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

[Low-Sci]

I have to agree with Jeff here. Its not an unreasonable rule at all. The essence of the whole thing is that the forum can't condone lethal force in unwarranted situations. I think he's absolutely right that saying that overreactions and advocation of overly aggressive use of firearms is a detriment to our cause as gun owners.

He's not saying disarm yourself, he's not saying don't ever use lethal force ever, he's not saying sit down and have a cup of tea with your prospective criminal. All he's saying is that since we have all chosen to bear arms, we have to be responsible in the manner in which we bear them, because other impressionable people are watching us (our kids, our families, the media).

This means recognizing that there are things that are worth killing a man over, and things that are not worth killing a man over. Knowing the difference between these things is a great strength, and its not akin to allowing criminals to walk all over you.

 

[TallPine]

the forum can't condone lethal force in unwarranted situations

Agreed

But can one even discuss in what situations lethal force might be warranted, without fear of summary banishment?

I agree some posts have been over the line, especially those advocating deceit after the fact.

 

[Jeff White]

TallPine,
You may discuss under what circumstances deadly force may be warranted. That is part of what this forum is all about.

You may not advocate the use of deadly force in cases where it is not warranted.

Jeff

 

[Freddymac]

I agree with Jeff

I agree with many of his points, but if for no other reason than: any thing you say (type) can and will be held against you in a court of law.” You may say outlandish things to seem tough or in jest, but if you ever should have to defend life or limb, some overzealous punk DA could make you eat your words.
Just something to think about.
Fred

 

[Jay Kominek]

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

Illegal according to what jurisdiction?

 

[riverdog]

You may not advocate the use of deadly force in cases where it is not warranted.

Which should go a long way toward lowering the noise floor around THR.

I like the new rules. Our being cavalier about use of deadly force is ammunition to the anti-gun crowd.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I see nothing in Jeff White's post (I stopped tp read it slowly
and calmly) that contradicts what my handgun carry permit
instructor went over in self defense class.

Self defense law is about a "reasonable person" being in
fear of imminent death or bodily harm. It is not about
"shoot first in the dark and ask questions later" or "kill them
all; God will recognize his own"(Pope Innocent III 1209AD)

If anything, having my handgun carry permit has made me
less fearful and less likely to overreact to a perceived threat.

A few nights ago, I was awakened at midnight by pounding on
my front door: it was my son-in-law with news that we had to
go to hospital over a family emergency. Another night, the
upstairs tenant knocked on my door; I had left my car lights on.
And this is in a neighborhood where I have had to call 911
over domestic violence among neighbors, some of whom
receive mail from corrections facilities.

Now if someone was kicking the backdoor, my reaction would
be different: self defense law makes some presumptions, like an
intruder in a household especially at night is probably not up to
any good and may be presumed a threat. But dealing with a
"trespasser" at night requires better judgment.

By the way, I would only approach a stranger's home at night
by a lighted front door. If there is no front light, I would not
knock.

Spouting off like a territorial pit bull with rabies does not do
self-defense or gun rights any good.

Some of the more outrageous "bloodlust" postings make me
suspect we may have "lurking trolls" posting outrageous stuff
because I know permit holders, reserve and active duty police,
and others and they are all pretty level headed people.

 

[Jeff White]

Advocating Illegal Conduct

Jay,
Suggesting that you lie to the investigator about the circumstances of a shooting and suggesting that you tamper with the evidence or anything at the scene are the ones that get posted here the most. The members who post those comments know that they are suggesting someone break the law.

Suggesting that you can violate the forum rules on when you can employ deadly force because it might be legal somewhere will also get you banned. There will be no more; "If it's after dark he's bought and paid for because here in Texas we can use deadly force to defend our property after sunset!" posts.

Jeff

 

[buzz_knox]

Suggesting that you can violate the forum rules on when you can employ deadly force because it might be legal somewhere will also get you banned. There will be no more; "If it's after dark he's bought and paid for because here in Texas we can use deadly force to defend our property after sunset!" posts.

Just to clarify: stating that it is legal to use deadly force in a given situation that does not fall within the definition at the beginning of this thread will be grounds for summary banning, even if use of said force is, in fact, legal?

 

[wheelgunslinger]

In the struggle of order vs. chaos, message boards remain a fertile ground.
We all were able to read posts here before we joined. We all joined this forum because there was something we liked.
I believed that it was remarkably wise of our fellow gun owners/enjoyers to start a forum like this so that the antis would have a means of reading the ideas of responsible gun owners. That's why I joined.
But, there are rules. And, from time to time they have to be tuned up or tightened or loosened a bit. This is one of those times.
Many times, I don't agree with Jeff White because I feel his perspective as a LEO colors his perception as a citizen. Many times I do because his perspective as a LEO gives him insight I wouldn't have as a joe sixpack. But, Jeff White is the mod here and he's given fair warning and the opportunity to choose.
On this particular issue, I agree with him. The bloodlust posts are just immature. I value life and won't be that flip about it. But, I also value mine. And, I think that's where the line really is: when you cross the line from value of life in general to value of your own more. And, that line should be well away from someone tromping off with your TV set, simple trespass, or someone cutting you off in traffic.
Staying grounded in reality takes maintenance here in these message boards. Jeff is just giving it a tune up.
So, I'll abide by the rules, even if further tuning is required.

 

[Old Dog]

Jeff,
Thank you! As we can see within this thread, some folks just don't get it ...

Anything I own is worth more than those who would commit a felony to take it from me.

It's only stuff, people ... Sheesh. I cringe at the thought that for some, their stereos or televisions are worth more than human life.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Just because a killing might not be criminal on self defense grounds
in criminal court, does not mean it cannot be found wrongful in civil
court. A tort lawyer can draw blood from stones.

Good judgment and common sense may mean retreat if retreat is
safe and possible, and always means give the other guy the option
to get the hay out of Dodge before he forces you to use lethal force.

Some of the "bloodlust" talk is just whistling past the graveyard
false bravado by people fed up with crime in their neighborhoods.
Fear is reasonable, anger can be pardoned, but malice is criminal.

We need to remember, anything we say will be taken out of context
and used against us in the coiurt of public opibion.
(Preview Post) (Edit) (Submit Reply)
And always write as though you are trying to convince a neutral.

 

[buzz_knox]

Carl, I understand that all too well. I've had the misfortune of being in a class with an individual who was trying to figure out if he could kill someone who cursed him.

I just wanted to clarify that discussions of legal activity (i.e. the Texas scenario) is a bannable offense. That would seem to be the case, as it does not fall within the 25 word definition set forth in the initial post.

 

[Jeremae]

As you can see, I have been a member of these forums since the beginning and if you check you would find I was a member of TFL for years before that. My number of posts is low enough that I could be considered primarily a Lurker. My personal rule is to only post when I have some NEW information to add that is germaine to the topic. I always abide by the rules, it is Oleg's sandbox.

It has been my observation that more non High Road behavoir has occured recently (last year or so) and I applaud the moderator action to try and curb it.

The use of deadly force is a VERY serious subject even more than guns in general and frivolous "Kill em all let god..." comments are clearly counter productive.

The topic of use of deadly force in defense of property is however one that I would like to see discussed both philosophically as well as in real world circumstances while staying on the High Road. To wit, I would like to reply to Mr. White's question "What do you own that is worth killing someone for?" Is that possible under new rules?

 

[Jay Kominek]

Suggesting that you lie to the investigator about the circumstances of a shooting and suggesting that you tamper with the evidence or anything at the scene are the ones that get posted here the most. The members who post those comments know that they are suggesting someone break the law.

I think you need to be clear ahead of time exactly what common topics of conversation have now become forbidden.

Is it just suggestions about breaking the law in regards in the use of lethal force on humans that are banned? Is "shoot it, shovel it, shut up" (probably illegal everywhere) no longer permissible as regards errant wildlife? If I suggest to someone that they buy a silencer to save their hearing (illegal lots of places), will I need to qualify it with "suggestion valid only in states and localities allowing the private ownership of silencers"?

In short, I don't think you answered my question. You have, perhaps, a very clear idea of what you mean, and I feel that I can probably guess what you mean, but I don't think your new rules convey it, which is unfortunate considering the severity of breaking them and the apparent lack of second chances.

 

[Wes Janson]

I'm still wanting clarification on whose jurisdiction we're going by here. There are places where any use of deadly force in self defense is illegal, regardless of circumstance. And there are other places in the world where there aren't any laws, period. Obviously, most of us live in North America, and have a certain limited right to the use of deadly force, but even within the fifty states there's a lot of difference both in what the law says and what you would or would not be charged for doing. Where does this forum stand?

 

[crofrog]

To be honest the general level of discussion in this section of the forum has dropped significantly in the last 3-6 months.

Alot of people who are completly outside of there lane have been offering entierly to much free advice.


This will hopefully be a step back in the right direction.

 

[Low-Sci]

There's a difference between "warranted" and "legal."

Sure, maybe it is legal to shoot someone after dark in texas over property. Doesn't mean its warranted, and frankly, I see that as the heart of the problem.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Honestly, its cowboy attitudes like Jeff is referencing that's hurting us and in fact the entire second amendment, even if the cowboy attitudes are about what's legal. It makes bystanders uncomfortable to see attitudes like that prevail in the Pro-2A crowd, and its a turn-off. Hell, its a turn-off even for people who are pro-2A.

Just because you can legally kill someone doesn't mean that you should. Its legal to be an *sshole too, but that shouldn't be how we are around here if we're looking to move our cause forward.

I think the original rule is worded just fine.

 

[buzz_knox]

I'm still wanting clarification on whose jurisdiction we're going by here.

If I understand Jeff's posts correctly, if a post does not fall within the 25 word description of when deadly force is appropriate provided in the first post in this thread, the user will be banned. That description is the law of the land concerning this particular forum, notwithstanding actual law to the contrary. Given that the description does not apply to all jurisdictions, I would suggest reserving questions about legality of particular jurisdictions to other forums.

 

[Jeff White]

Clarification

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.

I apologize if I wasn't clear in my first post in the thread. 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.

Jeff

 

[buzz_knox]

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Honestly, its cowboy attitudes like Jeff is referencing that's hurting us and in fact the entire second amendment, even if the cowboy attitudes are about what's legal. It makes bystanders uncomfortable to see attitudes like that prevail in the Pro-2A crowd, and its a turn-off. Hell, its a turn-off even for people who are pro-2A.

Low-sci, it's funny you bring up the 2A. Given that it's original intent was guaranteeing the citizenry access to the weapons necessary to enable them to overthrow (i.e. take offensive action against) a tyrannical gov't (whether lawfully appointed initially or not), I don't believe that it can be discussed under the current rules. Given that Jeff has previously stated that anyone who discusses resistance against lawful authority will be banned, I'm pretty sure the original concept cannot. The more commonly accepted version (access to weapons for defense against criminals) can be, but that wasn't the original purpose.

No, I'm not trying to start an argument or making snide remarks. I'm just thinking through the ramifications of the new rules. We now have a description of deadly force that must be used in this forum (or all of THR, I'm not sure which) but which does not necessarily equate to the law in a particular place. I think this needs to be clearly understood by everyone who might seek advice on a given situation.

[Edited to note that this was written while Jeff was posting, and he has clarified things quite a bit. The post will not be edited, but needs to be read with the understanding that much has been clarified.]

 

[odysseus]

What happened here lately? I have been gone from THR for awhile, and when I return I see this call of immediate banning without comment. Kind of a forceful blanket statement I didn't usually see on THR. Did something go down that made this threat occur?

I agree - I get a bit tired of some who seem to take it as a joke (or not! ) the responsibility and care being armed means. Some in the past have posted items unreasonable in the "shoot first, ask questions later" category. These posts help no one, and are just plain idiotic. Hopefully these can be delt with in a finite manner; I guess I hate the common denominator being lowered though.

 

[Low-Sci]

I brought up 2A because it needs to be defended. I know what its for, I know why we have it and its not about hunting.

However, there's a legal and political section for the doomsday, gov't versus civilians cage-match conversations. And usually in those conversations, the government has it coming, at least according to the theory created by the poster.

I don't understand why there's such a problem with a rule that says essentially "don't advocate illegal acts or unwarranted shootings."

 

[Correia]

Maybe I can help break this down for some of the people who are dead set on being offended.

Don't Be Stupid. Don't Post Stupid Crap.

Nobody is going to go over your posts with a lice comb to make sure it meets a pure legal, objective standard. But if your post comes across in the manner that a person reading it would picture a fat guy, wearing camoflage boxer shorts, banging away on his keyboard, ranting about "kill 'em all! Yee haw! I don't care if hes surrendering, shoot him anyway!" before he goes to fondle his SKS, while watching Red Dawn for the 1,000th time, is probably bad. (and I love John Milius movies, so don't give me any crap, it is just an example).

Some of you are missing the point that Jeff is trying to make. Maybe you've missed some of the posts that have caused this. Keep in mind that Jeff reads pretty much everything that is posted on this forum. You didn't see many of these posts because he had to remove them before they embarrassed the entire gun owning community, and lowered the average IQ of THR by twenty points.

We've talked about this many times in the staff forum. The macho, chest thumping must go. Doesn't mean you can't talk about self defense. Doesn't mean you can't train, and prepare, to shoot people. Some of us here make pretty decent money teaching others how to shoot people who are in dire need of shooting. Nobody is telling you that you have to invite the criminals in for cake and ice cream.

Just don't post stupid crap. Don't advocate anything asinine.

And a note about the 2nd Amendment as a doomsday clause. I would be mighty careful about spouting off about doing anything illegal or stupid on a public forum. There is a time and a place for discussing that kind of action, and on a public forum, ain't it. The boldest posters usually end up being full of crap, or sixteen years old anyway. The actual dangerous people are smart enough to keep their mouths shut, and don't feel the need to tell the world how "tough" they are.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

a person reading it would picture a fat guy, wearing camoflage boxer shorts, banging away on his keyboard, ranting about "kill 'em all! Yee haw! I don't care if hes surrendering, shoot him anyway!" before he goes to fondle his SKS, while watching Red Dawn for the 1,000th time, is probably bad.

This is the funniest thing I've read on the High Road in a long time. I'm actually laughing aloud. I even squirted some protein shake (muscle milk) on my screen when I read it.

See, things are getting better already.

On a serious note: Nice clarification. Not that it matters, but I approve.