Man calls 911, then shoots burglars while on the phone with 911

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: exdeath
...
You ever listen to the careful wording that police and operators use?

They never say you can't do something, they merely say you shouldn't or that they recommend against it while basically conceding that you do what you need to do to protect yourself.

Such concepts as citizens arrest and civic duty and things like that have been long lost on the masses of sheep. If you so much as breath without a police officer on the scene now you are labeled a vigilante. That is how the leftist pacifist education and media institutions have raised the sheep.

ie: they burn into children's heads in elementary schools that fighting is wrong no matter what and that you should "tell an authority figure" even when cornered by a bully and you will get in trouble if you punch back. Or TV ads that suggest you should give them your wallet and run or use your keys as a weapon, purposely omitting more effective solutions like enlisting in a conceal carry program with a local law enforcement center. And showing guns and handcuffs on the screen whenever they are talking about crime in the news, etc.

Some of us can see right through that social conditioning shit. I hope others can start to see it too.

Yeah, because YOU aren't socially conditioned AT ALL... :roll:

Face it, your attitude is as much a product of a stupid, reactionary culture as much as the unrelenting pacifists...only your problem goes the other way. I can't think of a clever, focus group tested animal analogy at the moment, but you aren't "seeing right through" anything. Instead of being a mindless pacifist, you're a mindless "tough guy". Instead of violence NEVER being the answer, it's ALWAYS the answer. Not only should you "hit back" if a bully corners you on the playground, you should hit back if someone accidentally steps on your foot, or says something you don't like, or looks at you funny. Sorry, but that's NOT a good alternative.

I realize you didn't come right out and say a lot of that, so if you are the 0.00001% of people who use the word "sheep" (at least you didn't say "sheeple") and AREN'T an overly aggressive jackass, I apologize.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Lock him up. He went vigilante. Clearly no danger to him here.

Just by chance, you going to vote for Hillary and do you have lots of Che shirts?

FYI we the people own this country, not the government, not the police, WE THE PEOPLE who have the power to act of our own free will when trusted appointed authorities are unable or unwilling to do the job. In fact this country was founded and the Constitution written by "vigilantes", so think about that next time you call someone defending his neighbors house or our countries border a "vigilante" just because he doesn't get paid to wear a badge.

You seem like one of those people who like to appeal to authority and see a caste system where "citizen" or "civilian" is a lower class and less privileged position than "those with badges and suits" who "have power". Is civilian a dirty word for you? Does the word citizen represent those who should be controlled and ruled by those "who know better"?

Do you look at police officers and government officials as a fellow citizen, neighbor, and countryman entrusted by the public to maintain order and worthy of your respect? O do you look *up* to them as lords, as someone more privileged and higher on a caste system than you, a mere citizen, as someone who has control to dictate what people can and cant do?

Citizen != subject. It doesn't work that way in the USA.

Welcome to the thread. I have to admit I didn't bother reading closely anything you wrote, but I did skim it. Apparently you don't realize that anywhere but Texas (any other states have this law?) this guy would be in jail. So before you call me crazy, you might have 40something other states to argue with as well.

And you might want to look at or read articles about this case cuz there are plenty of Texans who felt he shouldn't have killed people in this situation. Even the 911 operator repeatedly said it's not worth killing people over possessions. The shooter even says he feels horrible about what happened and expressed remorse to the families of the guys he killed.

I guess the question you have to ask yourself is, would you feel worse about living with having taken two peoples lives unnecessarily, or living with having let your neighbor's lose some of their crap.

I wouldn't have resorted to deadly force immediately myself, but I assure you they would have been leaving with nothing more than what they came with and I would have one upped their resistance every step of the way. For example, I'd force them with legal physical obstruction to relinquish the property but if they pulled a knife or gun or otherwise approached me, I would shoot them. They wouldn't be dead over a VCR, they would be dead because they threatened my life while I was in the process of legally retaining my belongings from intruders on private property.

I disagree on the popular view that life is not worth property. I exchange a portion of my LIMITED LIFESPAN in the form of labor in order to earn that property and pursue my life and happiness the way I see fit. Am I not entitled to enjoy my life and labor without someone else taking it from me in any measurable quantity?

When someone takes the property I earned with my blood, sweat, and tears, they are essentially taking the precious hours of my life that I traded and can never get back in order to earn that property. I will not stand to have someone take what would be hundreds of hours of my life in a matter of seconds because they feel entitled to the rewards of my labor.

You are the first person other than myself I have ever heard make that argument.

:thumbsup::beer:

:thumbsup: While I knew it could be viewed that way, I never really took bearing to ponder it till now.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: exdeath
...
You ever listen to the careful wording that police and operators use?

They never say you can't do something, they merely say you shouldn't or that they recommend against it while basically conceding that you do what you need to do to protect yourself.

Such concepts as citizens arrest and civic duty and things like that have been long lost on the masses of sheep. If you so much as breath without a police officer on the scene now you are labeled a vigilante. That is how the leftist pacifist education and media institutions have raised the sheep.

ie: they burn into children's heads in elementary schools that fighting is wrong no matter what and that you should "tell an authority figure" even when cornered by a bully and you will get in trouble if you punch back. Or TV ads that suggest you should give them your wallet and run or use your keys as a weapon, purposely omitting more effective solutions like enlisting in a conceal carry program with a local law enforcement center. And showing guns and handcuffs on the screen whenever they are talking about crime in the news, etc.

Some of us can see right through that social conditioning shit. I hope others can start to see it too.

Yeah, because YOU aren't socially conditioned AT ALL... :roll:

Face it, your attitude is as much a product of a stupid, reactionary culture as much as the unrelenting pacifists...only your problem goes the other way. I can't think of a clever, focus group tested animal analogy at the moment, but you aren't "seeing right through" anything. Instead of being a mindless pacifist, you're a mindless "tough guy". Instead of violence NEVER being the answer, it's ALWAYS the answer. Not only should you "hit back" if a bully corners you on the playground, you should hit back if someone accidentally steps on your foot, or says something you don't like, or looks at you funny. Sorry, but that's NOT a good alternative.

I realize you didn't come right out and say a lot of that, so if you are the 0.00001% of people who use the word "sheep" (at least you didn't say "sheeple") and AREN'T an overly aggressive jackass, I apologize.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Well, the grand jury disagreed with both of you, Horn is a free man. :thumbsup:[/quote]

Free if he doesnt have a conscious, free if his kids can accept his barbaric murdering ass, free if he doesnt care about others think of him.

Personally I think he is a piece of shit who murdered these guys for his sick needs rather than wait the 60 seconds it took for the cops to get on scene.

Dont sound like free to me. :|

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: exdeath
...
You ever listen to the careful wording that police and operators use?

