Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: 'Cause I ain't messing around no more," Lembo said just got his gun for defense!

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    'Cause I ain't messing around no more," Lembo said just got his gun for defense!

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tired-of...r-hours-later/

    Tired of thefts, man buys gun and shoots burglar hours later...


    I guess the guy was not kidding ! Good for him !

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tired-of...r-hours-later/

    Tired of thefts, man buys gun and shoots burglar hours later...


    I guess the guy was not kidding ! Good for him !
    No, not so good for him. While I can understand his frustration, I can't countenance shooting a man--even a burglar--who demonstrably poses no imminent risk to life or limb. An un-invited intruder who enters or attempts to enter my home through force or stealth will be assumed to pose an imminent risk to myself and my entire household unless and until there is strong evidence to the contrary. Turning tail and running is generally pretty decent evidence that there is no imminent threat to my life or limb.

    From the link you provided:

    “I told him to sit on the coffee table, or I’d blow his brains out,” Lembo said.

    But that’s when man bolted toward the front door and Lembo shot him in the shoulder.

    "That's when I shot him, yes. I shot just like that," Lembo. Just barely missed the side of the wall. Got him in the shoulder. If he'd have sat there, nothing would have happened. But he wanted to leave. And I've had enough of it. I've had enough."
    Had he shot the burglar on sight inside his home he might have claimed (and quite possibly believed) he was in imminent danger. But once the burglar attempted to flee, it is hard to argue that innocent life or limb was in danger.

    Under the circumstances, I'd hope for leniency. Heat of the moment, sanctity of a man's castle, and all of that. But as we have the chance to reflect outside of the moment, we should not be encouraging nor celebrating the use of deadly force when it was not necessary in the moment to protect innocent life and limb.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 09-04-2015 at 12:00 AM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    No, not so good for him. While I can understand his frustration, I can't countenance shooting a man--even a burglar--who demonstrably poses no imminent risk to life or limb. An un-invited intruder who enters or attempts to enter my home through force or stealth will be assumed to pose an imminent risk to myself and my entire household unless and until there is strong evidence to the contrary. Turning tail and running is generally pretty decent evidence that there is no imminent threat to my life or limb.

    From the link you provided:



    Had he shot the burglar on sight inside his home he might have claimed (and quite possibly believed) he was in imminent danger. But once the burglar attempted to flee, it is hard to argue that innocent life or limb was in danger.

    Under the circumstances, I'd hope for leniency. Heat of the moment, sanctity of a man's castle, and all of that. But as we have the chance to reflect outside of the moment, we should not be encouraging nor celebrating the use of deadly force when it was not necessary in the moment to protect innocent life and limb.

    Charles
    State laws very on that.

    Washington State, for instance, he should have slain the bg not wounded him. But slaying for fleeing (in this case) is perfectly legal in Washington.

    I am sure that shooting a fleeing prisoner is legal in most states. The bg was under arrest and was fleeing custody at the time he was shot.

    Why do you not support swift consequences again criminal actors? Why must the gg wear a special costume to be able to deliver swift action? This gg was being kind and humane and not wanting to kill the bg based on the fact that he did not make him dead right away. Yet you say that he did the wrong thing when the bg divested himself of said kindness.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    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
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    From the linked article; "A district attorney will decide whether Lembo will face charges in the incident. In the meantime, he told WGME that future burglars should be ready for his revolver."

    Interesting pronoun use. If it is used properly, it is the DA speaking.

    Thank goodness Mainiacs don't have to suffer a purchase waiting period.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Is a guy fleeing or is he going to get help ? Is the guy going to get access to a weapon he has outside the dwelling? He's not surrendering...

    IMO a guy instigates a conflict on your land. It does not matter where it ends, its where it starts that determines the appropriateness.

    Pvt: "Hey Sarge, the enemy soldier is fleeing...what should I do?"
    SGT: "shoot him in the back PVT."

    Don't want to get shot in the back? Then don't come and instigate something on my land.

    Enemies are to be dispatched as soon as possible.

    All this "you cannot shoot if your life is not in imminent danger" .... well until the enemy is dead or otherwise under direct control he (or she) IS a danger.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 09-05-2015 at 11:26 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Hope prisons have wheelchair ramps. Although he certainly would get a "not guilty" if I were on the jury he screwed himself by what he said and is now at the mercy of the whims of some idiot DA.

    He said he shot at the guy while believing he was fleeing in order to keep him there. Pretty sure he committed a crime. I applaud him.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  7. #7
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    Sounds like the man talked himself in to being charged.

    Sent from my Sony Xperia using Tapatalk 4

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by rscottie View Post
    Sounds like the man talked himself in to being charged.

    Sent from my Sony Xperia using Tapatalk 4
    Maybe .. always best to say nothing. Cops ask questions? "Talk to my lawyer" and if your lawyer tells you to "tell your story" then get another lawyer.

    911 caller: "hey, there's a dead (injured) guy in my living room, do you provide clean up service for this?" End of talking to po po.

    Let them try and figure it out. Let them charge you. Mums the word. Until you need to present a defense or an affirmative defense, don't raise it. And you only need to raise this in court. [self defense is not an affirmative defense ... at least I know in many states this is true].

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    Hope prisons have wheelchair ramps. Although he certainly would get a "not guilty" if I were on the jury he screwed himself by what he said and is now at the mercy of the whims of some idiot DA.

    He said he shot at the guy while believing he was fleeing in order to keep him there. Pretty sure he committed a crime. I applaud him.
    Maybe he was fleeing to get a weapon.

    one definition: 2. (intr) to run or move quickly; rush; speed: she fled to the door.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fleeing

    English ... wacky language .. only the speaker can ID the exact meaning he meant (not that a jury has to believe it).

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Nothern KY
    Posts
    201
    I may be mistaken but aren't the same people that are supporting this behavior the same ones that find it disgusting if a police officer shoots someone in the back? Before jumping up and down saying I blindly support police, keep in mind I'm saying I don't support EITHER police or private citizen shooting someone that is fleeing. Even if the law is on your side I personally couldn't live with shooting anyone unless I thought they were a REAL threat at the time.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by willy1094 View Post
    I may be mistaken but aren't the same people that are supporting this behavior the same ones that find it disgusting if a police officer shoots someone in the back? Before jumping up and down saying I blindly support police, keep in mind I'm saying I don't support EITHER police or private citizen shooting someone that is fleeing. Even if the law is on your side I personally couldn't live with shooting anyone unless I thought they were a REAL threat at the time.
    I have zero issue with cops shooting people who are truly a danger to them. So we agree.

    In my state, cases have been ruled that one can shoot a fleeing killer on the loose in effecting a citizen's arrest..even in the back...even when he is not an immediate threat.

    Its a complicated subject even looking on current law.

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    IMO a guy instigates a conflict on your land. It does not matter where it ends, its where it starts that determines the appropriateness.
    So how long do you get to chase the guy down and shoot him? If you see him the next day out on the street do you claim a right to "finish" what he started the night before?

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Pvt: "Hey Sarge, the enemy soldier is fleeing...what should I do?"
    SGT: "shoot him in the back PVT."

    Don't want to get shot in the back? Then don't come and instigate something on my land.

    Enemies are to be dispatched as soon as possible.

    All this "you cannot shoot if your life is not in imminent danger" .... well until the enemy is dead or otherwise under direct control he (or she) IS a danger.

    Even a home invasion is not the same as the battlefield during war.

    Someone has watched a few too many movies and is at least a quart short on morals.

    Deadly force is morally and legally justified (off the battlefield) only when innocent life or limb is in imminent danger. A person, caught in the act of a burglary who turns tail to flee is not generally presenting an imminent threat to life or limb.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Why do you not support swift consequences again criminal actors? Why must the gg wear a special costume to be able to deliver swift action? This gg was being kind and humane and not wanting to kill the bg based on the fact that he did not make him dead right away. Yet you say that he did the wrong thing when the bg divested himself of said kindness.
    Why do you support vigilante justice?

    I support the right to self-defense, NOT to dispatch "switch consequences". If your life or limb are not in imminent danger, the use of deadly force is not morally justified. (At least not so long as we are living in today's world with functioning police and courts, rather than some post-apocalyptic wasteland or some "The Shining" kind of isolated area.)

    Furthermore, there was no "kindness". The homeowner threatened to "blow his head off" if he moved. It sounds like the homeowner fully intended to kill the burglar, but was too poor of a shot to do so.

    I only support police officers using deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect when there is evidence to support a reasonable man belief that the suspect poses a grave risk to other innocent persons.

    To be clear, in a home invasion situation, I will give every possible benefit of the doubt to the homeowner who uses deadly force. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will assume the home invader(s) did pose a grave, immediate risk to the life and limb of everyone in the home and that the use of deadly force was justified.

    And I would hope for every leniency for a homeowner who, in the heat of a moment makes a split second mistake about whether deadly force was justified. Even more so in this case where physical disability puts the homeowner at additional disadvantage.

    But when a homeowner fully admits that he shot someone after they turned tail to run for the express purpose of preventing an "escape", when there has been zero evidence the bad guy was armed, I have to call a spade a spade. It looks like a bad shoot to me. I hope the DA is not a jerk.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 09-05-2015 at 07:53 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Da Rat Bastid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    At least not so long as we are living in today's world with functioning police and courts...
    Well, for a certain value of "functioning", yeah, you might say that. *smirk*

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Da Rat Bastid View Post
    Well, for a certain value of "functioning", yeah, you might say that. *smirk*
    Yes I can. Our standard cannot be perfection (as we see it) lest we always be able to claim a right to dole out vigilante justice.

    The (relative to imminent danger) slow response time of the police, the inability (and/or unwillingness) of courts and jails to cure criminal recidivism or to punish every criminal all provide justification above and beyond natural rights for our right to have the tools for an effective, immediate, self-defense.

    But the police, courts, and jails are still working well enough that we cannot justify vigilantism, presuming to investigate crimes, nor doling out lynch mob "justice".

    Deadly force is for self-defense against (reasonable man belief) imminent threat to life or limb.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    So how long do you get to chase the guy down and shoot him? If you see him the next day out on the street do you claim a right to "finish" what he started the night before?




    Even a home invasion is not the same as the battlefield during war.

    Someone has watched a few too many movies and is at least a quart short on morals.

    Deadly force is morally and legally justified (off the battlefield) only when innocent life or limb is in imminent danger. A person, caught in the act of a burglary who turns tail to flee is not generally presenting an imminent threat to life or limb.

    Charles
    In a battlefield there are rules; so I'll agree that there are differences.

    Imminent danger? What does that mean as you use it Charles? You mean a guy pointing a gun at you (or otherwise presenting a condition that a reasonable person would see as an actual physical threat)? So any burglar not carrying a weapon and is a decent distance away from you would not be included?

    The homeowner was a victim of repeated incursions .... so his behavior appears to have some basis in appropriateness or at least understandable for a normal person...I think an intruder can expect some un-nice words to be spoken to him.

    If the legal standard was: you can shoot anyone who is an intruder on your land for any reason then the crime of burglary would likely be less. (I think that if the law was that one could shoot anyone for any reason, anywhere, then people would be a lot nicer to each other too ... not that this is ever going to or should happen~just a thought experiment).

    And coming into the dwelling itself ... a sign that the person is more than willing to harm the occupant.

    Its a subject that different people have different opinions on, that's for sure.

    The biggest problem is that its just too subjective and 20-20 hindsight involved. Make it something clearly understood ... and this tips the table for me. Everyone can understand that a person shot a guy who entered his property w/o permission. I like easy laws to comprehend. So I prefer the easy law. That's the way the law should be throughout this nation. I have always lobbied for this when such issues come up.

    Most OCers are the nicest people you'll meet. But more than willing and able to thwart evil. Don't be evil, simple.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 09-05-2015 at 09:54 PM.

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Imminent danger? What does that mean as you use it Charles?
    Did you miss my prior posts in this thread?

