JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Home intruder...question
- Thread Starter trapgal
- Start date
- Messages
- 11,840
- Reactions
- 11,103
Not saying I agree with you,but I like the idea anyway
#1 and #2 then rinse and repeat.
Is probably better. LMAO!
- Messages
- 154
- Reactions
- 37
When I hike, I invariably am by myself, usually with one of my dogs.
I was on American Ridge in the William O. Douglas Wilderness once with a young female german shepherd (on a leash). I was carrying a 32 auto. My dog alerted and suddenly 2 fully grown Rottweilers came charging down the trail, barking and snarling. I yelled at the unseen owner and told him to get his dogs under control. The dogs approached me and were barking and snapping, trying mostly to get at my dog. I tried fending them off with my hiking staff, and put myself between them and my dog. They got to my dog anyway and I released her. She made it about 50 yards before they had her down. I drew my 32 auto and told the owner, who was now running to his dogs that I was going to shoot them if he did not get them under control. The owner kept yelling that his dogs were nice and friendly (really?) and would not harm anyone. I tried to get into a closer position to shoot them without harming my dog (a tricky business when they are engaged in a dog fight), and as I did so, the owner finally got to his dogs and pulled them off. I told him in no uncertain terms what I thought about his behavior with his dogs and that he was lucky he got to them before I did.
When I got home I was a bit concerned this guy might report me for pulling my gun. I called the sheriff and a deputy called me back. After telling him the story he said basically that I was dumb for not shooting the dogs immediately when they first approached and demonstrated threatening behavior, that I should never have put myself between them and my dog, and that I had the tool to do what was required but failed to do it. Basically he told me to get a clue. In WA state, if a dog displays any aggressive behavior whatsoever you are allowed to shoot it. Period. No questions asked.
These days in the woods I always have at least a 9mm or a .45 auto. If an unleashed dog or dogs approaches and even barks at me on the trail, the pistol comes out instantly, cocked and locked, pointed in a safe direction. I stand off the trail and tell the owner firmly to get a leash on their dog and keep it away and keep my pistol out till they are gone. My dog is on a leash in a sit-stay at my side.
I have run into many ignorant dog owners in the woods, who don't seem to get it that they are putting their dog at risk by not having their animal under control. I always have mine on a leash and will stand off the trail until any other parties on the trail go by. Say what you will, but better safe than sorry.
I was on American Ridge in the William O. Douglas Wilderness once with a young female german shepherd (on a leash). I was carrying a 32 auto. My dog alerted and suddenly 2 fully grown Rottweilers came charging down the trail, barking and snarling. I yelled at the unseen owner and told him to get his dogs under control. The dogs approached me and were barking and snapping, trying mostly to get at my dog. I tried fending them off with my hiking staff, and put myself between them and my dog. They got to my dog anyway and I released her. She made it about 50 yards before they had her down. I drew my 32 auto and told the owner, who was now running to his dogs that I was going to shoot them if he did not get them under control. The owner kept yelling that his dogs were nice and friendly (really?) and would not harm anyone. I tried to get into a closer position to shoot them without harming my dog (a tricky business when they are engaged in a dog fight), and as I did so, the owner finally got to his dogs and pulled them off. I told him in no uncertain terms what I thought about his behavior with his dogs and that he was lucky he got to them before I did.
When I got home I was a bit concerned this guy might report me for pulling my gun. I called the sheriff and a deputy called me back. After telling him the story he said basically that I was dumb for not shooting the dogs immediately when they first approached and demonstrated threatening behavior, that I should never have put myself between them and my dog, and that I had the tool to do what was required but failed to do it. Basically he told me to get a clue. In WA state, if a dog displays any aggressive behavior whatsoever you are allowed to shoot it. Period. No questions asked.
These days in the woods I always have at least a 9mm or a .45 auto. If an unleashed dog or dogs approaches and even barks at me on the trail, the pistol comes out instantly, cocked and locked, pointed in a safe direction. I stand off the trail and tell the owner firmly to get a leash on their dog and keep it away and keep my pistol out till they are gone. My dog is on a leash in a sit-stay at my side.
I have run into many ignorant dog owners in the woods, who don't seem to get it that they are putting their dog at risk by not having their animal under control. I always have mine on a leash and will stand off the trail until any other parties on the trail go by. Say what you will, but better safe than sorry.
"the moral thing to do is to not use lethal force when your life is not in danger"
As I said, I was talking about moral issues, not what a jury would do.
You did not respond to my point. What if everybody does what you advocate? What happens when you remove all disincentives for crime? Or are you suggesting a thief should be thrashed rather than shot? We should carry sticks as well as guns?
People coming to take your stuff is a form of invasion. Invasions can morally be resisted. You don't have to just sit there and watch all your stuff fly away.
That's not to say we shouldn't use some judgment in the matter. If a little girl steals a flower from your garden, it would be a bad idea to shoot her.
For some reason people like hard and fast rules. But this is not mathematics we are talking about, it is relations between human beings.
As I said, I was talking about moral issues, not what a jury would do.
You did not respond to my point. What if everybody does what you advocate? What happens when you remove all disincentives for crime? Or are you suggesting a thief should be thrashed rather than shot? We should carry sticks as well as guns?
People coming to take your stuff is a form of invasion. Invasions can morally be resisted. You don't have to just sit there and watch all your stuff fly away.
That's not to say we shouldn't use some judgment in the matter. If a little girl steals a flower from your garden, it would be a bad idea to shoot her.
For some reason people like hard and fast rules. But this is not mathematics we are talking about, it is relations between human beings.
I'm not talking about not resisting. My apologies if I misunderstood, it sounded like you were saying we should shoot an intruder over property theft... to morally set a precedence to deter crime?
Still did not respond to my point. Your prescription makes theft risk free, if everyone follows it.
"I'm not talking about not resisting."
Well certainly one can respond otherwise, and that's often the best way. However I still think the lethal option must remain on the table, for you to use when you see fit. Also we have no obligation to the thief to choose an option that puts us more at risk; e.g. attempting to inflict a beating on somebody rather than shoot him.
If more people were shot in the process of stealing things, there would be less theft (and the other crimes that come along with it).
"I'm not talking about not resisting."
Well certainly one can respond otherwise, and that's often the best way. However I still think the lethal option must remain on the table, for you to use when you see fit. Also we have no obligation to the thief to choose an option that puts us more at risk; e.g. attempting to inflict a beating on somebody rather than shoot him.
If more people were shot in the process of stealing things, there would be less theft (and the other crimes that come along with it).
- Messages
- 7,000
- Reactions
- 9,862
Why kill someone if there's no threat of harm to you or your family? Not worth the years of regret.
Now I will scare them pretty bad.
Maybe do a little pulp fiction.
But just get them out of house. That's most important.
Now I will scare them pretty bad.
Maybe do a little pulp fiction.
But just get them out of house. That's most important.
- Messages
- 23,293
- Reactions
- 111,609
Along time ago , a fella broke into my house. When I heard him moving about , my wife called 911 and I said in a loud , clear voice " I have a gun , we called the police , you need to leave".
He left.
lesson learned make sure to lock windows as well as doors , before going to bed.
With all the questions I had to answer from the Sheriff's Deputies I was very glad I did not have to shoot.
Now this is not a slam against Law Enforcement Officers , they have a tough and often thankless job.
Having made peace with myself a long time ago about doing what I had to do to survive four combat tours , I know what I am willing and very capable of doing.
I guess the point of my long ramble is that you need to be prepared to face the consequences of your actions or inactions.
Also you need to understand that things might not go your way or according to the script in your head , as it were.
Whatever you do , you will have to live with it for the rest of your life.
Andy
He left.
lesson learned make sure to lock windows as well as doors , before going to bed.
With all the questions I had to answer from the Sheriff's Deputies I was very glad I did not have to shoot.
Now this is not a slam against Law Enforcement Officers , they have a tough and often thankless job.
Having made peace with myself a long time ago about doing what I had to do to survive four combat tours , I know what I am willing and very capable of doing.
I guess the point of my long ramble is that you need to be prepared to face the consequences of your actions or inactions.
Also you need to understand that things might not go your way or according to the script in your head , as it were.
Whatever you do , you will have to live with it for the rest of your life.
Andy
"Now this is not a slam against Law Enforcement Officers , they have a tough and often thankless job."
Yes, making life difficult for a person defending her life...
"Why kill someone if there's no threat of harm to you or your family? Not worth the years of regret."
Oh, so there is a guarantee of no threat from the criminal? Yes, I'm sure we can rely of them, never to come back, etc.
Jeff Cooper noted that the natural state of mind of one prevailing in a criminal encounter, including one where the perp is killed, are feelings of success, of overcoming evil. Why would I regret? The only thing to regret is the raking over that cops will give you, but even that is going to be muted if the thief is in your house. Anyway I'm still talking about the moral case, not the trials and tribulations of dealing with the criminal "Justice System".
I won't kill every thief I run into, but I (morally) reserve that option for every case, and I'm not going to regret either.
"Maybe do a little pulp fiction."
What the heck does that mean? Shoot into the ground or something? That is a practice universally condemned by firearms instructors.
Yes, making life difficult for a person defending her life...
"Why kill someone if there's no threat of harm to you or your family? Not worth the years of regret."
Oh, so there is a guarantee of no threat from the criminal? Yes, I'm sure we can rely of them, never to come back, etc.
Jeff Cooper noted that the natural state of mind of one prevailing in a criminal encounter, including one where the perp is killed, are feelings of success, of overcoming evil. Why would I regret? The only thing to regret is the raking over that cops will give you, but even that is going to be muted if the thief is in your house. Anyway I'm still talking about the moral case, not the trials and tribulations of dealing with the criminal "Justice System".
I won't kill every thief I run into, but I (morally) reserve that option for every case, and I'm not going to regret either.
"Maybe do a little pulp fiction."
What the heck does that mean? Shoot into the ground or something? That is a practice universally condemned by firearms instructors.
Never use Wasp spray unless you are attacking wasps. It is completely ineffective against humans, therefore it's probably completely ineffective against a dog. Use pepper spray designed to be used against mammals.
The use of wasp spray continues to be an urban myth that should be debunked. It simply doesn't work.
The use of wasp spray continues to be an urban myth that should be debunked. It simply doesn't work.
- Messages
- 11,840
- Reactions
- 11,103
Plus if the dog owner wanted to he could try to get you on illegal use of the spray
Read the can.It says using the spray in any other manner other than it's intended use is a crime.
Hey some dog owners may try it.Or a stupid judge
Then I don't know what your point is...
My point is, its immoral to shoot someone over property theft alone. The whole idea of the right to bear arms is about preserving life, not taking it. If your life's not in danger then using lethal force is murder. A television is not worth a life, not even a low life.
Put a sign up in front of your house, saying you will never harm anyone who steals your stuff. See what happens.
Morals are derived from survival. (That's right, I'm not religious - I don't think they come from God). They point us in the direction of a society that is decent and livable. A society where theft is without risk is not a decent and livable society. Therefore it certainly is moral to shoot someone stealing your stuff. Again, it requires judgment, and people are naturally restrained from doing so. But that does not take it off the moral table. The decision remains with the theft victim.
Say you have food stored that you depend on for survival and that of your family. It's merely your stuff, but I'll bet you might think twice about shooting somebody taking it.
Morals are derived from survival. (That's right, I'm not religious - I don't think they come from God). They point us in the direction of a society that is decent and livable. A society where theft is without risk is not a decent and livable society. Therefore it certainly is moral to shoot someone stealing your stuff. Again, it requires judgment, and people are naturally restrained from doing so. But that does not take it off the moral table. The decision remains with the theft victim.
Say you have food stored that you depend on for survival and that of your family. It's merely your stuff, but I'll bet you might think twice about shooting somebody taking it.
- Messages
- 23,293
- Reactions
- 111,609
Paul please do put a spin on what I said."Now this is not a slam against Law Enforcement Officers , they have a tough and often thankless job."
Yes, making life difficult for a person defending her life...
I did not feel like they did anything wrong. You were not there , do not make judgments for me.
The only "difficult" issue was answering what seemed to be endless questions at oh dark thirty in the morning, before the coffee was ready.
When law enforcement answers a dispatch call , they have no real idea what's going on , one way to find out is approach carefully and ask questions.
With a common perception of gun-owners being trigger-happy Bubbas , I can understand why they asked what they did.
Andy
- Messages
- 4,070
- Reactions
- 9,372
Go ahead and try this and when you get internet access in prison let us know how it turns out.
- Messages
- 326
- Reactions
- 242
Seems like good advice from the Deputy. I would prefer not to shoot some idiot's dog because they haven't taken the time to train their dogs and be in control, but at the same time, I wouldn't want my dog to be on the receiving end of 2 Rottweiler's. When carrying a firearm, the mindset to be prepared to use your weapon if needed is critical.
(sigh) As I said before - twice - I was talking about moral considerations, not practical tactics in our current police state. I should add though, that at least in the western US (including Oregon) juries do tend to side with the victims of theft even if the thief managed to get his bubblegum shot. That's my impression, anyway. We don't live in New Jersey after all.
alligator kills robber who wasnt threatening him.... lol
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/0...orida-lake-where-gator-eats-him/?intcmp=hpbt4
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/0...orida-lake-where-gator-eats-him/?intcmp=hpbt4
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
120 rounds 30-06 Springfield Remington & Hornady whitetail
- Started by annikhtyr
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-