They never say you can't do something, they merely say you shouldn't or that they recommend against it while basically conceding that you do what you need to do to protect yourself.

Such concepts as citizens arrest and civic duty and things like that have been long lost on the masses of sheep. If you so much as breath without a police officer on the scene now you are labeled a vigilante. That is how the leftist pacifist education and media institutions have raised the sheep.

ie: they burn into children's heads in elementary schools that fighting is wrong no matter what and that you should "tell an authority figure" even when cornered by a bully and you will get in trouble if you punch back. Or TV ads that suggest you should give them your wallet and run or use your keys as a weapon, purposely omitting more effective solutions like enlisting in a conceal carry program with a local law enforcement center. And showing guns and handcuffs on the screen whenever they are talking about crime in the news, etc.

Some of us can see right through that social conditioning shit. I hope others can start to see it too.

Yeah, because YOU aren't socially conditioned AT ALL... :roll:

Face it, your attitude is as much a product of a stupid, reactionary culture as much as the unrelenting pacifists...only your problem goes the other way. I can't think of a clever, focus group tested animal analogy at the moment, but you aren't "seeing right through" anything. Instead of being a mindless pacifist, you're a mindless "tough guy". Instead of violence NEVER being the answer, it's ALWAYS the answer. Not only should you "hit back" if a bully corners you on the playground, you should hit back if someone accidentally steps on your foot, or says something you don't like, or looks at you funny. Sorry, but that's NOT a good alternative.

I realize you didn't come right out and say a lot of that, so if you are the 0.00001% of people who use the word "sheep" (at least you didn't say "sheeple") and AREN'T an overly aggressive jackass, I apologize.

I'm not sure what was confusing about that...

But in any case, I'll try to give you the Cliff Notes version. I think it's absolutely OK to defend yourself if necessary, but I think a lot of people (including possibly exdeath) take it way too far, moving from the realm of self-defense to the idea of violent offense for pretty questionable reasons. And while exdeath complains about the culture of pacifism, I think the opposing culture of violence is just as silly, and just as damaging.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Nebor

Well, the grand jury disagreed with both of you, Horn is a free man. :thumbsup:

Free if he doesnt have a conscious, free if his kids can accept his barbaric murdering ass, free if he doesnt care about others think of him.

Personally I think he is a piece of shit who murdered these guys for his sick needs rather than wait the 60 seconds it took for the cops to get on scene.

Dont sound like free to me. :|

[/quote]

He waited 7 minutes for the police show up. For all he knew they were never coming. He did the best he could to stop those men.

 

[shira]

Does anyone have a link to the report of the Grand Jury decision? I don't see anything on the web on this, other than summaries of the initial event.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Nebor

Well, the grand jury disagreed with both of you, Horn is a free man. :thumbsup:

Free if he doesnt have a conscious, free if his kids can accept his barbaric murdering ass, free if he doesnt care about others think of him.

Personally I think he is a piece of shit who murdered these guys for his sick needs rather than wait the 60 seconds it took for the cops to get on scene.

Dont sound like free to me. :|

[/quote]

You should go down there and execute him.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Nebor

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary

That's all he needs.

It's funny, all the people who aren't from Texas are foaming at the mouth, and all of us Texans are saying "Good job!" We know this guy isn't going to get charged. I think the thing is, this is one of the few Texas stories that's made national news. People get shot over property every day in Texas. Most of the time it doesn't even make the news. Justice shouldn't be so uncommon as to be remarkable when witnessed.

You're statement is nonsense.

The full phrase is:

"(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;"

That phrase, "during the nighttime" applies to ALL of the crimes listed. Or do you think it's logical that "during the nighttime" applies only to "theft," but not to burglary, robbery, or aggravated robbery?

After looking at the whole law, I think it actually does apply only to theft during the nighttime. Observe Sec 9.42A

A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime

See how they separate out theft and crim mischief at the end? I think that makes it clear.

What is still disputed is that if someone is fleeing after a burglary, you are only allowed to use deadly force TO RECOVER THE PROPERTY, which means it was THEFT and not BURGLARY. Burglary is essentially breaking and entering. Once they take property, now its theft, and you can only shoot if they are fleeing at night. It's confusing.

I guess what you say makes sense. Robbery (" the felonious taking of the property of another from his or her person or in his or her immediate presence") involves face-to-face interaction between the criminal and the victim, and thus is much more dangerous than theft ("the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny"), which doesn't involve face-to-face contact. Similarly, burglary ("The act of entering a building or other premises with the intent to commit theft") could mean the criminal is in your house - a more threatening situation than merely stealing someone's property. So I can see why the deadly force provisions of the law in Texas might have been made more liberal when it comes to robbery and burglary as compared with theft during the daytime.

But clearly, as you point out, when Horn went outside, he was attempting to prevent the "theft" part of the criminal act, and the nighttime provision of the deadly-force law would apply.

Horn may try to claim he was defending himself, but given the 911 transcripts, he clearly went outside in order to shoot them.

Nebor claimed a Texas grand jury has already decided not to charge Horn, but that story, if true, would be all over the web. I see absolutely nothing, so I have my doubts.

I think Horn will be charged.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Remind me not to interfere when your house is looted, set on fire and your bloody body is laying out on the lawn. I want to fit in with your mind set. :camera:

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: exdeath
...
I wouldn't have resorted to deadly force immediately myself, but I assure you they would have been leaving with nothing more than what they came with and I would have one upped their resistance every step of the way. For example, I'd force them with legal physical obstruction to relinquish the property but if they pulled a knife or gun or otherwise approached me, I would shoot them. They wouldn't be dead over a VCR, they would be dead because they threatened my life while I was in the process of legally retaining my belongings from intruders on private property.

I disagree on the popular view that life is not worth property. I exchange a portion of my LIMITED LIFESPAN in the form of labor in order to earn that property and pursue my life and happiness the way I see fit. Am I not entitled to enjoy my life and labor without someone else taking it from me in any measurable quantity?

When someone takes the property I earned with my blood, sweat, and tears, they are essentially taking the precious hours of my life that I traded and can never get back in order to earn that property. I will not stand to have someone take what would be hundreds of hours of my life in a matter of seconds because they feel entitled to the rewards of my labor.

You are the first person other than myself I have ever heard make that argument.

:thumbsup::beer:

Probably because it's kind of a silly argument. Following that logic, I can kill someone for cutting me off in traffic. After all, the other driver is forcing me to spend more of my LIMITED LIFESPAN than I planned on getting where I want to go. Isn't that really the same argument? I spent $2000 on that laptop your stealing, and since it would take me a fair amount of labor to earn another $2000, I have the right to kill you to prevent you from stealing...is that about right? In other words, ANY amount of "wasted time" on my part is equivalent to you stealing part of my limited lifespan, so I'm justified to take the rest of yours? Needless to say, the idea isn't all THAT unappealing...the guy in front of my at Starbucks takes a really long time to decide what he wants, shooting him in the head would save me a lot of time in the morning. But somehow it just doesn't seem like a good way to run a society.

Cutting me off in traffic (providing there's no safety issue) is a loss of maybe 1 second. Stealing a $2000 computer is a loss of 200 hours (at my current pay), which is roughly 8 full days...it's theft of a week of my life. Now let me ask you this: if you had a terminal disease and were 100% guaranteed to die in a set amount of time, and someone killed you one week early would you be more angry about dying, or about the loss of the week? Personally, knowing that I was born to die, I'm much more bothered by the theft of my time, which is the only valuable commodity a human has. Time is absolutely everything.

Furthermore I make the choice to live in a city or not, to go to a coffee shop or not, etc. If I don't want to lose those moments I can simply make coffee at home or live in the country. Nothing I do can stop someone else from robbing me however. It's a choice they make, whereas the others are choices I made.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Nebor

Well, the grand jury disagreed with both of you, Horn is a free man. :thumbsup:

Free if he doesnt have a conscious, free if his kids can accept his barbaric murdering ass, free if he doesnt care about others think of him.

Personally I think he is a piece of shit who murdered these guys for his sick needs rather than wait the 60 seconds it took for the cops to get on scene.

Dont sound like free to me. :|

I think what you mean if 'free if he believes differently than you', which he (and a LOT of other people) appears to.

You can be as upset as you want but there's someone overjoyed about it for every person who's angry. Actually if polls are any indication there are more who agree with him than oppose him, so I'd say you're in the minority.

You're free to your opinion of course, just don't think we give a damn.

edit: btw I haven't been able to find anything about him not being charged, does anyone have a link?

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Lock him up. He went vigilante. Clearly no danger to him here.

Just by chance, you going to vote for Hillary and do you have lots of Che shirts?

FYI we the people own this country, not the government, not the police, WE THE PEOPLE who have the power to act of our own free will when trusted appointed authorities are unable or unwilling to do the job. In fact this country was founded and the Constitution written by "vigilantes", so think about that next time you call someone defending his neighbors house or our countries border a "vigilante" just because he doesn't get paid to wear a badge.

You seem like one of those people who like to appeal to authority and see a caste system where "citizen" or "civilian" is a lower class and less privileged position than "those with badges and suits" who "have power". Is civilian a dirty word for you? Does the word citizen represent those who should be controlled and ruled by those "who know better"?

Do you look at police officers and government officials as a fellow citizen, neighbor, and countryman entrusted by the public to maintain order and worthy of your respect? O do you look *up* to them as lords, as someone more privileged and higher on a caste system than you, a mere citizen, as someone who has control to dictate what people can and cant do?

Citizen != subject. It doesn't work that way in the USA.

Welcome to the thread. I have to admit I didn't bother reading closely anything you wrote, but I did skim it. Apparently you don't realize that anywhere but Texas (any other states have this law?) this guy would be in jail. So before you call me crazy, you might have 40something other states to argue with as well.

And you might want to look at or read articles about this case cuz there are plenty of Texans who felt he shouldn't have killed people in this situation. Even the 911 operator repeatedly said it's not worth killing people over possessions. The shooter even says he feels horrible about what happened and expressed remorse to the families of the guys he killed.

I guess the question you have to ask yourself is, would you feel worse about living with having taken two peoples lives unnecessarily, or living with having let your neighbor's lose some of their crap.

I wouldn't have resorted to deadly force immediately myself, but I assure you they would have been leaving with nothing more than what they came with and I would have one upped their resistance every step of the way. For example, I'd force them with legal physical obstruction to relinquish the property but if they pulled a knife or gun or otherwise approached me, I would shoot them. They wouldn't be dead over a VCR, they would be dead because they threatened my life while I was in the process of legally retaining my belongings from intruders on private property.

I disagree on the popular view that life is not worth property. I exchange a portion of my LIMITED LIFESPAN in the form of labor in order to earn that property and pursue my life and happiness the way I see fit. Am I not entitled to enjoy my life and labor without someone else taking it from me in any measurable quantity?

When someone takes the property I earned with my blood, sweat, and tears, they are essentially taking the precious hours of my life that I traded and can never get back in order to earn that property. I will not stand to have someone take what would be hundreds of hours of my life in a matter of seconds because they feel entitled to the rewards of my labor.

Isn't this basically what the government does when they tax your blood, sweat, and tears?

Yes, and I'm just as vocal about communists like Hillary and my wish for confrontation with factions of the government who also think it's acceptable to steal when the necessary power to tax is abused.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Nebor

Well, the grand jury disagreed with both of you, Horn is a free man. :thumbsup:

Free if he doesnt have a conscious, free if his kids can accept his barbaric murdering ass, free if he doesnt care about others think of him.

Personally I think he is a piece of shit who murdered these guys for his sick needs rather than wait the 60 seconds it took for the cops to get on scene.

Dont sound like free to me. :|

[/quote]

God Bless Texas

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: exdeath
...
You ever listen to the careful wording that police and operators use?

They never say you can't do something, they merely say you shouldn't or that they recommend against it while basically conceding that you do what you need to do to protect yourself.

Such concepts as citizens arrest and civic duty and things like that have been long lost on the masses of sheep. If you so much as breath without a police officer on the scene now you are labeled a vigilante. That is how the leftist pacifist education and media institutions have raised the sheep.

ie: they burn into children's heads in elementary schools that fighting is wrong no matter what and that you should "tell an authority figure" even when cornered by a bully and you will get in trouble if you punch back. Or TV ads that suggest you should give them your wallet and run or use your keys as a weapon, purposely omitting more effective solutions like enlisting in a conceal carry program with a local law enforcement center. And showing guns and handcuffs on the screen whenever they are talking about crime in the news, etc.

Some of us can see right through that social conditioning shit. I hope others can start to see it too.

Yeah, because YOU aren't socially conditioned AT ALL... :roll:

Face it, your attitude is as much a product of a stupid, reactionary culture as much as the unrelenting pacifists...only your problem goes the other way. I can't think of a clever, focus group tested animal analogy at the moment, but you aren't "seeing right through" anything. Instead of being a mindless pacifist, you're a mindless "tough guy". Instead of violence NEVER being the answer, it's ALWAYS the answer. Not only should you "hit back" if a bully corners you on the playground, you should hit back if someone accidentally steps on your foot, or says something you don't like, or looks at you funny. Sorry, but that's NOT a good alternative.

