Lefty 0 #76 August 29, 2011 Quote Quote Quote well, if you broke into my home, you'd have to deal with the 70lbs dobermann-rottweiler first.. if you get past her.. then you have hurt my loved ones already.. or my dog has pre--dinner-party! But, what if they just want your stereo and your dog eats them? How could you keep such a dangerous animal around that would attack people who just want to take some of your cheap property? why do i even bother replying to such an idiotic question.. Think on it for a bit. Or am I being too subtle for you, again? Edit: Actually, I really don't expect you to grasp it if you haven't already, so let me just spell it out. You keep a dog at your house that even a relatively benign burglar would have to, as you say, "deal with" or possibly even get eaten by. This dog does not have the judgement skills of a human, and can't be expected to just bend over, ass cheeks akimbo, and let the burglar have his way with it (unlike its owner, apparently). If you had a gun, you would have complete control over what got shot, and could choose to not use force if you decided you'd rather just brew some tea while your stereo is stolen. You don't have such control over the dog, especially when you're not home. So someone could theoretically get killed by your dog for something of far less value than even a stereo. Isn't that at least as barbaric as defending your own property with a gun?Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #77 August 29, 2011 Quote Quote Quote well, if you broke into my home, you'd have to deal with the 70lbs dobermann-rottweiler first.. if you get past her.. then you have hurt my loved ones already.. or my dog has pre--dinner-party! But, what if they just want your stereo and your dog eats them? How could you keep such a dangerous animal around that would attack people who just want to take some of your cheap property? why do i even bother replying to such an idiotic question.. avoidance? There are no shortage of people who believe that ownership of a pit bull in the home is not defensible. And before the pit bull was demonized as the dog spawn of satan, it was the rottie, and the dobermann, and before that the german sheppard. Dogs do not make judgement calls - they may growl a warning, but after that, it's hardly different from a booby trap shotgun. They defend their territory. As you (now regret) said, the dog has dinner. Where was the due process there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sacex250 0 #78 August 30, 2011 QuoteDogs do not make judgement calls - they may growl a warning, but after that, it's hardly different from a booby trap shotgun. They defend their territory. As you (now regret) said, the dog has dinner. Where was the due process there? There's a big difference between a known, growling, barking dog and a group of armed men hiding out waiting to ambush a suspected burgler trespassing in a commercial yard. The point of the dog is to keep people out in the first place, not to kill people. However, a group of armed men "lying-in-wait" for a chance to kill someone is, by definition, first-degree murder. How these men weren't criminally charged is a mystery. All they had to do was make a citizen's arrest.It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #79 August 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteDogs do not make judgement calls - they may growl a warning, but after that, it's hardly different from a booby trap shotgun. They defend their territory. As you (now regret) said, the dog has dinner. Where was the due process there? There's a big difference between a known, growling, barking dog and a group of armed men hiding out waiting to ambush a suspected burgler trespassing in a commercial yard. Yes, that is why I compared it to a booby trap, which is also an illegal method of property protection. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #80 August 30, 2011 Quotea group of armed men "lying-in-wait" for a chance to kill someone is, by definition, first-degree murder. How these men weren't criminally charged is a mystery. They were high on meth, broke into the property repeatedly, and had knives on their persons. That makes the shooting closer to self-defense than to murder. That's why there only seems to be a civil court case. because the local prosecuter probably knows that murder would be a tough sell. If you were facing down a burglar over a property crime, and he was a meth addict armed with knives, are you going to invite him to sit down and have a cup of coffee with you to discuss the error of his ways? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sacex250 0 #81 August 30, 2011 QuoteQuotea group of armed men "lying-in-wait" for a chance to kill someone is, by definition, first-degree murder. How these men weren't criminally charged is a mystery. They were high on meth, broke into the property repeatedly, and had knives on their persons. That makes the shooting closer to self-defense than to murder. That's why there only seems to be a civil court case. because the local prosecuter probably knows that murder would be a tough sell. If you were facing down a burglar over a property crime, and he was a meth addict armed with knives, are you going to invite him to sit down and have a cup of coffee with you to discuss the error of his ways? Closer to self-defense? Um, NO! How did they know they were on meth? Does it matter? The other suspect got shot at four times while trying to jump a fence and get away. The person who was killed was behind a door when he got shot. Pretty much impossible to claim to self-defense when a person armed with a knife is inside a shed as you're shooting at him through the door! Many "ethnic cleansing" executions in Bosnia were carried out by locking men and boys in large sheds and shooting into the buildings. There is no legitimate