Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"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

From: "Jim Doyle"


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


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


snip

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.

OK, let's try this on for size. The badguy victimizes me by entering my house
and threatens me. I settle the problem by adjusting his kneecap with a 9 iron.
The badguy will never walk normally nor will he be pain free again. So he sues
for violating his "civil rights," medical bills for care not received in prison
and "pain and suffering." Let's say he wins. In this country juries love
megamillion dollar awards. If it exceeds my insurance I may be forced to sell
my house and/or pay him from my earnings for many years, maybe life.

Why should I be victimized more than once? First he commits at least one felony
against me, second I have to defend myself against a second assault in court
and third he takes away my wealth, possessions and a portion of my life.

I don't advocate lethal force as first resort, but to prevent being judicially
and financially raped by the criminal again I would seriously keep that in
mind.

Keep in mind if the bad guy dies his next of kin can also sue me and possibly
win even if the killing was morally and legally justifiable.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

(B2431) wrote in
:

From: "Jim Doyle"


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


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


snip

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.

OK, let's try this on for size. The badguy victimizes me by entering
my house and threatens me. I settle the problem by adjusting his
kneecap with a 9 iron. The badguy will never walk normally nor will he
be pain free again. So he sues for violating his "civil rights,"
medical bills for care not received in prison and "pain and
suffering." Let's say he wins. In this country juries love megamillion
dollar awards. If it exceeds my insurance I may be forced to sell my
house and/or pay him from my earnings for many years, maybe life.

Why should I be victimized more than once? First he commits at least
one felony against me, second I have to defend myself against a second
assault in court and third he takes away my wealth, possessions and a
portion of my life.

I don't advocate lethal force as first resort, but to prevent being
judicially and financially raped by the criminal again I would
seriously keep that in mind.

Keep in mind if the bad guy dies his next of kin can also sue me and
possibly win even if the killing was morally and legally justifiable.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Also the threat of retaliation or witness intimidation is drastically
reduced if the criminal was killed,intentionally or not.

Besides,you might not be in a position to apply a 9 iron,there might not be
room to swing a club,it could be blocked by something,or he might close
with you too quickly to strike effectively.Then the club may be used to
strangle you.(That's if you are physically capable of wielding such
weapons.Many people are not.)

A handgun,however CAN be used in close quarters,very effectively,by most
anyone.A much more effective equalizer.
Not much will block the bullet,either.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

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


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


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


snip

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.

OK, let's try this on for size. The badguy victimizes me by entering my
house
and threatens me. I settle the problem by adjusting his kneecap with a 9
iron.
The badguy will never walk normally nor will he be pain free again. So he
sues
for violating his "civil rights," medical bills for care not received in
prison
and "pain and suffering." Let's say he wins. In this country juries love
megamillion dollar awards. If it exceeds my insurance I may be forced to
sell
my house and/or pay him from my earnings for many years, maybe life.

Why should I be victimized more than once? First he commits at least one
felony
against me, second I have to defend myself against a second assault in
court
and third he takes away my wealth, possessions and a portion of my life.

Well, you shouldn't be victimised at all, clearly. Once that burglar has
entered your property he should forego any right to sue you for injuries
whether they be from tripping over your dog or directly inflicted by you
wielding a 9-iron. So long as you've used a sufficient amount of force to
repel him without exceeding a justifiable limit, you should not be in fear
of a long, expensive and drawn-out lawsuit.

However, surely by shooting him you're overstepping the reasonable force
criteria in at least some instances - and are therefore making yourself
liable for further upset as he/his relatives squeeze every last penny out of
you.

I don't advocate lethal force as first resort, but to prevent being
judicially
and financially raped by the criminal again I would seriously keep that in
mind.

Keep in mind if the bad guy dies his next of kin can also sue me and
possibly
win even if the killing was morally and legally justifiable.

Were the law to change, restricting the rights of burglars to sue for
non-lethal methods you may use to repel them - would you still consider a
gun? I'm thinking, should this be the reason that a person would resort to
lethal force upon an intruder, then the courts are severely in the wrong to
force the public to this degree of protection. That's surely the fundamental
issue for all but the most trigger-happy homeowners - and I can see the
justification for it, even if I'm not to happy with the possible
consequences.

Jim Doyle



Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431 wrote:

From: "Jim Doyle"


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:
SNIP
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.

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 trouble is, this isn't what other people have been saying. Some have
been saying... more or less, that shooting is the first response to an
intruder.. even before you know anything about the intent (like, the
person knocking on the door asking "Excuse me, can you tell me where I
can find..."




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.


Someone breaks into your house and threatens the family... you can use
reasonable force to defend yourself or others... If the guy is still
alive afterwards... well, they was lucky... But you shouldn't have a
hand gun, and that shotgun had better have been secured when you grabbed
it (and got the ammo out of another locked cabinet). Technically you
shouldn't have the golf club lying handy (it implies premeditation,
however, I don't see a jury convicting and neither will the police), but
pulling one out of the golf bag is ok....



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 don't think any intruder who gets whacked while engaged in 'home
invasion' has a chance of even getting the case to court, let alone
winning. OTOH we tend not to sue at the drop of a hat in NZ...

As long as the householder used reasonable force there is no chance of
them being sued.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired