When Does a Threat Cross the Line?

I was intrigued with the conversation between the SUFA members around the shooting of the 15 year on the Mexican border. Our esteemed antagonist, Black Flag, took many of us to task for our positions. As is always the case for me, I do not fall into the category of someone who has a knee jerk reaction to things. I tend to think them out and try to eliminate my biases. This situation was no different. And listening to BF’s arguments was important, because I like to analyze my positions and see if I have come to an incorrect conclusion. In doing so I found that what I need to do is define, for myself, when a person is justified in using deadly force in self defense. This article is not meant to further debate the Israeli flotilla incident or the border incident. I will touch on those, but I am more interested in the general answer than I am in an answer for a specific case or two. The question becomes: How do we determine when it is justified to use deadly force in self defense?

Allow me to further explain my position from the other night, first. I made a quick statement that I think was lost because it wasn’t thought through by everyone involved in the conversation. So I want to clarify, and that will allow others to comment on where they think I am flawed in that conclusion. Some people got what I was saying. I am not sure others did. My statement was that Black Flag was asking for a false burden of proof. BF required that there be a documented case of a person with a rock killing a man with a gun. Otherwise, he claimed, it was murder because the man was not under a mortal threat. I repeat that this is not an attempt to debate what happened on the border in this particular incident. The facts are unclear and we were not there. But when the discussion was happening the other night, we all operated under the assumption that the boy had a three pound rock and had advanced on the officer. BF claimed that this was not self defense unless we had historical proof of previous death in similar circumstances.

This was a false claim. That is not what was needed as a burden of proof. If I have a weapon, and I wish to discharge it in what I claim as self defense, I must prove that had I not used the gun, I could have been killed or seriously injured. That is all that I have to prove. So the burden is to prove that I was under mortal threat, nothing else. In order to prove that I was under mortal threat, I must believe that it is possible for the person to kill me with whatever weapon they have if I choose not to act to defend myself. So in the case that we were talking about, the only thing that must be proven is whether a three pound rock thrown by a 15 year at a distance of 12 feet has the ability to kill a man if the man does not use his weapon to stop the attack. Despite his claims otherwise, BF has yet to refute that in that situation, the rock has the ability to kill the man or seriously injure him.

There is absolutely zero doubt that a three pound rock, thrown from 12 feet away by a boy of that size can kill a man. That is all that needs to be proven. Nothing else. I repeat, NOTHING ELSE. Any claims of further proof being required are nothing more than an attempt to add emotion to the situation or to obfuscate the discussion. We must separate that question from the actions taken in this situation though. Whether or not this particular border agent was right or wrong is not answered by answering that question. I will leave the discussion on that alone for now, as this particular incident is not the point of the article. What I am after is a discussion on self defense in general.

So how do we defined self defense. Off the top of my head, before I goo looking for a legal definition, I would offer the following. A person has the right to use reasonable force to protect himself from injury that would result from the illegal use of force by another if the person defending did not act. If one is going to use lethal force, then one must believe that there is the potential that they would be killed or seriously injured if they did not use lethal force. Now that I have written my definition out, I will go out and search the web for a legal definition….

LectLaw.com offers the following:

Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

That will work. It was the first result on a google search, and I imagine that most of the definitions that I could find out there are going to be fairly similar to this one.

I find that to be a pretty clear cut definition. The force used in self defense must be reasonable. If lethal force is used, then one must believe that the failure to use such force will result in death or serious injury.

Before I continue, allow me a moment to add some thoughts from my personal beliefs. I know that some of you may believe that my “social darwinism” stand, or my other statements on this site point to someone who cares little for human life, or who takes too lightly the burden of responsible use of force. That could not be further from the truth. The use of lethal force is something that I take very, very seriously. I think that you will find that the veterans that have actually had to do so will universally fall into this category. I don’t take it lightly. I do not fight. I have not thrown a punch in anger in years, because I will always attempt to avoid violence whenever possible. While those who oppose me in argument usually think the worst of me, I think it is important to state up front that this is an unfair assumption to make. I abhor violence.

But it should also be noted that I have an enhanced sense of self preservation. I tend to think that I will be more level headed in a dangerous or tense situation. However, I will also be more lethal once I make the determination that I have no other choice. Because of the fact that I have spent half of my life training, I am confident in my ability to manage that situation, make the proper determinations, and act accordingly. The Colonel and myself are on the extremes of training. My sister, on the other hand, couldn’t fight her way out of a paper bag. She is on the other end. In between the two extremes is the progression. The further you go down from D13 towards my sister, the more difficult it is to make sound decisions when under duress with no time to think things through. That should always be remembered when evaluating the actions taken under stress. Just because someone is a law enforcement officer, Border agent, or even a soldier, that does not mean that they are well equipped to operate under the spur of the moment duress. Many a well trained soldier has cracked the second the bullets started flying.

So the question becomes how do we determine when it is acceptable to use deadly force? Obviously, we cannot simply rely on the argument above. A three pound rock can kill you. That is a fact. But that does not mean that the presence of a three pound rock means you are in mortal danger. And that is why I stated that answering the question that BF was arguing does not answer this part of the equation. I think that the answer lies somewhere in the realm of the second part of the my definition of self defense above. It is justified when the failure to use deadly force can reasonably be assumed to result in death or serious injury.

That is the real question in this border incident. The Border patrol agent is justified if he reasonably believed that the failure to use deadly force would result in death or serious injury to himself or his peers. And that is what the investigation will tell us.

That is the real question in the Israeli flotilla incident. The Israeli commandos are justified in the use of deadly force if they reasonably believed that the failure to do so would result in the death or serious injury of themselves or their fellow commandos. And that is what the investigation will tell us. Obviously, if it is found to be true that they fired on the ship prior to boarding, I think that is unjustified. If they did not fire until they were being beaten with metal poles and chairs and had knives slashing about, then I think they will be found to have acted correctly.

That is the real question in every incident. I know that those who absolutely despise Israel or the US can point to our superior arms and say that we are never justified in what happens simply because we are the better equipped. But that is absolute horse shit. Lethal force is justified whenever one faces death or serious injury if they do not use it. And we must demand that those who argue on either side hold to that standard. We must not allow emotional rhetoric to cloud that single and most important aspect of evaluating the situations that are faced.

Take the Israel versus Palestine situation as an example of how we must apply this. Do not allow the emotional rhetoric around Israel’s military might and the Palestinian’s relative lack of military hardware get in the way of properly evaluating the actions taken in a situation. The right of self defense is not sacrificed simply because you are better armed. A man with a gun versus a man with a rock, a knife, or a club does not have to wait until he has been stoned, stabbed, or clubbed to protect himself. Likewise he must be required to not use the gun’s lethal ability unless there is no other choice.

The Arab/Israeli conflict is a tense one and one that is filled with emotional rhetoric. But we must evaluate each situation individually. When rockets are fired over the Israeli border, they have the ability to kill. Israel therefore has a right to defend herself if she believes that failing to do so will result in the death of her citizens. How she protects herself is the subject of great debate. Quick retaliation airstrikes at sites where rockets are fired from would make sense. However, terrorists are now firing them from neighborhoods, which means an air strike has the potential to kill many innocent people. Sending in a Special Operations team would seem appropriate, but despite BF’s claims, there are tons of AK-47’s, RPG’s, and other small arms there, and the team would be vastly outnumbered and slaughtered. Which leaves the prospect of a larger force coming into the territory and hunting down the culprits. This is also a last resort, as it often leads to civilian casualties. So it would seem that there is no good option other than to attempt to keep the arms and rockets from coming into the area in the first place. If they can’t be fired because they are not there, then Israel is safer, no bloodshed required. Hence why there is an embargo.

Palestinians Who are No Threat to Men with Guns

It is easy to see throughout that scenario how difficult it is to come up with an appropriate response on a large scale when all the factors are weighed. It makes emotional rhetoric the theme of the discussion instead of evaluating the different situations individually and determining whether the response was correct.

But when we take it down to an individual action. The action taken by a person or small group of persons under the threat that they personally faced, we are better able to get rid of the emotion and analyze the actions. That is what we must do.

When a man told at gunpoint to freeze reaches into his pocket and the officer believes he is reaching for a weapon, he is justified in using deadly force. When a soldier is faced with death or serious injury, he is justified in using deadly force. Is there the hope that in those situations the person using force will find a way to injure rather than kill? Most definitely. But his first thought is to ensure that he is not killed by a refusal to act.

So I open this discussion up to all of you. How do we determine when it is appropriate to use deadly force? Is there something that I am missing in my evaluation above? Offer up some scenarios and let’s see if we can subjectively work through that determination. I will throughout the day offer some scenarios and ask for you to evaluate them. Just as important, how do we work to eliminate the use of emotional rhetoric when working through these scenarios? The media loves to sensationalize the story. They love to set up the emotional side of things to confuse the situation. That is especially effective in today’s world where people tend to fall on one side before even hearing the facts or evaluating the situation. What can we do to combat this?

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Morning, posting for comments.

    G!

  2. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Not much time here, have to kill bugs all day. But here goes.

    I have heard the argument that if you are in your own home and a teenage punk breaks in and confronts you and wants your stereo, you should let him take it. He is only a child and it is not worth taking his life.

    So if you choose to shoot the punk you are guilty of some form of murder.

    I have long disagreed with this line of thought because I would have no way of knowing if he did indeed have gun or anything else to inflict great harm on me. So I would not wait to find out. Why take a chance?

    On the other hand if the punk does not confront me and is just piling up my things to haul away with, do I confront him? shoot him? let him steal things I worked hard for? Give him a hand picking up my big screen TV?

    I suppose I at least have a right to confront him, and then if I fear for my safety I can blast him. But should I be required to even take that chance when I am in my own home? Can’t I just ambush him?

  3. Mathius says:

    Many, many years ago, when I was a much younger man, I read a book called Ender’s Game. It was required summer reading for school, but I loved it nonetheless. The bulk of the story is irrelevant for this discussion, but there was one portion which I found illuminating.

    Ender Wiggin (a sweet and mild mannered genius) is being picked on routinely by a bully at school and the authorities have failed to intervene and protect him. When cornered by the bully, Stillson, and a pack of his friends, Ender fights Stillson and wins – but he doesn’t stop there. Even once Stillson is on the ground, Ender continues to viciously kick him in the face, throat and groin. The fight was over and Stillson was defenseless, but Ender didn’t stop.

    We later find out that Stillson died, and Ender is asked by he continued the attack after he had already won. He explained that if he had just won, he would have needed to fight that battle every single day and perhaps against more than one bully at once or when they were better prepared. He needed to make a point. By using overwhelming force and violence, he had protected himself long-term since they now feared him.

    Self defense, Ender reasoned (and I generally agree) need not be in your immediate defense only, nor does the target of your defensive action necessarily have to be the source of violence from which you are protecting yourself.

    If you take this view, you can draw far larger justifications of self defense. I find Weapon’s view to be far too narrow. If the teenager had been allowed to throw his rock and injure the border guard without facing harsh and immediate and severe penalty, others might feel it is safe to follow suit and the border guard would have to face not one, but hundreds or thousands of potential rock throwers. I’m not saying that is necessarily the case here, but you can see where I’m going with this.

    Anyway, it’s time to get some work done, I guess..

    • Also in Ender’s Game, toward the end of the book, Ender destroys an entire civilization because the alien species had attacked earth in the past and they feared a future attack. That takes self-defense to the ultimate level. Destroying a species because they may attack the earth again with superior technology and forces.

      As a side note, the reason earth forces are able to assault the far away planet is because they fly at near light speed, experiencing time dilation! PHYSICS!

      • Mathius says:

        Ender didn’t know that he was destroying an entire species when he did it.. he thought he was in training for a battle to defend the Earth – if you’ll recall, he didn’t condone the actions once he found out the truth (though Bean did, go figure).

        Adding, I know that it takes a tremendous amount of power to accelerate to the speed of light, but people always forget that it takes an equal amount of power to stop. A vessel carrying that much energy (in whatever form) could have just been launched to crash into the planet at 99.999% of c. You have to figure that an interstellar ship weighs at least 20mm tons. That’s about 61,141 GigaTons of force. I think that would have done the trick just fine, no?

        • Indeed. And Ender also established a new colony, if I remember correctly, finding a “queen.”

          • Mathius says:

            He did. But they didn’t need Ender in the first place. Nor did they need crews on the warships that they sent. Nor did they need battle school. All they needed to do was use the ships as giant kinetic missiles.

            You’re a physicist.. how much damage would a 20mm ton ship traveling at 99.999c do to an Earth-like (class M) planet?
            A.) Dinosaur extinction
            B.) Blast a chunk of the crust into space and form a new moon
            C.) Crack the planet in half like a walnut
            D.) Shrug it off
            E.) Other

            • what unit is “mm”???

              • Mathius says:

                Million

              • I have to ask.

                If “mm”=million, why TWO ‘m’???

                A mumble?

              • Geez, Googled it … among a billion other examples, yep = million!

                Go figure!?!

              • Mathius says:

                M is the roman numeral for 1,000. We use one “M” interchangeably with a “K” (perhaps this is just the finance industry’s idiosyncrasy since, to Romans, MM would be 2,000), but we look at as 1,000 * 1,000 = 1,000,000.

                So 20mm tons = 20 thousand thousand tons = 20,000,000 tons = 40 billion pounds.

                Now, before JB answers, what’s your guess on how much damage that collision would do at 99.999% of c?

              • Mathius,

                Oh, 99.999

                …that’s a gamma of 223.6073567690697 * 20 million tons = 4 Gigatons.

                Still only (A)

            • Mathius,

              I only calculate it to by gamme=70 so only 1.4 Gigatonnes.

              Therefore, the answer is
              (A)

            • Sorry for holding you up…

              I get the same gamma as BF, 223.6. This gives a relativistic momentum of 1.21×10^25 kg*m/s = 2.3×10^43 GeV. The energy of the rocket would then be about 2×10^43 GeV (E^2=m^2+p^2), which is roughly 4×10^33 Joules or 4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 TJ (terajoules). The most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated by the US yielded about 63,000 TJ.

              I’d be tempted to go with B or C, but if the planet survived, A would be unavoidable.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @Mathius:

      “If the teenager had been allowed to throw his rock and injure the border guard without facing harsh and immediate and severe penalty, others might feel it is safe to follow suit and the border guard would have to face not one, but hundreds or thousands of potential rock throwers. I’m not saying that is necessarily the case here, but you can see where I’m going with this.”

      – I understand the scenario you present – but do we not also acknowledge that any escalation in the activity (e.g. discharging a weapon) may also result in an exponential increase in violence (more people throwing rocks, more shooting, even more rock throwing, …….)? Tis true that each must be weighed on the merits of what happened (was the border guard properly attired with protective gear specifically for the threat of projectiles?).

      My training was always centered around the responsible use of force and using only that force which is necessary to eliminate the threat and ensure my survival.

      This can send the argument either way – but until the rock was thrown no one knew it was 3 lbs.

      • I don’t think this necessarily applies to the rock thrower, but it is a very fundamental difference in the interpretation of “self defense.”

        Certainly escalation has its drawbacks. And the law of unintended consequences is always lurking in the background with it’s buddy, Murphy’s Law.

        I am just saying that, in terms of what is an acceptable use of force, we should remember that smacking someone down harder than might appear necessary can help protect yourself from further challenges.

        If we recall, back when D13 was a young man, you could walk from one end of the known world to the other and the only protection you needed were the words “civus Romani” – I am a Roman Citizen. The world knew that the retribution of Rome was so extreme that its citizens were completely secure in any situation. Consider the price for this – Rome destroyed whole civilizations, offering wholesale slaughter and mayhem on men, women and children soldier and civilian alike to. It salted lands and burned cities. But the effect was to make the Roman citizens absolutely secure.. not advocating for this at all, but maybe there’s something to think about here…

        • Mathius,

          Roman citizens and retribution.

          All true – and look what it got them – sacked and destroyed themselves.

          Such an attitude emboldened Roman in a way that they felt themselves immune. Thus, they committed atrocities and insults upon others to a point the rest attacked and destroyed Rome.

          Attila was created by Rome in this way.

        • I have been thinking about your post since yesterday-am still unclear on how I feel about this idea. We are talking about mans attempt to handle uncivilized behavior in a civilized manner. But continuing to hurt someone or to just kill someone because you think they will hurt you in the future may well be prudent but it isn’t civilized. But on the other hand you are dealing with uncivilized behavior and the response in many cases will not be civilized. So where is the moral line to be drawn. I personally don’t believe one must retreat if they are attacked. I don’t believe a country who has been attacked has to respond in an equal manner, they just need to be dealing with the guilty parties. But I know just killing someone because of a possible future threat is wrong, but can it ever be justified based on past actions of the party involved . I just don’t know but it feels more wrong than right.

          • V.H.

            I disagree.

            A civilized man must continue to be civilized even when dealing with the savages.

            Using savage tactics on savage men just because they happen to be savage men simply means you are a savage too.

            Civilized men use violence – violence and civilization are not core opposites – initiation of violence and civilization are core opposites.

            • In my thinking I am not talking about the initiation of violence-I’m talking about the appropriate response to violence. Now in our society the appropriate response would be to call the police and let them handle the situation. But if I lived somewhere that there was no law to back me up. If someone came along and was trying to hurt my family and I felt the only way to protect them from future attacks was to kill this man-I would kill him. Would it be civilized-NO Would it be moral-I’m just not sure.

              • V.H.

                It could be civilized – if the Clear and Present Danger doctrine establishes the threat.

              • Civilized men do not need to be stupid to be civilized.

              • Tell me how it could because I am not saying I would be in a situation where I had to kill him to save my life at least not in the present moment-my reaction would be based on how much of a danger I felt he presented in the future.

              • V.H.

                If a man says to me “I’m going to kill you”, then goes out and buys a gun, bullets, builds a map to my place, detailing hide outs after the deed, an alibi, tells his friends the day and time….

                …I wouldn’t wait until the last minute either…

              • Mathius says:

                So, I guess the question is now: where does one draw the line to satisfy clear and present danger.

              • Mathius,

                In this matter, it becomes a preponderance of justifications given to your peers.

                If the threat was “real” enough to justify preemptive action, your peers will support you, because they most probably were or could have been in the future under the same threat

              • Mathius says:

                (holding the BS flag, ready to throw..)

                Mr, Flag, you have said that to execute a prisoner is unacceptable under any circumstances due to the fact that you can never be 100% sure that he is (A) guilt or (B) going to pose a future threat.

                Above, you state that a preemptive killing may be justified by the preponderance of evidence and the approval of peers (sounds a lot like a jury trial that convicted the aforementioned criminal).

                Please square this circle.

              • Mathius,

                The prisoner is in a cage. He is hardly a threat.

                The man loading his gun is not in a cage.

                I am not suggesting that “killing him” is the the only correct answer. Perhaps putting him in a cage would suffice as well.

                The point is: one need not wait until you are dead to act to stop your killing.

  4. I have often wondered what I would do if faced with a situation such as you describe. I wonder if I would crap my pants or do what is necessary. I am somewhat familiar with firearms as I own several and can use them.

    If, for example, someone has broken into my house and I catch them in the act…is it then justified to take their life? I jump to say yes, but still wonder if there will be a shot and then the announcement “stop or I’ll shoot”, or if I would offer the chance for the theif to surrender…I honestly do not know…I suppose it would depend on the situation.

    As far as I am concerned though, aside from what I would do, I do feel it is justified to take someone’s life if they are in your home without consent and you discover them there…whether they have a “rock” or not. Otherwise to answer your question, I belive as I think you do…whenever you fear that severe injury could happen to you from the result of a violent action from someone else directed at you, lethal force is justified.

    • Mathius says:

      Re crapping your pants vs doing what is necessary:

      I wondered this myself once. I have been in many – far too many – fights, but never one where I felt my life was at risk or where I might suffer permanent injury. My brother used to wallop me pretty hard, but the worst risk I generally ran was a concussion (and as everyone here knows, I have a pretty thick skull).

      But about a year ago, I was on vacation with my wife on a hike through a rain forest. We passed a hut with some dogs. Big, mean dogs. And they ran up and started growling aggressively. There were three of them and the only thing I had to defend myself with was a flimsy hiking stick. Without thinking, I shoved Emilius behind me and took a home run at the closest dog. I missed, but they got the message, and I learned something about myself.

      If the time comes, and you have something worth protecting, you will protect it regardless of the risks involved – fight is the only option. Otherwise, you will choose flight – it’s the safer option. It’s that simple.

  5. Me and USW in absolute and total agreement?

    Looks like it. Good article, brother.

    I don’t know enough about the border incident to make any judgment at all. Could the agent have wounded the kid, etc? There is no doubt, however, that a 3 pound rock can do some serious damage and potentially kill.

    Prayers for my pooch, folks, please. He’s under the knife today and we have to hope it’s for a disc and nothing more serious. That started Saturday and all I could do was cry like a 10 year old kid. Yesterday I was one angry Mofo. Today, the atheist prays …

    Fortunately for me yesterday David Axelrod distracted me (with a different anger) enought to go off … and then DOC went off and made me smile again.

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2010/06/excuse-angry-venting-but-today-i-cant.html

    Below that link are pictures of our pup, Rigoletto.

    • Canine Weapon says:

      Tell Rigoletto (awesome name, by the way) that everyone here at SUFA is pulling for him!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      It is my belief that almost no one is an atheist when they are near death or a loved one (even a loved pet) could be near death. I am sure that there are a select few that stubbornly stick to their atheism even under such circumstances, but I would bet that that number is small.

      Best of luck to your pooch with the awesome name, I will throw in some prayers too 🙂

      • There are no atheists in foxholes.

        But, for perspective, the incidence of superstision among infielders in baseball is almost 100%. In a survey I read a couple years back of professional baseball players, nearly ever single infielder asked had some superstision (lucky socks, rabbit foot, lucky hat, pre-game prayer, pre-game breakfast, etc). But the incidence among outfielders was much lower – around 10%. Why?

        Because outfield requires much less luck than infield. The infielders were trying to compensate for their lack of control over the outcome, whereas the outfields could rely almost exclusively on skill. See where I’m going with this?

        When you’re in battle, you have to be skilled and lucky. That’s where it helps to believe in a higher power that is protecting you – to insulate your mind from the terrifying prospect that you could be clipped at any time by a stray bullet and all your training and skill can do nothing to help.

        It is the same thing when your beloved pet is under the knife. You are powerless to affect the outcome, so your mind needs – needs – to believe that your prayers can be heard by a higher power who will affect the outcome. This way, you can feel like you are helping in some way.

        It’s truly terrifying how powerless we all are. :/

    • I hope and pray that your loved family member will be okay.

  6. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    My whole problem with BF’s claim re: the border incident, is that he tried to classify the kid holding the rock as “non-violent”. Clearly if you are holding a large rock and threatening to throw it, especially if you have already thrown other rocks or those in your group are actively throwing rocks, and these rocks are clearly aimed at people, the classification of “non-violent” is incorrect.

    If I threw a rock at you (clearly intentionally) and then said, “Hey, you can’t do anything back, I am “non-violent””, I would certainly hope you would consider me an idiot for making such a statement.

    • Peter,

      classify the kid holding the rock as “non-violent”

      Bad Peter! I did not! Please do not try to strawman my position sir~!

      Obviously it was violent

      I classify THIS case as an unsupportable use of lethal violence.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        “When the LEO uses violence to enforce an edict upon NON-VIOLENT men – it is violence on non-violent men!!!

        How can it be something else???

        What do you call using violence on non-violent men OTHER THAN “using violence on non-violent men!!”.”

        That was a direct quote from you, so it appears you errected your own straw-man, it was not a straw-man of my making.

        If you wish to now characterize it as an unsupportable use of lethal violence against a violent kid who probably was not presenting a lethal threat level, that I would very likely agree with.

        • Exactly, not all police action or military action is against non-violent men. Superior firepower does not negate the violence of the inferior side, they are still violent, and often force must still be used.

  7. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    Absolutely everything is related to time and place.

    None of us can judge what was going through the mind of the cop at the time. Was he in fear of his life or just pissed that this was happening for the umpteenth time, that they were going to get away with it again and he would have to deal with the exact same thing tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. We will never know.

    Unless there is some prior history, because we employ him to protect us, something that most citizens would not be ready to do on their own, he gets the benefit of the doubt. We have to assume that he was in fear and acted instinctively. This in turn left no room for some carefully aimed shot to the leg (which might have severed an artery anyway).

    Amadou Dialo was shot by four undercover New York cops. They discharged a total of 41 rounds and hit him about 19 times from a 20 to 25 foot distance. They were on patrol around midnight looking for an armed rapist (note the armed part). They saw Mr. Dialo exiting a building on Evergreen Avenue, the East Bronx, drew their weapons and ordered him to stop. By all accounts, due to his unfamiliarity with English or whatever, Mr. Dialo went for his wallet and cellphone. At the same time, a cop slipped on dog crap. One cop started shooting. 41 rounds later, Mr. Dialo was dead. Mr. Dialo did not even have a rock. He did however, act in a manner perceived as a threat. The cops misjudged that threat. One fired, the other three followed. Al Sharpton got tremendous airtime.

    Even my most conservative friends called the cops judgment into question. I, in turn, asked them if they had ever walked Evergreen Avenue, a block away from drug central (Watson Avenue) after dark. I had, they had not. My standard response was and is unless you have been there, you have to be very, very careful to judge.

    I could make the same case for the National Guardsmen at Kent State who were neither trained well enough nor officered well enough. Rocks, bottles and firecrackers while tear gas is in the air and you have a mask on. All it takes is for one guy to pull the trigger. The rest than perceive “It is alright to fire” and a massacre results. The least guilty parties there were the guardsmen.

    My last point, ever see those WW 2 documentaries with actual combat footage? Ever see those door gunners on B-17’s track the Me’s or FW’s right through the fuselage of another B-17, firing all the way? Or, how about those gunners in the Pacific going after the Kamikazes? The plane could have been blown to pieces and you still see the tracers follow it down into the water.

    It is all in the Adrenaline.

    • SK,

      Your examples do point to a natural mental state humans fall into under duress.

      Peripheral vision collapses, giving the sense of time expansion. For example, the officers in the shooting you described felt the whole incident happened in minutes. It actually happened in 15 seconds.

      What this also means is that the root of the training must be deescalation not escalation. The escalation creates circumstances where more bad decisions are made due to physiologic responses.

      ….which is exactly opposite of the training at the border….

      • The only unfortunate part of this, as SK’s examples are indeed pretty close to the mark, is that to teach deescalation, as you put it, will not save lives but could quite possibly lead to more deaths….those of our agents. Also, I have to question whether deescalation sends the wrong signal. I tend to think that it sends the wrong signal and says….”go ahead and throw rocks, bottles, etc, as the border agents will run or back off.” As a gang leader, I would then incorporate that in my tactics on the border and push the lines back. Pretty soon there will be a new border….then do it all over again.

        But Sk is right on target with his examples. Men are scared enough..and once the firing starts, self preservation takes over. Special Forces are among the best trained warriors in the world. The level of training that I received was exceptional. It does not take away the fear, however. The fear of death is always there and reaction is what is important. Combat is something that one cannot define. An armed person is…..an armed person. At this point, I do not see over reactions taking place on the border.

        And, we are not going to train the ranchers and the civilians and we are not going to take away their guns. We are actually able to use better management of our resources because there are hundreds of miles of border where the ranchers have their own justice and it is not questioned. we do not have to use as many men as they (the ranchers and homeowners) are our new army, to coin a phrase. The word is getting around pretty quick not to cross the fences of the ranchers. If there is a fence, there is no accidental crossing of ones property. DO NOT CROSS A FENCE. They do not ask questions and they do not have Miranda considerations. It is private property and, in Texas, lethal force is authorized to protect private property. There is no “level” of damage that has to be determined. There is no “level” of trespass.

        BF says: ” Peripheral vision collapses, giving the sense of time expansion. For example, the officers in the shooting you described felt the whole incident happened in minutes. It actually happened in 15 seconds.”

        D13 concurs: Many times it felt like an eternity when, in fact, it was seconds, or scant minutes. Your vision becomes very acute and training takes over. Training that subconsciously evaluates the situation and creates reaction….self preservation reaction. I doubt very seriously that this border guard, while at breakfast, hopes that he gets to shoot someone. Even as Special Forces, we do not want to shoot. we avoid it if necessary but the mission is the border. I do not think that we change the mission at this time.

  8. I tend to agree with USW’s position on self-defense. I do, however, think it is ok to protect one’s property by inciting a confrontation, which, if it produces a situation in which you are threatened, could lead to a self-defense matter. A theif, however, has no such arguement, they cannot use deadly force to defend against a property owner and justify it.

    As for what defines threat, that is up to the individual to a large extent. A more trained person is more likely to be able to handle a situation without deadly force. A person who cannot fight their way our of a paper bag is far more justified in shooting an attacker, possibly even an unarmed one, since they may find themselves under mortal threat by a physically superior opponent. Again, when on one’s own property I think a lot more is justified because, based on the behavior of a tresspasser, he is already not respecting you or your stuff. Care must still be taken, however, to determine threat. A person who is trespassing by accident or who is simply an unrecognized friend who would normally be welcome is not a justified target just by virtue of being on your property unbidden.

    • I agree with this post-the only thing I would add is that in all these cases we should err on the side of the one being attacked or being put in this position by someone else’s actions whether they are intentional or not.

      • Agreed. In the case of this boy tho, was it the LEO or the boy who initiated force?

        • In this instance, with the facts I have, I would say it was the boy and his companions-they caused the situation and they were throwing rocks at the agent -whether the agent should have fired his weapon-I do not know-but I will side with him unless the facts convincingly prove otherwise.

        • Jon,

          Contradicting V.H. is the video which shows the boy running away and the officer pulling his gun and firing.

          • I don’t find that the video is that clear-I see the officer shoot-then I see people running-where they were or what they were doing before this -I simply don’t know.

          • That changes things a great deal. 🙂

          • Unless you are looking at the cell phone video which has already been proven to be edited.

  9. Common Man says:

    All;

    Interesting discussion. What we have a ‘right’ to do is going to be a different answer than what we could ‘legally’ do and get away with.

    First, our right: We have a ‘right’ to defend ourselves when we percieve, or are threatened. How we react is dependent upon our nature, abilities, available weapons and of course training.
    As an example Steven Segal would react entirely differently than say USW’s sister when confronted by a man with a club or knife, even if he (Segal) was in possession of a gun. USW’s gun packing sister would either shoot or flee; provided she could do either.

    Second, legality: Using the senerio above Steven Segal might decide that dispite the bad guy having a club or knife he could easily disarm the bad guy and then call the police to file an assault charge. Interestingly Mr. Segal might still wind up in court facing charges filed by the bad guy. On the other hand, USW’s sister would most likely not face any charges had she been forced to ‘stop’ the bad guy by using lethal force.

    Do we have a ‘right’ to use lethal force when we percieve our life, or someone else’s life is threatened; YES! Are we subject to legal action as a result of our decision; YES! Do we make a decision to stop the threat based upon our right or legal circumstances; We make a decision based upon our right, unless we want to risk being a statistic.

    BTW: Experts instruct you to yell “Stop, drop the weapon!” when you percieve a threat. They will also tell you that should someone break into your house at night you should retreat to a safe haven, with your weapon and cell phone, call 911 and upon connecting with an operator yell out “Stop, get out, I have called the police!”. Experts say to keep the phone line open and remain where you are. Should the bad guy approach you yell once “Stop, drop the weapon and get out!” If they don’t then you have a ‘legal right’ to STOP the threat.

    Oh, and BTW. Once you have ‘stopped’ the threat, tell the operator to send the police, hang up and then call your lawyer. Do not touch anything and wait for the police. When they arrive inform them that you have a weapon and wait for your lawyer.

    The only thing you should say to any and all questions from the police is the following:

    “I WANT TO SPEAK TO MY LAWYER”

    Remember “Anything you say can AND WILL be used against you in a court of law”

    CM

    • Displaced Okie says:

      CM said:”Do we have a ‘right’ to use lethal force when we percieve our life, or someone else’s life is threatened; YES! Are we subject to legal action as a result of our decision; YES! Do we make a decision to stop the threat based upon our right or legal circumstances; We make a decision based upon our right, unless we want to risk being a statistic.”
      ————————————————————-
      This reminds of a saying–It is better to explain to 12 than be carried by 6.

      CM,
      Pretty dead on(no pun intended) analysis of the legalities of self defense. I would also add that it might-from a safety standpoint, be advisable to stay on the phone with the 911 dispatcher to communicate with the police so the cops know what to expect when they arrive on scene and don’t mistakingly shoot you because they see a person with a gun. Remember, they are responding to a shooting/intruderer call.

      Stay safe and Live Free,
      Displaced Okie

      • Common Man says:

        Displaced;

        Those that have taught me say it is a judgement call. The concern they have is that everything you say to a 911 operator is recorded. In a circumstance of that nature, you might forget the line is open and say something that may be used against you. If you do keep the line open experts suggest you inform the operator you are in a specific room, you are the home owner and that you are awaiting the police. Experts also tell me to stay put, do not leave your defensive position until recognized authorities arrive and have the situation under control. You should maintain your defensive position in case the threat you stopped is still a threat. Leaving your defensive position increases the risk of additional threat. What if the initial threat has a partner you were unaware of?

        When the police arrive they are going to approach with caution. Once they have arrived you can inform them that you are the home owner and coming out, or will follow their specific instructions.

        And I cannot stress this enough: From that point on the only words that come out of your mouth are “I WANT TO SPEAK TO MY LAWYER”

        CM

        CM

        • Displaced Okie says:

          CM,

          I agree with everything you’re saying. A good 911 dispatcher will probably get your location and details like that, but like you said it is a judgement call. Alot of it depends on the variables of the situation-are you at home or somewhere else, because if it somewhere like the workplace or somewhere public, there is a good chance there would be an active shooter call go out and in that case the cops we be responding much more dynamically.

    • In high school, I heard about gangs at another school that would walk around and take food off kids trays. They always had them outnumbered, so no one would defent themselves, continued for years. Our children, as babies, would “bite”, trying to get their way, when we responded, they were shocked that we would “hurt” them back, but they learned.

      Kent State, students throw rocks and bottles, thinking the soldiers would not hurt them.
      15 yr old throws a rock when warned not to… How many killings have their been on both sides of the border?
      What “right” does a child or adult have to demand police not detain anyone, and to inflict violence to enforce their demand. And if we stop our police from enforcing our laws, which of our laws will these violent teanagers ignore next time? Will they demand to stay in my house? Take my car? It only ends went someone draws a line in the sand.

      Israel versus Palestine? I think Hamas launching rockets at Israel is an attack. I “blame” the attacker.
      Israel has repeatedly backed up, only to be attacked again. I can understand them tiring of redrawing that line so often.

      On Castle Law,

      Stand-your-ground
      Other states expressly relieve the home’s occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. Clauses that state this fact are called “Stand Your Ground”, “Line In The Sand” or “No Duty To Retreat” clauses, and state exactly that the defender has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which they have a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. States often differentiate between altercations occurring inside a home or business and altercations in public places; there may be a duty to retreat from an assailant in public when there is no duty to retreat from one’s own property, or there may be no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be.[4] Other restrictions may still exist; when in public, a person must be carrying the firearm in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly.

      “Stand your ground” governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (1895) that a man who was “where he had the right to be” when he came under attack and “…did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm…was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground.”[5][6]

      In a Minnesota case, State v. Gardner (1905) where a man was acquitted for killing another man who attempted to kill him with a rifle, Judge Jaggard stated:

      The doctrine of “retreat to the wall” had its origin [in Medieval England] before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the general use of and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs and even knives as a justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to require [an attempt to escape] when experienced persons, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or cause great bodily harm[7]
      Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States when upholding the no duty to retreat maxim that detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.[8]

      Most gun control groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign denounce “Stand-Your-Ground” clauses as “Shoot First” laws (as in “shoot first, ask questions later”), asserting that the presumptions and other protections afforded to gun owners allow them virtual carte blanche to shoot anyone who is perceived to be trespassing. They also claim it will lead to cases of mistaken identity, so-called “shooting the milkman” scenarios. Gun rights groups, such as the National Rifle Association claim that such scenarios are unlikely and are not protected under most Castle laws; the shooter is only justified if the assailant broke into the home or attempted to commit some other property crime such as arson, and simple trespass is neither.

      Adoption by States
      As of the 28th of May, 2010, 31 States have some form of Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground law.

      • Israel has repeatedly backed up

        Bullcrap.

        • Bulldookey,

          Ehud Barak claimed that he offered Arafat an eventual 91% of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of the new Palestinian state; in addition, all refugees could apply for compensation of property from an international fund to which Israel would contribute along with other countries.[citation needed] The Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the occupied territories, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would dismantle the Palestinian terror organizations. The Israeli response as stated by Shlomo Ben-Ami was “we can’t accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation.”[14]

          Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, “I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace.” [4] The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit.[13][15][16] Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority.

          • LOI,

            That does not prove a damn thing.

            So your argument is, because Arafat wanted 100% of the West Bank as per UN resolution, Israel has the right to take 100% of the West Bank away from the Palestinians???

            The Israeli response as stated by Shlomo Ben-Ami was “we can’t accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation.

            So, what he said was:
            “We will not return to our legal borders until the Palestinians negotiate our return to our legal borders.”

            …bizarre, sir.

            • and “Bullcrap” still applies, LOI.

              ..’repeatedly’.. all they have repeatedly down is seize more of the West Bank….!

            • …bizarre, sir

              Thank you for noticing, bizarre is one of those things I do best…
              By your argument on returning to pre-war borders, do we have to give Texas, California, etc, back to Mexico? We did take that land by conquest, the treaty was signed under duress. Does Germany get to reclaim pre-WW1 borders?
              Didn’t France once conquer Briton? An interesting perspective you have, sir….

              • Re: Mexico.

                Mexico is not claiming Texas, et al, so your example here is ridiculous and moot.

                Same as Germany – they have no complaint regarding borders, so your point is equally moot here.

                Your argument rests that Israel can steal land with no consequence, but those whose homes and land it is are terrorists if they fight back.

                Blind in one eye, LOI, blind in one eye.

              • More ridiculous and moot points,

                The coming numerical dominance of California’s burgeoning Latino population was confirmed by the Census Bureau in July 1997. In 49 years, only 13.8 percent of Los Angeles County will be white and 69.1 percent will be Latino – a consequence of two amnesties for three million illegal aliens, sieve-like borders, and the high levels of legal immigration that have made Los Angeles the second largest Mexican city in the world.

                “Latinos” indicates Central and South Americans; the word “Hispanic” is generic. Radical leftists of the 1960s gave “Chicano” a new defiant meaning and proclaimed Mexican-Americans heirs to Aztlan. the mythical homeland of the Aztec people.

                The predicted demographic shift from minority to majority status is a triumph for Chicano activism and brings vast new political opportunities for its leadership. But the literal “retaking” of California pales in comparison to its symbolic value – the long-awaited return of those “illegally annexed territories” which the Chicano movement claims were stolen from their indigenous forebears in 1848, by the occupying forces of the United States, after the Treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo.

                The passage of California’s Proposition 187 was the first major obstacle in the path of this “reconquista” movement, and in response, after the election, 400 Latino leaders held a summit conference at the University of California at Riverside. The participants were Hispanic elected officials and the Hispanic press, university faculty and students from Texas and Arizona as well as California, and the leadership of the major Hispanic organizations.

                At the opening session, the campus director of the Ernesto Galarza Public Policy Institute announced the good news about the “browning of America” and the “transfer of power” to the new California Latino majority.