claim of self-defense here!It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #82 August 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteDogs do not make judgement calls - they may growl a warning, but after that, it's hardly different from a booby trap shotgun. They defend their territory. As you (now regret) said, the dog has dinner. Where was the due process there? There's a big difference between a known, growling, barking dog and a group of armed men hiding out waiting to ambush a suspected burgler trespassing in a commercial yard. The point of the dog is to keep people out in the first place, not to kill people. However, a group of armed men "lying-in-wait" for a chance to kill someone is, by definition, first-degree murder. How these men weren't criminally charged is a mystery. All they had to do was make a citizen's arrest. this reply is not for you kelpdiver, but you and saces pretty much summed it up, so i'm just quoting your reply. an animal is an animal, and as such, it cant be held resöonsible for it's actions. that is my judgement-call. if you were to go after your buddy, even just in fun, with my dog in presence, she'd put you in the place right there and then. if you ring at my door, or just make funny noises, she will shout out "WTF do you want here!?". you can secure your property by other means than waiting with a gun to shoot all trespassers. BTW, nobody seemed to pick up on my heavy, multi-contact locking-mechanism door; probably because it doesnt fit your agenda. in real life, i think most common trespassers would have problems getting over that in the first place and would be discouraged as long as they're not a SWAT-team. having a big dog bark behind it, wont help possible thieves either.“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #83 August 30, 2011 Quotean animal is an animal, and as such, it cant be held resöonsible for it's actions. that is my judgement-call. You're right; you will be held responsible for its actions.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #84 August 30, 2011 Quote Quote an animal is an animal, and as such, it cant be held resöonsible for it's actions. that is my judgement-call. You're right; you will be held responsible for its actions. as long as she's on a leash.. no worries. as long as she's home.. burglars worry! “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #85 August 30, 2011 Dogs are not guns. Dogs make a ton of noise, and if the burgular continues to break in over the barks of my dogs, then clearly he has evil intent in mind, and they have the right to defend themselves. The analagous situation with a gun is a burgular who continues to break in after I yell, "I have a gun and will shoot you if you don't leave!" If he keeps coming, he clearly has evil intent in mind and I have the right to defend myself. The people in this story did not issue a warning, they set a trap and seemed to intend on killing people over property. The self-defense claim is laughable. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #86 August 30, 2011 Quote Dogs are not guns. Dogs make a ton of noise, and if the burgular continues to break in over the barks of my dogs, then clearly he has evil intent in mind, and they have the right to defend themselves. The analagous situation with a gun is a burgular who continues to break in after I yell, "I have a gun and will shoot you if you don't leave!" If he keeps coming, he clearly has evil intent in mind and I have the right to defend myself. The people in this story did not issue a warning, they set a trap and seemed to intend on killing people over property. The self-defense claim is laughable. apparently, a large amount of SC-posters dont seem to grasp simple concepts as such.. “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #87 August 30, 2011 QuoteThe people in this story did not issue a warning, they set a trap and seemed to intend on killing people over property. The self-defense claim is laughable. But the perps were meth addicts! Isn't that a trump factor? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #88 August 30, 2011 QuoteBut the perps were meth addicts! Isn't that a trump factor? Oops, sorry. Killing addicts is okay. Move along, nothing to see here, people. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #89 August 30, 2011 Sheeeeet. The state should have paid the guys the $300,000. That is cheaper than keeping the assholes in prison for the rest of their lives. VB says welcome to taking my things, Mr Crook, Mess with my well-loved dog and I'll shoot you. You guys wanting to protect the crooks should never, ever put up you address on the internet. You just may be getting unwanted visitors. You could, on the other hand, put a nice sign up in your front yard: "I'm unarmed and you are welcome to burglarize this home!" That would help save the lives of more crooks and save the rest of us the costs on ammunition, court costs and fines. Help out the crooks! Point them in the right direction! Yep, as previously mentioned, it's the law that screwed up. GO Texas! My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #90 August 30, 2011 QuoteYou guys wanting to protect the crooks should never, ever put up you address on the internet. You just may be getting unwanted visitors. Seriously? Give me a break. My real name is in my profile. Look me up, come on over. If you show up when I'm not there and have the balls to break in past my 72 lb pitbull and 85 lb shepherd, you can have my stuff. Insurance will cover it. If I'm home, I'll do my best to defend myself, up to and including using firearms. I will also try to issue a warning that I'm home, armed, and not afraid to fight. If you keep coming, I'll fight you with everything I have. I will not, however, shoot you in the back as you're running away like the people in this story did. Sorry, I don't value my Wii that much. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #91 August 30, 2011 QuoteGO Texas! Shooting was in Colorado, not Texas.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #92 August 30, 2011 Quote Quote But, what if they just want your stereo and your dog eats them? How could you keep such a dangerous animal around that would attack people who just want to take some of your cheap property? why do i even bother replying to such an idiotic question.. it's a fair question - why is having a gun that you can control "immature protection of property" but having a lethal dog that you have little control over "responsible home protection"? this beast you brag over could do a hell of a lot of damage even if he doesn't kill the poor, sad, burglar that just wants your stereo to feed his family. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #93 August 30, 2011 QuoteHow did they know they were on meth? Does it matter? ABSOLUTELY not. All you know is the person is stealing chronically. How do you know they AREN"T on drugs and homocidal? The only thing that's absolutely proven by the actions in front of you is they they don't respect the law. The safer assumption is that they WILL attack you if you try to protect your property. Once they run, though, you are done (unless you brought nets). here's a hypothetical - assume they are running, but they are also shouting that they are coming back with more guns and friends and will 'get you and your family' is it now ok to shoot? (please note I wrote "hypothetical" and that this is not in any way an assumption about the actual scenario) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #94 August 30, 2011 QuoteThis dog does not have the judgement skills of a human, and can't be expected to just bend over, ass cheeks akimbo, and let the burglar have his way with it (unlike its owner, apparently). Ok - that's hilarious ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #95 August 30, 2011 QuoteAll they had to do was make a citizen's arrest. this is absolutely true. but this conversation has evolved from these illegal vigilantes to a point about self protection - supporting the rights to defend yourself and your property doesn't automatically mean one thinks vigilantism is right - that strawman is weak ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #96 August 30, 2011 QuoteIf I'm home, I'll do my best to defend myself, up to and including using firearms. I will also try to issue a warning that I'm home, armed, and not afraid to fight. If you keep coming, I'll fight you with everything I have. I will not, however, shoot you in the back as you're running away like the people in this story did. Sorry, I don't value my Wii that much. then why are you arguing for the other side - you're right in line with the self defense crowd - none of which state anything about laying traps - in fact, for example, they state that the use of the attack dogs is wrong - just like laying in wait for express purpose of murder is also wrong the whole contention was about laying down and not defending yourself at all ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #97 August 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteBut the perps were meth addicts! Isn't that a trump factor? Oops, sorry. Killing addicts is okay. Move along, nothing to see here, people. Look, if someone is already committing suicide by the installment program, robbing a frightened person with a Bull Mastiff or harpoon gun at the ready is simply cutting to the chase. I disapprove of the use of lethal force for anything short of last-ditch defense (in which case it is likely to be ineffective), but challenging someone who is likely to resort to lethal force is a bad career move, all things considered. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #98 August 30, 2011 Quotethen why are you arguing for the other side - you're right in line with the self defense crowd - none of which state anything about laying traps - in fact, for example, they state that the use of the attack dogs is wrong - just like laying in wait for express purpose of murder is also wrong Tell that to popsjumper. He was the one I replied to, and the one that thinks the state should give the murderers a medal. I have no problem with self-defense. Lethal force is totally justified when you're defending yourself or another person, but lethal force in defense of property is not. In your hypothetical situation where the burgular runs away and threatens to come back with weapons, the prudent idea is to barricade yourself and call the cops. Shooting him in the back is still not warranted. The Bush Doctrine doesn't apply to home defense. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #99 August 30, 2011 Quotethe whole contention was about laying down and not defending yourself at all This.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #100 August 30, 2011 Quote Quote Quote But, what if they just want your stereo and your dog eats them? How could you keep such a dangerous animal around that would attack people who just want to take some of your cheap property? why do i even bother replying to such an idiotic question.. it's a fair question - why is having a gun that you can control "immature protection of property" but having a lethal dog that you have little control over "responsible home protection"? this beast you brag over could do a hell of a lot of damage even if he doesn't kill the poor, sad, burglar that just wants your stereo to feed his family. i have never used the word "immature" once adressing the crowd; tis' what im accused of. and i havent "bragged" about my dog, only thing i said is if you get past the heavy door with a barking dog behind it, then it's fair game; in this case to the dog.“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
