And people wonder why some of us chose to carry.

[PlayboyPenguin]

This is a perfect example of why I choose to carry a firearm.

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[Oakley1wa]

It really suprises me that there is a not a lot more vigilante justice in this country. With all the crap people pull and all the sick freaks out in our neighborhoods, I would expect a lot more cleaning up with a gun. I know the system works... usually, but I am sick of paying out my *** in taxes to keep all the useless trash locked up. And in the case of all of the random killings, thats ridiculous. As if we don't all have a hard enough time getting and keeping the guns we have and want. This country is in need of a real overhaul. 'Please stop shooting people at random'. I like having my CPL. That was all kinda random... Sorry

 

[Monkeyman]

It really suprises me that there is a not a lot more vigilante justice in this country. With all the crap people pull and all the sick freaks out in our neighborhoods, I would expect a lot more cleaning up with a gun. I know the system works... usually, but I am sick of paying out my *** in taxes to keep all the useless trash locked up. And in the case of all of the random killings, thats ridiculous. As if we don't all have a hard enough time getting and keeping the guns we have and want. This country is in need of a real overhaul. 'Please stop shooting people at random'. I like having my CPL. That was all kinda random... Sorry

Vigilante justice is mob rule. I wonder why more people don't see the value in legal self-defense (where the law is not so restrictive as to criminalize self-defense).

Perhaps it's because our criminal justice system is so heavily prejudiced in favor of the criminal? One of the first things we learn when undertaking training in firearms is the legal nightmare of post-incident investigations.

 

[durango#95]

Just watched O'Reilly, they got him. 63 CONVICTIONS!!!! and he was out on PAROLL!!!!!!! WTF! To bad no one got to shoot him 1st.

 

[Monkeyman]

<broken link removed>

I wonder if this situation contains the three prerequisites for use of deadly force: Opportunity, Ability, and Jeopardy.

I wonder if the father is reconsidering his thought:

"The Marshalls say they fear retaliation at home or when they go outside. They are considering arming themselves, but they're concerned about the possible problems that come with guns."

Or the problems that come without guns.

 

[JumpWing]

But that guy was way off in a different state. There aren't any people like that around (insert name of your sleepy little hometown).

 

[SavageGerbil]

Full on attack by dozens of men intent on smashing? Nah, no risk of grievous bodily harm or death there.
I'm really glad hes alive to consider arming himself, hes very lucky. I hope he realizes that a firearm isn't that much different than a car alarm, airbags, or a door lock, could be inconvenient for your entire life while never doing a thing for you, but if you really need it you'll be thanking whatever deity you believe in that it was there for you. 'Course, I guess I'm preaching to the choir here

 

[Trlsmn]

<broken link removed>

I wonder if this situation contains the three prerequisites for use of deadly force: Opportunity, Ability, and Jeopardy.

You can add disparity of force to that.

Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family.

Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.

Of course it was a hate crime! I am so tired of the notion that whitey is the only racist on the planet.

 

[swoop]

You can add disparity of force to that.





Of course it was a hate crime! I am so tired of the notion that whitey is the only racist on the planet.

This type of attack is where that second or third hi-cap mag would come in handy.

 

[gallogiro]

Was the group racist? YES!

Hate crime? ("this is a black world") YES!

Was it "a gang or a group of teens"? Sounds like a gang to me. Wow, why is the media downplaying it? Other way around and it would have started riots.

Thanks for the articles.

 

[eriknemily]

Was the group racist? YES!

Hate crime? ("this is a black world") YES!

Was it "a gang or a group of teens"? Sounds like a gang to me. Wow, why is the media downplaying it? Other way around and it would have started riots.

Thanks for the articles.

No kidding. It's only considered racism if it's politically advantageous. The hypocrisy is so blatant it's disgusting. Alas, this is the world in which we live.

To keep this on topic: All of them should get armed and carry always!!!! That situation absolutely would have met the disparity of force criteria in my opinion. Regardless though, the aftermath and criminal/civil trial(s) would be a nightmare.

 

[slickx45]

This type of attack is where that second or third hi-cap mag would come in handy.

In all reality, as soon as you drew and loosed the first couple of rounds that rest would scatter like the rats that they are. These PU$$IES thrive on power in numbers and preying on victims. As soon as you dropped one of their comrades, you are no longer a victim.

Not only that but after the shoot the prosecutor and media would paint you as some sort of gun toting maniac with "multiple high capacity clips.....between 35-60 rounds of ammunition" (I used the word "clips" intentionally BTW) "This guy was looking for trouble...."

 

[SavageGerbil]

Re: trials
Personally, I think the situation would have ended without a shot being fired. They were riled up by strength in numbers and an easy target, I'm pretty sure when the personal risks elevated from bruised knuckles and an ankle twisted by kicking a man in the head to intensive care and funerals it'd take all the fun out of the activity. Just a guess though.

Edit/addition: Guess I'm not the only one thinking they'd cut and run Beat me to it

 

[tionico]

What I do not understand is the seemingly constant penchant for "classifying" such crimes as "hate" or "racist". Can't the civil magistrate simply find, apprehend, and prosecute the perps for beating the tar out of innnocent non-threatening citizens? Isn't that illegal enough? (not to mention morally reprehensible).

I'd agree, though, the Father needs to take his Wife to a good gunstore and select two suitable pistols with sufficient stopping power to serve in precisely this sort of situation, both to take a couple of courses in handgun safety and handling, and teach those two kids the same (pity the law won't let them carry as well.... seems they need arming as well as the parents. But they should have the training as well.... perhaps Pops carry a second piece he can toss to one of the kids when needed. Seems that little gal has quite the heart to jump in unarmed, right?). Seems an "equaliser" is just what was lacking in that situation. A thousand bucks spent on a brace of pistols would likely now be saving them ten thousand or more in medical bills. And they'd still have the barkers for the next time.

 

[gallogiro]

What I do not understand is the seemingly constant penchant for "classifying" such crimes as "hate" or "racist". Can't the civil magistrate simply find, apprehend, and prosecute the perps for beating the tar out of innnocent non-threatening citizens? Isn't that illegal enough? (not to mention morally reprehensible).

Good Point.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Most people that discuss the topic of "hate crime" legislation miss the point of such bills and laws. The laws do not increase punishment for such crime, or try to divine motivation in any clandestine way, they simply provide measures for the involvement of higher authority in local cases. The reason being that in many places and cases crimes against certain classes of people were not being prosecuted because of local biases and good ol' boy politics.

For example...when I was a young boy in WV a local guy was brutally murdered by an angry mob. His crime was dating a white girl when he was black. For the longest time local authorities would not even charge the people that did it because they "could not gather enough evidence" which translated to one of the killers was the sheriff's brother-n-law and another was a local minister. Eventually the state, spurred on by the NAACP, was able to get charges brought against the killer but they still went free because of local ties and prejudices. If hate crime legislation had existed at that time external authorities would have had greater leeway to move the case outside of the county to a less biased atmosphere and a group of disgusting killers would have not walked away scott free.

 

[Siglvr]

It really suprises me that there is a not a lot more vigilante justice in this country. With all the crap people pull and all the sick freaks out in our neighborhoods, I would expect a lot more cleaning up with a gun. I know the system works... usually, but I am sick of paying out my *** in taxes to keep all the useless trash locked up. And in the case of all of the random killings, thats ridiculous. As if we don't all have a hard enough time getting and keeping the guns we have and want. This country is in need of a real overhaul. 'Please stop shooting people at random'. I like having my CPL. That was all kinda random... Sorry

I think it's a matter of opportunity. I choose NOT to carry. Love guns, don't carry. I've gone through my entire life thinking that there has not been a single time that having a weapon would have made the situation better. I know that there are those moments, but given how few folks really do carry, and how few incidents they have, its a rare occurrence.

I'd just be a happier camper if, when they finally did catch up to a dick like this guy, about the 3rd time they convicted him, they kept him locked up, instead of giving him many many multiple chances to do horrible wrongs on others.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Oops. Double post.

Thanks Trlsmn.

 

[Monkeyman]

Most people that discuss the topic of "hate crime" legislation miss the point of such bills and laws. The laws do not increase punishment for such crime, or try to divine motivation in any clandestine way, they simply provide measures for the involvement of higher authority in local cases. The reason being that in many places and cases crimes against certain classes of people were not being prosecuted because of local biases and good ol' boy politics.

For example...when I was a young boy in WV a local guy was brutally murdered by an angry mob. His crime was dating a white girl when he was black. For the longest time local authorities would not even charge the people that did it because they "could not gather enough evidence" which translated to one of the killers was the sheriff's brother-n-law and another was a local minister. Eventually the state, spurred on by the NAACP, was able to get charges brought against the killer but they still went free because of local ties and prejudices. If hate crime legislation had existed at that time external authorities would have had greater leeway to move the case outside of the county to a less biased atmosphere and a group of disgusting killers would have not walked away scott free.

Point well made.

Let's see if the youth in this case benefit from a lenient prosecutor who has a healthy fear of riling the minority community. Or if the police really do their job and bring in some suspects. Perhaps the existence of hate crime legislation can force local LE to do the right thing and prosecute these morons.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Perhaps the existence of hate crime legislation can force local LE to do the right thing and prosecute these morons.

That is the true intent of such legislation...despite how mouth pieces from the far right like Rush try to portray it.