Since it it the Christmas season and everybody is getting along so well (Santa is watching you know)...I thought I would bring up a topic that I just know everyone will agree upon. The Death Penalty. Should our government be allowed to kill people.
I was completely opposed to this most of my life. My reasons were many; possible innocence, sanctity of life, who are we to kill one another, etc. It was also a different time for America. We saw life and it's value differently. My freshman year (1972), the supreme Court suspended capitol punishment and the decision had widespread public support. Now, opinion polls show three fourths of Americans support the death penalty. Why did we change our attitudes so much?
For me, the day I flipped was the day of the OKC bombing. That was the day I wanted society to kill the guy who did it. He killed innocent children in a day care who were collateral damage in his obsession to punish government workers that he had never met.
It took a monster to change what I believed about the issue. I have been pretty resolute since. This topic has come up in some other threads and I wondered if posters on TulsanNow could explain their positions. If we keep it on the topic (yeah, right), it could be insightful.
I'm not a fan but I imagine I'd change my tune if I ever had a personal stake in the subject.
RM, that is an either/or proposition isn't it? Anyway, I still feel resolute that in 99% of the cases it is not defensible.
Part of that is a Christian belief that its immoral. If you believe that God is perfect, then he creates no junk. Everyone has purpose. It is a final judgement that we should not institutionalize.
Part of it is lack of faith that humanity possesses that same perfection. Think of all the people that DNA exonerated.
Part of it is pragmatism. Just think had the Murrah bomber been allowed to age in prison, perhaps divulged more of his story, and eventually realized what he had done.
In cases where the evil is undeniable, unchanging and maybe even organic in nature, combined with overwhelming evidence of guilt with no remorse and fear of repetition (IOW, Charlie Manson), I could be persuaded. That is the 1%.
Should be given to anyone that sexually molest children.....
Quote from: AquaMan on December 13, 2011, 11:55:51 AM
RM, that is an either/or proposition isn't it? Anyway, I still feel resolute that in 99% of the cases it is not defensible.
Part of that is a Christian belief that its immoral. If you believe that God is perfect, then he creates no junk. Everyone has purpose. It is a final judgement that we should not institutionalize.
Part of it is lack of faith that humanity possesses that same perfection. Think of all the people that DNA exonerated.
Part of it is pragmatism. Just think had the Murrah bomber been allowed to age in prison, perhaps divulged more of his story, and eventually realized what he had done.
In cases where the evil is undeniable, unchanging and maybe even organic in nature, combined with overwhelming evidence of guilt with no remorse and fear of repetition (IOW, Charlie Manson), I could be persuaded. That is the 1%.
"Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man"
As for the religious aspect, it depends on what verses of the Bible you find convenient. Over all, the Bible leans on the side of justice and that justice does include multiple instances and justifications for capital punishment.
From a non-religious standpoint, I think that if capital punishment functions as a deterrent, or as the only means in insuring that further crime is not committed by the same individual, than it is justified.
Sadly, I don't believe that it serves as a deterrent any more. Now that murders are allowed to spend decades on death row and millions of dollars in tax payer (the victim's money) filing appeals and clogging the courts. Capital punishment has become an industry to feed lawyers, and the process so complex that in many cases we can't even do it right.
In the old days, if you killed a woman and raped her children, you were convicted and hung in public. Your body was then laid in a pine box in front of the courthouse where people could spit on you, and 10 year old boys could shiver at the horror of being you. Today, you go to prison, get three hot meals a day, cable television, a library, clean water and cloths, and free healthcare, and conjugal visits from women you meet on the internet. If the state is lucky enough to get a death penalty conviction for you, you get a private cell, and 10-20 years to file appeals.
There are no 10 year old boys who judge their actions and choices based on the scoundrel they saw laid out in a pine box at the court house any more. The death penalty no longer carries any deterrence, and serves only to canonize martyrs for movements.
I offer no alternative.
I believe there are cases where it is appropriate. The evidence to convict must be overwhelming. What kind of case is subjective. I believe that someone who goes on a murder spree would be an acceptable case. Charlie Manson, Tim McVeigh, rooftop campus snipers, and the sort have no place in our society. Fortunately the 911 guys mostly convicted themselves to death. Someone who kills on the spur of the moment such as someone killing their spouse's lover should "just" get life in prison.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 13, 2011, 11:43:59 AM
Since it it the Christmas season and everybody is getting along so well (Santa is watching you know)...I thought I would bring up a topic that I just know everyone will agree upon. The Death Penalty. Should our government be allowed to kill people.
I was completely opposed to this most of my life. My reasons were many; possible innocence, sanctity of life, who are we to kill one another, etc. It was also a different time for America. We saw life and it's value differently. My freshman year (1972), the supreme Court suspended capitol punishment and the decision had widespread public support. Now, opinion polls show three fourths of Americans support the death penalty. Why did we change our attitudes so much?
For me, the day I flipped was the day of the OKC bombing. That was the day I wanted society to kill the guy who did it. He killed innocent children in a day care who were collateral damage in his obsession to punish government workers that he had never met.
It took a monster to change what I believed about the issue. I have been pretty resolute since. This topic has come up in some other threads and I wondered if posters on TulsanNow could explain their positions. If we keep it on the topic (yeah, right), it could be insightful.
Short answer; yes. Can't spend the time to work on this right now, but we had friends working in the Southwestern Bell building who got banged up a little. That was enough for me, even though they are fine now. Killing kids - even if I don't know them - is WAY more than enough. I even take that to people who abuse kids bad enough.
Remember the old Pat Benatar lyric, "hell is for children". Should not be that way, but too often it is. And the Satanic Agents putting them there should be eliminated. (In case you had not guessed, mistreatment of kids is a King-Dog sore point with me.)
This is one of those topics where I conflict with myself on the matter. To be honest, I can't say if I'm for or against it.
Quote from: custosnox on December 13, 2011, 02:32:48 PM
This is one of those topics where I conflict with myself on the matter. To be honest, I can't say if I'm for or against it.
I think that this is an issue that most good people have to wrestle with. Ultimately you want justice, but what is the cost of that justice?
I was 100% death penalty until the day I had to take an oath and testify in court knowing I would send a man to his death while his mother and the mother of his victim looked on sobbing. Who was the killer on that day? Is that a pain that I & those innocent mothers should have to shoulder because he chose to pull a trigger? No, and I do not anticipate his eventual death at the hand of the executioner will provide any salve for my wounds from that fateful day.
We live in a broken world that can never be made whole. This event is what led to my desire to work at revitalizing the poverty stricken parts of our community and provide any tape to the cracked and fractures place we live.
However, the conditions in which our inmates, death row or not, enjoy should be greatly reconsidered.
Quote from: rdj on December 13, 2011, 02:52:25 PM
We live in a broken world that can never be made whole.
Truth.
Quote from: Townsend on December 13, 2011, 11:48:20 AM
I'm not a fan but I imagine I'd change my tune if I ever had a personal stake in the subject.
I have the same conflict. It's easier to think of the death penalty when it's in the abstract, but up close and personal it's entirely different.
Still, the thought of spending a lifetime inside a 6x9 concrete cell in a supermax prison is a special form of hell. The window is set high in the wall so there's no view of the outside. The door is solid and the cast concrete walls are nearly soundproof. The isolation produces madness.
Given that, death may be less cruel.
Quote from: Townsend on December 13, 2011, 11:48:20 AM
I'm not a fan but I imagine I'd change my tune if I ever had a personal stake in the subject.
+1, but I hope society would not let my desire for revenge guide public policy. People have been wrongly convicted, despite the evidence seeming to be top-notch at the time.
Gaspar, in the old days, the hangings didn't seem to do much to discourage murder. Unfortunately, good crime statistics are hard to come by from that era.
Every time government puts a person down all our hands participate.
If you are for the death penalty, as ZYX sez: "what a disgusting person you are." Of course, that was a discussion on abortion. Same diff...
I am absolutely for the death penalty. I would even extend it further - like the meth manufacturer I mentioned elsewhere. It is an absolutely certain way to assure the person won't repeat the act on this earth. A glib answer would be that, since it is NOT our place to judge - God reserves that to Himself - I submit we should make the introduction.
Having said that, I would also submit that we place a moratorium on execution for some period of time. Perhaps even several years. Especially in the states with the worst record of killing people when they have been shown to be innocent of the crime they are executed for. Like Texas. And Ohio.
Rick Perry in particular should be banned for life from ever allowing an execution, since he is the one who went ahead and killed a guy who was shown through DNA NOT to have been present at the crime.
When we clean up our act on making sure it is justified and the guilty convicted legally (remember the Oklahoma Medical Examiners office?), then yeah, let the killing begin. For the people who do things to children, I will provide the service if needed.
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 13, 2011, 10:58:09 PM
Every time government puts a person down all our hands participate.
If you are for the death penalty, as ZYX sez: "what a disgusting person you are." Of course, that was a discussion on abortion. Same diff...
You are such an idiot. Killing an innocent unborn child vs killing a person convicted of some horrible crime.
But same diff....
This is a very difficult issue for me. It completely depends on the case, but I typically lean on the side of "disagreeing."
Quote from: ZYX on December 13, 2011, 11:04:16 PM
This is a very difficult issue for me. It completely depends on the case, but I typically lean on the side of "disagreeing."
Well, that's CS.....
In spite of most people's misidentification of me as an arch conservative and every issue that implies, I'm absolutely against the death penalty. In every case.
I am a fairly recent convert though. I believed all my life that the death penalty was a just measure of punishment for murder and specific cases of rape, molestation, and similar crimes where the perpetrator had proven themselves such a devious pox on society, and there was no hope for rehabilitation.
What changed my view was the, at least at the time, only non-fiction offering John Grisham had ever written: "An Innocent Man". This book details the wrongful conviction of a couple of men in Pontotoc District Court. It's a gripping read I couldn't put down for days. I followed up by reading the autobiographical account of the case by one of the men in Grisham's book, Dennis Fritz. Between those two books, I learned a couple of important lessons:
1) We do send innocent people to death.
2) We waste billions upon billions of dollars every year in the appellate system for people rightfully or wrongfully convicted of capital crimes. I don't know the current cost, but about four years ago when I had my conversion on the issue, it cost approximately $250K per year to house and provide mandatory legal counsel for a death row inmate. Multiply that by the 10 to 20 years someone can keep filing appeal after appeal, and that's a lot of money. General population was about $25 to $30K a year.
I honestly don't know how anyone can read this book and still be 100% for the death penalty. It's a very, very moving read and it's even about our own Oklahoma justice system. I do think the DA profiled in the book was eventually voted out or "retired" as a result of the revelations in the book.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 13, 2011, 11:38:21 PM
In spite of most people's misidentification of me as an arch conservative and every issue that implies, I'm absolutely against the death penalty. In every case.
I am a fairly recent convert though. I believed all my life that the death penalty was a just measure of punishment for murder and specific cases of rape, molestation, and similar crimes where the perpetrator had proven themselves such a devious pox on society, and there was no hope for rehabilitation.
What changed my view was the, at least at the time, only non-fiction offering John Grisham had ever written: "An Innocent Man". This book details the wrongful conviction of a couple of men in Pontotoc District Court. It's a gripping read I couldn't put down for days. I followed up by reading the autobiographical account of the case by one of the men in Grisham's book, Dennis Fritz. Between those two books, I learned a couple of important lessons:
1) We do send innocent people to death.
2) We waste billions upon billions of dollars every year in the appellate system for people rightfully or wrongfully convicted of capital crimes. I don't know the current cost, but about four years ago when I had my conversion on the issue, it cost approximately $250K per year to house and provide mandatory legal counsel for a death row inmate. Multiply that by the 10 to 20 years someone can keep filing appeal after appeal, and that's a lot of money. General population was about $25 to $30K a year.
I honestly don't know how anyone can read this book and still be 100% for the death penalty. It's a very, very moving read and it's even about our own Oklahoma justice system. I do think the DA profiled in the book was eventually voted out or "retired" as a result of the revelations in the book.
I'll have to see if the library has it so I can download on the Fire soon...sounds interesting. In theory, I'm for it, but will admit to not knowing alot of the specifics that you seem to have derived from reading the book. I'll check it out.
But for now, I've been reading the following (as a professed road/highway geek):
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Roads-Visionaries-Trailblazers-Superhighways/dp/0618812415
Pretty good read on the fact that the Interstate Highway System, which many people thought Ike championed, is not actually the case. It gets started in the early 1900s. I'm not finished with it yet, but it's been a good read sofar.
Quote from: Hoss on December 14, 2011, 12:02:20 AM
I'll have to see if the library has it so I can download on the Fire soon...sounds interesting. In theory, I'm for it, but will admit to not knowing alot of the specifics that you seem to have derived from reading the book. I'll check it out.
But for now, I've been reading the following (as a professed road/highway geek):
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Roads-Visionaries-Trailblazers-Superhighways/dp/0618812415
Pretty good read on the fact that the Interstate Highway System, which many people thought Ike championed, is not actually the case. It gets started in the early 1900s. I'm not finished with it yet, but it's been a good read sofar.
If your hands aren't allergic to binding glue, you are certainly more than welcome to my copy of "An Innocent Man".
I still haven't gone to an electronic reader yet, though I love to give those and iPads for gifts. Too bad you turned out to not be an Apple fanboy, that was on my list for you this year. But...with your continued protestations about how much you hated "The Man", I gave your iPad to a little kid named Ramon in Tijuana through an iPad charity. I'm sure he will hack into your checking account at BOA with it in short order. Coming to lunch tomorrow? I'll see if I can find the book and will bring it.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 14, 2011, 12:11:16 AM
If your hands aren't allergic to binding glue, you are certainly more than welcome to my copy of "An Innocent Man".
I still haven't gone to an electronic reader yet, though I love to give those and iPads for gifts. Too bad you turned out to not be an Apple fanboy, that was on my list for you this year. But...with your continued protestations about how much you hated "The Man", I gave your iPad to a little kid named Ramon in Tijuana through an iPad charity. I'm sure he will hack into your checking account at BOA with it in short order. Coming to lunch tomorrow? I'll see if I can find the book and will bring it.
Likely not coming. The "man" (i.e. our corporation) has deemed it necessary that those of us with a glob of PTO are mandated to use it the week after Christmas. I have to proactively front-load my work until then as to not get behind after the New Year, so unless something happens that I don't have to frontload tomorrow, I'll have to pass.
I'll let everyone know for sure by midmorning tomorrow, but if you were a betting person, I'd bet on my absence this time.
Just so you know; I never said I hated Apple. Love his hardware. Software? Not so much. :)
Quote from: Hoss on December 14, 2011, 12:15:12 AM
Likely not coming. The "man" (i.e. our corporation) has deemed it necessary that those of us with a glob of PTO are mandated to use it the week after Christmas. I have to proactively front-load my work until then as to not get behind after the New Year, so unless something happens that I don't have to frontload tomorrow, I'll have to pass.
I'll let everyone know for sure by midmorning tomorrow, but if you were a betting person, I'd bet on my absence this time.
Just so you know; I never said I hated Apple. Love his hardware. Software? Not so much. :)
I'd rather front-load than back-load...just so we are straight on the issue ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on December 14, 2011, 12:28:41 AM
I'd rather front-load than back-load...just so we are straight on the issue ;)
That's why I'm doin' it now... :o
If any of you remember, I had those guys kick in my front door a few years ago and took a shot at them. That put me in the unique position of looking a man in the eye and deciding to take his life, even if he managed to duck out of the way. That decision has stuck with me, and has effected me deeply. After that, the whole issue has gotten a whole lot murkier, and I think I'm only starting to scratch the surface of my true feelings on it all.
Quote from: custosnox on December 14, 2011, 01:33:55 AM
If any of you remember, I had those guys kick in my front door a few years ago and took a shot at them. That put me in the unique position of looking a man in the eye and deciding to take his life, even if he managed to duck out of the way. That decision has stuck with me, and has effected me deeply. After that, the whole issue has gotten a whole lot murkier, and I think I'm only starting to scratch the surface of my true feelings on it all.
Edited to add to my original post: I reserve the right to protect myself, my family, and anyone who is a guest in my house if someone else intends to use deadly force on myself, my family, or a guest for their nefarious means. I won't go looking for trouble, but I've come to grips with the idea that if someone came at me with a gun or knife, I'd most certainly have no problem pulling the trigger.
