Peace through superior firepower.

[MiM]

Collector, you are being suspended for 48 hours for this post http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 4#p1506744 which contains a personal attack on another member.

Please refrain from similar posts in future or you will receive further suspension, and acquaint yourself with our rules.

Come on. That's a bit harsh isn't it. I certainly didn't ask for any mod action. As he didn't even understand that the kind of laws he was describing was exactly what I was targeting, I couldn't care less what he called me.

[Seth]

Collector, you are being suspended for 48 hours for this post http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 4#p1506744 which contains a personal attack on another member.

Please refrain from similar posts in future or you will receive further suspension, and acquaint yourself with our rules.

Come on. That's a bit harsh isn't it. I certainly didn't ask for any mod action. As he didn't even understand that the kind of laws he was describing was exactly what I was targeting, I couldn't care less what he called me.

Besides, he didn't call you an "ethnocentric ass" he suggested you learn the law before you comment LIKE an ethnocentric ass...

Now about those self-defense laws...what exactly is your complaint??

[pErvinalia]

Why have a gun, when you risk missing or shooting a friend/family member? The most sensible thing to do would be to electrify the exterior of your whole house, and anything that touches it dies instantly.

[JimC]

Collector, you are being suspended for 48 hours for this post http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 4#p1506744 which contains a personal attack on another member.

Please refrain from similar posts in future or you will receive further suspension, and acquaint yourself with our rules.

Come on. That's a bit harsh isn't it. I certainly didn't ask for any mod action. As he didn't even understand that the kind of laws he was describing was exactly what I was targeting, I couldn't care less what he called me.

The process of deciding on moderator action cannot be based on the individual feelings of the poster who is targeted by any given post, whether lenient or vindictive. Also, actions such as suspensions are not based on a single post (unless it is very extreme), but are based on a cumulative series of postings, of which the named post can be regarded as a tipping point. These may not be easily apparent to non staff members. All decisions on mod action are based on the consensus of a reasonable number of mods, not on the whim of an individual.

[Seth]

Why have a gun, when you risk missing or shooting a friend/family member? The most sensible thing to do would be to electrify the exterior of your whole house, and anything that touches it dies instantly.

That's as illegal as a set-gun.

The law requires one to be very discriminating when applying deadly physical force.

[pErvinalia]

Law schmaw. It's kill or be killed, Seth.

[Seth]

Law schmaw. It's kill or be killed, Seth.

Well, only when it is. I know a rancher got sued for child endangerment because some little kid pissed on his electric fence...while trespassing.

[pErvinalia]

I mean :ouch:

[Seth]

I mean :ouch:

Hell, there's a lot of boys who've tried it. It's just about impossible to resist when your friends dare you to do it...until you've done it once. Oh, and you have to have not TOUCHED one first. I was lucky, I had to start fixing the electric fence when I was 10, so I learned in a hurry.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, I've been zapped a couple of times in the past. There's NO way I'd wizz on one.

[JimC]

I mean :ouch:

Hell, there's a lot of boys who've tried it. It's just about impossible to resist when your friends dare you to do it...until you've done it once. Oh, and you have to have not TOUCHED one first. I was lucky, I had to start fixing the electric fence when I was 10, so I learned in a hurry.

I can remember, when I was a kid, thinking "I'm sure I won't get zapped if I touch the wire with this blade of grass..."

WRONG!

[MiM]

Collector, you are being suspended for 48 hours for this post http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 4#p1506744 which contains a personal attack on another member.

Please refrain from similar posts in future or you will receive further suspension, and acquaint yourself with our rules.

Come on. That's a bit harsh isn't it. I certainly didn't ask for any mod action. As he didn't even understand that the kind of laws he was describing was exactly what I was targeting, I couldn't care less what he called me.

The process of deciding on moderator action cannot be based on the individual feelings of the poster who is targeted by any given post, whether lenient or vindictive. Also, actions such as suspensions are not based on a single post (unless it is very extreme), but are based on a cumulative series of postings, of which the named post can be regarded as a tipping point. These may not be easily apparent to non staff members. All decisions on mod action are based on the consensus of a reasonable number of mods, not on the whim of an individual.

Maybe that could then be spelled out in the suspension comment? Wouldn't make things less clear to non-staff, at least.

[MiM]

Collector, you are being suspended for 48 hours for this post http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 4#p1506744 which contains a personal attack on another member.

Please refrain from similar posts in future or you will receive further suspension, and acquaint yourself with our rules.

Come on. That's a bit harsh isn't it. I certainly didn't ask for any mod action. As he didn't even understand that the kind of laws he was describing was exactly what I was targeting, I couldn't care less what he called me.

