British Pensioner 78, Arrested For Murder Against Home Intruders

[Reynolds]

Your posts demonstrate that you are set in your in ways and that you are not able to reason apart from the values you have which are apparently different from mine.

I only hear your arguments based on common practice, popularity and groupthink fallacies but I do not conform my thoughts and actions to that type of reasoning.

I’m not interested in qualifying toward having the worldly standards as an “expert” gun carrier if those standards are in conflict with my God given conscience and defy my abilities to better serve my Lord.

I have a choice, a higher standard to live by and the free will in such situations which I will be accountable for by a Just God whose all His ways are judgment, in truth.

My fears are under control and go far beyond the judgment of those which conform to the use of these tools according to this world’s values.

Mat 10:28

(28) And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Maybe you should not even carry a firearm.
What I know is shooting analysis. What I know is studying shootings and how the shot person reacted. Keep living on Fantasy Island. In the real world, you never shoot to wound. Either shoot to neutralize the threat in the most effective manner or you don't shoot.
Look at how God commanded Israel to fight its battles.

 

[Benjamin]

Maybe you should not even carry a firearm.

You seem to fail to recognize that maybe I feel the same way about you.

What I know is shooting analysis. What I know is studying shootings and how the shot person reacted. Keep living on Fantasy Island. In the real world, you never shoot to wound. Either shoot to neutralize the threat in the most effective manner or you don't shoot.

I've already addressed these standards and your reasoning, where they come from and how they conflict with my values.

Look at how God commanded Israel to fight its battles.

LOL, you have odd way of justifying your actions, trying to teach me your judgment of mercilessly taking life is on par with God's. Sorry, but I suspect we have differing views of God attributes which probably strongly relate to our soteriological views and don't think we will settle this matter here.

 

[Reynolds]

You seem to fail to recognize that maybe I feel the same way about you.



I've already addressed these standards and your reasoning, where they come from and how they conflict with my values.



LOL, you have odd way of justifying your actions, trying to teach me your judgment of mercilessly taking life is on par with God's. Sorry, but I suspect we have differing views of God attributes which probably strongly relate to our soteriological views and don't think we will settle this matter here.

You contradict all accepted methods of self defense and you think I am the one who should not carry a weapon. Laughable.

 

[TCassidy]

What I know is shooting analysis.

Yep. Me too. Certified Pistol Instructor. Certified Range Safety Officer, DOJ Certified Firearms Safety Instructor, Firing Line Coach and Firearms Instructor, San Diego Police Range.

In the real world, you never shoot to wound.

Correct. You shoot to stop the threat.

Either shoot to neutralize the threat in the most effective manner or you don't shoot.

Exactly.

You contradict all accepted methods of self defense and you think I am the one who should not carry a weapon.

I agree. You understand what it means to carry a firearm. He obviously does not.

Laughable.

Ignorance is not a virtue.

 

[Benjamin]

You contradict all accepted methods of self defense and you think I am the one who should not carry a weapon. Laughable.

I understand you are set in ways as well as what they conform to. But your reasoning distorts and conflicts with idea of “reasonable force”, key word here, “reasonable”.

Reynolds, your commending putting 2 in the chest so the perpetrator holds still for one in head, and then one more in the head, defies rational thought and goes beyond your claims and reasoning that the goal should “only” be to stop the threat. That is a simple truth to derive out of your reasoning and tells me all I need to know about your values and what drives your actions which would be different than mine.

If I had to shoot 2 shots center mass and the threat is falling to the ground and "no longer able to move then putting one in his head", - "and then another in the head" is beyond “reasonable force” by any rational stretch of the imagination for anyone that values life. It makes me think about what you are trying to prove with such statements, but let it be known that I am not impressed with your brutality talk or what is supposed to prove.

The ignorance here is disorting a prime directive of reasonable force beyond rational reason and trying to "expertly" justify such actions through conforming to worldly guidance, like I said, I have higher standards to answer for.

Some obviously do not understand the responsibility of carrying a firearm to go beyond worldly values.

 

[TCassidy]

To avoid such abysmal ignorance I suggest you look into the 1986 FBI Miami shootout.

Especially the part that says,

Although both Matix and Platt were hit multiple times during the shootout, Platt fought on and continued to wound and kill agents.

 

[David Kent]

Ignorance is not a virtue.

We could say that of you.

 

[TCassidy]

We could say that of you.

You would be lying. I have already posted some of my credentials.

I suggest you read my first paragraph in post #84. If there is something you don't understand I will be happy to explain it to you.

 

[Reynolds]

I understand you are set in ways as well as what they conform to. But your reasoning distorts and conflicts with idea of “reasonable force”, key word here, “reasonable”.

Reynolds, your commending putting 2 in the chest so the perpetrator holds still for one in head, and then one more in the head, defies rational thought and goes beyond your claims and reasoning that the goal should “only” be to stop the threat. That is a simple truth to derive out of your reasoning and tells me all I need to know about your values and what drives your actions which would be different than mine.

If I had to shoot 2 shots center mass and the threat is falling to the ground and "no longer able to move then putting one in his head", - "and then another in the head" is beyond “reasonable force” by any rational stretch of the imagination for anyone that values life. It makes me think about what you are trying to prove with such statements, but let it be known that I am not impressed with your brutality talk or what is supposed to prove.

The ignorance here is disorting a prime directive of reasonable force beyond rational reason and trying to "expertly" justify such actions through conforming to worldly guidance, like I said, I have higher standards to answer for.

Some obviously do not understand the responsibility of carrying a firearm to go beyond worldly values.

You again demonstrate a lack of understanding. You also in this post either demonstrate dishonesty or reading comprehension issues. Have you done any moving target exercises? Have you shot torso/head targets that were moving? How about moving at angles? If you have, you would realize that head shots are very hard to make. Add an adrenaline dump into the equation and they become hard to impossible. What you must also understand is that handguns do not stop a person quickly unless you hit the CNS.
You shoot someone on drugs in the center of mass, they hardly react until they 30 to 45 seconds later die on their feet. Head shots are the only guaranteed way to stop a threat. That is why the training is called "failure drill." A single headshot with a handgun is not guaranteed to do it. A team we had a mutual aid agreement shot a woman in the center of the forehead with a 40sw fired from a sub gun. The bullet went around the outside of her skull. It knocked her out. She woke up 2 minutes later.

Do you not realize shooting to wound exposes you to massive civil liability? Most importantly It opens you to a much greater chance of criminal prosecution.

 

[Benjamin]

Some people are obviously ignorant of the basic logical principles of distinguishing between “some” and “all” when it comes to reasoning for truth. As in, some times excessive force maybe be reasonable and necessary to stop a threat but they fail to distinguish that excessive force is not at all times necessarily reasonable to stop a threat. I could give an example of unreasonable excessive force for every example given reasonable excessive force but that merely avoids the basic critical thinking skills that one would need to be intellectually honest about that some times reasonable force may not demand taking the person’s life and/or finishing him off.

To insist that there is never an opportunity to spare a life is dishonest and demonstrates a lack of critical thinking skills and well, trying to justify killing for fear of a law suit speaks for it.

Contrary to the resident expert here and his credentials my neighbor of 25 years was a Phoenix cop and taught firearms classes for many years and we’ve discussed different scenarios many times. Yes, when he shoots he shoots to kill and if someone is standing within 15 and won’t give up a knife he’s said he would shoot to kill, if he doesn’t know if they’re armed and they make the wrong move he shoots, BUT he has made it clear that he does not try to justify shooting someone to death just because he can. He doesn’t try to pretend those things don’t happen. If he is sure the situation is under control he is done, no machoism about putting a couple in head for good measure would ever come out of his mouth. He would not want me to take an unnecessary risk, but I know what he’d say about someone who would be into finishing off an unarmed person that is down and under control and it wouldn’t something you’d want to hear.

In fact, I’ve spoke to several “experts” in person about these matters over the years and I’ve never had one claim that the main mission is to kill them and be sure to finish them off rather than use the reasonable force necessary to stop the threat and ensure your safety. But I don’t expect rational discussion in this type of format to allow another to reasonably distinguish between some, all and never if it goes against their claims, so no surprise.

 

[TCassidy]

Some people are obviously ignorant of the basic logical principles of distinguishing between “some” and “all” when it comes to reasoning for truth. As in, some times excessive force maybe be reasonable and necessary to stop a threat but they fail to distinguish that excessive force is not at all times necessarily reasonable to stop a threat.

LOL! ROFLOL!

Saying others are ignorant of basic logical principles when in fact it is you who is ignorant of basic logical principles.

Here, let me enlighten you. You said

some times excessive force maybe be reasonable

No, excessive force is excessive. That means it is more than is reasonable to accomplish the goal.

You then say

excessive force is not at all times necessarily reasonable

Excessive force is never reasonable. It is excessive. That is what "excessive" means. More than is reasonable to accomplish the goal.

Let me give you some very good advice passed on to me by my father, who has been gone for 40 years.

"When you don't know what you are talking about, it is a good time to stop talking!" LOL! ROFLOL!

Contrary to the resident expert here and his credentials my neighbor of 25 years was a Phoenix cop and taught firearms classes for many years and we’ve discussed different scenarios many times.

In addition to the credentials listed above, I was a Sheriff's Deputy in the 6th largest city and one of the largest metro areas in the country. Patrolling over 4,500 square miles, and over 10,000 miles of roads to patrol. Not "my neighbors brother-in-laws wife's second cousin's pool boy's uncle." Me. Just little ole me. LOL!



PS: In the interests of full disclosure that picture was taken over 30 years ago.

 

[Benjamin]

No rebuttal of the issues, none, just a play on the word “excessive” which would have been better said “extreme” but certainly doesn’t support your argument with logic or rebut my claim of your lack of it.

Nope, nothing but horse laughs and more talk about your expert credentials as if your credibility is unchallengeable and your statements are beyond question or somehow that magically makes my source in comparison to be without merit. A little more arrogance about your unquestionable credentials which obviously must make all your statements true (not) oh, and another horse laugh. Great logical argument there!

Sorry, but I see right through your argument for what it is, relying on rhetoric and a fallacious claim of unchallengeable credibility proving truth and validity because of your spectacular unmatched credentials making your views and opinion superior.

Whatever.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Benjamin, simply put your position contradicts the teaching of every firearms defense course I've ever heard of. Can't say that somebody somewhere out there supports you. But, your supporters are vanishingly rare. If your position makes you feel morally and spiritually superior fine. But the position of TCassidy and Reynolds represents the accepted standard in the civilian, LEO, and military.

 

[carpro]

Amazing!

Thank you again to our founding fathers!

Ridiculous is more like it. But I believe you are being facetious.

 

[carpro]

Benjamin, simply put your position contradicts the teaching of every firearms defense course I've ever heard of. Can't say that somebody somewhere out there supports you. But, your supporters are vanishingly rare. If your position makes you feel morally and spiritually superior fine. But the position of TCassidy and Reynolds represents the accepted standard in the civilian, LEO, and military.

Some people like to get on their high horse about what they coulda woulda shoulda done. His feelings about police are right out front. He believes they must take unnecessary risks to their life, because that's what he would do. Right. I bet.

Let me make my feelings clear on the subject, so he can call me a coward as well and get it over with.

I f someone breaks into my home, there are only 2 ways he will leave, either running for his life or feet first.

If I'm able.

It is a presumption on my part that he is there to do me or mine harm. By doing so, his life is forfeit.

That situation is one that requires me to shoot first without questions or hesitation.

There you go. I'm a coward.

If you like to do home invasions or burglary, its best to remember I live in Texas. Coward or not.

 

[HankD]

Ridiculous is more like it. But I believe you are being facetious.

I am VERY thankful for their foresight in the creation of the Bill of Rights. An amazing work of FREEDOM!

 

[TCassidy]

If you like to do home invasions or burglary, its best to remember I live in Texas.

Yep. Me too. In Texas entering a person's home by force (IE breaking in) is prima facie evidence of intent to do severe bodily harm and deadly force is justified in such a situation. One of the reasons when I retired, I retired to Texas.

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin, simply put your position contradicts the teaching of every firearms defense course I've ever heard of. Can't say that somebody somewhere out there supports you. But, your supporters are vanishingly rare. If your position makes you feel morally and spiritually superior fine. But the position of TCassidy and Reynolds represents the accepted standard in the civilian, LEO, and military.

Squire, I’ve been aware of what I’d call, the “bully with gun shock and aw show” being put on for the libs around here, for years, Although I’ve often had issues with it, I’ve just never challenged the way legally armed “self-defense” and moral ethic have been presented here considering it would be like jumping in the middle of a cat fight – and it is – but when someone tries to tell me, a Christian gun carrying conservative that believes he has every right to defend himself, his family and the innocent with lethal force if necessary, - that there is only one acceptable way to protect your home and that is to mercilessly shoot any intruder in your habitat, armed or not, without any other considerations until they are dead and that this is the only standard without exceptation is “the” operational procedure. Which is what I'm hearing, well...

And yes, I know I've dared to step on the toes of those who have who have administering the same lines here for years without consideration of the challenge I've offered to their conclusions, but afterall it is a debate board.

I’m sorry, but yes, as a Christian I live by higher standards than that, if I have the opportunity and ability to spare a life I’m going to show some courage, grace and faith in God and do so. Yes, proud to do it! If your argument is that the world teaches any gun owner to put away their values and grace, guess what, I’ve learned the hard way not to put my faith in the values that the world teaches and early on in my relationship with the Lord He wrote the words of Romans 12:2 on my heart: “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” which when asked I tell people this is my life verse, I put it as my favorite verse when signing up here 14 years ago. So to begin an argument that equates to telling me to put away my values for what the world teaches carries absolutely no weight with me besides my recognizing the multiple fallacies that people commonly use to support that kind of thinking.

When I debate an argument I’m going to raise issues, one of them is are you going to try to tell me that there is never the opportunity to spare the life of an intruder that had entered your home? Are you telling me that the “canon” rule is to always finish off anyone you have to use deadly force of a gun on without exception? Are you telling me that no defensive weapons instructor would ever agree that the opportunity might arise to spare a life and that all qualified instructors would insist that I always finish off anyone I were ever to shoot at? These qualifiers are important in any debate that is going to get to the truth! Maybe most importantly are you going to try to tell me that I should put my Christian values and standards aside based on what the world thinks is acceptable, although this closely relates to the goals of getting to the truth which is always a value if I’m going to undertake an argument in a debate?

I’ve stated and conceded that there are times to use deadly force and to make sure the threat stopped without question but I’ve also said, "Just because I can legally justify deadly force doesn't mean I should use it, as a Christian I live by higher laws." IOW’s I’ve said some times deadly force is necessary but that such extreme force as to finish off an intruder such as one that is unarmed, unable to move and no longer a threat is not at all times necessary and would go against my Christian values. To avoid my issue and try to tell me or suggest it is “canon” and I am ignorant for not agreeing with the “experts” about going forward with finishing off an intruder without exception is simply not going to fly with me!

I’ve presented a simple, basic, logical, true or false argument, that some times the opportunity might arise that I could have a situation under control and spare a life. True or false? This qualifier (some times) has been avoided at all costs and the arguments I’m getting back instead are that are experts, I am ignorant and basically how dare I question their authority. But if true that some times this opportunity might arise, as a Christian I am not going to follow worldly protocol and take the person’s life anyway. That some here cannot comprehend, admit, focus on, address as per the qualifier a simple issue leading to a logical truth is rather troublesome and why I rarely bother to debate here anymore. It also seems troublesome that my values are discarded without any regard to letting me establish a simple premise consisting of a logical truth.

What I haven’t said is that it is taught by defense instructors that they should shoot someone in the leg, I know full well they don’t teach that, I said that if I have the opportunity and ability to do so I would regardless of the world’s instructions and this is because I (personally) answer to God for my actions. I've justified my actions as such:

I’m not interested in qualifying toward having the worldly standards as an “expert” gun carrier if those standards are in conflict with my God given conscience and defy my abilities to better serve my Lord.

I have a choice, a higher standard to live by and the free will in such situations which I will be accountable for by a Just God whose all His ways are judgment, in truth.

My fears are under control and go far beyond the judgment of those which conform to the use of these tools according to this world’s values.

Mat 10:28

(28) And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

I have the freedom to act as I so choose and seems some here want to discount my holding to my values and if so you better give me better reason than “this” (finish them off with a couple in the head without exception is canon) is what is taught by all gun instructors and they are an expert and I’m just ignorant! Because that all I’m hearing.

Sorry for the long post, I wasn’t going to bother wasting my time to lay out this argument as I don’t expect it to be addressed anyway, guess I like the challenge of trying to make my point and establishing truth, but, Squire, that you’ve come on actually presenting some reasoning, I’d be interested with exactly what issues I’ve raised that you believe I have gotten wrong? If so, please be careful not to misrepresent my position when doing so.

 

[HankD]

Benjamin, if you hit the femoral artery in the leg, a person could bleed out and die in about 5 minutes.

Also, its easy to predict what we think we would do in a life threatening confrontation - until it happens.

It's surprising how unpredictable it actually is.

 

[Benjamin]

I agree Hank, but that, him bleeding to death because I had to shoot him to be safe might be the risk he'd have to suffer if he was an intruder that entered my home and didn't obey my command.

But, would you believe I'd be more more inclined to put a tourniquet around his leg to save his life after I'm sure the threat is over than put a couple bullets in his head? Call me crazy.

No, I understand things are unpredictable and and I wouldn't be taking any risk as I judged the situation and this includes taking into account I might have to shoot to kill before being able to make the assessment that I might have a way to be safe in handling it another way.

I merely contend the opportunity might exist to spare a life.