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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Correia, I hope you "know" me (at least, as well as one can via the internet) well enough to know that I'm not suggesting the 2A as a doomsday clause. I don't recall the last time I've even brought it up in that context. I just think it's ironic that a site dedicated to it and the rights it recognizes has a section where discussing it could lead to banning.

And honestly, the initial post in this thread did give the impression that a lice comb would be employed. We have a specific definition of when deadly force which will be used, whether or not it is valid in all jurisdictions. If a post does not comply with that description, the initial thread stated clearly the person would be banned. Jeff has clarified what he intended by this and I understand why. And I apologize if it seemed like I was trying to be offended. I was truly trying to understand what the limits were.
 
I don't understand why there's such a problem with a rule that says essentially "don't advocate illegal acts or unwarranted shootings."
Click to expand...

The problem, to the extent there is one, is that the rule does not prohibit just discussion of "illegal or unwarranted shootings." It prohibits discussion of shootings which the state has put into law a presumption are legal and warranted. Jeff's definition of when deadly force may be used is the most basic, and various states have statutes in place that recognize self-defense "privileges" that extend that protection beyond that basic. According to the initial post in this thread, you can and will be banned for discussing not what is illegal, but what is in fact legal but outside of what the staff wants discussed. That's their privilege and if we wish to post, we will abide.
 
Eww...

I even squirted some protein shake (muscle milk) on my screen when I read it.
Click to expand...


That's way too much information, dude. No bloodlust on your part, that's for sure, but you're gonna go blind if you keep that up! :eek:
 
Buzz, no problem man. I was more ticked off at the guy suggesting that Jeff wanted us to have tea with the bad guys. I have known you for a long time, and see no issue with seeking clarification. That is what I was trying to do, but I'm not all diplomatic like Jeff. :p
 
Gewehr98....

Dammit!

The whole freaking family had to come in here and ask what I was laughing my butt off about!

:mad:
 
Correia said:
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
Click to expand...

Do pale pink shorts with horned red pigs count?:scrutiny: :what:
 
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...
Close to what I consider my ROE, though I admit my analysis of situations has become less charitable, now that I have a family. Local law in a certain jurisdiction west of Louisiana, east of New Mexico, and south of Oklahoma does play a factor in my analysis.

---------

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...

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.
Click to expand...
Your pool, your rules.

I can understand you don't want folks grunting a loaf in it. It is still your pool when you let loose a warm stream of...text on those in the deep end.
 
While i will respect any rules posted by the site, i must say that banning conversation about something that is entirely legal to do because you personally don't agree it's morally right is entirely wrong. Especially with the added 'without warning' tagged on there. Someone could speak about a lawful shooting and be banned without warning just because a mod doesn't agree in the morality of the shooting, though it was lawful? I thought this was the high road.
 
Jeff I think this will be a good idea and will lead to more sane threads.

Those that disagree with Mr White.

If you want to talk about killing bad guys, and swear like a sailor they have a board called AR15.com that would be a perfect place for you to hang out. Most of us are here on THR because we prefer to keep the BS net clutter to a minimum.
 
If you want to talk about killing bad guys, and swear like a sailor they have a board called AR15.com that would be a perfect place for you to hang out. Most of us are here on THR because we prefer to keep the BS net clutter to a minimum.
Click to expand...

Keeping the signal to noise ratio low includes target identification and not painting with a broad brush. Some of the disagreement (to use your terminology) includes a recognition that the rule being advocated here is not necessarily in accordance with the law that everyone might be operating. Is it a rule of thumb? Yes. Is it actually the law in every jurisdiction? No.


Under the original rule promoted by Jeff, talking about killing bad guys and swearing would not get you banned. Talking about the actual law of the land in a particular jurisdiction would. That motivated my questions, and I daresay that it raised some questions in the minds of others.
 
If you can blithely shoot someone, watch them scream, claw and beg for their mother, smell the excrement from a gut-shot, watch them die and not be affected you may be beyond hope. Please consult your clergy or mental health professional. If you would do it for anything except the gravest emergency you are a monster. If you can't do it to protect yourself or your loved ones you are a victim. If you can steer between Scylla and Charybdis you may be a functioning human being. Nobody said it was easy.

Anyone who has lived long enough has seen people die needlessly and been unable to do anything about it. A few incidents like that makes the whole notion of killing people you don't absolutely have to a lot less attractive.
 
I happen to agree with the intent of the message. Some of the $%it I have read recently was more prison talk than THR. I have stayed away from this site Tactics specifically becuase of some of the comments. What we are seeing though is the one or half percent making the rest suffer. Bottom line if you don't police yourself someone else will. We as members all have agreed to hold this site to certain standards. If we do so I believe we will see buisness as usual without interference. If we don't .......:what:
Jim
 
What do you own that is worth killing someone for?
Click to expand...
\

Anything I own is worth more to me than the life of any thief. However, the life of any thief isn't mine to own or dispose of as I see fit. Jeff speaks sensibly:we live in a society with some laws still functional, so it would make sense to conduct ourselves with the consideration of those laws.
 
I think the intent of the rule is admirable. However I think it also limits ration discourse on issues. Being a Texan, there are certain situations where I can utilise DF legally. Obviously the moral implications of the act, as well as the civil libabilites are different from the defense from criminal prosecution chp 9 of the PC offers me. However I feel that we should be able to discusses these issues even if the moral of the act is in question. A rational discussion on why utilising DF to defend against criminal mischief in the night time isn't the best idea, I feel is far more useful to folks here on THR then just deleting a post and banning a member.

I agree that this board is Oleg and his Mod's corner of the internet and the rules we play by are his. However I feel that limiting discussion of topics to issues that fit within their moral paradigm limits the validity of the discussion. Rather an attempt to educate individuals who make comments that are felt to be outside of the moral bounderies that Oleg and the Mods accept is a better solution.

We would not blithely ban an individual for being at the opposite end of the pendulm with a Quaker like abhorence of violence, why should we do so for an individual that displays the opposite? A comment may just be a knee jerk reaction to an emtionally charged issue for them. Discussing with them about their attitudes and offering other options would seem the correct thing to do, exaclty what we would do if an individuals offered a statement in opposition of SD.

-Jenrick
 
I agree with Oleg and Jeff's comments and intent. I have always felt a little uncomfortable with threads that seem to discuss issues with an agenda that goes a little like..."what is the bare minimum set of events that would allow me to get to shoot someone or something?"

I shoot a lot. I've never drawn on anyone in civilian life, and hope to never do so. Heck, I don't even carry most of the time. That's my choice, and I bet there are a bunch of you whose behavior is similar to mine...not that that means anything.

A lot of discussions that we see...the ones that go south...are similar to discussing a stop light on a country road at three in the morning. The law states that I must stop. There are a bunch of reasons why I shouldn't have to, or might not want to. I will either stop or not, but no amount of discussing will change the fact that it is unlawful to proceed.

On the issue of using our rights to the fullest extent...I'm reminded of Chesterton's quote..."having a right to do a thing is not the same as being right in doing it."

The name "The High Road," is what drew me here in the first place. I applaud efforts to live by that name.
 
"With great power comes great responsibility."

I come from a military and law enforcement background, and I've spent many hours in both live and classroom training on the subject of the use of force. The rule of thumb I was always taught in regards to deadly force is "you only take a life to save a life." The right to carry a firearm is an important one to exercise, but it does carry with it a great responsibility to use that firearm responsibly.

I've been around THR since the lights came on here, but for the most part I've avoided the Strategies and Tactics forum for exactly the reasons outlined here, and it's only gotten worse as we've gone along. We have far to many "keyboard commandos" around here who seem to be just itching to get the chance to shoot someone. We're about to get a so called "stand your ground" law here in Georgia, but what many people don't realize is that it does not change the legal requirements to use deadly force. All these laws do is remove your obligation to make every attempt to retreat before using deadly force. They are not a license to kill, and should not be thought of as such.

What do you own that is worth killing someone over?
Click to expand...

Absolutely NOTHING. Possessions can always be replaced. I have insurance to take care of anything someone can steal. However, could my family as easily replace me if I used foolish judgement to stop someone from robbing me and got myself killed in the process? It simply isn't worth the risk. I would unhesistantly use deadly force in the defense of my self or my family, but not in the defense of mere possessions.

The macho, chest thumpers with a blood lust among us need to go. There are many places on the net for them, but this isn't it.
 
Wow. Not that my opinion matters much, but I'm kind of torn on this issue. I'd like to think I'm a pretty reasonable person, I don't live in Texas, and I'm certainly a long way from being eager to shoot anyone (I'm a veteran - been there, done that, 'nuff said) but I would shoot an intruder in my home.

There's been a lot of discussion in this thread about shooting someone just to protect property, but to me that's kind of beside the point. In a tactical or strategic situation, your actions have to be dictated by your enemy's capabilities, since you have no safe way of determining their intentions. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I have no way of knowing if they're a simple B&E man after my stereo, or a rabid lunatic serial killer after my wife and my 12-year old son - and I just don't see it as my responsibility to discuss the options with them, you know?

If someone is lurking around in the yard? No. The worst they can do out there is steal my car or something, and that isn't worth killing someone over as far as I'm concerned. But the moment they break into my home, where my family sleeps, then my job is a pretty simple three steps, the way I see it: Locate, Identify, Neutralize. I want to identify them because I don't want to blow away my alcoholic next-door neighbor who might have stumbled into the wrong house, but once I know they aren't a person known to me, I'm not interested in discussing it with them, or trying to determine if they're armed, or holding them for law enforcement. I see all of those as high-risk alternatives that could end very, very badly in a worst-case scenario, and when the stakes involve my family, those are risks I don't intend to take.

So I'm kind of at a loss now... is this an opinion I shouldn't express in this forum anymore?
 
OK, I may be showing my age or something, but reading through this thread and the others, (which I've lost), whatever happened to using a shotgun loaded with rock salt?? From what I understand, it was rarely deadly, but it sure left an "impression" on the would be miscreants.
 
only ones to be offended are poseurs...as with all disciplines, what you do says something, but what you don't/can't says it all. it is a constant and neverending battle, not to become what we most despise...People are People. i do my part to influence by example and so do countless other HR's...thank you for bringing joy to the world, one person at a time, Y'all!!
 
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.
Click to expand...

While it is no secret that we Texans on the whole are a bragadocious lot (we're kind of famous for it, and probably with good cause), the fact that the stats are not much different than other states is that at the end of the day we aren't much different from the people in those other states when it comes to dispatching another human being. Either in the daylight or the dark of night regardless of what the law says.
 
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