I realize you didn't come right out and say a lot of that, so if you are the 0.00001% of people who use the word "sheep" (at least you didn't say "sheeple") and AREN'T an overly aggressive jackass, I apologize.

I'm actually not all that aggressive. I follow the speak softly and carry a big stick philosophy. I just want to mind my own business and live and let live, but <insert fairy of your choice> help you if you infringe on my ability to do so.

I'm one of those rare people who on their own, the more power they have the more discretion they use in exercising it. That doesn't mean however, that I'm afraid to use it of circumstances warrant it.

I'm not as brainwashed and sheltered as the rest of society. I understand that things like violence and death are necessary and real facts of life. I don't falsely pretend that everybody is good and everybody is equal and everybody lives forever. Given the choice I prefer to avoid violence, and I do my part to be civilized. But I will resort to violence without hesitation when it is the most effective means of ending a confrontation when it is justified. The key difference with me is that the violence is instigated by an aggressor and it stops when the aggression or wrong doing stops, unlike criminals who openly engage in violence freely to express their malicious intentions all the time.

 

[exdeath]

Free if he doesnt have a conscious, free if his kids can accept his barbaric murdering ass, free if he doesnt care about others think of him.

Personally I think he is a piece of shit who murdered these guys for his sick needs rather than wait the 60 seconds it took for the cops to get on scene.

Dont sound like free to me. :|

So barbaric. What else does this guy have on his record? Oh thats right, probably nothing.

The irony... you guys want to give criminals all these chances, give them rehabilitation, a slap on the wrist and tell them "no no" etc. But when the criminal is the victim you want to fry somebody.

Where is this guys slap on the wrist? Does he not deserve 'rehabilitation' or a second chance as much as the criminal you shelter?

And why is it you are ok with the government killing someone, but not a "civilian"? (you probably want to see this guy fry for shooting two outstanding members of our society) There we go again with people thinking something is ok only if it's the government doing it...

...so only the government can kill people? That is an extremely dangerous ideology.

Again I place blame all the way back to the liberal institutionalizing of children through schools and media; "rely on a higher power, don't do anything by yourself!" we are told constantly as children. Such brainwashing is designed to socialize new citizens and condition them to be dependent and subservient to those perceived to be in positions of power; perfect social construct for the totalitarian model so envied especially by the left of this country.

Hint hint: government is comprised of your fellow "civilians" and is entitled to no more power than you or I.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: exdeath
...
I wouldn't have resorted to deadly force immediately myself, but I assure you they would have been leaving with nothing more than what they came with and I would have one upped their resistance every step of the way. For example, I'd force them with legal physical obstruction to relinquish the property but if they pulled a knife or gun or otherwise approached me, I would shoot them. They wouldn't be dead over a VCR, they would be dead because they threatened my life while I was in the process of legally retaining my belongings from intruders on private property.

I disagree on the popular view that life is not worth property. I exchange a portion of my LIMITED LIFESPAN in the form of labor in order to earn that property and pursue my life and happiness the way I see fit. Am I not entitled to enjoy my life and labor without someone else taking it from me in any measurable quantity?

When someone takes the property I earned with my blood, sweat, and tears, they are essentially taking the precious hours of my life that I traded and can never get back in order to earn that property. I will not stand to have someone take what would be hundreds of hours of my life in a matter of seconds because they feel entitled to the rewards of my labor.

You are the first person other than myself I have ever heard make that argument.

:thumbsup::beer:

Probably because it's kind of a silly argument. Following that logic, I can kill someone for cutting me off in traffic. After all, the other driver is forcing me to spend more of my LIMITED LIFESPAN than I planned on getting where I want to go. Isn't that really the same argument? I spent $2000 on that laptop your stealing, and since it would take me a fair amount of labor to earn another $2000, I have the right to kill you to prevent you from stealing...is that about right? In other words, ANY amount of "wasted time" on my part is equivalent to you stealing part of my limited lifespan, so I'm justified to take the rest of yours? Needless to say, the idea isn't all THAT unappealing...the guy in front of my at Starbucks takes a really long time to decide what he wants, shooting him in the head would save me a lot of time in the morning. But somehow it just doesn't seem like a good way to run a society.

Cutting me off in traffic (providing there's no safety issue) is a loss of maybe 1 second. Stealing a $2000 computer is a loss of 200 hours (at my current pay), which is roughly 8 full days...it's theft of a week of my life. Now let me ask you this: if you had a terminal disease and were 100% guaranteed to die in a set amount of time, and someone killed you one week early would you be more angry about dying, or about the loss of the week? Personally, knowing that I was born to die, I'm much more bothered by the theft of my time, which is the only valuable commodity a human has. Time is absolutely everything.

Furthermore I make the choice to live in a city or not, to go to a coffee shop or not, etc. If I don't want to lose those moments I can simply make coffee at home or live in the country. Nothing I do can stop someone else from robbing me however. It's a choice they make, whereas the others are choices I made.

+1

I choose to drive in public traffic and spend 45 mins driving someplace. I chose to wait in a line of indecisive asshats or go somewhere else. In fact I don't like it and prefer to go out as little as possible and keep to myself. That is a choice I make.

I don't chose, however, to have someone try to pull me out of my car and car jack me or invade my home or stick their hand in my pocket or choose to have my belongings not be there when I get home. When someone else makes those choices for me, they are crossing a line and risking their own safety. My safety, comfort, happiness, property, or whatever, comes first when a foreign party chooses to invade my personal space (or that of a mutual third person such as a neighbor, stranger in need, family member, etc).

Taking of property against ones will is only acceptable as punishment and compensation towards someone who instigated a wrong doing against property toward someone else first.

A persons life, and therefore body, is the most important piece of property a person owns. If someone wants to take my property, they are putting their property up for grabs as well, up to and including the right to their body and it's proper functioning.

Now I am fully aware of the law and careful in it's implementation. I'm not going to shoot someone for trying to walk off my property with an object that belongs to me on both moral and legal grounds. However I must insist that they leave with nothing more than they came with. Bottom line is they will not take my property, period, end of story. I hope that only physical confrontation or threat of law enforcement involvement is enough to change their mind and end things peacefully.

If however they resist and persevere in their attempt to take said property from me, until they escalate to the point that deadly force is necessary to now protect myself as well while I pursue my property, I am more than happy to oblige and lawfully escalate in return to maintain control of the uninvited confrontation. So when I shoot someone, it's not for stealing my stereo. It would be because they tried to kill me while I tried to recover that stereo. Two completely different events.

Saying that my attempt to reclaim my property is enticing and provoking the criminal to violence and that I should just let him take it is wrong, as I am totally within my rights to retain my personal property from theft. It is the criminal who initiates the wrong doing by first stealing, and then again by choosing of his own free will to upgrade it to extortion and threat of force when all he had to do was put it down. It's the criminal who makes the choice that his life is worth a $100 stereo when he pulls that knife or gun out. The property owner is never obligated in any way to relinquish his property.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Remind me not to interfere when your house is looted, set on fire and your bloody body is laying out on the lawn. I want to fit in with your mind set. :camera:

You just keep changing the facts until you get to the point where everyone agrees with you. The above didn't happen. What did happen was two fleeing thieves were killed. Maybe you're hoping that if you keep repeating a made-up situation maybe people will forget that part. Maybe you find the facts as they actually exist not the best example of when to use deadly force?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: exdeath
...
You ever listen to the careful wording that police and operators use?

They never say you can't do something, they merely say you shouldn't or that they recommend against it while basically conceding that you do what you need to do to protect yourself.

Such concepts as citizens arrest and civic duty and things like that have been long lost on the masses of sheep. If you so much as breath without a police officer on the scene now you are labeled a vigilante. That is how the leftist pacifist education and media institutions have raised the sheep.

ie: they burn into children's heads in elementary schools that fighting is wrong no matter what and that you should "tell an authority figure" even when cornered by a bully and you will get in trouble if you punch back. Or TV ads that suggest you should give them your wallet and run or use your keys as a weapon, purposely omitting more effective solutions like enlisting in a conceal carry program with a local law enforcement center. And showing guns and handcuffs on the screen whenever they are talking about crime in the news, etc.

Some of us can see right through that social conditioning shit. I hope others can start to see it too.

Yeah, because YOU aren't socially conditioned AT ALL... :roll:

Face it, your attitude is as much a product of a stupid, reactionary culture as much as the unrelenting pacifists...only your problem goes the other way. I can't think of a clever, focus group tested animal analogy at the moment, but you aren't "seeing right through" anything. Instead of being a mindless pacifist, you're a mindless "tough guy". Instead of violence NEVER being the answer, it's ALWAYS the answer. Not only should you "hit back" if a bully corners you on the playground, you should hit back if someone accidentally steps on your foot, or says something you don't like, or looks at you funny. Sorry, but that's NOT a good alternative.

I realize you didn't come right out and say a lot of that, so if you are the 0.00001% of people who use the word "sheep" (at least you didn't say "sheeple") and AREN'T an overly aggressive jackass, I apologize.

I'm actually not all that aggressive. I follow the speak softly and carry a big stick philosophy. I just want to mind my own business and live and let live, but <insert fairy of your choice> help you if you infringe on my ability to do so.

I'm one of those rare people who on their own, the more power they have the more discretion they use in exercising it. That doesn't mean however, that I'm afraid to use it of circumstances warrant it.

I'm not as brainwashed and sheltered as the rest of society. I understand that things like violence and death are necessary and real facts of life. I don't falsely pretend that everybody is good and everybody is equal and everybody lives forever. Given the choice I prefer to avoid violence, and I do my part to be civilized. But I will resort to violence without hesitation when it is the most effective means of ending a confrontation when it is justified. The key difference with me is that the violence is instigated by an aggressor and it stops when the aggression or wrong doing stops, unlike criminals who openly engage in violence freely to express their malicious intentions all the time.

Perhaps I'm wrong, it certainly wouldn't be the first time. But while I don't disagree with your philosophy, it has been my experience that people who go around boasting of that philosophy very rarely seem to actually follow it. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is good advice, but saying you are one of those "rare people" who believes in it usually seems to mean that you are just ITCHING for a chance to smack someone with that big stick. Since overt aggression is somewhat taboo in our society, the folks who still want to behave that way find some clever philosophy to hide behind, but very rarely do they actually seem to really believe it.

I am not making any judgments about you in particular, like I said, there are always exceptions to every rule. I'm just explaining the reasoning behind my initial statement. Violence and death are indeed real facts of life, my problem is with people who seem like they would be upset if they weren't.

Like I said, I might be biased by my own experiences, which mostly revolve around martial arts. Because of the philosophy inherent in most older martial arts, the "pro-violence" folks stand out pretty well. And it's real obvious what the difference is. You get the people there because they want to know how to defend themselves barehanded if they ever have to and you get the people who want to learn how to hurt people. It seems like a minor difference, but it's not. The former group trains in the hope of never having to use what they know, while the latter group will be disappointed if they don't get an opportunity to visit violence on someone. And in my experience, the latter group is not insignificant and they are just as bad for society as a whole as the pacifists who think violence is never the solution.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Remind me not to interfere when your house is looted, set on fire and your bloody body is laying out on the lawn. I want to fit in with your mind set. :camera:

You just keep changing the facts until you get to the point where everyone agrees with you. The above didn't happen. What did happen was two fleeing thieves were killed. Maybe you're hoping that if you keep repeating a made-up situation maybe people will forget that part. Maybe you find the facts as they actually exist not the best example of when to use deadly force?

Do we even know the whole story here? It seems we know the beginning and the end (there was a theft and a shooting). For all we know there was a physical confrontation followed by numerous escalations. A resistance and disregard for orders commanded by a citizen acting lawfully and in good faith to stop a crime in progress followed by a threat of force on part of the thieves would justify the shooting in my book.

Coincidentally, it wouldn't surprise me if details that might have provoked a shooting were left out and the report was painted to make it out that the guy simply shot people for stealing a pair of shoes and only select quotes were printed in a certain order to make the guy sound like a 'bloodthirsty vigilante'

ie:

"these guys are stealing stuff"
"the police aren't here yet" <--- censored from the news
"I have to stop them"
"oh wait they flashed a knife at me and said they are going to kill me" <--- censored from the news
"they aren't going to get away with this"
*bang bang*

Not saying that is the case here, just that it wouldn't surprise me. The role of the media lately is to reinforce in adults what they are taught in schools as kids and paint people who don't subscribe to the subservient indoctrination as barbarians, vigilantes, outsiders, etc. and such stories are glorified and repeated over and over and over... Especially when cases of obvious and warranted use of force by a civilian seldom make news and are quietly brushed under the carpet...

Sounds like brainwashing to me.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: exdeath
...
I wouldn't have resorted to deadly force immediately myself, but I assure you they would have been leaving with nothing more than what they came with and I would have one upped their resistance every step of the way. For example, I'd force them with legal physical obstruction to relinquish the property but if they pulled a knife or gun or otherwise approached me, I would shoot them. They wouldn't be dead over a VCR, they would be dead because they threatened my life while I was in the process of legally retaining my belongings from intruders on private property.

I disagree on the popular view that life is not worth property. I exchange a portion of my LIMITED LIFESPAN in the form of labor in order to earn that property and pursue my life and happiness the way I see fit. Am I not entitled to enjoy my life and labor without someone else taking it from me in any measurable quantity?

When someone takes the property I earned with my blood, sweat, and tears, they are essentially taking the precious hours of my life that I traded and can never get back in order to earn that property. I will not stand to have someone take what would be hundreds of hours of my life in a matter of seconds because they feel entitled to the rewards of my labor.

You are the first person other than myself I have ever heard make that argument.

:thumbsup::beer:

Probably because it's kind of a silly argument. Following that logic, I can kill someone for cutting me off in traffic. After all, the other driver is forcing me to spend more of my LIMITED LIFESPAN than I planned on getting where I want to go. Isn't that really the same argument? I spent $2000 on that laptop your stealing, and since it would take me a fair amount of labor to earn another $2000, I have the right to kill you to prevent you from stealing...is that about right? In other words, ANY amount of "wasted time" on my part is equivalent to you stealing part of my limited lifespan, so I'm justified to take the rest of yours? Needless to say, the idea isn't all THAT unappealing...the guy in front of my at Starbucks takes a really long time to decide what he wants, shooting him in the head would save me a lot of time in the morning. But somehow it just doesn't seem like a good way to run a society.

Cutting me off in traffic (providing there's no safety issue) is a loss of maybe 1 second. Stealing a $2000 computer is a loss of 200 hours (at my current pay), which is roughly 8 full days...it's theft of a week of my life. Now let me ask you this: if you had a terminal disease and were 100% guaranteed to die in a set amount of time, and someone killed you one week early would you be more angry about dying, or about the loss of the week? Personally, knowing that I was born to die, I'm much more bothered by the theft of my time, which is the only valuable commodity a human has. Time is absolutely everything.

Furthermore I make the choice to live in a city or not, to go to a coffee shop or not, etc. If I don't want to lose those moments I can simply make coffee at home or live in the country. Nothing I do can stop someone else from robbing me however. It's a choice they make, whereas the others are choices I made.

+1

I choose to drive in public traffic and spend 45 mins driving someplace. I chose to wait in a line of indecisive asshats or go somewhere else. In fact I don't like it and prefer to go out as little as possible and keep to myself. That is a choice I make.

I don't chose, however, to have someone try to pull me out of my car and car jack me or invade my home or stick their hand in my pocket or choose to have my belongings not be there when I get home. When someone else makes those choices for me, they are crossing a line and risking their own safety. My safety, comfort, happiness, property, or whatever, comes first when a foreign party chooses to invade my personal space (or that of a mutual third person such as a neighbor, stranger in need, family member, etc).

Taking of property against ones will is only acceptable as punishment and compensation towards someone who instigated a wrong doing against property toward someone else first.

A persons life, and therefore body, is the most important piece of property a person owns. If someone wants to take my property, they are putting their property up for grabs as well, up to and including the right to their body and it's proper functioning.

Now I am fully aware of the law and careful in it's implementation. I'm not going to shoot someone for trying to walk off my property with an object that belongs to me on both moral and legal grounds. However I must insist that they leave with nothing more than they came with. Bottom line is they will not take my property, period, end of story. I hope that only physical confrontation or threat of law enforcement involvement is enough to change their mind and end things peacefully.

If however they resist and persevere in their attempt to take said property from me, until they escalate to the point that deadly force is necessary to now protect myself as well while I pursue my property, I am more than happy to oblige and lawfully escalate in return to maintain control of the uninvited confrontation. So when I shoot someone, it's not for stealing my stereo. It would be because they tried to kill me while I tried to recover that stereo. Two completely different events.

Saying that my attempt to reclaim my property is enticing and provoking the criminal to violence and that I should just let him take it is wrong, as I am totally within my rights to retain my personal property from theft. It is the criminal who initiates the wrong doing by first stealing, and then again by choosing of his own free will to upgrade it to extortion and threat of force when all he had to do was put it down. It's the criminal who makes the choice that his life is worth a $100 stereo when he pulls that knife or gun out. The property owner is never obligated in any way to relinquish his property.

The whole "eye for an eye" type of punishment is viscerally appealing, I suppose, I just don't trust the average Joe Blow to play judge, jury and executioner. Defending yourself is one thing, but acting as the hand of justice is something else. I'm not arguing that the criminal should have the right to steal your stereo, but that doesn't mean you should have the right to kill him if he does.

That said, what you were talking at the end of your post is different. Again, we're talking about defense, not punishment. To use a more basic example, if someone snatches my wallet and attempts to run down the street with it, I have no problem at all chasing him and using whatever violence necessary to regain my wallet. For that matter, if I see a purse snatcher grab a woman's purse and run towards me, I'd have no problem tackling his dumb-ass as he runs by. I think the same idea should apply to your home as well. The difference between that and punishment is that while I should have the right to STOP the purse snatcher to get the purse back, if I get it back and he starts running away, I don't have a right to shoot him in the back of the head to punish him for purse snatching. It's the intent, not so much the methods, that seem important here.

This may seem like splitting hairs, but it's not. The first part of your post, and many of the comments in this thread, seem to indicate that you and others think killing is an appropriate way to PUNISH someone for trying to steal your stereo or your neighbor's stereo. While I have little problem with the eventual use of deadly force being necessary in the process of defending yourself or your home, I think that's different from going into the situation with the express intent of killing someone as punishment. From the comments made by the homeowner in the OP, it seems very likely he belonged to the latter group.

Of course the other consideration is that you are not John McClain, and real life is not a Die Hard movie. If you violently confront a criminal, there is every possibility that YOU will wind up seriously hurt or dead. Whatever feelings you may have about the value of the criminal's life, surely you value YOUR life more than your $100 stereo. I don't think this is a legal argument, but it's a practical one, and one most folks never seem to consider. If you can protect your property, that's great, but if it requires you to seriously risk your life to do so...then you're just being dumb.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Remind me not to interfere when your house is looted, set on fire and your bloody body is laying out on the lawn. I want to fit in with your mind set. :camera:

You just keep changing the facts until you get to the point where everyone agrees with you. The above didn't happen. What did happen was two fleeing thieves were killed. Maybe you're hoping that if you keep repeating a made-up situation maybe people will forget that part. Maybe you find the facts as they actually exist not the best example of when to use deadly force?

Do we even know the whole story here? It seems we know the beginning and the end (there was a theft and a shooting). For all we know there was a physical confrontation followed by numerous escalations. A resistance and disregard for orders commanded by a citizen acting lawfully and in good faith to stop a crime in progress followed by a threat of force on part of the thieves would justify the shooting in my book.

Coincidentally, it wouldn't surprise me if details that might have provoked a shooting were left out and the report was painted to make it out that the guy simply shot people for stealing a pair of shoes and only select quotes were printed in a certain order to make the guy sound like a 'bloodthirsty vigilante'

ie:

"these guys are stealing stuff"
"the police aren't here yet" <--- censored from the news
"I have to stop them"
"oh wait they flashed a knife at me and said they are going to kill me" <--- censored from the news
"they aren't going to get away with this"
*bang bang*

Not saying that is the case here, just that it wouldn't surprise me. The role of the media lately is to reinforce in adults what they are taught in schools as kids and paint people who don't subscribe to the subservient indoctrination as barbarians, vigilantes, outsiders, etc. and such stories are glorified and repeated over and over and over... Especially when cases of obvious and warranted use of force by a civilian seldom make news and are quietly brushed under the carpet...

Sounds like brainwashing to me.

It sounds like brainwashing when you just make up bullshit that fits with your ideology? OK... :roll:

Or it could just as easily have happened the way it was presented. The fact that some people have a vested interest in painting people who defend themselves as vigilantes doesn't chance the fact that there ARE vigilantes out there. And the fact that you would like to view this event one way doesn't mean that's the way it actually happened.

I think we can all agree that there are scenarios where the shooting could be justified and scenarios where it might not be, but since we weren't there, it's sort of hard to tell. That doesn't mean it's OK for us to just make up shit that fits with what we'd LIKE to see. And that goes for me too, we're all doing it in this thread.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: exdeath
...
You ever listen to the careful wording that police and operators use?

They never say you can't do something, they merely say you shouldn't or that they recommend against it while basically conceding that you do what you need to do to protect yourself.

Such concepts as citizens arrest and civic duty and things like that have been long lost on the masses of sheep. If you so much as breath without a police officer on the scene now you are labeled a vigilante. That is how the leftist pacifist education and media institutions have raised the sheep.

ie: they burn into children's heads in elementary schools that fighting is wrong no matter what and that you should "tell an authority figure" even when cornered by a bully and you will get in trouble if you punch back. Or TV ads that suggest you should give them your wallet and run or use your keys as a weapon, purposely omitting more effective solutions like enlisting in a conceal carry program with a local law enforcement center. And showing guns and handcuffs on the screen whenever they are talking about crime in the news, etc.

Some of us can see right through that social conditioning shit. I hope others can start to see it too.

Yeah, because YOU aren't socially conditioned AT ALL... :roll:

Face it, your attitude is as much a product of a stupid, reactionary culture as much as the unrelenting pacifists...only your problem goes the other way. I can't think of a clever, focus group tested animal analogy at the moment, but you aren't "seeing right through" anything. Instead of being a mindless pacifist, you're a mindless "tough guy". Instead of violence NEVER being the answer, it's ALWAYS the answer. Not only should you "hit back" if a bully corners you on the playground, you should hit back if someone accidentally steps on your foot, or says something you don't like, or looks at you funny. Sorry, but that's NOT a good alternative.

I realize you didn't come right out and say a lot of that, so if you are the 0.00001% of people who use the word "sheep" (at least you didn't say "sheeple") and AREN'T an overly aggressive jackass, I apologize.

I'm actually not all that aggressive. I follow the speak softly and carry a big stick philosophy. I just want to mind my own business and live and let live, but <insert fairy of your choice> help you if you infringe on my ability to do so.

I'm one of those rare people who on their own, the more power they have the more discretion they use in exercising it. That doesn't mean however, that I'm afraid to use it of circumstances warrant it.

I'm not as brainwashed and sheltered as the rest of society. I understand that things like violence and death are necessary and real facts of life. I don't falsely pretend that everybody is good and everybody is equal and everybody lives forever. Given the choice I prefer to avoid violence, and I do my part to be civilized. But I will resort to violence without hesitation when it is the most effective means of ending a confrontation when it is justified. The key difference with me is that the violence is instigated by an aggressor and it stops when the aggression or wrong doing stops, unlike criminals who openly engage in violence freely to express their malicious intentions all the time.

Perhaps I'm wrong, it certainly wouldn't be the first time. But while I don't disagree with your philosophy, it has been my experience that people who go around boasting of that philosophy very rarely seem to actually follow it. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is good advice, but saying you are one of those "rare people" who believes in it usually seems to mean that you are just ITCHING for a chance to smack someone with that big stick. Since overt aggression is somewhat taboo in our society, the folks who still want to behave that way find some clever philosophy to hide behind, but very rarely do they actually seem to really believe it.

I am not making any judgments about you in particular, like I said, there are always exceptions to every rule. I'm just explaining the reasoning behind my initial statement. Violence and death are indeed real facts of life, my problem is with people who seem like they would be upset if they weren't.

Like I said, I might be biased by my own experiences, which mostly revolve around martial arts. Because of the philosophy inherent in most older martial arts, the "pro-violence" folks stand out pretty well. And it's real obvious what the difference is. You get the people there because they want to know how to defend themselves barehanded if they ever have to and you get the people who want to learn how to hurt people. It seems like a minor difference, but it's not. The former group trains in the hope of never having to use what they know, while the latter group will be disappointed if they don't get an opportunity to visit violence on someone. And in my experience, the latter group is not insignificant and they are just as bad for society as a whole as the pacifists who think violence is never the solution.

Indifference and respect is more like it. I use my martial arts in competition and my vast arsenal at the range to get my kicks and use my skills as often as possible.

I'm not eager to use either against another person. I'm no more eager to engage in violence against another person anymore than I am to have them break into my house and steal from me. However I'm cold and indifferent to the idea of using it in principle. I feel neither excitement nor remorse, rather I accept that it was simply an unfortunate situation, but one that was going to end in my favor one way or another with the least effort on my part.


There are very few people like that in my experience, and I tend to agree with your view. Life experience and maturity is the issue with what you proposed.

I on the other hand am against the norm in that the more powerful I make my car, the less likely I am to drive aggressively or speed ridiculously. Go figure.

I've commented to the contrary (ie: said I wish more criminals would kill to steal so people would start growing a pair and defend themselves) but I don't mean it literally. It's more of accepting that it would take extreme circumstances to wake people up and instill a self assertive mentally and confidence that so many people lack. To break our society out of the sheep mold it's presently in.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...
Perhaps I'm wrong, it certainly wouldn't be the first time. But while I don't disagree with your philosophy, it has been my experience that people who go around boasting of that philosophy very rarely seem to actually follow it. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is good advice, but saying you are one of those "rare people" who believes in it usually seems to mean that you are just ITCHING for a chance to smack someone with that big stick. Since overt aggression is somewhat taboo in our society, the folks who still want to behave that way find some clever philosophy to hide behind, but very rarely do they actually seem to really believe it.

I am not making any judgments about you in particular, like I said, there are always exceptions to every rule. I'm just explaining the reasoning behind my initial statement. Violence and death are indeed real facts of life, my problem is with people who seem like they would be upset if they weren't.

