Stunning conviction

Make up your minds, folks. Either you support the Second Amendment ... or you don't.
Click to expand...

I made up my mind long ago...

Kids, felons, Lanza types?
Click to expand...

If a 'criminal' is ready to be allowed back into society, then I believe it is just as much their right to self defence, as it is anyone else's...If they are not 'safe' to own a gun, then they probably shouldn't be released into society...

If a person is of age to vote, sign contracts, get married without parental consent, etc, then they too have their right to self defence...As we have it now, people between 18-21 can do the above, but can not legally have a glass of wine at their own wedding, or the night before they ship out, or defend their home and family from bad guys with a handgun purchased from an FFL...

If a person has been 'adjudicated mentally defective', there should also be a means of appeal to be 'adjudicated sane', or 'better' or 'well', so that they too can defend themselves if the need should arise...

As for 'Lanza', I should not have to remind everyone that he did not own guns...

He killed his mother and stole hers, so disallowing him guns would have meant nothing...
 
Frank Ettin says:

It looks like the incident involved some sort of altercation between friends or acquaintances, and they apparently had been drinking. Those factors can cause the appropriateness of the use of lethal force to be legally uncertain.
Click to expand...


Frank, did you know that police (in this case Milwaukee police) are allowed to drink alcohol on duty?


Milwaukee police code of conduct. Page 4 Section 1.09
"No department member shall consume, purchase or possess any intoxicating liquor and/or fermented malt beverage while on duty or in uniform except with the approval of the Chief of Police or designee."

http://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/mpdAuthors/PDFs/CodeofConductReadersSpreadComp.pdf
 
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret said:
...Frank, did you know that police (in this case Milwaukee police) are allowed to drink alcohol on duty?...
Click to expand...
Wrong.

What you quoted from the Code Of Conduct actually says pretty much the opposite. According to the statement you quoted from the Code of Conduct (emphasis added):
No department member shall consume, purchase or possess any intoxicating liquor and/or fermented malt beverage while on duty or in uniform except with the approval of the Chief of Police or designee.
Click to expand...
The standard, default policy is that an officer may not consume alcohol (or even purchase or possess alcohol) while on duty. The policy does allow the Chief of Police or designee to approve the consumption of alcohol by an officer while on duty. So when and under what circumstances has the Chief of Police or designee approved an on duty cop's drinking alcohol (or purchasing or possessing alcoholic beverages)?

I could imagine an officer being authorized to buy a round of drinks and perhaps have a few sips during the course of some sort of undercover activity. But I seriously doubt that an officer could with impunity have an "eye opener" at the start of his shift.
 
If a 'criminal' is ready to be allowed back into society, then I believe it is just as much their right to self defence, as it is anyone else's...If they are not 'safe' to own a gun, then they probably shouldn't be released into society...
Click to expand...

If only the convicted felons felt so strongly about getting their rights restored as well, but alas, they don't seem to hold the same interest as a group. Sure, a few work to get their own rights restored, but most could not care about their fellow felons' rights. However, felon advocacy groups abound. Most such groups are undersupported, underfunded, and understaffed. Now is your chance to make a difference.

You might start my not referring to them as criminals, even with the quotation marks, LOL. They seem to consider that offensive.
 
If a 'criminal' is ready to be allowed back into society, then I believe it is just as much their right to self defence, as it is anyone else's...If they are not 'safe' to own a gun, then they probably shouldn't be released into society...
Click to expand...
I don't buy that argument. We all know people are released from prison the shouldn't be. Just because that's the case doesn't mean they should legally be allowed firearms. To argue that a violent criminal rapist murder etc should be allowed to legally own firearms if they are let out of jail will seem ridiculous to most people. Most would agree they shouldn't get out of jail in the first place. But that's a different debate.
As for the guy being jailed , i have seen lots of fist fights that end with a few cuts and bruises. Shooting and killing someone because a few punches are thrown is inappropriate and cowardly. It should be a warning to those that think that they can just start shooting in a similar situation what can happen.

I was scared for my life and shot in self-defense."
Click to expand...
Does that not come close to advising someone how to get away with what could be seen as murder.
 
Last edited:
If a 'criminal' is ready to be allowed back into society, then I believe it is just as much their right to self defence, as it is anyone else's...If they are not 'safe' to own a gun, then they probably shouldn't be released into society...
Click to expand...
There is a difference in ready and time served. Read to reenter society is subject. "Shouldn't be released" unless "safe to own a gun" suggest a status quo for freedom that does not and should not be a prerequisite to freedom being returned to an individual. How exactly will it be decided who is ready or not with any degree of certainty or fairness? The use of a precognitive?

To argue that a violent criminal rapist murder etc should be allowed to legally own firearms if they are let out of jail will seem ridiculous to most people.
Click to expand...
Myself included.
 
"...i have seen lots of fist fights that end with a few cuts and bruises. Shooting and killing someone because a few punches are thrown is inappropriate and cowardly..."

Call me a coward, then. I will gladly admit that I have never been skilled at fisticuffs.
While I practice conflict avoidance, if circumstances result in a miscreant intending to thrash me with fists and feet, they will meet my pistol.
The world I live in is not ruled by the biggest, strongest guy skilled at hand to hand fighting.
 
While I practice conflict avoidance, if circumstances result in a miscreant intending to thrash me with fists and feet, they will meet my pistol.
Click to expand...
Its up to the individual to make that call. But like the person in the post they could end up in jail. I would think that using firearms for self defense is more for life threatening situations , not preventing you getting a black eye. What would be seen as reasonable in one state could land you in jail in another. I think the use of lethal force should be the last resort not the first.
 
The world I live in is not ruled by the biggest, strongest guy skilled at hand to hand fighting.
Click to expand...

I guess I'd prefer that one to one that's ruled by the guy who can draw his gun quicker at the first sign of trouble.
 
It's a logical fallacy to argue that the Second Amendment should prevail and at the same time argue that "some" people just shouldn't be allowed to have guns ...

Make up your minds, folks. Either you support the Second Amendment ... or you don't. "In for a penny, in for a pound," as the saying goes.
Click to expand...

Count me in the "logical fallacy" contingent then. One of the costs of a felony conviction, besides prison, is the loss of some rights, voting and owning guns among those. There is a process for having those rights restored, but it shouldn't be automatic, or necessarily even easy.

The logical fallacy here is the "in for a penny, in for a pound" one. It's not all or nothing and never should be.
 
manta49 said:
Does that not come close to advising someone how to get away with what could be seen as murder.
Click to expand...


That's got to be the strangest interpretation of that advice I've ever seen.

It has nothing to do with getting away with murder. It's not as if that phrase makes the cops walk away with just a shrug.

Anyone who believes that they have been forced to use violence in self defense should be using some similar variation of that phrase.

Saying anything more puts you in danger of saying something that will hurt you if the matter gets to trial. Anything you say can AND WILL be used against you. You need a lawyer to help you make your statement.
 
As a 68 year-old who has does not have strength or stamina to fight of a younger man's assault, even assuming I have some fighting skills, I feel entirely justified using my gun defending against this type of attack. I know I have only 30-60 seconds to win the fight or I'm toast against some young buck, and by then I might be incapable of drawing my weapon.

Triple the justification if my incapacitation leaves my wife or grand daughter vulnerable.

I'll take my chances with the justice system rather than depending on the good and restraint of a young thug!
 
manta49 said:
If a 'criminal' is ready to be allowed back into society, then I believe it is just as much their right to self defence, as it is anyone else's...If they are not 'safe' to own a gun, then they probably shouldn't be released into society...
Click to expand...
I don't buy that argument. We all know people are released from prison the shouldn't be. Just because that's the case doesn't mean they should legally be allowed firearms. To argue that a violent criminal rapist murder etc should be allowed to legally own firearms if they are let out of jail will seem ridiculous to most people. Most would agree they shouldn't get out of jail in the first place. But that's a different debate.
Click to expand...
How is that a different debate? In fact, isn't that the exact argument you began by saying you don't buy? The fact that today's "criminal justice" system allows far too many dangerous people to be released from prison who arguably should not be in no way detracts from the concept that people who are a criminal danger to society should be in prison, and those who have "paid their debt to society" and been released should be at least allowed the same ability to defend themselves as everyone else.

manta49 said:
As for the guy being jailed , i have seen lots of fist fights that end with a few cuts and bruises. Shooting and killing someone because a few punches are thrown is inappropriate and cowardly.
Click to expand...
There have also been numerous first fights, and currently the so-called "knockout game" assaults, in which one punch has killed someone. If you choose to allow some bloke to pound on you, that's your choice. I'm a senior citizen with a number of physical issues. I am in no condition to be engaging in fist fights, and I am very much aware that someone who assaults me could very easily kill me and I would be effectively powerless to prevent it using just my arthritic and surgically-reconstructed fists. I also have a wife and daughter for whom I am responsible. If someone attacks me it will be unprovoked. Why should I be required to respond with fists when the result will be a foregone conclusion? Sorry, but assault is assault. The law says I have a right to defend myself with whatever degree of force I see as appropriate, so I'll respond the only way I can effectively defend myself -- I'll shoot the assailant. Perhaps to you that makes me a coward. To me, it makes me a sane individual.
 
First of all, there was plenty of stupid to go around here.
  • Going out drinking.
  • While carrying a firearm.
  • With guys with whom the carrier had a history of bad blood.

What could possibly go wrong? :rolleyes:
manta49 said:
As for the guy being jailed , i have seen lots of fist fights that end with a few cuts and bruises. Shooting and killing someone because a few punches are thrown is inappropriate and cowardly. It should be a warning to those that think that they can just start shooting in a similar situation what can happen.
Click to expand...
Exactly how much of a beating is a man supposed to take before he's allowed to shoot, then? Black eye? Broken jaw? Is he supposed to wait until the other guy brings a weapon to bear?

I don't hang out with folks with whom I'm likely to come to blows, so if I'm attacked, I don't see any reason that I should have to assume that I'll walk away with "a few cuts and bruises."
 
That's got to be the strangest interpretation of that advice I've ever seen.

It has nothing to do with getting away with murder. It's not as if that phrase makes the cops walk away with just a shrug.

Anyone who believes that they have been forced to use violence in self defense should be using some similar variation of that phrase.
Click to expand...

So you agree with a blanket statement no matter the circimstances of I was scared for my life and shot in self-defense."

I would have put , if you thought that you had no other options and ( were scared for your life )then tell the police that.

Exactly how much of a beating is a man supposed to take before he's allowed to shoot, then? Black eye? Broken jaw? Is he supposed to wait until the other guy brings a weapon to bear?

I don't hang out with folks with whom I'm likely to come to blows, so if I'm attacked, I don't see any reason that I should have to assume that I'll walk away with "a few cuts and bruises
Click to expand...

You tell me , if someone takes a swing for you, is it OK to shoot him, would that be seen as resaonable force. ?

People can do what they want , its not me or the people on this forum they will have convince that they were not guilty of first-degree reckless homicide while armed with a deadly weapon or similar.

Sorry, but assault is assault. The law says I have a right to defend myself with whatever degree of force I see as appropriate,
Click to expand...
Where does the law say that, you can decide what degree of force is appropriate. ? I would be surprised if the law in America lets people decide fir themselves what force is appropriate. Would that be a licence for people to use what ever force they wanted to with no fear of prosecution .
 
Last edited:
manta49 said:
You tell me , if someone takes a swing for you, is it OK to shoot him, would that be seen as resaonable force. ?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that if someone takes a swing at me, I can reasonably believe that I'm under attack.
manta49 said:
People can do what they want , its not me or the people on this forum they will have convince that they were not guilty of first-degree reckless homicide while armed with a deadly weapon or similar.
Click to expand...
You've called "hooting and killing someone because a few punches are thrown . . . . inappropriate and cowardly." I'm trying to figure out at what point you believe that defending oneself with deadly force ceases to be "inappropriate and cowardly," in your estimation.

When the first punch is thrown, how is the defender supposed to know whether it's going to be "just a few punches," or if he's about to be beaten to death. My crystal ball never seems to work quite right.
 
When the first punch is thrown, how is the defender supposed to know whether it's going to be "just a few punches," or if he's about to be beaten to death. My crystal ball never seems to work quite right.
Click to expand...
Again its not me that you would have to convince that reasonable force was used. I am surprised that the advice on the forum seems to be towards its OK to shoot if someone takes a swing at you . Then tell the police you were scared for your life. Even if that was not the case.

I'm trying to figure out at what point you believe that defending oneself with deadly force ceases to be "inappropriate and cowardly," in your estimation.
Click to expand...
That would be up to the individual to decide. I know the last time someone had a go at me I dident fear for my life , shooting the person would not have being a reasonable response in my opinion and the police as well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top