Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
Where I live, we have the highest automobile theft rate in the US.

Aren't the criminals deterred by the armed citizens?

An armed citizen asleep in his bed does not deter someone from
stealing his car from across the street. This much is obvious. It
*does*, on the other hand, deter a criminal from trying to carjack
him, which carries with it a much higher risk of a non-criminal
getting hurt or killed.

It's entirely analagous to dissuading home-invasion robberies (hot
robberies) in favor of breaking in while the occupants are at work,
which I'd think that most people are in favor of.

-jake

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

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

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

Beyond TV, my understanding of US gun law stems entirely from the NG.

No wonder you're all worked up. Go to Google and type in 'Centers For Disease
Control' and 'FBI' and go look at the data, instead of fencing with anonymous
strangers on Usenet and watching reruns of Miami Vice.

I think my point was valid, and certainly not half-cocked. That statement
was in reply to the suggestion that, as is the right of any US citizen, a
criminal can legally carry a weapon.

Oh for Christ's sake.... (rolls eyes). That's not true. Felons cannot legally
own firearms (not that that prevents them. They're *felons*. Duh). At least not
in the great state of California, and I seriously doubt they can *anywhere.* You
are speaking from prejudice and your prejudice is based on ignorance, and if it
annoys you for me to point it out and call it by its proper name, I'm not
completely sorry. Because you've said a couple of things below that I find
seriously offensive.

It's the flagrant willingness to kill,

No, it's a total willingness to defend onesself in one's home. You used to have
the same ethos in your own society. You have successfully argued yourself out of
it, and only time will tell whether this was any sort of an improvement.

coupled with such a low regard for
the gravity of murder, that really gets me.

Prejudice again, and this one angers me. If I defend myself with lethal force,
it's only because I wish to avoid dying in my own living room. I have no desire
to harm any human being. No normal man does. I am not dehumanizing the violent
intrusive asshole who might hypothetically barge his way into my house at night.
I simply want to not be at his mercy. He's certainly not there to do me any
favors. The reason he might be armed is not because of any Yankee gun kul-chore,
but because criminals, by de facto goddam definition, DO NOT OBSERVE THE LAW.
This is true in London as well as Redding (CA, population 78,000). Why would any
reasonable individual place himself at the mercy of lawless, violent men?

What's the rate of hot burglaries in Britain? What's happened to your rates of
violent crime, gun crime, since you chopped every legally-owned handgun on your
island into scrap? They've gone up severalfold. Why? Because the lawless took
heart at the way their prospective victims were disarming themselves? No... no,
that's the standard macho NRA line, and I don't buy it. I think it's because
you've hit a rough demographic and economic patch, and banning legally owned
weapons -- predictably -- didn't make any dent in it. You treated a symptom. The
disease rages merrily onwards.

despit
our guns and drugs and widespread poverty and petty sleazy white-trash
meannesses that Shasta County is *still* safer than Merrie Olde England.

Controversial.

What's controversial about the facts? Unless you find them so counterintuitive
to your prejudices that you discard them out of hand.

You can say what you please in reply, but I see I'm not doing any good by
bouncing the marbles of statistical fact off the sidewalk of your prejudice. So
I'll stop.

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).

"Jay Stranahan" wrote in message
...
Beyond TV, my understanding of US gun law stems entirely from the NG.

No wonder you're all worked up. Go to Google and type in 'Centers For
Disease
Control' and 'FBI' and go look at the data, instead of fencing with
anonymous
strangers on Usenet and watching reruns of Miami Vice.

I have done exactly that and now have a much better appreciation of the
situation - yet this has not changed my views one bit... wonder why?


I think my point was valid, and certainly not half-cocked. That
statement
was in reply to the suggestion that, as is the right of any US citizen,
a
criminal can legally carry a weapon.

Oh for Christ's sake.... (rolls eyes). That's not true. Felons cannot
legally
own firearms (not that that prevents them. They're *felons*. Duh). At
least not
in the great state of California, and I seriously doubt they can
*anywhere.*

You can be as patronising as you wish. In response to your reply above - we
are not born with 'criminal'/'law abiding citizen' emblazoned on our
foreheads, no. So beyond having a criminal record, what is there to stop the
'soon-to-be' crims? With all the will in the world, this background security
checking system cannot be water tight.

You
are speaking from prejudice and your prejudice is based on ignorance, and
if it
annoys you for me to point it out and call it by its proper name, I'm not
completely sorry. Because you've said a couple of things below that I find
seriously offensive.

No offence intended. As far as my prejudices extend, no - I'm not prepared
to accept that I've watched too many US cop dramas and have this picture
painted in my head that is so far from the truth. Prejudiced I may be, but
these are borne of a number of posts made within the last 48 hours and the
genuine (I believe them to be) feelings that the authors have expressed.


It's the flagrant willingness to kill,

No, it's a total willingness to defend onesself in one's home. You used to
have
the same ethos in your own society. You have successfully argued yourself
out of
it, and only time will tell whether this was any sort of an improvement.

coupled with such a low regard for
the gravity of murder, that really gets me.

Were these the two statements to which you took offence? I was not intending
to label you personally as the type of chap who would readily murder a man
for the possession of material goods - so calm down dear. A number of posts
to this ng alone, within the last 48 hours, have demonstrated - on both
counts - that this is the case. -

'I am prepared to murder someone if the situation is right (or wrong) - and
I'm not too fussed of the outcome.'

That's paraphrasing, granted, but I'd argue is the crux of many a statement
made within this thread. I could list them should you like.


Prejudice again, and this one angers me.

Rubbish.

If I defend myself with lethal force,
it's only because I wish to avoid dying in my own living room. I have no
desire
to harm any human being. No normal man does. I am not dehumanizing the
violent
intrusive asshole who might hypothetically barge his way into my house at
night.
I simply want to not be at his mercy. He's certainly not there to do me
any
favors. The reason he might be armed is not because of any Yankee gun
kul-chore,
but because criminals, by de facto goddam definition, DO NOT OBSERVE THE
LAW.
This is true in London as well as Redding (CA, population 78,000). Why
would any
reasonable individual place himself at the mercy of lawless, violent men?

Understand this - I can see why you and the other posters here own a weapon.
Really, I do. We have, however, established that a criminal within the UK
presents a very different - but real nonetheless - danger. ****ty people do
exist within the UK - that I'll admit to. The issues with which I am having
trouble trying to comprehend is this:

Firstly (and most importantly): Some - not all, but some - of you are
prepared to kill a man over some petty crimes - things that can be such an
insignificant event in the grand scheme of life. Furthermore - they believe
it's doing the public a great service, and do not wish to be accountable for
murder, in fact they can't even see a reason for being accountable.

Secondly: Of those of you not falling into the above category, you are
prepared to sit back and just accept that your neighbour (above) has a gun
and is willing to use it with little regard for the consequences. You are
defending that person's right to own a weapon and ultimately empowering him
with deadly force. Can you not see the conundrum?

What's the rate of hot burglaries in Britain?

Higher than the US. What about the US domestic/non-domestic burglaries
compared to the UK? 3-year averaged violent crime rates? Property crime (as
it is known in the US)? It's not such a clear distinction between the two
countries as you would seemingly like.

What's happened to your rates of
violent crime, gun crime, since you chopped every legally-owned handgun on
your
island into scrap? They've gone up severalfold.

Granted, the rates have increased whereas the US has remained at a fairly
steady state, if not decline. A large factor in the increase of violent/gun
related crime within the UK has been due to the steady leak of arms from the
Baltic states into the UK in the late 90's.

The annual death rate remains at a little above a score - an increase as you
suggest, but twenty is nothing compared to ten thousand within the US. I'll
take 23 in 60,000,000 over 10,000 in 250,000,000 any day.

Why? Because the lawless took
heart at the way their prospective victims were disarming themselves?
No... no,
that's the standard macho NRA line, and I don't buy it. I think it's
because
you've hit a rough demographic and economic patch, and banning legally
owned
weapons -- predictably -- didn't make any dent in it. You treated a
symptom. The
disease rages merrily onwards.

The banning of handguns within the UK was not brought about by how you
suggest - to get the UK out of a rough demographic and economic patch. It
was carried though on a wave of public pressure after the murder of a
primary school class and their teacher in Dunblane. The UK public questioned
the need for its citizens to have ready access to firearms - and the country
decided, er... nope.

Are you familiar with the events at Dunblane?


despit
our guns and drugs and widespread poverty and petty sleazy white-trash
meannesses that Shasta County is *still* safer than Merrie Olde
England.

Controversial.

What's controversial about the facts? Unless you find them so
counterintuitive
to your prejudices that you discard them out of hand.

Throw away comment that you were not intended to kick-off over. Besides, the
facts aren't stacked in your favour as much as you would like to suggest.

You can say what you please in reply, but I see I'm not doing any good by
bouncing the marbles of statistical fact off the sidewalk of your
prejudice. So
I'll stop.

Pettiness prevails. Again with this prejudice - pots and kettles. I'm ready
to accept - and challenge - my prejudices.

BTW, not having been a Usenet poster since the dawn of time - I still think
it inappropriate to edit a post to which you are replying - or at least not
include the full text as it was intended - it would seem to indicate an
unwillingness to address the points of the original post.

Jim Doyle

Jim Yanik wrote:

SNIP
Now,that UK man who shot the burglars in the back was justified,as the
police were of NO use,and he had suffered repeated burglaries.The police
failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.
Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their crimes.
SNIP

This is simply attempted murder. The target was no threat and was
departing, but the householder shot him anyway (that makes it vindictive).

If the householder had just shot the guy in the chest when he first
confronted him....

It seems to come down to a difference in attitudes.

Americans hold everybody else's life cheap (cheaper than the cheapest
bit of property).

Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
force in defence of self or others (defence of property is different).

Jay Stranahan wrote:

SNIP
I think my point was valid, and certainly not half-cocked. That statement
was in reply to the suggestion that, as is the right of any US citizen, a
criminal can legally carry a weapon.


Oh for Christ's sake.... (rolls eyes). That's not true. Felons cannot legally
own firearms (not that that prevents them. They're *felons*. Duh). At least not
in the great state of California, and I seriously doubt they can *anywhere.* You
are speaking from prejudice and your prejudice is based on ignorance, and if it
annoys you for me to point it out and call it by its proper name, I'm not
completely sorry. Because you've said a couple of things below that I find
seriously offensive.


This only applies to convicted felons.. nothing to stop someone who has
never been convicted from legally owning and carrying a firearm in the
course of his 'employment'... there might be problems if he is caught in
the act while armed... but maybe he shoots his way free and continue as
a non felon.


It's the flagrant willingness to kill,


No, it's a total willingness to defend onesself in one's home. You used to have
the same ethos in your own society. You have successfully argued yourself out of
it, and only time will tell whether this was any sort of an improvement.

No, its a willingness to kill. I can defend myself in my house without
having a gun. Using a gun for self defence implies you are prepared to
use it. If you are prepared to use a firearm, then you are prepared to
kill... you can't guarantee that a shot will not kill...

SNIP

(B2431) wrote in
:

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.

Strange how some folks think that one must only respond to a criminal with
force no greater than what the criminal displays("reasonable force").
Hobbling the ODC while the criminal is under no such restraint.
Or that they can discern the INTENT of a criminal,and that it will not
change for the worse in the course of a confrontation.
As if an elderly,weak,or handicapped person could fight off a
healthy,young,strong man without great risk to themselves.Some burglars
might (and have)decide the victim is weak enough to ignore or even
assault.A BAD time to have to go find a better weapon.

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.

Well,one should always identify their target before shooting.

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





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net