truth is stranger than [science] fiction...

[boxcar]

Here is what we have to look forward to in this 21st century:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,322588,00.html

[boxcar]

Only a Liberal could have come up with the line the prosecutor did in this case.

Hey, Pistol Packin' Tom, better be careful who you shoot with that thar firearm of yours. Now if someone breaks into your car or into your home or whatever, make darn sure you read him his Miranda Rights at the very least. Although, even then some bleeding heart will say that wasn't enough.

When you can't protect your own property or even your own well being in this country, then you know things are really bad.

Boxcar

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/4439p-4076c.html

[canuck]

Boxcar--would you have shot this guy in cold blood??
Vigilantes scare the crap out of me--and I am a law abiding citizen of my country who abhors violence
The prosecutor probably meant that this guy should have called the cops-maybe fired a warning shot to scare him off--yelled and screamed and called him a bastard--anything but open fire!!!

[boxcar]

How long have have you had your reading disability, Canuck?

Per the story:

>>
Vicenty, a school bus driver, said Bethea threatened him and was coming at him when he
opened fire, emptying a .22-caliber rifle.
>>

Boxcar

[canuck]

How long have you had your comprehension disability,Boxcar?

If the courts had BELIEVED that the dead man ran at him,do you REALLY think they would have thrown the book at him?

Dead men tell no tales

[boxcar]

canuck wrote:

>>
How long have you had your comprehension disability,Boxcar?
>>

And how long have you been suffering from Chronic Naiveté?

>>
If the courts had BELIEVED that the dead man ran at him,do you REALLY think they would have thrown the book at him?
>>

Let's coolly examine the scant facts as we have them for a moment - even though I might run the risk of confusing you with them:

1- The convicted man is a model citizen - never having no prior arrests even!

2- 100 people (no small number!) submitted letters and petitions to the court attesting to the shooter's impeccable character.

3- The dead dude was a CAREER criminal - probably had a rap sheet longer than a football field.

4- Due to fact #3, it would not be stretching things to think that that the dead man didn't want to get caught, and instead of just surrendering quietly to the rifleman, whose car he was trying to steal, he made a desperate move toward him - perhaps thinking his little .22 peashooter wasn't loaded. A fatal mistake, as it turned out.

5- The story is being reported in a rag that is nearly as liberal as the NY Times.

6- The incident happened in NYC - a hotbed of liberalism, second only to California.

7- Due to #6, it's quite possible the jury and/or judge had a built-in bias against private gun ownership.

8- Also, due to #6, Liberals believe criminals should be accorded more rights than victims, so it's possible the jury got all sympathetic toward and touchy-feely and mushy over the career criminal.

9- Your "Dead men tell no tales" was probably the kind of sophistry employed by the prosecution to elicit the jury's sympathy. An argument from silence doesn't prove the shooter was lying!

10- Finally, the "book" was hardly thrown at the guy. He was sentenced to 3 to 9 years on 2nd degree manslaughter. He'll probably get out in 3 years, if his conviction isn't overturned on appeal.

For reasons 1 thru 9, I believe his conviction is suspect. Why the jury wouldn't believe the testimony of a man with unquestionably high moral character is in itself cause for reasonable doubt over the validity of the jury's verdict, especially since there is no mention of any eyewitnesses. Something isn't ringing true here. I would like to know WHY the jury didn't believe shooter.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Shoot him. No doubt in my mind.
If he didn't place himself inthat positioin, he would not be dead, but he did, and he is, and I could care less. We need more dead criminals. They need to realize that if they come after us, we will kill them. Maybe next time, so yahoo will think twice before invading someone's home. There is a big difference between being a vigilanty and defending yourself. In this case, this guy was a worthless life form and society is better off with him at room temperature.
There is only one way to shoot - to kill.
Otherwise, they might get your gun and kill you.

Remember what Gordon Lidy said, "Head Shots! Head Shots!)

[superfecta]

It does not surprise me how the jury could screw this one up.I like to think the best of my fellow man,but that jury experience I had was an eye opener.
We had a murder case,druggie shot his druggie buddy after they had sex cause dead druggie had some money that live druggie wanted.Live druggie was on tape telling how and why he killed his buddy.In the jury room,one juror wanted to free druggie cause he looked like a nice boy.One juror wanted to convict druggie cause he was black,and we know how bad them blacks are.I ended up ,since I was foreman,asking another juror to ask the dissenting juror to look at the facts and she got the juror to change her vote.I probably influenced them in the sentencing phase too,we all agreed on a life sentence instead of the death penalty.I figured it didn't matter....druggie had AIDS.
After that my outlook at the legal system has changed to where nothing surprises me .Angers me sometimes,but never shocks me.

[canuck]

Boxcar-

If this "model citizen" was sooooooooooo innocent-why did he throw himself to the mercy of the courts?

Why did he say he was very sorry for what he did?

If this had of been me--I would be proclaiming VERY LOUDLY to the bitter end that I was defending myself--I wonder why this was not the case--

Could it be that after emptying out his rifle--the trajectories and entrance wounds suggested that the perp was indeed NOT attacking him?

I would say the naivite lies in you....

[boxcar]

canuck

>>
If this "model citizen" was sooooooooooo innocent-why did he throw himself to the mercy of the courts?

Why did he say he was very sorry for what he did?
>>

Quite possibly he had never killed anyone before, and the whole incident turned out to be a traumatic experience for him -- perhaps even feeling false guilt.

>>
If this had of been me--I would be proclaiming VERY LOUDLY to the bitter end that I was defending myself--I wonder why this was not the case--
>>

As I would, but then not all people are cut from the same bolt of cloth.

>>
Could it be that after emptying out his rifle--the trajectories and entrance wounds suggested that the perp was indeed NOT attacking him?
>>

Your speculative point is well taken. Now allow me to make one. Let's say the car thief reacted in a more normal manner after being confronted by the rifle totin' owner of the vehicle, and decided to make a run for it to try to escape. Was he shot in the back? Well, if he had been, it seems to me that would have been a huge salient point to omit from the story.

Or maybe his back was against the vehicle he was trying to steal when he turned to face the rifleman, so all he could do was make some kind of lateral move to try to escape. So now the question becomes with this escape attempt theory: Did the shooter do the right thing by preventing this criminal's escape? In my book: He absolutely did -- unquestionably! Don't forget: The shooter caught the perp in the act of stealing. And I don't know about Canada, but in this country, a private citizen is _supposed_ (and this is the operative word) to have the right, under the U.S. Constitution, to bear arms and be able to protect life and property.

If I had been in the car owner's shoes and had a gun in my hand, I would have issued a warning to the thief to hit the ground and spread 'em. If he failed to obey and tried to make some move to escape, I, too, would have shot him. I certainly would not have followed your absurd suggestion by walking away and finding a phone to report a car thief, and then wait only God knows for how long for the cops to show up. I suppose you think the car thief is going to stick around waiting for the cops, right?

In case you're wondering...yes, I am a gun owner. In fact, I own more than one gun. And many years ago I was involved in an incident whereby I was mugged by two knife wielding thugs who wanted my money and threatened to take my life, if I didn't comply. To make a long story short, I managed to momentarily distract them by dropping my wallet on the ground when I pulled it out of my back pocket, and when their eyes shifted for that brief moment to the ground, with my other hand I pulled out my .38 (for which I did not have a concealed permit, so sue me), and when they saw that bright, shiny, nickel-plated object in my hand, I never saw two guys run so fast. My only regret to this day is that I didn't shoot them so that they wouldn't live to attack other innocent people. I was young and I was afraid because I didn't have a concealed weapons permit.

>>
I would say the naivite lies in you....
>>

So yeah, my "naivite" certainly saved me quite a few bucks, and possibly even my life.

Boxcar

[canuck]

Boxcar--

Speculation as to the circumstances of the event mean squat now--he was convicted by a jury of his peers and is going to jail.

In case you think I am a bleeding heart--I think violent criminals should be dealt with severely--but once you inject vigilantism into the mix--all bets are off--I guess it is the price to pay for living in an ordered society.

You guys sure love the right to bear arms section of the constitution--which was drafted over 200 years ago and was necessary because of the lack of order.

Stop and think for a minute--in England the cops dont even carry guns--if you shoot a cop in England you are persona non grata even to other criminals-shoot a citizen and you are going away for a long time.

In Canada if you get caught with an unregistered gun you are screwed big time-ZERO tolerance.

I will concede due to the violent culture in many inner cities in the US a gun may in fact be a necessity.

I was born in the US and love the country--but you guys have a seemingly insurmountable task to curb the gunplay...

[boxcar]

canuck wrote:

>>
In case you think I am a bleeding heart--I think violent criminals should be dealt with severely--but once you inject vigilantism into the mix--all bets are off--I guess it is the price to pay for living in an ordered society.
>>

Wow! So much sophistry here in one paragraph. For starters, the definition of a "vigilante" is a person who assumes the authority of the law as by avenging a crime.

I hardly consider a gun-toter catching someone in the process of a crime (as was the case with the rifleman in NY) as a vigilante when he takes action to prevent a crime that is in process -- even if that action means killing the perpetrator(s)!

According to your definition of "vigilante" (as well as the liberal rag the Daily News'), a husband who comes home late one night and walks in on a guy who is trying to rape his wife, and the hubby, to protect his wife, picks up a baseball bat and splits the perp's skull wide open as though it were a dried out coconut, the husband should be sent up for a long prison term because he took the law into his own hands!? Because he was a vigilante? Because he was being vengeful!? Are you really serious!? If you were the husband, I suppose you would just calmly and quietly pick up the phone and dial 9-1-1!? Just sit around and watch your wife get raped while waiting for the cops to show up? Or would pull a Jimmy Carter by trying to reason or negotiate with the rapist?

And what leads you to think that private gun ownership and an "ordered society" are somehow mutually exclusive conditions? Why, in your mind, are these two conditions antithetical to one another? But I tell you a truth: They are not antithetical, and in fact private gun ownership promotes an ordered society because guns in the hands of law abiding citizens _prevents crinmes_ ! (A little fact the Left goes to great lengths to conceal from the public.) And fewer crimes = a more law abiding, ordered society. Did you know, for instance, there is a town (I think somewhere in the South) where it is legal for virtually every resident to pack a gun. Funny, how we don't read or hear about those gun-totin' residents killing off one another.

>>
You guys sure love the right to bear arms section of the constitution--which was drafted over 200 years ago and was necessary because of the lack of order.
>>

Well, I see you have bought into the Left's anti-gun propaganda hook, line and sinker. Didn't take much to deceive you, did it? Once more I'll restate the purpose behind the the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments). The framers intent behind these first 10 Amendments was to establish strict limits on the federal government's power and authority over _individuals_. As an individual, and as a citizen of this U.S.A., I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms! The term "people" in the Second Amendment means "individuals". Period. Even the current knucklehead in the WH and AG Ashcroft have come to see the light by recently declaring this legal and historical fact. The primary purpose behind the Second Amendment was not to preserve social order (for if that were the sole purpose, that could have been accomplished with an armed police force), but to PROTECT the citizens from a tyrannical government. This makes perfectly good sense from an historical perspective because the colonialists came to this continent to escape religious persecution and tyranny . And if you think, my friend, that tyranny is a thing of the past (although I will concede that this term is not in any Liberal's vocabulary), I remind you that the President, a Senator and at least one Army General (that I know of) are already contemplating amending the Constitution for the establishment of a police state, which would bestow upon the military the authority and power of arrest over civilians. And if you don't think a deep _distrust_ for government and tyranny were very much on the Framers' minds and minds of other gifted thinkers, think again:

"The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most
rascally individuals of mankind." --Thomas Paine

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. --Lord Acton

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. -William Pitt

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. --Thomas Jefferson

And it was Jefferson, too, who said, "Love your country, but hate your government."

>>
Stop and think for a minute--in England the cops don't even carry guns-
>>

Hold it, chief. Don't mean to cut you short, but this ain't England nor is it Canada. This is a Democratic Republic. We are different from all other nations, which makes us unique in this world. We haven't quite reached the point, yet, where we have surrendered so many of our liberties to where we were forced to adopt a socialistic form of government. No offense intended. (But nonetheless, I do detest the very thought of Socialism.)

>>
I was born in the US and love the country--but you guys have a seemingly insurmountable task to curb the gunplay…
>>

You say "you guys"? Who do you mean, specifically -- the law abiding citizens who legally own guns or the criminals who are in illegal possession of them? Please clarify.

Boxcar

[Doug]

The problem with all of this is if you defend yourself you get in trouble.

Nothing on the scale of shooting a person, but I was involved in an incident, IN MY HOME. My girlfriend (at the time) had her son and two gals up for a few days. They were making a lot lot of noise around midnight, I told them (not very nicely) to shut the f---up. One of the girls (believe me, she had to be six foot or taller and weight about 280lbs or so.raised her arm at which point I grabbed her wrist and twisted it behind her head, the son then came running at me so I pushed him to the ground. The cops came and arrested me for battery. Nobody was really hurt in the scuffle and I got a $500 fine, 30day suspened jail sentence and 1 yr unsupervised probation. Unbeliveable to me.

By the way when my attorney saw the girl he told me that if she raised her arm at him he would take off running.

Doug

[boxcar]

Doug

>>
The problem with all of this is if you defend yourself you get in trouble.
>>

Yup, far too often this will be the case if you have the misfortune of going before a bleeding heart judge who will bend over backwards to protect the real culprits.

>>
By the way when my attorney saw the girl he told me that if she raised her arm at him he would take off running.
>>

Good thing you're weren't packin' heat, otherwise you'd proably be writing your posts from some prison cell. ;)

Boxcar

[canuck]

Boxcar-

Quick definition of a democratic republic-

1-A government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president

2-A government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

Quick history lesson for you Boxcar-

We have had a Charter of Rights and Freedom since April 1982

We work on the Parliamentary system of govt--with a Prime Minister the equivalent of your Prez and Members of Parliament equivalent of Congress

We no longer have a head of state that is part of the old British Empire--the Prime Minister is the leader

Socialists? Well...we have the luxury of having a "friendly" neighbour like y'all so we do not have to pour billions in defence--it goes to universal healthcare and various pinko programs that I am not exactly thrilled about---

But I can tell you this--in the last 10 years the social programs have tightened up to the degree that you are better off working than dealing with the bureaucrats

So dont hand me this crap that you guys have cornered the market on freedom--we have had our own charter for 20 years--and many countries in Western Europe have as well!!

[canuck]

Boxcar--

In your heart of hearts--do you really think that the U.S. govt would abuse an amendment that gives them absolute power in certain circumstances??

We have something called the War Measures Act--it was used in the 70s when the British Trade Commissioner was kidnapped by the treacherous FLQ.

Trudeau may have been an asshole but he was right on the money--by invoking the act he smashed the FLQ.

If Hussein or Bin Laden kidnapped a high ranking member of govt--or perpetrated another 9/11--could you guys stomach liberty being suspended for an indeterminate period of time???

[boxcar]

canuck:

>>
In your heart of hearts--do you really think that the U.S. govt would abuse an amendment that gives them absolute power in certain circumstances??
>>

You must hold very high views on human nature. Like the Founding Fathers, however, I emphatically do not! Do you really think, sir, that Tyranny is dead? Should we now delete the word from our vocabularies and even our dictionaries?

Who in his right mind would have guessed that on the one hand while the Administration and Congress are now frantically trying to put together the Department of Homeland [In]Security and are prepared to spend BILLONS in "reorganizing" and trying to make sense out of a humongous bureacratic system (i.e. maze), the State Department simulaneously defends and supports the idea that the U.S. should grant visas to virtually anyone who wants to come into this country -- even people who are terrorists!? Who would have thought that [supposedly] grown, mature, well educated and experienced adults (albeit masquerading as leaders) would not be able to figure that our national security chain is only as strong as its weakest link?

I hope I have answered your question, Canuck, satisfactorily.

Boxcar

[canuck]

Man--you are one paranoid dude Boxcar..

I really feel sorry for you--what must it be like to go through life mistrusting everything and everybody.

I think you need to spend more time at the track. I notice you hardly ever talk horses anymore.

[boxcar]

canuck wrote:

>>
Man--you are one paranoid dude Boxcar..

I really feel sorry for you--what must it be like to go through life mistrusting everything and everybody.
>>

You can call it paranoid or cynical or anything you want. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable of human nature, and therefore a stone cold realist. And just because I refuse to trust a thoroughly corrupt government that lies to the public, cheats the public, steals from the public and defrauds the public at nearly every turn, and on top of all this consists of self-serving power and money-hungry rulers, whose utter hypocrisy, collectively, only rivals that of the Jewish religious leaders of Christ's day doesn't imply I am going through life trusting no one.

But may I suggest, sir, that it appears that your atheistic worldview has blinded you to these facts with exceedingly thick rose colored glasses, so that you can only view human governments, as being good, kind, well intentioned and benevolent forces here on earth for the general welfare of man? If so, your naïveté would only be exceeded by your ignorance of the world around you and all its history that has preceded you. And, again, if so, you are the one to be pitied above all men.

>>
I notice you hardly ever talk horses anymore.
>>

Talking shop is boring next to all the weighter things in life.

Boxcar

[Tom]

You can be proud of Canada. It is a nice, clean place to visit. Ifeel very safe there, even in a city the size of Toronto. Not so here in nearby Rochester, which is an embarresment to the USA.
As to fearing our governemnt abusing power, I absolutely fear that. Our government is not to be trusted to do anything but make themselves rich. It is like living with a 3 year old - they can play nice, but don't turn your back on them and don't leave matches around.
The USA was founded with guns, grew with guns, and did precious little of any imortance without guns. The history of the gun is our legacy. We can be proud of our culture, our technology, our generosity, our freedom....all of which we secured with guns. But we manage to get along with Canada, with an open border, and essentially total free access both ways.
The best thing you sat about us is that we know who our friends are....and we are learning who our enemies are.
I seriously doubt anyone will ever topple us from the outside...if we go down, it be from within.
(Just got back from Totonto today - pleasent trip, even though it was work and no time for Woodbine).

[PaceAdvantage]

Ever notice how on CNN, WHENEVER a kid shoots another kid with daddy's gun, it gets all sorts of coverage (at the very least, it's on the crawl at the bottom of the screen)....

BUT you NEVER hear about the times when a licensed, law abiding citizen uses a gun to protect him or herself, or their familes from the scum of the earth.....NEVER

Nah, there's no anti-gun agenda in this country....supported by the media and the govt.....nah.....


==PA

[boxcar]

Man, you have that right, PA. There are a lot of people out there who have had similar experiences to mine in protecting life or property, and it never gets reported.

And the Left's entire anti-gun argument is as lame as it comes. Wonder why there isn't an anti-auto lobby out there since there were about 42,000 highway deaths in 2001 in this country? If guns kill, then wouldn't it be logical to say that cars also kill? And furthmore, how often are automobiles used in crimes in some way, shape or form?

Down with EVIL cars, I say!

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

Careful Boxcar, you might be contridicting your stance on pornography with your current argument relating to firearms....you're using a similar argument that I used against your idea that porn ought to be regulated by the govt....


==PA

[canuck]

Tom--Canada is by no means perfect--we have a dumbass leader and smarmy politicos and a currency equivalent to the peso-

Probabaly the nicest area I have ever visited in the US is the Finger Lakes--more picturesque than Muskoka--

[boxcar]

PA wrote:

>>
Careful Boxcar, you might be contridicting your stance on pornography with your current argument relating to firearms....you're using a similar argument that I used against your idea that porn ought to be regulated by the govt....
>>

I'm sitting here reading your remarks, scratching my head and wondering what the heck you're talking about. Then when I went back over to the other thread, I saw that you had written a post that I had missed. But have no fear... :) I will reply to your post later on that thread after I return home. But I can tell you this: I'm not even close to contradicting myself; for you are the one, sir, comparing zucchini to kiwi fruit.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Well, in Vegas more kids drown in swimming pools than get shot with "daddy's gun" We need swimming pool control/
BTW, the leftists are recognizing that "certain vehicles do crazy and killing things all by themselves. Evertime an SUV is involved it's the SUV went over the cliff or the SUV swerved into a crowd.
These Suv's seem to have a mind of their own. But never fear 'ol Davis of CA has signed the deathknell of the SUV and lots of other
gas burners as well. Here in NV we've paid dearly for his mistakes concerning CA's energy crisis and now looks like everyone is going to pay for CA's smog.