Talk about your bad day!

[blpeterson]

Talk about your bad day.

(09-17) 11:39 PDT LAS VEGAS (AP) --

A woman shot and killed a man who fell through her ceiling while she was getting dressed, and police said the intruder was a burglary suspect who was trying to evade arrest.

Police said they believe the shooting Tuesday was justified, and they will submit a report to the district attorney.

"I think anyone would agree you'd feel your life was in danger when a burglar falls through your ceiling when you're just getting out of the shower," police Lt. Tom Monahan said.

The intruder, a 31-year-old neighbor, had climbed into the crawl space to elude plainclothes police at his front door, police said.

Monahan said the woman bought the gun after her apartment was burglarized in April. Police suspect the man she shot committed that crime.

[efernandez_98]

Originally posted by blpeterson
Talk about your bad day.

That's pretty quick thinking for someone putting on clothes.

[Tivon]

I'm naked and you fall into my house... You better be a women.:devil

[ch0g0nda]

Look... Someone fell through my roof and is in obvious pain. They're not making an attempt to rob or hurt me. Let's kill em.

O' Canada... etc. etc. etc.

[Tivon]

C'mon dude... We don't know for sure what happend.

She was naked.. A guy falls into her house. She freaked
out and ran for the gun. For all we know the guy was fine with
only a 10feet drop. He might have started running after her so
she banged him full of lead. He could have said something
like, "Give me your booty!" and was talking about money and
not her white naked bee-hind.

..Are there pictures? :devil

You know the sick part.. think of this.. Okay he was watching her.
He was getting hard and was trying to masturbate. He falls into
the room and she thought he was going to rape her.

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by lord nicon21
well it is a crime. people should't have guns unless there locked away for fun and so on, NOT FOR KILLING PEOPLE

That's the misconception about guns. A gun is a weapon. A weapon is a tool that can be used for recreation, hunting, and self-defense. The role of self-defense is just as if you were using a knife, rock or any other object. A gun is more effective. The politically correct crowd not withstanding. God gave each of us the right of self-defense. So much so that it is instinctive. The problem with guns is that too many people think of them as toys. Criminals also misuse guns. No amount of gun control law will make a criminal or someone bound and determined to use a gun not to misuse it. The way to prevent most gun-related crimes is for those that wish to use a gun to be properly trained. If a criminal knows that his victim might just be armed it will cause second thoughts.

The bottom line on gun usage is NEVER POINT A GUN, LOADED OR NOT, AT ANYONE YOU DO NOT INTEND TO KILL. That is a harsh but necessary statement.

In this case I believe that she was fully within her rights to take the action she took.

BTW: I will not argue the 2nd amendment as to its meaning. Read the federalist papers and the works of Jefferson, Adams and Monroe. These works will explain the usage of the word militia and private gun ownership and the fact that the 1st through the 10th amendments were to guarantee the rights of the individual over the Federal and State governments. The rest of the original amendments deal with State's rights etc.

[egarrard]

Reminds me of a story that happened back when I first started working. It was at a local motel and the maintainence man was working in the attic on something. Anyway he took a wrong step and fell therough the ceiling in the women's restroom, straight onto a woman on the toilet. It was not a prstty sight... It broke her shoulder and both his legs. Worst part was that it broke the toilet and spread the contents all over the place. I never heard if the woman ever used a public restroom again.

But getting back to the original story, I wonder if the woman would have opened fire into the ceiling if she had heard the burglar moving around up there. I also wonder if that might have been the reason why he fell through the ceiling in the first place...

[Tivon]

Originally posted by bejohnson
That's the misconception about guns. A gun is a weapon. A weapon is a tool that can be used for recreation, hunting, and self-defense. The role of self-defense is just as if you were using a knife, rock or any other object. A gun is more effective. The politically correct crowd not withstanding. God gave each of us the right of self-defense. So much so that it is instinctive. The problem with guns is that too many people think of them as toys. Criminals also misuse guns. No amount of gun control law will make a criminal or someone bound and determined to use a gun not to misuse it. The way to prevent most gun-related crimes is for those that wish to use a gun to be properly trained. If a criminal knows that his victim might just be armed it will cause second thoughts.

The bottom line on gun usage is NEVER POINT A GUN, LOADED OR NOT, AT ANYONE YOU DO NOT INTEND TO KILL. That is a harsh but necessary statement.

In this case I believe that she was fully within her rights to take the action she took.

BTW: I will not argue the 2nd amendment as to its meaning. Read the federalist papers and the works of Jefferson, Adams and Monroe. These works will explain the usage of the word militia and private gun ownership and the fact that the 1st through the 10th amendments were to guarantee the rights of the individual over the Federal and State governments. The rest of the original amendments deal with State's rights etc.

My dad was in the Army once... long long time ago. He was a trainer in Guns and was also a guard for some time. Anyway, he told me if you use a gun on someone, you shot to kill. Funny thing about that is he never once had a gun in the house.:thumb

[Tivon]

Originally posted by egarrard
Reminds me of a story that happened back when I first started working. It was at a local motel and the maintainence man was working in the attic on something. Anyway he took a wrong step and fell therough the ceiling in the women's restroom, straight onto a woman on the toilet. It was not a prstty sight... It broke her shoulder and both his legs. Worst part was that it broke the toilet and spread the contents all over the place. I never heard if the woman ever used a public restroom again.

But getting back to the original story, I wonder if the woman would have opened fire into the ceiling if she had heard the burglar moving around up there. I also wonder if that might have been the reason why he fell through the ceiling in the first place...

Hmmmm... now that puts a new twist on things. But would they not find bullet holes?

[thephenom]

It's kinda bad..... out of ALL the places she can shoot a person for self defence, she went for the kill. I mean, the guy probably wasn't holding a gun or anything. Immobilizing him would probably do the job, and give the cops enough time to be there to make the arrest.

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

Wow... that is one messed up story.

this talk of weapons and guns reminds me of a saying

This is my weapon, this is my gun.
This one's for shooting, this one's for fun.

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

Originally posted by lord nicon21
people should have guns


and that saying is funny but guns are't

true.

I only do it for target practice. But I don't even use a ballistic weapon that uses an explosive charge to do that. I usually use a 50lb draw compound bow.

[blpeterson]

Originally posted by XxFaeryOnFirexX
true.

I only do it for target practice. But I don't even use a ballistic weapon that uses an explosive charge to do that. I usually use a 50lb draw compound bow.

Your bow and arrow is a ballistic weapon. It just uses a different means of energy to propel the projectile (arrow). It is and can be deadlier than a pistol in the correct circumstance. Remember a pencil in the hands of someone that knows what to do is a deadly weapon. (BTW using a pencil as a weapon is extreamly easy and can be taught in 5 seconds.)

[egarrard]

Originally posted by thephenom
It's kinda bad..... out of ALL the places she can shoot a person for self defence, she went for the kill. I mean, the guy probably wasn't holding a gun or anything. Immobilizing him would probably do the job, and give the cops enough time to be there to make the arrest. Sorry, but thinking like that will get you killed. If the guy's going to break into your house, you have to assume the worst. You can't wait until he shoots you first.

[blpeterson]

Originally posted by lord nicon21
ummmm we don't get much of that in the UK

You still have people armed with guns. These are usually the criminal element that breaks the law anyway. But now the law abiding British Citizen is at the criminals mercy until a cop shows up which can be a lifetime literally.

[Silent_Death911]

Originally posted by Tivon
C'mon dude... We don't know for sure what happend.

She was naked.. A guy falls into her house. She freaked
out and ran for the gun. For all we know the guy was fine with
only a 10feet drop. He might have started running after her so
she banged him full of lead. He could have said something
like, "Give me your booty!" and was talking about money and
not her white naked bee-hind.

..Are there pictures? :devil

You know the sick part.. think of this.. Okay he was watching her.
He was getting hard and was trying to masturbate. He falls into
the room and she thought he was going to rape her.
yup...that makes total sence...(i think :devil :lmao :rofl2)

[bejohnson]

The intruder, a 31-year-old neighbor, had climbed into the crawl space to elude plainclothes police at his front door


Cops were already after the guy. He was trying to get away from them.

[egarrard]

Originally posted by lord nicon21
oh but he still should't of got shot She should have whipped out her curling iron and had fried chitterlings. Then shot him.

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

Originally posted by lord nicon21
where do you keep your gun

Locked up and I'm not telling you where.:smash

Originally posted by blpeterson
Your bow and arrow is a ballistic weapon. It just uses a different means of energy to propel the projectile (arrow). It is and can be deadlier than a pistol in the correct circumstance. Remember a pencil in the hands of someone that knows what to do is a deadly weapon. (BTW using a pencil as a weapon is extreamly easy and can be taught in 5 seconds.)

Yep.. I know that my bow is deadly.

However, pencil throwing... yes, but knife throwing =)

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by XxFaeryOnFirexX
Locked up and I'm not telling you where.:smash



Yep.. I know that my bow is deadly.

However, pencil throwing... yes, but knife throwing =)

You don't throw the pencil. You use it as a dagger. Very effective. A 12 year old kid at a middle school here about 5 years ago killed his principal with a pencil because the guy said a snide remark about the boy's mother.

Maybe we need zero-tolerence for pencils?

Weapons are anything that can be used in the heat of passion or anger.

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

Originally posted by bejohnson
You don't throw the pencil. You use it as a dagger. Very effective. A 12 year old kid at a middle school here about 5 years ago killed his principal with a pencil because the guy said a snide remark about the boy's mother.

Maybe we need zero-tolerence for pencils?

Weapons are anything that can be used in the heat of passion or anger.

Well, in the Charlotte Mecklenburg School System, a thrown pencil is considered a missile.

[west1055]

Originally posted by bejohnson
You don't throw the pencil. You use it as a dagger. Very effective. A 12 year old kid at a middle school here about 5 years ago killed his principal with a pencil because the guy said a snide remark about the boy's mother.

Maybe we need zero-tolerence for pencils?

Weapons are anything that can be used in the heat of passion or anger.

Back in 7th grade we had a student stab another in the temple bacause the he was being made fun of. Luckly it wasnt a very deep wound and he was ok. Both got over their differences I think. We used to joke with him about using pencils all the time. He even laughed with us so it was all good.

[wazman]

It's true... Guns don't kill people - people kill people. I mean, people use cars to kill other people - the cars don't do it themselves. And people use hammers, and belts, and ropes, and anything they can find...

The gun doesn't get up and fire itself - someone has to pull the trigger. I'm not against guns myself - I've never had one, but I'd like to fire one (at a shooting range, of course) just to have done it. But I have the proper respect for guns. Just like anything else - you have to have respect for it and know what it can do or else you shouldn't be touching it in the first place.

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

Originally posted by wazman
It's true... Guns don't kill people - people kill people. I mean, people use cars to kill other people - the cars don't do it themselves. And people use hammers, and belts, and ropes, and anything they can find...

The gun doesn't get up and fire itself - someone has to pull the trigger. I'm not against guns myself - I've never had one, but I'd like to fire one (at a shooting range, of course) just to have done it. But I have the proper respect for guns. Just like anything else - you have to have respect for it and know what it can do or else you shouldn't be touching it in the first place.

here we go

"We don't need gun control. We need bullet control. People would think before killing sombody if bullets cost $5000 a piece."
-Chris Rock

[blpeterson]

Originally posted by lord nicon21
:lmao cool that a great idea and stop selling then as you sell food :lmao

No, that's too simplistic. Solve the problem by seeing that the person that misuses a weapon pays for his crime with a proportionate penalty as to the crime committed. That's known as responsibility.

Remember people have the right to keep (own) and bear (use) arms.

[blpeterson]

Originally posted by lord nicon21
but its too late they'v kill some one by then

If the penalty is harsh enough it can change behavior. Remember in the U. S. that all are innocent until proven guilty. Our Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that it is not the responsibility of the police to protect the population but to enforce the law. It is the duty of each citizen to protect themselves and their loved ones.

[blpeterson]

Here is a lengthy article on the subject. It's a good read. Take time and go over it and you'll be heads above your peers.

DIAL 911 AND DIE!

By Aaron Zelman and Jay Simkin
Copyright 1992
(USED BY PERMISSION)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE BAD NEWS: YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN..... Most Americans believe that their local police have a duty in law to protect them against criminals. They are wrong. Some of them are dead wrong. And some of those who are dead wrong are dead because they have been duped by ignorant or dishonest politicians or police chiefs, who promise protection that they cannot give. Some of these officials know that they have no legal duty to protect the average person, and yet still support disarming law-abiding people, the better "to protect" them from criminals! Front-line police officers sometimes are verbally abused by victims of criminals who wrongly believe that police officers have a duty to protect the law-abiding. These good citizens blame the police officer for not doing a job for which they have never been responsible: protecting the average person against criminals.

THE POLICE: WE SERVE EVERYONE, BUT NO ONE IN PARTICULAR.....U.S. law is based on English common law. In English common law, "the Sheriff" is a government employee whose main job is enforcement of government decisions: Seizure of property, arrest of persons wanted by the authorities, collection of taxes, etc. Maintenance of public order, a secondary duty, was done to the extent resources allowed.

POLICE PROTECTION = POLICE STATE.....It is obvious -- 500 years ago in England and in America now -- that a sheriff could not be everywhere at once. It was -- and is -- equally clear that to protect every person would require an army of Sheriffs (or sheriff's deputies). Maintaining an Army of police officers - in effect a police state - would nullify the Freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights. Neither the Framers of the Constitution - nor their successors - wanted to avoid the risk of harm to some in individuals arising from criminals' activity by creating a police state that inevitably would harm every individual.

POLICE STATE OR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.....Instead, the Framers provided for a judicial system to deal with criminals, persons who abused the Freedoms provided by the Constitution. The Framers assumed that a law-abiding person would largely be responsible for their safety. As a matter of law, that assumption still is valid.

THE GOOD NEWS: THE SECOND AMENDMENT PRESUMES INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP OF ARMS..... The Second Amendment reads: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is based on individual ownership of arms. Generally, the Framers avoided stating the obvious. So, they did not word the amendment, "A well... State, the right of EVERY PERSON...infringed." That is, the Framers assumed that every person would look out after his own security, and of necessity would be armed. They saw no need to state so obvious a truth.

THE MILITIA: ARMED PERSONS ASSEMBLED FOR LAWFUL PURPOSES.....Rather, the Framers wanted to emphasize what they felt would be unobvious: that armed individuals may lawfully assemble to use their Arms only to defend the State based on the U.S. Constitution (but not to overturn the Constitution). This is, perhaps, why the words Militia, State, and Arms are capitalized. When armed individuals gather for lawful purposes - e.g., the defense of the Constitution - they are "the Militia". A 20th Century derivative of "the Militia" is the National Guard, which has existed since 1901. It is an arm of the Federal Government:

"Since 1933, all persons who have enlisted in a state National Guard unit have simultaneously enlisted in the National Guard of the United States. In the latter capacity, they have become a part of the Enlisted Reserve Corps of the Army, but unless and until ordered to active duty in the Army, they retained their status as members of a separate state Guard unit." [Perpich v. Department of Defense, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 89-542, (1990) L Ed 2d 312].

Thus, the National Guard exists to enforce government policy. It is not THE "Militia", but A "militia". U.S. Law states that a "State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States". [32 U.S.C. Sec. 109(C)]. Nonetheless, no state now does so. If the Federal authorities used the Army or National Guard to change the Constitutional order - or a State governor so abused a state militia - a disarmed citizenry would be helpless. The Framers did not want this. Generations of their successors have agreed.

As a result, the Framers wanted the wording of the Second Amendment to make it clear that armed individuals could gather together for specific purposes, e.g., defense of the Constitution and the Liberties it proclaims.

UNCONTROLLED CRIMINALS SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTION.....The Framers felt no need to state that individuals would use arms to defend themselves against whom the government never promised to provide, and indeed, never has had an obligation to provide. It is only the failure of the government to control criminals in recent decades that has called into question the validity of the individual right to own arms for the essential purpose of defending the Constitution. This is as much an individual duty as is personal self-defense.

THE LAW: THE POLICE ARE NOT THERE FOR *YOU*.....State and city governments - rather than the Federal authorities - are responsible for local law enforce- ment. So, only occasionally have Federal Courts ruled on the matter of police protection.

However, in 1856 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that local law en- forcement had no duty to protect a particular person, but only a general duty to enforce the laws. [South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (HOW) 396,15 L.Ed., 433 (1856)]. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives you no right to police protection. In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, held that:

"...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." [Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1882) See also Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F.Supp.1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)].

There are a few, very narrow exceptions. in 1983, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals remarked that:

"In a civilized society, every citizen at least tacitly relies upon the constable for protection from crime. Hence, more than general reliance is needed to require the police to act on be- half of a particular individual. ...Liability is established, therefore, if the police have specifically undertaken to pro- tect a particular individual and the individual has specifically relied upon the undertaking. ...Absent a special relationship, therefore, the police may not be held liable for failure to protect a particular individual from harm caused by criminal conduct. A special relationship exists if the police employ an individual in aid of law enforcement, but does not exist merely because an individual requests, or a police officer promises to provide protection." [Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)].

As a result, the government - specifically, police forces - has no legal duty to help any given person, even one whose life is in imminent peril. The only exceptions are a person who:

* Has helped the police force (e.g., as an informant or as a witness).

* Can prove that they have specifically been promised protection and has, as a result, done things that they otherwise would not have done.

RELY ON THE POLICE: AND PAY HEAVILY.....Even someone repeatedly threatened by another has no entitlement to police protection until they have been physical- ly harmed. In 1959, Linda Riss, a New Yorker, was terrorized by an ex-boyfriend, who had a criminal record. Over several months, he repeatedly threatened her: "If I can't have you, no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." She repeatedly sought police protection, explaining her request in detail. Nothing was done to protect her. When he threatened her with immediate attack, she again urgently beg- ged the New York City Police Department for help: "Completely distraught, she called the police, begging for help, but was refused." The next day, she was attacked" A "thug" hired by her persecutor threw lye (sodium hydroxide) in her face. She was blinded in one eye and her face was permanently scarred. The Court of Appeals of New York ruled that Linda Riss has no right to protection. The Court refused to create such a right because that would impose a crushing economic burden on the government. Only the legislature could create a right to protection:

"The amount of protection that may be provided is limited by the resources of the community and by a considered leg- islative-executive decision as to how these resources may be deployed. For the courts to proclaim a new and general duty of protection ...even to those who may be the partic- ular seekers of protection based on specific hazards, could and would inevitably determine how the limited police resources of the community should be allocated and without predictable limits."

Judge Keating dissented, bitterly noting that Linda Riss was victimized not only because she had relied on the police to protect her, but because she obeyed New York laws that forbade her to own a weapon. Judge Keating wrote:

"What makes the city's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York, which now denies all responsibility to her." [Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)].

CALIFORNIA: AN IMMINENT DEATH THREAT MEANS NOTHING.....Even a person whose life is imminently in peril is not entitled to help. On 4 September 1972 Ruth Bunnell called the San Jose (California) police department to report that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had telephoned her to tell her that he was coming over to her house to kill her. In the previous year, the San Jose police, "had made at least 20 calls and responses to Mrs. Bunnell's home...allegedly related to complaints of violent acts committed by Mack Bunnell on Mrs. Bunnell and her two daughters."

Even so, Ruth Bunnell was told to call back only when Mack Bunnell arrived. Some 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived and stabbed Ruth Bunnell to death. A neighbor called the police, who then came to the murder scene. The California Court of Appeals held that any claim against the police department:

"...is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act, particularly Section 845, which states: `Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection." [Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal.Rptr 5 (1975)].

WASHINGTON, D.C.: RAPE IS NO CAUSE FOR CONCERN.....If direct peril to life does not entitle one to police protection, clearly imminent peril of rape merits no concern. Carolyn Warren, of Washington, D.C., called the police on 16 March 1975: tow intruders had smashed the back door to her house and had attacked a female house-mate. After calling the police, Warren and another house-mate took refuge on a lower back roof of the building. The police went to the front door and knocked. Warren, afraid to go downstairs, could not answer.

The police officers left without checking the back door. Warren again called the police and was told that they would respond. Assuming they had returned, Warren called out to the house-mate, thus reveal- ing her own location. The two intruders then rounded up all three women. "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of (the intruders - ed.) The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held that:

"...the fundamental principle (is -ed.) that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen...The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relation- ship between the police and an individual, no special legal duty exists."

In an accompanying memorandum, the Court explained that the term "special relationship" did not mean an oral promise to respond to a call for help. Rather, it involved the provision of help to the police force. [Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)].

ILLINOIS: SCHOOL TEACHERS GET NO HELP EITHER.....On 20 April 1961, Josephine M. Keane, a teacher in the Chicago City Public Schools was assaulted and killed on school premises by a student enrolled in the school. Keane's family >sued the City of Chicago, claiming that:

"...the City was negligent in failing to assign police pro- tection to the school, although it knew or should have known that failure to provide this protection would result in harm to persons lawfully on the premises (because) it knew or should have known of the dangerous condition then existing at the school."

The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Presiding Justice Burke of the Appeals Court held that, "Failure on the part of a municipality to exercise a government function does not, with- out more, expose the municipality to liability." Justice Burke went on to say that:

"To hold that under the circumstances alleged in the complaint the City owed a `special duty' to Mrs. Keane for the safety and well-being of her person would impose an all but impossible bur- den upon the City, considering the numerous police, fire, housing and other laws, ordinances and regulations in force." [Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App2d 460 (1968)].

NORTH CAROLINA: HELPLESS CHILDREN DON'T COUNT.....Even defenseless children merit no special care. On 3 June 1985 police tried top arrest a man and his "girl friend", both of whom were wanted on multiple murder charges, and who were known to be heavily armed. The alleged murderers - along with the "girl friend's" two sons, aged nine and ten years, - tried to flee in a car. As the police closed in after a running shoot-out, the children were poisoned with cyanide and then shot in the head either by the mother or her "boy friend", one of whom then blew up the vehicle, killing both. The boy's father - who had filed for divorce - sued the law enforcement agencies and officers for "wrongful death" of his sons. The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that:

"...the defendant law enforcement agencies and officers did not owe them (the children - ed.) any legal duty of care, the breach of which caused their injury and death...Our law is that in the absence of a special relationship, such as exists when a victim is in custody or the police have promised to protect a particular person, law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public. In this instance, a special relationship of the type stated did not exist....Plaintiff's argu- ment that the children's presence required defendants to delay (the) arrest until the children were elsewhere is incompatible with the duty that the law has long placed on law enforcement personnel to make the safety of the public their first concern; for permit- ting dangerous criminals to go unapprehended lest particular indiv- iduals be injured or killed would inevitably and necessarily en- danger the public at large, a policy that the law cannot tolerate, much less foster." [Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)].

VIRGINIA: WRONGFUL RELEASE = WRONGFUL DEATH? WRONG!.....Marvin Munday mur- dered Jack Marshall in Virginia. Mundy - convicted for carrying a concealed pistol - was sent to jail by a judge who expressed concern that Munday, "might kill himself or a member of the public". Munday was mistakenly released from jail 8 days later. Nine days later he was re-arrested on a un- related charge. Five hours later, the same jailer and sheriff released him, apparently without checking to see if that was proper. Three weeks later, Mundy robbed and murdered Marshall. Marshall's widow sued, alleging negli- gence on the part of the sheriff and jailer, asserting a violation of Jack Marshall's right to due process. The Court rejected the claim:

"....a distinction must be drawn between a public duty owed by the officials to the citizenry at large and a special duty owned to a specific identifiable person or class of persons. ....Only a violation of the latter duty will give rise to civil liability of the official....to hold a public official civilly liable for violating a duty owed to the public at large would subject the official to potential liability for every action he undertook and would not be in society's best interest.".....no special relationship existed that would create a common law duty on the defendants to protect the decedent (Marshall - ed.) from Mundy's criminal acts. Sim- ilarly, without a special relationship between the defendants and the decedent, no constitutional duty can arise under the Due Process Clause as codified by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. There- fore, plaintiff's (Mrs. Marshall - ed.) due process claim also must fall." [Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E.2nd 902 (Va. 1990)].

THE BOTTOM LINE: YOUR LIFE IS IN YOUR OWN HANDS.....These cases - and there are many others - show clearly that under U.S. law:

* No individual has a right to police protection, even when life is in clear and immediate peril;

* There is no right to police protection simply because there are not enough police resources available to enable every person who feels threatened to be protected;

* To make police officers answerable to individual citizens for a failure to provide protection would make police officers afraid to do anything for fear that an action - or inaction - would expose them to civil liability.

This is unavoidable:

* Life is risky;

* The police cannot be everywhere at once;

* It is impossible to hire enough police officers to protect every person who needs it or thinks they needs it.

No one can or should rely on the local police force to defend him or herself, even against a specific threat coming from a known source. Each of us is responsible for ensuring his or her personal safety. Anyone who says "You don't need a gun, the police will protect you", at best is mis-informed, and at worst is simply lying. To offer such advise suggests that police have a duty to provide protection and usually will pro- vide it. The police have no such duty. And, while police may try hard to provide protection - and a failure to do so can be catastrophic - there is no legal recourse for a person harmed by that failure.

WHAT WE NEED LEAST: GUN BANS AND WAITING PERIODS....."Gun Control" is found- ed on a total misunderstanding of the role of police in our society. "Gun control" advocates presuppose the police have a duty to protect every indiv- idual. But, as proved above, the police never had this duty, and indeed, can- not have it so long as the Constitution remains in force. Therefore, bans on gun ownership - or imposition of a waiting period before a gun may be purchased - simply give an attacker a legally-protected Window of Opportunity to do you harm. Moreover, "gun control" makes the law- abiding person less able and willing to take responsibility for their own defense. We will never eliminate criminals. But we must do far more to curb them. That is what the Constitution requires. Many police forces are under-strength. But it is quite clear that to enable the police to defend each and everyone of us , would require us to set up here a police state that makes Joe Stalin's Russia look like a "Love Boat" cruise ship. That is not the lesser of two evils - i.e., better than letting criminals run free - it is the greater.

WHAT WE NEED MOST: NATION-WIDE CONCEALED CARRY.....A law-abiding person's security - as a matter of Law and a matter of Fact - is in their own hands. Even if we had effective criminal control - and we are far from that happy state of affairs - each law-abiding person would still be responsible for their own safety. Any law-abiding person should be able legally to carry firearms, con- cealed, as this is the best way to enable such persons to protect themselves. It is a potent deterrent: the criminal would not know who was, and who wasn't, armed. It would enable a person who had been threatened - and was not en- titled to police protection - to have at hand the means to protect themselves.

THE FUTURE: NO MORE KILLEEN MASSACRES.....Concealed carry is not a panacea. A criminal would always have the advantage of the first shot. But if the in- tended victim(s) were lawfully entitled to carry a concealed firearm, the cri- minal's first shot could be their last. If concealed carry of a firearms were Federal Law, massacres such as occurred in Killeen, Texas, would almost cer- tainly become a thing of the past. The criminal would be killed, quickly, by one of the intended victims. Licensing is not needed, simply because criminals now carry concealed weapons at will. Licensing would only affect the 99+% of Americans who own firearms, and who do not abuse them. What purpose is served by the costly building of huge files on law-abiding people? Moreover, is not the presump- tion in U.S. Law that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty? It is better that we enact and strictly enforce harsh penalties for concealed carry by those legally debarred from firearms ownership - persons with criminal records of violence - the more so if commission of a crime were involved.

LIFE OR DEATH: ITS' UP TO YOU.....Wise-up those who back "gun control" -- Federal, State, and local law-makers. law-enforcement chiefs, prosecutors, and Media personalities -- that the police have no duty to protect you. Let them know that their support for "gun control" puts your life at risk. Send them a copy of this Special Report. Urge them to ditch "gun control" and to lobby urgently for nation-wide concealed carry. Your life depends on it.

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

Originally posted by blpeterson
Here is a lengthy article on the subject. It's a good read. Take time and go over it and you'll be heads above your peers.

I'll read the rest in the morning, but I guess that it is a good thing that there is a high character limit of 100000 characters.

[blpeterson]

Read it or not. It's no skin off my nose but complex problems have complex solutions. By being informed you have a better chance of making the right decisions not only here but in life in general. You should always take the time to read.

BTW the count on that document is less than 24,000

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

Originally posted by blpeterson
Read it or not. It's no skin off my nose but complex problems have complex solutions. By being informed you have a better chance of making the right decisions not only here but in life in general. You should always take the time to read.

BTW the count on that document is less than 24,000

I'm going to read it. You took the time to post it, so I'll read it.

Dang... you count fast :hail :Wink

[blpeterson]

Originally posted by XxFaeryOnFirexX
I'm going to read it. You took the time to post it, so I'll read it.

Dang... you count fast :hail :Wink

Feel sorry for my hubbie Ed. He has to live with me.:) On occasion dang it. If we were together full time we might kill each other...... naw I love him too much.:heartbeat

[Tivon]

Originally posted by XxFaeryOnFirexX
I'm going to read it. You took the time to post it, so I'll read it.

Dang... you count fast :hail :Wink

She used Word...:rolleyes:

[blpeterson]

Originally posted by Tivon
She used Word...:rolleyes:

Nope, I have a specialized program that we use in the Navy that will output any format even Ami Pro and the old Professional Write programs. I keeps a running total.

[Maro]

"God gave each of us the right of self-defense"



That is a really bizarre comment .


"Thou shalt not kill?"



:jawsdown :jawsdown

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by Maro
"God gave each of us the right of self-defense"



That is a really bizarre comment .


"Thou shalt not kill?"



:jawsdown :jawsdown

Actually Maro according to a rabbi friend of mine the Hebrew text is thou shall not commit murder. The old testament recognized the right of killing in self-defense. Murder is defined as an unjust death.

[Artcwolf]

In Texas it's legal to shoot anyone entering your habitat, uninvited. period.

So, don't come into my apt. unless you're invited.

[Maro]

Originally posted by bejohnson
Actually Maro according to a rabbi friend of mine the Hebrew text is thou shall not commit murder. The old testament recognized the right of killing in self-defense. Murder is defined as an unjust death.

I am an Aetheist so it doesn't really bother me what the Bible says.

I study Nakamura Ryu ( a form of Sword Jitsu) and although we learn how to cut - it is derived from a japanese military style of sword, everything is geared upon the "reaction " - you cut to kill but only ever as a last resort - to even draw your sword is a big thing.


I just don't like the way the freaky NRA resorts to "God-given rights to bear arms" - hello, 21st century here

:surrender

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by Maro
I am an Aetheist so it doesn't really bother me what the Bible says.

I study Nakamura Ryu ( a form of Sword Jitsu) and although we learn how to cut - it is derived from a japanese military style of sword, everything is geared upon the "reaction " - you cut to kill but only ever as a last resort - to even draw your sword is a big thing.


I just don't like the way the freaky NRA resorts to "God-given rights to bear arms" - hello, 21st century here

:surrender

Very much the same as the Martial Arts use only in defense and kill only if forced to. Try to avoid conflict if possible.

Problem is most criminal elements have no integrity.

[Maro]

Too true sadly!

I spent an amazing day yesterday at a Seminar on Yagyu Ryu which is an older, Samurai style Bujitsu.

It was intense. the Sensei was this tiny little Japanese Master of about 50 - he literally was only 4 ' 5"! Very strong thouhg, we spent the morning learning all the ways to bow wearing armour and scabbard, then escaping holds, kneeling disarming techniques etc. The afternoon was cutting and using the pommel of your sword as a pivot to throw/disable your oponent. (this was new to me being from a different style and was very interesting.)

The best came at the end - he had a full recreaction Edo style Armour - one of the students dressed up in it and he demonstrated all the of the weak points . That was impressive!

:KICKASS :KICKASS :KICKASS

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by Maro
Too true sadly!

I spent an amazing day yesterday at a Seminar on Yagyu Ryu which is an older, Samurai style Bujitsu.

It was intense. the Sensei was this tiny little Japanese Master of about 50 - he literally was only 4 ' 5"! Very strong thouhg, we spent the morning learning all the ways to bow wearing armour and scabbard, then escaping holds, kneeling disarming techniques etc. The afternoon was cutting and using the pommel of your sword as a pivot to throw/disable your oponent. (this was new to me being from a different style and was very interesting.)

The best came at the end - he had a full recreaction Edo style Armour - one of the students dressed up in it and he demonstrated all the of the weak points . That was impressive!

:KICKASS :KICKASS :KICKASS

I was with Brandi a couple of weeks ago at a Seminar of 6th, 7th and 8th degree Tang Soo Do masters. Brandi was in seventh heaven and I'll swear all of the moves were so fast they were even missed on slow motion replay. I knew my wife was like a coiled spring but DAMN. She won the competition BTW. An 8th degree at her age is extremely rare and it gives her an edge.

[Maro]

what style is "Tang Soo Do "

I enjoyed the seminar but unfortunately there are quite a few *****s that do Martial Arts - there is a big ego trip associated with some schools. I like the fact that my chosen style is very small.

The best thing is there are no "Black Belts" as such - you cannot get to the highest "Tenth" level as only the founder can have that. For ranks above "first" you have to go to Japan to be graded. I ill be approaching that stage in approx 3 years!:jawsdown :jawsdown

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by Maro
what style is "Tang Soo Do "

I enjoyed the seminar but unfortunately there are quite a few *****s that do Martial Arts - there is a big ego trip associated with some schools. I like the fact that my chosen style is very small.

The best thing is there are no "Black Belts" as such - you cannot get to the highest "Tenth" level as only the founder can have that. For ranks above "first" you have to go to Japan to be graded. I ill be approaching that stage in approx 3 years!:jawsdown :jawsdown

That I could not tell you. I know it is a form of lethal Korean kick boxing. Here is a summary of her standings that she posted to Tivon. I do know that her master is about 70 years old (or older) and his principle Dojo is in Seoul. She visits once a year for a week. I was with her last year and when she comes in I get the impression that she is the favored student. The master will suit-up in protective gear as will Brandi and they will spar for an hour or more several times during that week. The entire dojo comes to a stop and everyone observes the two of them spar, Very impressive.

Korean styles Hwarang system:
Tang Soo Do - 8th degree
Tae Kwon Do - 7th degree
Hwa Rang Do - 6th degree

Japanese styles
Aikido - shichidan (7th Dan)
Judo - rokudan (6th Dan)
Jujitsu - 6th degree

Okinawan style
Shotokan Karate - 6th degree

Chinese style
Shao-Lin Kung-Fu - 5th degree

Israili style
Krav Maga - 4th degree

I'm also well versed in Escrima, Capoeira and Savate

My Tang Soo Do Dojo is in Seoul with a branch in Tokyo. I will probably get my 9th degree in about 5 years. Master willing.:)

[Maro]

Originally posted by bejohnson
That I could not tell you. I know it is a form of lethal Korean kick boxing. Here is a summary of her standings that she posted to Tivon. I do know that her master is about 70 years old (or older) and his principle Dojo is in Seoul. She visits once a year for a week. I was with her last year and when she comes in I get the impression that she is the favored student. The master will suit-up in protective gear as will Brandi and they will spar for an hour or more several times during that week. The entire dojo comes to a stop and everyone observes the two of them spar, Very impressive.

Cool

As I said, I love my art as it is small - hence the need to go to Japan for the grading.

My friend does "Escrima" I think - Arnis - Filipino Dtick fighting? It is insane!

Here is my new baby:

http://tozando.com/eng/iaido/ka70.html

:spin :spin :spin :spin :spin :spin :spin

[Maro]

About the original Masakuni's Dotanuki

Very thick, heavy sword, now better-known as Dotanuki, was first developed by master swordsmith Kunikatsu. Made to slice through its target with a single cut, the sword of Dotanuki design is characterized by its thicker and heavier blade, and the literal meaning of Dotanuki is "cutting through one's body in one blow".

Once a favorite weapon of Japan's feudal warlords, or daimyo, this sword design was considered to be the apex of military dynamism and power. In fact, in honor of this great smithing achievement, one daimyo, Kato Kiyomasa, gave Kunikatsu part of his own name as an accolade. Thereafter, Kunikatsu became known as Masakuni, and swords of the Dotanuki Masakuni design were forever guaranteed a place in the halls of Japan's long history.


:spin :spin :spin :spin

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by Maro
About the original Masakuni's Dotanuki

Very thick, heavy sword, now better-known as Dotanuki, was first developed by master swordsmith Kunikatsu. Made to slice through its target with a single cut, the sword of Dotanuki design is characterized by its thicker and heavier blade, and the literal meaning of Dotanuki is "cutting through one's body in one blow".

Once a favorite weapon of Japan's feudal warlords, or daimyo, this sword design was considered to be the apex of military dynamism and power. In fact, in honor of this great smithing achievement, one daimyo, Kato Kiyomasa, gave Kunikatsu part of his own name as an accolade. Thereafter, Kunikatsu became known as Masakuni, and swords of the Dotanuki Masakuni design were forever guaranteed a place in the halls of Japan's long history.


:spin :spin :spin :spin

Brandi has several swords and impliments for her different styles. The sword that she is most proud of though is her U.S. Navy Officer's Sword which is a ceremonial sword. She had to fly back to Norfolk this morning and she flew in dress blues. There's something about her in dress blues..... but I digress.:)

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

Originally posted by bejohnson
Brandi has several swords and impliments for her different styles. The sword that she is most proud of though is her U.S. Navy Officer's Sword which is a ceremonial sword. She had to fly back to Norfolk this morning and she flew in dress blues. There's something about her in dress blues..... but I digress.:)

they look very good.

Here is what sword I'd like to learn. Can anyone tell me about any styles associated with this sword.

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

Originally posted by lord nicon21
styles ya point and run :rolleyes:

Well, if you have heard of the Reverse Blade Sword before, you know what I am talking about. Hint Hint.

[egarrard]

Originally posted by Artcwolf
In Texas it's legal to shoot anyone entering your habitat, uninvited. period.

So, don't come into my apt. unless you're invited. What if I show up with a case of Shiner?

[Maro]

Originally posted by XxFaeryOnFirexX
Well, if you have heard of the Reverse Blade Sword before, you know what I am talking about. Hint Hint.

Never seen them - the sensei at the seminar I went to Showed us the difference between Edo period Katana's and modern ones - Edo Blades are much more curved to give you the angle to thrust into weak points in armour. Later period blades are straight as there was no armour worn.

the thing I love is that I have to irder an absolute monster of a sword:banana :banana

Most of the blades are only for people up to 175 Cm tall (average Japanese Height I 'd say) Mine is 8 inches longer and 400Gms heavier!

:jawsdown

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

basically I want to learn with a Reverse blade because

Reverse Blade sword : A sword with the blade on the opposite sideto prevent death of your opponent

=)

However I am still looking to find a real Zanbatou. Basically it is a sword that was created to kill the horse and the rider in one sweep, however, it can only be swung in 2 ways and you have to be mad strong to use one. Not very good for defense.

[Maro]

Originally posted by XxFaeryOnFirexX
basically I want to learn with a Reverse blade because

Reverse Blade sword : A sword with the blade on the opposite sideto prevent death of your opponent

=)

However I am still looking to find a real Zanbatou. Basically it is a sword that was created to kill the horse and the rider in one sweep, however, it can only be swung in 2 ways and you have to be mad strong to use one. Not very good for defense.

I have seen pics of that!

My Sensei always laughs at me - I used to do Viking Battel Re-enactment so I am unlearning that style of fighting which is somewhat more "Vulgar' - you use your shield as a cudgel!

I see You shoot Bow as well - I am upgrading my old bow next year to this:

http://www.hoytusa.com/products/index.tpl?ProductID=20021016163640&Cart=10648805405

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

Originally posted by Maro
I have seen pics of that!

My Sensei always laughs at me - I used to do Viking Battel Re-enactment so I am unlearning that style of fighting which is somewhat more "Vulgar' - you use your shield as a cudgel!

I see You shoot Bow as well - I am upgrading my old bow next year to this:

http://www.hoytusa.com/products/index.tpl?ProductID=20021016163640&Cart=10648805405

Which part did you hear of? The Reverse Blade Sword (which I posted a pick of earlier) or teh Zanbatou?

LOL.... using a sheild as a weapon is legal in European nations. =)

Hmmm.... My bow is way old and is made of none of that new junk... but it is in very good shape.

[abb1]

I do not know if the shooting was justified, in that her life was not directly threatened. It is hard to say what will come of it.

[Maro]

Originally posted by XxFaeryOnFirexX
Which part did you hear of? The Reverse Blade Sword (which I posted a pick of earlier) or teh Zanbatou?

LOL.... using a sheild as a weapon is legal in European nations. =)

Hmmm.... My bow is way old and is made of none of that new junk... but it is in very good shape.

I have seen Pics of Zanbatous - can't remember where though.

Mine is old too - It is a frankenstein - different Limbs to it's Riser. Really sweet to shoot at 50Lbs. It is a good bow - when I get a new one I will keep this one down tuned for friends to shoot.

I shoot Barebow too so it is more demanding (my mate shoots sights - he was always ribbing me until he tried to shoot barebow and lost one of his Carbons!)

Someone mentioned Bows earlier saying they were dangerous too - only if you can draw them - I don't know any of my friends who can draw my bow and hold the arrow on the rest- it is impossible unless you practice. Pistols unfortunately, are Point and "Click" devices - no real skill necessary to kill someone

:( :(

[Maro]

here is mine

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

I'll have to get a pic of mine and I shoot w/o real sights too. Just use the arrow as the aim.

[Maro]

Originally posted by XxFaeryOnFirexX
I'll have to get a pic of mine and I shoot w/o real sights too. Just use the arrow as the aim.

Good one - it is much more difficult - some of the new bows have such fast Cams and optical zoom sights that it is almost impossible to miss the centre - the arrows comwe off so fast.

I am happy to get a good grouping at 50M without that - it is more realistic. Plus my bow has an arced trajectory so if I move up to the new Hoyt with the Fast Cams and my technique is good, I should get better groupings

:devil

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

i saw these people with these things that acted like a grip and you didn't have to use ur fingers. I don't like that. I still am olde school with using my fingers to draw.

[Maro]

Originally posted by XxFaeryOnFirexX
i saw these people with these things that acted like a grip and you didn't have to use ur fingers. I don't like that. I still am olde school with using my fingers to draw.

Yeah Release aids are wack!

If you have a real short bow you eed one unless you like pinched fingers - the real accuracy freaks always say "You wont get a good grouping without one" - I shoot for fun and I shoot under realistic circumstances - instinctive and fast!

:thumb

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

Originally posted by Maro
Yeah Release aids are wack!

If you have a real short bow you eed one unless you like pinched fingers - the real accuracy freaks always say "You wont get a good grouping without one" - I shoot for fun and I shoot under realistic circumstances - instinctive and fast!

:thumb

however I have not gone firing in a while. ='( So now I probably suck real bad. During the move down here, 5 yrs ago, I had all my shafts together and they all got bent. Now I need to get new ones. Too bad I never had enough money and all the ones I can find i don't like.

[Maro]

Originally posted by XxFaeryOnFirexX
however I have not gone firing in a while. ='( So now I probably suck real bad. During the move down here, 5 yrs ago, I had all my shafts together and they all got bent. Now I need to get new ones. Too bad I never had enough money and all the ones I can find i don't like.

Where is down here?

They are expensive new that is for sure!

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

Carolina del Norte en los Estados Unidos. (North Carolina, USA)

[Maro]

Originally posted by XxFaeryOnFirexX
Carolina del Norte en los Estados Unidos. (North Carolina, USA)

Groovy - I have an Aunt in West Virgininia - never been to see her over there. I've been to Boston, new York, Vegas and LA

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

I've been to mose of the 48 regular states, but if I go to alaska i wanna take someone with me and If I go to hawaii I'm going alone.

[Maro]

Originally posted by XxFaeryOnFirexX
I've been to mose of the 48 regular states, but if I go to alaska i wanna take someone with me and If I go to hawaii I'm going alone.

I'm going to Hawaii in two years to meet uop with my best bud - hopefully by then he will either be living in Canada or New Zealand!
:thumb