**Bloodlust**READ THIS THREAD BEFORE POSTING IN THIS SUBFORUM!

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jeff White

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
37,967
Location
Alma Illinois
THR and our sister board TFL are unlike any other firearms forum on the World Wide Web. The ownership and staff of both forums work hard to keep the standards high.

The Strategies and Tactics Forum is a bit different then any other forum on THR. Here we talk about shooting techniques, legal subjects, how to take care of yourself and others in an emergency, first aid and emergency medical subjects...anything that is related to living safely can be on topic here.

These are serious subjects and they deserve serious, thoughtful posts. Think twice and post once really applies here.

We will not, under any circumstances advocate any illegal conduct. Members who do, will lose their membership without any further warning.

We will not advocate the use of deadly force under any circumstance when deadly force would not be called for. Flip comments about no retreat and castle laws making it legal will not be tolerated. Any member who posts a comment like that will lose their membership without further warning.

The use of deadly force is not a subject that should be taken lightly. There are many legal and moral factors to consider before any force is used. We will no longer take the use of deadly force lightly here. If you have the need to say those things there are other places where those comments are welcome and even the norm. They are no longer welcome here.

These are the Strategies and Tactics forum's rules for employment of deadly force:

Deadly force will only be used to prevent the immediate use of force that could cause death or great bodily harm to yourself or another.

This is how the rule will be enforced:

We can discuss what's legal and what's not in in various jurisdictions. What isn't allowed is the smug posts like; "You should move to Texas we just shoot em for that down here." Posts like that are counterproductive, a waste of bandwidth and potentially damaging to our side in the ongoing culture war.

If you are going to suggest that someone actually use deadly force to resolve a situation, then that situation has to meet the rules of engagement in the first post in the thread. No more; "We just shoot em for that here." posts.

A comment like; "Even though (insert state here) law would permit me to shoot in that situation, I would only shoot if I could articulate a threat of death or great bodily harm against myself or another." is acceptable. "(Insert state here) law says that I can shoot anyone no matter what they are doing if I find them in my dwelling, car, camper, yard after dark...so I'm shooting to slide lock as soon as I see him." is not acceptable.

Here in the Strategies and Tactics Forum we may have a somewhat higher standard for the use of deadly force then some laws may permit.

The standard I picked for our use not only promotes responsible use of firearms but is legal virtually everywhere in the US.

Violation of the deadly force policy here will have repercussions just like in the real world.

Jeff
 
Last edited:
Deadly force will only be used to prevent the immediate use of force that could cause death or great bodily harm to yourself or another.
Click to expand...
That's not quite what MT law says ...

IIRC (without going back and looking it up again) deadly force may be used to prevent a "forcible felony"

"Forcible" meaning the use or threat of force against the victim (armed robbery, etc).
 
TX

The standards for the use of deadly force are much higher for THR than they are for Texas.

When discussing using deadly force to protect property at night, I will go elsewhere. :(
 
Tallpine,
Isn't the factor that makes a felony forcible the danger of death or great bodily harm to yourself or another? MT law fits the example.

nhhillbilly,
Doesn't arson to an occupied structure place the occupants in danger of death or great bodily harm? Sounds like it fits.

RioShooter,
What do you own that is worth killing someone for?

I hardly think advocating the shooting of someone over property fits THR's mission statement of promoting the responsible use of firearms even if the law says it's ok.

Jeff
 
After being repeatedly, thoroughly screwed,

...I feel the need to protest the new zero-tolerance policy.

Edit: I suggest we all read up on the subject of chilling effects, which I've seen quickly and efficiently kill a thriving virtual community after rules imposed in the fear of a lawsuit led patrons, now uncomfortable and fearing ban-for-life and crap like that, to leave forever of their own accord.
 
That should be changed a little. Rape does not necessarily involve great bodily harm (though it often does), but I think everyone here would agree that deadly force is appropriate for preventing rape.
 
Only three responses?

I would have put the over/under on this at 38-40 posts by now.


I hardly think advocating the shooting of someone over property fits THR's mission statement of promoting the responsible use of firearms even if the law says it's ok.
Click to expand...

Isn't this then advocating that we let criminals walk all over us?
 
I think what Jeff has in mind is the over the top use of statements concerning deadly force.

Me, I always got a chuckle out of some responses... paraphrased "If he moves, he dies!" or "If I see somebody outside my house, I'll blast them with my shotgun right through the door!"

I always had the mental picture of somebody that uses these statements being the same type of guy that played RPG's in high school (relax, I played 'em also) and never gets out from behind the saftey of the computer screen.

ummm... I can already feel the heat, and I'll start looking for prime real estate underneath a bridge....
 
Isn't this then advocating that we let criminals walk all over us?
Click to expand...

Can I please ask where this came from? I mean, really. The idea that this board is saying, "Bend over and kiss your butt goodbye if the bad mans even looks at you!" is absolutely absurd by any stretch of the imagination.
The new rule is simply intended to enforce the thought that flippant comments about "blowing them away" or other non-optimal firearms use discussions are not to be tolerated. Yes, your state might have laws different than mine but that doesn't mean that I want to read about how one of my fellow posters is just itching for someone to come through a window so they can see if they can put two in the chest and one in the head into a live target as well at night in their own home as they can at the range.
I, for one, applaud the new policy. If people refuse to post here because they can't sound like sociopaths with a blatant disregard for human life then so be it.

Still an avid RPG player himself,
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )
 
So then what's the ruling on "gut feelings?" If someone points a weapon at me and says "hand over your wallet," what I do will largely depend on those.
 
A few people are going to have to change their sig lines.

Can I please ask where this came from? I mean, really.
Click to expand...

It goes like this:

If you respond to a criminal stealing your property and you have a firearm the implication is that you will shoot the criminal if _______ happens. Why else would you bother to go armed?

So the very act of saying you are willing to defend mere property with a lethal weapon could cause an over sensitive mod to ban you.
 
Warren,
Do you value life so little that you would take someone's life for trespass or theft?

Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime? Many Texans seem to brag that their law allows them to use deadly force to defend their property after dark. But last time I checked the uniform crime reports, Texas didn't have all that much better stats for burglary then many other states that don't have that law.

I was at Ft Hood last November. From all the posts here on THR I could have expected to see bodies in the gutter each morning for the garbage man to pick up after the previous nights trespassers and petty theives were summarily dispatched by the Texas contingent of our membership.

How are we promoting the responsible use of firearms when we suggest that if you run out of gas on the road at night in Texas, you better sit in the car till dawn lest you be shot for approaching the house in the dark? Yet still many members wear their legal right to kill someone for trespassing after dark like it was some magic talisman that keeps all evil away. Well you can't wear your magic talisman in the Strategies and Tactics forum any longer.

As our membership has grown the spirit of the forum has changed. As little as a year ago the flip posts that suggest that the solution to every tactical problem is to shoot the bad guy were few and far between. And when they were posted, the membership was quick to remind the member who posted it that this was THR and the standards were somewhat higher here then other places on the world wide web.

I don't know if it's the fact that no retreat/castle laws are in the news, but in the past few months the Strategies and Tactics forum could be renamed the kill em all and let God sort em out forum. Members are even posting that as of (the effective date of the law) the situation under discussion won't be a problem for him, because on that date he can shoot the person with no fear of repercussion. There have been posts in threads here that are almost identical to what the VPC and Brady Center are putting out as reasons why these laws shouldn't be passed. I don't know exactly how much of that is merely a member trying to to show everyone how tough he is, how much is posted for shock effect or how much is really serious. In the end it doesn't matter. We are damaging our cause by posting those statements.

It's also affecting the quality of the discussion here. Threads that could be used to educate members and lurkers on how to develop the proper mindset, how to recognize a threat when it might not be immediately apparent and how to wargame a situation in your mind and think over possible variations of things that could happen (very useful skill for staying alive and uninjured) so that you aren't taken totally by surprise and may even have a plan to counter it when it happens are lost in "We have the castle doctrine in my state, I'd just shoot him as soon as I saw him."

The truth is, that most confrontations don't require deadly force. There are a very small percentage that do. The intruder in your home or on your property is much more likely to be someone you would regret killing then someone who needs killing. HOw long do you think the protection the new (although many places have had them for a long time) no retreat and castle doctrine laws give armed citizens will last when the media starts making a full court press on every innocent person who lost his life because the legislature was so irresponsible as to pass those laws?

The general public doesn't think about the things we talk about here. They leave their doors and windows unlocked, they live in the bliss that only the unaware can have. So there is very likely to be a great public outcry when the press starts bleating about the first drunk who stumbles into someone's house and gets shot for his trouble. Then we could lose everything we've gained in the reform of self defense laws.

I don't want to take one step forward and then two steps back. It's hard to get to your destination that way. That is why that here in the Strategies and Tactics forum at THR we'll adhere to only advocating the use of deadly force to defnd yourself and others from death or great bodily harm.

In this case, perception is reality. If you can articulate why you felt that you or another was in danger of death or great bodily harm, even if later those circumstances did not exist, but a reasonable man would accept your explanation as to why you felt you or another was in danger of death or great bodily harm, then it's a good use of force.

I don't feel that those standards are unreasonable and I fail to see how that's being soft on criminals.

Jeff
 
Do you value life so little that you would take someone's life for trespass or theft?
Click to expand...

I do not believe I've ever said that I would kill to protect mere property. I would certainly want to avoid it if posssible. But I will not stand by and let my stuff get stolen. I will confront the person and try to hold him police. If he takes off running, even if he is carrying away my property I do not think I could shoot him. After all my legal costs would be much higher than the value of the property so if I shot him it would be a net loss for me. But if he comes at me, what then? Was I wrong to confront him in the first place?

All that said if you were to shoot somebody for stealing mere property I'm not going to second guess you, unless you endangered others.

And if I'm on a jury hearing your case I'm going to vote to aquit as there is no way I can take the thief's side, regardless of his fate.

How are we promoting the responsible use of firearms when we suggest that if you run out of gas on the road at night in Texas, you better sit in the car till dawn lest you be shot for approaching the house in the dark? Yet still many members wear their legal right to kill someone for trespassing after dark like it was some magic talisman that keeps all evil away. Well you can't wear your magic talisman in the Strategies and Tactics forum any longer.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be hoped neighborliness would be offered rather than lead.

As our membership has grown the spirit of the forum has changed. As little as a year ago the flip posts that suggest that the solution to every tactical problem is to shoot the bad guy were few and far between. And when they were posted, the membership was quick to remind the member who posted it that this was THR and the standards were somewhat higher here then other places on the world wide web.

I don't know if it's the fact that no retreat/castle laws are in the news, but in the past few months the Strategies and Tactics forum could be renamed the kill em all and let God sort em out forum. Members are even posting that as of (the effective date of the law) the situation under discussion won't be a problem for him, because on that date he can shoot the person with no fear of repercussion. There have been posts in threads here that are almost identical to what the VPC and Brady Center are putting out as reasons why these laws shouldn't be passed. I don't know exactly how much of that is merely a member trying to to show everyone how tough he is, how much is posted for shock effect or how much is really serious. In the end it doesn't matter. We are damaging our cause by posting those statements.

It's also affecting the quality of the discussion here. Threads that could be used to educate members and lurkers on how to develop the proper mindset, how to recognize a threat when it might not be immediately apparent and how to wargame a situation in your mind and think over possible variations of things that could happen (very useful skill for staying alive and uninjured) so that you aren't taken totally by surprise and may even have a plan to counter it when it happens are lost in "We have the castle doctrine in my state, I'd just shoot him as soon as I saw him."
Click to expand...

I have not seen that many of these posts. Maybe that is why this thread seemed, to me, to come out of nowhere.

The truth is, that most confrontations don't require deadly force. There are a very small percentage that do. The intruder in your home or on your property is much more likely to be someone you would regret killing then someone who needs killing. HOw long do you think the protection the new (although many places have had them for a long time) no retreat and castle doctrine laws give armed citizens will last when the media starts making a full court press on every innocent person who lost his life because the legislature was so irresponsible as to pass those laws?

The general public doesn't think about the things we talk about here. They leave their doors and windows unlocked, they live in the bliss that only the unaware can have. So there is very likely to be a great public outcry when the press starts bleating about the first drunk who stumbles into someone's house and gets shot for his trouble. Then we could lose everything we've gained in the reform of self defense laws.

I don't want to take one step forward and then two steps back. It's hard to get to your destination that way. That is why that here in the Strategies and Tactics forum at THR we'll adhere to only advocating the use of deadly force to defnd yourself and others from death or great bodily harm.

In this case, perception is reality. If you can articulate why you felt that you or another was in danger of death or great bodily harm, even if later those circumstances did not exist, but a reasonable man would accept your explanation as to why you felt you or another was in danger of death or great bodily harm, then it's a good use of force.

I don't feel that those standards are unreasonable and I fail to see how that's being soft on criminals.
Click to expand...

I see the rationale, and since I wish to keep posting at THR I will abide.
 
Shoot/No Shoot

Compelled to respond, even though it's probably best that I stay out of this type of discussion.

First...Anyone who has known me here knows that I'm not a banning moderator. Second...I absolutely believe in the right to self defense and defense for those within my sphere by whatever means necessary. Third...
I believe strongly that there is a responsibility that comes with what essentially the power of life and death, and that power should be wielded
justly and carefully.

If I believe that I or anyone in my household is in immediate deadly jeopardy,
I will not hesitate. If I feel that anyone is only there to steal, and either complies with my demand to stand still...or if he/she/they turn to run...or
otherwise stand down, I will not fire. Killing is a serious thing...even if "He needed killin'." It's just too damned hard, and...as a poster on the thread that got this started remarked...it will have a deep and lasting effect on you...even if he DID need killin'. Even if there is absolutely no choice in the matter, you'll find yourself agonizing and wondering what you could have done differently. Wishing that it COULD have been different. You'll find yourself raging at a dead man, asking him: "What the hell was wrong with you? I had a gun pointed at you and you kept coming! Why didn't you stop?
Why did you make me do that to you?" And finally, you'll find yourself hating him for the position that he put you in, because his worries are over...but yours just keep eating at you.

People...This ain't a joke and it sure ain't Hollywood. Please, consider carefully this power that you hold in your hand...and not just the legal implications.
 
How about more moderator attention to the number of posts regarding people who think CFL makes them a super hero crime fighter ready to jump in at the first sign of trouble, guns a-blazin'? If Handgun Control Inc. & Brady Bunch does not monitor these sites and record all of the flip posts for posterity (or prosecution) later, we would be lucky. We're not lucky.
 
How about more moderator attention to the number of posts regarding people who think CFL makes them a super hero crime fighter ready to jump in at the first sign of trouble, guns a-blazin'? If Handgun Control Inc. & Brady Bunch does not monitor these sites and record all of the flip posts for posterity (or prosecution) later, we would be lucky. We're not lucky.
Click to expand...


Can you link to one of these posts? Two?

I cannot recall a single such post.
 
There is a current thread in S&T 'what do you think of this situation', that seems to have generated more than a few "shoot first & ask questions later" type of responses in it. As i felt compelled to say in one of my replies to it, their attitudes alone are dangerous.
 
If you can articulate why you felt that you or another was in danger of death or great bodily harm, even if later those circumstances did not exist, but a reasonable man would accept your explanation as to why you felt you or another was in danger of death or great bodily harm, then it's a good use of force.
Click to expand...
Yes - agreed:) - but I can I articulate that here :confused:

What I mean is, that if I say that I consider X situation to be a prima facie threat of harm to me or my family ...?

I don't think these discussions are entirely academic. One of the things that has often been mentioned about self defense is mindset, and also where do you draw the line? I really have no particular reason to expect a home invasion (as opposed to burglarly while we are gone) but things like that don't happen by appointment;) And I have been amazed at the (untrue) rumors that I've heard about myself over the years :rolleyes: - it's not entirely impossible that somebody might decide that my remote rural home is a good target for cash or whatever.....:(
 
Property Worth Killing For

RioShooter,
What do you own that is worth killing someone for?
Click to expand...

If I was in a Katrina like situation and someone tried to steal my water supply, food, generator or anything else I was using to keep my family alive, I would defend those supplies with lethal force.
 
Well Jeff

Your the Mod so your rules but you will not be seeing much of me here in Strategies and Tactics from here on out because I have no intention of inviting a criminal in for a cup of coffee to find out his intentions for breaking into my home. Anything I own is worth more than those who would commit a felony to take it from me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
  • Sticky
The Rules: Please Read Before Posting In ST&T
Replies
0
Views
5K
Kleanbore
K
G
  • Locked
Is rape = great bodily harm
2 3
Replies
63
Views
3K
tellner
T
G
  • Locked
Hypothetical Situation: A police officer tells you to help him arrest someone!
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
MASTEROFMALICE
M
K
  • Locked
Why We Do Not Shoot to Kill
Replies
0
Views
825
Kleanbore
K
BringHomeTheBacon
  • Locked
Acts Justifying the Use of Deadly Force (AJDF)
Replies
3
Views
567
JShirley
JShirley
Back
Top