Like I said, I might be biased by my own experiences, which mostly revolve around martial arts. Because of the philosophy inherent in most older martial arts, the "pro-violence" folks stand out pretty well. And it's real obvious what the difference is. You get the people there because they want to know how to defend themselves barehanded if they ever have to and you get the people who want to learn how to hurt people. It seems like a minor difference, but it's not. The former group trains in the hope of never having to use what they know, while the latter group will be disappointed if they don't get an opportunity to visit violence on someone. And in my experience, the latter group is not insignificant and they are just as bad for society as a whole as the pacifists who think violence is never the solution.

Indifference and respect is more like it. I use my martial arts in competition and my vast arsenal at the range to get my kicks and use my skills as often as possible.

I'm not eager to use either against another person. I'm no more eager to engage in violence against another person anymore than I am to have them break into my house and steal from me. However I'm cold and indifferent to the idea of using it in principle. I feel neither excitement nor remorse, rather I accept that it was simply an unfortunate situation, but one that was going to end in my favor one way or another with the least effort on my part.


There are very few people like that in my experience, and I tend to agree with your view. Life experience and maturity is the issue with what you proposed.

I on the other hand am against the norm in that the more powerful I make my car, the less likely I am to drive aggressively or speed ridiculously. Go figure.

I've commented to the contrary (ie: said I wish more criminals would kill to steal so people would start growing a pair and defend themselves) but I don't mean it literally. It's more of accepting that it would take extreme circumstances to wake people up and instill a self assertive mentally and confidence that so many people lack. To break our society out of the sheep mold it's presently in.

I used to do martial arts competitions, but I no longer am really interested in competitive martial arts...I tend to think they focus on the wrong things. I'm still trying to unlearn the bad habits I picked up fighting in a ring that don't work quite so well in real life. So maybe THAT'S what I was picking up on, clearly we have a bit of a philosophical difference somewhere

But I do think we agree on this more than we disagree. However, I don't think the "grow a pair" problem is as much an issue as some people think. It seems quite popular to assume that everyone other than a small, elite group (which of course the speaker ALWAYS belongs to) is a sheep, but I don't think that's really all that true. Most people I've met seem willing to defend themselves, the problem is more that they don't know how. Suburban commando pronouncements aside, we live in a pretty safe society, learning how to REALLY defend yourself is not all that popular an activity.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: exdeath
...
You ever listen to the careful wording that police and operators use?

They never say you can't do something, they merely say you shouldn't or that they recommend against it while basically conceding that you do what you need to do to protect yourself.

Such concepts as citizens arrest and civic duty and things like that have been long lost on the masses of sheep. If you so much as breath without a police officer on the scene now you are labeled a vigilante. That is how the leftist pacifist education and media institutions have raised the sheep.

ie: they burn into children's heads in elementary schools that fighting is wrong no matter what and that you should "tell an authority figure" even when cornered by a bully and you will get in trouble if you punch back. Or TV ads that suggest you should give them your wallet and run or use your keys as a weapon, purposely omitting more effective solutions like enlisting in a conceal carry program with a local law enforcement center. And showing guns and handcuffs on the screen whenever they are talking about crime in the news, etc.

Some of us can see right through that social conditioning shit. I hope others can start to see it too.

Yeah, because YOU aren't socially conditioned AT ALL... :roll:

Face it, your attitude is as much a product of a stupid, reactionary culture as much as the unrelenting pacifists...only your problem goes the other way. I can't think of a clever, focus group tested animal analogy at the moment, but you aren't "seeing right through" anything. Instead of being a mindless pacifist, you're a mindless "tough guy". Instead of violence NEVER being the answer, it's ALWAYS the answer. Not only should you "hit back" if a bully corners you on the playground, you should hit back if someone accidentally steps on your foot, or says something you don't like, or looks at you funny. Sorry, but that's NOT a good alternative.

I realize you didn't come right out and say a lot of that, so if you are the 0.00001% of people who use the word "sheep" (at least you didn't say "sheeple") and AREN'T an overly aggressive jackass, I apologize.

I'm actually not all that aggressive. I follow the speak softly and carry a big stick philosophy. I just want to mind my own business and live and let live, but <insert fairy of your choice> help you if you infringe on my ability to do so.

I'm one of those rare people who on their own, the more power they have the more discretion they use in exercising it. That doesn't mean however, that I'm afraid to use it of circumstances warrant it.

I'm not as brainwashed and sheltered as the rest of society. I understand that things like violence and death are necessary and real facts of life. I don't falsely pretend that everybody is good and everybody is equal and everybody lives forever. Given the choice I prefer to avoid violence, and I do my part to be civilized. But I will resort to violence without hesitation when it is the most effective means of ending a confrontation when it is justified. The key difference with me is that the violence is instigated by an aggressor and it stops when the aggression or wrong doing stops, unlike criminals who openly engage in violence freely to express their malicious intentions all the time.

Perhaps I'm wrong, it certainly wouldn't be the first time. But while I don't disagree with your philosophy, it has been my experience that people who go around boasting of that philosophy very rarely seem to actually follow it. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is good advice, but saying you are one of those "rare people" who believes in it usually seems to mean that you are just ITCHING for a chance to smack someone with that big stick. Since overt aggression is somewhat taboo in our society, the folks who still want to behave that way find some clever philosophy to hide behind, but very rarely do they actually seem to really believe it.

I am not making any judgments about you in particular, like I said, there are always exceptions to every rule. I'm just explaining the reasoning behind my initial statement. Violence and death are indeed real facts of life, my problem is with people who seem like they would be upset if they weren't.

Like I said, I might be biased by my own experiences, which mostly revolve around martial arts. Because of the philosophy inherent in most older martial arts, the "pro-violence" folks stand out pretty well. And it's real obvious what the difference is. You get the people there because they want to know how to defend themselves barehanded if they ever have to and you get the people who want to learn how to hurt people. It seems like a minor difference, but it's not. The former group trains in the hope of never having to use what they know, while the latter group will be disappointed if they don't get an opportunity to visit violence on someone. And in my experience, the latter group is not insignificant and they are just as bad for society as a whole as the pacifists who think violence is never the solution.

I think you're seeing it as two extremes when in reality it's a gradient. I almost never meet a true pacifist, and neither do I usually meet a bloodthirsty killer (though I have met both). Instead I meet people with different thresholds of violence. In my experience that threshold is usually established (or at least modified) by their personal experiences.

While I myself detest violence I recognize its necessity in real world applications. I therefore act reasonably to deter it, but when its use is required I am willing to apply it absolutely with no fear of regret. Just like I see in others this is largely due to my own experiences.