In post #1, we get an abbreviated version of the story. The gist of the OP is in the thread title. That what the Farmer did, put all gunowners in a bad light.
In post #2, the question is asked about an actual link to the story.
Post #3, 2 links were provided, which add more information to the OP story.
In post #4, it is asked how blame can be attached to a citizen doing his civic duty and not the perpetrator.
In post #5, we have the first jump to a conclusion. Namely that this is some kind of shooting incident, despite the fact that no shots were fired and that the crook was merely held at gunpoint - Some thing that police do every day and no one thinks twice about, but this was an ordinary citizen, so we have to make some kind of point about that. We automatically assume the Farmer was gonna "blow away" the perpetrator of the crime. An assumption based solely upon a question asked by the Farmer to the 911 operator. While there are other scenarios that might entail a citizen following a criminal in a vehicle, we are also given the view that this "chase" was indeed a high speed chase, as described by the media in the original story.
In post #6, the OP, after telling the poster of #4 that he needs to read his carry statutes, continues the criminalization of the actions of the Farmer, by concluding that in his opinion one (almost) never needs to give chase to a crook. Fact is, no corroborating facts are given to substantiate this conclusion. This post then speculates that the Farmer, by his actions might have gotten the child in question killed. Completely ignoring that it was the actions of the perpetrator of the crime that would have contributed to any such accidents.
Post #7 gives a view from one Law Enforcement Officers perspective. Namely, that while the Farmer may have over reacted, he is not to blame. All blame rests squarely with the criminal and not the citizen.
Post #8 appears to be a troll post. Inasmuch as a highly inflammatory statement is made about killing this perpetrator in particular and all perpetrators in general. (This person may not be an actual troll. But at the time I read the first page of this thread, that is how this person came across!)
Post #9 recognizes post #8 for what it is, a troll. But the poster uses an argumentum absurdum in their remarks to the maker of post #8. This post goes on to disagree with the LEO in post #7, to the point of questioning the LEO's training. This post offers us the first instance of accusing the Farmer with being a vigilante, by inference, and turning the encounter into a shooting. A possibility, to be sure, but not the result of this action, which is ignored. This post continues the line of the high speed chase and the possible outcomes, again inferring the citizen would be responsible for such outcomes, and again ignoring the actual result.
Post #10 is either a real compliment to post #7 or it is veiled sarcasm. Considering that this is the OP, then I would assume it sarcasm, as post #7 is contrary to the OP #1.
In post #11, we again have the LEO commenting upon people being responsible for what they do, then calling bogus, that part of the argument of post #9, that is argumentum absurdum.
Post #12 is the OP again, this time talking directly to the poster of #5 & #9. Makes irrelevant remarks about the perceived need to protect himself from "fellow forum members."
Post #13 we have a reply to the LEO of post #11. Here the poster refers to a difference between a felony and a misdemeanor and questions whether or not a misdemeanant deserves to be chased and apprehended by an armed citizen. The poster then makes another argumentum absurdum as a straw argument to set up a bright line rule of where to draw the line against violent action against perpetrators of minor crimes. This utterly ignores the fact that no violence was committed in this case.
Post #14 the OP takes umbrage to something else our LEO has said and asks if the LEO is advocating Sharia Law. This is a disingenuous remark and further argues the absurd.
Post #15 is a real compliment to the poster who started the argumentum absurdum.
Post #16 is a comment upon how rural folks do things and how the PC mentality of today defeats civic action.
Post #17 agrees with the LEO. This poster argues the concept of theft and not allowing the thief to continue to ply his trade. However this poster also makes an argumentum absurdum in his final statements.
In posts #18 & #19, we hear again from the troll in of post #8.
Post #20... The bait is taken and comes uncomfortably close to ad hominem attack on the troll.
In post #21, queries about the Farmer in the "high speed chase." Then opines that the dollar amount of the theft is not worth the consequences of the query. The actions of the Farmer disturb this poster.
Post #22 is another attempt to take the troll to task.
In post #23, this poster attempts to set things in perspective. The poster also makes a sarcastic tirade on life in the US under PC concepts.
In post #24, a correlation is attempted to link continued petty crime with felonies. This correlation is not supported with any fact other than an understood self evident correlation.
And finally, post #25 of the first page, the OP takes a shot at the poster of #22, by (intentionally?) misapplying the quoted material as a personal attack, instead of applying it to the crook. As it was originally meant to be applied.
If I've mischaraterized anyone or their post, I will only say, that this is what I was thinking when I first read this thread... Long before I made my first reply. So take it with that grain of salt and grow a skin.
So what do we have? People who are so used to having the police do everything, that they have simply forgotten that it is not always the only way to take a bite out of crime. And because of this, the Farmer (who didn't use the best of judgment) is vilified (Others have virtually called for the Farmers head because of a shooting that could have, but didn't happen), instead of the crook. Now just how PC is that?
Some of you wonder why we discourage SHTF scenarios? This is as good an example as any. Here we have a real life situation (in which we know only the barest of facts), and many are going off on various "what if" tangents, as if they are applicable to this particular case.
Folks, this is only the first 25 posts of a thread that currently has 142 posts. Wash, Rinse and Repeat.
Eghad in post #141, suggests that we citizens can be involve by simply being a good source of intel for the police. I agree with that. But when the police do not act on this intel, then what?
That, to me, is the crux of this particular thread. The best article on the events that I've found is
here. Local reader comments can be found
here. I would like to suggest everyone take the time to read these two links. This will give you a perspective that is sadly lacking in this thread.
