Scenario - Hot Dog

[oldbillthundercheif]

Drawing your weapon with no intention of shooting is one of the stupidest reactions I can think of in any situation. Some people are not afraid of guns... especially lunatics. They will likely respond with the same deadly force that you threatened, but were not willing to back up, and they will be right to do so both legally and morally.

[RedneckFur]

Once you see a few dozen 40 gallon drums filled with perfectly good pets that nobody wants, things may come into focus.

Thats exactly why I turned down a job at an animal shelter 2 years ago. The pay wasnt too shabby, but when they told me i'd have to put down unwanted dogs and cats, I thanked them for their time and walked out the door. A few days of killing dogs and I'd eat a bullet myself.

[stephen426]

Drawing your weapon with no intention of shooting is one of the stupidest reactions I can think of in any situation. Some people are not afraid of guns... especially lunatics. They will likely respond with the same deadly force that you threatened, but were not willing to back up, and they will be right to do so both legally and morally.

No... shooting just because you have drawn your gun is THE stupidest thing. If you can diffuse the situation or cause a bad guy to surrender (cease his hostilities) by drawing your weapon and pointing it at him, there is no need to fire. Read the American Rifleman some time and you will see how often a gun is used for self defense without a shot being fired. Furthermore, firing even though the mere presence of a gun has ceased hostilities becomes a whole other ball game... like man slaughter or murder. You say that some people are not afraid of gun... especially lunatics. How many gun toting lunatics have you run into? More likely than not, your would be attacker will not be a lunatic, but someone who actually does not want to get themselves shot. This is not to say I won't shoot if necessary... Just that I WON'T shoot if NOT necessary.

[oldbillthundercheif]

Fine... but I still maintain that drawing a weapon of any kind in defense of an animal is the act of a moronic madman.

The people who save their own hindquarters and are written up in the Armed Citizen article every month have never been dimwits pulling iron to save some ranom critters as far as I know. I've never seen one in there, anyway.

[easyG]

but I still maintain that drawing a weapon of any kind in defense of an animal is the act of a moronic madman.

Folks do it all the time....
Many nations have anti-poaching laws to protect certain species and game wardens to enforce those laws.
Start taking pot shots at an American Bald Eagle and see the reaction of the wildlife and game officials.

But more to the point of this thread...
It's not about "defense of an animal", it's about ridding our society of a sick demented bastard who gets his jollys by hurting defensless animals.
Anyone who will set a live dog on fire will set a live human on fire...it's just a matter of time.

[Musketeer]

But more to the point of this thread...
It's not about "defense of an animal", it's about ridding our society of a sick demented bastard who gets his jollys by hurting defensless animals.
Anyone who will set a live dog on fire will set a live human on fire...it's just a matter of time.

Oh I see, it is vigilanteism you are supporting.

Get this straight, it is not your job to "rid society" of anyone. You have not been elected to do it, you are not a prison guard overseeing a lethal injection as determined by a lawful court, You are a private citizen and unless immediately defending HUMAN life you are on shaky griound morally and legally in using lethal force in most jurisdictions of this nation.

Yes, abuse of animals is part of the path towards being a true sociopath. It is not up to you though to "rid society" of the individual. Callt he police, testify against him, and let the system we have put in place deal with him.

[easyG]

Oh I see, it is vigilanteism you are supporting.

Sure. Why not?

I once read a really good quote...it went something like this:

"All it takes for evil to succeed in this world is for good men to do nothing."

That might not be the exact wording, but I think you get the point.

...You are a private citizen and unless immediately defending HUMAN life you are on shaky griound morally and legally in using lethal force in most jurisdictions of this nation.

Legally? Maybe.
Morally? Not a chance!
The real morally "shaky ground" is this:
How could you live with yourself if you stood by and did nothing?

There are many forms of prison in this life....
I would hate to be imprisoned by my own fear to do what's right.

[Samurai]

Fact is, the act of shooting a person on account of a dog is murder. Murder is punishable by prison time. They won't send you to the chair over this, so it's just prison time.

The question you have to ask yourself is, would going to prison be worth it to you in order to shoot this guy?

For me, personally, I'd definitely draw, and I'd probably shoot him. I'd try to go for the non-lethal shot, but I'd shoot him just the same. And, I'd go to prison for it. I would be the victim of a moral connundrum. I'd be morally bound to accept the consequences of the aggravated assault, and I'd have to go to jail. But, the puppy would live. Morality would be satisfied.

[Musketeer]

Vigilanteism, people taking the law into their own hands and becoming judge, jury and executioner, is one of the loudest argument those opposed to Shall Issue put forward.

For people here to advocate Vigilanteism becasue they feel "ridding our society of a sick demented bastard" is the purpose of carrying a firearm I find astounding and naive. It is comments like that which our opposition is more than happy to throw in our face. "Let them have guns and people will take the law into their own hands!" is a cry often herard from the antis. Those advocating vigilanteism are saying EXACTLY that.

I do not advocate harming animals. At the same time the topic of discussion is a DOG. This is something that people in many parts of the world EAT. We are not talking about an endangerred species on a game preserve in Africa that is being pursued by ivory poachers, or the federally protected Bald Eagle. We are talking about a dog. You do not kill a man over a dog.

[Musketeer]

I would be the victim of a moral connundrum. I'd be morally bound to accept the consequences of the aggravated assault, and I'd have to go to jail. But, the puppy would live. Morality would be satisfied.

Who then will pay the mortage on your house, or pay for the food on your children's table? Make certain before you make the decision to throw your own life away over a dog that you are not also forcing those you are responsible for to suffer as well.

[stephen426]

Originally Posted by oldbillthundercheif

Fine... but I still maintain that drawing a weapon of any kind in defense of an animal is the act of a moronic madman.

The people who save their own hindquarters and are written up in the Armed Citizen article every month have never been dimwits pulling iron to save some ranom critters as far as I know. I've never seen one in there, anyway.

Go back to the original post. The person witnessing this even has read about some sicko having torched other dogs. This is not some one off isolated incident but serial animal cruelty. Oh well, I guess dogs are just property so who cares right? Besides, it is the dry season and the setting the dog on fire may lead to massive brush fires and endanger homes and lives. This becomes arson. I guess since he is not directly burning someone elses house down, you can't do anything right? Call me what you will, but I refuse to stand by and watch some sicko burn a dog alive. As I said, I probably would not shoot him, but I would attempt to stop him and hold him until the police came.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

See post #36 on arson. Setting a fire in the country is not trivial.

Let's say you try to stop him with force (not deadly force - restrain him for example) and he raises the stakes - threatens to douse you - are you justified to use deadly force.

For Texans - this is what the DPS class is about in part. When do you use various options.

Of course, the risk aversive position is to be a good witness.

BTW for the good witness situation - to play this game more - what if you saw some guy going to do it to YOUR dog in front of your house. Fido was outside and a nut rides up in a truck and douses him.

I'm not trying to be silly here but I think the moral vs. rational. vs. emotional imperatives are things we proponents of the armed society must think about.

[easyG]

Fact is, the act of shooting a person on account of a dog is murder. Murder is punishable by prison time. They won't send you to the chair over this, so it's just prison time.

Only if you get caught and can't afford the "dream team" defense.

[The Biker]

It's all in how you play the game. For example, if I see a guy trying to burn a dog and intervene and the guy ends up eating a wrench, he's *not* likely to call the cops. If the cops do end up involved, what do they see? A guy with a busted jaw, a gasoline soaked pup tied to a tree and busted jaw guy smelling of gas as is his vehicle.
I tell my story..."I saw his car on the side of the road and thought I'd stop and see if he needed help. As I got closer, I saw that he was about to set a puppie on fire! I told him to stop and he threw some gas at me (just so happens that some gas somehow got on my boots ~wink~) so I was forced to defend myself - I thought that he was gonna light me on fire too!"

Toothless Broken Jaw Guy's response is as follows..."Ngeeh fumph feef ohhh ngit...theeeet..."

Cops are people too and not a one I know of would have any sympathy at all for a pup killer and it would reflect in their report.

Mission accomplished.

Biker

[easyG]

Vigilanteism, people taking the law into their own hands and becoming judge, jury and executioner, is one of the loudest argument those opposed to Shall Issue put forward.

Would you shoot a man who was raping your wife?

If the answer is "yes", then welcome to the club my fellow vigilante!

If the answer is "no", then go and tell your wife and see what she thinks of you.:barf:

For people here to advocate Vigilanteism becasue they feel "ridding our society of a sick demented bastard" is the purpose of carrying a firearm I find astounding and naive. It is comments like that which our opposition is more than happy to throw in our face. "Let them have guns and people will take the law into their own hands!" is a cry often herard from the antis. Those advocating vigilanteism are saying EXACTLY that.

And I find it astounding and naive that you actually believe that the anti-gun crowd will ever be appeased until all firearms are out of the hands of the people.
You might feel that it's best to "bite your tongue" or "watch what you say" lest you anger the anti-gun crowd, but I don't believe that is the proper way to stand up for your rights.
I refuse to "say nice things" just to appease those who want to take our 2nd Amendment Constitutional right.

I do not advocate harming animals. At the same time the topic of discussion is a DOG. This is something that people in many parts of the world EAT. We are not talking about an endangerred species on a game preserve in Africa that is being pursued by ivory poachers, or the federally protected Bald Eagle. We are talking about a dog. You do not kill a man over a dog.

No man should ever think that he can set a living dog on fire and NOT expect others to stop him.

When you stand by and do nothing to stop such a man, then YOU are also part of the problem.

[mikejonestkd]

New york State is pretty clear about it if you consider the act of the individual as arson or attempted arson: Penal Law § 35.20

2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person
licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force
upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be
necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to
be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a
criminal trespass upon such premises. Such person may use any degree of
physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she
reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly
physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or
attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in
the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in
subdivision three.

[Musketeer]

Would you shoot a man who was raping your wife?

If the answer is "yes", then welcome to the club my fellow vigilante!

You are completely incorrect. The law allows for the use of deadly force to prevent a rape. There is no "Vigilante" element to using deadly force to stop a rape. Hunting down the rapist after the fact and killing him is being a vigilante and that is illegal.

The rape or murder of a human being is on a completely different plain of importance to that of an animal.

And I find it astounding and naive that you actually believe that the anti-gun crowd will ever be appeased until all firearms are out of the hands of the people.
You might feel that it's best to "bite your tongue" or "watch what you say" lest you anger the anti-gun crowd, but I don't believe that is the proper way to stand up for your rights.
I refuse to "say nice things" just to appease those who want to take our 2nd Amendment Constitutional right.

You make a large assumptions here. I do not think what we say can sway teh hard core anti 2A crowd. There is NOTHING you or I could say to sway them, just as they could not sway us to believe that all arms should be banned. Neither the antis or us are fighting to convert the hardcore elements of the opposition.

What we are trying to do is win over the vast majority of those in the middle. Most people are not solid members of one camp or the other. Those are the peopl who decide elections. Stupid statements advocating vigilante justice are ammunition for the antis to sway that majority to their side. Just as we revel in the opportunity to catch an anti who advocates banning all arms so do the anti's revel in the opportunity to spotlight irresponsible statements on our side.

I am not afraid of angerring the antis, I really don't care what they think of me. I am afraid though of driving away the many undecides in this nation with statements that paint gun owners as irresponsible, lynch mob justice wackos. Those slogans that work so well at firing up the hard core 2A supporters frankly scare the hell out of the majority of middle America. Subjects such as vigilanteism, armed resistence to the US Gov't, and other fringe statements do immeasureable harm to our cause by poisoning our position in the minds of the undecided masses.

For all the public opinion benifits our side recieve in the aftermath of disasters like hurricanes Andrew and Katrina, the LA Riots and other such instances where people were left to their own means we are continually put in the hole when our own members say something stupid about supporting vigilante justice or some other such nonsense.

The true antis are our enemy. They always will be. Neither we nor they can eliminate the opposition, we can only fight for the minds of as many of the undecideds as possible. Those are the people we should be worried about scaring away with stupid statements and the antis are the ones who will take those statements and repeat them loud and clear for all to hear.

[Samurai]

Who then will pay the mortage on your house, or pay for the food on your children's table? Make certain before you make the decision to throw your own life away over a dog that you are not also forcing those you are responsible for to suffer as well.

Not married. No house. No kids. HUGE student loans, so no net worth... Questions?

If I had kids? Maybe it would be different. I don't know. Like I said, each man has to make his own decision.

[Southern_guy]

Alright, here is how I see it:
By drawing your pistol, you are attempting to stop several crimes in progress, including: Cruelty to animals,destruction of property, and arson. You are making a citizen's arrest, and halting a crime. If you call the authorities while keeping him at gunpoint, you don't have to use deadly force. If, by some random chance, a guy saw you ignoring a crime taking place, you might be charged as an accomplice.

"I do not advocate harming animals. At the same time the topic of discussion is a DOG. This is something that people in many parts of the world EAT. "

People eat humans in many parts of the world as well. That doesn't decrease their value.

[easyG]

You are completely incorrect. The law allows for the use of deadly force to prevent a rape. There is no "Vigilante" element to using deadly force to stop a rape.

No, "the law" is not so clear and precise.
You would still most likely have a court hearing where it would be determined if charges were to be filed.
And if they were, then you MIGHT be found innocent, and the killing justified...or you might NOT be found innocent.
A jury, or judge, might determine that you had other means to stop the rape other than shooting the rapist.
And if you shot the guy and did not kill him, then there would probably be a trial to determine if he was in fact raping your wife and not having consensual sex, since it is most likely that he would not confess to the rape.

But hey, let's go a different route...
A guy rapes your wife but the courts don't have enough evidence to bring it to trial.
Would you become a vigilante and taken matters in your own hands?

What we are trying to do is win over the vast majority of those in the middle. Most people are not solid members of one camp or the other. Those are the peopl who decide elections.

Maybe in your town, but around here I have yet to find anyone "in the middle" about gun control.

I am not afraid of angerring the antis, I really don't care what they think of me. I am afraid though of driving away the many undecides in this nation with statements that paint gun owners as irresponsible, lynch mob justice wackos. Those slogans that work so well at firing up the hard core 2A supporters frankly scare the hell out of the majority of middle America. Subjects such as vigilanteism, armed resistence to the US Gov't, and other fringe statements do immeasureable harm to our cause by poisoning our position in the minds of the undecided masses.

Appeasement by any other name still stinks.
Your reasons for appeasement are not bad ones, but you must realize that it's still appeasement to the anti-gun crowd all the same.

I don't see any harm being done by the statements in this thread.
In fact, I would be willing to bet most Americans would agree that the nut case dog burner needed to be stopped.
And calling 911 aint gonna save the dog.
By the time the boys in blue arrive the dog would already be toast.

I don't see how anyone could just stand by and watch that happen when they have the means at hand to stop it.
There would have to be something wrong with their mindset, or they're just cowards at heart.

[oldbillthundercheif]

Mikejonestkd, the first part of that NY statute may be more important than you realize. It says (in legalese) that you can ony defend your own property or a property you have been clearly authorized to enter against arson unless you are "privleged" to do so (LE).

This means unless you are a cop, you can't go onto somebody else's land and use deadly force to prevent an arson.

You have to read the whole thing before you know what it really says.

[markj]

Shoot the guy, douse him in gas ,set him on fire, let dog feast after guy is done cooking. Evidense is in dogs belly that is if the dog is large, if not then get a few more over to help out....

In all reality I see no reason to draw a gun, I would stop, get out and yell at the guy I am coming to kick yer butt, usually scares off most guys, I am a bit large, usually make babies cry, scare old folks etc. I even cut my hair but the biker image is ingrained in some folks.

Most folks torture in private so you never get a chance to prevent it by seeing it via a casual glance. this thread is boarderline insane..

[David Armstrong]

Unfortunatly in the day and age where we value scumbag's life more than my life or your life or innocent people's lives,....

That is a terrible misrepresentation of the facts. The law actually tends to value law-abiding productive members of society more than criminals. And of course in this situation we are not talking about another person’s life, we are talking about an animal, something that all of us regularly kill and/or have killed on our behalf without any thought or problems. At worst we have the arson, as Glenn points out, and even then I'd seriously question whether shooting someone to prevent a range fire is appropriate.

Makes one want to ponder doing what a lot of farmers and ranchers do whenever an "endangered" EPA protected coyote or wolf attacks their livestock or chickens

Neither coyotes or wolves are protected by the EPA.

[Musketeer]

I don't see how anyone could just stand by and watch that happen when they have the means at hand to stop it.
There would have to be something wrong with their mindset, or they're just cowards at heart.

Then I am a coward at heart because I am not going to kill a man, go to jail and thereby leaving my wife and children without income to save a dog. I would certainly use OC on the guy but am not going to put myself in physical or legal risk by either going Mano y Mano with him or shooting him.

No, "the law" is not so clear and precise.
You would still most likely have a court hearing where it would be determined if charges were to be filed.

Please find ONE STATE where lethal force is NOT ALLOWED to be used in the prevention of rape. Any shooting may go to court, that does not mean it is not justified. Under the law you can use the prevention of rape as a legitimate defense for the use of deadly force and it would be up to the jury (if it went that far) to decide if there was situation to a normal person indicated a rape in progress that was being prevented. The jury would have to be instructed that ues of deadly force to prevent a rape is LEGAL.

Shoot a man to prevent a dog being killed and you are in a completely different situation. The jury will almost certainly be instructed that the defense of a dog's life does NOT warrant lethal force. You can argue your case and hope for the jury to ignore the court's instructions on grounds for guilt but the odds are you will be convicted of something if it goes to court. Perhaps not murder but the jury will slap you with one of the lesser charges the prosecution will add on just to send a message.

But hey, let's go a different route...
A guy rapes your wife but the courts don't have enough evidence to bring it to trial.
Would you become a vigilante and taken matters in your own hands?

No. I would hate it but NO. We live in a society of guided by the law. Aside from the basic premise of being a law abiding citizen I still have a wife to care for, I still have children to raise. One needs to put their inner "rambo" ego aside and behave as a responsible adult.

Maybe in your town, but around here I have yet to find anyone "in the middle" about gun control.

So everyone in your area is an NRA member and a solid voter with regards to 2A issues? The would never vote for a less than solid 2A politician becasue of other issues? How do those people feel about fully automatic weapons, do they think everyone should have access to them? What about registration or waiting periods? You may be in a fairly pro gun area but I gaurentee you the majority of the population is somewhere in the middle. Many of those people who consider themselves pro-gun are actually far from hardcore 2A supporters. Not wanting the revocation of the 2A does not make one a solid 2A defender. I gaurentee you people probably considerred Zumbo pro 2A until he made his foot in mouth comments.

At the same time the majority of people in less pro-gun areas are not members of the Brady Bunch.

Most people in this nation really care far more about other issues than the 2A. That is the truth. If you live in that one community where every citizen is a SAF, GOA and NRA member then you are lucky but are in very small company. Fear drives that large middle group of voters. Either fear of being left helpess like the Katrina survivors or fear of some homegrown militia nut with a machine gun, and fetrilizer bomb out to meet out justice as he sees fit. I advise not making us appear as the latter.

Appeasement by any other name still stinks.
Your reasons for appeasement are not bad ones, but you must realize that it's still appeasement to the anti-gun crowd all the same.

What have I given up in "appeasement" to the antis? I advocate against making stupid vigilanty justice comments. I oppose people who state that they are responsible for ridding the world of those they consider demented individiuals. I speak out against those who would take the law into their own hands so that they may kill a man when not allowed by law because they feel he deserved to die.

I did not say you need to give up your guns, high cap mags, HP ammo or anything else. I did not say you should have to pay a gov't fee to own a gun or have to surrender it to the gov't in times of emergency. I have not asked people to give up ONE THING associated with their 2A rights.

I have only asked people not to advocate illegal activity using a firearm as it hurts our cause with the majority of this nations undecided citizens.

I don't see any harm being done by the statements in this thread.

So this one doesn't make us look like lawless vigilantees?

it's about ridding our society of a sick demented bastard

Self appointed gun packing judges, juries and executioners are what we are painted to be and what that statement incorrectly supports.

In fact, I would be willing to bet most Americans would agree that the nut case dog burner needed to be stopped.

Probably but most of them will still convict you based on the instructions given to the jury with regards to the judicious use of lethal force.

[David Armstrong]

It's not about "defense of an animal", it's about ridding our society of a sick demented bastard who gets his jollys by hurting defensless animals.

Sorry, but that is not your call, and I'd really question any society that approved of such activity outside of the law. If you are wearing leather or eating meat, you are a sick demented bastard who gets his jollys by hurting defensless animals according to PETA.

Anyone who will set a live dog on fire will set a live human on fire...it's just a matter of time.

I don't think there is any evidence to support such a claim.