    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper
    An un-invited intruder who enters or attempts to enter my home through force or stealth will be assumed to pose an imminent risk to myself and my entire household unless and until there is strong evidence to the contrary. Turning tail and running is generally pretty decent evidence that there is no imminent threat to my life or limb.
    ...
    Had he shot the burglar on sight inside his home he might have claimed (and quite possibly believed) he was in imminent danger. But once the burglar attempted to flee, it is hard to argue that innocent life or limb was in danger.

    Under the circumstances, I'd hope for leniency. Heat of the moment, sanctity of a man's castle, and all of that. But as we have the chance to reflect outside of the moment, we should not be encouraging nor celebrating the use of deadly force when it was not necessary in the moment to protect innocent life and limb.
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper
    To be clear, in a home invasion situation, I will give every possible benefit of the doubt to the homeowner who uses deadly force. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will assume the home invader(s) did pose a grave, immediate risk to the life and limb of everyone in the home and that the use of deadly force was justified.

    And I would hope for every leniency for a homeowner who, in the heat of a moment makes a split second mistake about whether deadly force was justified. Even more so in this case where physical disability puts the homeowner at additional disadvantage.

    But when a homeowner fully admits that he shot someone after they turned tail to run for the express purpose of preventing an "escape", when there has been zero evidence the bad guy was armed, I have to call a spade a spade. It looks like a bad shoot to me. I hope the DA is not a jerk.
    Any questions about my standard when it comes to home invasions?

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    If the legal standard was: you can shoot anyone who is an intruder on your land for any reason then the crime of burglary would likely be less.
    Really? You want legal leeway to shoot the 8 year old kid retrieving a ball he kicked over your fence? Or the 12 year old who is stealing your garden troll as a prank?

    Not going to be acceptable to my moral compass nor most others.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    (I think that if the law was that one could shoot anyone for any reason, anywhere, then people would be a lot nicer to each other too ... not that this is ever going to or should happen~just a thought experiment).
    Something about being just plain nuts comes to mind here.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    And coming into the dwelling itself ... a sign that the person is more than willing to harm the occupant.
    Agreed. Hence my position on home invasions. But what sign do intelligent, sane, moral men take from a criminal who turns tail and runs at the sight of an armed homeowner? In most cases, I'm thinking this is a sign that the bad guy no longer poses an imminent threat to my life or limb. If there is no imminent threat to my life or limb, I cannot justify the use of deadly force.


    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The biggest problem is that its just too subjective and 20-20 hindsight involved. Make it something clearly understood ... and this tips the table for me. Everyone can understand that a person shot a guy who entered his property w/o permission. I like easy laws to comprehend. So I prefer the easy law. That's the way the law should be throughout this nation. I have always lobbied for this when such issues come up.
    Utah law on this matter is quite simple as is my personal position. A man entering a home, uninvited, by stealth or force is presumed to pose a grave and imminent threat to all occupants' lives and limbs...UNTIL there is evidence to the contrary. If there is any doubt, I will give every possible benefit of the doubt to the homeowner/resident. But when the resident full up admits the burglar was turning tail to run and he used deadly force out of anger, spite, or to try to effect some silly and needlessly dangerous citizen's arrest, I think he crosses a line, legally (in the jurisdictions of which I'm aware) and morally.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Most OCers are the nicest people you'll meet. But more than willing and able to thwart evil. Don't be evil, simple.
    Using deadly force against a person who demonstrably doesn't pose an imminent risk to your life or limb, is evil. Simply evil. At least when it is done with forethought and premeditation. In the heat of the moment, it might be attributed to ignorance and stupidity, or lack of proper training.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 09-06-2015 at 01:15 AM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post

    <snip>

    Really? You want legal leeway to shoot the 8 year old kid retrieving a ball he kicked over your fence? Or the 12 year old who is stealing your garden troll as a prank?
    Charles
    You're not going to fall for the oldest midget trick in the book, are you?

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    <snip> Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper
    An un-invited intruder who enters or attempts to enter my home through force or stealth will be assumed to pose an imminent risk to myself and my entire household unless and until there is strong evidence to the contrary. Turning tail and running is generally pretty decent evidence that there is no imminent threat to my life or limb.
    ...
    Had he shot the burglar on sight inside his home he might have claimed (and quite possibly believed) he was in imminent danger. But once the burglar attempted to flee, it is hard to argue that innocent life or limb was in danger.

    Under the circumstances, I'd hope for leniency. Heat of the moment, sanctity of a man's castle, and all of that. But as we have the chance to reflect outside of the moment, we should not be encouraging nor celebrating the use of deadly force when it was not necessary in the moment to protect innocent life and limb.
    Thx for the response...

    Utah is a very nice place to live ... I have visited that state many times.

  20. #20
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by willy1094 View Post
    I may be mistaken but aren't the same people that are supporting this behavior the same ones that find it disgusting if a police officer shoots someone in the back? Before jumping up and down saying I blindly support police, keep in mind I'm saying I don't support EITHER police or private citizen shooting someone that is fleeing. Even if the law is on your side I personally couldn't live with shooting anyone unless I thought they were a REAL threat at the time.
    A man's home is sacred. It's his construction of protection built around his loved ones. I have no sympathy for anyone who violates that with ill intentions. Even if the law isn't on your side I would not condemn anything you did to the intruder.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  21. #21
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by willy1094 View Post
    I may be mistaken but aren't the same people that are supporting this behavior the same ones that find it disgusting if a police officer shoots someone in the back? Before jumping up and down saying I blindly support police, keep in mind I'm saying I don't support EITHER police or private citizen shooting someone that is fleeing. Even if the law is on your side I personally couldn't live with shooting anyone unless I thought they were a REAL threat at the time.
    Police officers do it in public, they are PUBLIC servants, they are also often doing it in the name of revenue collect, the enforcement of anti-drug laws, plus they have been through much more training, also they are doing it the name of government. Plus police get to wear body armor that you have paid for.

    A private citizen (keeping it short) has a hell of a lot more leeway. The government wants to ban them from being armored, good training can be very difficult to aquire in many areas, bad guys like to come back with "friends" to end the resistance that a victim might have offered. Etc etc. So private citizens have more leeway about whether, when, where, and how to shoot a BG in my view. The citizen did not hunt down the bad guy like a prize hunt but rather took the available shot a made it work.

    Sorry, apples and bananas in comparison. Police also carry radios and can have backup on call plus they often have the power to conscript local citizens into assisting in the arrest of a BG. Citizens are not allowed to conscript each other on the streets like that.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    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)

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Maybe .. always best to say nothing. Cops ask questions? "Talk to my lawyer" and if your lawyer tells you to "tell your story" then get another lawyer.

    --snipped--
    This from the user/member who is an outspoken advocate of going pro se, he doesn't need no steekin' lawyer.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    This from the user/member who is an outspoken advocate of going pro se, he doesn't need no steekin' lawyer.
    A most idiotic statement.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    this is why my prose inside the house is always the same, shoot the intruder first, let the PD sort it out later.

    I have no idea of intruders intent under this KISS method, I don't know if he means to cause me or my loved ones harm, either directly, through physical force, or theft, I do not know if he is armed, or not, all I know, is he was not welcome, and my family is in this house with an unknown intruder with questionable intent. and their lives at this point are more important than his/hers.

    PS you can buy level IIIA armor here.. even level 4 armor if you can afford it. plan on getting some before Xmas. never know if a BG is armed and might get off a lucky shot.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,507
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I have zero issue with cops shooting people who are truly a danger to them. So we agree.
    Wait. Who defines '...who are truly a danger to them'?

    I think there are three things to be done.

    1. Downsize the carry options to a 5-6 shot revolver. This makes for several changes in tactics
    2. Make sure they learn, relearn, repeat when asked 'are you the judge jury and executioner?'. Answer, 'no, I bring 'em in alive'. Make this option preferable by employing positive sanctions (or negative sanctions) for doing JUST THAT.
    3. Do NOT treat ordinary LACs like hardened perps. Treat a nice LAC nicely. It's EASY TO DO.

    4. In return, and I think LACs WANT to do this - treat LEOs nicely. I LOVE treating a nice LEO nicely. It's easy.

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
  •