T Nation

Is California Crazy or What?

Hey you come to do harm to a person or his property, that’s the risk you take. There was a time were people were shot for less. I bet that little mother-fucker won’t ever steal another car. Was it excessive? Probably. Did he get what he was asking for? You bet.

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
I own a gun… infact, I own several… and my line of work for years gave me the possibility to spend several hours daily on the range. Just to make this clear… :wink:

  1. Most people in USA that buy guns for “self defence” NEVER train correctly for this. As t-men and reational human beings this should be quite obvious. Can lying comfortably down or standing in your own good time, in a lit shooting range be equated in any way to a dangerous situation in a dark alley? or backyard…?

No… It is like comparing a tkd-workout with a fight on the street… This is the first and biggest problem with the “I buy a gun to be safe”-logic. In most cases, the gun actually makes you less safe… A typical situation where intentions and consequenses are far apart.

  1. Stealing a car is not an offence up for the death penalty, nor should it be. And we, the citizens, are not judge OR jury when people steal from us or try to harm us.

I don’t understand where this triggerhappyness comes from. I recieved three deaththreats at work last night… did I even imagine shooting any of them? :wink: Neh, i put them on the ground, put cuffs on them and had them on their marry way to a cell…

Most situations can be solved with far less dangerous and destructive means than a gun, you should all try it out.[/quote]

You are coming at this from a T-man/law enforcement background. So you obviously have more options than a gun. But for a small Asian man surrounded by three teens (probably much bigger then him), his options are much more limited.

So as an average citizen, just when should someone decide to use deadly force to protect themselves? Do they wait until the attackers have almost beating the life out of them and then he can crawl, if he is able, to get his gun? Should he wait until he starts to loose consciousness after being choked?

Instead of your abilities and position giving you more insight, it has clouded your understanding of the regular persons plight on the streets. People who are not prepared to defend themselves on the street have little if any ability to do so. They do not have the options to “I just took them down”, etc.

And as these things happen very quickly, the average person does not have much time to determine if they need to protect themselves before it becomes too late. So if an old, small, Asian man feels threatened by three males, whom he has no idea what they want or what they might do to him and his family, and shoots first, I have no problem with that. Because the chances are that we could just as easily be talking about how three males killed some little man while trying to jack his car.

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
I own a gun… infact, I own several… and my line of work for years gave me the possibility to spend several hours daily on the range. Just to make this clear… :wink:

  1. Most people in USA that buy guns for “self defence” NEVER train correctly for this. As t-men and reational human beings this should be quite obvious. Can lying comfortably down or standing in your own good time, in a lit shooting range be equated in any way to a dangerous situation in a dark alley? or backyard…?

No… It is like comparing a tkd-workout with a fight on the street… This is the first and biggest problem with the “I buy a gun to be safe”-logic. In most cases, the gun actually makes you less safe… A typical situation where intentions and consequenses are far apart.

  1. Stealing a car is not an offence up for the death penalty, nor should it be. And we, the citizens, are not judge OR jury when people steal from us or try to harm us.

I don’t understand where this triggerhappyness comes from. I recieved three deaththreats at work last night… did I even imagine shooting any of them? :wink: Neh, i put them on the ground, put cuffs on them and had them on their marry way to a cell…

Most situations can be solved with far less dangerous and destructive means than a gun, you should all try it out.[/quote]

Good post, I agree, all these though internet guys are talking like they are such cold blodded killers.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Shooting criminals in the act is just an advanced form of natural selection.
[/quote]

It’s like a retroactive abortion.

[quote]

The situation was an Asian man (so I’m assuming he is small) on his driveway with 3 teenagers. I don’t know about you, but 3 to 1 odds are not very good even for an experienced fighter. So in the man’s mind he could have easily felt that his life was being threatened. [/quote]

The situation was 3 teenagers and a man with a gun, that also had prior knowledge of them being out there. He did not call the cops, he did not make them aware of their disadvantageous situation, he put himself in harms way to shoot them. He is irresponsible and foolish.

How would turning on flood lights cause him to get killed? He had a gun. Turning on lights, outside or inside, tell the criminals outside that the people inside know they are there, have called the cops, and may be armed. In otherwords, it foils their plan.

A petty criminal is not going to say “oh no, he knows I am here, now I am going to kill him”. As soon as the lights are on, and the cops are called, anything the criminals do but run away would be the paramount of stupidity on their part.

As soon as the situation is exposed, they have lost.

Walking out and shooting one of them, is irresponsible. It is far more dangerous for the man, because if they were armed and he missed, then he would have given them ample reason to fend for their lives.

You have some delusional ideas about security, and I hope you never find yourself in a situation like this. You will probably get yourself killed.

How you could advocate such negligence is beyond me. But then again, your avatar is a picture of the archetypical dumb man pointing a weapon.

[quote]Malevolence wrote:

The situation was an Asian man (so I’m assuming he is small) on his driveway with 3 teenagers. I don’t know about you, but 3 to 1 odds are not very good even for an experienced fighter. So in the man’s mind he could have easily felt that his life was being threatened.

The situation was 3 teenagers and a man with a gun, that also had prior knowledge of them being out there. He did not call the cops, he did not make them aware of their disadvantageous situation, he put himself in harms way to shoot them. He is irresponsible and foolish.

So saying he was irresponsible is not a judgment you can make, as you weren’t there and he isn’t you. In fact, had he not shot and just yelled at them, or turned on the flood lights (as some retard stated), that may just have caused him to get killed. And then we would all be saying; “if it was me I would have shot them or defended myself right away”.

So it is entirely possible that this man just saved his own life and the life of the family.

How would turning on flood lights cause him to get killed? He had a gun. Turning on lights, outside or inside, tell the criminals outside that the people inside know they are there, have called the cops, and may be armed. In otherwords, it foils their plan.

A petty criminal is not going to say “oh no, he knows I am here, now I am going to kill him”. As soon as the lights are on, and the cops are called, anything the criminals do but run away would be the paramount of stupidity on their part.

As soon as the situation is exposed, they have lost.

Walking out and shooting one of them, is irresponsible. It is far more dangerous for the man, because if they were armed and he missed, then he would have given them ample reason to fend for their lives.

You have some delusional ideas about security, and I hope you never find yourself in a situation like this. You will probably get yourself killed.

How you could advocate such negligence is beyond me. But then again, your avatar is a picture of the archetypical dumb man pointing a weapon.

[/quote]

It is clear that you haven’t a clue to what it is like to be a civilian. All your examples work perfectly well if you are a cop. But if you are an old little Asian man, not so well.

So rather than me arguing with you about something you don’t and will not understand, I challenge you to just talk with some little old people in the bad parts of town and see just how safe they feel. See if they think that they can just flip on a light and all the criminals just magically run scared. You can tell them your stories of how it is supposed to work, and they can tell you how it really works.

But, my point is that people have the right to protect themselves. And if someone truly feels their life is in danger they are justified in using whatever they can to protect themselves.

ps - I don’t personally own a gun.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Malevolence wrote:

The situation was an Asian man (so I’m assuming he is small) on his driveway with 3 teenagers. I don’t know about you, but 3 to 1 odds are not very good even for an experienced fighter. So in the man’s mind he could have easily felt that his life was being threatened.

The situation was 3 teenagers and a man with a gun, that also had prior knowledge of them being out there. He did not call the cops, he did not make them aware of their disadvantageous situation, he put himself in harms way to shoot them. He is irresponsible and foolish.

So saying he was irresponsible is not a judgment you can make, as you weren’t there and he isn’t you. In fact, had he not shot and just yelled at them, or turned on the flood lights (as some retard stated), that may just have caused him to get killed. And then we would all be saying; “if it was me I would have shot them or defended myself right away”.

