Peace officers show too much restraint. That is why so many get hurt and killed.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
British Pensioner 78, Arrested For Murder Against Home Intruders
- Thread starter Adonia
- Start date
It's a dangerous job and they signed up for it. Some may show too much restraint and some others not enough, there is a balance, no doubt. That job is a huge responsibility that "some" are probably better not to have.
You sign up for a job. You do not sign up to deal with undue danger caused by activist element in the populous.
Try not to call me names. It is a rule violation.
My concern was this statement:
I am afraid of any sort of violence. I am very unsteady on my feet and easily knocked down (due to MS). As I take anti-coagulants for a serious heart condition, even the seemingly minor scrapings which occur with such falls could be life threatening. Even a fairly minor bump on the head could cause a brain bleed that would prove fatal. And injury requiring surgery, even minor surgery, could prove fatal due to the resultant massive hemorrhaging.
I think you may have been painting with an overly broad brush.
You picked out that little thing as your concern out of my whole argument which was clearly focused on and spelled out about restraint when it comes to justifying pulling the trigger? Whatever.
I think you are very selective on what you try to address out of an argument to come up with that broad brush accusation.
Yes. It was the part that pertained to me.
Ah, yes, the famous passive/aggressive "whatever."
I try to address what pertains to me. I did not address what did not pertain to me and what, for the most part, I agree with.
Clearly it is quite a stretch to derive that my position pertained to you in such a way as you went on about. You do realize you did this, came up with this drama, after my entire point about being rational about using deadly force was ignored with your post saying you were glad to live in Texas with laws that justify shooting someone that enters your habitat? ...but I'll give you the benefit of doubt you didn't realize you evaded my actual point and used this stretch to form your argument, for "whatever" reason..
One who enters without invite into the dwelling place is not someone that should be tolerated.
They have sacrificed their rights (period).
The right to life is not severable from the other rights.
Therefore, when the person(s) enter uninvited, they have left their own rights, and live under the expectations of the owner of the dwelling which in their case is not in any manner considered friendly.
Should that owner decide, the breathing and functioning body of the intruder may be ceased.
Personally, I don't any longer carry a weapon. I really don't have the need, and I figure that very little I have is worth giving my life to save other than the protection of my loved ones.
However, I will gather as much DNA evidence in hair, skin, blood or whatever other body fluids and parts I can gather that the court system be able to more easily identify the intruder (if they survive and I do not).
They have sacrificed their rights (period).
The right to life is not severable from the other rights.
Therefore, when the person(s) enter uninvited, they have left their own rights, and live under the expectations of the owner of the dwelling which in their case is not in any manner considered friendly.
Should that owner decide, the breathing and functioning body of the intruder may be ceased.
Personally, I don't any longer carry a weapon. I really don't have the need, and I figure that very little I have is worth giving my life to save other than the protection of my loved ones.
However, I will gather as much DNA evidence in hair, skin, blood or whatever other body fluids and parts I can gather that the court system be able to more easily identify the intruder (if they survive and I do not).
As anticipated, no further action, release without charge:
Hither Green 'burglary death' suspect to face no action - No further action after 'burglar' death
Hither Green 'burglary death' suspect to face no action - No further action after 'burglar' death
There you go. Arrest an innocent man for no good reason.
Haven't you read anything: in order for him to be cleared of suspicion he had to be questioned and to be questioned without being under caution and arrested violates your rights
I have read about how you tyrants do it. Arrest innocent people to protect their rights.
Does English law, in the investigation of a murder, require that a subject of inquiry may be compelled to witness as to events without subpoena?
Where here in the US such is not a requirement unless compelled by the court?
Perhaps I am wrong. Probably am.
My wife would say I am.
She is unanimous in that.
Oh for crying out loud, quit with the hyperbole already! We're not tyrants, we just believe in due process! How difficult is that to understand?
It's different. Not better, not worse, just different
It's different enough that in the US such an arrest would in the minds of some lawyers be grounds to sue for damages for false arrest and civil rights violations. That's how different the systems are.
Ours is much better!