Scenario - Hot Dog

[WVanOmega]

OK. I've been lurking for a month and this is my first post.

Obviously, since I am this late posting, I have had the benift of seeing the intentions of the original post.

When I went through the US Air Force Security Police Acadamy ('83) one of the things we were told (with emphasis added)is:
Deadly force is the force that "...a Reasonable person Should know Could cause fatal or serious injury..."

That means attacking someone using a baseball bat, steel pipe, maybe a heavy chain as a weapon, that object could reasonably be construed as a deadly weapon.

I always thought a fair fight was one that I walked away from.

I have seen many fires that have caused a great deal of damage. I have fought a few fires.

Were I in that situation, if I had the ability, to "Sound the alarm", call for help, I would. I would stay, confront the individual, and I believe if we were about to start a fire, I would shoot him. (No lady would be such an instigator.)

I did, on one occasion, stop and extinguish a fire set by someone on the side of a road. At the time I had no cell phone and no weapon. I did get a discription of the vehicle, a partial tag number, and did report it to a police officer.

Ya'll have a Safe weekend.

Wayne

[Glenn E. Meyer]

One thing about the fire per se. Except for our current deluge (which may wash out this Sunday's matches - hope to have seen you Greg), a fire on a dog in the dry country can start significant grass fire. Some friends of mine hired some guys to weld on a metal building out by Rock Springs. The geniuses started a large fire that was heading for several houses across quite a few acres before it was stopped.

I will share that I eat living oysters and clams. In the trade, it's called facism. People are reluctant to eat things if the face resembles ours or has the cutism metric (a configuration of big eyes, etc.)

[nbk2000]

The OP said 'it's the dry time in Texas' and that the dog is tied to a tree.

But what if it's the only tree (or anything for that matter) in a wash or salt flat? Where's the justifications for preventing arson now?

Burning one tree + one stray dog = summary execution?

That's some pretty scary math a lot of people are advocating here.

Crypto-sociopaths are sociopaths who only operate under the guise of social acceptable behavior. 'Compensated psycopaths' is the more common term.

The higher-functioning morally deficient killers among us can be patient in waiting for a legally, and socially, acceptable excuse to kill or maim. The less restrained ones are called mass/serial killers.

That's all the more reason why CP's are likely to always be carrying a lethal weapon with them...so as not to miss that opportunity to kill and get away with it when the opportunity presents itself.

[oldironman]

NBK, says, "Burning one tree + one stray dog = summary execution?
That's some pretty scary math a lot of people are advocating here.

You are the only one who decided on that number, but attribute it to "a lot of people". <------- DEMOCRAT ALERT!!:barf:

[kgpcr]

iF IT WAS A PIT BULL I WOULD MAKE SURE HE HAD ENOUGH GAS AND A GOOD LIGHTER THAT WORKED!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Until one is a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist and does a full workup on an individual, claming that many gunowners are sociopaths based on internet chat isn't really respectable.

[nbk2000]

In a thread with about two dozen different people responding, having half of them responding with affirmatives for lethal force, constitutes 'a lot'.

#8, torque
#12, restlessnomad
#22, RedneckFur
#24, DesertDawg
#43, Doug.38PR
#46, Tanzer
#54, Southern_guy
#61, easyG
#63, The Biker
#75, stephen426
#83, Samurai
#97, markj

Though it's always nice to see some people with rational attitudes:

oldbillthundercheif
Edward429451
Groundhog
Musketeer
David Armstrong

And where did I say most gunowners are sociopaths?

But when crypto-sociopaths are looking to murder a human being using their phallic prosthetic, citing 'arson' or 'animal cruelty' as justification, than you know what's wrong with a lot of gun owners.

Most sociopaths own guns, so a lot of gun owners are sociopaths, which is what's wrong with them in the first place...their diseased mental state, not the weapons they own. If there were no guns, they'd own swords and spears instead.

If I had said '...what's wrong with a lot of TV owners.', would you have spoken up to defend TV owners?

With 50 million gun owners, and at least 2% of the total US population being sociopaths, and most sociopaths owning weapons, do the math.

That's 'a lot'.

[The Biker]

Where did I state that that I advocated lethal force?

Biker

[Bigfatts]

Not to hijack, but kGPCR what do you have against Pit Bulls that would move you to allow one to be tortured to death? I hate to hear someone say they would help a madman kill something simply because of what breed it is, kinda like saying you wouldn't defend someone because they're Mexican and you had a bad experience with Mexicans. It especially disappoints me to hear something like that from a member of this forum.

Back on topic, I seriously do not think the situation merits lethal force. Trying to justify it with Arson most likely wouldn't holp up in court if you killed the SOB. However, like I said previously, I would give him a face full of pepper spray to think about whilst I absconded with his would be victim.

[WIN71]

I can't do that math until you tell me what figure you are using for:

the total US population

[oldbillthundercheif]

You did advocate whomping the screwball with a big ol' wrench, Biker. Even if you know a thing or three about inflicting non-lethal injuries with it, most areas would consider that to be lethal force.

[The Biker]

Well Chief, it's not their rules I'm worried about - they're mine...the rules, that is. No offense intended.

Biker

[nbk2000]

300 million americans is the number I'm thinking of, though you could deduct 20 million to account for the illegals.

Originally Posted by The Biker

...it's not their rules I'm worried about - they're mine...the rules, that is.

Psychologist Robert Hare, in his classic book Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us (1993), states:

Psychopaths are social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret.

BTW, oldironman, I'm neither democrat nor republican, as the whole voting system is a farce to keep the proletariat thinking they still have a say, when in fact they don't.

[David Armstrong]

No kidding. That lobster would probably jump into the boiling water rather than follow the calves through the castration shoots......

LOL! Good point. I guess it really does display a certain level of something (not sure what) to cut the testicles off an animal (and maybe eat them now--gotta love them mountain oysters!) just so it will be more tender when you kill it to eat a year from now.

[David Armstrong]

Some friends of mine hired some guys to weld on a metal building out by Rock Springs. The geniuses started a large fire that was heading for several houses across quite a few acres before it was stopped.

So, do we shoot welders these days? I think that was my point on the "intent to commit arson" issue earlier. Does torchman intend to engage in cruelty to animals? Or does he intend to engage in an arson? If the answer to the second is "no", is there any legal justification for deadly force?

[The Biker]

So you're intimating that you follow all the rules and those who don't are phsycopaths?
Just wanted to get that straight.

Biker

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Dave, I was pointing out that fires have the risk of spreading, not to shoot the jolly workman. Thus, someone setting a deliberate fire can do a lot of damage.

To my fellow posters, the sociopath discussion is ridiculous. Its proponent is just trolling. I may disagree with an immediate charge to brain the guy with a wrench or shoot him, but I certainly don't think that charge for anyone is justified.

Until one can examine a person vs. the DSM standards, we just have a lot of hot air here.

[David Armstrong]

Dave, I was pointing out that fires have the risk of spreading, not to shoot the jolly workman. Thus, someone setting a deliberate fire can do a lot of damage.

Understood. My question is on the "intent" provision of the law, however. Is the intent to do animal cruelty or to do arson? By securing Fido to the tree has torchman indicated that he has no intent to commit an arson, thus negating that force justification under the law?

[fixboot]

Wow. I am post number one hundred and forty four in this the most interesting and useful of threads.

[Groundhog]

Aww, c'mon fixboot! You never know when you'll be traveling armed through Texas in the dry season and spot a lunatic animal killer that never paid attention to Smokey the Bear posters!

[fixboot]

Aww, c'mon fixboot! You never know when you'll be traveling armed through Texas in the dry season and spot a lunatic animal killer that never paid attention to Smokey the Bear posters!

[nbk2000]

What terrible irony it'd be if, while trying to prevent an arson fire, you start one yourself by a bullet striking a piece of quartz in the dirt 50 meters past the guy when the bullet passes through him and the sparks start a fire.

Oh, I'm trolling, am I? Seven years and I've deciding to start trolling in your thread. My, it must be exceedingly special, mustn't it, to deserve such an honor.

Alright, I'll admit it, I'm trolling...for rationality and proportional response, in a thread where people are discussing how best to legally justify murdering a human being (twisted as he may be) over a DOG, using the excuse of arson, or arson using the excuse of a dog, however you want to phrase it.

That's trolling for sociopathic +1's, and that's sick.

Biker: Mostly.

[The Biker]

Fair enough.

Biker

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Trolling is when you make a ridiculous claim to diagnois sociopathy over responses to the thread.

If you read the criteria, know how one makes such a diagnosis, you would see that your analysis was hot air trying to make a point.

When you keep it up, clearly, that's trolling.

But back to the issue. All decision to act in a moral manner are on a continuum of action based on personal values and their interaction with the outcomes. Preventing torture of an animal may not be wise legally. Is it moral? Open to debate. Are humans who would do such, apriori, more valuable than the animal?

What if you saw an individual going to torch an original of the Constitution or the Mona Lisa? They are just paper, canvas and paint.

Would you be a good witness? Thus, the values which one might use to initiate lethal force are complex and beyond silly and misunderstood definitions found through google.

[easyG]

From nbk2000:

Most sociopaths own guns, so a lot of gun owners are sociopaths, which is what's wrong with them in the first place...their diseased mental state, not the weapons they own. If there were no guns, they'd own swords and spears instead.

Can you please provide PROOF that "most sociopaths own guns".

I'm betting that you cannot offer a shread of proof.