Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: People are getting scared

  1. #1
    Regular Member floyd patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Floyd, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    22

    People are getting scared

    I live in a sparsely populated rural/agricultural county in Va. I am an NRA certified firearms instructor and teach, among other things, Concealed Handgun Permit classes.

    Recently, the county cut the Sheriff's budget. Again. The Sheriff is down to having only two deputies on the road at any given time and only one on graveyard shift. The department is assisted by VSP, but their budget is limited, so they can only assist so much. Besides, VSP is not allowed to assist county sheriffs offices with misdemeanor crimes.

    I'm getting a lot more requests for information on my classes, especially from ladies. I truly believe people are getting scared because of the lack of law enforcement.

    Most citizens do not know that Va. does not observe the Castle Doctrine. Most do not even know what the Castle Doctrine is. When they find out they do not have the legal right to defend their property against thieves, they become very concerned. Request for information on In Home Self Defense classes and Va. Firearms Law classes have risen also. Some people are even asking where they can learn what to do and how to prepare to survive in the event the country goes to "SHTF" syndrome.

    People are getting scared.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    And how much do you take in fees from these scared people?

  3. #3
    Regular Member floyd patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Floyd, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    And how much do you take in fees from these scared people?
    Doug, I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect your intent is sarcasm. I'm sorry if I offended you or caused you to think I'm taking advantage of people. I am not deliberately taking advantage of people's fear any more than a grocer would take advantage of people's hunger.
    My intent was simply to share my observations of people's actions and reactions to the current local situation.

    Again, I apologize for irritating you.

  4. #4
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    And how much do you take in fees from these scared people?
    And to whom do you donate YOUR paycheck?

    As an instructor I have invested many thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of time in my own training, equipment and class materials, etc. The range where the classes are held charges me a fee for each student as well. I travel widely (for nothing) to give these classes.

    People value what they pay for. I don't know of any instructor who will not make arrangements with those who truly cannot pay the fees. I've done it myself. But people who have the money to buy guns, ammunition, large SUVs and so forth actually can spare the small amount I need to be able to continue offering instruction.

    I make my living otherwise, and I don't usually even break even. So spare me your self righteous attitude.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Las Vegan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    145
    Floyd, it's a sad (and scary) situation, but apparently it's the wake up call that many people needed.
    "The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
    - President James Monroe

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Yes, I know all that. My NRA Training Counselor taught me that and I learned well -

    Yes, I know all that. My NRA Training Counselor taught me that and I learned well - and quit.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Two cops on at a time or two hundred, any effect they have (if any) is purely indirect.


    • Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
    • Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
    • Police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.


    When your life is in danger RIGHT NOW, protect YOURSELF or don't get protected AT ALL.

    They could double the number of deputies and the odds are, if you're not able to defend yourself, they're just going take your description of your assailant at best, or draw a chalk outline around you at worst.

  8. #8
    Regular Member floyd patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Floyd, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    Two cops on at a time or two hundred, any effect they have (if any) is purely indirect.


    • Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
    • Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
    • Police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.


    When your life is in danger RIGHT NOW, protect YOURSELF or don't get protected AT ALL.

    They could double the number of deputies and the odds are, if you're not able to defend yourself, they're just going take your description of your assailant at best, or draw a chalk outline around you at worst.
    You got THAT right!

  9. #9
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664
    I don't think we need castle doctrine in VA. Using lethal force to protect property is not acceptable to me, unless the taking of said property jeopardizes your life.

    We have decent SD laws in VA.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  10. #10
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885
    simmonsjoe, you obviously have little or no idea what the "castle doctrine" means.

    Here is some good information:
    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm
    Generally, the “castle doctrine” provides that someone attacked in his home can use reasonable force, which can include deadly force, to protect his or another's life without any duty to retreat from the attacker. It is defined differently in different states. The name appears to have its origin in the English common law rules protecting a person's home and the phrase “one's home is one's castle. ”
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by MamaLiberty View Post
    simmonsjoe, you obviously have little or no idea what the "castle doctrine" means.

    Here is some good information:
    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm
    Generally, the “castle doctrine” provides that someone attacked in his home can use reasonable force, which can include deadly force, to protect his or another's life without any duty to retreat from the attacker. It is defined differently in different states. The name appears to have its origin in the English common law rules protecting a person's home and the phrase “one's home is one's castle. ”
    Here in Ohio, that extends to your vehicle when you're in it. We think that carjacking should be dangerous for the carjacker too.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Gravel Switch, KY
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by simmonsjoe View Post
    I don't think we need castle doctrine in VA. Using lethal force to protect property is not acceptable to me, unless the taking of said property jeopardizes your life.
    I disagree. I don't think a thieve's life is worth my property. I

    In Texas, the Castle Doctrine also protected one from civil liabilities if their actions were found to be justified and if Im correct, the law is the same way here in Kentucky.

  13. #13
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    You obviously don't know what VA law is.

    Quote Originally Posted by MamaLiberty View Post
    simmonsjoe, you obviously have little or no idea what the "castle doctrine" means.

    Here is some good information:
    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm
    Generally, the “castle doctrine” provides that someone attacked in his home can use reasonable force, which can include deadly force, to protect his or another's life without any duty to retreat from the attacker. It is defined differently in different states. The name appears to have its origin in the English common law rules protecting a person's home and the phrase “one's home is one's castle. ”
    I know exactly what castle doctrine is. Do some homework on VA law before you make such assumptions!
    Castle Doctrine bill in VA
    Last edited by simmonsjoe; 08-19-2010 at 07:16 PM.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  14. #14
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664
    Quote Originally Posted by flb_78 View Post
    I disagree. I don't think a thieve's life is worth my property. I

    In Texas, the Castle Doctrine also protected one from civil liabilities if their actions were found to be justified and if Im correct, the law is the same way here in Kentucky.
    Protection from civil liability is NOT part of castle doctrine. It is it's own separate issue.

    Spelling is 'thief's'
    Last edited by simmonsjoe; 08-19-2010 at 07:13 PM.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Gravel Switch, KY
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by simmonsjoe View Post
    Protection from civil liability is NOT part of castle doctrine. It is it's own separate issue.'
    I was just saying that's how the Texas law was written. Im sure every state writes their's differently.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...e.241e482.html

    The new law will also provide civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in any of the circumstances spelled out in the bill. Police and prosecutors can still press charges if they feel deadly force was illegally used, legislative sponsors said.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Gravel Switch, KY
    Posts
    544

    Thumbs up Gotta love Texas self defense laws

    Here is the actual text of the law.

    http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs...l/SB00378I.htm

    Sec. 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative
    defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death
    that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was
    justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C,
    Chapter 9
    Also, if someone tries to sue you for using justified deadly force, you can sue them back for the court costs.

    SECTION 5. Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is
    amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:
    Sec. 83.002. COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER
    EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative
    defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff
    all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was
    lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    Two cops on at a time or two hundred, any effect they have (if any) is purely indirect.

    Oh, no, you're atually a little off base on that...

    The number of LEOs "on the beat" actually DO have a measurable correlation to violent crime. The more cops, the more crime...

    There are nearly 5 times as many sworn LEOs in the USA today than there were in 1950. The population has doubled in that same time. The violent crime rate has nearly tripled. These are national averages...

    Regionally, however, the majority of the nation has seen significant decreases in violent crime since 2007. In the regions with major decreases in violent crime, there have also been tremendous INCREASES in the issuance of CC permits.

    However, cities and states that are not "shall issue" or otherwise restrict or prohibit carry have seen increases in violent crime that are practically a mirror image increase to the decreases in carry-friendly areas.

    The increases in violent crime in "victim disarmament zones" has, in fact, more than offset the decreases in violent crime in carry-friendly jurisdictions. These "victim disarmament zones" have also had higher-than-average increases in LEO numbers.

    You do the math...

    More guns in the hands of LACs = less crime....

    But more cops + fewer guns in the hands of LACs = WAY more crime...

    And of course, in areas that have seen above-average in LE personnel, there has also been an above-average increase in police brutality, civil rights violation cases, and excessive force lawsuits. Unfortunately, these cases are usually not included in the Federal UCR as "violent crime" because most of these police-committed instances of violence do not result in criminal charges being files against the offending officers--most end in civil suits or are completely thrown out and the officers "get a pass". So actually, the violent crime statistics for carry-unfriendly jurisdictions are lower than the reality of the situation, because they don't count the thousands of annual incidents of bad shootings, beat-downs, excessive force, false arrest (kidnapping), and general abuse of power by LEOs...


    Of course, we must remember that correlation DOES NOT equal causation. Statistics are like poodles. If you treat them nice enough, you can make them jump through flaming hoops...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 08-19-2010 at 08:33 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  18. #18
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by simmonsjoe View Post
    Using lethal force to protect property is not acceptable to me, unless the taking of said property jeopardizes your life.
    I disagree. In fact, the whole idea of duty to retreat disgusts me.

    If criminals want the ability to rob homes without threat of death, they can rob a liberal/democrat's home.

  19. #19
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by simmonsjoe View Post
    I don't think we need castle doctrine in VA. Using lethal force to protect property is not acceptable to me, unless the taking of said property jeopardizes your life.

    We have decent SD laws in VA.
    I disagree. In fact, the whole idea of duty to retreat disgusts me.

    If criminals want the ability to rob homes without threat of death, they can rob a liberal/democrat's home.
    This has absolutely nothing to do with Duty to Retreat.

    One of the reasons the VA Castle Doctrine failed to pass is that it's "Stand Your Ground" clause was weaker than current case law!

    An Ohio poster mentioned how their SYG right extends to their cars. Whoopty doo. VA Case Law allows you to SYG virtually ANYWHERE YOUR PRESENCE IS LAWFUL. (as long as you did not start the conflict.)
    Last edited by simmonsjoe; 08-19-2010 at 09:41 PM.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  20. #20
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    some confussion

    castle doctrine, generally applies to your abode! in some states, it also applies to your car, if your in it.

    stand your ground, is a stronger legal precept, and allows you to defend your self, anywhere you may lawfully be!

    they look alike, but are different.

    the real problem exists in states that still have "duty to retreat", this is an unconscionable,
    and immoral restriction of our right to self defense!

    if your state has duty to retreat, bust you A55 to get that changed to stand your ground!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  21. #21
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by simmonsjoe View Post
    This has absolutely nothing to do with Duty to Retreat.

    One of the reasons the VA Castle Doctrine failed to pass is that it's "Stand Your Ground" clause was weaker than current case law!

    An Ohio poster mentioned how their SYG right extends to their cars. Whoopty doo. VA Case Law allows you to SYG virtually ANYWHERE YOUR PRESENCE IS LAWFUL. (as long as you did not start the conflict.)
    Ok, let me rephrase.

    I disagree that "using lethal force to protect property is not acceptable." The idea of standing back and allowing a thief to take what they want of your property because they are not a direct threat to your life disgusts me. Like I said earlier, if Bob doesn't want to get shoot while trying to steal a car, he should steal a gun grabber's.

    Then again, he'd probably get shot in a drive-by, you know how them gun grabbers are.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    Then again, he'd probably get shot in a drive-by, you know how them gun grabbers are.

    Ah, memories of Barbara Graham...

    http://www.tincher.to/mmm.htm
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  23. #23
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224
    Quote Originally Posted by simmonsjoe View Post
    I don't think we need castle doctrine in VA. Using lethal force to protect property is not acceptable to me, unless the taking of said property jeopardizes your life.

    We have decent SD laws in VA.
    Really? Is there not a scenario where you would consider it justifiable, such as witnessing someone setting fire to your home, or smashing your living room window with a crowbar to gain access, etc? Not picking on you, just curious.

    Do you own firearms for any other reason besides protecting life?
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  24. #24
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Flintlock View Post
    Really? Is there not a scenario where you would consider it justifiable, such as witnessing someone setting fire to your home, or smashing your living room window with a crowbar to gain access, etc? Not picking on you, just curious.

    Do you own firearms for any other reason besides protecting life?
    Sure. The right of revolution. Hunting. IDPA/USPSA. Militia.

    You seem to be assuming that you have no other recourse than to let them get away.
    In both your scenarios, if there is any possibility someone is inside, bang bang.(It is no longer a property issue)
    If I'm positive the house is empty, and I'm outside the home
    For the crowbar guy, call the cops. (clearing a house is dangerous, and they get paid to do it)
    For the firebug, affect an arrest. (A VA resident may arrest anyone committing a felony). escalate force as necessary.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    don't let Doug get to you, he expects everyone to do everything for free. I suspect he might be a socialist.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

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
  •