Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"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

From: Jim Yanik
Date: 4/22/2004 12:48 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

(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


I chose the 9 iron as an example, 9 irons being considered by most people as
non lethal weapons.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"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

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"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?

Yes,I'd use the best possible tool for dealing with intruders,a gun.
There might not be time for a second defense attempt after a non-lethal one
fails.
You seem to think you can count on an intruder to be civil and not do
something averse to you or other occupants of your home.And other non-
lethal methods do not always work,even the police recognize that.

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.

Well,it's not about you being happy with the way things work out in such
situations.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net