Home owner fired at burglar- gets arrested

Sure, but laws usually prohibit firing a firearm in public (if it was in a city) unless in a justifiable circumstance.

And again, most of us have moved on from talking about the original story to just talking about using guns for defense in general, and what the standard of imminent danger is.

The issue in the original case is more that the thief wasn't on the guys property, so he had no cause to use a gun in anyway. And citizens shouldn't be detaining criminals, they should stay inside and call the cops and let them do their job. If a criminal is on your property, and is a threat, by all means defend yourself. Otherwise, call the cops.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Sure, but laws usually prohibit firing a firearm in public (if it was in a city) unless in a justifiable circumstance.

And again, most of us have moved on from talking about the original story to just talking about using guns for defense in general, and what the standard of imminent danger is.

The issue in the original case is more that the thief wasn't on the guys property, so he had no cause to use a gun in anyway. And citizens shouldn't be detaining criminals, they should stay inside and call the cops and let them do their job. If a criminal is on your property, and is a threat, by all means defend yourself. Otherwise, call the cops.[/QUOTE]


Oh really?

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/...r-burglary-tracks-catches-suspect-police-say/


Officer Joe Baillargeon was dispatched to the scene at about 9 p.m. and was told the victim was chasing the suspect up Stone Street. Screaming and yelling on nearby Ohio Street led Baillargeon to where the victim had caught Christopher Beayon, 20, of Kenduskeag.
“The victim was holding the suspect by the shirt and holding up two video games that he claimed he took from the suspect when he apprehended him,” Edwards said.


The best part is all the stories I have linked in this thread are from my local paper, occured in the last week, and none of the victims who used "vigilante justice" as it has been put, faced any charges.

nor should they...
 
Just have to agree to disagree. It's not the citizen's job. Now I'm not saying people should face criminal charges for detaining criminals, unless they illegitimately use physical force/lethal force.

It's just not something citizens should be putting themselves at risk for. Most people that get shot or injured in a robbery are morons who decided to resist instead of giving up their precious belongings. Even dumber to put yourself at risk to protect a neighbor's property. Property can be replaced, not worth risking your life over.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Tell me how you came to this conclusion.[/QUOTE]

Yep, shooting a firearm is always using lethal force, even if it's not aimed at someone.

That's why EVERY police shooting is investigated. Not just when they shoot at someone, but anytime they discharge their firearm it's investigated to make sure it was a legitimate shooting.

Anytime a gun is fired the bullet can potentially hit someone.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep, shooting a firearm is always using lethal force, even if it's not aimed at someone.

That's why EVERY police shooting is investigated. Not just when they shoot at someone, but anytime they discharge their firearm it's investigated to make sure it was a legitimate shooting.

Anytime a gun is fired the bullet can potentially hit someone.[/QUOTE]


Target practicing in my back yard would not be considered deadly force. I would have to believe that accidentally discharging your firearm would not be considered deadly force either.

Hell a state trooper shot someone while hunting (accidentally) and faced no charges.

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/01/...oman-mistaken-for-deer-shot-by-state-trooper/

Explain to me why he shot someone, supposedly moments before it would be illegal to sill be hunting (wonder how that works) and faced no charges but the homeowner is facing possible felony charges?

from the article:

An off-duty trooper mistook a 66-year-old Norton woman and her two dogs for a deer Saturday and shot her with a black powder rifle, just minutes before hunting season was to end, state police confirmed Sunday.
The trooper was identified Sunday by Norton police as John Bergeron, 50. Police said Bergeron, a veteran trooper, rushed to Cheryl Blair’s side and administered first aid, in addition to calling 911.

Norton, state and environmental police have ruled the shooting accidental. Bergeron allegedly told investigators he had seen a deer in the same wooded area of Oak Street earlier Saturday and fired one round when he thought he spotted a tail. Norton police said no violations were found and no charges will be filed.

