Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Hypothetically speaking

Jeff in TXJeff in TX Senior MemberPosts: 2,054 Senior Member
I was watching some of the news this weeks and the not guilty verdict of the policeman in the Missouri. The protest for the most part seemed organized and peaceful until it got dark. The news captured footage of this one rather large guy kicking in the plate glass windows of businesses. My wife turned and said if that was your business you'd have shot him for breaking in. Yep was my reply. She said you do realize the media and community would spin as you intentionally shot a fine upstanding young man for no reason, even though it was on video. I said YEP! My rights as a business/ store owner are superseded by thugs that fits societies narrative as truly fine upstanding people out for a night of peaceful protesting.

I'd be going to jail wouldn't I?
Distance is not an issue, but the wind can make it interesting!

John 3: 1-21

Replies

  • john9001john9001 Senior Member Posts: 668 Senior Member
    L.A. riots, armed Korean store owners.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,670 Senior Member
    If the city managers let these riots go on without doing something, they probably aren't going to protect your rights as a businessman and gun-owner.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    I do not understand these protests. I 'not guilty' verdict means this was not a case of police brutality or racism or excessive force. That should make the protesters very happy, since their community was not the victim of persecution or abuse.

    If the officer had been convicted, that would be proof of Black lives Matter's accusations, and reforms would certainly have been in order.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    I do not understand these protests. I 'not guilty' verdict means this was not a case of police brutality or racism or excessive force. That should make the protesters very happy, since their community was not the victim of persecution or abuse.

    If the officer had been convicted, that would be proof of Black lives Matter's accusations, and reforms would certainly have been in order.

    Yeah? What am I missing with that explanation?
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Yeah? What am I missing with that explanation?

    Damned if you; damned if you don't. That's what you're missing.

    Using firearms to stop looters seems to be a problem. I suggest compound bows, longbows, recurve bows, and crossbows with dull broadheads. That will confuse the daylights out of both looters and the gun grabbers.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    john9001 wrote: »
    L.A. riots, armed Korean store owners.
    I remember that. Military service is mandatory for South Korean males. ROKs are ****.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,920 Senior Member
    sgtrock21 wrote: »
    I remember that. Military service is mandatory for South Korean males. ROKs are ****.

    My duty station in Korea was a joint Army, Air Force, ROK outpost. Worked with the ROKs every day.....tough bastards. Saw a ROK private drop his weapon while in formation one day....after the Sgt got done applying corrective action they carried him off to the dispensary....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 21,093 Senior Member
    Jeff in TX wrote: »

    I'd be going to jail wouldn't I?
    Probably for a LONG, LONG time :cuss:
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    The question I have to ask when I see these social justice demonstrations/riots is what kind of justice system do they want to impose in its place?

    Unless we want permanent anarchy, we have to have a system that works for the majority of people and accept the results of it. When we agree with a verdict, we can say, "So what? It just did what it was designed to do." When we don't agree, we have an appeals process, and we use it, and if we still don't agree, we can whine about it and look for politicians that say they want to correct it before the next time. But in the end, we have to accept it, because a majority elected the people who made the law.

    That said, it is obvious that the goal of these protests is anarchy, for the sake of anarchy, and then we have to ask, "Who is it that wants anarchy? Who benefits when our institutions are brought down?"

    Nobody I know, or want to know. Smart people came up with our justice system and it just barely works, so I damned sure don't want to see what kind of system these morons would put into place.
  • Jack BurtonJack Burton Member Posts: 379 Member
    Jeff in TX wrote: »
    I was watching some of the news this weeks and the not guilty verdict of the policeman in the Missouri. The protest for the most part seemed organized and peaceful until it got dark. The news captured footage of this one rather large guy kicking in the plate glass windows of businesses. My wife turned and said if that was your business you'd have shot him for breaking in. Yep was my reply. She said you do realize the media and community would spin as you intentionally shot a fine upstanding young man for no reason, even though it was on video. I said YEP! My rights as a business/ store owner are superseded by thugs that fits societies narrative as truly fine upstanding people out for a night of peaceful protesting.

    I'd be going to jail wouldn't I?

    A man kicking in your businesses window demonstrates enough violence to inflict death or great bodily harm. Most jurisdictions the castle doctrine includes your place of business, essentially meaning no duty to retreat.

    As always, a lot depends on how you handle the aftermath. Or how you are allowed to handle it if you catch the notice of a large group of peaceful rioters none too pleased with your choice of conflict resolution. Chances are calling 911 on a night of rioting will result in either a busy signal or a promise from the operator that police and ambulance will be there asap, but may not show for hours. Keep calling, if busy it will be stored in your cell phones memory, if they answer you will be recorded multiple times imploring the operator that a man needs medical attention (and handcuffs).
    Came for the fishing, stayed for the guns.
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    My duty station in Korea was a joint Army, Air Force, ROK outpost. Worked with the ROKs every day.....tough bastards. Saw a ROK private drop his weapon while in formation one day....after the Sgt got done applying corrective action they carried him off to the dispensary....
    I never worked with ROKs but was billeted next to some at Nellis AFB in 1980. They were in formation without weapons when the SGT apparently discovered an unbuttoned shirt pocket. That resulted in an instant roundhouse right to the side of the soldiers head who seemed to magically bounce off the ground returning to the position of attention. The SGT was already inspecting his next potential victim.
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    The question I have to ask when I see these social justice demonstrations/riots is what kind of justice system do they want to impose in its place?

    Unless we want permanent anarchy, we have to have a system that works for the majority of people and accept the results of it. When we agree with a verdict, we can say, "So what? It just did what it was designed to do." When we don't agree, we have an appeals process, and we use it, and if we still don't agree, we can whine about it and look for politicians that say they want to correct it before the next time. But in the end, we have to accept it, because a majority elected the people who made the law.

    That said, it is obvious that the goal of these protests is anarchy, for the sake of anarchy, and then we have to ask, "Who is it that wants anarchy? Who benefits when our institutions are brought down?"

    Nobody I know, or want to know. Smart people came up with our justice system and it just barely works, so I damned sure don't want to see what kind of system these morons would put into place.
    I'm guessing Law of the Jungle.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    Can't remember the NE city they were protesting in, but ANTIFA was demanding that all capitalists leave the city. Now here's were ANITFA shows how profoundly **** they are. No capitalists means no businesses selling food, clothing, and other necessities. No water or electricity, either. No fuel for vehicles. Those **** would starve to death and die of thirst and succumb to the weather, before they figured out they'd screwed themselves big time. That's the mentality of those idiots; they don't know what they want, and don't know that what they do want would kill them in short order.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    I suppose it depends on where you live. Since in Texas you can defend your property by force, you would be fine I'm thinking. In Missouri, you would probably be ok, with your best chances being anywhere but St Louis or Kansas City.

    What I think you're saying, but didn't exactly say it, is that the more liberal the city, the more jeopardy you expose yourself to by defending your life and property. Even in a state with stand your ground laws.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    Since in Texas you can defend your property by force, you would be fine I'm thinking.

    Just don't do it in Austin- - - - -chances are the he/she/it you shoot would be a member of a "protected class" of victims.
    Jerry
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    When we agree with a verdict, we can say, "So what? It just did what it was designed to do." When we don't agree, we have an appeals process, and we use it, and if we still don't agree, we can whine about it and look for politicians that say they want to correct it before the next time. But in the end, we have to accept it, because a majority elected the people who made the law.

    The bigger problem with this verdict (and many other cops on trial) is they waive their right to a jury trial. They opt for a bench trial. When they are found not guilty it looks like the fix is in. I read the interview with the judge after the trial.

    This is slightly paraphrased: "The officer could not have planted a weapon because no other officer reported such an event."

    "The officer reasonable feared for his life."

    "The officer simply stating 'I'm gonna kill that expletive' does not mean literally kill him. It was in the heat of the moment."

    I KNOW I'm biased, but these appear to be very weak statements, based on the video and DNA evidence and witnesses at the scene.


    I'm reminded of the Rodney King footage. How do you watch that and say "Not guilty"?
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • Jack BurtonJack Burton Member Posts: 379 Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »


    I'm reminded of the Rodney King footage. How do you watch that and say "Not guilty"?

    You do know that that verdict came from a jury? The camcorder video cassette of the Rodney King beating was given to a news station by the person who shot it. The news station edited it to what we all endlessly saw: 4 or 5 cops beating the snot out of a black man who was not resisting. Nothing was seen of the OC spray and tasers hits having no effect on him on an obviously resisting 6'3" man who led police on quite the car chase through residential neighborhoods. The defense team subpoenaed the whole cassette and that jury were the only citizens who saw the entire video and a not guilty verdict was the result.
    Came for the fishing, stayed for the guns.
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    The bigger problem with this verdict (and many other cops on trial) is they waive their right to a jury trial. They opt for a bench trial. When they are found not guilty it looks like the fix is in. I read the interview with the judge after the trial.
    . I'm reminded of the Rodney King footage. How do you watch that and say "Not guilty"?