So it is entirely possible that this man just saved his own life and the life of the family.

How would turning on flood lights cause him to get killed? He had a gun. Turning on lights, outside or inside, tell the criminals outside that the people inside know they are there, have called the cops, and may be armed. In otherwords, it foils their plan.

A petty criminal is not going to say “oh no, he knows I am here, now I am going to kill him”. As soon as the lights are on, and the cops are called, anything the criminals do but run away would be the paramount of stupidity on their part.

As soon as the situation is exposed, they have lost.

Walking out and shooting one of them, is irresponsible. It is far more dangerous for the man, because if they were armed and he missed, then he would have given them ample reason to fend for their lives.

You have some delusional ideas about security, and I hope you never find yourself in a situation like this. You will probably get yourself killed.

How you could advocate such negligence is beyond me. But then again, your avatar is a picture of the archetypical dumb man pointing a weapon.

It is clear that you haven’t a clue to what it is like to be a civilian. All your examples work perfectly well if you are a cop. But if you are an old little Asian man, not so well.

So rather than me arguing with you about something you don’t and will not understand, I challenge you to just talk with some little old people in the bad parts of town and see just how safe they feel. See if they think that they can just flip on a light and all the criminals just magically run scared. You can tell them your stories of how it is supposed to work, and they can tell you how it really works.

But, my point is that people have the right to protect themselves. And if someone truly feels their life is in danger they are justified in using whatever they can to protect themselves.

ps - I don’t personally own a gun.

[/quote]

Look at the picture in your article, this happened in a suburb. Suburban criminals are even more skittish and prone to flee at the slightest sign that their goals are compromised.

If this had taken place in an inner-city block with rampant crime levels and very poor police response, then your points start to carry water.

But, as it stands, domestic incidents occur when the criminals believe that residents are either asleep, out of town, or otherwise incapable of calling the cops.

Turning on the lights inside the house is a tremendous deterrent for suburban crimes like this. Especially considering that most of the criminals are just teenagers and not some blood thirsty felonious[sic] bastards. Having an alarm system, either in the car, or at the house. Having a watch-dog, neighborhood watch, gates, extra locks…etc. any one of these inconveniences makes a potential criminal that much less likely to even think about targeting you, and when they do, you are that much more prepared to deal with it in a sane fashion.

You are right that a person has the right to defend themselves if they feel their lives are in jeopardy. But that is a tremendous leap to assume in a situation like this.

Shoot first, ask questions later. Is not and never will be a sensible policy for residential safety.

It is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six

I own several firearms, including several that are loaded and accessible from various locations in my house.

Even here in Wyoming, where you should expect anyone and everyone you cross to be armed, and where you can still be hanged for stealing horses, you can’t use deadly force to protect your property.

I have insurance to protect my property. I have guns to protect my family. Nothing I own is worth killing someone for, or being killed trying to keep.

You want it that bad, take it. If I can fuck you over for taking it I will, but I’m not going to get in a gun fight over it.

he should have shot him in the head.

what the fuck is wrong with people when you can’t protect your property any more?

[quote]tme wrote:
I own several firearms, including several that are loaded and accessible from various locations in my house.

Even here in Wyoming, where you should expect anyone and everyone you cross to be armed, and where you can still be hanged for stealing horses, you can’t use deadly force to protect your property.

I have insurance to protect my property. I have guns to protect my family. Nothing I own is worth killing someone for, or being killed trying to keep.

You want it that bad, take it. If I can fuck you over for taking it I will, but I’m not going to get in a gun fight over it.

[/quote]

in texas, we can use deadly force to protect property and family.

i’d kill a robber just for breaking my window.

they need to know they can’t steal shit for a slap on the wrist from the crappy court system.

vigilanteism definately has its place.

i used to live in an apt complex that was smattered with meth heads. it was cheap which was great for college students and crack heads.

i kept a 12 gauge loaded by my bed at night and a .45 on the night stand.

fortunately, i never had to use either, but you’d be crazy to think i wouldn’t drop a meth freak tweaking and going nuts.

one day, i woke up to police tape and blood stains all over the side walk. apparantly some guy freaked, thinking he had been short changed, and stabbed his cousing three times in the stomach, then gouged his left eye out with the knife.

it turns out he was wrong but so out of his mind he went nuts.

you never know who is breaking in, stealing your stuff, what their intent is or what they may decide to do if they see you and get scared.

if they are going to take the risk and come on your property with ill intentions, you should have full rights to protect yourself through what ever means necessary since you don’t know what they want to do to you.

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Look at the picture in your article, this happened in a suburb. Suburban criminals are even more skittish and prone to flee at the slightest sign that their goals are compromised.

If this had taken place in an inner-city block with rampant crime levels and very poor police response, then your points start to carry water.

But, as it stands, domestic incidents occur when the criminals believe that residents are either asleep, out of town, or otherwise incapable of calling the cops.

Turning on the lights inside the house is a tremendous deterrent for suburban crimes like this. Especially considering that most of the criminals are just teenagers and not some blood thirsty felonious[sic] bastards. Having an alarm system, either in the car, or at the house. Having a watch-dog, neighborhood watch, gates, extra locks…etc. any one of these inconveniences makes a potential criminal that much less likely to even think about targeting you, and when they do, you are that much more prepared to deal with it in a sane fashion.

You are right that a person has the right to defend themselves if they feel their lives are in jeopardy. But that is a tremendous leap to assume in a situation like this.

Shoot first, ask questions later. Is not and never will be a sensible policy for residential safety.[/quote]

If the situation wasn’t in an Asian community I would agree with you. However, what you don’t understand is that home invasion robberies are rampant in the Asian community.

And the main reason is that Asians rarely call the cops. And if the cops show up they will not say who did it. So Asian teens (usually gang members) feel free to just bust in older Asian’s homes and do what they want because they know the owner will not try and stop them and will not call the police.

So turning on the lights in this kind of situation would do nothing, because these Asian teens already feel they have little to fear from a fellow Asian older man.

So I’m sure these Asian punks were surprised as hell that the Asian man not only didn’t let them do what they wanted, but took a shot at them.

So the fact is that this is not some quiet White suburban neighborhood and the context of the Asian community culture does affect the reasonableness of the man’s actions.

[quote]tme wrote:
I own several firearms, including several that are loaded and accessible from various locations in my house.

Even here in Wyoming, where you should expect anyone and everyone you cross to be armed, and where you can still be hanged for stealing horses, you can’t use deadly force to protect your property.

I have insurance to protect my property. I have guns to protect my family. Nothing I own is worth killing someone for, or being killed trying to keep.

You want it that bad, take it. If I can fuck you over for taking it I will, but I’m not going to get in a gun fight over it.

[/quote]

The problem is, how do you know the difference in 1/10 of a second?

Here is the scenario; you wake up at 3am to hear someone in your garage. You open the door and see 3 big guys messing with your car. They see you and start to walk towards you…

What do you do?

  1. It’s just your car, so you say go ahead and take it. They say thanks and shot you in the chest while leaving.

  2. You turn on the lights and these 3 big guys run like little girls. Or, they say thanks for the extra light, now we can see you better, and they shot you in the chest.

  3. You call the cops and stay hiding inside. They take the car and leave. Or they then break in and find you and shot you in the chest.

  4. Etc…

The issue is that you never really know what someone wants and you cannot rely on them having the same morals and fear of law enforcement that you have. So it’s great to say you would let your stuff go without a fight, but in many situations you don’t really know if they want more than your stuff and you only have seconds to determine that.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
tme wrote:
I own several firearms, including several that are loaded and accessible from various locations in my house.

Even here in Wyoming, where you should expect anyone and everyone you cross to be armed, and where you can still be hanged for stealing horses, you can’t use deadly force to protect your property.

I have insurance to protect my property. I have guns to protect my family. Nothing I own is worth killing someone for, or being killed trying to keep.

You want it that bad, take it. If I can fuck you over for taking it I will, but I’m not going to get in a gun fight over it.

The problem is, how do you know the difference in 1/10 of a second?

Here is the scenario; you wake up at 3am to hear someone in your garage. You open the door and see 3 big guys messing with your car. They see you and start to walk towards you…

What do you do?

  1. It’s just your car, so you say go ahead and take it. They say thanks and shot you in the chest while leaving.

  2. You turn on the lights and these 3 big guys run like little girls. Or, they say thanks for the extra light, now we can see you better, and they shot you in the chest.

  3. You call the cops and stay hiding inside. They take the car and leave. Or they then break in and find you and shot you in the chest.

  4. Etc…

The issue is that you never really know what someone wants and you cannot rely on them having the same morals and fear of law enforcement that you have. So it’s great to say you would let your stuff go without a fight, but in many situations you don’t really know if they want more than your stuff and you only have seconds to determine that.

[/quote]

All of your scenarios are flawed. Do you know anything about self protection? Why the FUCK would you go outside when you suspected that someone was jacking your car, could be armed, and might be multiple someones? Additionally, do you know anything about how floodlights work at night? the person with the lights on them LOSES VISIBILITY, as well as orientation.

Ever wonder why patrolmen use their spotlights in domestic situations? It puts the person in the spotlight at a distinct disadvantage, because if they are armed, they have to look directly at a very bright light to get a shot, while the whole time they are lit up and someone standing in the dark could nail them easily.

Additionally, if they were planning on breaking into your home, they would do so before trying to steal your car. If they tried to steal the car first, then decide to break in, they are greatly increasing hte chances on their part, of getting caught.

Lastly, I have never once advocated cowering in fear or hiding out if someone is trying to break in to your house. Breaking into a house is world’s apart from trying to steal a car. Breaking into a house implies not only greater theft, but a real and direct threat to your personage. Stealing a car, does not. No matter how you try and bend it.

If you are awake, and someone is trying to break in, and you haven’t called the cops, and you aren’t doing everything in your power to prevent them from breaking in, arming yourself, and holding fort, well you are beyond help.

Alternative thread title: “Are people who put private property above human life crazy or what?”

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
tme wrote:
I own several firearms, including several that are loaded and accessible from various locations in my house.

Even here in Wyoming, where you should expect anyone and everyone you cross to be armed, and where you can still be hanged for stealing horses, you can’t use deadly force to protect your property.

I have insurance to protect my property. I have guns to protect my family. Nothing I own is worth killing someone for, or being killed trying to keep.

You want it that bad, take it. If I can fuck you over for taking it I will, but I’m not going to get in a gun fight over it.

The problem is, how do you know the difference in 1/10 of a second?

Here is the scenario; you wake up at 3am to hear someone in your garage. You open the door and see 3 big guys messing with your car. They see you and start to walk towards you…

What do you do?

  1. It’s just your car, so you say go ahead and take it. They say thanks and shot you in the chest while leaving.

  2. You turn on the lights and these 3 big guys run like little girls. Or, they say thanks for the extra light, now we can see you better, and they shot you in the chest.

  3. You call the cops and stay hiding inside. They take the car and leave. Or they then break in and find you and shot you in the chest.

  4. Etc…

The issue is that you never really know what someone wants and you cannot rely on them having the same morals and fear of law enforcement that you have. So it’s great to say you would let your stuff go without a fight, but in many situations you don’t really know if they want more than your stuff and you only have seconds to determine that.

All of your scenarios are flawed. Do you know anything about self protection? Why the FUCK would you go outside when you suspected that someone was jacking your car, could be armed, and might be multiple someones? Additionally, do you know anything about how floodlights work at night? the person with the lights on them LOSES VISIBILITY, as well as orientation.

Ever wonder why patrolmen use their spotlights in domestic situations? It puts the person in the spotlight at a distinct disadvantage, because if they are armed, they have to look directly at a very bright light to get a shot, while the whole time they are lit up and someone standing in the dark could nail them easily.

Additionally, if they were planning on breaking into your home, they would do so before trying to steal your car. If they tried to steal the car first, then decide to break in, they are greatly increasing hte chances on their part, of getting caught.

Lastly, I have never once advocated cowering in fear or hiding out if someone is trying to break in to your house. Breaking into a house is world’s apart from trying to steal a car. Breaking into a house implies not only greater theft, but a real and direct threat to your personage. Stealing a car, does not. No matter how you try and bend it.

If you are awake, and someone is trying to break in, and you haven’t called the cops, and you aren’t doing everything in your power to prevent them from breaking in, arming yourself, and holding fort, well you are beyond help.

[/quote]

“All of your scenarios are flawed. Do you know anything about self protection? Why the FUCK would you go outside when you suspected that someone was jacking your car, could be armed, and might be multiple someones?”

this is true. you should just open the door, loaded gun in hand and start shooting before stepping outside and before they know what is happening.

if you are in texas, you should then step outside and finish the surviving ones off, as they can sue you for shooting them in civil court should they survive, even though you committed no crime.

[quote]Malevolence wrote:

All of your scenarios are flawed. Do you know anything about self protection? Why the FUCK would you go outside when you suspected that someone was jacking your car, could be armed, and might be multiple someones? Additionally, do you know anything about how floodlights work at night? the person with the lights on them LOSES VISIBILITY, as well as orientation.

Ever wonder why patrolmen use their spotlights in domestic situations? It puts the person in the spotlight at a distinct disadvantage, because if they are armed, they have to look directly at a very bright light to get a shot, while the whole time they are lit up and someone standing in the dark could nail them easily.

Additionally, if they were planning on breaking into your home, they would do so before trying to steal your car. If they tried to steal the car first, then decide to break in, they are greatly increasing hte chances on their part, of getting caught.

Lastly, I have never once advocated cowering in fear or hiding out if someone is trying to break in to your house. Breaking into a house is world’s apart from trying to steal a car. Breaking into a house implies not only greater theft, but a real and direct threat to your personage. Stealing a car, does not. No matter how you try and bend it.

If you are awake, and someone is trying to break in, and you haven’t called the cops, and you aren’t doing everything in your power to prevent them from breaking in, arming yourself, and holding fort, well you are beyond help.

[/quote]

Dude, my scenarios are not flawed, these kind of things have and do occur. You think it would be stupid to steal a car and then try and break in the house for more stuff, but it is not you we are talking about. You don’t seem to be able to remove your own rationale from the situation. Criminals are not the brightest, most of the time, and therefore do not always follow predictable (rational) patterns.

So my point is that some criminals may not behave like you want them to. You may think that it would be stupid for them to do something, like shot out flood light the moment they come on, but that doesn’t mean they won’t do just that.

So there is always an unpredictable element involved.

So is it worth going out and confronting a car thief with a gun? I personally would say no, and hell no in California. But I’m not going to second guess someone, not being in the situation, as to whether what they did to protect themselves was right or not. You have to be in the same situation, with the same environment, etc to really know.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Alternative thread title: “Are people who put private property above human life crazy or what?”[/quote]

If you have ever wondered where your next meal will come from and seen people with money totally think you are dirt, you would not be asking that question.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Alternative thread title: “Are people who put private property above human life crazy or what?”[/quote]

We allready had that discussion, just in another form.

Private property practically is human life.

Take away my means of production and you might as well shoot me in the head or put a leash around my neck.

Life > Property. Threaten to shoot, fine. Shoot on sight someone who’s trying to steal something, and is not an immediate threat to your physical safety? That’s just wrong.

So a kid fucks up and tries to steal a car, and gets SHOT!?!? Not right.