You don’t shoot signs?I was on a river cruise maybe ten years ago and the driver pointed out a bullet riddled stop sign at an intersection, commenting that "out in the sticks" that was pretty common.
(excursion bus trip to the volcano)
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
You don’t shoot signs?I was on a river cruise maybe ten years ago and the driver pointed out a bullet riddled stop sign at an intersection, commenting that "out in the sticks" that was pretty common.
(excursion bus trip to the volcano)
If by "whole state" you mean the "big dump cities in the western half", yeah, the whole state voted for it.But didn't the WHOLE STATE just vote in some really bad gun laws?
The population of Oregon is concentrated in Portland and it overwhelms the rest of the state which is fairly conservative. Only like three counties in Oregon voted in favor of that gun control law, but those three counties have so much larger a population that the law passed. To put it in perspective, if you watch the video I linked above, they are talking about a county with a population of 4,000 people. In contrast, Portland OR has a population of 600,000 people.
So, no, the whole state didn’t vote for gun control; greater Portland voted for gun control.
How is this not safe, Officer Dipshit? The guy wasn't hurt, and the dead guy is now serving a purpose as compost instead of stealing oxygen."If you are to get your vehicle stolen, please do not take matters into your own hands like this," Soliz said. "It's never safe as you can see by this incident."
Nice way to throw this in, to equate getting your property back as being a crime.A spokesperson for Apple has previously pointed Fox News Digital to a recent update and stated that it works with law enforcement to track down AirTags used for criminal purposes.
No, it isn't. Not all lives matter.On the other hand, capital punishment for a property crime is a troubling thought.
The property value of human life is one of my pennies that I worked for. Just one of them. The thieves aren't worth the effort I expended to make that penny, why should I forfeit it?I understand, but your $60,000 truck argument applies equally to some low-income person's $600 sh!tbox, that they need to get to work. Or does it? And if it does not, what's the property value that equal a human life?
This is the conundrum, as to when deadly force is a legitimate option, be it street justice, or judicial capital punishment.
I understand, but your $60,000 truck argument applies equally to some low-income person's $600 sh!tbox, that they need to get to work. Or does it? And if it does not, what's the property value that equal a human life?
This is the conundrum, as to when deadly force is a legitimate option, be it street justice, or judicial capital punishment.
While it worked out this time, I think it is a mistake to assume that you will prevail just because you are in the right. Going to retrieve your stolen property is risky.From the article
How is this not safe, Officer Dipshit? The guy wasn't hurt, and the dead guy is now serving a purpose as compost instead of stealing oxygen.
If the article said that, I'd agree with you. It said "it's never safe as you can see by this incident". In this incident, it was perfectly safe for the rightful owner of the truck.While it worked out this time, I think it is a mistake to assume that you will prevail just because you are in the right. Going to retrieve your stolen property is risky.
this. I never understood why anyone would put their lives in danger for objects. You can steal anything I have, just don't touch my family, then hell will break loose.Get insurance for your stuff. Hope it is either never found or totaled. So if or when it is stolen just get a brand new item.
I disagree. In this case it worked out but that doesn’t mean it was safe. There was risk involved in this incident.If the article said that, I'd agree with you. It said "it's never safe as you can see by this incident". In this incident, it was perfectly safe for the rightful owner of the truck.
What wasn't safe, was stealing it in the first place. Which is as it should be.
A soviet era immigrant from the USSR I used to work with had an interesting theory, that goes like thisthis. I never understood why anyone would put their lives in danger for objects. You can steal anything I have, just don't touch my family, then hell will break loose.
Everything I have worth stealing is insured. That immigrant doesn't understand MA gun laws. I'm not going to jail for objects I can replace that have no meaning to me.A soviet era immigrant from the USSR I used to work with had an interesting theory, that goes like this
Sounds well reasoned to me.
- I spend my time to earn money
- Therefore, everything I buy has been paid for with a portion of my limited life span
- Therefore, anyone who steals something from me is stealing the amount of lifespan I will have to sacrifice to work to replace it
- Someone who steals from me steals part of my lifetime
He was not advocating any use of force, just explaining his philosophy.Everything I have worth stealing is insured. That immigrant doesn't understand MA gun laws. I'm not going to jail for objects I can replace that have no meaning to me.
I understand now. Unfortunately my commie state makes us hostage in self defense situations.He was not advocating any use of force, just explaining his philosophy.
He also wanted an AK (back when an FID was sufficient). He got his FID and we drove out to AARMCO (way before owner Steve Holmquist got indicted). Steve pulled the arrogant "you don't know what you are talking about, you never used a gun like that in the army" line on him. Steve became quiet and walked away when my friend replied in his Russian accent "It was another army".
That's the way I see it, with added in that you're taking away from my kids as well. 0 tolerance and I'd buy the truck owner a beer.A soviet era immigrant from the USSR I used to work with had an interesting theory, that goes like this
Sounds well reasoned to me.
- I spend my time to earn money
- Therefore, everything I buy has been paid for with a portion of my limited life span
- Therefore, anyone who steals something from me is stealing the amount of lifespan I will have to sacrifice to work to replace it
- Someone who steals from me steals part of my lifetime
won't someone think of the car thieves and their hood rat friendsHow did the shooter know that man who he shot was the actual thief who stole the truck?
Maybe the thief loaned the truck to a person he hated just to get him in trouble and in this case shot.
In LFI-1, Mas Ayoob's class, there is a shot no shoot scenario.
I don't want to give it away, but even if you are sure the guy you are chasing is the perp and he shot somebody, unless you yourself saw him do it - YOU CANT USE LETHAL FORCE at that point.
Kind of like you can't shoot a man far away from you who is holding a knife. IF the man throws the knife AT YOU and the knife is in the air at that moment as a missile - you CAN shoot him. I, for one, would sooner try to avoid the flying knife.
These rules are based on case law.
Weather or not a jury will convict is another story.
I know the context is wrong but is that a picture of Judge Juan Merchan?
The property value of human life is one of my pennies that I worked for. Just one of them. The thieves aren't worth the effort I expended to make that penny, why should I forfeit it?
The real conundrum is are we looking at the justice system, or justice? If we suspend the justice system for a time, except for their investigation arms, and allow a vigilance committee to dispense true justice, I'm sure you'll see a dramatic decrease in criminal activity, that correlates with a rise in bodies hanging from telephone poles.
This.
Just like every other state, and the nation in general. Democracy doesn't give us what The People want. It gives us what The Cities want. Just ask a rural Californian what it's like having your laws be written by state assemblymen representing suburban Los Angeles, six hundred miles away.
I'm with Tuna on this one. The threat of penalties far more severe than the crime is an excellent deterrent.Yeah, that's not how the law works. I mean, let's go back to Mosaic and Hammurabi codes. Eye for an Eye wasn't to ensure justice. It was to ensure that the aggrieved didn't extract MORE for the offense. Watch two young siblings interact. One will accidentally whack the other. The whack-ee then wallops the whack-er. Now wallop-ee gets a bat against wallop-er. It just escalates.
The penalty must be just. You want to shoot someone over a penny? A PENNY??? Now you're just being dramatic or selfish. LOL
Or, to put it in the 2000 language (and I always found this funny. . . )
LOL
I agree.Death for a penny? C'mon.
Let's go the other direction. What amount of theft of your time or wealth legitimizes a violent response?The penalty must be just. You want to shoot someone over a penny? A PENNY??? Now you're just being dramatic or selfish. LOL
Who are you to say what something, or anything, is worth to someone else?Death for a penny? C'mon.
The threat of penalties far more severe than the crime is an excellent deterrent.