Riots - What to do?
- Thread starter CSOs ROCK
- Start date
"..uh...huh huh huhuh... yeah"
I don't know what law enforcement is like in your town but I do know that while there are some cops out there that make the whole look bad, the other 99% are deeply committed to protecting their community. First thing that comes to mind is the Hollywood bank robbery shootout a few years ago. Officers were outgunned and insufficiently prepared.
Did they retreat and decide "forget it... let's go get a donut" ? Instead they continued to face heavy automatic fire, using their dinky 9mm against armor that shed bullets like hair.
Don't trash law enforcement until you've been at that end.
I said I lost a little faith. I didn't say that we should devolve into some idiotic "might makes right" society.
I don't know what law enforcement is like in your town but I do know that while there are some cops out there that make the whole look bad, the other 99% are deeply committed to protecting their community. First thing that comes to mind is the Hollywood bank robbery shootout a few years ago. Officers were outgunned and insufficiently prepared.
Did they retreat and decide "forget it... let's go get a donut" ? Instead they continued to face heavy automatic fire, using their dinky 9mm against armor that shed bullets like hair.
Don't trash law enforcement until you've been at that end.
I said I lost a little faith. I didn't say that we should devolve into some idiotic "might makes right" society.
RazorsEdge
New member
Well, I certainly will never shoot a teenage kid for stealing my TV set, but here in Texas a man's home is his castle from which he need not retreat. Things different in California because your average dick length is shorter than Rosie O'Donnel and Ted Kennedy's cumulative IQ's put together.
The issue is not property, it is basic human dignity, and yes, many American states don't know what that is anymore. If you lost it, I can't explain it to you.
The issue is not property, it is basic human dignity, and yes, many American states don't know what that is anymore. If you lost it, I can't explain it to you.
RazorsEdge
New member
Sorry about my previous post and Californians and intimate measurements.
What I MEAN to say is that if a mob can trash a citizens house and/or livelihood, they are trashing much more than the appliances and four walls. They are trashing the legal order itself.
Only a sick society has such a warped set of legal priorities that a citizen has to worry about his basic right to stand in the door of his property and protect it.
Obviously, we have a sick society.
What I MEAN to say is that if a mob can trash a citizens house and/or livelihood, they are trashing much more than the appliances and four walls. They are trashing the legal order itself.
Only a sick society has such a warped set of legal priorities that a citizen has to worry about his basic right to stand in the door of his property and protect it.
Obviously, we have a sick society.
#1 I haven't researched this myself, but isn't it true that being outnumbered several to one constitutes an ability to cause bodily harm? Same thing as if a 7'4" 425 lb. (otherwise unarmed) behemoth corners your 5'6" self. Don't size and/or numbers constitute "deadly force"? Why should it have to be a gun/knife/club/whatever in the hand of someone to justify using a firearm in your defense?
#2 About this teenage TV thief: Who says you can't just beat the sh#t out of him and send him home to mama? What's he going to do? Go to the police and say that in the course of breaking into a house to commit theft he got his a** whupped? He's also gonna make an easy target while going out the door with a 29" TV set. Unless he's a whole lot bigger/tougher than you are or has friends, in which case #1 may apply.
Then again, I'm from the rural South, so it's a different critter than anything that goes on in CA.
#2 About this teenage TV thief: Who says you can't just beat the sh#t out of him and send him home to mama? What's he going to do? Go to the police and say that in the course of breaking into a house to commit theft he got his a** whupped? He's also gonna make an easy target while going out the door with a 29" TV set. Unless he's a whole lot bigger/tougher than you are or has friends, in which case #1 may apply.
Then again, I'm from the rural South, so it's a different critter than anything that goes on in CA.
The term is "disparity of force". Man vs. woman, young vs. old, many vs. few, healthy vs. handicapped - all cases where there is a serious difference in physical ability, so much so that the latter can be killed by the former without tools, and thus the latter is legally allowed to take up arms.
The fine-line problem in this thread is whether the mob invading your home/store is after your goods or after you.
The fine-line problem in this thread is whether the mob invading your home/store is after your goods or after you.
LoneStranger
New member
I find concept that property should be abandoned to criminals interesting.
Let's see, I trade my life for that property but I decide to do the trade in eight hour increments. During those eight hours I allow various amounts of abuse to come my way. Then I can have various types of property in my possesion through legal transactions with others.
The criminal decides that he wishes to acquire my property in one fell swoop and not be concerned about the cost to my life of his actions.
When someone makes a statement like "Your property is not as valuable as the criminals life!" are they not claiming that the criminals life is of more value than yours?? Shouldn't these people be asked why they value a criminal more than they value a lawabiding peaceful citizen?
If someone should come up with an answer I'd like to hear it.
Let's see, I trade my life for that property but I decide to do the trade in eight hour increments. During those eight hours I allow various amounts of abuse to come my way. Then I can have various types of property in my possesion through legal transactions with others.
The criminal decides that he wishes to acquire my property in one fell swoop and not be concerned about the cost to my life of his actions.
When someone makes a statement like "Your property is not as valuable as the criminals life!" are they not claiming that the criminals life is of more value than yours?? Shouldn't these people be asked why they value a criminal more than they value a lawabiding peaceful citizen?
If someone should come up with an answer I'd like to hear it.
A minor rant.
In the past, there were no police departments and the idea of a police department was viewed suspicously as an "army of occupation" by many. Since the Sheriff and his deputies were few and far between, it behooved citizens to help one another in times of need; which they did. Gradually, with time and the growth of cities, police departments were formed and gain acceptance. With it, the concept of self reliance to dependence on the police gained acceptability. Indeed, it is almost automatic that a crime is not "our" problem but that of the police.
Back in the '30s, one old cop was asked whether he carried a gun to protect himself. His response was, "No, I carry a gun to assist the citizenry in protecting themselves." His viewpoint, which should be taught today, is that the police are here to help, but that the primary responsibility of self defense remains with the individual. This applies to assisting others too. How our perspectives have changed and not necessarily for the better. "Call the police!" Guess what? They're handling other calls and there's a staff shortage today because a bunch are sitting around court giving testimony.
Is there a solution? While I do not advocate vigilantism, I do advocate for change. Acceptance of responsibility for self defense must be fostered. But change in attitude must not be restricted to the citizenry alone. It must also be applied to the police too. The police are not exclusively responsible for defending society but like that cop of the '30s, are there to help the citizens in protecting themselves. Towards this means, victim disarmament (anti-Second Amendment) must cease and the issuance of CCWs must be liberalized. To keep the citizenry disarmed is to disempower them and increase their vulnerability. Criminals prey upon the weak, not the strong. With the proper balance between the rights and responsibility of the individual citizen restored, and any police administrative reluctance regarding CCWs redressed, this can be a safer society.
In the past, there were no police departments and the idea of a police department was viewed suspicously as an "army of occupation" by many. Since the Sheriff and his deputies were few and far between, it behooved citizens to help one another in times of need; which they did. Gradually, with time and the growth of cities, police departments were formed and gain acceptance. With it, the concept of self reliance to dependence on the police gained acceptability. Indeed, it is almost automatic that a crime is not "our" problem but that of the police.
Back in the '30s, one old cop was asked whether he carried a gun to protect himself. His response was, "No, I carry a gun to assist the citizenry in protecting themselves." His viewpoint, which should be taught today, is that the police are here to help, but that the primary responsibility of self defense remains with the individual. This applies to assisting others too. How our perspectives have changed and not necessarily for the better. "Call the police!" Guess what? They're handling other calls and there's a staff shortage today because a bunch are sitting around court giving testimony.
Is there a solution? While I do not advocate vigilantism, I do advocate for change. Acceptance of responsibility for self defense must be fostered. But change in attitude must not be restricted to the citizenry alone. It must also be applied to the police too. The police are not exclusively responsible for defending society but like that cop of the '30s, are there to help the citizens in protecting themselves. Towards this means, victim disarmament (anti-Second Amendment) must cease and the issuance of CCWs must be liberalized. To keep the citizenry disarmed is to disempower them and increase their vulnerability. Criminals prey upon the weak, not the strong. With the proper balance between the rights and responsibility of the individual citizen restored, and any police administrative reluctance regarding CCWs redressed, this can be a safer society.
Karsten,
What are you doing to people that would cause for you to get a death threat... or death threats (since you had to change you AOL and cell phone accounts so many times)? In all fairness to you (since I don't know you or your current situation) you could be living in a city with a bunch of bad cops, but at the same time, the cause AND solution to a problem usually lies in oneself... and not on the shoulders of a peace officer.
Try walking in the shoes of a cop and living in his/her world for a while. Just like your job, it's not easy. Just like you do at your job, they work hard at theirs. The system isn't perfect, but I'm sure everyone that's a part of it is trying their best to make it work... just like you're doing your best at your job. Can't always make everyone happy... but I'm sure they're trying... just like how you try to please all of your clients. I'm sure you know that you can't please everyone.
Go on a ride along... volunteer... find out the inner workings of your local agency. Maybe you'll find what you're looking for then.
-SDforce
What are you doing to people that would cause for you to get a death threat... or death threats (since you had to change you AOL and cell phone accounts so many times)? In all fairness to you (since I don't know you or your current situation) you could be living in a city with a bunch of bad cops, but at the same time, the cause AND solution to a problem usually lies in oneself... and not on the shoulders of a peace officer.
Try walking in the shoes of a cop and living in his/her world for a while. Just like your job, it's not easy. Just like you do at your job, they work hard at theirs. The system isn't perfect, but I'm sure everyone that's a part of it is trying their best to make it work... just like you're doing your best at your job. Can't always make everyone happy... but I'm sure they're trying... just like how you try to please all of your clients. I'm sure you know that you can't please everyone.
Go on a ride along... volunteer... find out the inner workings of your local agency. Maybe you'll find what you're looking for then.
-SDforce
LoneStranger-
For a more detailed review of that line of reasoning, read Just Money?. They're not stealing money - they're stealing part of my life.
For a more detailed review of that line of reasoning, read Just Money?. They're not stealing money - they're stealing part of my life.
Look, I completely agree with the argument that when someone steals from me, he steals a portion of my life, period. Thus, I am completely within my right to defend that portion of my life, period.
Now, that is a principle by which I live. However, it is a principle, not a dogma. Meaning, I am willing to bend it for a greater good (the survival of my beloved family), particularly when the tactical analysis of the situation calls for a retreat.
Contrary to a half-baked warrior-prince fantasy some folks might have (sure, every man dreams of laying down some major "smack" against the evil ones), defending a store with 2-3 other family members while 50 or even 100 armed looters come at you is NOT a winning proposition.
The question on whether it is moral or not is already decided. The real practical question is: is it "the hill" you want to die on? Or risk the lives of your children?
We, humans, are resilient creatures. Even when we "lose it all," if we have each other (meaning family and friends), it is possible to re-build. That is not the case if you, your beloved wife and children are all dead. Does that mean I do not believe in self-defense? Of course I believe in self-defense! But what it means is that, given the choice between "retreat" that will increase the odd of my family's survival and "fight" that will diminish it, I will always choose the former. I will only fight if there is no other alternative. This isn't from some bunny-hugging feeling about the criminals, but rather from cold, calculating analysis about the odds of survival.
Skorzeny
Now, that is a principle by which I live. However, it is a principle, not a dogma. Meaning, I am willing to bend it for a greater good (the survival of my beloved family), particularly when the tactical analysis of the situation calls for a retreat.
Contrary to a half-baked warrior-prince fantasy some folks might have (sure, every man dreams of laying down some major "smack" against the evil ones), defending a store with 2-3 other family members while 50 or even 100 armed looters come at you is NOT a winning proposition.
The question on whether it is moral or not is already decided. The real practical question is: is it "the hill" you want to die on? Or risk the lives of your children?
We, humans, are resilient creatures. Even when we "lose it all," if we have each other (meaning family and friends), it is possible to re-build. That is not the case if you, your beloved wife and children are all dead. Does that mean I do not believe in self-defense? Of course I believe in self-defense! But what it means is that, given the choice between "retreat" that will increase the odd of my family's survival and "fight" that will diminish it, I will always choose the former. I will only fight if there is no other alternative. This isn't from some bunny-hugging feeling about the criminals, but rather from cold, calculating analysis about the odds of survival.
Skorzeny
Chocolate_Hostage
Inactive
No remorse....
First I'd like to say howdy its my first post! Now to get busy. I like what "Art Eatman" said, everyword!! Criminals are slime from the petty shoplifter to mass murderer. I have no remorse. Only thing I could add would be the use of a "drop gun" if you chose to use deadly force and the perp was unarmed. It may sound wierd but the first time I ever heard of this was in Police Academy. I like to fell out of the chair when the instructor told the class what it was. If the police use them why cant you? Welcome to the real world! -C.H.
First I'd like to say howdy its my first post! Now to get busy. I like what "Art Eatman" said, everyword!! Criminals are slime from the petty shoplifter to mass murderer. I have no remorse. Only thing I could add would be the use of a "drop gun" if you chose to use deadly force and the perp was unarmed. It may sound wierd but the first time I ever heard of this was in Police Academy. I like to fell out of the chair when the instructor told the class what it was. If the police use them why cant you? Welcome to the real world! -C.H.
SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI
New member
I'll second what LoneRanger and ctdonath said. The thief isn't just stealing your money, he is stealing the hours out of your life that you worked to pay for what was stolen. It isn't "just property"- that property is a represetation of your achievements in life, and a representation of your values. In stealing from you, It is as though the thief is saying, "You exist to serve me!" This view is no different from any tyrant in history. Theft is an attack upon your values, upon your liberty, and upon your person, and therefore should be dealt with as such.
No "warrior prince" am I. If I retreat before an encroaching mob, though, how many others will suffer whatever fate the mob means for me? How many of the mob is willing to die to make off with my earthly possessions? How am I to "know" that simple breaking and "peaceful" entering is all on their mind?
I think an approaching mob might be one of the few times I could feel a warning shot is in order- after which, I firmly believe I would fire upon any individual in the group who continued to advance in my direction. Molon Labe, indeed!
I think an approaching mob might be one of the few times I could feel a warning shot is in order- after which, I firmly believe I would fire upon any individual in the group who continued to advance in my direction. Molon Labe, indeed!
