Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

From: Kerryn Offord

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

Jim Doyle wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote:
SNIP
Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits
and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that
alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than
the legal mechanics of private gun ownership.

SNIP

This should be qualified.

The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).


Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence? If you do that
you have lost whatever edge you may have over the intruder. If the intruder
intends harm he will follow you outside.

Let's say you have 2 children each in his own room, do you retreat alone, take
the time to grab one or both? In the time it takes to wake one child and
convince him he has to leave his home the badguy is on top of you.

OK, once you get outside then what? If the intruder follows you and is capable
of harming you he will still do so. Fight back once you are outside? With what?
At least you could get to the kitchen and grab a knife inside the home. What
if the resident is unable to defend himself or herself for whatever reason?

Let me ask you a question. Is the life of a criminal more important than yours?
OK, you let the badguy in, what then? You now have NO defense. What if the
badguy decides to rape you, your wife or child? What if he wants to beat a
family member? Don't tell me the family member will get over it, I have seen
life long physical and emotional injuries. Don't think that's bad enough? He's
in a position to kill all of you to eliminate witnesses. Why allow the badguy
to make the dicision to harm you?

You can't shoot to maim or wound because he can sue and probably win. You
really can't wait until his intentions are clear. If you can get him to stop
his attack without shooting do so, if not shoot.

In Florida the magic number is 21 feet. If the badguy has started his attack
and you shoot him dead he is likely to complete his actions up to 21 feet. You
may have a house with 21 foot rooms, most of us don't. The decision to shoot
has to be made in an instant.

In case you are wondering it breaks my heart when accidents happen such as
shooting one's own family member. Personally I want every citizen taught basic
firearms safety even if they are opposed to owning guns. They can use fake
guns. At the very least every child should be taught what to do if they find a
firearm. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: Kerryn Offord
The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).

Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence?

You're not, in the UK. There's a general "duty of retreat" - if someone gets
in your face and shouts insults, you're expected to back off rather than hit
him, and if he pursues then his intentions are obviously hostile - but it's
accepted that once in your own home you've run out of places to retreat to,
and should not be forced to flee.

I gather that doesn't apply in some US states, which is interesting.

--
Paul J. Adam

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

"B2431" wrote:

Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence?

You're not, in the UK. There's a general "duty of retreat" - if someone gets
in your face and shouts insults, you're expected to back off rather than hit
him, and if he pursues then his intentions are obviously hostile - but it's
accepted that once in your own home you've run out of places to retreat to,
and should not be forced to flee.

I gather that doesn't apply in some US states, which is interesting.

Some? Try ALL!!

It's no wonder that so many European countries are
exercising their "duty of retreat". If such a thing
is indeed a legal principle, I imagine it stems from
centuries of nobility/serf contacts, where the poor
sod must never respond in kind to abuse from a nobleman.

B2431 wrote:
From: Kerryn Offord


SNIP

This should be qualified.

The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).



Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence? If you do that
you have lost whatever edge you may have over the intruder. If the intruder
intends harm he will follow you outside.

***
I was talking about the attitude that grabbing a gun is the first
thought, over and above the simple idea of 'getting out of there'.

Where 'getting out of there' means getting out of whatever room the
intruder is in (no need to leave the house, but you can.

Avoiding a confrontation is the safest thing for most people. Your
attitude seems to be.. "there is an intruder, let's go and kill the
SOB". Me, I like to think my first thought, assuming there is nobody
I'll be leaving in danger, is to get out of there and call the police.
Personally, even if I had a gun (well I do, but its safely secured),
will I be able to shoot someone? Rather than confront someone only to
find I can't react swiftly enough, I'll try and avoid confrontation.



Let's say you have 2 children each in his own room, do you retreat alone, take
the time to grab one or both? In the time it takes to wake one child and
convince him he has to leave his home the badguy is on top of you.

***
Having others in the house means you have already reached the limit of
retreat. You can't avoid a confrontation, so make your best move. Just
don't use a hand gun, and that shotgun had better have been secured
before you grabbed it. Think of how the jury would see it.. "I was
defending my children." is a hard one to beat... just try to do it
legally (no illegal weapons kept ready for self defence)... a cricket
bat is a great weapon (a recent case: A man heard his daughter scream.
He grabbed a cricket bat and slammed it into the person standing in the
dark over his daughter's bed.... He was defending his family.. the
police didn't even think of charging him.)


OK, once you get outside then what? If the intruder follows you and is capable
of harming you he will still do so. Fight back once you are outside? With what?
At least you could get to the kitchen and grab a knife inside the home. What
if the resident is unable to defend himself or herself for whatever reason?

***
First off.. you don't have to get outside, just out of the room the
intruder is in.. If he/she follows... well, you tried to avoid
confrontation....

But anyway... there are neighbours... they are usually willing to
answer the door when someone knocks on it (the won't even shoot you as
you walk up the front path)...

If the resident is unable to defend themselves for some reason, why
would they want to confront the intruder?

And, you want to attack someone using a kitchen knife? No thanks... to
much chance of getting hurt (I have a 'stick').

There is no reason you can't grab a weapon as you withdraw from
confrontation... just that it shouldn't be a hand gun (of course the
only handgun/intruder shooting resulted in the death of the intruder (he
was armed with a VHS cassette) and not much happened to the householder
(in spite of all the laws he broke using a handgun.) If someone
follows.. well, you tried to avoid confrontation...


Let me ask you a question. Is the life of a criminal more important than yours?
OK, you let the badguy in, what then? You now have NO defense. What if the
badguy decides to rape you, your wife or child? What if he wants to beat a
family member? Don't tell me the family member will get over it, I have seen
life long physical and emotional injuries. Don't think that's bad enough? He's
in a position to kill all of you to eliminate witnesses. Why allow the badguy
to make the dicision to harm you?

***
You are assuming that if there is an intruder it is a case of his life
or mine... that might be how it is in the USA, its not what its like in
NZ. There are very few intruder crimes in NZ (most burglaries are when
the house is unoccupied. Most intruders, as soon as they realize someone
is up and about will do a runner.

There is no need to let an intruder into your house. You can defend the
door. You can probably even get away with threatening to shoot someone
to keep them out. I'm assuming the person has gained entry to the
house... in that case, you want to think about getting out of there (if
discovery doesn't cause them to do a runner)...



You can't shoot to maim or wound because he can sue and probably win. You
really can't wait until his intentions are clear. If you can get him to stop
his attack without shooting do so, if not shoot.

***
In NZ, if I shoot someone other than when they are running away, (or
even walking away).. i.e., they are potentially a threat, I can shoot
them and they cannot sue me.... as long as a jury considers it
reasonable force.


In Florida the magic number is 21 feet. If the badguy has started his attack
and you shoot him dead he is likely to complete his actions up to 21 feet. You
may have a house with 21 foot rooms, most of us don't. The decision to shoot
has to be made in an instant.

***
Biggest "room" (open plan dining/lounge) is about 30' long, Everything
else will be less than 21'.

This assumes you have a firearm to hand. Do you always carry a loaded
firearm around your house? Me? I don't. If someone is in the house I'm
going to make a noise and if that doesn't scare them away, I'll find
something I can swing (stick, rolled up magazine or newspaper)...
meanwhile I'll be calling the Police. Personally I just wouldn't think
of using a gun.


In case you are wondering it breaks my heart when accidents happen such as
shooting one's own family member. Personally I want every citizen taught basic
firearms safety even if they are opposed to owning guns. They can use fake
guns. At the very least every child should be taught what to do if they find a
firearm. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that.


***
The thing is, care to guess how many incidents there are in NZ where a
house holder accidentally shoots a member of their household? I think
the same number applies to UK, and probably even Australia.

As I said, its a matter of attitude. In NZ and probably UK and Oz.
Firearms are not the first response to an intruder.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: Kerryn Offord

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

Jim Doyle wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote:
SNIP
Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits
and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that
alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than
the legal mechanics of private gun ownership.

SNIP

This should be qualified.

The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).


Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence? If you do
that
you have lost whatever edge you may have over the intruder. If the
intruder
intends harm he will follow you outside.

Let's say you have 2 children each in his own room, do you retreat alone,
take
the time to grab one or both? In the time it takes to wake one child and
convince him he has to leave his home the badguy is on top of you.

OK, once you get outside then what? If the intruder follows you and is
capable
of harming you he will still do so. Fight back once you are outside? With
what?
At least you could get to the kitchen and grab a knife inside the home.
What
if the resident is unable to defend himself or herself for whatever
reason?

Let me ask you a question. Is the life of a criminal more important than
yours?
OK, you let the badguy in, what then? You now have NO defense. What if the
badguy decides to rape you, your wife or child? What if he wants to beat a
family member? Don't tell me the family member will get over it, I have
seen
life long physical and emotional injuries. Don't think that's bad enough?
He's
in a position to kill all of you to eliminate witnesses. Why allow the
badguy
to make the dicision to harm you?


No, the life of a criminal of the type you describe is worthless. Genuinely.
Yet there is a distinction between him and some random hard-up opportunist
burglar with a family to feed. Granted, he's in the wrong - but not
deserving of a death sentence. The sole problem I have is with the very
blurred distinction between the two, and the trigger happy nature with which
a large number of Americans (taking Usenet posters as my only regular
contact with Americans) seem happy to deal with in these situations.

Again, I think this boils down largely to a difference between our two
countries. Although the UK has crime, just as any other country, I have
never heard in all my years of such an incident as you describe above.
Although sadly, there's always a possibility that this may happen, we do not
live in fear of such horrors. If you do in America, then I completely
understand your motives for owning a weapon for home defence. But do you
really live in fear of this?

Can I ask of the circumstances you found yourself in when you drew your
weapon?


You can't shoot to maim or wound because he can sue and probably win. You
really can't wait until his intentions are clear. If you can get him to
stop
his attack without shooting do so, if not shoot.

In Florida the magic number is 21 feet. If the badguy has started his
attack
and you shoot him dead he is likely to complete his actions up to 21 feet.
You
may have a house with 21 foot rooms, most of us don't. The decision to
shoot
has to be made in an instant.

In case you are wondering it breaks my heart when accidents happen such as
shooting one's own family member. Personally I want every citizen taught
basic
firearms safety even if they are opposed to owning guns. They can use fake
guns. At the very least every child should be taught what to do if they
find a
firearm. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that.

That's interesting and refreshing to see, genuinely. I have taken the
impression from the majority of post over the past couple of days that there
is a general blasé attitude toward firearms and killing in the US. I have
very limited knowledge of the NRA, but from what I can see they seem to
promote firearm awareness and safety - which can't be bad in anyone's book.
Are all firearms owners in the US members of the NRA?

Jim Doyle



Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:





No, the life of a criminal of the type you describe is worthless.
Genuinely. Yet there is a distinction between him and some random
hard-up opportunist burglar with a family to feed. Granted, he's in
the wrong - but not deserving of a death sentence.

But it's the CRIMINAL'S risk.
OTOH,you would rather have the ODC bear the risks.

And once again,getting shot is NOT always a "death sentence".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:





No, the life of a criminal of the type you describe is worthless.
Genuinely. Yet there is a distinction between him and some random
hard-up opportunist burglar with a family to feed. Granted, he's in
the wrong - but not deserving of a death sentence.

But it's the CRIMINAL'S risk.
OTOH,you would rather have the ODC bear the risks.

'ODC' - surely that would indicate a responsibility to preserve life?

And once again,getting shot is NOT always a "death sentence".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.

The act of shooting at a person may result in their death. Luck of the draw
if it's not fatal, but the intention is to kill, is it not? Otherwise you'd
pursue a non-lethal method of self-protection.

So yes, you are engaging a person who could die as a result of your actions,
and according to you they deserve to die for the situation in which you both
find yourselves - that's as good as sentencing them to death. In fact - it
is.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

From: "Jim Doyle"


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
. ..
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


No, the life of a criminal of the type you describe is worthless.
Genuinely. Yet there is a distinction between him and some random
hard-up opportunist burglar with a family to feed. Granted, he's in
the wrong - but not deserving of a death sentence.

But it's the CRIMINAL'S risk.
OTOH,you would rather have the ODC bear the risks.

'ODC' - surely that would indicate a responsibility to preserve life?

And once again,getting shot is NOT always a "death sentence".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.

The act of shooting at a person may result in their death. Luck of the draw
if it's not fatal, but the intention is to kill, is it not? Otherwise you'd
pursue a non-lethal method of self-protection.

So yes, you are engaging a person who could die as a result of your actions,
and according to you they deserve to die for the situation in which you both
find yourselves - that's as good as sentencing them to death. In fact - it
is.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

It is simply NOT a matter of being judge, jury and executioner. Shooting is not
the first choice. If the badguy doesn't retreat and you feel threatened then
it's the badguy's fault, no one else's.

Let's try a nonlethal analogy. Badguy enters your house and threatens your
children. You break his knee cap with a 9 iron. Badguy will never walk normal
again. Whose fault is it? The badguy set up the scenario, the badguy committed
a felony just entering an occupied dwelling (ever notice the penalties are
higher for occupied dwellings than for unoccupied? There's a reason) The bad
guy made threats. You have to act.

As an aside, I used to teach NRA courses including home protection. The word
kill is never used and part of the course is taught by a lawyer and/or a law
enforcement officer. We teach to "stop" the aggressor. If that means you have
to kill then do it.

In the United States laws suits are too common. The 9 iron scenario above would
most likely result in the home owner being sued with the bad guy winning.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Jim Doyle"


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
. ..
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


No, the life of a criminal of the type you describe is worthless.
Genuinely. Yet there is a distinction between him and some random
hard-up opportunist burglar with a family to feed. Granted, he's in
the wrong - but not deserving of a death sentence.

But it's the CRIMINAL'S risk.
OTOH,you would rather have the ODC bear the risks.

'ODC' - surely that would indicate a responsibility to preserve life?

And once again,getting shot is NOT always a "death sentence".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.

The act of shooting at a person may result in their death. Luck of the
draw
if it's not fatal, but the intention is to kill, is it not? Otherwise
you'd
pursue a non-lethal method of self-protection.

So yes, you are engaging a person who could die as a result of your
actions,
and according to you they deserve to die for the situation in which you
both
find yourselves - that's as good as sentencing them to death. In fact -
it
is.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

It is simply NOT a matter of being judge, jury and executioner. Shooting
is not
the first choice. If the badguy doesn't retreat and you feel threatened
then
it's the badguy's fault, no one else's.

The application of lethal force seems to be little else - this is the issue
I have with the use of firearms by untrained individuals for home
protection.

Let's try a nonlethal analogy. Badguy enters your house and threatens your
children. You break his knee cap with a 9 iron. Badguy will never walk
normal
again. Whose fault is it? The badguy set up the scenario, the badguy
committed
a felony just entering an occupied dwelling (ever notice the penalties are
higher for occupied dwellings than for unoccupied? There's a reason) The
bad
guy made threats. You have to act.

As an aside, I used to teach NRA courses including home protection. The
word
kill is never used and part of the course is taught by a lawyer and/or a
law
enforcement officer. We teach to "stop" the aggressor. If that means you
have
to kill then do it.

In the United States laws suits are too common. The 9 iron scenario above
would
most likely result in the home owner being sued with the bad guy winning.

I understand what you are explaining. I think it a little odd that, it at
least seems, people can be prepared to kill to avoid court action.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Jim Doyle"


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
. ..
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


No, the life of a criminal of the type you describe is
worthless. Genuinely. Yet there is a distinction between him and
some random hard-up opportunist burglar with a family to feed.
Granted, he's in the wrong - but not deserving of a death
sentence.

But it's the CRIMINAL'S risk.
OTOH,you would rather have the ODC bear the risks.

'ODC' - surely that would indicate a responsibility to preserve
life?

And once again,getting shot is NOT always a "death sentence".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.

The act of shooting at a person may result in their death. Luck of
the
draw
if it's not fatal, but the intention is to kill, is it not?
Otherwise
you'd
pursue a non-lethal method of self-protection.

So yes, you are engaging a person who could die as a result of your
actions,
and according to you they deserve to die for the situation in which
you
both
find yourselves - that's as good as sentencing them to death. In
fact -
it
is.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

It is simply NOT a matter of being judge, jury and executioner.
Shooting
is not
the first choice. If the badguy doesn't retreat and you feel
threatened
then
it's the badguy's fault, no one else's.

The application of lethal force seems to be little else - this is the
issue I have with the use of firearms by untrained individuals for
home protection.

Let's try a nonlethal analogy. Badguy enters your house and threatens
your children. You break his knee cap with a 9 iron. Badguy will
never walk
normal
again. Whose fault is it? The badguy set up the scenario, the badguy
committed
a felony just entering an occupied dwelling (ever notice the
penalties are higher for occupied dwellings than for unoccupied?
There's a reason) The
bad
guy made threats. You have to act.

As an aside, I used to teach NRA courses including home protection.
The
word
kill is never used and part of the course is taught by a lawyer
and/or a
law
enforcement officer. We teach to "stop" the aggressor. If that means
you
have
to kill then do it.

In the United States laws suits are too common. The 9 iron scenario
above
would
most likely result in the home owner being sued with the bad guy
winning.

I understand what you are explaining. I think it a little odd that, it
at least seems, people can be prepared to kill to avoid court action.

Yes,that IS a sad state of affairs,that people defending themselves would
be prosecuted for injuries suffered by the criminal while in the act of
committing the crime.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net