State police spokesman David Procopio did not identify Bergeron by name because he faces no charges, but said the trooper is assigned to Troop C, which covers Central Massachusetts.

“He faces no charges and no internal investigation,” Procopio said in a statement. “The incident occurred while he was deer hunting while off duty. He was properly permitted, in-season, and in an appropriate area for deer hunting. The victim was hit in the torso. Upon immediately realizing what had happened, the trooper called the incident in himself and administered medical aid to the woman until EMS arrived.”

Blair remained at Rhode Island Hospital as of Sunday night. Procopio said her injuries are not considered life-threatening. The shooting occurred at 4:55 p.m., 17 minutes after sunset. Deer hunting with black powder rifles expired at 5:08 p.m. Saturday.

-----------------------------------------------------

No charges and no internal investigation for shooting someone. Huh...

But

Again, with a grain of salt as I'm no law expert and I don't pay particular attention to the details of most laws (yes I'm ignorant).....

but I don't think that is how this law will be interpreted in this instance. And given my understanding (albeit small) for how cases like these are tried in Maine and New Hampshire I don't think the homeowner will infact face any serious consequences.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep, shooting a firearm is always using lethal force, even if it's not aimed at someone.

That's why EVERY police shooting is investigated. Not just when they shoot at someone, but anytime they discharge their firearm it's investigated to make sure it was a legitimate shooting.

Anytime a gun is fired the bullet can potentially hit someone.[/QUOTE]


I guess that is only true when they are on the job.... not when they are hunting and "mistakingly" shoot an elderly woman 17 minutes after sunset
 
[quote name='Knoell']You aren't reading what I am writing.

How many times do I have to say, that the person being on the neighbors property changes things.

Someone else brought up shooting people over a vcr. That is why I brought up the fact that it doesn't matter if its a vcr or a toothpick, you don't know what is going on most of the time until after the fact.

Climbing out of a window is not fleeing. If he was climbing out of the victims window, and the victim caught him, he should most certainly be allowed to hold him at gunpoint.

Do you people even know why the guy shot a warning shot?

"I didn't think I could handle this guy physically, so I fired into the ground," "He stopped. He knew I was serious. I was angry … and I was worried that this guy was going to come after me."

It is so funny how you all play as if you were there, and are thinking the victim must have just been paranoid that the perp was going to come after him. After all, in your guys mind gun > melee, so the perp was absolutely no threat.

Again, it is different because it was a neighbors, but a few of you were arguing the idea of it if it were his own house.[/QUOTE]

I answered your question as was quoted in my earlier post so I have no idea what you are talking about. The problem with threads like this is that you have people who try to apply their personal believes without understanding the law. In this case there are are 3 types of defenses which would apply under criminal law 1) defense of self; 2) defense of another and 3) defense of property. We are dealing with defense of property (see my earlier response for rationale). The law is clear you may not use deadly force to do so. Using a gun to apprehend a suspect is considered use of deadly force. As I stated earlier if someone is stealing your car you are not allowed to shoot him or pull out a gun to apprehend him. I can only speak for NY but the law is pretty uniform throughout the north east. Also, the majority of folks in this thread have mentioned the castle doctrine and how it applies when the fact pattern changes to your home. The law is open to interpretation and it's up to the prosecution to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not passing judgement on whether the law is fair or not. I'm merely informing and showing how it applies.

P.S. the "victim's" quote is irrelevant since he put himself in that position. The thief did not seek him out.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Target practicing in my back yard would not be considered deadly force. I would have to believe that accidentally discharging your firearm would not be considered deadly force either.
[/QUOTE]

Of course target practice doesn't count, nor do police practicing in their shooting range. Though if you're in a city you can't discharge a gun in public in most of them so no back yard target practice--have to go to a range. Accidental discharge they'd probably not press charges for firing in public if they confirmed it was an accident. But they still could as the laws are generally just against discharging a gun in public for safety reason, and filing charges is a way to take away someone's firearm license who clearly wasn't practicing proper firearm safety.

Besides that we're talking about discharging a gun in public, in the ground near a person, as a warning shot, not fucking target practice. That's against the law in most states (if not all) when it's not on your own property and there isn't clear imminent danger. We're not talking about target practice or an accidental discharge, so let's drop that silly angle.

And again, everyone has said this guy isn't going to face any serious consequences, and shouldn't. Just that it is a violation of the law since it wasn't on his property and there wasn't clear imminent danger. No one has suggest this guy should get locked up or anything for this. At most he should face a misdemeanor, and he probably won't even get that.

If he had actually shot the guy, then that would have been a different story and he should get a voluntary manslaughter charge--like the guy in MD I posted about earlier who got convicted for shooting a teen running away after trying to break into his car.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']I guess that is only true when they are on the job.... not when they are hunting and "mistakingly" shoot an elderly woman 17 minutes after sunset[/QUOTE]


Of course. It refers only to their police issued weapon. Any time it's discharged (aside for the range) there's an investigation to ensure it was a legitimate shooting. Doesn't happen much anyway as the majority of officer's never fire a shot in the line of duty during their careers.

When off duty and using their own weapon they're just a regular citizen and any shootings get treated as such. In that case it was handled like any other hunting accident--though in that case he should have gotten cited for hunting after dark, assuming there are laws against that in the state in question.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Of course. It refers only to their police issued weapon. Any time it's discharged (aside for the range) there's an investigation to ensure it was a legitimate shooting. Doesn't happen much anyway as the majority of officer's never fire a shot in the line of duty during their careers.

When off duty and using their own weapon they're just a regular citizen and any shootings get treated as such. In that case it was handled like any other hunting accident--though in that case he should have gotten cited for hunting after dark, assuming there are laws against that in the state in question.[/QUOTE]


Woah... back up... The number one rule in hunting is to "Be sure of your target and what's beyond it"

So it is okay for this idiot to shoot someone? No charges, no investigate necessary? Let's not factor in that he is supposed to be a trained LEO that should have had gun safety 101 drilled into his head a million times.

Would you have confidence that this particular LEO, while out on his beat, would make good decision with his handgun when he can't even distinguish between a dear and an elderly woman?

But then let's recap... man shoots woman no charges.. man shoots ground felony charges.

I think that makes sense

Edit: And let's be clear... neither the homeowner nor the state trooper were on their own property so throw that point out the window.


Edit 2:

[quote name='dmaul1114']Of course target practice doesn't count, nor do police practicing in their shooting range. Though if you're in a city you can't discharge a gun in public in most of them so no back yard target practice--have to go to a range. Accidental discharge they'd probably not press charges for firing in public if they confirmed it was an accident. But they still could as the laws are generally just against discharging a gun in public for safety reason, and filing charges is a way to take away someone's firearm license who clearly wasn't practicing proper firearm safety.

[/QUOTE]

I guess in MA that LEO target price on elderly women hence why no charges were filed. Understood
 
On one hand, we shouldn't delve into a world of "What Ifs" - What if the criminal was tweaked out.... What if the criminal had a firearm himself... What if the criminal would go on to the next house and rape/kill someone... It's established that we shouldn't "set conditions of hypotheticals"...

On the other hand, shooting the ground is deadly force, because "What if the bullet had hit someone?"

No double standards here.
 
I wasn't in anyway implying that it was ok to shoot someone while hunting! And even said he should have faced charges since it was after dark for sure--probably got an unfair break for being a cop. So you need to work on your reading comprehension.

All I was saying is that it's not treated like firing his service weapon on duty (i.e. it's not going to get investigated by internal affairs), it's the same as any citizen shooting someone while hunting. The laws about investigating every firing of a service weapon only apply to service weapons. A cop on their own time with their own weapon is a citizen, and should be investigated and prosecuted as such if the facts show a crime was committed--just like any citizen who did the same thing.

And, again, he should have been punished for it. But fact is most hunting accidents don't end up resulting in charges when they should. So it's unfortunately not surprising that a cop got away with it.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']I guess in MA that LEO target price on elderly women hence why no charges were filed. Understood[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that the reason why no charges were filed was purely because he was a trooper, just as Cheney was the VP when he shot his friend in the face.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']On one hand, we shouldn't delve into a world of "What Ifs" - What if the criminal was tweaked out.... What if the criminal had a firearm himself... What if the criminal would go on to the next house and rape/kill someone... It's established that we shouldn't "set conditions of hypotheticals"...

On the other hand, shooting the ground is deadly force, because "What if the bullet had hit someone?"

No double standards here.[/QUOTE]

Discharging a firearm is considered use of deadly force under the law. A person is justified in using deadly force when he or she is in imminent danger. Why are we still talking about this?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']On one hand, we shouldn't delve into a world of "What Ifs" - What if the criminal was tweaked out.... What if the criminal had a firearm himself... What if the criminal would go on to the next house and rape/kill someone... It's established that we shouldn't "set conditions of hypotheticals"...

On the other hand, shooting the ground is deadly force, because "What if the bullet had hit someone?"

No double standards here.[/QUOTE]


It is very obvious that almost everyone here has a better understanding of the legal system then myself, despite the fact that I'm sure I've been in more legal trouble then most (but that is another story).

Regardless how is shooting the ground by joe average deadly force and a potential felony but shooting an elderly woman in Mass., a state with perhaps the most strict gun laws in the nation, not a crime nor is it worthy of an investigation by the State Police when the shooter was supposed to be trained in this area.

Can someone explain this to me?

I'm not pulling random friggen articles from all over the country. Everything I posted, like I mentioned earlier, was in my local paper.

Everything happened in Maine, NH or Mass (all New England States) and while they are not all relevant to eachother I just want someone to answer:

Why is it deadly force and a potential felony to shoot the ground but not deadly force and not a crime to shoot someone?

It is a very basic question
 
[quote name='dohdough']I'm pretty sure that the reason why no charges were filed was purely because he was a trooper, just as Cheney was the VP when he shot his friend in the face.[/QUOTE]

Either the victim failed to press charges or the prosecutor decided it was not worth his or her time to do so.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Discharging a firearm is considered use of deadly force under the law. A person is justified in using deadly force when he or she is in imminent danger. Why are we still talking about this?[/QUOTE]

Because nobody ever let facts get in the way of a good, strong opinion.

I don't know if you spend much time in the vs forum, but that's kind of our m.o.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']
Regardless how is shooting the ground by joe average deadly force and a potential felony but shooting an elderly woman in Mass., a state with perhaps the most strict gun laws in the nation, not a crime nor is it worthy of an investigation by the State Police when the shooter was supposed to be trained in this area.

Can someone explain this to me?
[/QUOTE]

No one said that the hunting accident wasn't a crime potentially, nor that it shouldn't be investigayed. You just fail miserably at reading comprehension.

As I said above, all my post said was it wasn't with his service weapon, so it doesn't get investigated by internal affairs. It's was an off duty incident with his own weapon, so he should have been investigated by the police like any citizen who shoots someone should have.

And he probably, was. All your article said was that there were no charges or internal discipline for him. So like most hunting accidents it probably got investigated, written off as an accident and the law wasn't enforced--and he may well have gotten a BS break for being a cop.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I wasn't in anyway implying that it was ok to shoot someone while hunting! And even said he should have faced charges since it was after dark for sure--probably got an unfair break for being a cop. So you need to work on your reading comprehension.

All I was saying is that it's not treated like firing his issues weapon on duty, it's the same as any citizen shooting someone while hunting. The laws about investigating every firing of a service weapon only apply to service weapons. A cop on their own time with their own weapon is a citizen, and should be investigated and prosecuted as such if the facts show a crime was committed.

And, again, he should have been punished for it. But fact is most hunting accidents don't end up resulting in charges when they should. So it's unfortunately not surprising that a cop got away with it.[/QUOTE]


That is not true. In fact in Maine must hunting "accidents" are prosecuted because as the law is writtten there is no such thing as a hunting accident.

The number one rule is to confirm what you are shooting at.. beyond any doubt.


Secondly, maybe it is a myth but I thought there were documented cases about military personel being charged much stricter for being involved in fights that led to a homicide because they were trained to kill and their hands were "deadly weapons" which to me would mean that a trained state police officer should be held at a higher standard when it comes to accidentally shooting someone because he is suppoesd to be skilled with a firearm.

And dohdough... I 100% agree with you, as weird as that may be.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']That is not true. In fact in Maine must hunting "accidents" are prosecuted because as the law is writtten there is no such thing as a hunting accident.

The number one rule is to confirm what you are shooting at.. beyond any doubt.
[/QUOTE]

If that's the case, then he probably got a bullshit break for being a cop.

In any case, I never remotely implied that it was ok that he got off for it. Just that it wasn't a service weapon so it doesn't get investigated by internal every time it's discharged--which was what my earlier post was referring to.

If the state law on hunting accidents is what you say it is, then it's complete BS that he wasn't prosecuted.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']No one said that the hunting accident wasn't a crime potentially, nor that it shouldn't be investigayed. You just fail miserably at reading comprehension.

As I said above, all my post said was it wasn't with his service weapon, so it doesn't get investigated by internal affairs. It's was an off duty incident with his own weapon, so he should have been investigated by the police like any citizen who shoots someone should have.

And he probably, was. All your article said was that there were no charges or internal discipline for him. So like most hunting accidents it probably got investigated, written off as an accident and the law wasn't enforced--and he may well have gotten a BS break for being a cop.[/QUOTE]

Yes. Shooting happened on Saturday and by press time Tuesday it was deemed no charges. Quite the investigation.

It is apparent that I am a moron and can't read. That still doesn't take away from the fact that I want more clarification why shooting the ground is use of deadly force (Felony) and shooting someone else is not.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Because nobody ever let facts get in the way of a good, strong opinion.

I don't know if you spend much time in the vs forum, but that's kind of our m.o.[/QUOTE]

I avoided it for years but I caved in recently because I enjoy some of the usual banter. There are some really good posters such as yourself or dmaul and many others.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']It is apparent that I am a moron and can't read. That still doesn't take away from the fact that I want more clarification why shooting the ground is use of deadly force (Felony) and shooting someone else is not.[/QUOTE]

I've outlined that several times, if you haven't gotten it by now, you're not just a moron, but are in fact dumber than a sack of hammers.

One last time--both are uses of deadly force!

All I said about the hunting incident is that it wouldn't automatically get investigated (by internal affairs) as it's not a police shooting. It was a civilian shooting with a civilian weapon and should have been investigated and prosecuted. He got a BS break from being a cop. End of story.

I can't waste any more time with you. Spend enough time trying to inform morons in the classroom (which I have to go do in 25 minutes), not going to do it in my freetime! Ignore +1.
 
Is the law regarding shooting/using a firearm being qualified as deadly force a state law, federal law or made up law?

I just want to know because if it is a state by state or made up law then I can understand why the state trooper wasn't prosecuted.

If it is a federal law there are no excuses.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I've outlined that several times, if you haven't gotten it by now, you're not just a moron, but are in fact dumber than a sack of hammers.

One last time--both are uses of deadly force!

All I said about the hunting incident is that it wouldn't automatically get investigated (by internal affairs) as it's not a police shooting. It was a civilian shooting with a civilian weapon and should have been investigated and prosecuted. He got a BS break from being a cop. End of story.

I can't waste any more time with you. Spend enough time trying to inform morons in the classroom (which I have to go do in 25 minutes), not going to do it in my freetime! Ignore +1.[/QUOTE]


Nice. So you don't see the irony in shooting someone being deadly force but not a crime but shooting the ground being deadly force AND a potential felony?
 
Jesus, shouldn't have refreshed before putting you on ignore....

For fuck's sake, are you an imbecile?

I clearly said in the post you quoted that both should be prosecuted! Both are use of deadly force! The hunting accident just isn't a police matter to be investigated automatically by internal affairs, which is what happens to any time a service weapon is discharged.

And the hunting accident is much worse. Shooting the ground shouldn't be prosecuted as a felony--as myself and others have said repeatedly in this thread. He should get a misdemeanor at most, or even just some kind of reprimand. Our system doesn't lead to most crimes being prosecuted as the law dictates. Discretion is used to keep many cases out of the system period (and misused in cases like this where a cop got preferential treatment) and other times to down grade to lesser charges through plea bargaining--which giving the person who shot the ground a misdemeanor instead of a felony would be a legitimate usage.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Is the law regarding shooting/using a firearm being qualified as deadly force a state law, federal law or made up law?

I just want to know because if it is a state by state or made up law then I can understand why the state trooper wasn't prosecuted.

If it is a federal law there are no excuses.[/QUOTE]

State law governs in this case. The prosecutor/ DA has to bring forth a case against the trooper. Keep in mind that not all cases are prosecuted. It is up to the prosecutor's discretion of whether or not the state can make a case. Also, the elderly woman might need to press charges depending on what the charge is.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Jesus, shouldn't have refreshed before putting you on ignore....

For fuck's sake, are you an imbecile?

I clearly said in the post you quoted that both should be prosecuted! Both are use of deadly force! The hunting accident just isn't a police matter to be investigated automatically by internal affairs, which is what happens to any time a service weapon is discharged.

And the hunting accident is much worse. Shooting the ground shouldn't be prosecuted as a felony--as myself and others have said repeatedly in this thread. He should get a misdemeanor at most, or even just some kind of reprimand.[/QUOTE]


I agree with 100% of everything you said and apologize if I ruined your day. Hopefully not of your students question/challenge/disagree with you. I would hate for your to call them a "moron" "Imbecile" or even worse to "Go back to ________"

Have a good day and thank you for the discussion
 
Most students would be too embarrassed to put forth such a ridiculous argument in the middle of a class of their peers.
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ

/forum[/QUOTE]


Do you think it is necessary (or adult like) to name call? Seriously? I have thick skin and it doesn't bother me in the slightest however I actually feel bad when others who are engaged in an argument resort to it.

Dohdough.. I give you all the credit in the word; and I should have made that more transparent in the other threads. You are obviously well educated not only in your beliefs but in general. I disagree with many of your views and some of your tactics but correct me if I'm wrong I haven't insulted you or any other poster directly as it's not my style.

Not I'm annoying and dense... and the way I phrase things might seem like an attack but come on.. I was trying to prove one little point and this thread spiraled beyond repair.


All I was trying to point out was that it is silly to arrest someone for a felony for shooting the ground when someone else shoot an elderly woman on accident and will face no charges. It just so happened the person in scenario two was a LEO.

Maybe it's irrelevant; maybe it's not....

I guess I don't have big enough pants to hang out with the regulars.
 
[quote name='Clak']Most students would be too embarrassed to put forth such a ridiculous argument in the middle of a class of their peers.[/QUOTE]


Elaborate please.

I linked the following stores and explaind why. I didn't not pull "facts from my head".

Article 1)

Man is robbed. Shoots the people who broke into his home. One died. As they were driving away he fired two shoots at their car which did in fact hit the car

Why? Someone posted that you should not shoot at anyone as they are leaving the crime. No charges filed.

Article 2)

Local gun shops are reporting increase in gun sales due to spikes in home invasions

Why? Someone mentioned that we should sit in our homes call the police and not engage criminals. Apparently the public thinks differently


Article 3)

Man chases theif who robs his car and subdues him until police arrive

Why? Someone mentioned we again should let police do their jobs and if we take the law into our own hand we should be arrested. No charges filed.


Article 4)

State police man shoots elderly woman whom he mistook for a deer

Why? No charges were filed in this case. I just thought it was ironic.


Excuse me for linking local stories. I'm not searching fox news or anything of the sort. All these were posted in my local paper in the last six weeks, three of the articles were in the last week.

I guess that is rediculous?
 
I know what you're saying GBAStar. You're just using good ol' fashioned common sense.

If they give this guy a stern talking-to, I don't think it means that everyone's going to go out and play Batman. I think alot of folks are overthinking it.
 
[quote name='Clak']If you can't figure it out, I'm not 'splaining it.[/QUOTE]

Is it because I'm disagreeing with someone like yourself, who has 0 trades, nearly 5,000 posts, practically none of which in last month have anything to do with what this website was founded for (video games)?

I guess I shouldn't dare disagree or question the self proclaimed "society experts" that launch their polictical careers on video game forums.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Is it because I'm disagreeing with someone like yourself, who has 0 trades, nearly 5,000 posts, practically none of which in last month have anything to do with what this website was founded for (video games)?

I guess I shouldn't dare disagree or question the self proclaimed "society experts" that launch their polictical careers on video game forums.[/QUOTE]

You probably should stop coming in the VS. forums.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Do you think it is necessary (or adult like) to name call? Seriously? I have thick skin and it doesn't bother me in the slightest however I actually feel bad when others who are engaged in an argument resort to it.

Dohdough.. I give you all the credit in the word; and I should have made that more transparent in the other threads. You are obviously well educated not only in your beliefs but in general. I disagree with many of your views and some of your tactics but correct me if I'm wrong I haven't insulted you or any other poster directly as it's not my style.

Not I'm annoying and dense... and the way I phrase things might seem like an attack but come on.. I was trying to prove one little point and this thread spiraled beyond repair.


All I was trying to point out was that it is silly to arrest someone for a felony for shooting the ground when someone else shoot an elderly woman on accident and will face no charges. It just so happened the person in scenario two was a LEO.

Maybe it's irrelevant; maybe it's not....

I guess I don't have big enough pants to hang out with the regulars.[/QUOTE]
I've been insulted by so many people on so many occassions that it's hard to keep track. Although, I do remember you attempting to insult me by saying that I'm a keyboard warrior that was indoctrinated at a young age. That was a good one!:lol:

dmaul's comment was not only directed at you, but at vs. in general.

As for name calling, it's a rhetorical device used that's not always effective, but can contain little bits of insight. In this case, vs., like any other forum, has more than it's fair share of morons.

Hang in vs. all you want. No one can stop you and to be honest, I welcome it and am glad to see more particpants. But if you're going to put forth ridiculous scenarios with precarious reasoning, people are going to call it out.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I've been insulted by so many people on so many occassions that it's hard to keep track. Although, I do remember you attempting to insult me by saying that I'm a keyboard warrior that was indoctrinated at a young age. That was a good one!:lol:

dmaul's comment was not only directed at you, but at vs. in general.

As for name calling, it's a rhetorical device used that's not always effective, but can contain little bits of insight. In this case, vs., like any other forum, has more than it's fair share of morons.[/QUOTE]


You're giving me too much credit. "Keyboard warrior" is an insult that sounds cool; clearly those aren't my words.

As far as being indoctrinated at a young age that isn't exactly what I was trying to imply. I thought you shared a story once about your father being a cop and experiencing lots of racism but I could have confused the original authors.

Then when you stated you'd accomplished so much by 16, I wasn't attacking that comment or you as much as I was saying that it was telling in the sense that you might have been led down that path. I most likely spiced my comments up but the point wasn't that the path you went down was wrong or bad but that it most certainly shaped your viewpoints.. for better or worse (again not for me to decided).

Tiger Woods in a sense without sex scandals? Activism instead of golf?

I don't know because I'm not you.... but right or wrong that was what was going through my mind.
 
[quote name='Clak']Most students would be too embarrassed to put forth such a ridiculous argument in the middle of a class of their peers.[/QUOTE]

My irritation had nothing to do with the argument or him disagreeing.

It was that I had to post the same fucking several times before it got through to his level of reading comprehension.

I'm fine with people disagreeing and challenging me. I'm not fine when people can't read and keep arguing erroneously by twisting what was said. You can't have a debate with someone when they keep arguing against things you never said, and lack the simple reading comprehension to understand you're actually in agreement with each other until it's explained to you several times.
 
[quote name='Clak']Most students would be too embarrassed to put forth such a ridiculous argument in the middle of a class of their peers.[/QUOTE]
You'd be surprised at how many AREN'T embarrased!:dunce::rofl:
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']My irritation had nothing to do with the argument or him disagreeing.

It was that I had to post the same fucking several times before it got through to his level of reading comprehension.

I'm fine with people disagreeing and challenging me. I'm not fine when people can't read and keep arguing erroneously by twisting what was said. You can't have a debate with someone when they keep arguing against things you never said, and lack the simple reading comprehension to understand you're actually in agreement with each other until it's explained to you several times.[/QUOTE]


Again it is semantics; I'm quasi disagreeing with the definition or application at least of the term "deadly force"

I can see why both instances can be defined as deadly force. Okay?

But I do not think they should be applied as deadly force. In fact the story where the cop shot a lady was not applied as deadly force when the story with the homeowner was.

In context I know I'm twisting things here but I just thought it odd that shooting the ground near a criminal by a homeowner was APPLIEd as deadly force but shooting a lady was not---since you made it clear they are both defind as deadly force.

And I may have quoted you but it doesn't mean that my entire rant was directed towards you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']You'd be surprised at how many AREN'T embarrased!:dunce::rofl:[/QUOTE]

Indeed. Thankfully their peers usually shout them down so I don't have to bother with it, other than intervening if the discussion gets too heated/personal.
 
This whole thread just proves why it's stupid to charge the victim. Even if you think what he did was punishable by jail (and I don't) most Americans will sympathize with the guy. You'll never get a jury of 12 folks to convict him. For the prosecutor it's a guaranteed loser.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Of course. It refers only to their police issued weapon. Any time it's discharged (aside for the range) there's an investigation to ensure it was a legitimate shooting. Doesn't happen much anyway as the majority of officer's never fire a shot in the line of duty during their careers.

When off duty and using their own weapon they're just a regular citizen and any shootings get treated as such. In that case it was handled like any other hunting accident--though in that case he should have gotten cited for hunting after dark, assuming there are laws against that in the state in question.[/QUOTE]

This isn't true. Police departments have standards for off-duty conduct, and they will investigate off-duty misconduct. If an off-duty police officer, using his own private weapon, shot a burglar in the back as he ran away with the officer's VCR, I'm certain that the police department would be investigating.
 
Don't give up GBAStar, the people on this forum like to gang up to create a united front of what they believe portrayed as fact. And anyone who argues against that "fact" (their opinion) is wrong, corrupted, dumb, or just plain retarded.

It's the way it is around these forums, but it is entertaining to see them huff and puff so often.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Don't give up GBAStar, the people on this forum like to gang up to create a united front of what they believe portrayed as fact. And anyone who argues against that "fact" (their opinion) is wrong, corrupted, dumb, or just plain retarded.

It's the way it is around these forums, but it is entertaining to see them huff and puff so often.[/QUOTE]

Eh, I don't think this is true, it's just the way you're perceiving it.
 
[quote name='soulvengeance']Eh, I don't think this is true, it's just the way you're perceiving it.[/QUOTE]

Oh it's true all right. It's all part of a vast, left-wing conspiracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top