OT: Two parties

Page 5 of 9  


I am priviliged to live in a place where people are generally civil. And yes, we all are vigilant and admonish teenagers who misbehave. When 3 years old, my granddaughter was escorted back to her home by a well- intentioned citizen, because she seemed to be wandering around without adult supervision. She was (with permission and foreknowledge of the people involved) on her way from her parents' home to her grandparents' home. Yes Radburn is nice: http://radburn.org .
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

There is a bit of a distinction to that final statement and one that they make very clear to people taking CCW courses. The police carry to protect themselves and others. The private citizen OTOH carries to protect himself [and those near and dear to him]. Private citizens are under no obligation to become involved in a crime scene other than as a good witness, they may choose to become involved if they believe that someone's life is in danger. Police are obligated to become involved, even if it puts them in personal danger.
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or they work in Portland, Oregon where SERT gets called out to deal with "potentially armed suspects", even After the police on scene have shot the suspect.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Nope. Police are not obligated, by law, custom, or common sense to become involved. They often do but only because of their personal nature. My training sergeant told me you always drive slowly to a "fight in progress" call and hope it's over with by the time you get there.
On the other hand, there are those - police and civilian - who will rush to the sound of the guns.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Correct. The police are not obligated to protect you in any way. This has long been established in case law. Their job is to document violations and apprehend the culprits after the fact. If they do happen to be there and decide to protect you, all the better.

Fools rush in...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

No, warriors rush in. We have a warrior class in this country. It exists in the shadows but its members recognize each other.
----- Only the hard and strong may call themselves Spartans.
Only the hard. Only the strong.
We march.
For our lands. For our families. For our freedom.
We march.
Into the Hot Gates we march. Into that narrow corridor we march. Where Xerxes numbers count for nothing.
Spartans. Citizen soldiers, freed slaves, free Greeks all.
Brothers. Fathers. Sons.
We march.
For honor's sake. For duty's sake. For glory's sake.
We march.
Into Hell's mouth we march.
Just there the barbarians huddle, sheer terror gripping tight their hearts with icy fingers... knowing full well what merciless horrors they suffered at the swords and spears of three hundred. Yet they stare now across the plain at TEN THOUSAND Spartans commanding thirty thousand free Greeks!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Just so you are clear -- the job of the police is to protect society, not necessarily you personally. This has been established by law and judicial rulings. Therefore, if you are a victim of a crime, they will attempt to get to you as expeditiously as possible. If they get there in time, that is to your good. If not, they will, in execution of their duty, gather evidence, take statements, and attempt to find the perp before he commits a similar crime. Many times, they aren't successful, so once again, they investigate the next crime scene, take evidence and continue the investigation. If you happen to be one of the victims while "they are doing their job" it's too bad for you, but useful to the job of protecting society because it provides additional information and evidence for the police to use in their investigations.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If you happen to be one of the victims while "they are doing

for the good of the community.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, they believe that *you* should die for the good of the community.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

To amplify, there is NO law requiring the police to protect anybody. Courts have consistently held that the police have NO duty to protect anyone.
The D.C. Court of Appeals actually said it is "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." (Warren v. District of Columbia). See: http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf
Also DeShaney v. Winnebago County that any harm that come to a citizen is the sole responsibility of the the attacker, not an agency of the state for failing to prevent a crime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County
Also Castle Rock vs. Gonzales where the Supreme Court held a police department cannot be sued for failure to enforce a restraining order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
The actual JOB of the police is to catch the goblin, not protect society. That some protection accrues when the do-bad is taken off the street is a useful by-product, but certainly not the goal of the police.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
:

that murder is illegal and carries heavy penalties. I have had a carry permit for the last 28 years. It's amazing how many people seem to think a carry permit gives one the right to shoot people at will. I have no more right to do that than you do. There do seem to be plenty of people that think that criminals should have the right to kill or injure someone without having to worry that they may be the one being fitted for a body bag. BTW, if you are wondering if I have ever needed the gun, the answer is yes. About two weeks ago, a knife wielding slimebag tried to rob me, late at night at an ATM. The sight of my 38 was enough to make him think that that was a bad idea.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/31/2010 8:26 PM, CW wrote:

Good on you! You were obviously raised with a sense of right and wrong, and the fortitude to insure that you will not be a victim of those who weren't.
In short, the more we have like you, the better for everyone ... this very country's history is full of examples of the necessity to protect yourself and your family from bullies and thieves, mostly by arming yourself with the necessary tools.
The sheeple would forego that option in the warm and fuzzy hope that government will ultimately protect them.
Ha!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree, good for you, CW! But I hesitate to think what would have happened if the slimebag had had a gun.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/1/2010 7:55 AM, Han wrote:

In a word: "training" ... the single most important factor.
It is a sure bet that CW was well trained to deal with many situations as part of his qualification for a concealed handgun license, the slimebag, most likely not.
Training won't guarantee a good outcome, but it increases the likelihood.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Frightening for this coward ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/1/2010 8:18 AM, Han wrote:

Rejected. I'll buy that it might be frightening, but not "coward".
Everyone experiences fear, so you've got a lot of company in that area. As far as I've been able to tell, fear is the unprocessed recognition of possible danger. Fear is the trigger for the instinctive fight-or-flight response, which is sometimes useful and sometimes not.
Cowardice is a pre-decision to always go with the flight instinct, to flee danger, and to always avoid predictable risk. You've revealed enough to this group to have disqualified yourself from the "coward" category. (I cannot even imagine any real coward choosing a pattern of daily life that involved a metro pedestrian commute to a laboratory environment to work with even just sometimes hazardous radiological and biological materials!)
As someone once told me: It is not our fear that distinguished us, but how we respond to it.
So, my violence-abhorring non-coward friend, I'd like to invite you to spend a bit of your commute time re-thinking that "coward" bit and considering some more accurate categorization. :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You bring tears to my eyes, Morris! Fear to me is the realization of the possibility of unknown (unknowable) things happening at some point in time and (now) not knowing how you should/would/might react.
As far as the chemical, biological and radiological hazards I deal with - those are well-known to me (I think, which is the dangerous part). I do protect myself in appropriate clothing and environment when I take umbilical cords from unknown mothers and attempt to isolate the cells lining the umbilical vein from all the blood and gore and virses that might be lurking in that container. It is really rather simple, though bloody. I also know how to dispose of the waste afterwards. Same thing for less spectacular dangers ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/1/2010 2:22 PM, Han wrote:

Not knowing is generally a remediable condition. :)
Identifying what you don't know is a powerful start.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
scrawled the following:

Han, would you rather not have -any- chance at saving your own (or someone else's) life? Which is truly scarier? Bad guys kill and rape people (both men and women) all the time. Wouldn't you rather have a fighting chance when you meet one of them?
When I lived in California, 80 miles from HelL.A., I was very much anti-handgun. Then a friend urged me to do the research on it. To my extreme surprise, I found that the stats were all fudged up. The Powers That Be include _suicides_ in handgun deaths and don't exclude gang killings, which is probably the highest percentage (though I've never seen the stats on that.) I ended up enjoying time at the range and later got licensed. They have machine gun shoots twice a year and I got to feel, hear, and shoot both M-16s and AK-47s on full auto and single/burst modes. That's a real hoot. The AK had a 90-round drum on it. <very big grin>
CDC FACTS: (not that they'd state it this way ;)
Alzheimers kills more people in the USA every year than guns do. (74k vs 12k homicides)
Cars kill more people in the USA every year than guns do. (45k)
Nephritis kills more people in the USA every year than guns do. (45k)
Handgun training, maybe $100, gives you that knowledge for life. Think about that, not the fear of guns.
-- Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire, you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will. -- George Bernard Shaw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Try a 50 caliber belt fed BMG (Browning machine gun) sometime. Extremly expensive to shoot. The army picked up the tab for me. Also for the pistol and rifle training.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.