Let Me Be Clear

[Deleted]

With all this talk about shooting looters, guarding the neighbors' houses and other such things, rather than answering more questions on hypothetical situations, I will set out my policy here.

Based on my training and my experience, I will use deadly force ONLY to prevent death or serious bodily injury to myself or others.  That is the ONLY time.  I will NOT shoot or batter someone over replaceable property.  Property is usually insured.  If it isn't, that is the owner's mistake.

That is MY policy.  NO deadly force over property.

The rest of you can do whatever you want.   Just because the law allows something, that does not mean it is a good thing.

[Deleted]

I thought this was going to be a trite comments by Barry of Honolulu thread.
Here's my contribution:

"Make no mistake"

and

"If if if if if if if if"

and

"okey doke"

[Deleted]

Sept 4, 2017 18:10:36 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

I thought this was going to be a trite comments by Barry of Honolulu thread.
Here's my contribution:

"Make no mistake"

and

"If if if if if if if if"

and

"okey doke"

WHY did you have to ruin a good thread by injecting Barry the Fairy into it?

[bamorin]

Sept 4, 2017 17:49:02 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Property is usually insured.  If it isn't, that is the owner's mistake.

true enough. My policy was to teach my children a basic understanding..........that under no circumstances should you trade your life for the want of somebody else's property. ie, "are you really willing to die to own a TV that isn't yours?"

I can't help what other parents taught. Such as the total disrespect of their own lives for trinkets.

lets move my policy back about 400 years, and what i would have taught. "don't try to steal food from a bear, or you will become food as well"

sure, the bear could have written it off, gone out and got different food, and the bear wouldn't have been labeled a "murderer" in the eyes of the rest of the forest creatures.......frankly the bear doesn't give a shit.

when the concept went from "are you willing to die over....."? to "are you willing to kill over....."? is when the criminal became the victim in the eyes of the public. Must be a euro thang.

I'm an old bear.

[Deleted]

Sept 9, 2017 8:41:49 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Sept 4, 2017 17:49:02 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Property is usually insured.  If it isn't, that is the owner's mistake.

true enough. My policy was to teach my children a basic understanding..........that under no circumstances should you trade your life for the want of somebody else's property. ie, "are you really willing to die to own a TV that isn't yours?"

I can't help what other parents taught. Such as the total disrespect of their own lives for trinkets.

lets move my policy back about 400 years, and what i would have taught. "don't try to steal food from a bear, or you will become food as well"

sure, the bear could have written it off, gone out and got different food, and the bear wouldn't have been labeled a "murderer" in the eyes of the rest of the forest creatures.......frankly the bear doesn't give a shit.

when the concept went from "are you willing to die over....."? to "are you willing to kill over....."? is when the criminal became the victim in the eyes of the public. Must be a euro thang.

I'm an old bear.

There is a reason bears are animals and human beings have souls, reasoning capability, and a conscience.  You do NOT kill people over property.

You are not really going to tell me you can't survive without your big screen TV, ATV, or motorboat are you?

SURVIVAL is the only thing that justifies taking another human life.

[bamorin]

Sept 9, 2017 8:52:53 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Sept 9, 2017 8:41:49 GMT -5 bamorin said:

true enough. My policy was to teach my children a basic understanding..........that under no circumstances should you trade your life for the want of somebody else's property. ie, "are you really willing to die to own a TV that isn't yours?"

I can't help what other parents taught. Such as the total disrespect of their own lives for trinkets.

lets move my policy back about 400 years, and what i would have taught. "don't try to steal food from a bear, or you will become food as well"

sure, the bear could have written it off, gone out and got different food, and the bear wouldn't have been labeled a "murderer" in the eyes of the rest of the forest creatures.......frankly the bear doesn't give a shit.

when the concept went from "are you willing to die over....."? to "are you willing to kill over....."? is when the criminal became the victim in the eyes of the public. Must be a euro thang.

I'm an old bear.

There is a reason bears are animals and human beings have souls, reasoning capability, and a conscience.  You do NOT kill people over property.

You are not really going to tell me you can't survive without your big screen TV, ATV, or motorboat are you?

SURVIVAL is the only thing that justifies taking another human life.

Obvious you missed the whole lesson here...........the lesson was, don't try to steal shit that isn't yours, because you may die trying to do so. Doesn't matter who or what you tried to steal from.......is your life that invaluable? Don't blame the bear for not having a "soul", blame the stupid thief for not having a brain.

[Deleted]

Sept 9, 2017 9:13:43 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Sept 9, 2017 8:52:53 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

There is a reason bears are animals and human beings have souls, reasoning capability, and a conscience.  You do NOT kill people over property.

You are not really going to tell me you can't survive without your big screen TV, ATV, or motorboat are you?

SURVIVAL is the only thing that justifies taking another human life.

Obvious you missed the whole lesson here...........the lesson was, don't try to steal shit that isn't yours, because you may die trying to do so. Doesn't matter who or what you tried to steal from.......is your life that invaluable? Don't blame the bear for not having a "soul", blame the stupid thief for not having a brain.

Sorry.  You are teaching the wrong lesson.  Simple theft is punishable by imprisonment, NOT by death.  But hey, if you want to kill someone over such ridiculous reasoning, have at it.   You are the one who will sit in jail, not me.   You are the one who will be sued by the dead person's family, not me.  You are the one who will leave your family penniless when you lose the lawsuit, not me.  
All because you had to prove you are a MAN and kill someone over a TV set.

I like my freedom and my bank account way too much.

[bamorin]

Sept 9, 2017 9:21:17 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Sept 9, 2017 9:13:43 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Obvious you missed the whole lesson here...........the lesson was, don't try to steal shit that isn't yours, because you may die trying to do so. Doesn't matter who or what you tried to steal from.......is your life that invaluable? Don't blame the bear for not having a "soul", blame the stupid thief for not having a brain.

Sorry.  You are teaching the wrong lesson.  Simple theft is punishable by imprisonment, NOT by death.  But hey, if you want to kill someone over such ridiculous reasoning, have at it.   You are the one who will sit in jail, not me.   You are the one who will be sued by the dead person's family, not me.  You are the one who will leave your family penniless when you lose the lawsuit, not me.  
All because you had to prove you are a MAN and kill someone over a TV set.

I like my freedom and my bank account way too much.

I don't disagree with most of what you typed........the current laws in america are a "euro thang" protect the stupid. stupid breeds, stupid votes. without criminals, the courts don't exist.......gotta have the right balance of crime in society. crime pays, both sides.

[Deleted]

Sept 9, 2017 9:34:19 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Sept 9, 2017 9:21:17 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Sorry.  You are teaching the wrong lesson.  Simple theft is punishable by imprisonment, NOT by death.  But hey, if you want to kill someone over such ridiculous reasoning, have at it.   You are the one who will sit in jail, not me.   You are the one who will be sued by the dead person's family, not me.  You are the one who will leave your family penniless when you lose the lawsuit, not me.  
All because you had to prove you are a MAN and kill someone over a TV set.

I like my freedom and my bank account way too much.

I don't disagree with most of what you typed........the current laws in america are a "euro thang" protect the stupid. stupid breeds, stupid votes. without criminals, the courts don't exist.......gotta have the right balance of crime in society. crime pays, both sides.

I agree that the courts are too lax and criminals are coddled.  I agree 10,000%!  I want criminals locked away a LONG TIME, and I want murderers executed ASAP, in public, televised and streamed live on social media.  When it comes to punishment, I am probably the most hard-assed motherfukker you will find.
But I personally cannot kill another person over just property.

However, when another person's LIFE -- or mine -- is in jeopardy, you can bet your ass I can kill.  I made that decision the day I decided to become a police officer.  I KNEW that would be a possibility every day I worked, and I had already made up my mind that  I  would be the winner.

[bamorin]

Sept 9, 2017 9:44:14 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

But I personally cannot kill another person over just property.

good for you. good for the thief. keeps 'em alive and well. weeds take over a lawn the same way. still the "concept" should be not whether you're willing to kill, but are they willing to die. if they think so.......sorry about their luck. Their numbers will dwindle.

[Deleted]

Sept 9, 2017 8:41:49 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Sept 4, 2017 17:49:02 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Property is usually insured.  If it isn't, that is the owner's mistake.

true enough. My policy was to teach my children a basic understanding..........that under no circumstances should you trade your life for the want of somebody else's property. ie, "are you really willing to die to own a TV that isn't yours?"

I can't help what other parents taught. Such as the total disrespect of their own lives for trinkets.

lets move my policy back about 400 years, and what i would have taught. "don't try to steal food from a bear, or you will become food as well"

sure, the bear could have written it off, gone out and got different food, and the bear wouldn't have been labeled a "murderer" in the eyes of the rest of the forest creatures.......frankly the bear doesn't give a shit.

when the concept went from "are you willing to die over....."? to "are you willing to kill over....."? is when the criminal became the victim in the eyes of the public. Must be a euro thang.

I'm an old bear.

I bet you even shit in the woods on occasion.

[bamorin]

Sept 9, 2017 10:19:29 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

Sept 9, 2017 8:41:49 GMT -5 bamorin said:

true enough. My policy was to teach my children a basic understanding..........that under no circumstances should you trade your life for the want of somebody else's property. ie, "are you really willing to die to own a TV that isn't yours?"

I can't help what other parents taught. Such as the total disrespect of their own lives for trinkets.

lets move my policy back about 400 years, and what i would have taught. "don't try to steal food from a bear, or you will become food as well"

sure, the bear could have written it off, gone out and got different food, and the bear wouldn't have been labeled a "murderer" in the eyes of the rest of the forest creatures.......frankly the bear doesn't give a shit.

when the concept went from "are you willing to die over....."? to "are you willing to kill over....."? is when the criminal became the victim in the eyes of the public. Must be a euro thang.

I'm an old bear.

I bet you even shit in the woods on occasion.

On the occasions when i need to shit. Not healthy to hold it. And I don't feel there is a need to "honor" it by having to place it on/in a throne. taught all my male offspring, and their male offspring the proper way to piss on a tree.

[Deleted]

Sept 9, 2017 10:28:08 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Sept 9, 2017 10:19:29 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

I bet you even shit in the woods on occasion.

On the occasions when i need to shit. Not healthy to hold it. And I don't feel there is a need to "honor" it by having to place it on/in a throne. taught all my male offspring, and their male offspring the proper way to piss on a tree.

I did not know there is a proper way to piss on a tree. I stand far enough away so I don't get splashed on.

[Deleted]

Sept 9, 2017 9:52:01 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Sept 9, 2017 9:44:14 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

But I personally cannot kill another person over just property.

good for you. good for the thief. keeps 'em alive and well. weeds take over a lawn the same way. still the "concept" should be not whether you're willing to kill, but are they willing to die. if they think so.......sorry about their luck. Their numbers will dwindle.

I would imagine most thieves in this state know they are taking a chance because we have a whole lot of gun owning/carrying people here.  You take a big chance when you decide to break in to a house or rob someone.

That being said, it is totally wrong to use deadly force in a non life-threatening situation.
If you want to kill a kid breaking into your car, and you have the 20 years or so to spend in prison because of it, I'm not gonna stand in your way.   Hell, if I do,  you might shoot ME, too.
You'd probably shoot someone after a car wreck too, since he damaged your precious property.  That will surely teach people to drive more carefully, won't it?  And it will cut down the numbers of careless drivers!

I get the feeling you have never shot anybody, nor have you seen too many people who have been shot.

[Buckeye Dale]

OK, man...almost a week now...you said "Let me be clear..."
That would have been fine with most of us long ago....you have our permission...BE CLEAR...now WTF are you trying to say???