You certainly wouldn't be the first to do so but you'd end up being charged with murder if you were actually too dumb to know the difference - kind of like the Arbury case.

Yeah, let me spend my time "debating" you. You are more likely to forget how to breathe than to formulate a coherent argument.

Yeah, Arbery dudes chased a guy they suspected of committing a crime for 5 minutes and hit him with their truck twice. Then they cornered him with trucks and a shotgun and shot him when he felt the only move left was to advance toward the person holding the shotgun.

A textbook case of vigilantism, even with the citizen's arrest statute in place, yet having merely having a weapon visible in an open-carry state is regarded as the same on 2+2.

In most cases, I don't see how one can advance toward a percieved threat and then claim self defense. If a threat is coming at you then by all means defend yourself, if you have to get in your car and travel to a percieved 'threat' that's not self defense, that's a punk with a gun trying to be a hero.

thats not realistic. its stupid. locking up non-violent people will not decrease violent crime. in fact it proly massively increases crime by destroying families and livelihoods.

but hey, capitalism is a zero sum game so the more people that get locked up, then the better it is for you.

Well said! I agree 100%

This, too!

So you think mobs are roaming around trapping people inside their homes and burning them down ?

And the police refuse to intervene ?

I mean, if you believe that I guess you should build a compound to protect your family.

Make sure you have a water tower.

Prosecutors mostly just go by the police report.

They knock charges down routinely but I've never heard of them just refusing to charge people with serious felonies. They always want some cash out of you at least.

The latest Fox talking point must be that 'progressive' prosecutors are letting the blacks go. lol.....progressive prosecutors.

Yeah, the traveling to... is the main issue. Otherwise substitute the owner of the car lot for Rittenhouse under similar circumstances and I'm thinking he may not have been charged at all.

They did hit residential areas, and the police did refuse to intervene. Did you just ignore that?

Am I right in thinking that your original "instigation" has to be illegal for your self defense right to go away? If you call someone names and he comes back swinging hard you can't shoot him? I would think the only time you couldn't (assuming his punches could cause major injury) would be if they could prove you purposely planned the scenario.

I need links to know what you're referring to. I haven't read about any homeowners being killed by rioters and it doesn't seem very likely. Not likely enough to have a real life plan to deal with at any rate.

Technically you're not a vigilante if you're only protecting your home but in my opinion you should attempt to use your house for cover and shelter and not draw attention to yourself. Trying to use a show of force against a mob is stupid. The same applies to your business. Although your business is much more likely to be attacked by virtue of the fact that riots tend to be in business districts. At the end of the day you need to protect your life, not your stuff.

Also, one day you'll grow up and actually feel really bad about shooting some crazy moron for no good reason. Even if he deserves it you don't.

It's not that I can't conceive of a time I'd use deadly force to protect my family, it's just that I wouldn't have a fire arm and that would motivate me to do everything else first.

If your imaginary scenario where gangs roamed the streets burning people out of their houses and raping women and children was an actual thing I might be convinced to change my mind. But ...... Mad Max is still just a movie.

Mobs of Looters Are Grabbing Goods in California Thanks to Downgraded Shoplifting Laws

Quote:

Target and Safeway have been reducing hours to try to limit their locations’ exposure to theft.

Stores often put the likes of toothpaste and shampoo behind security locks, as if they are high-end goods or the outlets are operating in Caracas, Venezuela.

The shoplifting problem represents a deliberate choice rather than an unstoppable tide. Modern societies long ago figured out how to maintain civil order such that law-abiding people could buy and sell goods without being systematically preyed on by thieves. It’s just that the Bay Area has chosen to forget.

In 2014, California adopted Proposition 47, which made thefts of $950 or less a misdemeanor. Once people realized that they were unlikely to be arrested or prosecuted for stealing below $1,000, they, of course, responded to the incentive. For their part, the stores advise employees not to interfere with shoplifters lest they get hurt. Many crimes don’t even go reported.

And so it is open season for people to take whatever they want.

California FlashMob Loots Nordstroms 2 Arrested

Zero sum game!

We should probably have a thread about the price reduction people would require to buy stolen property that they knew was stolen. If you saw something you wanted that sells for $150 on eBay and that same item is $500 retail at Nordstroms would you be tempted to buy it on eBay?

Yup.

And this is a recent phenomena too.

In just the course of a handful of decades you have seen this change as gun owners, hunters, etc used to be the leading advocates for responsible gun ownership and laws. They used to be out front.

This change shows how incredibly easy it is for a Corporation or Group (Gun Manufacturers and Lobbies) to manipulate both government (with bribes) and citizens, by taking something common sense and turning it into a culture war item, by simply saying 'the Libz want to take all your guns and the only way to fight that is to have every gun and arm everyone'.

It is really quite the indictment of human beings as a species that we are so easily manipulated by what should otherwise be an obvious and blatant manipulation pushed aside by the people.

But then as I write that I remember "Stop the Steal".

We may well be a doomed species.



Post 1610 here.

But the poster I was referring to said I only need to “feel” threatened.

In other words, you got nothing.

Letting the blacks go? Show me one video of them saying that. What are they supposed to do when the San Fran folks are all black Shade out the skin color?

Its Progressive Democrat Lead DA's that are dictating the rules and than the other issue is a shortage of prosecutors. Its not like Texas has an issue with this

You don't say that part out loud, but every American understands the code. Just read the wing nuts itt.

I want some more info on this epidemic of progressive prosecutors though. It seems like a novel concept. If they're elected or appointed by an elected official it seems they answer to the people they serve at some level. But it's a new concept to me. Prosecutors are conservative by definition . You can't work to feed the hungry and lock them up at that same time. But I'm certainly open to learning more.

I agree they are elected officials and I am sure many will be gone next election. As well the GOP will do a great job messaging crime, inflation next year.

When rioters are throwing shiit through your windows in the middle of the night, you can be sure that this is dangerous for the people living in the home.

Use your house for cover and shelter when they're throwing shiit through the windows?

Yes, and if you're situated inside of your stuff (house) and you're being firebombed, that is your life being placed in danger.


Again, you keep asserting that people are talking about killing people for no reason or for property. I know, I know, if someone firebombs your home, just leave the house and join them firebombing your neighbor's home. Problem solved, and if one of them wants to take a bat to your head, everyone takes a beating at some point.

Yeah, these people took over a 6sq mile block of Seattle. Violence, rape, extortion of local business owners and residents all happened and the police were told to stand down, yet you think it's a movie.

Hit and run.
Person hit followed the runner home.
Runner grabbed a gun.
Person hit defended herself against a person with a gun.
Person hit waited and cooperated with police.

Do I have everything correct?

Yes.

If you think a Realtor is safer from random acts of crime due to carrying a gun to defend themselves, and when I point out that far more people in her situation will die because of that GUN and ones others are carrying legally in Road Rage, other such incidental incident contact and family, friend and colleague crime, you seemed to dismiss the idea that just because people would be carrying guns it would lead to road rage triggered killings. That the Realtor or this librarian would be LESS safe because the 'good guys' are now packing heat.

Does this incident impact your view? If this librarian (Realtor) does not have easy access to any gun do you think she is still alive today?

Yeah, there is a massive difference between someone burning down the local walmart and someone burning down your own house.

I mean, if I looked out my window and saw some dude literally catching my house on fire, lol, I wouldn't have the slightest regret killing the person.

Those goods are made by stolen labor and resources so this is a good thing.

Watch the documentary on Larry Krasner called Philly DA. He's fairly progressive and was a former activist defense lawyer that had spent a career successfully suing the police.