Fortunately I've not had to take a shot as you did. I hope I never do, but I do appreciate I have the right to do so, if it ever was necessary.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 14, 2011, 02:09:55 AM
Edited to add to my original post: I reserve the right to protect myself, my family, and anyone who is a guest in my house if someone else intends to use deadly force on myself, my family, or a guest for their nefarious means. I won't go looking for trouble, but I've come to grips with the idea that if someone came at me with a gun or knife, I'd most certainly have no problem pulling the trigger.
Fortunately I've not had to take a shot as you did. I hope I never do, but I do appreciate I have the right to do so, if it ever was necessary.
Absolutely. Although I may be against the death penalty, I think people always have the right to defend themselves from immediately threatened harm with anything up to and including deadly force, if necessary. And I second Conan's recommendation. It's an excellent book.
Quote from: custosnox on December 14, 2011, 01:33:55 AM
If any of you remember, I had those guys kick in my front door a few years ago and took a shot at them. That put me in the unique position of looking a man in the eye and deciding to take his life, even if he managed to duck out of the way. That decision has stuck with me, and has effected me deeply. After that, the whole issue has gotten a whole lot murkier, and I think I'm only starting to scratch the surface of my true feelings on it all.
Oh I sure do remember that. I see your situation with those intruders in your grill and the choice you made far different than the death penalty question. Back in the 80s, when I was a soldier, I had the pleasure of live ammo being fired in my general direction. I never considered defending myself or by consequence my country akin to a death penalty question. You were trying to survive.
Quote from: custosnox on December 14, 2011, 01:33:55 AM
If any of you remember, I had those guys kick in my front door a few years ago and took a shot at them. That put me in the unique position of looking a man in the eye and deciding to take his life, even if he managed to duck out of the way. That decision has stuck with me, and has effected me deeply. After that, the whole issue has gotten a whole lot murkier, and I think I'm only starting to scratch the surface of my true feelings on it all.
I have had two of those type incidents over a several year span, both 30 years and more ago, and up until the first of those, there was a question in my mind whether I would be able to shoot at someone to try to stop them from shooting me. Found out that I could and did (but missed). The question was removed and the issue has been crystal clear ever since. I remember at the time having a feeling that I don't know the word for - the closest may be disappointment, but not in the normal sense. The feeling was that since I had missed, there was the possibility this person could and most likely would repeat the actions with someone not so willing or able to react in such a fashion as to stop them, and thereby end up dead because of my missed shots. (And no, they weren't bar fights or any other type venue one might go into expecting the possibility of adverse actions - more of a quiet pastoral scene.)
It has put a whole new perspective on the idea of taking another man's life, however, regardless of the circumstance. It bothers me to have had to made that choice, and I don't know if I could choose to do so without being in a situation such as that. And if I can not choose to do so, how can I expect another to do so for me?
Quote from: custosnox on December 14, 2011, 10:52:27 AM
It has put a whole new perspective on the idea of taking another man's life, however, regardless of the circumstance. It bothers me to have had to made that choice, and I don't know if I could choose to do so without being in a situation such as that. And if I can not choose to do so, how can I expect another to do so for me?
You may simply want to change the way you view self defense.
The idea behind using a gun for self-defense is not to kill your attacker, it is to STOP your attacker. Understanding that, there are several things you can do to be completely effective in protecting yourself and family without putting yourself in a position to take a life.
A great way to do this is to change your firearm choice. My personal recommendation would be to go with a .410 shotgun and #4-6 birdshot. If you get a sawed off home protection style, or my personal favorite THE JUDGE, You are going to stop your attacker, in fact if they aren't completely incapacitated by the 60+ led pellets that penetrate about 1"-2" under the skin, they will pass out from the pain! A non-lethal shot from a conventional hand-gun under 9mm can in many cases result in the attacker running away. If you are a good shot, you will kill them. A blast from the judge you will not walk away from, there is a lesser chance that it will be lethal, and you can't miss, even if you are blind!
I never want to kill anyone, but I go for the groin, because I would like for them to think about their life choices every time they pee. ;D
At $450 The Judge is an inexpensive and effective option.
(https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/images/62695.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on December 14, 2011, 02:35:08 PM
The idea behind using a gun for self-defense is not to kill your attacker, it is to STOP your attacker. Understanding that, there are several things you can do to be completely effective in protecting yourself and family without putting yourself in a position to take a life.
A great way to do this is to change your firearm choice. My personal recommendation would be to go with a .410 shotgun and #4-6 birdshot. If you get a sawed off home protection style, or my personal favorite THE JUDGE, You are going to stop your attacker, in fact if they aren't completely incapacitated by the 60+ led pellets that penetrate about 1"-2" under the skin, they will pass out from the pain! A non-lethal shot from a conventional hand-gun under 9mm can in many cases result in the attacker running away. If you are a good shot, you will kill them. A blast from the judge you will not walk away from, there is a lesser chance that it will be lethal, and you can't miss, even if you are blind!
I never want to kill anyone, but I go for the groin, because I would like for them to think about their life choices every time they pee. ;D
We are going down a path here that requires much more information. Early on, the Judge was specifically talked up as an anti-carjacking tool. Very effective, especially if you have a couple of .45 Long Colt in the cylinder after the .410 ga. Superb choice for close in, and it's ALL close in. If not, then you probably have a chance to run away and should use it.
I think you may want to talk to some more cops about that. A very large percentage of people who are shot, even with bird shot, report they didn't even realize they were hit until later. And the vast majority of people getting into a deadly situation don't react well, if at all. It certainly is not as simple as pulling out your gun and shooting a guy in the crotch.
There will be more video, but will start with this one. The agenda here is anti-gun, and in particular, anti-concealed carry. And obviously I don't agree with the point of view - actually couldn't be further apart. But what the cops are showing is very real and the way people react is typical. If thinking about concealed carry, there is a major investment in time and effort
required.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s&feature=related
Quote from: Gaspar on December 14, 2011, 02:35:08 PM
You may simply want to change the way you view self defense.
The idea behind using a gun for self-defense is not to kill your attacker, it is to STOP your attacker. Understanding that, there are several things you can do to be completely effective in protecting yourself and family without putting yourself in a position to take a life.
A great way to do this is to change your firearm choice. My personal recommendation would be to go with a .410 shotgun and #4-6 birdshot. If you get a sawed off home protection style, or my personal favorite THE JUDGE, You are going to stop your attacker, in fact if they aren't completely incapacitated by the 60+ led pellets that penetrate about 1"-2" under the skin, they will pass out from the pain! A non-lethal shot from a conventional hand-gun under 9mm can in many cases result in the attacker running away. If you are a good shot, you will kill them. A blast from the judge you will not walk away from, there is a lesser chance that it will be lethal, and you can't miss, even if you are blind!
I never want to kill anyone, but I go for the groin, because I would like for them to think about their life choices every time they pee. ;D
At $450 The Judge is an inexpensive and effective option.
(https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/images/62695.jpg)
Just the "CHA-CHACK!" from a .20 or .12 gauge shot gun would be enough to get most intruders to think twice and bail out. One other benefit of a shotgun (or Judge) for home defense is the chance of pellets penetrating sheet rock are pretty slim if you are worried about hitting an unintended target on the other side of a wall.
You and I do disagree though on one point. I've always been taught never to aim a firearm at another person unless I intend to shoot them. Do not shoot another person unless I intend to kill them.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 14, 2011, 03:47:44 PM
Just the "CHA-CHACK!" from a .20 or .12 gauge shot gun would be enough to get most intruders to think twice and bail out. One other benefit of a shotgun (or Judge) for home defense is the chance of pellets penetrating sheet rock are pretty slim if you are worried about hitting an unintended target on the other side of a wall.
You and I do disagree though on one point. I've always been taught never to aim a firearm at another person unless I intend to shoot them. Do not shoot another person unless I intend to kill them.
You need to think about that through. The correct interpretation is "never point a gun at another person unless you are
prepared to kill them."
The operative word is "prepared." It indicates a mental state where you have concluded that your actions to stop an attacker may result in death. This is what allows you to engage in the use of potentially lethal force.
There are two reasons I say this:
1. In a court of law (where you will likely end up if you shoot someone) you never want to display "intent." If the prosecution can prove through your words or actions that you intended to kill your attacker than you will likely be found guilty of manslaughter.
2. When questioned, you always must reply "I was trying to stop him." If through that effort, the attacker dies, you are not held responsible for his death.
The best way to do this is to truly believe that the use of lethal force's primary purpose is to stop an attack, protect your life, or protect the life of another. If this means that you need to re-evaluate your choice in home protection tools, then so be it, but it is very important that if you intend to protect yourself and your family, that you internalize the mission of STOPING AN ATTACK, not KILLING.
This will help you to do what is necessary if the time comes to defend yourself without hesitation that could cost you your life or a misunderstanding of purpose that could cause you your freedom.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 14, 2011, 04:30:57 PM
You need to think about that through. The correct interpretation is "never point a gun at another person unless you are prepared to kill them."
The operative word is "prepared." It indicates a mental state where you have concluded that your actions to stop an attacker may result in death. This is what allows you to engage in the use of potentially lethal force.
There are two reasons I say this:
1. In a court of law (where you will likely end up if you shoot someone) you never want to display "intent." If the prosecution can prove through your words or actions that you intended to kill your attacker than you will likely be found guilty of manslaughter.
2. When questioned, you always must reply "I was trying to stop him." If through that effort, the attacker dies, you are not held responsible for his death.
The best way to do this is to truly believe that the use of lethal force's primary purpose is to stop an attack, protect your life, or protect the life of another. If this means that you need to re-evaluate your choice in home protection tools, then so be it, but it is very important that if you intend to protect yourself and your family, that you internalize the mission of STOPING AN ATTACK, not KILLING.
This will help you to do what is necessary if the time comes to defend yourself without hesitation that could cost you your life or a misunderstanding of purpose that could cause you your freedom.
As per issue number 1 and 2, don't say a word to the cops until your attorney arrives.
I suspect Jerome Ersland started running his mouth to the cops thinking the law would fall on his side. Turned out not to be the case.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 14, 2011, 04:37:19 PM
As per issue number 1 and 2, don't say a word to the cops until your attorney arrives.
I suspect Jerome Ersland started running his mouth to the cops thinking the law would fall on his side. Turned out not to be the case.
Yeah, that and the video tape!
Quote from: Gaspar on December 14, 2011, 02:35:08 PM
You may simply want to change the way you view self defense.
The idea behind using a gun for self-defense is not to kill your attacker, it is to STOP your attacker. Understanding that, there are several things you can do to be completely effective in protecting yourself and family without putting yourself in a position to take a life.
A great way to do this is to change your firearm choice. My personal recommendation would be to go with a .410 shotgun and #4-6 birdshot. If you get a sawed off home protection style, or my personal favorite THE JUDGE, You are going to stop your attacker, in fact if they aren't completely incapacitated by the 60+ led pellets that penetrate about 1"-2" under the skin, they will pass out from the pain! A non-lethal shot from a conventional hand-gun under 9mm can in many cases result in the attacker running away. If you are a good shot, you will kill them. A blast from the judge you will not walk away from, there is a lesser chance that it will be lethal, and you can't miss, even if you are blind!
I never want to kill anyone, but I go for the groin, because I would like for them to think about their life choices every time they pee. ;D
At $450 The Judge is an inexpensive and effective option.
(https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/images/62695.jpg)
Of course, if you don't have $450 but already have a Desert Eagle 9mm, then you use the DE. And my intent was to stop them. I just happen to know that the best way to stop someone is to stop all brain activity, which a severe case of lead poisoning can do if injected directly through the brain. But, I do think I need to retrain myself, I went for a head shot (and only missed due to hesitation), I probably need to get my reaction to go for body shots.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 14, 2011, 03:40:37 PM
We are going down a path here that requires much more information. Early on, the Judge was specifically talked up as an anti-carjacking tool. Very effective, especially if you have a couple of .45 Long Colt in the cylinder after the .410 ga. Superb choice for close in, and it's ALL close in. If not, then you probably have a chance to run away and should use it.
I think you may want to talk to some more cops about that. A very large percentage of people who are shot, even with bird shot, report they didn't even realize they were hit until later. And the vast majority of people getting into a deadly situation don't react well, if at all. It certainly is not as simple as pulling out your gun and shooting a guy in the crotch.
There will be more video, but will start with this one. The agenda here is anti-gun, and in particular, anti-concealed carry. And obviously I don't agree with the point of view - actually couldn't be further apart. But what the cops are showing is very real and the way people react is typical. If thinking about concealed carry, there is a major investment in time and effort required.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s&feature=related
It seems I am not the typical person in this situation. That is one thing that puzzles me to this day about it, I was completely calm throughout. I didn't even have the shakes later, so I'm taking that to mean I never even hit the adrenaline. Everything that happened I worked through my mind as I did it, right down to pulling the trigger. Of course that might be why it has effected me so deeply, I kind of had that internal dialog happening in that split second as they came through the door of "you need to shoot" "If I shoot I'll be taking their life" looked into the guys eyes "you still need to shoot, that is the only option" then I remember actually thinking the words "pull the trigger" as I squeezed the trigger. I think it is that personal accountability that comes to mind afterwards. I wonder how much the verdict of a death sentence would drop if those who made the judgment had to look at the person and physically take action to make it happen, right then and there.
Quote from: custosnox on December 14, 2011, 05:08:49 PM
It seems I am not the typical person in this situation. That is one thing that puzzles me to this day about it, I was completely calm throughout. I didn't even have the shakes later, so I'm taking that to mean I never even hit the adrenaline. Everything that happened I worked through my mind as I did it, right down to pulling the trigger. Of course that might be why it has effected me so deeply, I kind of had that internal dialog happening in that split second as they came through the door of "you need to shoot" "If I shoot I'll be taking their life" looked into the guys eyes "you still need to shoot, that is the only option" then I remember actually thinking the words "pull the trigger" as I squeezed the trigger. I think it is that personal accountability that comes to mind afterwards. I wonder how much the verdict of a death sentence would drop if those who made the judgment had to look at the person and physically take action to make it happen, right then and there.
9mm isn't enough to be a good self defense gun. And a .380 is just playing James Bond (sorry to those with .380s if I hurt your feelings - but it's true).
First time, I had the dialog in my head. Second time was all instinct and reaction. I had intentionally tried to train and practice when out in the field on hunting trips, etc. There are places that provide that kind of training, and it can be very helpful. The concealed carry classes are not even a good introduction to this topic. Just what is required by law.
Too many "video game" people out there (and that includes my generation raised on Roy Rogers and Gene Autry) treat it like a "game". It is NOT.
And any creditable instructor will tell you to forget the "shoot their weapon out of their hands" tricks, and just try to aim for the biggest target you see - the torso. And never, ever, ever pull a gun on someone - or point it at them - that you don't intend to kill. Because even if the intent IS stopping, the end result may well end up in kill. If you cannot bring yourself to do that, then just forget the gun.
2.5 million times a year in this country a person uses a firearm to defend themselves from severe bodily injury or death (FBI stats). Not even a tiny fraction of that are actually killed every year, so most encounters do not involve a fatality. Your odds of not killing someone in an encounter are good, and you may just save your own life. Just be aware that it can happen and it could be your life snuffed out if not properly prepared. Last year, man and woman were killed in New Mexico by escaped criminals from Arizona (since Gov. Brewer was more concerned with the aliens than keeping violent criminals detained.) The woman was the sister of a man I work with. Horrible situation. The man murdered had a concealed carry permit - I do not know if he had it on him at the time - but even with a gun, things can still go badly. If violence is the intent of the criminal, carrying still gives a better opportunity to preserve your life.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 14, 2011, 05:24:54 PM
9mm isn't enough to be a good self defense gun. And a .380 is just playing James Bond (sorry to those with .380s if I hurt your feelings - but it's true).
First time, I had the dialog in my head. Second time was all instinct and reaction. I had intentionally tried to train and practice when out in the field on hunting trips, etc. There are places that provide that kind of training, and it can be very helpful. The concealed carry classes are not even a good introduction to this topic. Just what is required by law.
Too many "video game" people out there (and that includes my generation raised on Roy Rogers and Gene Autry) treat it like a "game". It is NOT.
And any creditable instructor will tell you to forget the "shoot their weapon out of their hands" tricks, and just try to aim for the biggest target you see - the torso. And never, ever, ever pull a gun on someone - or point it at them - that you don't intend to kill. Because even if the intent IS stopping, the end result may well end up in kill. If you cannot bring yourself to do that, then just forget the gun.
2.5 million times a year in this country a person uses a firearm to defend themselves from severe bodily injury or death (FBI stats). Not even a tiny fraction of that are actually killed every year, so most encounters do not involve a fatality. Your odds of not killing someone in an encounter are good, and you may just save your own life. Just be aware that it can happen and it could be your life snuffed out if not properly prepared. Last year, man and woman were killed in New Mexico by escaped criminals from Arizona (since Gov. Brewer was more concerned with the aliens than keeping violent criminals detained.) The woman was the sister of a man I work with. Horrible situation. The man murdered had a concealed carry permit - I do not know if he had it on him at the time - but even with a gun, things can still go badly. If violence is the intent of the criminal, carrying still gives a better opportunity to preserve your life.
I disagree with the assessment of the 9mm. I have seen the ballistics, and with self defense ammo, it is sufficient to stop an intruder/attacker, especially when you hit center mass.
Quote from: custosnox on December 14, 2011, 05:31:49 PM
I disagree with the assessment of the 9mm. I have seen the ballistics, and with self defense ammo, it is sufficient to stop an intruder/attacker, especially when you hit center mass.
Why do I shoot a .45?? Because they don't make a .46!
Lots of law enforcement and military got real enamored by 9mm about 20 years ago - bullet dujour - and most are moving away as quick as they can now. Lots of debate on this one. I could be comfortable with a 9mm, but just like the .45 more. Even though the .40 has much better ballistics. It is all very personal when you get to this level.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 14, 2011, 05:37:40 PM
Why do I shoot a .45?? Because they don't make a .46!
Lots of law enforcement and military got real enamored by 9mm about 20 years ago - bullet dujour - and most are moving away as quick as they can now. Lots of debate on this one. I could be comfortable with a 9mm, but just like the .45 more. Even though the .40 has much better ballistics. It is all very personal when you get to this level.
I could go with a .40 or a .45, but to be honest, I can afford (somewhat) to get more ammo for the 9mm, and the more time you can spend at the range the better off you are. Personally, if I could afford it, I would go with a DE .50 or something like that, but that is just because you know it's going to do some damage. Too bad you can't carry that (as if you could really conceal it).
Under stress, the body dumps adrenaline into the bloodstream. It has a powerful effect, reducing peripheral vision, boosting muscular strength at the expense of fine motor skills, and dampening pain response. This happens to both the homeowner and the guy coming through his door. Toss in some additional drugs or alcohol, and the pain response is further reduced. It's no wonder that a person can be shot and not really feel it. Some gunshot victims say that it feels almost like a burn rather than an impact.
In the infamous Miami shootout, FBI agents armed with 9mm handguns were at a severe disadvantage to 2 criminals armed with .223 rifles. Likewise, in the LA shootout, the LAPD handguns (9mm and .40 S&W, if I recall right) were outgunned by two criminals in improvised body armor and armed with rifles firing 7.62x39 cartridges. Both incidents had police calling for better weapons. The FBI settled on the 10mm for a time, while the LAPD looked at the 45ACP. They probably wouldn't penetrate even improvised armor, but they'll knock people down.
What does all this mean for that frightened homeowner? The unmistakeable clack-clack of a pump action shotgun should deter any criminal in his right mind. But what of a criminal high on crank or meth?
Quote from: custosnox on December 14, 2011, 05:31:49 PM
I disagree with the assessment of the 9mm. I have seen the ballistics, and with self defense ammo, it is sufficient to stop an intruder/attacker, especially when you hit center mass.
I disagree with the .380 assessment. I use two kinds of ammo: PP and range. I have two clips right now of PP. The .380 works just fine as a defense weapon and is good for conceal/carry purposes. All the ballistics and results I've seen show a pretty nasty wound if the PP is used and has a decent range. Most self-defense gunshots are shot between 6 and 15 feet, some even closer. The .380 is pretty close to the 9 in size also.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 14, 2011, 05:24:54 PM
9mm isn't enough to be a good self defense gun. And a .380 is just playing James Bond (sorry to those with .380s if I hurt your feelings - but it's true).
First time, I had the dialog in my head. Second time was all instinct and reaction. I had intentionally tried to train and practice when out in the field on hunting trips, etc. There are places that provide that kind of training, and it can be very helpful. The concealed carry classes are not even a good introduction to this topic. Just what is required by law.
Too many "video game" people out there (and that includes my generation raised on Roy Rogers and Gene Autry) treat it like a "game". It is NOT.
And any creditable instructor will tell you to forget the "shoot their weapon out of their hands" tricks, and just try to aim for the biggest target you see - the torso. And never, ever, ever pull a gun on someone - or point it at them - that you don't intend to kill. Because even if the intent IS stopping, the end result may well end up in kill. If you cannot bring yourself to do that, then just forget the gun.
2.5 million times a year in this country a person uses a firearm to defend themselves from severe bodily injury or death (FBI stats). Not even a tiny fraction of that are actually killed every year, so most encounters do not involve a fatality. Your odds of not killing someone in an encounter are good, and you may just save your own life. Just be aware that it can happen and it could be your life snuffed out if not properly prepared. Last year, man and woman were killed in New Mexico by escaped criminals from Arizona (since Gov. Brewer was more concerned with the aliens than keeping violent criminals detained.) The woman was the sister of a man I work with. Horrible situation. The man murdered had a concealed carry permit - I do not know if he had it on him at the time - but even with a gun, things can still go badly. If violence is the intent of the criminal, carrying still gives a better opportunity to preserve your life.
Cemeteries are littered with bodies with 9mm and .380 wounds. Using the correct round or simply getting a great shot with a wad cutter will still result in a permanent case of extreme sleepiness.
There are some SDA instructors who actually do address the best weapons and rounds for self-defense. My instructor even went so far as to show the class quite a few defense tactics without a firearm.
I can't say enough good about Paul Abel at Shoot-N-Iron down in Shawnee. He was a long-time LEO and they do LEO tactical training there. They also have advanced defense courses for us non LEO types.
http://www.shoot-n-iron.com/SIcourse.asp
Quote from: custosnox on December 14, 2011, 05:31:49 PM
I disagree with the assessment of the 9mm. I have seen the ballistics, and with self defense ammo, it is sufficient to stop an intruder/attacker, especially when you hit center mass.
I have seen the outcome of hundreds of single and multiple shots with 9mm. It's an extremely effective load. .45 has massive punch, but not as much penetration and just about every torso, limb or head shot with a 9mm I treated as a paramedic resulted in complete incapacitation and/or death.
I also disagree with his assessment of .380. While they only produce an average of 9in penetration in ballistic jell, they are typically very effective, especially with full copper hollow points. They are also the best CC weapon because of their size and accuracy (more accurate out of a 3in barrel than 9mm or 45).
If you goal is indeed to kill someone as Hereon states above, than he is "good to go" with his "dirty harry" weapon, I just don't want to be his next door neighbor, or living across the street. Additionally, if the scenario ever plays out where he does have to use that weapon to defend himself, I hope no ambitious attorney reads his post.
Quote from: Hoss on December 15, 2011, 12:25:05 AM
I disagree with the .380 assessment. I use two kinds of ammo: PP and range. I have two clips right now of PP. The .380 works just fine as a defense weapon and is good for conceal/carry purposes. All the ballistics and results I've seen show a pretty nasty wound if the PP is used and has a decent range. Most self-defense gunshots are shot between 6 and 15 feet, some even closer. The .380 is pretty close to the 9 in size also.
+1 spot on!
Quote from: Gaspar on December 15, 2011, 07:28:49 AM
If you goal is indeed to kill someone as Hereon states above, than he is "good to go" with his "dirty harry" weapon, I just don't want to be his next door neighbor, or living across the street. Additionally, if the scenario ever plays out where he does have to use that weapon to defend himself, I hope no ambitious attorney reads his post.
It was an ambitious (mad-dog) attorney who mouthed those words. In concealed carry class.... What it means is that if you are not absolutely convinced that you can react with deadly force to someone who is trying to inflict same on you, then you should never pick up a gun. And always, RUN AWAY if you can!!! That has always been my first reaction. And always will be.
This thread sure went awry quick.
I thought it would be about the Death Penalty, but quickly became a argument about abortion, then a lovefest with handguns.
Where did I go wrong?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 15, 2011, 09:34:53 AM
This thread sure went awry quick.
I thought it would be about the Death Penalty, but quickly became a argument about abortion, then a lovefest with handguns.
Where did I go wrong?
You foobared up. You trusted us.
(http://armedrobbery.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/ufedup1.jpg?w=642&h=480)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 15, 2011, 09:34:53 AM
This thread sure went awry quick.
I thought it would be about the Death Penalty, but quickly became a argument about abortion, then a lovefest with handguns.
Where did I go wrong?
I don't know, depending on your moral and religious views, it seems to be on topic.
The only variance is who has their finger on the plunger/trigger/scalpel.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 15, 2011, 09:52:06 AM
I don't know, depending on your moral and religious views, it seems to be on topic.
The only variance is who has their finger on the plunger/trigger/scalpel.
The state conspiring to take a life is clearly different than private parties doing so, presuming you believe in life before birth/viability/whatever.
Quote from: nathanm on December 15, 2011, 10:24:01 AM
The state conspiring to take a life is clearly different than private parties doing so, presuming you believe in life before birth/viability/whatever.
You are absolutely right, however the outcome and moral question remains the same.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 15, 2011, 10:42:57 AM
You are absolutely right
Thanks! Now you know why that particular subject is not germane to the topic of this thread.
Kill 'em all...
Let God sort 'em out!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 15, 2011, 11:36:26 AM
Kill 'em all...
Let God sort 'em out!
That only works if there is a god, otherwise you still have a lot of sorting to do, and yourself to answer to
Quote from: custosnox on December 15, 2011, 12:12:48 PM
That only works if there is a god, otherwise you still have a lot of sorting to do, and yourself to answer to
Whew! What a trip...ok, I am back now. Was channeling my inner Jerry Falwell there for a while.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 15, 2011, 12:14:36 PM
Whew! What a trip...ok, I am back now. Was channeling my inner Jerry Falwell there for a while.
You should stay away from the magic mushrooms, my friend.
Quote from: nathanm on December 15, 2011, 03:36:05 PM
You should stay away from share the magic mushrooms, my friend.
Quote from: nathanm on December 15, 2011, 03:36:05 PM
You should stay away from the magic mushrooms, my friend.
Sometimes I miss childhood....