Summations Only

Ahem.Have you actually read CS's posts? Message 122 and Message 139How is he NOT advocating that theft of a microwave is a felony worthy of "deadly force"? And a denagerous situation is one where the "castle" owner believes it to be so?Such as when their microwave is being stolen? What - You mean the "strawmen" that are the actual positions of participants in this thread?

I deliberately left out the line, "I beg to differ." I think it clarifies what you said. You made it sound like police shoot first and ask questions later. Way to miss the point. The point is that the homeowner is not as well-equiped or as well-trained as the police officer and therefore he is less likely to make a wise decision.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

I can hardly be expected to list all the ways that someone could not be doing something, but one way that he's not doing that is by not writing the words "I support the death penalty for misdemeanor theft of microwave ovens." Of course, if you disagree, then you're free to show me where CS has written those words. You never answered my question. Who else's beliefs should he rely on? The criminals? Who else's mind is he supposed to think with? Those wouldn't be strawmen. I'm talking about the things you're just making up, like CS having advocated the death penalty for thieves. You know, the strawmen.

I'd be interested to see the stats for violent crimes by state in ralation to gun sales by state.Here in the UK there are more people injured by speeding police vehicles than ther are injured or killed by guns.........

I don't usually like to use teen-speak but in this case I have no choice. DUH?You stated it plainly yourself. If the homeowner has a gun, the criminal wants a bigger gun. If the homeowner hears that criminals are carrying bigger guns, he's more likely to use his. If criminals get shot at more, they're more likely to come in shooting.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

They're trained to look for reasons to apply force. They're not trained to look for excuses not to apply it when it seems warranted.I'm not sure how this is hard to comprehend. If a police officer responds to a home invasion, and finds a very large person unlawfully there who won't respond to commands or vacate the premises, the policeman is looking for the appropriate force, he's not looking for excuses not to apply force.I never said "shoot first an ask questions later." Police are trained for find hidden dangers, not hidden safety, because missing a hidden threat is a lot more dangerous for officers than over-reacting to what appears to be a threat but isn't. Isn't that obvious? Don't you think that's why four cops walked for gunning down Amadou Diallo? They did exactly what they were trained to do in the face of ample (if improbably deceptive) evidence that they were being fired on. Unfortunate for Amadou Diallo, but from the perspective of the police it was obvious they'd just been fired on - Amadou had disobeyed direct orders from police, was holding something in his hand, a shot had just been fired, one of the officers had just gone down.They're trained to see hidden threats, not deceptive safety. Amadou was killed because of police training, not in spite of it. The average citizen would probably not have opened fire because the average citizen isn't trained to expect routine situations to turn into gunfights. Police very much are.

Tadaaaaaa...... Is that a "Yes"?So if I subjectively believe that someone discovered on my property stealing my microwave is "dangerous" do I have the right to shoot them dead as far as you are concerned?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

None of this makes any sense at all. If more criminals get shot during home invasions they're going to stop invading homes.When you increase the costs of an activity people do it less. Simple economics.Your logic is akin to saying that the only things armies attack is castles, because the walls are so high and hard to get through. But that's exactly wrong - armies attack where the castles aren't. Criminals go after the poorly-defended, not the well-defended. That's why they break into houses and not prisons.

That's a failure of training. They reacted badly, out of panic, because of a perceived threat that didn't come from the victim. It would be hard to find a worse example of what police training is supposed to do.Of course, untrained homeowners are much more likely to perform just as badly or worse.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Tada what? I asked you to show me where CS advocated the death penalty for misdemeanor theft of microwaves, which was your assertion. He doesn't even say "microwave" or "death penalty" in the material you quoted.I mean you're not even quote-mining - you're showing me someone saying "the sky is blue" and saying they're arguing it's green. No, it's a question.Can you explain why you apparently can't interpret statements in plain English? If you believe you're in immediate danger because of someone's criminal activities in your home I can't possibly tell you what to do. You're the only one who can decide that, and you have to rely on your own judgement. Neither mine nor anyone else's judgement will be available to you in time.

In NeverLand, maybe. In the real world, they're going to get bigger guns. Haven't you ever heard of gang warfare? Do you really think gangstas react to a being shot at by surrendering? Weapons are part of the cost of doing business, like jail time. By your logic, there wouldn't be any crime at all because criminals don't want to go to jail. Armies attack castles because that's where the enemy is. Ever hear of sieges?

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

That's not the finding of the jury, which found that they did exactly what police officers are trained to do, which is fire on those who fire on them. They had overwhelming evidence that Diallo was firing on them - the sound of a gunshot, an object in his hand, one of the other officers reacting as though struck, one of the officers shouting "gun", which officers do when then conclude the suspect has a gun.It's just that, in an improbable series of unfortunate accidents, all that evidence was wrong. It cost Amadou Diallo his life, but his death was an accident. But they perceived it coming from the victim. They had overwhelming evidence that Amadou Diallo was a dangerous criminal who had opened fire on them and maybe hit one of the officers.Opening fire was exactly what they were trained to do. We could start training officers to second-guess dangerous situations, but that's liable to result in a significant cost of lives. Could you identify by name the officers you would like to be killed in service of this notion, please? No, an untrained homeowner is less likely to discharge his weapon at a person and even less likely to actually hit someone. An untrained homeowner is less likely to shoot someone because police are trained with the specific purpose of making them more likely to shoot someone. That is the purpose of police training.

No, in the real world they're going to invade less homes.When things get more dangerous, people do them less. When things become safer people do them more. That's obvious. Your notion that criminals just have to break into them houses is nonsensical. Sure, but of what possible relevance is that?Jesus you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? You've just heard it's like Mad Max down here, gunfights in the street.Maybe watch a few less westerns, Ringo, and do a little more research. Yes! How do you think "gangstas" are arrested? They're asked nicely? And so your conclusion is that criminals do want to go to jail? Now you're just being stupid. Armies attack castles when they attack castles because that's where something they want is. Sure, I've heard of sieges. Sieges frequently came to an end when the attacking army spent so much time and food and manpower attacking the castle that it exceeded the value of whatever it was they wanted inside, and they went off to pursue another objective. Have you heard of razings?

And yet, police training did change because of the incident. Failure of training. Not quite. They're trained to open fire under appropriate circumstances. They may be absolved of guilt in a particular accident but that doesn't make the accident a success. I will if you'll list the civilians that you want accidentally killed in the name of safety.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

It isn't a strawman if that is what he is advocating. He is advocating the right to shoot and killing someone for breaking into a house and stealing. How is that not advocating the death penalty for thieves?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts