Shoot to Kill part II

[Sprig]

Ahh, the famous HelgeS has done it again.

"Please, stop that stupid "what if he kills your children later" nonsense. ... Dumping in emotionally focus examples like that are annoying and sadly not relevant to the discussion at all."

Ahh, yes, its very relavent. In this example the criminal has likely already killed 7 children. Would the 9th one raped and 8th one murdered be your daughter if this guy life isn't ended?

I hope someone on TFL has the stats handy, but most crimes are committed by criminals that leave the current societies justice system as cured.

Does this not mean that the current justice system is broken? And mayhaps that while not legal, it is moral to be judge, jury, and exicutioner to prevent other atrocities against innocent persons?

In my text I used the term, "a creator". Little different from your reply, "the creator".

As has been discussed here many times on TFL, the bible does draw a distiction between kill and murder. The bible clearly gives several instances where a person/persons killed another/others and it was the moral thing to do. And there was no judge, or jury present.

A little bit of selective reading on your part there HelgeS for you to think otherwise.

"In order for society to function you give the architect the right to construct buildings. Furthermore, you don't try to make architecture yourself, since you are not trained for it and are much better off having the architect do the job for your. "

My grandparents on both sides, designed and built numerous homes out of the necessity to survive.

Nuff said.

Sprig

[Glenn E. Meyer]

.

[This message has been edited by Glenn E. Meyer (edited July 26, 2000).]

[Sprig]

To Glen E. Meyer,

I am not sure we are talking about the same senerio.

Let me drop back ten and punt. When I get the ball again I should be in better field postion.

Sprig

[Sprig]

My additional senario was flawed in timeline and events. Yes, I screw up the english department from time to time. Twice this week infact.
This muddled senario might be the cause of misunderstanding. Let me fix it here and now.

Here is what I meant to write.
-----
You hear struggling in your daughters room. You grab a handgun and go investigate. There is a man on top of your daughter in her bed raping her.

The rapist notices you, and leaves your daughters bed to rush an attack at you.

You fire and he falls.

The suspect isn't dead yet. You recognize that the rapist lying on the floor in her room that you just shot. You had seen his picture on the 11'oclock news last night for the rape and viscious murders of 7 other young women.

You say, "Don't friggen move *******".

The rapist makes a motion towards the bedsheet as if to stuff in his wound to stop his bleeding from the gunshot.
-----

Would it be morally wrong to do justice to this person and shoot again to finish the job?

Is it morally right to let a known rapist/murderer live?

Officer, he moved after I said, "Don't move."
-----

Not one reply addressed whether or not it is morally right to let a known rapist/murder live.

And, I know that I drew a grey line in whether a second shot is legal. It was meant to be grey. Hopefully for further logical debate.

How would "your" daughter feel if you let him live?

"Oh honey, he was only a rapist/murderer, he has just as much right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness as we all do."

Could you ever look into your daughters eyes again?

Sprig
I'm still thinking that second shot would come if it were my house and my daughter.


[This message has been edited by Sprig (edited July 25, 2000).]

[Monkeyleg]

Sprig, not being a parent I can't answer your question based on the same emotions you have.
Intellectually, though, I would say that once the rapist is down, your shooting is over unless he changes the circumstances. Anything more is murder.

As for Helge's statement: Otherwise we would all be running through the wood and bashing each other with clubs. Helge, you seem to hold the belief that so many "on the other side" hold, which is that people cannot be trusted to do the right thing, in terms of spending their money versus allowing the government to manage it, in terms of using whatever safety features on a car they deem important versus having the government mandate it, or in terms of how people will act if they possess objects which can do harm to others. Your position implies a basic distrust of human nature, and suggests that the mere presence of a gun or a knife will turn an otherwise law-abiding citizen into a murderer. My position is that people are basically good, with a few exceptions that society calls criminals. I trust my neighbor not to shoot me. My position gives me a positive outlook on life and society. Yours is depressing.

Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.

[Franklin W. Dixon]

You and me both, Sprig. And it ain't cause I've got a hard-on to shoot someone. But the BGs well-being ain't at the top of my list, and I'm not going to give him a chance to pull a gun and shoot me. I'm not a cop, and I don't make arrests. If he's raping my wife and I catch him, and he manages to make it despite the 7 or 8 .45 slugs in him, then bully for him.

But it really depends on the state someone's in.

Here are the rules for my state (AL):

A person may use deadly physical force if the actor reasonably believes that such other person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or
(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling; or
(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape or forcible sodomy.

*****
When I asked the DA what this meant in the real world he said if I shoot someone who breaks into my house, and the cops don't tell him we were dealing drugs or suspect any other "extenuating" circumstances, then there's no way on God's green earth he's bringing charges.

------------------
Those who would appease a tiger do so with the hope
that it will eat them last. Winston Churchill



[This message has been edited by Franklin W. Dixon (edited July 24, 2000).]

[Glenn E. Meyer]

.

[This message has been edited by Glenn E. Meyer (edited July 26, 2000).]

[Frenchy]

You've stopped the aggresive act toward you with your pistol. You have "shot to stop"!! Any other action other than holding the Perp. for the police is wrong, period!! Moral judgement is not your's to make. IMHO

Frenchy

------------------
Donnez-moi la liberté, ou donnez-moi la mort!

[Johnny Got His Gun.1]

Wouldn't the goal be to survive the encounter? Isn't that the direction you want to be heading if you had to shoot to defend yourself?

Shoot to kill? Shoot to stop?

Shoot to SURVIVE.

A goblin who threatens you with deadly/lethal force doesn't care about your rights. He has crossed the boundary where his rights end and yours begin.

Survive.

Use the necessary force to leave the situation so that you are still breathing with all (or as many) of your faculties intact as possible.

Notice that I didn't say "Kill the rat b@stard!" Notice I didn't even suggest killing him, but, realistically, if you pull the gun, that goblin stands a high chance of perishing in the conflict. Why? Because football players wear pads--it's a contact sport. Analogous to that idea is self-defense requiring contact to be effective for the survival of the defender.

If an encounter demands the use of your gun to defend yourself, you have determined that the force against you, for the "time" you had to make that decision, justified your using that gun. If you cannot escape, and no amount of talking is doing any good, and the BG threatens your life and limb, then you have two choices: (1) lay down and accept your imminent death or (2)defend your most basic gift and try to survive.

A killing can obviously result in the use of lethal, defensive force. Do we have time to analyze the moral/philosophical/judicial/etc. aspects when the goblin is before us? Or do we simply fear for our lives? We don't have to kill when using the gun. None of us can predict what we'll do in a situation until it arises. If we were that prescient, then we'd be able to avoid trouble altogether. We won't rise to the occasion; we will default to our training. And if the training has been poor, then we stand a chance of encountering serious moral, ethical, judicial, etc. problems. But the reverse is true.

This post is a good example of why we must be literate, free-thinking, reasoning individuals. We must know ourselves, our government, the laws we live by, the way juries work, and how human nature works. It takes an awful lot of work to be one of the good guys, so to speak, but the thing that separates us from a killer is the respect for life--our own and others.

If someone dies as a result of one's defending himself, it's hard for me to reconcile philosophically that it was shooting to kill.

It was shooting to live.



[This message has been edited by Johnny Got His Gun.1 (edited July 24, 2000).]

[Franklin W. Dixon]

Well, Glenn, we finally agree on something...

...that you're, at heart, an anti...and one of the most elitist antis I've ever heard from. Because antis aren't really against guns...they're against autonomy, freedom, liberty. Call it what you want. Lots of antis have guns. Just ask Feinstein.

You have way more in common with them than you do most of the hunters/gunners I know.

We already know you want everything permitted, licensed, etc., so we all have to go through whatever training you and your buddies decide is necessary. That's BS my friend. What part of "shall not be infringed" ain't clear to you?

Your little moral and tactical utopia is just that...no place. Never was, will never be. All you ivory tower types are the same...study it, talk about, regulate it, license it. Everything but do it. See, here in the real world, things get fuzzy sometimes...unlike the little fiefdom spread out beneath your ivory tower.

Glad to see you're making yourself available to be the moral arbiter of all gun owners everywhere.

In short, pardner, I don't know what kind of girls finishing school you attended in order to accumulate your vast amounts of moral and tactical wisdom, but sir, I can tell you, that from the moment it leaves your lips, or in this case, your keyboard, it is as welcome as gas pains, and has all the appeal and value of flatulence.

How's that for an ad hominem? Kick me off if you must, my dear moderators, but some things just need to be said.



[This message has been edited by Franklin W. Dixon (edited July 24, 2000).]

[HelgeS]

Glenn, I couldn't agree more.

Yes, I am for "control". That is, I know and accept that human beings are diverse. Some are smart, some aren't, some are aggressive, some aren't and so forth. ALL of them have faults. In this situation it doesn't matter one bit if the fault is something like "dyslexia" or some such. But what if the fault is "rage" or "low intelligence"?

I firmly believe that if everybody would just do what THEY think is right then we would have complete chaos on this planet. It takes years of study AND a very bright mind to become a judge. Why do you folks think this is done? I mean, if any grunt would be capable of acting as a judge, why would we have law school at all? It takes an entire group (judges, witnesses, lawyers, attorneys, etc) a LONG time to declare somebody guilty of murder and sentence him to death. Do you really deem yourself so extraordinary bright, so skill, so knowledgable and so fast that you can do the entire work of this huge group in a few seconds in your mind?

And because no single person is mentally capable of making these decisions we have what we call a society. In it, people come together (special people, trained for the job) and do the work together to get the best possible result.

Yes, this also means that I am in favour of many of the other govermential regulations. Stuff like speed limits, architectural limits, etc. Why? Because those decisions are made by people who know what they are doing (in that field).

Lets have a short view at YOUR screwed concept:

You drive down the road. Since we are living in YOUR US, there are no limits, so you are driving some kind of self created vehicle (I will assume that you have all the required mechanic, electrical and other technical skills to design and build such a thing yourself). Since there is no speed limit you just drive say 120km/h.
Your "mental brother" stands somewhere on the street, sees you arrive and, in true "I am the judge" fashion decided: "Hell, that car is way too fast, it is going to drive me flat. That's an attempt to kill me. And, seen that vehicle, the guy has probably been in situations like that before. Or even if not, his vehicle is still dangerous, and tomorrow he might drive my little daughter flat. So, I am all fine with blowing him up". He pulls out his bazooka and blasts you from the planet.

You did your judgements (about the car speed), he did his judgement (judging your driving to be an assault on his life, judging the shape of your vehicle as unsave). Both were likely wrong, happens in human minds sometimes...

Have you seen the Mad Max? THOSE depict a society with the "freedom" you postulate here.

cheers

Helge

PS: Mr Dixon, I would recommend a nice relaxing stay in a closed institution for a while. They have drugs against paranoia (and they offer courses in english grammar too).

[Mike in VA]

Hmmm. This is a tough topic with very few absolute answers. As citizens exercising the God-given right to self defense, we are obligated to shoot to neutralize the threat. Lethal force is either justified or it is not. In those situations where it is justified, death is a distinct possibility, better them than you, had they not been a mortal threat, they wouldn't have ended up dead. In circumstances where you don't know for sure what's all's going on, you can reasonably knock 'em down, but you can't ethically finish 'em off if they've stopped being a threat. At that point, you've got to let the legal system take over and hope that it yields justice.

But I will tell you what I do know for sure about the death penalty, delivered by the state or an armed citizen defending his life or that of another - it cures recidivism (sp?). In a situation described in the scenario, scumbag caught in the act, known to have a track record of heinous and dastardly deeds (and equally obvious that the 'system' hasn't dealt with this sack of merde), an obvious active threat to you and yours, on the floor bleeding but still coming at you - well, let your conscience be your guide. Me? I don't think I'd loose much sleep if, after telling him to hold still, I had to fire a couple of warning shots COM, followed by a couple more warning shots CNS/CPU as long as he/she/it was doing anything that might be percieved as remotely threatening. I wouldn't rationalize it in terms of what he might do, in a 'prior restraint" sort of way, but history is father to the future, but wiht a track record of being a proven scumbag, well, live like a rabid dog, die like a rabid dog.

Lest Helge and his ilk think me a barbarian, I offer this case in point. Several years ago my neighbor and friend was killed by an escaped convict (armed robber/rapist, attempted murderer). He was supposedly in for life, but he got out, stole a shotgun from a house he burgled, sawed it off, and way-laid my friend at a highway rest stop. He made him drive him into the woods where he beat him down, stood over him and emptied both barrels in his face and threw his body in the swamp where he wasn't found for two years. Obviously, 'society' can't guarantee that this scumbag wouldn't get loose anymore than they can guarantee that the police will be there if and when I need them. The guy was a proven stone cold killer, and if I ever had the opportunity in a defensive situation, I'd blow his @$$ clear, clear away in a NY minute, I wouldn't think twice, wouldn't feel bad. Sometimes you've got to flush the toilet. You can't save scum, it is the result of the putrification of society and must be cleansed with heat and caustic substances. Any questions on my position?
M2

[This message has been edited by Mike in VA (edited July 24, 2000).]

[Don Gwinn]

What the Hell, I might as well sneak an opinion in here before the Foot of God comes crashing down on this thread. And by the way, Franklin, I may miss you but I won't be able to fault the moderators if they do cank you....why did you have to go and do that? We just don't do that sort of stuff here, and it doesn't matter what a nice guy you might be or how knowledgeable.

HelgeS, are you the same guy who was ranting about farmers with shotguns awhile ago? English is not your first language, is it? Perhaps that has contributed to a misunderstanding. Your analogy has NO connection to what Sprig put forward.
In your analogy, a man, seeing another man commit no crime of any kind, simply decides to execute him anyway just in case.
In Sprig's narrative, a man catches another man in the act of raping his daughter. Then that same man is attacked by the rapist. He then shoots the rapist to end both the rape and the attack, and the discussion from there on is about whether he should "finish" by executing the rapist on the spot and so end the threat.
In order for your analogy to apply, Sprig would have to have told a story of seeing a man he thought was particularly strong or well-endowed on the street and killing him on the spot simply because it might be possible for the man to rape Sprig's daughter. Not even close.

Incidentally, I agree with Glenn. I don't say for certain that I would be able to leave the rapist alive, but I do believe that I should. However, HelgeS, your position seems to be that Sprig's scenario is so terrible that it justifies your goal of gun control. Therefore, you imply that killing the rapist, after catching him in the act of raping an innocent girl, is actually worse than being unarmed and thus forced to allow the rape to continue at the bad guy's leisure. It is NOT. That is the glaring flaw in your argument, and I can't think of anything that counters it. Can you?

(And hurry--I think I hear a moderator coming!)

[Don Gwinn]

I think I mistook HelgeS for someone else. Other than that, my post stands as-is. Have a nice day, and sorry if that mistake was insulting, HelgeS.

[ctdonath]

Any questions on my position?

Position understood. Nonetheless, once you have neutralized the immediate threat to an innocent's life, you are NOT in a position - legally, morally, socially, ethically - to kill the guy, even if he's the bastard that killed your friend after getting out of jail despite a supposed life sentence. Your only wiggle room is the "fleeing felon" clause in some jurisdictions, which may permit you to shoot to stop him after you witnessed him unquestionably committing a heinous felony...and even there, the operative phrase is "shoot to STOP", not kill.

[Satanta]

I gotta be honest.

If I walked in and someone was raping orhurting some other person in my family or circle of 'protection'. They are not leaving in one piece. I will empty my weapon into their corpse. IF the LEO's are called or show up-I'll take my chances. They'll need spoons to dig him out of the walls.

I keep seeing 'the morality of this and the morality of that..." I guess it depends on where your morals are set. Mine may not be as high as yours.

Personally, I do not care about Helge's opinion. I also do not care about others opinions. If a goblin comes into my house he has already broken the law(s), the law of wherever I live and MY law-don't piss in my beer and stay out of my berry patch. The Law of the Whitebear. I have to live with myself. I can deal with that.

"and if I ever had the opportunity in a defensive situation, I'd blow his @$$ clear, clear away in a NY minute, I wouldn't think twice, wouldn't feel bad. Sometimes you've got to flush the toilet."

Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6."

Amen and Amen.

------------------
Satanta, the Whitebear
Sat's Realm: <A HREF="http://SatantasRealm.tripod.com/Entrypage/entrypage.html

My" TARGET=_blank>http://SatantasRealm.tripod.com/Entrypage/entrypage.html

My</A> Disability petition: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/DisbHelp/petition.html

[mrat]

Sprig,
The stats you are looking for is 8% of the population commit 70 to 80% of the crime.

To the people that are saying kill the guy. How did you react when you saw the Philly LEOs beating the guy who shot at them? I ask because I would venture a quess that some of you didn't like what the LEOs did. And quess what, it is the same thing.

[Blue Jays]

Good Evening Everyone-

Wow, some of the folks with whom I generally agree "ain't singing my song," and some of the folks with whom I typically disagree are now on the "same sheet of music".... :) Goes to show the many facets of this whole discussion in the first place.

Unrelated to my comment above....Mike in VA and Santanta, both excellent posts. It's my feeling that you both are both being very intellectually honest. Methinks if people really, really imagined themselves in the situations you painted, the opinions offered might change.

The controversial discussion threads are always the best ones...ala Central Park Morality Debate parts I, II, and III (http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=37550).

By the way, I just saw the perp make a threatening move...

Regards,

~ Blue Jays ~


[This message has been edited by Blue Jays (edited July 24, 2000).]

[Rich Lucibella]

There seems to be a bit of flaming going on here. Allbeit, articulate and pithy flaming, but flaming nonetheless. Since more capable Staff Members are already working behind the scenes, I won't interfere other than to ask the noncombatants to remain so.

Now to the subject:
Our society is not a wolf pack...we don't necessarily fight only hard enough to gain "dominance" over the transgressor. Taking a life is a terrible thing, but perhaps not the most terrible of things. "Morality" in such matters is not a universal truth, but a subjective position.

As we continue to darken the scenario, sooner or later every man/woman reaches the threshold at which he/she believes death, even the death of the vanquished, is justifiable...the Courts have long recognized this.

In short, some people just can't get the hang of the Golden Rule...and they're destined to repeat this existence a whole lot of times before they get it right. In the most egregious cases, hastening them on their "journey" might just be a Mitzvah! ;)
Rich

[Rich Lucibella]

Administrative Note:
Sprig-
Received your email request for info. Unfortunately, your email addy is bad. Please correct it and let me know.
[email protected]
Rich

[Glenn E. Meyer]

.

[This message has been edited by Glenn E. Meyer (edited July 26, 2000).]

[Sprig]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rich Lucibella:
Administrative Note:
Sprig-
Received your email request for info. Unfortunately, your email addy is bad. Please correct it and let me know.
[email protected]
Rich[/quote]

What??? I emailed you! How can the address I emailed FROM be bad? Can't you hit "reply"?

Both the email addy in outlook and in my profile here on TFL are correct.

My email addy isn't a secret, I mean, people have been able to determine my email from my web site.

Internet glitch? Or are those MIB really attacking my internet connection?

Sprig

[HelgeS]

The analogy:

In my example the guy on the street perceives the driver as committing a crime. He observes him driving too fast, towards him. It takes not much to interpret that as a "lethal attack" (driving too fast is a crime, driving somebody over is a lethal attack).
It is exactly the same scenario as the rape thing in terms of logical conditions. The father enters the room, perceives the rapist as committing a crime. He observes him harming his daughter. It takes not much to interpret that as a "lethal attack" (raping is a crime, turning around and marching towards the father might well be a lethal attack).

The point is, that in both cases ALL the "judgement" is done by one person, a person who, given the short time and the circumstances is almost certainly not capable of neutral logical judgement. These are examples to demonstrate points, they are not real situations. Quite obviously there is always room to twist them, but that's not the point.

To the "broke my law" guy:

Your law does neither count nor matter. You are citizen of the United States of America, thus bound by the rules, laws and principles of same country. If you decide that you don't like them then you have three options:

a) vote against them and accept if you are beaten by the opposition.

b) leave the country and go to a place with rules that you like more

c) break them and be punished for it

Those are your choice, there are no other ones. And executing somebody is a case of c)


To the "my neighbour got shot":

That's a terrible thing. Yet, I would encourage you to put your faith into the system. If the steps taken by the legal system do not satisfy you, then feel free to vote for a party that tries to change the legal system. That is your duty and option as citizen. It is NOT your option to by pass the legal system. Doing so will simply make you a criminal as well.

One of the standing stones of the US is the right for equal treatment. that is, the guy who killed your neighbour has a right to be treated just like a guy in the other corner of the US committing a similar murder. And granting everybody this right requires that the judgement is made by people who are aware of the options for punishment. Otherwise you might judge and kill the guy, while the other fellow miles away gets a big handshake from the town because everybody in it thinks that is was a "cool" kill (stupid example, but you get the idea).

Finally to all the folks who see this as the only alternative:

My lady just came back from Haiti a few weeks ago. She goes down there all the time and each time I live in fear for a while. Haiti is likely the worst place to be in north america. Exploided first by the europeans, then by the americans, then dropped in the garbage bin. The country is the poorest on the continent, every 7th person has HIV positive and the only export produce they have nowadays is drugs. The government is dictatorial, the social system (including health, welfare, education and law) is non existent. People live in "clans", protecting each other. Lynch justice is common as sand on the beach. Seldom a night goes by without gunshots being heard. People raid, steal and kill during the day in the middle of the crowd. In the night only private militia groups keep a few parts of the country quiet. Each time I go there I feel like stepping into a big nightmare. Yet, my lady goes all the time, every few month she spends several weeks down there. Doing political work, radio speeches about democracy, about birth control, about health issues, setting up shelter for the homeless, teaching the kids in the villages how to read and write, etc. During the last years she has been kidnapped twice, robbed more often then she can count, shot at from afar, her uncle has been executed by militia (Jean Dominique, he was the foremost public speaker for democratic elections on haiti, there are still a few articles about it out there on the web), her aunt has been raped and then killed a few years ago. Friends of hers are constantly being attacked. She doesn't carry a weapon, she actually refuses to have any protection from weapons, bodyguards and clan militia. The first time we went together I was terrified, I called her insane, asked her, begged, that she would never go again, or at least surround herself with all kinds of bodyguards. Back then she told me that she could easily do that. But that it wouldn't make her any better than all the others. she told me that she tries to set a little thing in motion with her work, but more important, she tries to demonstrate that there IS another way to live. A civilised way. Nowadays when she goes I am still afraid, but I know that she is setting a sign. There are several people like her out there. I met a lot of them once during a conference. They are a kind of modern missionary without religion (the church on haiti consists of a few poor priests in the countryside with no support whatsoever and a big fat bishop sitting in a huge palace like village surrounded with one of the largest militia groups on the island). And slowly, ever so slowly, small things are moving on haiti.

There IS another way, a way that demonstrates that we are more than just brutal animals.

cheers

Helge

[TexasVet]

Gentlemen, I have read most of the posts on this subject and have only this to add.

If this scenario played out in the real world there would be no "I fired and he went down". There would be "I shot him 10 times with my .38 Super and then he fell down dead". No one is going to attack any of mine and survive, period end of story. No doubts, no afterthoughts and no remorse. And in East Texas no problem from the Sheriff, either.
1: If he is in your house, you can kill him. Period. No East coast "retreating" til you can't back up any more, no warnings, no nothing.
2: If it is after dark in Texas you and the law are to assume he is armed and you may use deadly force to prevent anything from bodily harm of you, yours or your neighbor, down to "vandalism" of your or your neighbor's PROPERTY. This may sound harsh to some but there is a war going on out in America and I intend to win all my personal battles.

------------------
Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club
68-70

[This message has been edited by TexasVet (edited July 25, 2000).]

[Sprig]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TexasVet:
Gentlemen, I have read most of the posts on this subject and have only this to add.

If this scenario played out in the real world there would be no "I fired and he went down".
[/quote]

There is a reason for just one single intial shot. The perp is between you and your daughter. Rule #4, be aware of your target. Multiple shots place further risk of colateral damage while the perp is standing.

Sprig

[TexasVet]

Sprig, There would be NO shots while he was between me and my daughter. That is what Rule 4 MEANS. But in a room, one foot of movement will eliminate that problem. Then everything else I said applies. IPSC shooting will teach you how shoot around hostages. And the real world will teach you that sometimes you even shoot through hostages if necessary to save their life.

------------------
Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club
68-70

[Rich Lucibella]

Well said, TV.
OTOH, going to the knee and shooting up is another alternative, as is the "sidestep the rush and fire a warning shot to the pate". ;)

Sprig-
When you use the icons to email TFL, it comes to me. And, yes, I learned to use the "reply" button about 4 days ago. ;) And, no, it doesn't work. I'll assume it's on my end (it's possible) and apologize in advance for not returning your emails. Any further discussion would probably best be done on the Suggestions Forum.
Rich

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited July 25, 2000).]

[C.R.Sam]

Would any of our great archivist have info on the laws of Haiti regarding private ownership and/or registration of firearms?



------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."

[Battler]

HelgeS: Demonstrating the civilized and moral high ground of vulnerability and helplessness?


Battler.

[falconer]

I certainly hope that I never find myself in a position such as Sprig described. In the event that something like that were to happen, I would merely follow what my kung fu teacher taught us about fighting. He said something to the effect of "Never use what you have learned for vengence, only do so to protect yourself,your loved ones, and those that belong to you. And if you must do so, be deliberate, determined and deadly."

With that said, If I walk into a situation like Sprig posted (armed or unarmed), I will use lethal force to protect my own. If that results in the bad guy dying, sucks to be him.

------------------
"There are roads that must not be followed, and battles that must not be fought.." --Sun Tzu

[Sprig]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rich Lucibella:
[B]Well said, TV.
OTOH, going to the knee and shooting up is another alternative, as is the "sidestep the rush and fire a warning shot to the pate". ;)

Sprig-
When you use the icons to email TFL, it comes to me. And, yes, I learned to use the "reply" button about 4 days ago. ;)
Rich[B][/quote]

Alright! We can discuss tactics later! Without writing a whole page introduction and every detail, I wanted to give reason that only 1 shot was fired initially. I did feel that since the attacker was an immediate threat NOW to YOU, that rule #4 might go out the window. We all do stupid things, especialy when groggy from sleep. Then, as he falls two things happen. You see your daughter, come back a little closer to reality, and he is no longer an "immediate" threat.

Or, create some other reasons! With various home layouts, the speed of the attacker, the lighting, ect. there can be good reason to fire only one initial shot.

-----
To Rich,
I wasn't trying to be sarcastic about the "reply button". I was trying to understand how/why I couldn't be emailed directly from the email I sent. I didn't know if you were trying cut/paste from TFL information. It just seemed odd that hitting reply wouldn't work.

BTW, It still seems odd.

Sprig

[Rich Lucibella]

Sprig-
Sorry, I thought your were referencing the reply button in email. Turns out my responses to you last night were bouncing from your email server. I had some of the Staff try this morning and they got thru. As you know, so did I.
No harm done.
Rich