Island County, WA - Sheriff: Thieves targeting community and we can't stop it

[Jammer Six]

Nom-nom-nom.

 

[MarkAd]

LOL, how lazy or ignorant are you? The post said

Illegal immigrants

as in CRIMINALS

Immigrants have nothing to do with it.
We get stronger every time an immigrant crosses the border.
If you're listening for something, no matter what it is, you're sure to hear it.

 

[gimpyhunter]

Entertainment. Did they vote against the recent tax increase to fund law enforcement? Yup. Perhaps they ought to quit complaining when the piper comes calling.

We voted down a tax increase to fund our Sheriff's Department. Then the darn sheriff went and recruited 10 state/federal agencies for a major joint 50 criminal gun and drug ring. After it was all over, they found funds to support the Sheriff's needs.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

That is the concept. Ever read 1984?

Well acquainted with Orwell. A strange fellow but I believe he finally woke up

 

[BigStick]

When the politicians complain about budget woes, they never want to cut "feel good projects" that are money pits, they don't cut the amount of "handouts", they cut essential services so the citizens feel as if they have no choice but to vote in new taxes. Vote the liberals out of office- don't complain about the cops when they're stretched too thin to do their jobs effectively- that isn't their fault.

This is right on the money. They always talk about how many teachers/firemen/police will be cut if we don't pass the new tax. Well how were they paid until now? Oh yeah, we paid them with the money that you just started funneling to your little pet project that you think will get you reelected because it feels good.

It's time to cut the fat. Period.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

This is right on the money. They always talk about how many teachers/firemen/police will be cut if we don't pass the new tax. Well how were they paid until now? Oh yeah, we paid them with the money that you just started funneling to your little pet project that you think will get you reelected because it feels good.

It's time to cut the fat. Period.

Ever notice each and every time there's an accident or need for EMTs the entire fire brigade wear out big $$$$ equipment "responding"? Total waste of tax dollars

 

[Jammer Six]

Our system isn't designed to be economically efficient. That was a deliberate choice.

But you guys are fun to listen to. Do carry on.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

OK, on topic the good book says "If a thief be found breaking up (breaking and entering) and be smitten that he die, there shall be no blood shed for him"

Works for me

 

[Jammer Six]

One of many things wrong with that book...

 

[Blitzkrieg]

One of many things wrong with that book...

Won't argue with you but you're dead wrong

 

[Jammer Six]

Won't argue with you but you're dead wrong

That was pretty funny.

 

[BigStick]

One of many things wrong with that book...

So are you saying that you shouldn't be able to shoot someone breaking into your house at night? Because that is what that passage is refering to. Saying there is no guilt to the homeowner for killing someone with nefarious purposes breaking into your house in the middle of the night. Can't say I dissagree with that.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

That was pretty funny.

Was intended to be humorous

 

[Stomper]

So are you saying that you shouldn't be able to shoot someone breaking into your house at night? Because that is what that passage is refering to. Saying there is no guilt to the homeowner for killing someone with nefarious purposes breaking into your house in the middle of the night. Can't say I dissagree with that.

^^^THIS!^^^ Care to elaborate on what you meant, Jammer?

Aside from you obviously don't believe in the Bible (or maybe religion in general). How is that particular passage cross-purposes with common sense laws (statutory and/or natural) on defense of life, limb, and property?

It is listed in the ORS, that deadly force is justified upon a perpetrator found to be in the process of breaking into any building that is a dwelling. It doesn't stipulate that the perpetrator has to be armed, has to be facing you, or has to even break the threshhold of the dwelling to justify deadly force.

A detached garage or out-building work -shop or tool shed is not a dwelling (unless your wife makes you sleep in it at the time,... LOL) however an attached garage would be considered a part of a "dwelling".

So.... please explain what you mean.

 

[Jammer Six]

Simple. It's a basic tenet behind all our laws (and policies) governing use of force in America.

Each situation is different.

You can't make a sweeping, general statement about how any [insert crime here] deserves [insert sentence here] because they're all different.

Making a statement like "anyone who hits my wife gets the full magazine in the chest" is for fools-- what if a 97 year old, blind, one-legged woman attached to an oxygen tank hits your wife, and promptly falls over with the effort?

Your scenario of breaking into your house at night is equally simple to provide a counter example for.

What if the intruder is seven years old? Or, even more inclusively, what if the intruder turns and runs as soon as he sees or hears you?

Every situation is different.

You're going to be held accountable for that judgement, whether you made it or not, if you fire.

And that's a good thing.

There is no hard and fast rule, because there can't be. Because every situation is different.

You don't have the legal or moral right to shoot someone in the back as they turn to run from you, whether you're in your house or not. You may want it. You may think you do. You may wish you did. But you don't.

There is no magic line that is crossed, there is no provocation, there is no magic set of circumstances that makes a sweeping, general rule possible. If there were, we'd have written it into law long ago. But there isn't, so the "reasonable man" doctrine was adopted.

If you wouldn't feel guilt for killing a seven year old intruder, then have a seat, stud. You and I will never be equals.

What you believe doesn't matter.

Every situation is different. Believe that.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

NO. Break into my home and you get it. PERIOD

 

[Jammer Six]

Ah, it's good to be validated. Even in reverse.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

OK, you do an interview with each of them at your place while I make sure they can't harm me and mine

 

[Stomper]

Simple. It's a basic tenet behind all our laws (and policies) governing use of force in America.

Each situation is different.

You can't make a sweeping, general statement about how any [insert crime here] deserves [insert sentence here] because they're all different.

Making a statement like "anyone who hits my wife gets the full magazine in the chest" is for fools-- what if a 97 year old, blind, one-legged woman attached to an oxygen tank hits your wife, and promptly falls over with the effort?

Your scenario of breaking into your house at night is equally simple to provide a counter example for.

What if the intruder is seven years old? Or, even more inclusively, what if the intruder turns and runs as soon as he sees or hears you?

Every situation is different.

You're going to be held accountable for that judgement, whether you made it or not, if you fire.

And that's a good thing.

There is no hard and fast rule, because there can't be. Because every situation is different.

You don't have the legal or moral right to shoot someone in the back as they turn to run from you, whether you're in your house or not. You may want it. You may think you do. You may wish you did. But you don't.

There is no magic line that is crossed, there is no provocation, there is no magic set of circumstances that makes a sweeping, general rule possible. If there were, we'd have written it into law long ago. But there isn't, so the "reasonable man" doctrine was adopted.

If you wouldn't feel guilt for killing a seven year old intruder, then have a seat, stud. You and I will never be equals.

What you believe doesn't matter.

Every situation is different. Believe that.

Now see? Was that so hard?

Yes, evey situation has it's circumstances... agreed. Just because the ORS says its justified, and the Good Book says you are "not to blame", I would point out that neither one says you are REQUIRED to employ deadly force... insert (not so common) common sense here.

As for the 7 - 97 year olds, yes it would depend on situational factors, you bet.

Remember the recent incidents of the two young boys that attempted an armed robbery (with a real gun) on the lady coming out of the church in/near Gresham? Had that been me as the "victim".... well, there'd have most likely been one less juvenile delinquent stinkin' up the place, it would depend of course.

Ever have conscripted 13-14 year olds come at you with an AK a blazin'? How about conscripted/manipulated 15-17 year olds with an RPG? (I have... and there's a reason I'm still here)

After over 25 years later, and now having kids in the same age group as those were, do I regret it? No, but I regret (sometimes resent) having HAD TO DO it in the first place. (if that makes any sense). Does it break my heart? Yes, it does... actually. Have I made my peace with the whole situation? Yes. Would I do it again if needed? Yes.

Believe me, the (next to) LAST thing I want is to have to carry another "burden" like that, but the (very) LAST thing I'll ever do is shrink away from "doing what needs doing", either.

Believe that.