                The uniformed “Brown Berets of Aztlan” stood shoulder to shoulder along the walls of the meeting room; Mexican flags were flying and student tee shirts bore the message, “We don’t need no stinking green cards.” Benicio Silva of UC Berkeley declared that having to show them at the border was a “violation of our human rights” because “Aztlan is ours and the white man is the invader.”

                “They say we’re ‘Latinizing’ Los Angeles! Don’t you love it?” boomed fiery orator Jose Angel Gutierrez, long-time University of Texas faculty member. “We are fighting to build a new Mestizo nation,” he shouted, “in this, our historic homeland for for-ty thou-sand years.”

                At that, the Brown Berets raised their fists in the air and the excited crowd screamed “Chicano Power” and began stomping and clapping with the familiar two-three beat: clap-clap, clap-clap-clap. “We are here again,” Gutierrez continued, “we are millions and millions, and the aging white Americans are not making babies, we’ve got to get ready to govern!”

                Adaljisa Sosa-Riddell, of the Chicano Research Center at the University, of California at Davis, said the best preparation for governance was training the youth, and demanded more Chicano Studies programs because, according to Gloria Romero, Professor of Chicano Studies at Loyola Marymount University, “a classroom is just another place to organize.”

                The members of MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanos de Aztlan) student group, that sponsored the Riverside Conference, were products of this curriculum, by which young Chicanos learn they are victims of “genocide” and “ethnocide” and belong to an oppressed people, stripped of their land, language and culture.

                Art Torres, state chair of the California Democratic Committee, assured the audience that the much-hated Proposition 187, limiting government benefits to illegal aliens, was the “last gasp of white America,” and Herman Baca, founder of the Committee on Chicano Rights, said that “we are going to win – and take our rightful place as owners of this land.”

                The land he was talking about includes California, the Southwest, and the western United States as far north as Oregon and Washington – all of it claimed by the make-believe state of Aztlan whose reclaiming serves as a rallying cry for the irredentist movement, and a justification for the continuing northward migration and the illegitimacy of the U.S. border with Mexico.

                (I really like this last part, so funny to be talking about Mexico and Israel somehow come up as another example)

                The “stolen lands” theme is a favored tool of insurgency. It politicizes Palestinian boys of the Hezbollah and Hamas and it is meant to incite, in Hispanic youth, the same resentment and desire for vengeance.

              • LOI

                the “stolen lands” theme is a favored tool of insurgency

                …yeah, especially when its true.

      • Will they demand to stay in my house? Take my car? It only ends went someone draws a line in the sand.

        So you justify attacking non-violent people because if you don’t they’ll steal your car…..

        …some of the most bizarre reasoning I’ve read in awhile….

        • USWeapon says:

          And what would you do, Flag, if someone was stealing your car? Simply watch and do nothing?

          • USWep,

            Depends who is in the car.

            …the point to about LOI’s comment was one needed to attack non-violent people so to PREVENT stolen cars.

            • “one needed to attack non-violent people”

              No! If a teenager starts throwing large rocks at police or citizens to force us to allow him and his friends entry to our country, what comes next? We require the police to stop enforcing that law. Then they come to my house and demand food and the use of my home. Then my car. Etc,.
              I/we do not have an obligation to retreat.

              • Innocent???

                The 15-year-old Mexican youth who was shot and killed by a Border Patrol agent had a history of involvement with human smuggling and was on a list of repeat juvenile offenders, U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Mark Qualia told CNN Thursday.

                The victim, Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, had been apprehended by U.S. officials on more than one occassion but was never criminally charged, Qualia said.

                The use of juveniles to smuggle people across the border is a common tactic for smugglers, he said.

              • LOI,

                Making up stories again?

                The boy ran away.

              • It’s from your link Flag. So if the story is made up, you supplied the false information. I like to read the story before watching the video’s, but that’s just me…

              • LOI,

                The “made up” part is:

                if a teenager starts throwing large rocks at police or citizens to force us to allow him and his friends entry to our country, what comes next?

              • So can you prove he didn’t throw a three pound rock? Sorry, but the video was crap.
                But the point of this article is IF he attacked a LEO(or other) with a three pound rock, can you justify shooting a 15 yr old. I cannot prove if he attacked at all, much less with a pebble or brick. But IF attacked with a large rock, I would consider using deadly force. Fair warning to all, be careful who you throw rocks at, and I promise not to throw rocks at anyone.
                (Dirtclods and snowballs are not classified as rocks)

              • LOI,

                The prove of the rock does not rest with the boy, it rests with the murderer.

                Onus is on the man with the gun, not the boy with the rock, since the man is alive and the boy is dead.

                The onus ALWAYS lands on the one who used deadly force to prove it was justified.

                As you said, no proof exists.

                QED

        • Sorry, can’t tell much from your video. The big question is if he was “armed” with a rock large enough to do injury, and if he was attacking with said big rock. If the boy was just running at the cop, acting violent, but clearly unarmed, then I don’t know. Cop had his hands full. All the killings and violence would put most on a “hair trigger”. Pretty easy to sit back and judge when we know our information is incomplete.

          I will stand by my earlier statements, someone attacks me with a big rock, I will defend myself to the point I judge to be appropriate. I expect others to do the same. Remember, “Do onto others”? Still applies.

          • LOI,

            Given he was not “dodging” but advancing – the “threat” of rocks is mythological.

            Further, the boys had already retreated back across the line – his advance was aggression, not defensive.

            So now your argument is “hair trigger” situations justify killing boys?

            Simply, LOI, if it was you – it would be murder. Because it was a LEO, you rush to his defense ….

            “Do unto others”, sure, throw rocks back then.

            If you are the attacker, LOI – which is clearly the case in this scenario, you are the violator and -in this case- the murderer.

            • Flag, I am saying I do not have enough information to judge. The video is not enough for me at this time. The police report claiming there was a three pound rock in play does make me want to defend the cop, but only if it’s true.
              If it’s not true, the the cop lied. I will wait before passing judgement. I
              will also admit to being influnced by some others, maybe because he never called me bizzare….

              7.SK Trynosky Sr. said
              June 14, 2010 at 10:48 am
              Absolutely everything is related to time and place.

              None of us can judge what was going through the mind of the cop at the time. Was he in fear of his life or just pissed that this was happening for the umpteenth time, that they were going to get away with it again and he would have to deal with the exact same thing tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. We will never know.

              Unless there is some prior history, because we employ him to protect us, something that most citizens would not be ready to do on their own, he gets the benefit of the doubt. We have to assume that he was in fear and acted instinctively.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          “So you justify attacking non-violent people because if you don’t they’ll steal your car…..”

          So you are claiming that the Palestinian terrorist organizations are “non-violent” people?

          • Peter,

            Not sure where you get the insert here….

            LOI said he had the right to attack non-violent people otherwise they would assume that his lack of violence gave them a right to steal his car.

            You agree with him?

            • Did I say that? If so, I wish to retract. If someone attacks me, they are being violent, and I feel free to respond with the level of force I deem necessary. This may include addressing future threats.

              My grandfather always said, do a job right the first time, then you don’t have to go back and do it a second time.

              But no, I do not advocate attacking a non-violent person.

  10. posting for comments

  11. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/the_gaza_flotilla_ambush_what.html

    Interesting article on the “peaceful” gaza flotilla. I am sure some people will claim that this article contains no factual information whatsoever, but in my opinion it looks pretty damning.

  12. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/06/dem_congressman_assaults_stude_1.html

    Obviously this student was a clear and present danger to the Congressman in question.

    What the hell is happening in NC there USW???

  13. USWep

    the only thing that must be proven is whether a three pound rock thrown by a 15 year at a distance of 12 feet has the ability to kill a man if the man does not use his weapon to stop the attack.

    No.

    If your claim was true, then a you can shoot a boy with a spoon to, since all you’d have to do is prove a spoon can kill.

    But that is as ridiculous a claim as the rock throwing.

    The onus of lethal threat requires PROOF that
    an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.

    I’ve already provided substantial evidence that shows rocks were used in 3 killing of LEO’s – all over 70 years ago, and ZERO by boys.

    Further, the ability to RETREAT significantly contradicts lethal threat. If he had a gun, retreat is significantly impeded – but a rock? 50 feet and the threat is gone….

    Here is the video via CNN.

    It clearly demonstrates that the shooter was not under any threat of “thrown” rocks. He made no motion to avoid any projectiles – he was steady, not dodging, nor retreating.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/06/10/texas.border.patrol.shooting/index.html

    • LOI,

      This particular example is not a case of an intruder breaking into a house.

      This is more like a boy running across your lawn.

      Does the latter justify you killing him?

      • BF

        I was not there, I cannot see on this video what the other people involved in this situation were doing, so I simply do not know whether this shooting was reasonable. I do however believe that making a statement that it is Never justified to use lethal force if it is a gun vs. a rock is illogical. That seems to be what you have been saying.

        As far as your “a boy running across your lawn” analogy. It boils the situation at the border down to the ridiculous. It is the use of ridicule as a tool to attack anyone who disagrees with you. I remember you telling me once that we weren’t having a debate we were having a dialogue-the use of ridicule as a tool does not promote dialogue.

        • V.H.

          If someone is throwing rocks at you, do you just “stand there”?

          Nope. You can’t help it (unless you purposely think about it) and move out of the way and dodge.

          He did not move – in fact, he DRAGGED ANOTHER MAN with his other hand towards the other side while firing.

          The situation at the border is precisely that – people running across your lawn – nothing more (at least in this particular circumstance)

          • I don’t know BF, were these people coming towards him as a group, were they close enough to hit him with the rocks. Did the man feel retreat possible or did he think standing firm was the safer avenue, was a shot over their heads to scare a better choice. I simply do not know and neither do you.

            • Are you watching the same video?

              A group is NOT approaching him, HE is approaching a group that are running back into Mexico as they are fleeing. He approaches to intercept their flight BACK TO MEXICO as he comes in at the top of the frame (man in white shirt).
              He stops one man at 8 sec. of the video, while two escape.

              The man who is caught is kneeling on the ground as “White Shirt” points his weapon into Mexican territory – advances while dragging the man and firing.

              He stops and grabs one who goes to ground.

              He pulls his gun and fires at a group out of video WHILE DRAGGING the fellow on the ground.

              I understand that blindness is necessary to justify killing kids… but really, V!

              • Don’t accuse me of blindness, my friend unless you are ready to be painted with the same brush. Yes, I saw the people running away. I also know they had to stop and turn around in order to throw rocks. Unlike you, I am not claiming to know. I’m simply saying I do not have enough evidence to decide either way.

              • V.H.

                Whether they turned around or not – it is OBVIOUS the “white shirt” ADVANCED, dragging a man with him, and fired at the boys.

                He was not “surrounded” as others claim (in news and here on SUFA).

                He was NOT dodging projectiles – his advance was steady and direct.

                You were quick to judge the boy yet defer judgment of the murder simply because the boy was Mexican and the murderer American.

              • Yes, I was very quick in judging the boys actions as causing the incident because he and his cohorts caused the incident. They crossed into our country knowing it was illegal, they chose to stop and attack our border patrol when one of them was caught. They chose to do these things. These fact do not give the officer the right to shoot them But it does make it a matter of proving that the officers actions were wrong taking all the facts into consideration. Just the fact that he chose to stand and fire, all by its self does not prove he was wrong. The fact that the video shows the boys running away proves nothing unless it shows that they ALL started running before he fired. I cannot tell by the video I watched. The rocks being thrown I also cannot see that in the video either but eye witness accounts from the person filming the incident says they were being thrown. So we need to withhold judgement until all the evidence is in. But the burden of proof is on proving the agent overstepped-the boys actions, on the other hand obviously caused the situation.

      • If he threatens to do me injury, with a rock or spoon, it is my choice as to how much force I respond with. His choice is to attack me. A tough call for me, I do not wish to kill a “child”. I also do not want to be sued for the rest of my life for having shot his leg or arm, and “maimed” him for life.
        Hell, I couldn’t even afford the emtional damage I would do to the poor child. But I will be damned if he will ever come back when I am not home, to see how my wife or children respond to his threats of violence. And I do not wish him to brag to his friends about how he can get away with murder, and see that behavior encouraged.

        • LOI,

          It is your choice – the difference is justified or NOT justified.

          • I agree, if threatened or attacked, it is MY choice in how I respond. I can then be judged by God and man for my actions.
            Works for me, hope you get all the information before you “cast any stones”. I think I will be OK with God, he’s an understanding sort.

            • LOI,

              God doesn’t care one hoot either way – its all the same to him.

              Your fellow man – that’s different – they tend to care.

              I would counsel caution in your justifications – your reaction to minor threats may threaten your sustainability.

              • Flag,

                Cannot agree, God cares. About Rigoletto and Sergio Guereca.

                Your counsel is noted, but I seem to be doing OK so far, so am not apt to change today. As for my fellow man, no offense, but I’m trying to live up to my standards, not theirs.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Good point BF,

      If a potential threat can be easily avoided, and yet instead of choosing to easily avoid the potential threat you respond with the use of deadly force, that is in no way justifiable.

    • USWeapon says:

      No.
      If your claim was true, then a you can shoot a boy with a spoon to, since all you’d have to do is prove a spoon can kill.
      But that is as ridiculous a claim as the rock throwing.

      Incorrect. A boy with a spoon is not holding a device in his hand that is likely to kill you from that distance if you do not act. A 15 year old who has a three pound rock IS likely to hurt or seriously injure you if he throws a rock from 12 feet away. You are grasping at straws here. All that must be proven is that a failure to act placed you in danger of death or serious injury.

      The onus of lethal threat requires PROOF that an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.

      Agreed. So all that is required is PROOF that a three pound rock at that distance thrown by a 15 year old of that size is capable of causing death or serious injury. Are you claiming that a three pound rock thrown by a 15 year old from 12 feet away CANNOT kill or seriously injure you? Answer that question first and then we can continue.

      As for watching the video and discussing the details of this particular incident, I am willing to do so, but I would like to keep the two discussions separate. I am well aware of your ability to intermingle the facts of the current case with the philosophical discussion of self defense in general in a way that keeps people off balance.

  14. Common Man says:

    BF;

    Your thoughts on the following examples:

    One: While depositing my businesses daily deposites in the banks drop box I was approached by a young (maybe 18) man swinging a 3 foot length of chain demanding I drop the bag. I was legally armed at the time. Since he was commiting a felony (the deposit was in a bank bag issued by the bank and it had a key) and threatening my well being, would I have a right to ‘stop’ the threat via lethal force?

    Two; While changing a flat tire at 1:00 am in a public parking lot I was approached by two young men (about 25) offering to help. Realizing that neither of them really intended help I kindly thank them and told them I had it under control and they could leave with my thanks. They decided to come closer and insist. I stood and suggested (sternly) I did not need there assistance. The bigger of the two got within 3 feet and produced a knife. Again I was legally armed. Did I have a right to use lethal force?

    Three: Two adult males followed me into several stores in a mall one Christmas holiday after watching me take money from an ATM. They also followed me out to my car acting as if the car next to mine was theirs. One approached from my rear and one from my front pinning me between two cars. Again, I was legally armed. They attacked me physically. They did not have any weapons that I could see. Would I have been in my right to have used deadly force?

    BTW: # 1 recieved a nice rap on the nose with my 1911 and was sternly told to “get”
    #2 Recieved a roundhouse bang up-side of the head with a tire iron and his partner ran away
    #3 Both young adults were left on the ground in the parking lot alive, but out cold as a flounder

    With the exception of using it as an “attitude adjustment tool” in the case of #1 I have never draw and fired my weapon in defense; although I would not hesitate to do so if I felt the threat.

    Oh, and not to start a completely different topic, but any and all who apply for a ‘concealed weapons permit’ must first be required to pass an “advanced course”; in my opinion. I realize that flys in the face of our ‘free rights’, but we are required to pass a drivers test, pilot’s test and must be certified by a formal institution to practice medical and legal trades; and in those cases it is done so to help ensure the safety of others. I will add here that those licensing institutions by no means need to be government based.

    CM

    • CM

      First, are you asking ME or are you asking Generally?

      • Common Man says:

        BF

        You mostly, but all others can chime in should they decide too.

        CM

        • would I have a right to ‘stop’ the threat via lethal force?

          No and Maybe.

          If he was 20 feet way and you showed him your weapon and he ran away. No.

          If he continued his advance (or accelerated) or showed a more lethal weapon. Maybe.

          Again I was legally armed. Did I have a right to use lethal force?

          Maybe.

          It was obviously Clear Present and Dangerous, however, did you have a retreat vector or another alternative?

          They attacked me physically. They did not have any weapons that I could see. Would I have been in my right to have used deadly force?

          Clear, Present and Dangerous with no retreat.

          BTW: # 1 recieved a nice rap on the nose with my 1911 and was sternly told to “get”

          Good choice.

          #2 Recieved a roundhouse bang up-side of the head with a tire iron and his partner ran away

          Good choice.

          #3 Both young adults were left on the ground in the parking lot alive, but out cold as a flounder

          Lucky them.

          You remind me of an old (true) Japanese story of the most dangerous swordsman.

          He was walking home one day and was accosted by two ruffians. They threatened to kill him if he didn’t crawl and bark like a dog.

          He looked at them and then crawled and barked like a dog.

          They went away laughing and soon the country was awash in the story that this great swordsman was a coward. Even the Emperor disowned him.

          Poor and discarded, he eked out a meager living on the street until one day a great war descended on the Empire and reluctantly the Emperor recalled his services.

          In a great battle, the swordsman proved again his total superiority and he carried the day to victory.

          Then everyone understood just how great he was when faced with the ruffians.

          It would have been no effort for him to kill them. He decided to save their lives – and he knew he was more than capable of accepting the consequences of letting them live. He knew they were not.

          He let them live.

          He was acclaimed Japan’s greatest warrior with no equal.

          • Retreat is not always the proper response. There is the question of what happens next time, do I just have to keep running, keep retreating, till I am stuck in a spot with no position to retreat, and I may not, in that case, have opportunity to draw a weapon.

            More importantly, a man who will threaten will threaten a weaker person. I can take him down and teach him the risk of threatening force or remove his violent butt from society, or I can take the peaceful route and next time its my mom or my sister being threatened, they may not have retreat or fighting ability. Would that be my fault? No, it would still be the fault of the aggressor. Would I feel bad? Probably, but that is on me. Would I feel bad about taking down a bully or otherwise violent person? No, I would not. Will I ever know if such an action prevented a further or later violent action? No, that is not provable. Do I require proof? No, I responded in a proper way.

            • Jon,

              But this is NOT a case of a stronger man threatening a weaker boy.

              This is a cause of a stronger, armed, and badged man threatening a weaker, unarmed, unbadged boy.

              • True, And in this case I might be willing to agree that the response was excessive. I have not been able to make a good determination because I have not had a chance to watch any video. I don’t do that at work, and I rarely have time at home. The boy obviously was acting violently and may have been threatening as well, but it is a hard thing to decide as a couch commentator. Violence rarely ends well, and often the one in the right is not the victor, even if they win the fight.

              • Jon

                Why do you assume this?

                The video is very clear. The boy ran away.

                This is not a case where a bunch of guys jumped a Border guard.

                The Border guard directly and purposely engaged three individuals fleeing back into Mexico.

                Out of the three, he seized one of them.

                While he had subdued this one, forcing him to the ground, he advanced while dragging his captive with gun draw and fired at the boy.

              • He picked up a weapon. He did not simply retreat or cooperate. And, as I said, I HAVE NOT SEEN THE VIDEO, and probably will not. I am more interested in the philosophy than the specifics of this case, the viewpoint of a crappy youtube video. I am all about discussing philosophical principles, but specific cases are not my concern at this point.

              • Jon,

                It these matters, circumstances is paramount.

                There is no such thing as an “overseeing” principle in matters of responses to violence.

                It is a “well, it depends” ad infiniteum.

                Thus, each circumstance DOES require a review.

                The boy did not cooperate – true – but that is irrelevant. A lack of cooperation is not sufficient excuse to kill.

                He picked up a rock – at a significant distance from the gunman. So far away, in fact, that the gun man did not need to dodge – the projectiles obviously were not effective in reaching him.

    • CM,

      In Ohio, If someone enters your home uninvited, it is legal to use lethal force, regardless of whether the person is armed or not. Here, we call it a process of elimination, they break in, we eliminate them. As a standing rule for those of us well armed, 911 don’t get called till after the fact. Once the LEO’s arrive, we inform them that the deceased is located in (pick a room), I am still armed, and mean you no harm, you do not have the right to search the home. I will describe myself, and stand in the driveway when the police arrive. I will not answer any questions at that time, but will call my attorney who will be present during questioning, the next day when things are calmer. So please remove the corpse (s) and we can chat tommorrow.

      On a side note, did you get my post on the homemade brandy?

      G!

  15. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I think BF is trying to confuse people on purpose. He seems to routinely equate people throwing rocks, terrorist organizations with automatic weapons, RPGs, etc. with “non-violent men”.

    I cannot agree to that equation.

    My definition of “non-violent” is… well, someone who is not participating in an act of violence. Seems pretty clear to me.

    Perhaps my definition of “non-violent” is merely too simplistic?

    • Peter,

      I’m not sure where your train fell off the tracks.

      • Maybe when he started listning to Jazz

        Reporters:
        What’s your statement?

        Billy (as Roxie):
        All I’d say is
        Though my choo-choo jumped my track
        I’d give my life to bring him back

        Reporters:
        And?

        Billy (as Roxie):
        Stay away from

        Reporters:
        What?

        Billy (as Roxie):
        Jazz and liquor

        Reporters:
        And?

        Billy (as Roxie):
        And the man who

        Reporters:
        What?

        Billy (as Roxie):
        Play for fun

        Reporters:
        And what?

        Billy (as Roxie):
        That’s the thought that

        Reporters:
        Yeah!

        Billy (as Roxie):
        Came upon me

        Reporters:
        When?

        Billy (as Roxie):
        When we both reached for the gun!

        Mary Sunshine:
        Understandable, understandable

        Billy and Mary Sunshine:
        Yes, it’s perfectly understandable
        Comprehensible, comprehensible
        Not a bit reprehensible
        It’s so defensible!

        Billy: Reporters:
        Let me Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes they both
        Hear it! Oh yes, they both
        Oh yes, they both reached for
        The gun, the gun, the gun,
        The gun
        Oh yes, they both reached
        For the gun
        A little louder! For the gun.
        Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes they both
        Oh yes, they both
        Oh yes, they both reached
        For the gun, the gun,
        Now you got it! The gun, the gun
        Oh yes, they both reached
        For the gun
        For the gun.

        Billy and reporters:
        Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes they both
        Oh yes, they both
        Oh yes, they both reached for
        The gun, the gun, the gun, the gun
        Oh yes, they both reached for the gun.

        Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes they both
        Oh yes, they both
        Oh yes, they both reached for
        The gun, the gun, the gun, the gun,
        The gun, the gun, the gun, the gun,
        The gun, the gun, the gun, the gun,
        The gun, the gun, the gun, the gun.

        Billy:
        Both reached for the…gun

        Reporters:
        The gun, the gun, the gun, the gun
        The gun, the gun, the gun, the gun
        The gun, the gun, the gun, the gun
        The gun, the gun, the gun, the gun
        Both reached for the gun.

        First Reporter:
        “Stop The Presses!”

        Second Reporter:
        “‘We Both Reached For The Gun,’ Says Roxie!”

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        BF,

        I do not believe my train fell off the tracks at any point. I, and many others here, can point to a MULTITUDE of examples of us discussing terrorism, border incidents, and other situations.

        In virtually EVERY case, you bring up the point, “Violence against non-violent men”, but in every case, the person or people who end up getting hurt of killed were actually, in fact, behaving in a violent way, so calling them non-violent men is ludicrous.

        I agree with you if you assert that in at least a fair amount of cases, the actions of the violent men did not necessarily merit a LETHAL response. That statement I am in complete agreement with.

        However, when we are discussing the actions of people who are clearly behaving violently, repeatedly chanting the mantra of “violence against non-violent men” simply does not apply.

        • Peter,

          Most often in those cases are other circumstances that you ignore of prior violence – which you lose in your argument stance.

  16. Boarder Patrol and rocks. These are older videos but lets not forget that they have been dealing with this for years and it’s getting worse

    • Good find-Certainly points out the danger of their “just rocks”. Also shows why an agent might choose to fire instead of just dodging or running. I know I wouldn’t turn my back if I faced this kind of assault.

    • Anita, Great finds! Goes back to D13’s articles, this is an invasion, and at times, is a violent one.

    • Yep, and in all those circumstances – where many of them are far more aggravated then this issue, no boys got shot.

      Again – in this circumstance the shooting is UNJUSTIFIED.

      QED

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        BF, again, here I agree with you. The response to having rocks thrown at you from a distance should not be a LETHAL response. Many other options should be available to you in that circumstance.

    • The video shows a very good example of why the incident that spawned this article happened.

      When someone pulls a gun on you and tells you to “stop or I will shot.” We all here are normal people. We will stop.

      What do these people think they are doing? Are they thinking, “Oh I am being non violent and therefore they have no recourse to be violent on me.” No they are trying to do harm, that can be deadly on others.

  17. To answer your question in the simplest terms possible;

    Deadly force is authorized ONLY when YOUR life or the lives of others are in danger, and only to the extent to remove that danger.

    We legal citizens in Arizona are legally able to carry a loaded exposed firearm in public places, HOWEVER, we are also charged with the responsibility of knowing just when and how to use that firearm should the situation arise.

    Nuff said.

    • Birdman says:

      I am also authorized in my home state to conceal and carry. During training, the instructor spent a considerable amount of time explaining imminent danger. That definition may vary from person to person but think what a jury of 12 may decide. If you can remove yourself from the threat, then you should attempt to do so. If they want your property, let them have it (MI does not allow lethal force to protect your property). A rock can be a weapon but so can a pen, screwdriver, etc. I would not pull out my weapon with a child trowing a rock. I would attempt to run away. If backed up into a corner where I could not get away, then I may be in a situation where I would draw the weapon and hope to scare the child away. It really comes down to what is going on in your mind. Do you believe you are in imminent danger? A middle age person or old person may believe they are in a life threatening situation and may discharge and the jury will decide whether, considering all the facts, a reasonable person would feel their life was in danger. I hope I never find myself in such a situation.

  18. “However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.”

    I am not a big believer in this concept. When an attack occurs I tend to side with he who is being attacked. I always tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the one who did not start the fight. Second-guessing “how much force” was “necessary” after the event is over is ridiculous.

    If I get attacked I suspect my logical mind may not be functioning at full capacity. But, since I am not the one who did the attacking, the attacker deserves whatever circumstances he set in motion. It doesn’t matter if he has a badge or a uniform, or is a burned-out drunk in an alley.

    If you are trespassing or trying to impose your will on someone you have no right to expect them to act “fairly” by your determination (or by the determination of others in your gang). In that situation you are the bad guy, and he is the defender. If you are a cop or a soldier enforcing a counterfeit “law” or carrying out orders outside your government’s territory (sic) or in someone else’s territory, whether your own government claims you are justified or not is irrelevant. You are outside your jurisdiction (if any). You are doing wrong. “Legally” justified is not the same as ethically justified, and is often the polar opposite.

    Israeli commandos invaded the ship and as invaders deserved death at the hands of their victims; regardless of who “started it” after the ship had been invaded and attacked. The bad guys in this instance won the confrontation. Self-defense is still the invaders’ right, because they are human, but the right of their victims to defend themselves trumps the right of the invaders to defend themselves.

    So, in the case of the boy killed by the border patrol agent. Had these been two private individuals, on neutral ground, I would side with the agent. (Shock! I know!) If one of the individuals had been on his own property, and the other been trespassing, I would side with the one who was not the intruder. However, this was not the case. I know for certain the border patrol agent had no legitimate business being there at the time of the attack (since “borders” are not legitmiate), and I’m pretty sure the same was true of the dead boy. It’s just a sad situation guaranteed by the State meddling where it has no business.

    • I tend to agree with your suspicion of “no more force than necessary”. If I am attacked, I am at a disadvantage of not knowing my attacker’s abilities or armament in most cases. I may not even know their numbers. If I take on multiple attackers, there is no winning without use of heavy force, preferably in a way that intimidates and ends the fight early. An attacker may also not know the abilities of his victim, but he gets what he deserves, he attacked.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Kent,

      You can assert that borders are not legitimate, so the agent had no business being there, and technically be correct.

      However, in our current reality, you are clearly wrong. Every country has borders, and every country enforces those borders in some way or other. Some coutries are somewhat lax about it, others guard their borders with a nearly impenetrable gauntlet.

      So, we have to recognize something here: in spite of the (in my opinion correct) philosophy that says borders are illegitimate, they are still reality, and coutries all guard them and enforce them to some extent. Because this is the current reality, it is that current reality that we must deal with, not the world as you wish it to be.

      • AS much as I personally disagree with Kent’s philosophy on borders-All he really said was that the cause of the incident was on the shoulders of the border patrol because they, by his beliefs shouldn’t be there-which is what I believe about the people who illegally crossed our borders. He also made a point of saying that the border patrol still had the right to self defense. So I’m assuming that Kent would still base his opinion on whether or not the agent crossed the line(little pun here) on the legal definition of self defense.

  19. A Puritan Descendant says:

    I think I will go with the advice I once saw on SUFA.

    SSS

    Shoot, shovel, and shut-up.

    GN all.

  20. GRRRRRRRRRR

    My air conditioner has been out since Friday night-it can’t be repaired until the part comes in, which in all probability won’t be until wednesday-I am extremely hot and needed to vent. How the heck did people live without AC!!!!!!

    • I feel you VH, the van has AC when driving, but thats it, we pretty much depend on fans running all the time, and finding shade to park in. 🙂

      Seriously tho, I respect those who lived and worked before controlled environments. I think it was part of their overall toughness. The body can seriously adjust to many things tho, if you let it. The issue is that our culture does not accept the sweat level that is called for to adjust to real summer temperatures. It will be a touch couple days I am afraid, its actually easier if you don’t have AC starting in spring. You will make it tho.

      • You have my respect-you and your significant other are obviously willing to do without a lot in order to follow your dreams.

        • Or just survive in some cases 🙂 That parts getting easier, but the slow weeks are still tight. Lots of good friends tho, spent the last couple hot days in someone else’s living room. 🙂

    • V.H

      Never use AC, don’t understand why people think they need it! A small wet dishtowel, over the back of your neck, does wonders. Take some wet ones a freeze them, they last longer, and can be recycled over and over, free, instant AC, and cooling the blood flowing through the neck veins does wonders!

      G!

      • Great technique when you have access to a freezer or fridge. 🙂

        • A cold country creek or water runoff and a clean minnow bucket works just as good 🙂

      • Just put wet wipes in the freezer, thanks for the suggestion-had a freezable ice pack but it actually gets too cold and doesn’t conform to the shape of my neck- You don’t understand-well let me explain 🙂 I am spoiled, I am not used to the heat, and my husband likes to keep the temperature lower than I actually want it-So I am Really not used to it. I will live, I know, but I do not have to like it 🙂

        • My wife does not perspire, so all our vehicles have AC, as does the house – However we also have an evaporative cooler (aka a swamp cooler) in our house which works wonders when the temp is over the century mark and the humidity gets in the low 20% range or lower. Don’t know where you live, but if you are in a low humidity area like we are in Arizona, the swamp cooler does wonders for the electric bill 🙂 and your comfort zone!

          • Out east we have this thing called humidity. Where we are dripping in sweat and it could be only 80 degrees. Every time I have been out west, I haven’t needed AC, but used it when it was in the triple digits. Just some shade out of the sun was enough.

          • Very humid where I live-from what I read they don’t work well in humid areas. I could have bought a couple small ones for not much more than I paid for all the new fans. Would be really irritating if they would have actually cooled the air instead of just blowing around the hot air. 😦

    • Take a roadtrip to Michigan V. I opened the windows earlier this evening. Its a nice cool night with an easy breeze.. 🙂

      • If I didn’t have two dogs who are as spoiled to A.C. as I am-I would have already left. 🙂

        • My two dogs have never experienced AC, and they are just fine! 😆

          • What was it USW said once-oh yea, I remember-Don’t make me come in there!!

            • IN where? I’m just trying to help you deal with something you really don’t need, and should learn to do without, as it may not be there in the future!

              • Nope, don’t wanna learn : if it ever becomes necessary I will deal.Until then I intend to enjoy-a few days without, makes one appreciate it all the more.

              • That’s cool! But I’ve learned that convenience dependence has sad repercussions when those conveniences are not available. Ask a Katrina victim who spent days in the Superdome! It’s best to become accustomed to less, so when none comes, you do not suffer 🙂

          • It is funny though-the first couple days, it was warm but not hot-I kept trying to get the dogs to sit or sleep where the fan would blow on them and they would have no part of it. Today, they are laying in front of them and walking up and just standing in front of the fans. They still run when I water them down with the garden hose but they like it after the spraying part goes away. Oh yea I didn’t mention that our pool messed up and we had to drain it right before the air went out -of course.

            • Darn the bad luck! The dogs will fair better than you will ever think, just give them water, they’ll get used to it. It’s people that can’t seem to deal with nature, as it comes, the critters just keep on surviving, even the wild ones!

              • Oh, I agree, they will survive but since I am the one who has gotten them used to AC-I will be here to make sure they don’t suffer anymore than is necessary. 🙂

              • I think it might be the opposite. The fur bearers will adapt, it’s people who use them as an excuse so they don’t have to. Not being mean here, just passing on some hot food for thought!

              • Not sure I understand your post-I’m not saying I’m unwilling to give up AC because I don’t want my dogs to suffer-I don’t want to suffer-but since they have always been in door dogs I’m not gonna up and leave them to adjust while I go hang out somewhere with AC.

              • Sorry for the misunderstanding, not meant that way. I guess my point was the we as people rely on convenience’s, as critters just want fed and watered. People use their pets as an excuse to justify what they want. We all want to spoil our pets (and kids), but it’s just an excuse to spoil ourselves. I spoil my dogs as well, but with healthy treats and things that help their health. The weather dictates the rest. No offense intended 🙂

                Off to bed, 5 hours comes quick. Good night my friend!

                G!

              • No problem wasn’t offende just confused. . Sweet dreams.

  21. TexasChem says:

    GUN LAWS FOR TEXAS
    Texas Castle Doctrine or Texas Castle Bill or Texas Castle Law

    AN ACT:
    relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

    SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

    (4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

    (5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

    SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

    (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

    (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

    (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

    (f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

    SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

    Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

    (1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

    (2) [if a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would not have retreated; and

    [(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

    (A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

    (B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

    (b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

    (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

    (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

    (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

    SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

    Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

    SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

    (b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

    SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
    Handgun ownership: unrestricted, no permit or license required

    Rifle and Shotgun ownership: unrestricted, no permit or license required

    Semi-automatic “assault weapon” ownership: unrestricted, no permit or license required

    Machine Gun Ownership: no state restrictions, compliance with federal law only

    Firearm law uniformity: preemption statute, firearm laws uniform throughout state

    Concealed carry: licenses granted on a “shall issue” basis; reciprocity available for nonresidents with carry permits from certain other states

    H.B. No. 1815
    A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
    AN ACT
    relating to the prosecution of certain offenses that involve
    carrying weapons on a person’s property or in a person’s vehicle.
    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
    SECTION 1. Section 46.02, Penal Code, is amended by
    amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (a-1) and (a-2) to
    read as follows:
    (a) A person commits an offense if the person [he]
    intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or
    her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
    (1) on the person’s own premises or premises under the
    person’s control; or
    (2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle
    that is owned by the person or under the person’s control.
    (a-1) A person commits an offense if the person
    intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or
    her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person
    or under the person’s control at any time in which:
    (1) the handgun is in plain view; or
    (2) the person is:
    (A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a
    Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance
    regulating traffic;
    (B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm;
    or
    (C) a member of a criminal street gang, as
    defined by Section 71.01.
    (a-2) For purposes of this section, “premises” includes
    real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as
    living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or
    permanent. In this subsection, “recreational vehicle” means a motor
    vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a
    vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to
    be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer,
    camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with
    living quarters.
    SECTION 2. Section 46.15(b), Penal Code, as amended by
    Chapters 1221 and 1261, Acts of the 75th Legislature, Regular
    Session, 1997, is reenacted and amended to read as follows:
    (b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
    (1) is in the actual discharge of official duties as a
    member of the armed forces or state military forces as defined by
    Section 431.001, Government Code, or as a guard employed by a penal
    institution;
    (2) [is on the person’s own premises or premises under
    the person’s control unless the person is an employee or agent of
    the owner of the premises and the person’s primary responsibility
    is to act in the capacity of a security guard to protect persons or
    property, in which event the person must comply with Subdivision
    (5);
    [(3)] is traveling;
    (3) [(4)] is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or
    other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the
    activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the
    actor’s residence or motor vehicle, if the weapon is a type commonly
    used in the activity;
    (4) [(5)] holds a security officer commission issued
    by the Texas [Board of Private Investigators and] Private Security
    Board [Agencies], if:
    (A) the person is engaged in the performance of
    the person’s duties as a security officer or traveling to and from
    the person’s place of assignment;
    (B) the person is wearing a distinctive uniform;
    and
    (C) the weapon is in plain view;
    (5) [(6)] is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid
    license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code
    [Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes], to carry a concealed
    handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;
    (6) [(7)] holds a security officer commission and a
    personal protection officer authorization issued by the Texas
    [Board of Private Investigators and] Private Security Board
    [Agencies] and [who] is providing personal protection under Chapter
    1702, Occupations Code [the Private Investigators and Private
    Security Agencies Act (Article 4413(29bb), Vernon’s Texas Civil
    Statutes)]; or
    (7) [(8)] holds an alcoholic beverage permit or
    license or is an employee of a holder of an alcoholic beverage
    permit or license if the person is supervising the operation of the
    permitted or licensed premises.
    SECTION 3. Section 46.15(h), Penal Code, is amended to read
    as follows:
    (h) For the purpose of Subsection (b)(2), “premises” has the
    meaning assigned by Section 46.02(a-2) [includes a recreational
    vehicle that is being used by the person carrying the handgun,
    illegal knife, or club as living quarters, regardless of whether
    that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection,
    “recreational vehicle” means a motor vehicle primarily designed as
    temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary
    living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The
    term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper,
    motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters].
    SECTION 4. The change in law made by this Act applies only
    to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act.
    An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is
    governed by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and
    the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For
    purposes of this section, an offense was committed before the
    effective date of this Act if any element of the offense was
    committed before that date.
    SECTION 5. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

    Texas, like much of the Southwest, has adjusted its frontier laws to properly fit the demands of a modern society. Travelers should be aware of how these laws affect their ability to carry firearms while trekking through the Lone Star state.

  22. TexasChem says:

    Hello !

    Can’t seem to get posted for some reason.
    Clicking submit comment button but nothing happens!

    • testing

    • I banned you 😉

      Try re-logging in to WordPress – it sometimes happens when your WordPress cookie expires.

      • You can’t ban TC BF. I love your guys’ debates 🙂

        • Anita,

          I have no power to ban – even if it was in my power.

          To ban another means only 1 of 2 possible things:

          (1) he is a profane, rude, and disruptive to the social order of a blog.

          TC is not any of that.

          (2) his arguments are irrefutable but destructive to mine. Thus, forced silence is my only weapon left.

          TC’s arguments are not irrefutable, nor destructive to mine.

          • Re #2:

            Perhaps his aren’t, but mine frequently are…

            Good thing you have no power to ban 🙂

            • Yeah but when its TC vs BF I generally side with TC

              Matt vs BF.. BF always wins 🙂

              • Mathius says:

                Always? Come on.. a lot of times it comes down to your outlook on the world.. but I have had him dead-to-rights a few times.. Even you would have to side with me

  23. TexasChem says:

    AN ACT
    relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
    SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
    (4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
    (5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
    SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:
    (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
    S.B. No. 378
    Page -2 –
    attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
    (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
    (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
    (f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
    SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
    Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
    S.B. No. 378
    Page -3 –
    (1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
    (2) [if a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would not have retreated; and
    [(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
    (A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
    (B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
    (b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
    (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
    S.B. No. 378
    Page -4 –
    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].
    (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
    (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
    SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:
    Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of
    S.B. No. 378
    Page -5 –
    the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].
    SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.
    (b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
    SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
    S.B. No. 378
    Page -6 –
    ______________________________ ______________________________ President of the Senate Speaker of the House
    I hereby certify that S.B. No. 378 passed the Senate on March 13, 2007, by the following vote: Yeas 30, Nays 0.
    ______________________________ Secretary of the Senate
    I hereby certify that S.B. No. 378 passed the House on March 20, 2007, by the following vote: Yeas 133, Nays 13, one present not voting.
    ______________________________ Chief Clerk of the House
    Approved: ______________________________ Date ______________________________ Governor

    • TexasChem says:

      Basically states if you are committing a crime in Texas you can and most probably will be shot if you’re seen.Anywhere, not just in a persons home.I also can not be sued if I shoot someone and they are committing a crime.The use of deadly force is approved for persons committing robbery of a motor vehicle as well.Texas has a law pending now for open carry in a holster.Gonna have to buy meself one of dem’ pretty Kimber .45’s when it passes.

  24. Bama dad says:
  25. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    As I pointed out to Kent above, he claims that borders are illegitimate, and that the border agent had no right to be there.

    Here we have a common SUFA duality that we MUST find a way to deal with. The PHILOSOPHICAL STANCE that says borders are illegitimate in a FREE SOCIETY is probably correct.

    HOWEVER

    Belief in that premise is NOT going to suddenly make all global borders disappear and all border enforcement cease. If that is something people want to WORK TOWARDS, then that is fantastic.

    However, in addition to working towards the world as you would like it to be, there are times when you have to deal with the world AS IT ACTUALLY IS CURRENTLY. According to current law (which yes Kent, I know is illegitimate, but nonetheless is still current law), borders exist, and are enforceable and enforced.

    So clearly under current (illegitimate) law, the border patrol not only has a right to be there, they are going to be there, that is their job.

    So, in my opinion, merely STATING that they have no right to be there because borders are illegitimate doesn’t really accomplish enough. It states your belief based upon a logically based philosophy, which people can evaluate and either agree or disagree with, but it doesn’t tell us how to get there from here.

    The #1 argument AGAINST a free society is, “well, THAT would never work!!!” So, the #1 job of proponents of a free society should probably be to demonstrate how it WOULD actually work. Make sense?

    • Peter,

      I disagree.

      It is the first, and fundamental, step to understand borders are illegitimate.

      As long as the alternative “fantasy” prevails, no long term solution is really possible and all short term attempts at a solution will only make it worse.

      More short term solutions will lead to wholesale escalation – which is what D13 recommends – which will essentially mean a slaughter of people at the border – on both sides.

      Eventually the killings will reach a point where one side or the other is exhausted by attrition. The numbers of dead will be staggering.

      It will then relent and but simmer to rise up again and repeat, over and over.

      If this situation is agreeable – then by all means continue the fantasy and D13’s prescription.

      If it is not, then end the fantasy.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        BF,

        My point was that we seem to be lacking in posts which not only DESCRIBE the desired reality (as opposed to the current fantasy), but also describe how to overcome the current fantasy and move towards the desired reality.

        I have no problem with posts saying, “here is where we ought to be based on natural rights, individual liberty, freedom, etc.” Those are important. They describe a place where free men wish to get to.

        However, they more often than not do not even provide the beginnings of a hint of a roadmap on how to get from where we are to where we want to be.

        My belief is that this phenomenon is precisely why the vast majority of people feel that a free society would not work. A), they feel that they have no tangible experience with it, and B), they don’t see any explanation of how to get there from where we are, and C), they see no clear argument as to how it would work once we get there.

        I have made plenty of posts as well that claim that the way something currently is is wrong and we need another way. In many of those posts I am as guilty as anyone else of not providing the roadmap to get to where we want to be.

        So, either the roadmap to get there does not actually exist, or we all just suck at putting one together. Not sure which it is yet.

        I realize that even if we provide potential ideas for a roadmap, that in no way obligates anyone whatsoever to follow it. That goes without saying. However, without at least potential examples of how it would work and why, the vast majority of people (even the highly intelligent ones on this site) are likely to persist in the belief that “Oh, that would never work”.

        So, in summary, yes, the philosophy is VERY important. It is the basis. It is the starting point. However, even if people understand the starting point, the vast majority are going to be clueless when it comes to how to go from that starting point to the desired destination in my experience.

        • Peter,

          The important point is one must recognize the reality vs. the illusions.

          If we intellectual know the difference, then real progress to solution can be made – obviously, anything that dispels fantasy and moves toward recognizing reality is the path one should take.

          So, the “flag” is set out in the horizon, and all moves must be toward it. If there is a move away from it, it must be sternly debated – yes, it could be the old “one step back/two forward” move – but it could also be a complete reversal.

          No rational freedom fighter suggests the State should dissolve over night.

          It would be a disaster. The People have been mind-drugged into apathy, and the collapse would leave them dazed. Disorder and confusion would cause a total collapse in social order where no alternative paradigm of voluntarism and freedom exists to support them.

          Thus, the move toward freedom with social order must be incremental. However, that being said, the flag must be well planted and NOT a moving target either. Every move toward freedom must be measured but moves away from freedom should be resisted hotly and with great tempest.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Agreed, and the philosopy behind individual liberty and freedom must be clear (as we have attempted to do on this site).

            “Overnight success” is certainly ridiculously improbable.

            However, working incrementally towards what we want would seem to indicate that it is necessary to work within the existing systems to move them towards what we want, but you have argued that that is impossible, because the existing systems CANNOT be corrected into free systems in any way.

            This would seem to make progress exceedingly difficult.

            • Peter,

              Correct.

              You cannot change a system from within the system. This is a fundamental truth.

              If it WAS POSSIBLE, it would mean that the system was fundamentally unstable – that is, it had a failure of its ‘negative’ feedback loops.

              Thus, unstable systems dissolve rapidly.

              The current system – its single most significant manifestation – is its longevity and stability….5,000 years and still beating people up.

              In that time period, it has been assaulted internally by forces of change far greater than what minor means “we of like minds” could possibly muster. It has overcome them all without breaking a stride.

              Therefore, I argue that (1) by system design theory and feedback loop and (2) historical evidence – that change from WITHIN the system is impossible.

              Thus, change outside the system is the only alternative.

              And yes, progress is slow and difficult – but observable.

              Consider the state of Man over the last 250 years… remarkable, no?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                I get what you are saying, evidence shows that attempting to change the system from within only results in another stable variation of the same system.

                I do agree that progress is slowly being made though 🙂

              • Peter,

                That is even a better way to put it – “the attempt at change creates another stable variation of the same system”.

                Same with religions – all “new” religions – which attempt to break from the “old” religions fall back into creating the same genre of institutions, and the same abuses as the “old” religions they were trying to make a break from…..

              • Ok, so how do you propose to ween people off of that system, wich you agree is necessary, without using the system in the process. How do you maintain the system to support the dependent until they can learn a better way and still change it? I get that using the system perpetuates the system, but did you not just say that perpetuating the system was a necesssary evil?

              • Jon,

                By education and dialogue.

                People like good old G.A. Rowe are frustrated by the strategy – they want to use ENERGY of ACTION in the system to change the system.

                But it is impossible – they merely entrench it even deeper.

                Ideas are Powerful

                When the people on their own accord come to terms with the contradictions that rule their lives, they will reach a point of choice

                They will either ignore the contradiction, and return to grovelling in the ditch

                or

                ……

                decide to change themselves

              • I like that, but think more is needed. It is ideas that can transform the system, without those ideas there will be no change anyway, and if there was it would require force.

      • texaschem says:

        But, but BlackFlag; life is just a fantasy!

  26. Observation Only:

    Actually, all of this is pretty simple. Here we are discussing lethal force, kids with rocks, and who can or cannot do this, that, or the other.

    Isn’t the common denominator trespass? We have a border. Should not everyone respect our sovereignty? Much has been said on this blog how bad the United States is in violating the sovereignty of other nations and that it should not be done and that the other nations have a right to retaliate if we violate their sovereignty.

    Why do any of you justify violating our sovereignty by any means? Just because a guy is hungry? Thirsty? Politically persecuted? Wanting a better life? This justifies violating our laws?

    BF,question for you. Actually, your reasoning has become very unclear. I live in Texas and the following excerpts are from Texas Law.

    Deadly Force in Defense of Person

    “A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery.”

    Defense of Another Person

    “A person is justified in using deadly force against an attacker to protect another person if he would be justified to use it to protect himself against an unlawful attack and he reasonably believes his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the other person from serious injury or death.”

    Deadly Force to Protect Property

    “A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means.”

    “A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)”

    Protection of the Property of Others

    “A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief.”

    “Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child.”

    Reasonable Belief

    “It is not necessary that there should be actual danger, as a person has the right to defend his life and person from apparent danger as fully and to the same extent as he would have were the danger real, as it reasonably appeared to him from his standpoint at the time.”

    “In fact, Sec 9.31(a) [of the Penal Code] expressly provides that a person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary.”

    Reasonable belief is very strong in Texas. Do you agree with this at all?

    • Only in Texas….. I like the sound clip of the guy calling the police saying that his neighbors house is being robbed, when they try to get away, he goes out and shoots them while on the line with the police. I heard he got off on the fact that the neighbor (third person) requested his protection of property.

      Also I have a ridiculous scenario for you to pick your brains at.

      Person A is assaulted by Person B who is viciously beating them even though they are on the ground and bleeding.
      Person C sees this and pulls out his gun and commands Person B to stop. Person B stops and backs away from Person A.
      Person D sees Person C draw a gun on Person B. Unknown to Person D, Person A is on the ground out of sight. Person D reasonably believes his intervention is immediately necessary to protect Person B from serious injury or death, Person D pulls his gun and shoots Person C.

      Now the Defense of Another Person as you defined, would that justify Person D in shooting and or killing Person C?

    • texaschem says:

      I agree with all of it! 🙂

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Trespass is an interesting argument. Free people have a right to own property. That is clear. Countries also claim the right to own property (entire large territories of it) even though the “sub-properties” are generally owned by individuals.

      In a free society, I suppose that defended “borders” would be determined by groups of people cooperating of their own free will for their common defense against agression or invasion. The government likes to try to claim that that is what the borders represent now, but many would argue that that is clearly not the case.

      I would say that individuals can own property, and groups of individuals can freely agree to cooperate to defend an area which encompasses the properties owned by said individuals. Since a State or Nation is not an individual, I am not sure how you could assign it “rightful ownership” of property.

      Certainly States and Nations make the claim that they own property, but if you think about it, this creates dual-ownership in most cases. Do YOU own your property, or does the State own your property, because it is within the borders of the State? Emminent Domain essentially says that, in fact, the State ownership over-rides your private ownership.

      Because of this fact, State/National claims of property ownership are contradictory to free individuals owning private property, which creates many problems.

      This is a definite case where a free society would be an improvement on the current reality, because free individuals owning private property would have to enter into mutual agreements for the protection and defense of said property.

      The problem which arises from this is that many current Nations or States have huge standing armies and weapons which far outweigh the simple need for cooperative protection and defense of personal property. Such standing armies and overbearing weapons would be a threat to any free society.

      Furthermore, unless a free society were global, it would perforce have defined “national borders” whether it wanted them or not, since all non-free societies have defined national borders. As long as societies exist which are not free, EVEN THE SOCIETIES WHICH ATTEMPT TO BE FREE WILL HAVE BORDERS FORCED UPON THEM BY CIRCUMSTANCE. As such, the free society would have to come up with a way to protect and defend their borders, whether they desired to have borders or not.

    • D13,

      Your case would hold merit if the boy was attempting to break into a house in Texas.

      But in this case the boy was running away into Mexico.

      I do not see where the Texas law holds merit at all.

  27. TexasChem says:

    @-BlackFlag,

    …please press one for English…
    …por favor apriete dos para el español…
    …يرجى الضغط على ثلاثة للغة العربية …

  28. I read BF’s argument and although he’s convinced me of a “few” things in the past, not this time.

    What Peter mentioned (much) earlier about the environment; others were throwing rocks, etc., makes a difference. Again, I’m not sure deadly force was called for (i.e., maybe he could’ve been wounded?), but as far as I can tell, he was acting in a very violent manner and could well have killed with his rock.

    Update on our dog is a frustrating one; surgery put off until Thursday, but receptionists made me feel like I was back at the Motor Vehicles Department trying to explain the eye-talian name on my birth certificate (Carmelo) … just nasty pieces of work:

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2010/06/rigoletto-update.html

    • Charlie,

      and could well have killed with his rock

      Please provide any example of a boy killing a man with a gun by throwing a rock…..

      As I pointed out, I did your homework, and there exists no such example in over 200 years of record keeping.

