m00n Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 9:11:15 PM dragonfyr wrote: But that is not how the law works! And I don't think that is what you truly mean either! ---------------- No... I do not see anything wrong with my concept within reason. If someone is breaking and entering in the middle of the night, I don't want to have to sit there and ask myself... Does he have a weapon? Does he mean any harm to me or my family. Hell no. There should be no law stating that I don't have FULL right to show this person the error in their ways of thinking. In fact, some 10 years ago here in the Portland area, a man found some teen breaking into his car, the man pulled out a gun and shot the teen dead. As I recall, the man did not have to serve any time in jail for that. While I know this will sound extremely harsh, I feel as though that's the way the law should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted June 6, 2005 Author Share Posted June 6, 2005 Just hope that you don't have an ACLU bleeding-heart liberal district attorney. Even so, as long as you demand a jury trial, you won't ever be convicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 9:43:52 PM Parrot wrote: ---------------- On 6/6/2005 9:11:15 PM dragonfyr wrote: You are justified in using deadly force ONLY if there is no other alternative - even if it is running away! ---------------- Exactly as I took your meaning originally. You would run away rather than defend your home and loved ones. How would you ascertain what a burglar's intentions were? If you are not in fear of your life when a burglar enters your occupied home, you are hopelessly naive. Wait! I have an idea! You could bore the burglar to death by spouting your philosophical mumbo-jumbo rationalizations at him, and all without firing a shot or leaving a mark on him. ---------------- Funny how you seem to have such a problem with the law that stipulates such a provision, but you like to project it on others! I seek to protect my loved ones instead of trying to prove to myself that I am some kind of hero! It is macho wackos like you who get people hurt! To run from a perp such that it protects or prevents injury cetainly does not diminish anyone except one who's ego is already too damaged to salvage! I am sorry your deranged ego seems to feel the need to prove to only yourself how 'macho' you are! ...Even if it is at the expense of reason, responsibility and the rule of law. Go get 'em Barney! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 "I feel as though that's the way the law should be. " That's the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olorin Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 9:22:56 PM Royster wrote: By the way did I mention "I was in fear for my life" ---------------- I think it wouldn't be fair of me to go without telling you that I think you did the right thing in that instance. No question in my mind at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 9:59:05 PM mungkiman wrote: "I feel as though that's the way the law should be. " That's the problem. ---------------- Why? If you find someone steeling from you, wouldn't you want to stop them at any cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted June 6, 2005 Author Share Posted June 6, 2005 dragonfyr, I don't think you even remember what you are attempting to argue anymore. You objected to siccing a dog on an "intruder" (potentially an armed burglar) because you are worried that the poor criminal might suffer cuts, abrasions, and mental stress as he carries out his craft. It's ever so much more PC to flee into the night with wife, kids, and dog (after taking the 5-10 mins necessary to get everyone awake and rounded up), praying that said burglar is a decent man and will be satisfied with your material possessions and spare your lives, right? Anyway, this arguing may be for nothing, if you are French. Go to google.com, type in French Military Victories, and then click the I'm Feeling Lucky button. I see a similar mentality at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 No m00n. My point is that simply because you "feel" a law should be a certain way, doesn't make it law. If I found someone stealing from me I would want to stop them, but at "all cost?" I'm not going to shoot someone for breaking into my car or stealing my bicycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 9:11:15 PM dragonfyr wrote: The law does not justify your killing someone because they walk onto, or into your property! The law acknowledges your right to protect yourself and others by using what is called 'commensurate force'. That simply means that you are justified in using only enough force to counter the threat. It is not OK to shoot someone because they have stepped onto your property and want to borrow a cup of water. ---------------- The above is quite correct, dragonfyr. And if you keep this firmly in mind, you won't go of in a misguided tangent. You should also bear in mind, that those that have the inclination and desire to enter onto the property of another with malaforethought, frequently have the desire and ability to use physical violence to achieve their aims. The law is quite clear regarding the degree of force used to apprehend an offender for both Police and citizens. The difference between Police and citizens, is that Police are trained and equiped to deal with a violent offender resisting arrest. The citizen generally isn't. Imagine the fear that a citizen experiences, in the middle of the night, when he/she realises they have an unwelcome visitor. How can we judge the intent of this felon? Is he there to merely take a few dollars? Or is he there to rape and pillage and perhaps leave death in his wake? Who can criticise a citizen for using reasonable force to protect his property? Or should we instead suggest the citizen should place the life of himself and his family in the hands of someone he doesn't know, hoping that this felon is only there for a few dollars. I am not suggesting that a housholder should let loose with several rounds at the merest suggestion of an intruder. My first advice would be for the householder and family to call Police and get out of the house if they can. If they can't, maybe they could secure themselves in a room until Police arrive. If the householder is unable to access their children because the felon is in another room between them, or heading up the stairs towards their rooms... Well things can get scary, can't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 10:10:00 PM mungkiman wrote: No m00n. My point is that simply because you "feel" a law should be a certain way, doesn't make it law. ---------------- I realize that. Doesn't mean I like it. ---------------- On 6/6/2005 10:10:00 PM mungkiman wrote: If I found someone stealing from me I would want to stop them, but at "all cost?" I'm not going to shoot someone for breaking into my car or stealing my bicycle. ---------------- If I'm not mistken you have a pit or mix... Something such as a pit. Answer this with the all honesty. If you found someone breaking into your house or car, are you saying the first thing running through your mind would NOT be letting your dog loose? Honestly? It would be mine. I have a very black and white feeling with theft. If you are steeling, I have no feelings of remorse for you and what ever punishmet you receive, rather it's via the law or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 Poor parrot...squawk squawk squawk... I advocate the use of commensurate force in response to a threat and I object to anyone advocating or justifying the use of deadly force in any but the 'last resort'. Not only do I disagree with it, it is against the law. Duh! And I object to banning any 'thing' rather then holding people responsible for their wards and their actions. Sorry thats too complicated for you! So whine about how the world is not as you wish it was, just like the rest of the left wing liberals and religious right wing liberals who would subject us all to their self-righteous enlightened social engineering! And Moon, it's interesting that you posit the rights of property over those of human life. You are certainly entitled to feel that way! Only in actions and reality, the law feels differently! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 never mind, guess I don't have to read these incessant dog and gun stories. Thank God I live in a safe city. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnellis Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 "So you would say "good job" to someone who would inflict deadly force (as that is what you maintain the pit bull to be!) on someone for simply breaking into a house when they do not present a lethal threat and 'it is not at last resort', "As they are within their rights."????? Really???? In what country? Since when do property rights take precedence over human rights? And since when is deadly force appropriate when the situation does not present a 'last resort' lethal threat?" "This is utter and complete nonsense! And not based on any legitimate interpretation of the law!" dragonfyr, Have you ever lived in inner city Memphis? Have you ever had an armed crack head in your house climbing your staircase at 2:20 a.m.???? I think not!! Had it not been for my dog I might not be here typing this. As the guy was running out the door, I called him off. My dog had already chewed him up fairly well. But then, I had a change of heart and allowed bob to have at him again in the driveway. I wanted to send a message to the other bro's in the neighborhood also. It worked. I can assure you, this guy would have killed me if given the opportunity. Furthermore, listen to Royster. He is correct in what he is saying. As for you, well, you're abviously and idiot. Well, maybe that is a bit harsh. Most likely you would invite the intruder to sit down and "talk" about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 m00n, he's a mix. The guess at the Humane Society was Pit, Lab, and Sharpei. I guess that he should be shot, then given a medal, and then a skin tuck. If someone were to break into my house, the dog would get them before I COULD even think about it. I don't have him for protection, but for companionship. I'm afraid of some Pits, but I'm more afraid of Dobies. Don't any of you want to ban Dobermans, or are they "better" now that Pits are in the news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 10:40:24 PM johnellis wrote: As the guy was running out the door, I called him off. My dog had already chewed him up fairly well. But then, I had a change of heart and allowed bob to have at him again in the driveway. ---------------- I'm sure your pooch appreciated a second chance too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 10:46:27 PM mungkiman wrote: m00n, he's a mix. The guess at the Humane Society was Pit, Lab, and Sharpei. I guess that he should be shot, then given a medal, and then a skin tuck. ---------------- He is a beautyful dog I will give you that. But I bet the lab in him gives him a more people friendly outlook towards humans. And no. I don't think he should be shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynnm Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 I think that the question comes down to a few main points: ( 1. ) Is the Pit Bull an inherently dangerous breed ? ( 2. ) Are there Pit Bull owners who can adequately train and control these animals ? (3. ) Who finds this breed attractive ? My answers: (1.) Yes ! This breed has been systematically bred over several centuries to attack and kill. They were initially bred for their fighting and killing ability in "sport" hunting and later for use in the dog ring. In other words an exceptionally aggressive and powerful male or female would be mated to a counterpart and the resulting pups that most displayed those traits would be mated to another pup that displayed those traits in abundance.The point was to establish a breed line that could be expected to be exceptionally aggressive and vicious.Those hundreds of years of breeding cannot be ignored. (2.) Yes but....There undoubtably are breeders who are adequate to the task of breeding and training PBs which are reliable in temperment and those dogs are unlikely to present a problem. That said most Pit Bulls are not bred by competent breeders/trainers.For the most part Pit Bull pups are the result of casual street sex or the result of owner "A" suggesting to owner "B" that their PBs get together. ( 3.)Generally speaking there are three classes of PB owners: (1.) The folks who find a cute puppy on the street,obtain it from a friend's litter etc. and who have no idea that they are adopting a cute,affectionate Timebomb. (2.) The folks who actually know about Pitbulls and obtain properly trained young dogs from a reputable dealer. ( God alone knows why ? ) (3.) Those who revel in the idea that they own and control the ultimate canine killing machine. The dog is almost always of unknown lineage. The owner is thrilled that they have the ultimate badass dog and generally has no idea of how to train and control it should the dog get out of control. In addition too many of this type of owner revels in the destructive power of the animal. In my opinion the Pitbull as a breed should be outlawed by attrition. By that I mean that no PB that has caused no harm should be destroyed but the owners should be held totally accountable for any harm that the dog might do. Pitbulls should be kept on a leash at all times when outside of the owner's residence. Breeding of Pitbulls should be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynnm Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 Sorry...Double Post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyKlipschFan Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 Bottom line is these dogs, for better or worse, have been bread to be mean and fight. This is not denied. If you get one, those animal instincs might come out as well. Below is a story, I think I am pretty close on the facts as I remember it. Locally, a few years ago, a child was almost killed when he got out of a car with his mom and the dog ran him down mauling him to near death. The mother in tears trying to save her child used mase and her shoe. Nothing seemed to work till it finally stopped when she stabbed it in the eye with her keys as it seemed to have a death grip on the small boy. When the kids dad came home, he went across the street took a shotgun and killed the dog! This man served time in jail.. get this, for shooting a gun in a neighborhood. On TV he said, "I would do it again, my son is in the hospital barely alive". Why the dog was not impounded was a mystery, but he will never hurt anyone ever again! Given the above senario.. I would kill the dog too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 What were poodles bred for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts