Edward429451
Moderator
Lawful citizens who are (forced) to make a citizens arrest should be able to bill the perp upon conviction for services rendered to the community. Even leo's draw a paycheck for their time & risk.
This is what gives the rest of us a bad name
- Thread starter elwaine
- Start date
We recently had a case where a business owner fired two rounds at a former employee who had just stolen gasoline from the pumps at the business. One round creased the BG's vehicle but there were no injuries. The business owner got off with community service but I suspect he may not be able to own firearms now. The BG "was let go", according to our local newspaper but that may have been some type of a deal to keep him from pressing civil charges against his former employer. Point is, the "good guy" got hammered, the "bad guy" walked and he's the one who stole the gasoline. This is in Placer County, just about the most conservative county in California. Not a real smart move on the good guy's part, no matter how we may feel about the bad guy and his crime. I hate to think what would have happened to the good guy had his round connected with the bad guy's skull. 
As an ex-cop living in MA, the land of the liberals, I gotta say that, after reading some of these replies, I now know what the anti-gunners are talking about...some of you people should not own guns. Anyone, especially a cop, who thinks it's OK for a citizen to "blow someone away" for $5.00 should not have a gun. Take the gun out of the picture - I sure as hell would not want to be driving on the same road as Elmer Fudd chasing a bad guy at 70 MPH for $5.00. Elmer, back to your still.
Five bucks - you have to be joking if you think that's OK. Was the thief wrong? He was the most wrong, because he started it, and I wouldn't be against jail time for stealing even $5.00, but to let an untrained citizen execute him in public for that crime...you are all kidding, right? This is not the same as someone breaking into your house and threatening you and your family - that is a justifiable moving target. Fill 'em with lead all you want...
And to those people who bitch about cops - I have learned that people who complain about cops and their "fat buttocks" are people who could never pass the police exam and would rather spend their money on lottery tickets and beer instead of extra taxes to train and equip cops.
Five bucks - you have to be joking if you think that's OK. Was the thief wrong? He was the most wrong, because he started it, and I wouldn't be against jail time for stealing even $5.00, but to let an untrained citizen execute him in public for that crime...you are all kidding, right? This is not the same as someone breaking into your house and threatening you and your family - that is a justifiable moving target. Fill 'em with lead all you want...
And to those people who bitch about cops - I have learned that people who complain about cops and their "fat buttocks" are people who could never pass the police exam and would rather spend their money on lottery tickets and beer instead of extra taxes to train and equip cops.
I was riding with an older cop one night (I was a newbie) and a motorcycle sped by the cruiser at close to 100 MPH. I put the lights on to chase him and the older cop said, "Even a dog knows better than to chase a motorcycle."
There was a posting by a cop in CT on another forum recently. He woke in early morning to his two dogs barking, so he grabbed his gun and went downstairs just as a bad guy broke into his cellar. He told the bad guy, at gunpoint, to go back out the way he came. The bad guy left and was apprehended shortly after (the cop called the cops). He said he did not want to confront the guy in his house with the possibility of a shootout, etc.
I'm sure he took some grief for his decision not to shoot the guy but I happen to think he did the right thing. No one was hurt or sued and the bad guy was caught. Keep in mind, this is the land of the eastern liberals.
There was a posting by a cop in CT on another forum recently. He woke in early morning to his two dogs barking, so he grabbed his gun and went downstairs just as a bad guy broke into his cellar. He told the bad guy, at gunpoint, to go back out the way he came. The bad guy left and was apprehended shortly after (the cop called the cops). He said he did not want to confront the guy in his house with the possibility of a shootout, etc.
I'm sure he took some grief for his decision not to shoot the guy but I happen to think he did the right thing. No one was hurt or sued and the bad guy was caught. Keep in mind, this is the land of the eastern liberals.
Are you referring to the actual facts of the case, or an amalgam of replies? Where did the figure of $5.00 come from? Where did the "blow them away" come from?
What you read was a discussion that, unfortunately, was based on a news media report. That the facts were skewed led to sometimes heated disagreement, but doesn't advocate indiscriminant killing.
The facts now turn out to be an unloaded weapon. A discussion via 911 of the possibility of shooting out tires, and an additional theft of property. That the "pursuit" reached unsafe speeds has also never been documented. For example, what the local speed limits were has never been brought out.
As for chases, most LEOs that I know won't chase a motorcycle without help. However, if the rider is patently unsafe, it would be your duty to attempt to apprehend. Hardly a sane comparison, by the way. 100 mph vs. a media generated 70 mph isn't quite apples-to-apples.
The mere fact that the discussion didn't meet with your approval is hardly call to insult everyone who participated. Perhaps living in MA has allowed the onset of senile liberalism to affect your opinions.
What you read was a discussion that, unfortunately, was based on a news media report. That the facts were skewed led to sometimes heated disagreement, but doesn't advocate indiscriminant killing.
The facts now turn out to be an unloaded weapon. A discussion via 911 of the possibility of shooting out tires, and an additional theft of property. That the "pursuit" reached unsafe speeds has also never been documented. For example, what the local speed limits were has never been brought out.
As for chases, most LEOs that I know won't chase a motorcycle without help. However, if the rider is patently unsafe, it would be your duty to attempt to apprehend. Hardly a sane comparison, by the way. 100 mph vs. a media generated 70 mph isn't quite apples-to-apples.
The mere fact that the discussion didn't meet with your approval is hardly call to insult everyone who participated. Perhaps living in MA has allowed the onset of senile liberalism to affect your opinions.
Well put...I guess. You did read the postings, correct? Then you would know what I was referring to. And I did not insult everyone who participated. Go back and read everything...open your mind.
I am honored that you chose my reply to tear apart and insult. Living in MA has given me insight into the way people can bend reality to fit their opinion, as in your case.
I am honored that you chose my reply to tear apart and insult. Living in MA has given me insight into the way people can bend reality to fit their opinion, as in your case.
Sorry, but the facts of the thread are that the old gentleman didn't offer to "blow them away". Nor did the amount of gasoline ever be truly reported as $5.00. The fact that he followed them at unsafe speeds was also in the initial, and incorrect, information.
Debate is debate. Nobody in this thread advocated automatic use of lethal force. The point was made that, not too long ago, people were hung for stealing horses, and rock salt from a distance was used to discourage trespassers. All without hysteria about the "possibility of injury," and interference by the local DA.
Much of the thread was spent with posters attempting to use their local laws to interpret what was happening. As an LEO, you know that this only causes confusion.
That entire paragraph is insulting. It's your opinion, only. Taking into consideration that you're an ex-cop, and not a "retired" cop, maybe your attitude is why it's "ex".
Now, wasn't that insulting to you? Yet, it's essentially the same manner in which you speak to the posters here.
As a citizen of MA, you are absolutely correct that you witness "bending reality to fit your opinion". Look at your first paragragh, you've almost got it. Teddy, back to your Martini.
Debate is debate. Nobody in this thread advocated automatic use of lethal force. The point was made that, not too long ago, people were hung for stealing horses, and rock salt from a distance was used to discourage trespassers. All without hysteria about the "possibility of injury," and interference by the local DA.
Much of the thread was spent with posters attempting to use their local laws to interpret what was happening. As an LEO, you know that this only causes confusion.
That entire paragraph is insulting. It's your opinion, only. Taking into consideration that you're an ex-cop, and not a "retired" cop, maybe your attitude is why it's "ex".
Now, wasn't that insulting to you? Yet, it's essentially the same manner in which you speak to the posters here.
As a citizen of MA, you are absolutely correct that you witness "bending reality to fit your opinion". Look at your first paragragh, you've almost got it. Teddy, back to your Martini.