Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: In Garden Grove, California the other day, a 65 year old woman with a gun chased 5 ar

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    102

    In Garden Grove, California the other day, a 65 year old woman with a gun chased 5 ar

    way to go young lady....competent use of a firearm helps save her and her employees from possibly injury or death!

    I haven't heard of Prison Planet before (the site posting the article)...looks interesting too.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/65-year-...d-robbers.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    August 4, 2012
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by jhow1nm2 View Post
    way to go young lady....competent use of a firearm helps save her and her employees from possibly injury or death!

    I haven't heard of Prison Planet before (the site posting the article)...looks interesting too.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/65-year-...d-robbers.html
    You have heard of Alex Jones though, right?
    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)

  4. #4
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Man the cop in this story pisses me off. "Just like the cops you have to be accountable for your rounds"..... the cops are NOT accountable for THEIR rounds....how many times do they shoot innocents when they're shooting at bad guys and walk away because "they had no choice"? (think the Empire State building shooting)

    The citizen without a badge, lawfully defending themselves, should have the same protections as the citizens with badges when they shoot (even when it's not lawful). Think Seattle and Birk.
    Last edited by We-the-People; 05-27-2013 at 01:57 PM. Reason: Added Birk reference
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    They ARE accountable for their rounds. You may not think that appropriate judgments are made about their shootings, but they are required to answer for every round they fire. When required to answer for something, that is the very definition of accountability.

  6. #6
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    They ARE accountable for their rounds. You may not think that appropriate judgments are made about their shootings, but they are required to answer for every round they fire. When required to answer for something, that is the very definition of accountability.
    I disagree. While it may be technically correct, the reality is that the police in NY at the Empire State building shot a whole lot of innocent people and they did not face criminal or civil charges/penalties. Had that been a non badged citizen, they'd have been destroyed by civil litigation and likely in jail due to their negligence.

    Same goes for Birk in Seattle. Had ANY non badged citizen done that shooting they would be facing a needle.

    Merely saying "yep, that was my bullet, SORRY" is NOT accountability.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    "Accountable" does not mean facing "civil or criminal penalties."

    It means "answering for."

    They are accountable.

  8. #8
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    "Accountable" does not mean facing "civil or criminal penalties."

    It means "answering for."

    They are accountable.
    That's your "definition". My "definition" is answering for in the form of being penalized. But hey, I think we'd probably agree that LEO's and non badged citizens should be held to the same standard.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    In Garden Grove, California the other day, a 65 year old woman with a gun chase

    No. That is what the word very simply means. You will be asked to give an accounting. You will be asked to give an account of your actions. You will be held to account. It does not mean that any trouble will necessarily will come from the accounting that you are required to give.

    Words have meaning.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Slightly right of center
    Posts
    166
    I'm torn. The definition is just as Eye says, but the example seems to lean more towards what We is saying:

    Definition of ACCOUNTABLE
    1: subject to giving an account : answerable <held her accountable for the damage>

    2: capable of being accounted for : explainable

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accountable

    One thing with which I strongly disagree:
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People
    That's your "definition". My "definition" is answering for in the form of being penalized.
    There is no "your definition" or "my definition". It's a language. One individual does not change the meaning of a word - it takes many, many of them, misusing the word over a long period of time, to change the meaning.

    I'll go along with this part though:
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People
    But hey, I think we'd probably agree that LEO's and non badged citizens should be held to the same standard.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    And my problem was that he was saying that the officers were not accountable, which is not true. They are being held to account. Every time. He may not like the outcome after the accounting. If he does not, he should address that particular case, not make the broad and false statement that officers are not held to account for shootings. They are.

    P.S. I have often said that cops are citizens too. In most matters, they should be held to the same standard as all other citizens. I see two exceptions: They are (at least supposedly) highly-trained professionals. As such they should be held to a higher standard when it comes to those actions for which they have been trained, just like any other well-trained person would be. The second exception is that they have been given very specific authorities that they may exercise in very specific circumstances, authorities that other citizens don't have. The problem arises when an officer thinks he has an authority that he does not or when exercises an authority in a situation where he does not have it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Flopsweat View Post
    Definition of ACCOUNTABLE ... There is no "your definition" or "my definition".
    Do not fall prey to the definitist fallacies, what some have called the dictionary fallacies. Philosophical questions aren't resolved by repair to dictionaries, that merely removes the question to semiotics and semantics.

    These fallacies are the requirement to define terms in advance; definition in terms of another property to be argued; and the use of persuasive definitions.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Do not fall prey to the definitist fallacies, what some have called the dictionary fallacies. Philosophical questions aren't resolved by repair to dictionaries, that merely removes the question to semiotics and semantics.

    These fallacies are the requirement to define terms in advance; definition in terms of another property to be argued; and the use of persuasive definitions.
    That is just plain silly. In order for communication to occur, words must have agreed meanings. Dictionaries are the agreed arbiter of those meanings. When someone uses nuances of words to cloud an argument, that is one thing.

    However, "accountable" has a very specific meaning. Lack of understanding of the most fundamental nature of that meaning was causing a blatantly false statement to be passed off as true by using an indefensibly incorrect definition of the word.

    The word "accountable" has been defined in advance--and dictionaries agree on that definition.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Slightly right of center
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    That is just plain silly. In order for communication to occur, words must have agreed meanings. Dictionaries are the agreed arbiter of those meanings. When someone uses nuances of words to cloud an argument, that is one thing.

    However, "accountable" has a very specific meaning. Lack of understanding of the most fundamental nature of that meaning was causing a blatantly false statement to be passed off as true by using an indefensibly incorrect definition of the word.

    The word "accountable" has been defined in advance--and dictionaries agree on that definition.
    I don't always see "eye to eye" with you, but I have to say I'm in total ageement with this. Couldn't have said it better.

    I agree with We's point that sometimes police get away with things that they shouldn't - I just took issue with him redifining a word. To be fair, he did put it in quotes, but of course I couldn't let it go.

    Want some real fun? Look up the word "Respect". As Indigo would say,
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Posting Permissions

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