Besides, he didn't call you an "ethnocentric ass" he suggested you learn the law before you comment LIKE an ethnocentric ass...

Now about those self-defense laws...what exactly is your complaint??

Well, Collector is right about me not having detailed knowledge of self defence laws around the US, how could I? But I got the gist from the OP, that the guy got extremely lightly off with killing a man, because of the circumstances, and that the poster applauded this. Then Collector (who presumable knows more about the US self defence laws than I do?), added the bit that he would have been worse off if he had only lamed the guy, because then he would probably have faced (and maybe lost) a civil suit. My logic tells me that the guy probably behaved rationally. But then, according to my ethics a judicial system that makes your legal outcome more positive if you kill someone instead of just forcibly stop him, is inherently wrong. You might disagree on that last point?

[Seth]

Collector, you are being suspended for 48 hours for this post http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 4#p1506744 which contains a personal attack on another member.

Please refrain from similar posts in future or you will receive further suspension, and acquaint yourself with our rules.

Come on. That's a bit harsh isn't it. I certainly didn't ask for any mod action. As he didn't even understand that the kind of laws he was describing was exactly what I was targeting, I couldn't care less what he called me.

Besides, he didn't call you an "ethnocentric ass" he suggested you learn the law before you comment LIKE an ethnocentric ass...

Now about those self-defense laws...what exactly is your complaint??

Well, Collector is right about me not having detailed knowledge of self defence laws around the US, how could I?

Well, I can think of two ways right off: First, go look them up on the Internet. Every single such statute is available on line. Second, pay attention to what we who DO know what the laws are here tell you about them. I can't count the number of times I've both posted the actual text of the statutes and provided a very detailed explanation of them precisely so that members can actually learn something new.

But I got the gist from the OP, that the guy got extremely lightly off with killing a man, because of the circumstances, and that the poster applauded this. Then Collector (who presumable knows more about the US self defence laws than I do?), added the bit that he would have been worse off if he had only lamed the guy, because then he would probably have faced (and maybe lost) a civil suit. My logic tells me that the guy probably behaved rationally. But then, according to my ethics a judicial system that makes your legal outcome more positive if you kill someone instead of just forcibly stop him, is inherently wrong. You might disagree on that last point?

Well, you've never been through the legal wringer have you? The conventional wisdom is that if you have to shoot someone, even if it's absolutely justified and it's all caught on HD videotape it's going to cost you about fifty grand minimum to deal with both the criminal and civil filings.

The reason that "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" laws have been widely enacted is precisely because completely innocent victims of crime who have been compelled to shoot someone in self defense have been quite literally bankrupted by overzealous anti-gun prosecutors and vindictive family members, who sue for "wrongful death" even when the evidence is perfectly clear that it was entirely justifiable. Civil judges can be anti-gun too, and rarely boot a filing in a civil case anyway, which means thousands and thousands of dollars in costs for the defendant to even produce a reply to the complaint, much less go to trial.

The legislators of some 40 states wisely decided that a homeowner or victim who justifiably uses deadly force should be immune from vindictive or politically-motivated prosecution and civil lawsuits. They asked and answered the question "Why should the victim of a crime who lawfully defended him/herself be dragged through the legal system and bankrupted for doing what they have a right to do?"

Collector was not advocating "shoot to kill," he was explaining why "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" laws are good public policy.

In the past, victims who have merely wounded (or permanently disabled) an assailant have been successfully sued by the crook and/or his family, and in some cases have been required to pay permanent maintenance because a civil jury found the shooting to be "excessive." This potential liability is a strong motive to make sure that your attacker is dead, not just injured, because it is in the victim's interest to eliminate the potential that the crook can testify and lie about the incident, which can put the victim in jail or penury, even if the shooting itself is justifiable. With such laws, the victim is immune from criminal prosecution and civil suit if, and only if, his use of defensive force is lawful. If it is, it doesn't matter if he shoots to wound and paralyzes the crook or if he kills him because the actions of the crook authorized the use of deadly force, but the actual force used is less than deadly.

This actually encourages victims to use lesser non-lethal force if they can because they don't jeopardize their futures by doing so, which they sometimes did before such laws.

The problem is that juries, particularly civil juries in such incidents have an alarming propensity to listen to the pleadings and excuses of the family about how their criminal thug breadwinner is now in a wheelchair and how hard this is on his family, so they make a sympathy award. Armchair quarterbacking of a violent criminal attack and the use of defensive force is commonplace and often results in miscarriages of justice.

I'd have each juror in such cases subjected to a mock attack like the one the victim suffered as a way of showing them exactly what the victim's "reasonable belief" was at that moment.

Take the case of the SUV driver who was beaten to a pulp in New York after running over a renegade motorcyclist. The renegade bike gang, driving motorcycles illegally, without plates, in some sort of display of testosterone and thuggery, surrounded the SUV containing a man, his wife, and his baby and started banging on the car and slashing his tires after one of the bikers "brake checked" him deliberately so he and his gang could have an open roadway for their stunts. They frightened the crap out of the guy, who punched it and took off, running over one of the motorcyclists who was blocking him in, severely injuring him. The other bikers chased him down and when he got trapped in traffic, they bashed in his windows (including the one right next to his baby daughter), dragged him from the car and beat him severely.

In my judgement he reasonably believed his life and the lives of his wife and child were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm when he raced off and unintentionally ran over one of the bikers, so his actions were lawful. This is supported by the fact that the police haven't charged him, but have arrested a couple of the bikers, who are known renegades.

His mistake was being In New York, where he can't have a concealed handgun.

If that had happened to me I'd probably have done the same thing, except that when I got trapped by traffic and the bikers started smashing out my windows with their helmets and trying to drag me from the car I would have shot them in the face and kept shooting until they were either down or gone...and been justified in doing so.

But a civil jury might decide to sympathize with the run-over biker and bankrupt the poor guy who didn't do anything wrong.

And it still might, because New York doesn't have a "stand your ground" statute so far as I know. I believe it's still "retreat to the wall." In my judgment he did, having no where to go when attacked by bikers with knives.

Such decisions are gross miscarriages of justice and legislatures all over the US agree and have acted to place the burden and responsibility for injuries sustained while committing a crime on the criminal. This is good public policy because it puts criminals on notice that they may be lawfully killed for invading someone's house, and their victims are no longer required to submit or run away from them. That's a deterrent.

[Boyle]

Take the case of the SUV driver who was beaten to a pulp in New York after running over a renegade motorcyclist. The renegade bike gang, driving motorcycles illegally, without plates, in some sort of display of testosterone and thuggery, surrounded the SUV containing a man, his wife, and his baby and started banging on the car and slashing his tires after one of the bikers "brake checked" him deliberately so he and his gang could have an open roadway for their stunts. They frightened the crap out of the guy, who punched it and took off, running over one of the motorcyclists who was blocking him in, severely injuring him. The other bikers chased him down and when he got trapped in traffic, they bashed in his windows (including the one right next to his baby daughter), dragged him from the car and beat him severely.

In my judgement he reasonably believed his life and the lives of his wife and child were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm when he raced off and unintentionally ran over one of the bikers, so his actions were lawful. This is supported by the fact that the police haven't charged him, but have arrested a couple of the bikers, who are known renegades.

His mistake was being In New York, where he can't have a concealed handgun.

If that had happened to me I'd probably have done the same thing, except that when I got trapped by traffic and the bikers started smashing out my windows with their helmets and trying to drag me from the car I would have shot them in the face and kept shooting until they were either down or gone...and been justified in doing so.

But a civil jury might decide to sympathize with the run-over biker and bankrupt the poor guy who didn't do anything wrong.

And it still might, because New York doesn't have a "stand your ground" statute so far as I know. I believe it's still "retreat to the wall." In my judgment he did, having no where to go when attacked by bikers with knives.

Such decisions are gross miscarriages of justice and legislatures all over the US agree and have acted to place the burden and responsibility for injuries sustained while committing a crime on the criminal. This is good public policy because it puts criminals on notice that they may be lawfully killed for invading someone's house, and their victims are no longer required to submit or run away from them. That's a deterrent.

Holy shit that video really pissed me off. I'm a motorcyclist and I, as well as all my friends that are motorcyclists and saw the video, agree that he was completely and utterly in the right.

So, in this case, hell yes. Once they start to run, though, shooting them is no longer justified. You didn't say it was, I'm just adding it in. My view of it is if you have a CCW, or even just a gun, you are now in a position of responsibility and I have a different set of characteristics I expect from you. I expect you to be able to have good judgement around firearms, to be able to know when and why you are to use it, how to properly use it, as well as storage procedures. I'm for a federally funded course (federally funded so that the 2nd Amendment isn't encroached upon by this) on safety and use of firearms so that not only can people own and operate them, but now they will know the standards of use/possession and be able to be held responsible for misuse. Folks that are criminals won't necessarily take this course, but having a more educated populace in regards to firearms seems positive to me.

This won't solve problems inherent with having a nation full of weapons, but it may well mitigate some of the accidental deaths.