Texas law states that a deadly force is authorized against an individual that breaks into your home. So, the fact they're rummaging through your pantry and are holding a fluffy pink bunny doesn't really matter too much.

    As for what the jury may decide, that's really a copout in this discussion. Which is about what the law states, not what a jury will decide. However, I feel that it should be pointed out that this IS Texas and we don't take too kindly to home invaders.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Hey, fellas,

    Lets keep in mind that the whole shoot-to-kill/shoot-to-stop distinction is intended to change terminology to lessen the chances of an unjust conviction or judgement. Same goes for "I shot to live." Just shifts in terminology in order to avoid giving a prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney something to paint the defender as bloodthirsty. No point in turning it into an argument.

    Save the energy for arguing about something important like whether islay is really scotch, or just whiskey soaked in campfire embers.
    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.

  19. #19
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Looters prepare to loot during/after the storm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Center mass is a kill shot.

    I don't have time to aim for limbs.
    Warning shots can get you arrested for illegal discharge of a firearm.

    And you never point your weapon at anyone you don't intend to kill that is basic safety.
    While I will give you that dead is dead, it seems to me much easier to defend " I shot to stop/defend" vs "I shot to kill."


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Save the energy for arguing about something important like whether islay is really scotch, or just whiskey soaked in campfire embers.
    Double-dog dare you to repeat that here http://spiritofislay.myfreeforum.org/

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Lots of people survive hits to center of mass. Besides, we more specifically shoot at center of exposed mass, which may not be center of actual mass, because we want the greatest chance of a hit in the least amount of time.

    It is the HIT that makes the threat reevaluate continuing the attack. We don't care if we kill or not. It just so happens that center of mass is where lots of necessary bits needed to survive are located, but that is their problem, not ours. I don't care if he dies from his wounds; I only care that he stopped his attack.

    Would you stop shooting if you knew your first shot was lethal, but it did not YET stop the attack? Of course not. You shoot to STOP, no more, and no less either!

    No one insinuated warning shots or aiming for limbs. These are not actually the best ways to STOP an attack.

    The safety rule is more correctly worded: "Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to see destroyed."
    This.

    I think that some folks are missing the point that a shot to kill looks exactly like a shot to stop. The only difference is the reasoning behind taking the shot. The placement of the shots and the end result of the shots to the perp will be the same.

    If he is lucky and lives, I don't care--as long as he was stopped. If he dies, I don't care; he had to be stopped--and died as a consequence of his actions, not of mine.

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Shooting looters is illegal (That all depends on where they happen to be looting.), even during a period of declared emergency (Just makes it easier to justify your self defense actions. I suspect that a jury of my peers will also have been subjected to the affects of the declared emergency and will likely have little sympathy for someone whom I classified as a looter.). There is no way you will convince a jury that the loss of a 72-inch flat-screen TV and three cases of beer constituted an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury (Says you, if they, the looters, come into my "castle" a jury will only know what they 'attempted' to loot as a incidental fact, if it is even brought up as a relevant fact, as to my use of lethal force defending my castle and the lowly serfs residing there in).

    blah....blah....blah....

    stay safe.
    See responses in green.

    Oh, and "civilization" rests on your shoulders too. Don't blame me if your local civilization does not fare as well as my local civilization during and after a declared emergency.
    "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

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    This.

    I think that some folks are missing the point that a shot to kill looks exactly like a shot to stop. The only difference is the reasoning behind taking the shot. The placement of the shots and the end result of the shots to the perp will be the same.

    If he is lucky and lives, I don't care--as long as he was stopped. If he dies, I don't care; he had to be stopped--and died as a consequence of his actions, not of mine.
    Well.....according to Hollywood, shots to/that kill are very graphic. Again, according to Hollywood, shots to/that wound are nice tiddy little holes, or little scratches, that take a 2x2 band-aid to address.

    ....just sayin.
    "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

  24. #24
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    While I will give you that dead is dead, it seems to me much easier to defend " I shot to stop/defend" vs "I shot to kill."


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I said it the way I did because libtards think that you should shoot for limbs only.

    As for another question if my first shot does not kill them but does stop them then why should I waste anymore ammo?

    As for shooting to stop that is why you carry a heavy hitter like a 45 or a 10mm.

    I don't care if they die or not when I fire in defense of myself or others though. I will not shoot to wound though. I aim for center mass because 1 that is where all the critical organs are and 2 because it's the largest target.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Then it is best to say, "I will not shoot to wound." Saying, "I shoot to kill," may come back to haunt you.

    Also, you are generally not talking to liberals (I refuse to use your pejorative) here. You are talking to folks who generally hold similar views to yours as to the RKBA. So, when you say, "shoot to stop," we know that you do not mean, "shoot to wound," and that you recognize that death is the likely outcome of shooting to stop, even if death is not your explicit intent.

    I shoot to stop. That means I shoot at center mass, and that means that the perp has a high likelihood of dying. That is his fault, so I won't lose any sleep over it if he happens to die because I stopped him.

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
  •