| Author | Post |
|---|
heliopolissolutions
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 80 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12th, 2009 06:24 am |
|
Those kids will never trust cops so long as they live...nor will their kids kids.
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12th, 2009 11:24 am |
|
Citizen wrote:
I know how to prevent this. Cops should be restricted to single-action revolvers.
lol! Sounds like something I would say. 
|
SteveO
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 17th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12th, 2009 10:11 pm |
|
Citizen wrote: I know how to prevent this. Cops should be restricted to single-action revolvers.
And 1 bullet!!!!
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12th, 2009 10:22 pm |
|
SteveO wrote: Citizen wrote: I know how to prevent this. Cops should be restricted to single-action revolvers.
And 1 bullet!!!!
 That would save lots of money. We wouldn't have to spend tax money on expensive semi-auto's or Ruger Vaquero's. Just give them a muzzle-loading pistol.
I would sympathize and make it a percussion lock, as opposed to a flintlock. Rain, leaky flashpans, and all that.
Heh, heh, heh. I think CVA still sells percussion lock muzzle-loader kits. Wouldn't have to spend tax money on a finished gun even.
|
inbox485
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:04 am |
|
If the citizen shot the intruder six times in the back, he would almost certainly face jail time for it. I support LE about 99.9% of the time. This falls into the .1% that should see several people (not the least of which the officer involved) fired and facing a jail cell of their own. Training that reinforces shoot first ask later, and shoot houses that rarely have no shoot targets or scenarios are not excusable in civilian police work. Has anybody EVER heard of a time when officers were not cleared by IA after something like this?
|
inbox485
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:16 am |
|
Citizen wrote: SteveO wrote: Citizen wrote: I know how to prevent this. Cops should be restricted to single-action revolvers.
And 1 bullet!!!!
That would save lots of money. We wouldn't have to spend tax money on expensive semi-auto's or Ruger Vaquero's. Just give them a muzzle-loading pistol.
I would sympathize and make it a percussion lock, as opposed to a flintlock. Rain, leaky flashpans, and all that.
Heh, heh, heh. I think CVA still sells percussion lock muzzle-loader kits. Wouldn't have to spend tax money on a finished gun even.
Really the irony. A gun group, focusing on a single misdeed of a typically law abiding sector of society and sugesting that the group as a whole should be deliberately restricted to virtually be unarmed. Is this not silly to anybody else? Obviously the officer screwed up royally, and as bad as I feel for the guy who got shot, I can't help but to also feel for the other LEO's who will have to deal with the repercussions from this.
|
Streetbikerr6
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 2nd, 2009 |
| Location: | Folsom, USA |
| Posts: | 206 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 11:48 pm |
|
inbox485 wrote: Citizen wrote: SteveO wrote: Citizen wrote: I know how to prevent this. Cops should be restricted to single-action revolvers.
And 1 bullet!!!!
That would save lots of money. We wouldn't have to spend tax money on expensive semi-auto's or Ruger Vaquero's. Just give them a muzzle-loading pistol.
I would sympathize and make it a percussion lock, as opposed to a flintlock. Rain, leaky flashpans, and all that.
Heh, heh, heh. I think CVA still sells percussion lock muzzle-loader kits. Wouldn't have to spend tax money on a finished gun even.
Really the irony. A gun group, focusing on a single misdeed of a typically law abiding sector of society and sugesting that the group as a whole should be deliberately restricted to virtually be unarmed. Is this not silly to anybody else? Obviously the officer screwed up royally, and as bad as I feel for the guy who got shot, I can't help but to also feel for the other LEO's who will have to deal with the repercussions from this.
It's as silly as law abiding gun owners being stripped of made up "assault rifle" definitions, having our ability to protect ourselves from murderers taken away because of someone's bad deed of shooting up some school. SO yes, your right, either way it's silly.
Although I do agree with one post, their should be some protocol for holding a robber in custody that the 911 dispatch should establish with the caller. someone mentioned "I have a gun, anyone entering my house will be shot, I will release the robber when you get here outside my door". something a long the lines of that. Screw getting shot by a cop, that @#$% hurts, it can sometimes kill you too. Yes... I'd much rather have some protocol a long those lines then worry about this story happening to me someday. Not only will this type of protocol help save the victims life, it will not allow police getting off the hook that easily if this protocol is breached, it will also allow the victim to defend himself against the lawless cop without being charged for homicide or attacking a police officer either. I mean could you imagine if that guy in the car started SHOTING BACK at the cop and killed the cop and lived? Do you think that guy would have been let off the hook? HELL NO, would have had the book thrown at him.
Last edited on Tue Oct 20th, 2009 11:56 pm by Streetbikerr6
|
Lead Lobber
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 07:50 am |
|
Captain_Awesome wrote:
Citizen wrote: Sons of Liberty wrote: SNIP Homeowner: "I have an intruder that I am holding at gun point. Do not enter my house or I will have to defend myself. Here are my terms: When you get to my house, I will send him out to you alive and in return, you promise not to shoot me. Anyone entering my house will be looked upon with hostile intent and I will defend myself. Do not enter my house! Do I make myself clear?"
I'm sure you didn't mean that to be funny, but I'm ROFL.
What a predicament for the bad guy.
I'm in the same boat- or floor- it sounds hilarious. But it does seem like it would solve that problem. Maybe we should start a thread about what one should actually do in a similar situation to avoid a similar fate?
I like the Star Trek approach - only Captain Kirk could authorize deadly force (or stun), and orchestrated volleys of fire. Today's cops start blazing away without thought if another officer fires .... someone needs to be in control of deadly force, so mob mentality does not emerge. Just my two bits .
Will someone beam me up, please?
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 08:06 am |
|
inbox485 wrote:
Citizen wrote: SteveO wrote: Citizen wrote: I know how to prevent this. Cops should be restricted to single-action revolvers.
And 1 bullet!!!!
That would save lots of money. We wouldn't have to spend tax money on expensive semi-auto's or Ruger Vaquero's. Just give them a muzzle-loading pistol.
I would sympathize and make it a percussion lock, as opposed to a flintlock. Rain, leaky flashpans, and all that.
Heh, heh, heh. I think CVA still sells percussion lock muzzle-loader kits. Wouldn't have to spend tax money on a finished gun even.
Really the irony. A gun group, focusing on a single misdeed of a typically law abiding sector of society and sugesting that the group as a whole should be deliberately restricted to virtually be unarmed. Is this not silly to anybody else? Obviously the officer screwed up royally, and as bad as I feel for the guy who got shot, I can't help but to also feel for the other LEO's who will have to deal with the repercussions from this.
It's also a tad ironic that you don't see the intentionality of the irony to which you're referring. 
|
Lead Lobber
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 09:21 am |
|
| Intentionality of irony? Horse crap - say what you mean and mean what you say - that's what my daddy and all my cowboy heros said.
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 12:58 pm |
|
I don't have a snappy rebuttal, so I'll just settle for "horse crap". Great way to narrow down the entire spectrum of human discourse to a small fraction of its useful functionality.
|
jmar254
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 18 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 03:58 am |
|
I DO know how to prevent this. Shoot to kill the FN bad guy, so you don't have to be standing there holding the gun on him when the cops show up.
Problem Solved, lawful homeowner doesn't get shot, taxpayers don't have to pony up any cash to keep FN bad guy locked up for a couple years and everyone is safe from FN bad guy trying to do this again.
|
yelohamr
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 06:11 am |
|
| When confronted with an intruder, try to remember two words, "bullet placement".
|
mavue
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 06:33 am |
|
Citizen wrote: I know how to prevent this. Cops should be restricted to single-action revolvers.
no, cops should be restricted to pepper spray and a flashlight!
|
chewy352
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 06:43 am |
|
| To avoid this situation I will be purchasing Hand and leg restraints so that I can safely holster my firearm as soon as BG is restrained.
|
mavue
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 06:43 am |
|
it's obvious that the cop was cleared of any wrong doing so the department would be better suited in a lawsuit.
another thing is that the wife is caucasian and the husband appears to be hispanic discent. maybe the officer saw a hispanic guy in a white ladies house and assumed it was the burglar and fired. just my 2 cents but i wasn't there.
|
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 09:26 am |
|
chewy352 wrote: To avoid this situation I will be purchasing Hand and leg restraints so that I can safely holster my firearm as soon as BG is restrained.
Handcuffs work just fine. I have two pair from my private security days, and would not hesitate to handcuff an intruder (whether I am forced to shoot him or not - I'm no doctor, so every BG entering my house would get cuffed, even if they appear incapacitated).
It helps to know some restraint and handcuffing techniques; most places that do BSIS guard cert classes also offer courses in restraint/cuffing for a reasonable price.
|
yelohamr
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 09:29 pm |
|
Several years ago when I lived in an apartment, I apprehended an intruder in my garage. As I held him at gunpoint, I gave him my handcuffs and had him cuff himself to the roll bar of my Jeep. I went back to my apt., called the police and turned on my scanner. The dispatcher was giggling when she told the dispatched officers that the suspect was cuffed to the roll bar.
|
N6ATF
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 09:47 pm |
|
yelohamr wrote: Several years ago when I lived in an apartment, I apprehended an intruder in my garage. As I held him at gunpoint, I gave him my handcuffs and had him cuff himself to the roll bar of my Jeep. I went back to my apt., called the police and turned on my scanner. The dispatcher was giggling when she told the dispatched officers that the suspect was cuffed to the roll bar.
I'm not sure if it was passed-down paranoia or fear of liability, but we were taught in security academy never to have suspects handcuff themselves; you've just given them a slashing weapon (the teeth) and even both cuffed hands in front of them isn't that restrictive, or cuff them onto an object; they still can use their free hand to harm you, or unlock the cuffs and escape.
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 09:50 pm by N6ATF
|
yelohamr
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:03 pm |
|
This was one of the neighborhood dirtbags that knew I would shoot him if he did anything stupider than what he had already done. He was relieved when the police showed up.
"A man's got to know his limitations."
Harry Callahan
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:23 pm by yelohamr
|
Current time is 12:18 am | Page:   1 2 3   |
|
