Leaderboard

I would only say, is before I shot in a "third party" situation, I would make damn sure who was the actual victim was. She may have started stabbing him first, he took the knife and started stabbing back. Did we just shoot the "victim"? Dave

I don’t have the protections I had as a cop, so I’m not getting involved in any situation that doesn’t involve an individual needing my immediate help. But when someone is being killed; I’m steeping in. I would very quickly let the guy know if he didn’t stop I was going to kill him. If he makes a move towards her or me with the knife again; I shoot him. Bother me? Absolutely not, I could shoot him and go eat lunch. There is no “moral dilemma†for me. I would think the moral dilemma would be if you stood by and watched someone stabbed to death and did nothing.

A few months back, Mia - my little, old chihuahua, died. She was seventeen and I had her from the time she was first weaned. She wasn't the typical 'shiver and snap' chihuahua - she actually liked people although she knew to bark if someone was outside who didn't belong there. She made just about the perfect watchdog (not to be confused with a guard dog) when I lived in the 'hood in Knoxville. In fact, I still believe she saved my life one night. Her barking woke me at around 2am. Knowing that she didn't just bark for no reason, I took my .38 and went to check things out - and ended up stopping three guys who were trying to break in the front door. When I first got Mia, I was still in college. She was with me for the latter half of my twenties, my entire thirties and was still there with me when I turned 40 and almost until my 41st birthday. She was there when my wife and I started dating, when we got engaged, when we got married and was still there after we separated. She was there through the death of my grandmother (with whom I lived while I was attending college) and my father. No matter what, she was always glad to see me and, despite her small stature and while I knew she wouldn't be much in a fight, I always felt that she 'had my back', so to speak. Many friends - some I considered close friends - came and went but that little dog was always there, a constant for seventeen years. And then she was gone. I wanted to post a pic of her but don't seem to have any on Photobucket at the moment (I'll have to remedy that.) Well, I was in no hurry to get another dog but I wasn't exactly opposed to it, either. I knew that, as I live in the country, now, I wanted a bigger dog. I wanted a dog that could come in the house and keep me company but that would also be fine staying out in the yard at times. I wanted a dog that could walk the woods with me without my having to worry too much about the coyotes in our area making a quick snack of it. I also generally prefer female dogs as they don't usually have the same need to mark their territory (by hiking their leg and peeing all over everything) as some male dogs but gender would not be a deal breaker. I had decided to just wait until the right opportunity came along. Funny thing was, a couple of weeks later, it did. I was at the Crossville flea market trying to get rid of some extra Bantam roosters that I had when I saw a lady and her kids were giving away a couple of puppies. The lady said that they were a cur mix (further research leads me to believe that she is mostly a Mountain Cur - apparently the same type of dog as Old Yeller was in the book although not the movie.) Both puppies were female. The lady said that they had to take them from their mother before it was really 'time' because she was trying to wean them early and had been snapping at them, etc. and they were afraid she was going to hurt them. They were only about five or six weeks old at the time. Something about the smaller of the two called out to me and I ended up taking her home. From the second I first held her, she took to me - licking my chin and chewing at my beard as if she'd known me all along. I named her Millie, which is a name I never would have thought to give a dog but just seemed to fit her (I didn't know at the time that one of G.W. Bush's dogs was named Millie and not being a big 'fan' of Bush that certainly isn't why I chose the name.) The day I got her, if I cupped both of my hands together she could curl up and lie down in my palms. This is a picture of her from just the other day, at about 3.5 months old: Now, generally she is an energetic (until she gives out at which time she converts to more or less a puppy shaped sack of potatoes), fun loving, fairly easy going puppy who hasn't quite gotten that whole fine motor skills thing down. My mom is my next door neighbor so she stays with her while I am at work. She plays with and loves mom's dogs. She plays with an loves my sister's kids. She even plays well with my estranged wife's miniature daschund and never hurts the little weiner dog despite now being nearly three times her size. She does well at the vet, seems to like most people and makes me laugh a lot. The other night, I was at my mom's house just hanging out and getting ready to take Millie home when mom's dogs started barking and carrying on. Obvously, there was something in the woods behind her house (which would also be behind mine.) It isn't unusual for them to behave that way as we have coyotes, deer and other critters that sometimes get pretty close after dark. I went ahead and put Millie on her leash (I always have her on a leash when she is outside because I am trying to teach her to stay close to me when we are walking around) and headed outside. My front yard has a fence around it and there is a gate between my yard and mom's. I had just gotten Millie through the gate, closed it and started toward my front door when she quickly (as in so quickly that my eyes couldn't really follow her) ran/leaped from my right side over to my left, yanking hard on the leash. She then started barking at an area somewhere around the back corner of the fence. Now, I have heard her 'arf' sometimes when she is playing but there was nothing playful about this bark. In fact, she finished off the bark with a low, guttural growl then stood her ground with her hackles up. For just a few seconds, my little, goofy, clumsy, happy-go-lucky, twenty pound puppy was gone and a little mutt with the heart of a 195 pound Rotweiler stood in her place. I never saw whatever was there but with the way she was acting (and the way mom's dogs acted) it may well have been a coyote. Whatever it was, it spooked her because when I got her started back toward the house she hurried along with her ears back in her typical 'I'm scared' look. That was when I realized that this little, THREE AND A HALF MONTH OLD PUPPY had just knowingly, willingly and without hesitation flung herself between me and something she viewed as a threat. Not only that but, despite being quite scared, she had held her ground and barked/growled a challenge and a warning that Ol' Whatever-It-Was had darned well better back off and leave her master alone or it was going to have her to deal with. After I got her inside I got the shotgun and went back out to see if I could lay eyes on the thing that had upset her so. For her part, she kept barking and - once again in spite of the fact that she was scared, herself - tried her best to get out the door with me and not let me go back out there alone. I was touched and, I must admit, pretty proud of her. So, anyhow, that's my tribute to the memory of my old friend as well as a little bragging on my new one.

I would probably just call 911 and leave. I am with alot of you in that it would be painful to watch and not do something. Therefor if I call it in and get out of there. I am no longer involved and can't make a stupid decision. I might not sleep well knowing I MIGHT could have helped but I WILL be at home with my family and not in jail. It's sad that the world is like this today but honestly I carry for my sake as well as close loved one's. Everyone else should do the same. This is definitely a hairy situation.

I'm looking and don't see anyone dispensing advice except for you. My post was very clear, making a choice to defend your life is not something that is methodically planned and accepted. It is a decision that is made in the moment that your life is threatened. If one is considering the law on whether or not they should use deadly force to defend themselves then they must not be in danger, because I would assume that laws and lawsuits are secondary to the preservation of ones life. Am I wrong... I mean, are you more concerned with going to jail then dying? I know I'm not.

My wife and I decided to get a place with some land and build our dream home (which will have super bug in/out properties).

Again this is a misquote, a snippet of the speech and taken out of context. http://www.whitehous...oanoke-virginiaI don't agree with all that is said, but I am willing to find out what was said. I do this on both sides of the political fence, because they are both agenda driven. We live in a world of sound bites which are made to drive our emotions, not our intellect.

This is why I carry. Stop the threat and a possible murder in progress. Speaking for me only, I couldn't live with myself knowing I could have made a difference. Hopefully someone is with me and can dial 911 or another bystander can dial.

I said earlier that I believed in innocent until proven guilty. However, that doesn’t mean that I think it actually happens. I’m sure that you, as have I, have put cuffs on people, towed their cars, locked them up in jail, and that’s where they stayed until they went to trial because they couldn’t make bond. I’m sorry, but that’s not innocent until proven guilty. I believe the way it should be (and the way it will be someday) is that no one can be placed in jail unless they are taken before a judge and it is shown that you are a danger to someone. A person should be given a “Notice to Appear†on the street and let go, then if they don’t show up for court they are in another category and can be detained. Jail is a dangerous place and innocent people are hurt all the time; I know I’ve seen it many times. A person has no business being there unless they have been convicted or unless they are a real threat to someone. Someone could make a very big name for themselves by hurting or killing Zimmerman in jail.

Ok boys and girls, with Corker wavering on the UN. small arms treaty and all the other times he's voted with Obama we need to give this man a chance. Lets get back to the constitution. Give Zach a 7 minute hearing:

tough choice........offer enough 'boot' and get both....problem solved

They might as well just close up shop..only thing I ever liked em for is the kayaks and boating related items anyway. Oh yeah..and their name makes me giggle like a school girl..Dick 's...

Dick's the sporting Boutique

Take the Smith, Colts turn backwards!

I believe the standard is fear for your life etc etc. Just because they went out the door doesn't mean they aren't going to come back. Look again at the last shot he fired, when the guy was on the ground. The BG was facing him, not face down etc. Are you trying to say he should have waited to see if the BG was going to draw a gun or point it at etc before he fired? I think the problem here is the idea that just because they are running away I AUTOMATICALLY lose the LEGAL right to be in fear of my life. It isn't unreasonable to be in fear of them coming back. No that isn't a logical extrapolation at all. Both were armed. A bat is a weapon when wielded as I assume you would agree. Also, they were acting suspicious, they were actively attempting a robbery. I don't see the slope on that, much less a slippery one. My take on this is he did not chase them or "act like a cop". He engaged them in his and other's defense. When they exited the building and were actively leaving the area, he stopped firing. What could possibly be wrong about that? What was he supposed to do? Wait until they harmed people and not just expensive computer screens? I think he was absolutely right in what he did.

Hannity is one of the Fox loudmouths.

My wife got a birthday present from our Great Dane this morning. He tangled with a skunk and got back into our house. Those that have had this happen to them know how bad this is. Everything in the house is saturated with skunk smell. I open the doors this morning until it got to too hot . I took the "hunter " down and washed him off the lake with vinegar and dish wash. I did find the skunk in the yard . Danes aren't known for being extremely intellegent. Anyway thats my whinning for today.

It's really funny that people are always saying that the magazine capacity of this or that pistol isn't enough. They want or need 13 to 15 rounds. Please tell me where you pistoleros hang out that you need that many rounds to feel safe. As a civilian, you better have one heckuva excuse if you discharge that many rounds in a confrontation. Now if you were in combat in the sand box that would be a different deal altogether. Out of curosity, how many here have EVER been in a gunfight in civilian life? I'll be 70 in October and I've carried for years and still haven't been in a gunfight. If the Lord continues to bless me, things will stay that way!!!

Not much doubt on my part. My "moral duty" is to protect myself and my loved ones. If a situation ever occurred that required using my last resort, I would know enough that occurred and who the players are. If I walked into the situation involving a loved one, that information at that time would be a moot point anyway, I'd have to suffer the aftermath. I realize that under Tennessee law, you are legally allowed to defend third parties from death and / or great bodily harm. Most likely you would not see the entire event as it unfolds. It's very possible to mistake the aggressor / criminal from the innocent victim, that's occurred numerous times. It's possible the perceived victim would turn on you in defense of "her man" physically and/or in a court of law. Getting physically involved opens up a whole can of nasties that could very well negatively effect you and your family the rest of your life, as you all are well aware of. Once you un- holster that weapon it's too late, you're committed, and best not second guess yourself or if the perceived victim is actually the victim at all. When you make that perceived moral personal decision to intervene, you're making that decision on your families behalf also. If you guessed right, the news media will parade you all around... in the mud. So, it all boils down to self preservation or sacrifice. I'm definitely not cold hearted but, given the choice, I prefer to error on the side of caution and not face a judge explaining my perceived observations and improper / illegal felony actions. I know who BUBBA is and where he lives, I don't want to personally marry him. I don't want to be forced to sell everything I own by a court of law and transfer it to someone else because I made an honest error in judgment. I don't want my paycheck substantially garnished and given to another as mentioned above. If you un- holster that gun in public, I can imagine it affecting the rest of your entire life. Will it be worth it? P.S. I just read all the preceding posts. I just parroted what most said.

People can still be a threat even if they are on the ground. As long as they have a weapon in their hand some could still consider them a "threat." As far as most are concerned he did what was right and no one was killed.

What if it's a domestic dispute? That's one situation I don't want to find myself in the middle of.

I saw a video a few years ago of a pawn shop being robbed by three gun men. There were two clerks at the counter. One clerk pulled a gun and began firing. The robbers turned to flee. One of the robbers fired several shots as he was running out the door, hitting the other clerk in the neck. The robber wasn't even facing the direction he was shooting. As far as I'm concerned, if they are still armed they are still a threat. If police disagree then fine. I'll let a jury decide. If twelve people can all agree that I wasn't in fear for my life then I would be surprised. I'd be curious to see the burden of proof the state would have to get 12 people to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that I wasn't in fear for my life... real curious. The police have video evidence and they aren't so much as charging him. I wouldn't be surprised if they give him some kind of honorary reward. Either way, I'm not going to lose sleep over what one person's opinion of the law is versus another. It really doesn't matter. If I'm in fear for my life then I'm in fear for my life. It is really that simple. If my decision to shoot or not is contigent on whether I think I might be charged or sued afterwards, then I must not be in fear for my life, because if I was, the concern for what happens after the incident would be moot... because I'd likely be dead.

Maybe he was chasing or maybe he was moving for a better shot. We will never know but you have to entertain all possibility's. As stated in the articles charges will probably not be filed so I say good shoot. I respect your opinion but still don't agree. If someone can show me where the law clearly say's that just because these guys were running away that they could no longer do any harm then I will seriously consider changing my opinion. Until then I say good shoot.

It's not my definition. I guess you didn't watch the same video I did, because I clearly saw him chase the two thugs INSIDE the cafe. Wow, just wow.

The difference is if they were outside that would mean the GG would have followed (gave chase) the BG outside. If they are inside the GG did not give chase to the BG. Again I don't agree with your definition of imminent threat and to restate what I said earlier I and just about anyone can shoot backwards while they run.

What difference does being outside make? He can still shoot at you, can he not? I'm not understanding your criteria for differentiating between the two. Imminent threat simply means that you are in IMMEDIATE danger of injury or death. Someone running away from you (not directly threatening you) does not constitute an imminent threat. It really is that simple. Bottom line is that the law doesn't give you permission to go around shooting at anything that you think is a threat if it really isn't. If what you think is a threat doesn't conform to the language and letter of the law, then you're simply screwed. Fact, not opinion.

Where the law is concerned, yes it can and often times is. What part of "imminent threat" are you having difficulty with?

My primary reason for carrying is to protect myself (and loved ones if need be) from harm. Protecting the lives of others is secondary. I would have to be absolutely sure of the facts of the situation before I'm going to use deadly force against someone who isn't directly threatening me. It is not that I am cold-hearted or immune to cries for help but it can be very difficult to know if deadly force is justified when the victim and the perpetrator are both total strangers to you.

Well that does sound like I am just trying to argue with you now that I look at it. I guess the point I am trying to make is I just don't agree that the guy was chasing after them and that the articles you listed (or anything else I have read for that matter) don't clearly define when the danger is over. That is up to us to decide and live with the consequences of our actions and decisions. I respect your opinion but just don't agree with it. It just can't be that cut and dry.

Both these clowns need to go........ a long time ago.

Who's to say that the guy doesn't go for the gun again while on the ground and fire back at the elderly man? All I am saying is just because they are running doesn't mean they aren't still a threat. I can run and shoot backwards.

One of the things I've noticed on this and actually, on most internet forums and just in life for that matter; is that people seem to have a difficult time differentiating between a a person thinking another person's opinion is wrong equating to thinking that there is something wrong with the other person personally or that the other person "can't" have their opinion. I'm not sure what can or should be done about that or even if anything can be but I still find it disappointing even though I know I've fallen into that trap more often than I'd care to admit.

I should have been more specific. They were an immediate threat until they started running. He kept shooting at them as they were fleeing. It's only self defense when your life is in danger. When the threat is over, it's over.

I don't care what his motives are, if it goes to the soldiers I'm all for it: however, I would have liked to have seen it go to the Wounded Warrior Project.

No, you can't be held liable for not intervening, but you can be held liable for intervening. Once again, let your conscience be your guide.

I think the moral dilemma boils down to what you can live with. The majority of the population would be fine just dialing 911 and watching a helpless person die. They would justify it in their minds as either "there was nothing I could do" or "it's the job of law enforcement to handle that." I'm not standing in judgement of that rationale... I don't expect that every old lady or fearful person should intervene in wrongdoings such as a superhero, but for folks like myself it is different. If I see something like that and I know in my heart that I am capable of stopping the death of an innocent I'm going to do something, whether I have a weapon or not. If I choose not to intervene then I know I will live the rest of my life with the guilt of an innocent death. It's one thing if it's just a confrontation between two people, especially if it's a domestic type situation. I remember being in Walmart once and seeing an altercation between a couple with the man calling her all sorts of awful names and her giving it back to him. Perhaps in chivilrous days one would step in and explain that one should not talk to a lady that way, but I wasn't convinced that she was a lady. What's more, getting involved in someone else's problems/disputes is a sure way to have all that anger directed at you. That is a 911 scenario and one you shouldn't get involved in. If the scenario is that a helpless person will likely die unless you immediately intervene it is really up to what your conscious can handle that decides what you do. I intentionally misspelled some words there and used improper contractions... play along and see if you can find them!

Also, it's not "going Zimmerman" on someone. For goodness sake, we have enough struggles getting reasonable media treatment. The last thing we need to do is call something what it is not. It is up to us as a community to not create controversy with the way we talk and converse among ourselves. It is defense of a third party, not "going Zimmerman".

To borrow from clint eastwood.... when I see a guy chasing a woman with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I shoot the bastard. So I guess my vote is to shoot the guy. That is the assumption that he has already stabbed her once, mind you, as the text you gave indicates. Also, in the case of already stabbed, he gets no warnings, no commands to stop. Back of the head, I don't really care. If the woman is unharmed, 911 is your friend.

It has been said that if Obama is re-elected it will be the last election this country will see and America as we know it will be gone forever. Something to think about

112° out there vs 90°/70% humidity and higher here is real tossup though. - OS

I had an interesting conversation with an elderly couple(late 60s to early 70s) at work last night. They were upper middle class looking to order a high end microwave(I sell appliances). While on hold with Electrolux to get a price for microwave, the lady asked what I thought about the SCOTUS ruling about Obamacare and the conversation turned to the upcoming Small Arms Treaty. We talked about my passion for guns as well as theirs. The last thing this lady told me was that if this treaty is signed and ratified she would be in the field with a rifle in hand. Don't count out the people of the USA. The largest standing militia in the world is the registered hunters in 4 states in the US. I pray that the US Senate is smart enough to see the hornets nest it is stirring up. I will say Armies are great but Guerrilla warfare is brutal. One man fighting for a cause is worth 10 hired guns. Will the US Army actually turn on their families to uphold a treaty that is clearly unconstitutional.

I hope Romney is not that stupid to pick Condi as his running mate. Even though I can't stand McCain, he was smart enough to pick someone a lot more conservative than himself. 1. she is not a conservative (she is more to the left than Colin Powell) 2. her foreign policy views suck 3. she more than likely voted for Obama (that is reason enough not to support her) 4. etc... If Romney picks her, I will be voting for Johnson and have absolutely no regrets.

Absolutely. I think the Whiskey Rebellion is a milestone in our post-Revolution history in regard to validating our government's authority while showing that the political process is the way. The mindset at the time was "if I don't like the gov I'll pick up a gun and fight." In reality, that is not how it's supposed to work here. If you don't like the government, vote 'em out. If your neighbor votes 'em in, tough titties. Washington handled that situation like the true leader that he was, not only leading troops to squash the rebellion, but also understanding the mindset of his countrymen and not going after them. Everyone went back to their homes without incident and the couple dozen insurgents that were actually arrested were later pardoned. What was the long term result of this? Well, an up and coming political party exploited the discontent of the people and began to take power, which eventually led to the repealing of the tax that cause the whole mess in the first place. That is how it's supposed to work. Once that political party got a little to grabby, BAM... in comes another one to knock 'em down a few pegs. The rest, as they say, is history. This model seems to work just fine. It ain't perfect, but it works and I like it. Good point to bring up. See, an insurgency doesn't thrive off the the folks that are willing to pick up arms and fight. You can have an effective insurgency with very limited participation. You can also have a very ineffective insurgency with a vast participation. It boils down to support; both idealistic and material. If the population supports an insurgency then the government will have a nearly impossible time trying to fight it. The only way to combat an insurgency is to win the support of the people, and to demonize the insurgents. Using the recent example of Iraq, despite how the news would portray it, there was very limited involvement in regard to the general population. Even with an environment with huuuuge unemployment numbers. Why? Well, the simplist answer is people don't like to die young. Hope that the future might get better is enough to keep most people from making a potentially fatal decision. Conversely, the same reason folks commit suicide; a lack of hope. This can bargained with tools such as money and indoctrination, which both use their own version of "hope" to tempt people into taking up arms. Then, of course, you have the very small minority of fighters that are the true believers; the ones that have probably suffered some loss or personal tragedy that has pushed them over the edge where their only hope is to create destruction... or they're just a born mental case. So how did such a small number of folks keep us engaged for so long? No matter how awful we think the war was, we certainly gave a lot more than what we got. It wasn't as if we were losing by attrition or anything. We just couldn't put the nail in the coffin, so to speak. The trick was winning over the people, which is something we didn't have. You can't find out who the bad guys are or where they are without human intelligence. All the fancy schmancy gadgets in the world won't do you any good without the key element of human interaction. There are huge limiting factors there if you don't have the support of the people; money only goes so far. So reconcile with the local leaders.. the pillars of the community who not only have access to all the inside information, but can also influence the opinions of their people. At the same time turn the table on the insurgents. Highlight their atrocities against the people in every manner of the media you can. The attitudes of the Iraqis towards the Sunni insurgent groups changed so drastically and suddenly that many of those groups were left with little choice... quit or face embarassing defeat. So what did the US and Iraqi government do? Well we tried to bring them into the fold by legitimizing those groups and giving them a stake in the overall security, thus allowing them not to lose face and participate in the Democratic process. Many of those groups took the easy road. The ones that didn't kinda just withered into obscurity, not really able to make much of stink anymore. People wanted no part of it. So the point being, without the support of the general population an insurgency can't be successful or survive for very long. Even in a country that experienced regular revolutions and coups like Bolivia, the leftist movement couldn't make any significant progress because the people didn't support it... and that's with the involvement of Che Guevara and the fame he brought to the fight. Exactly. Folks aren't going to support anything that threatens their way of life. Right now, despite our economy, things are still good enough. People aren't going to support any movement which will destabilize all the comforts they currently enjoy. No support from the people, no insurgency. I think secession would be handled today in much the same manner it was handled before. Furthermore, I believe that our armed forces would stay true to their duty and fight against any state that seceded. Besides that, the state would turn third world practically overnight, which would lose the support of the populous and, ultimately, those that do the fighting. Kinda like the Civil War, but on a much more advanced timeline. Our politicians couldn't lead their way out of a wet paper bag. They are weak minded puppets compared to those that founded this country. However, if such a scenario occurred, the leader would be swiftly defeated militarily at the great cost of human life and suffering of the populous he represents. He would be remembered in history as the anti-Christ. I don't have much of an imagination, but the line I draw for armed revolt is somewhere around an illegitimate coup of some sort or foreign troops on our soil to exert control for what ever reason. I don't see this happening any time soon; probably not in my life time. Much would have to change economically, socially and globally for that to happen. If Obama gets re-elected in November he will continue to erode our rights. Anyone sitting in that chair will; Obama just does it more efficiently. If that's the case then we'll have another four years of the pendulum swinging to the left, which will most assuredly result in it swinging back to the right in 2016. I don't like waiting that long, but that's the country we live in and that's the country I love. Oh yeah.... WOLVERINES!!!