    Having, over the years, served on my share of juries, I've learned never to form a verdict on any case until I've heard and considered all the testimony and cross-examinations of sworn witnesses, and examined all the exhibits into evidence.

    Are you seriously admitting that you watched the "fake news" version of the Rodney King video and actually came to a conclusion? You're an adult now. That means accepting very little of what you see and hear from the mainstream media. You know that rarely is anything as it appears or seems. You know that every story is viewed through the distorted lenses of political correctness and the progressive agenda.

    Be skeptical. Of everything.





    Except me, of course.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Remember the audio editing of the 9-1-1 conversation George Zimmerman had about Treyvon Martin? Why would anyone take edited content at face value? Can you spell "Gullible"?
    :uhm:
    Jerry
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior Member Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    Just breaking the window ... not that likely. Now if he entered the premises that adds to the likelihood.

    Now if I had a bull whip he’d be bleeding from the back and butt!
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    You do know that that verdict came from a jury? The camcorder video cassette of the Rodney King beating was given to a news station by the person who shot it. The news station edited it to what we all endlessly saw: 4 or 5 cops beating the snot out of a black man who was not resisting. Nothing was seen of the OC spray and tasers hits having no effect on him on an obviously resisting 6'3" man who led police on quite the car chase through residential neighborhoods. The defense team subpoenaed the whole cassette and that jury were the only citizens who saw the entire video and a not guilty verdict was the result.

    Not only do I know THAT verdict came from a jury, I lived in N. Long Beach for all of it. I literally survived the riots in '92.

    So this doesn't turn into a fake news argument:


    The trial was moved to Simi Valley instead of Los Angeles.

    There was no OC spray used. The taser knocked King to the ground where the beating began. It appears he did lunge towards a cop. You can watch it on YouTube.
    INITIAL REPORTS

    * LAPD officers wrote in their police reports that it was necessary to subdue King with "several baton strikes" and two shots from a Taser gun because he "attacked officers" and resisted arrest.

    * Initial law enforcement accounts depict a high-speed pursuit of King's white Hyundai reaching 110 to 115 m.p.h. along the Foothill Freeway and 80 m.p.h. on surface streets in Lake View Terrace.

    * Officers say they suspect that King was high on PCP, a drug that can produce bizarre behavior.

    * The LAPD says there were 15 officers on the scene.

    CONTRADICTORY LATER REPORTS

    * A video shows King being struck more than 50 times with batons. Other witnesses offer differing accounts, but a CHP officer at the scene reports she "didn't see any need to hit him with a baton."

    * Tapes of CHP and police radio conversations make no mention of freeway speed, but say King's car was clocked at 65 m.p.h. on surface streets. Hyundai officials say that the model can't top 100 m.p.h.

    * Tests show no traces of PCP, but indicate that King was legally drunk at the time of the incident.

    * At least 27 officers were present, 21 from the LAPD.


    27 officers present and he needed to be hit 50 times before handcuffed? You see how easily you sided with the cops?
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Bottom line:

    You are either for the system of justice we have, or you are for chaos. The law is not perfect and there will be injustices. Cops are not perfect and there will be mistakes. If you can't put them in jail, you can at least get them off the streets. It is one of those situations where "the perfect is the enemy of the good."

    If you are being arrested, you must submit. No jurisdiction can afford to hire hostage negotiators for every arrest. They hire ordinary people who must learn on the job how to handle the worst situations, and they make judgements that have to be adapted when the suspect continues to escalate the confrontation. If they make the 'wrong' decision, their careers are over. When there is an organized attempt to provoke police response, a cop has to decide, ahead of time, how far he will let it go, and there will be over-reactions and cop deaths. If he follows his training, he will likely survive, but will probably lose his job, anyway.

    Consider all of the above, and tell me who wants to be a policeman? And what happens when, eventually, no one wants to be one?
  • Jack BurtonJack Burton Member Posts: 379 Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Not only do I know THAT27 officers present and he needed to be hit 50 times before handcuffed? You see how easily you sided with the cops?

    I am just NOT siding with a person who refused to obey the cops. If King just laid flat, as I most assuredly would, we would not be having this discussion.
    Came for the fishing, stayed for the guns.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Chaos will continue to rule the streets anywhere that ordinary citizens have been wussified sufficiently that they refuse to protect themselves from the rioters. The anarchists have avoided taking their dog and pony show to places where stirring the pot would get them killed by citizens who aren't restrained by the same rules of engagement the cops have to live with. That will probably continue until the average people of the dummycrap run metropolitan areas start fighting back against the rioting thugs. It's hard to climb out of a graveyard and attend the next protest, no matter how big a paycheck George Soros promises.
    Jerry
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement