• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Looters prepare to loot during/after the storm.

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...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!
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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. :D
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
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
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The only time I visited that neck of the woods I felt as if I had been looted. The cost of a freaking sandwich :cuss: and a beer on the Jersey Shore near Cape May. That was a serious looting of my property.....and perfectly legal too.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
The only time I visited that neck of the woods I felt as if I had been looted. The cost of a freaking sandwich :cuss: and a beer on the Jersey Shore near Cape May. That was a serious looting of my property.....and perfectly legal too.

Supply and demand. You had the right to not offer to buy the sandwich in the first place. Since you found the price to be acceptable you paid the asking price.

If I believe that people are willing to pay 12 dollars for a sandwich and a beer then I will charge that price. If I find that to not be true then I will lower my prices until people are willing to pay what ever the asking price is.

A way to test the market is the offer a "sale price." If I offer a 10 dollar Tuesdays and I find that the sales really pickup and profits rise on Tuesdays then I might lower the daily price to 10dollars.

In short if you thought that the asking price was too high then you should have haggled over the price or taken your money elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Supply and demand. You had the right to not offer to buy the sandwich in the first place. Since you found the price to be acceptable you paid the asking price.

If I believe that people are willing to pay 12 dollars for a sandwich and a beer then I will charge that price. If I find that to not be true then I will lower my prices until people are willing to pay what ever the asking price is.

A way to test the market is the offer a "sale price." If I offer a 10 dollar Tuesdays and I find that the sales really pickup and profits rise on Tuesdays then I might lower the daily price to 10dollars.

In short if you thought that the asking price was too high then you should have haggled over the price or taken your money elsewhere.
Technically accurate portrayal of the free enterprise system.

Also true if I lived there. I would then be in a position to haggle for a lower price. But seeing as I was tourist, three day stay, and had little experience with that area the options for sustenance were limited.

The residents of Cape May are willing to pay the going price. Then again I have the right to go without sustenance for the duration of the stay based on your premise.

You Sir are too smart by half.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Technically accurate portrayal of the free enterprise system.

Also true if I lived there. I would then be in a position to haggle for a lower price. But seeing as I was tourist, three day stay, and had little experience with that area the options for sustenance were limited.

The residents of Cape May are willing to pay the going price. Then again I have the right to go without sustenance for the duration of the stay based on your premise.

You Sir are too smart by half.

You should have gone somewhere else where it was cheaper to be a tourist.

Besides, isn't over paying for food want what not part of the whole being a tourist adventure?
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I am more personally concerned not with "criminals" trying to violate me but of the gov't trying to use the storm as a venue or reason to violate my rights.

For example, in NYC they made certain highways ALL HOV lanes (??? don't think this is right) to "aid in the out-flowing of people to safer areas" but then congest traffic to one lane to see if folks are complying with the HOV lane requirements which ended up (like a monkey would not know the result) creating a bigger obstruction to the goal. I think NYC just wanted to see if they could get away with searches via such a mechanism myself.

They are grooming us of course. Its good to see that even some new yorkers had words with the cops over their behavior.

I had my firearms ready and would have no difficulty protecting my rights against any party trying to violating them. Storm or not.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
You should have gone somewhere else where it was cheaper to be a tourist.

Besides, isn't over paying for food want what not part of the whole being a tourist adventure?
Good point.

Then again, going somewhere else to be a tourist would have precluded me from attending the graduation of my son from the USCG Recruit Training Center, which happens to be located very near Cape May New Jersey. Obviously I placed a higher value on the event over the desire to reduce the cost of the trip to Cape May.

New Jersey remains on my "Do Not Visit" list.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Good point.

Then again, going somewhere else to be a tourist would have precluded me from attending the graduation of my son from the USCG Recruit Training Center, which happens to be located very near Cape May New Jersey. Obviously I placed a higher value on the event over the desire to reduce the cost of the trip to Cape May.

New Jersey remains on my "Do Not Visit" list.

See, then quit bitching about the over priced tourist feeding centers.

Tourists are expected to pay more. I noticed that in Korea if you went to the tourist areas everything was over priced. If you went the where the locals ate the food was better and at a lower price. Although most of the time they didn't speak English and I didn't care. The food was good and worth every cent that I paid for it.

When I go to tourist land in any area I expect the prices to be higher. So I look for the places that are off of main trail.

If it had been phrased as more of a warning to other potential tourist I would not be giving you such a bad time.
 
Top