Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

From: "Jim Doyle"


"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.

That's a nice theory, but in this country it's not a fact.

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, if required. Many years ago a 10 year old boy broke into my house and
stole some of my edged weapons. Had I been home at the time I would NOT have
drawn a weapon on him. I would have had one handy in case he had an older
accomplice. I used to have a neighbour with alzheimers. He sometimes would
enter my house in the afternoon. I never reached for a weapon.

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

Having said all this all citizens have to use common sense all the time. If you
leave money in plain sight in an unlocked car the bad guys have no right to
take it, but you did a stupid thing. Same thing with your home. You shouldn't
HAVE to lock your house, but you are a fool if you don't.

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

Kerryn Offord wrote in
:



B2431 wrote:

From: "Jim Doyle"


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
1...

"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..."



We WERE discussing intruders already IN the home.
Someone brought out that bit about shooting someone knocking on their
door,probably in reference to the Hattori shooting,a rare incident.
That's something I would not have done.No threat as they are on the
outside,and not trying to get in.Once they begin breaking in,however,all
bets are off.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

From: Kerryn Offord



B2431 wrote:

From: "Jim Doyle"


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
1...

"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..."


Agreed.


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).

I don't know if you have any experience with guns, but I know how long it takes
to unlock my ammo locker and my gun safe. I also know how long it takes to load
any of my guns. By the time I have done it the bad guy is going to have had
plenty of time to do what he wants. Do you seriously expect the bad guy to
stand there and wait until you have armed yourself?

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....

It shouldn't matter at all where a weapon is stored. Premeditation implies I
intended to harm or kill that specific bad guy. It also implies I went out of
my way to do it. Self defense by whatever means is NOT premeditated murder.

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.

You may not be law suit crazy in NZ, but it's unbeliebably rampant here in the
U.S.
Have you heard about the grandmother who won a law suit for burning herself
with coffee she had just bought from MacDonald's? She was the passenger in
that car which was stopped at the time of the incident. There are criminals
who sue and win for injuries incurred during the commision of their crimes.
Doctors get sued because a baby is not born perfect.

Feel free to research this. You may get quite a few laughs.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431 wrote:

From: Kerryn Offord

B2431 wrote:
SNIP
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).


I don't know if you have any experience with guns, but I know how long it takes
to unlock my ammo locker and my gun safe. I also know how long it takes to load
any of my guns. By the time I have done it the bad guy is going to have had
plenty of time to do what he wants. Do you seriously expect the bad guy to
stand there and wait until you have armed yourself?

I was talking about the NZ situation re getting the weapon from a
secured gun safe (although I think you can have weapons on the wall as
long as they have a trigger lock...)


As for getting a gun from a cabinet..., the one case I can think of
where a householder used a legally owned handgun to kill an intruder,
did just that.. And the rules for securing handguns in NZ are pretty strict.

As for the bag guy... As soon as he (most of them are he) to have done a
runner as soon as they think they have woken someone... They really
don't like any noise and are liable to run at the first sound....



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....


It shouldn't matter at all where a weapon is stored. Premeditation implies I
intended to harm or kill that specific bad guy. It also implies I went out of
my way to do it. Self defense by whatever means is NOT premeditated murder.

Nope the premeditation implies you intended to use maybe excessive
force, if you grab a golf club from a bag (and you play golf)... then
its an spur of the moment action.

Premeditated doesn't need a specific victim/ target, otherwise those
guys convicted in that sniper case couldn't be convicted of murder (the
targets were random)
SNIP

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.


You may not be law suit crazy in NZ, but it's unbeliebably rampant here in the
U.S.
Have you heard about the grandmother who won a law suit for burning herself
with coffee she had just bought from MacDonald's? She was the passenger in
that car which was stopped at the time of the incident. There are criminals
who sue and win for injuries incurred during the commision of their crimes.
Doctors get sued because a baby is not born perfect.

Feel free to research this. You may get quite a few laughs.

Re the McDs coffee... it does sound extreme, until you find that McDs
coffee was being served much hotter than anybody else was, and that they
had been warned about serving it so hot (especially at a drive in window).

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"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?

You seem to have this thing that life is SO precious that one should suffer
to have violent criminals loose in one's society.

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?

No,it's to stop the assault.If one were intent on killing,one would walk up
to the wounded person and give them a head shot at close range.THAT would
be acting as judge,jury,and executioner,and would be criminal.

But if it is fatal,well,no great loss.One less criminal to worry about.

Otherwise you'd pursue a non-lethal method of self-protection.

Which has a much higher chance of NOT WORKING,thus increasing the risk to
the ordinary decent citizen.Even the police have not managed to reliably
achieve this "non-lethal" stuff yet. You'd have people relying on less-than
reliable methods of self-defense,just to make YOU feel good.
Sorry,no thanks.


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.

Hey,it's THEY who would be sticking their neck into the guillotine,and thus
their choice to risk themselves.

OTOH,you would rather the ODCs bear the risks of being harmed,in the search
for some imaginary sense of security.You would rather that everyone suffer
the costs of crime,just because you believe criminal's lives are somehow
precious.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:
SNIP

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.


Use of a firearm is considered 'deadly force' (in NZ). By legal
definition, use of a firearm means intent to kill (unless no attempt is
made to fire at the person (shooting into the air etc.)

So, although not every shooting will result in death, legally you are
attempting to kill someone when you shoot at them (hence, 'death
sentence' and 'judge, jury, and executioner')