      …NOT
      …ONE
      …CASE

      • Now your back to that “rock vs gun” argument-Do you really believe that shooting someone who is attacking you with a big rock is never justified? Or is it just this situation where you don’t see it as justified?

        • V.H.

          Oh, there are many circumstances where shooting an attacking person would be justified. Heck, there are circumstances where shooting an attacking person is justified, where there is no weapon at all (other than bare hands).

          But this particular case is not one of them.

          My major complaint is the automatic belief that the State-authorized murderer was in his “right” and the boy was in the “wrong – even after ample evidence exists to demonstrate the contrary.

          • Then that is what you should be arguing. 🙂

            • V.H.

              That is what I am doing.

              It is “others” who are infusing a series of arguments based on other circumstances and trying to justify THIS circumstance based on THOSE circumstances.

              It cannot be done.

              • All I can say BF is I have read your posts. I interpreted your remarks as a general statement that it is never justified to shoot a boy when his weapon is a rock because you can not prove through past examples that a boy ever killed a man with a rock. I do not believe that I am the only one who interpreted your remarks in the same way.

              • V.H.

                And you would not be incorrect.

                The fact remains that no boy with a rock has ever killed a man with a gun

                …for a number of reasons, primarily, rocks do not do very well as weapons vs. the range and deadliness of a gun.

                Those that have to wield rocks as their primary weapon are not equipped to deal with men with guns. As such, these people have a very high tendency to decline battle and run away.

                Rocks as weapons, as history shows, are effectively deployed in surprise attacks. Here, they overcome the gun’s superior range and accuracy, and in close combat, can be effective.

                If this was the circumstance, this debate would not be happening

                But that is not this debate

                It is a boy running away and throwing rocks.

                It is the automatic excuses that the murderer was right.

                As a rule (well earned by historical evidence – that is, the lack of evidence to the contrary) when rocks vs. guns results in death blame is on the gun man not the rock thrower.

              • USWeapon says:

                It is the automatic excuses that the murderer was right.

                Perhaps for you. I have not automatically assumed anything about the guilt or innocence of the border agent. I have kept it to the principle of a rock being able to kill, a consequence that you have yet to acknowledge despite the fact that not a single person who has thus far read your argument has agreed with your premise or conclusion.

                You do not know what happened outside of a edited tape released by Mexican authorities. You claim that you have an issue with automatic excuses that the murderer was right. I haven’t seen that from anyone here. To a person everyone has said that they were not there and therefore cannot truly pass judgement. Everyone except you, that is. The automatic assumption that, in your own words, he is a murderer and guilty. The only one guilty of anything “automatic” in this situation was you. You automatically assume a government agent from the US is guilty. Not a surprise, but you may want to temper your disdain for those who are not simply making assumptions and instead attempt to discuss the matter with reason and find facts.

                As a rule (well earned by historical evidence – that is, the lack of evidence to the contrary) when rocks vs. guns results in death blame is on the gun man not the rock thrower.

                Incorrect. Blame the person who initiated violence. That is who is at fault. In this situation, we don’t know who initiated violence. We only know that at some point, each had a deadly weapon in their hands. I don’t expect you to agree. After all, you wouldn’t answer my simple question to go down the path to logical reason yesterday.

              • Okay, I now understand your reasoning. But part of the effectiveness of the gun over the rock is obviously the belief by the rock thrower that the one with the gun will actually use the gun. Which would make a warning shot or a vocal warning appropriate. But I don’t know whether or not the officer gave a warning -do you. If it is your contention that even with a warning, if the boy ignored the warning and continued to throw his chosen weapon at the officer that the differences in weapons means the officer had to retreat-I simply don’t agree. In this case would I prefer that he had, yea, but I don’t believe it can be a requirement because as soon as the boys learned that the officers couldn’t shot at them the border patrol better quit their jobs because they would be at the mercy of the rock throwers.

      • BF: is the criteria (in the law) precedent of killing a man with a gun with a rock … or Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

        Homework …

        • Charlie,

          Please provide a case where a boy throwing a rock has killed a man with a gun.

          Though reasonably believes requires a significant series of examples, I’ll relieve you of that onus.

          …just show once…

          • David/Goliath … or maybe it was a Palestinian kid and Israeli soldier … or a Jewish kid and German soldier in Dresden …

            Come on, BF, that’s an unfair request. Does it mean if one case were found, you’d be wrong (but we have to have the instance documented)?

            Isn’t the possibility it can happen enough? I think that’s the concept behind the law as it is/was written; a reasonable belief …

            Under the definition, the onus is on you, my brother.

            • Charlie,

              Goliath was killed when his head being cut off….

              No Israeli solider has been killed by thrown rock. Not one.

              It is POSSIBLE for me to kill you with a spoon or a soda straw. You are suggesting that is enough justification for me to shoot you down because you may be threatening me with a soda straw????

              No, sir. The onus is ALWAYS on the one using lethal force to prove the justification.

              And in this case, there is NO justification.

      • naten53 says:

        BF, I am amazed that you refuse to accept the fact that a rock can kill. It does not matter if there is evidence of it happening in the past or not.

        When I was 15, I could throw a baseball 70mph within inches of where I wanted it to go from 60 ft away. Give me a slightly heavier rock and much closer distance, and we are talking about a projectile that you cannot move away from. At 70mph the time to travel 15 ft is 0.146104 seconds. Ok, so most kids that age can’t throw that hard, how about 40 mph, that is 0.255682 seconds. I saw earlier that you said you could move out of the way of a rock, but not bullets. Even 40 mph is less time then a 100 mph fastball from the pitching mound to the plate (0.4125 seconds). So how do you dodge it? What makes you think that you will see it coming from someone’s buddy that you took your eyes off of while waiting to dodge the rock thrown by someone else?

        Let’s say it doesn’t kill you. What is going to make them stop if they hit you in the face? Did you see the video that Anita posted? Did you see the guys face that got hit by a rock that went through the window of the vehicle he was in? What if you get knocked over and not killed, what is to stop them from picking up another rock, walk right up to you and smash your head in?

        • Nathan,

          at is going to make them stop if they hit you in the face

          How about retreating another 10 more feet?

        • Nathan,

          Let’s say….

          We can play that ridiculous game of “Let’s say” forever, while you build perverse scenarios after scenarios.

          Provide one REAL EXAMPLE OF A BOY KILLING A MAN WITH A GUN, not some fairy tale, please.

          • “boy throwing a rock killing a man with a gun”

          • naten53 says:

            First off, before providing any links I will post this so it doesn’t get lost in ‘awaiting moderation’ land because of the number of links.

            Now what I believe you want everyone to do is find a case of a boy killing a person with a gun by throwing a rock. Charlie started this thread by saying a rock is “deadly force”. Except for you, everyone I have seen so far as accepted that a rock is “deadly force”. You keep on bringing it back to could a boy kill a person with a gun by throwing a rock. You say that there is not one case. Will it be easy to find examples of a boy killing a person with a rock and that person had a gun? No it will not be easy to find because you will find examples of the boy being shot. Why? Because if the man did not have a gun or any else to defend himself with the boy could have killed the man by throwing the rock. I have never seen anyone move 10 feet in 0.15 seconds so retreating from a surprise rock throwing is not an option.

            This is not about a boy throwing a rock at a guy with a gun. No normal person would do that because the guy has a gun. This is about if the rock is a deadly object.

            How am I confident that a rock thrown by a boy is a deadly object, is the same way I referred to a baseball above. By rule a baseball can weigh no more then 5 ¾ oz.

            Deaths by baseball:

            Easy one, Ray Chapman – MLB Baseball, killed by wild pitch 1920, thrown by professional pitcher, now can a ball thrown by a kid kill?

            “Long Branch, NJ – A fifth grader the son of a Lakewood, NJ, principal was killed after a baseball hit his throat on Friday afternoon.
            Hatzolah responded when Nine-year-old Eliyohu Dabba, the son of the menahel of the cheder, Keter Torah, in Lakewood, NJ, was hit by a baseball that was thrown at him by his brother on Friday afternoon.”
            The article mentions a 6 year old brother, but does not say that is who the brother that threw it was, nor does it mention other brothers.

            High School Baseball Player Killed by Wild Pitch
            Saturday, April 25, 2009
            SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — The father of a south-central Missouri baseball player who died after being hit by a wild throw said Friday that he doesn’t blame the pitcher.
            Mike Clegg said he hugged the Lebanon High School player whose pitch hit 16-year-old Patrick Clegg and told him it was an “absolute aberration” and a freak accident and he shouldn’t hold himself responsible.
            “I hope that that leads to him believing that he is going the right direction and get back out there and play the game, because that is what my son would tell him to do if he had the opportunity,” Mike Clegg said.
            Patrick Clegg, a Waynesville High School junior, was batting Tuesday at Lebanon when he turned to avoid being hit by a pitch. The baseball hit him just below his helmet and he collapsed.
            Doctors at St. John’s Hospital in Springfield declared Patrick brain dead Thursday. He was taken off a respirator and his organs were donated Friday.
            His father, who had returned in March from eight months in Iraq, said Patrick had been receiving letters from colleges interested in recruiting him.
            “He was exactly where he wanted to be in life,” Mike Clegg said. “He was in the process of getting letters from colleges for baseball. We saw nothing but hope for his future at the collegiate level and hopefully beyond.”
            Services for Patrick Clegg will be held at 2 p.m. Tuesday.
            Like I said before high school aged boys can throw fast enough to kill.

            Jeff Taylor Sr, an assistant professor at Liberty University in Virginia, was killed by a baseball. Taylor, 44, was teaching in health sciences and kinesiology.
            Taylor was hit in his lower jaw or neck by a baseball thrown from a field. Taylor died on Tuesday, April 28. Taylor’s son was also in the field.

      • texaschem says:

        I can link you a video of people being killed with rocks BF if you absolutely want to see it.Stoning is used as a punishment in some countries under Sharia law BF.I know you are aware of this.Some of the people throwing the rocks are young boys.

        • Texaschem,

          No. Read what I ask.

          ….Thrown rocks killing men with guns…..

          I can kill a helpless person with a spoon – that does not prove that a spoon is a deadly threat to a man with a gun.

          • texaschem says:

            BF Stated:”I can kill a helpless person with a spoon – that does not prove that a spoon is a deadly threat to a man with a gun.

            TC:Exactly.Replace spoon with rock.Rock is a deadly weapon also.Gun just happens to be deadlier.I find no fault in a man defending himself.

          • USWeapon says:

            Again with this bogus request. It has already been shown why your request is bogus, yet you remain steadfast in requiring proof showing that someone with a gun was willing to allow someone with a rock to hit and kill them. Have you considered that no such examples exist because no person holding a gun would be ridiculous enough to allow the other person to kill them with the rock?

            • USWep,

              It cannot be a bogus request when such a demand is precisely what is necessary to demonstrate threat of life used to justify killing another human.

              If you cannot demonstrate threat to life, you cannot threaten life.

              I have already provided the extent use of rocks to kill law enforcement officers – which number

              THREE in the last 200 years, and NONE in the last 70 years.

              For reference, FIVE LEO’s were killed by knives LAST YEAR.

              You want to justify an obvious abuse of lethal force by claiming rocks hurt but no evidence of such threat exists.

              The only claims come from wholly different situational threats, like tying up someone, throwing them in the middle of a crowd, and having the crowd pelt them with stones…. *rolleyes*

      • texaschem says:

        Well, what idiot wants to throw rocks at a man with a gun anyway.The gun is the superior weapon so the reason there may not be an example of a person killing a man with a rock is because the man with the gun shoots him!This still does not negate the fact that a 3lb. rock could be used as a weapon to kill a man or incapacitate him to inflict further violence.The fact of the matter is the idiot should not have been there in the first place.

  29. naten53 says:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2256457

    I found this article and thought this was interesting

    “A police officer may use deadly force only if a suspect is likely to kill or seriously injure him or any bystanders. To figure out what counts as “likely,” officers must make split-second decisions based on the nature of the weapon, the suspect’s location, and a host of other circumstances—but there are a few general guidelines. Cops are always entitled to shoot a suspect who brandishes a gun. (Firearms have killed 565 officers since 2000.) Empirical research has shown that a suspect can stab an officer if he gets within 21 feet before the officer draws his gun. (Nine officers have been stabbed to death in the last decade.) Most departments teach their cadets that a rock isn’t deadly beyond 50 feet. Unless they are performing a particularly important mission, like aiding a wounded colleague, officers facing a hail of stones should retreat to that perimeter.”

  30. VH

    Was just thinking about you as I’m feeling this cool evening breeze circulating through my house!

    Ya coulda been here by now 🙂

    • No, I just couldn’t 😦 but I did just get back from eating dinner with my daughter and in about 20 minutes we’re gonna go back out and see a 10:00 o’clock showing of a movie 🙂 The AC in the car felt so good it took me awhile to realize that I was starting to freeze.

  31. Bloody Sunday Inquiry: Cameron apologises as Saville says shootings ‘unjustified’

    David Cameron has apologised for the actions of British soldiers after the Saville Inquiry found that 14 civil rights demonstrators and bystanders were killed without justification.

    …..

    Maybe 38 years from now, Israel will admit to its killings as “unjustified”, the Border Police will admit is killing was “unjustified”, but no one will suffer any consequences for these “mistakes” (the old “water under the bridge” theory) – except of course the dead and their families….

  32. Hi
    This Post is really very interesting to reading. Just look like a man made story.
    But I know it’s real.
    Thanks

%d bloggers like this: