K191145

I'm not so sure if some of those PUBs wouldn't cave in this time. No good for me to write my congressman since the bozo's keep re-drawing what district we are in, in Kingston Springs. We are now in Cooperlosie's district, I wouldn't waste one keypunch e-mailing that bootlicker.

If their membership greatly increases it may get the attention of some politicians on a local level.

I'm not sure I understand what exactly your asking but I do know there's emergency situations where someone may make threats or if a doctor is convinced that the person is a danger to themselves or someone else but for a "perminent" record of mental illness it should be decided by more than one single doctor, and legally ruled by a judge. If there is an emergency situation with an individual, there should be a temporary suspension but if cleared by a panel of doctors, the suspension is lifted. I just don't want one single doctor to declare someone dangerous and have a perminent record against them.

When I click the sign off link it does nothing, it hasn't let me sign out for several days unless I clear cookies and temporary internet files. I'm using a PC and Comcast internet.

Also Doctors today want to shovel out anti-depressants for every little ailment that is not related to mental illness such as cronic pain, smoking deterrent etc. Personally I think there needs to be much more honest research and study on some of these meds that re-arrange brain chemicals, I wonder if the killers are on some of these anti-depressants. I'm sure they help alot of people but every one is different, I suspect that there's some people that may have a psychotic episode that was produced by some of these meds. Before I had a ruptured disc in my neck removed, my doctor asked me if I wanted to try Zoloft for the pain I was experiencing, I told her that I never want to be perscribed any kind of anti-depressant and my concerns about them. She was actually very respectful and understanding of my decision, good doctor IMO. But yes, medical records should stay private and not available unless someone has been comitted by a court or diagnosed with a sever mental illness that would have to be verified by a panel of doctors with degrees in mental illness then ruled by a judge.

Wanna get 2/3rds of the nation screaming, start passing more strict legislation on a very popular product that can be "argued" has caused or aided in 100,000's+ deaths in many ways, probably over 1 million in the last century. Much more so than than the anti's can argue about firearms or really any other legal product. ALCOHOL. Costas argued that if the football player who killed his girlfriend hadn't had a "gun", they would still be alive thinking a big male football player couldn't kill a petite girl without one when a much more logical argument might be that if the football player hadn't been raging drunk on alcohol he would have had more control of his emotions and may not have killed his girlfriend. How many domestic violence incidents start because of someone being under the influence of alcohol? Also, let's not forget our favorite restaurant owner gun hater Ray Whatshisname. How many drunks did he allow to leave his bar restaurant, get in their car and drive home endangering kids with their familys on the same highway? IMO, that's a whole hell of alot more dangerous than allowing a law abiding citizen to carry their handgun into his restaurant. Anyway, I'm not advocating a background check at every Mapco or liqor store before you can buy an alcoholic product to see if you have been arrested in the past for DUI or domestic violence, or a one bottle per month limit or a size limit on the bottle, i'm just saying there is legal products that can be "argued" is much more of a problem in causing tragic deaths of innocents than firearms. Just tell a liberal you want to take away his booze because someone else might abuse it and go on a pi$$ed at the world raging drunk and might stab or beat someone to death, or run a school bus off the road killing children. I mean, they don't "NEED" alochol do they? I wonder if they will argue back that just because someone does a bad thing under the influence of alcohol, they shouldn't be demonized or punished for it. P.S. Sorry for the long rant.

They don't really care about your views anyway, they just want to say their views, demonize you and feel superior.

I guess the biggest reason I don't want noisey confrontation is because my mother is 84, had two open heart surgeries and both knees replaced and can't drive outside of Kingston Springs, mainly she wont and you don't want her to drive on a busy highway, so I elected myself to drive her pretty much everywhere she needs or wants to go. Anyway, I wouldn't care much what they think if by myself, but I don't want a scene at Wallyworld or Publix etc. if I'm with my mom shopping, she if anyone doesn't need that. Plus in the past I have had an itchy middle finger, my trigger finger is in perfect control but sometimes that middle dude just likes to pop up on certain occasions when I really don't care to argue with a brick wall or a yapping lap dog. :)

Okay, it might sound like a silly question but after the latest tragic murders by an evil psycho, and the frenzy of irrational reactionary gun(owner) haters, and also the demonization and bigotery that will only get worse soon against 80+ million gun owners from arrogant, self-rightous, sanctimonious, politically motivated socialist control freaks in the Senate and House and not to forget the White House, are you personally concealing your carry gun better? I carry concealed but I never dress fancy, usually an untucked shirt to hide a pancake type belt holster which sometimes shows a little from the bottom, and shows when I sit or get out of the car, I never cared really that it showed somewhat because I have a HCP. Now, I will admitt that I am making sure it's more concealed just to prevent some hysterical liberal bigot from making a scene if he/she see's me carrying. I have a feeling that confrontations will increase now, instead of a simple dirty look and a sanctimonous mumble, these idiots will want some kind of confrontation in public. We are going to be demonized enough soon and if you tell some gun owner hating idiot to go fornacate with themselves you will be viewed as the bad guy or gal.

That's not tinfoil, I can believe they would look at websites, forums, and petitions etc. the thing is they would have to siphor through countless billions of individual comments and statements over the last 30 years since Al Gore invented the internet.

I would be curious to know how many AR's and AK types, and 30+ round mags sell in the comming weeks and months. I remember the 94 ban that probably sold more AR's AK types, SKS's, and 30+ round mags since they first came on the market. I also wonder how they plan to address the "millions" of araksks's already in circulation not to forget that many have been sold over and over so a paper trail is usless, so who knows who has them and who don't? Also, many people paid $1000's + on their firearms, do they think people will voluntarily surrender property they paid hard earned money for? Some will I know but I don't believe, or at least I don't want to believe there's that many people who would comply.

In fact they can accomplish something, they can provide the feds with a list of names to investigate.

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354160038' post='852258'] Being punched in the face doesn't give you the right to take someone else's life accidental or not. [/quote] I'm just assuming, and maybe an LEO can verify it but either anger control is part of the training or should be. I actually applaud LEO's who remain in control of their anger when detaining someone who wants to fight, may have punched them in the face or spit on them etc. I don't know if I would be able to control my anger with some of the video's i've seen of some suspects and I do realize they often have to get very physical with some of them to subdue them. It's just hard to imagine that a security guard and two other employees had to use a hold that many police departments have banned to subdue one man and the force in which it seems was applied. A logical theory might be that the security guard was punched in the face which understandably caused alot of anger so when he applied the choke hold he used more force than needed and for a longer time than needed, his anger controlled him. I also have to assume that a choke hold is banned by many police departments because it's potentially dangerous and could cause harm or death.

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1354144386' post='852112'] Don't be surprised when he isn't charged or convicted of anything. Last time I checked Walmart policy had diddly squat to do with law. In fact, Walmart policy on pursuing shoplifters has nothing to do with loss prevention and everything to do with civil lawsuits from slimy, vulturous lawyers. [/quote] I not surprised by much anything these days, sometimes somebody that should be charged isn't, and sometimes the law works as it should like this example. http://www.wcyb.com/news/No-charges-in-bounty-hunter-shooting/-/14590844/17423230/-/wl8479z/-/index.html [quote]Sullivan County District Attorney Barry Staubus tells News 5 that the grand jury heard the evidence in the case on Tuesday and decided that David Cresong acted in self-defense when he shot Joseph Scott Horne in August. 32-year-old Horne was in Cresong's trailer park in Bristol, Tennessee trying to find a fugitive for a local bonding company when he mistakenly thought Cresong was the fugitive.[/quote]

I have read several stories about this incident and what is clear about it is, the security guard and employees violated Walmarts policy on handling a shoplifter, the guard put the shoplifter in a choke hold, when real police arrived they found the man unconscience and bleeding from the nose and mouth then was pronounced dead a short time later. Sure sounds like the guard went way too far in subduing someone who lifted a few CD's. I guess I just happen to actually care about a persons constitutional rights, and yes, even a common thief still has some constitutional rights left, at least not to be mishandled to the point of death by a private security guard who apparently had little or poor training. It's obvious a few here have their panties in a wad because I cared about the dead mans rights which makes me wonder how much they really care about someones constitutional rights. Anyway, I stand by what I believe regardless of what a anyone else believes and i'm not going to apologize for it.

[quote name='HvyMtl' timestamp='1354048277' post='851513'] I do not want to get you started on the TSA... [/quote] LOL, you're assuming right that I don't care much for the TSA. I made this a while back. [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/JMH42/TSA.jpg[/IMG]

[quote name='SWJewellTN' timestamp='1354035517' post='851364'] "I don't have very much respect for "private security" cop wannabe's, there's no real standards in training and I don't recognize any real authority they think they have." This is certainly a generalized statement: however, it doesn't really matter. What many don't understand is that security guards fill a broad range of expectations. Most are nothing more than a warm body that lowers the client's insurance premiums while some are professional witnesses, and while still others are high quality with real expectations to act that way. Many see the warm bodies and associate them with all of the security officers just as many see corrupt police officers and associate all police officers as being the same. If some security guard wrongly accused my wife of a crime and laid their hands on her I would be pissed too, but I would be pissed at the person; not the profession in general. But that's just me. [/quote] That was a generalized statement I admit but from my point of view I usually know if someone's a police officer and I will respect their badge and authority, however it's impossible to know who or how professional some private security guard is and how much if any training he/she has. The keyword is "private" and to me he/she has no more authority than any other private citizen. I know a private citizen can make an arrest but that should be limited to something that potentually endangers someones safety or life, lifting a few CD's isn't endangering someones life. By all means, take pictures of them with your phone, follow them out the door to their car and get their make and plate but don't touch them. Now if they get mad and come at you that's an entirly different situation. Like I said before I don't steal or shoplift, I handle items in stores that I intend to pay for. If a police officers believes I stole something i'll cooperate and if I think it's unjustified i'll formally complain, but, I will not let a private security guard put his/her hands on me or search me, no more than I would allow my neighbor to.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1354034611' post='851353'] If the choke hold caused or contributed to the man's death then I'd say you would have to consider it "deadly force" but I'm not sure that even matters. When one person's actions causes or contributes to the death of another then I think generally, someone is going to be charged with some sort of crime unless they can make a rational claim of self-defense. [/quote] It's possible the man could have been in very bad health and may have fought back but I talked to a Walmart employee last night about this and she said the guard and employees violated the stores policy on dealing with a shoplifter so they are somewhat responsible for the mans death. I hate a thief also but it isn't a capitol crime. I'm sure the guard and employee's didn't intend to kill him. Keeping criminals in jail is always the best way to prevent them from comitting crimes.

[quote name='SWJewellTN' timestamp='1354029515' post='851296'] The amount of speculation in here is amazing, and it's refreshing to see that the OP admits to his baggage and his seeing the world through colored lenses because of it. I guess I was one of the "Wannabe's" referred to by the OP. I worked security in Missouri having run the gamut of low risk to very high risk postings. The very high risk posting was working in the Westport district of Kansas City. This was a place that had 16 bars in 3 square blocks that even the KCPD didn't come into on the weekends without being dispatched, and they wouldn't [u]be[/u] dispatched when they were in blackout conditions, (the time that there were so many calls for serious felonies [u]in progress[/u] that they couldn't answer any lesser calls for many hours later). The KCPD was in blackout condition more than 3/4 of the weekends throughout the year. I could tell you that in the 2 years working there as opposed to the 5.5 years that I worked as a police officer that: I made more felony [u]and[/u] misdemeanor [u]arrests[/u] with a 100% conviction rate; I was assaulted and injured more times; I came half of a revolver's trigger pull from shooting someone to protect someone else from a baseball bat; I was respected by the police officers in the district enough that when they did handle something in that area that they called-off their back-up when I was present; I was a tested witness by the city court; or that the officers admired my courage to do such a job, but I doubt that would make a difference to someone who colors all security guards the same. Oh, and I did all of this for not much more than minimum wage at the time. This "Wannabe" later became a police officer of the quality that his Chief of Police would eventally comment that he wished his entire department was made-up of officers like me. I also quit the PD in part from knowledge of other officers doing crap what would make the experience of the OP's wife laughably miniscule by comparison. [/quote] I never said [b]ALL [/b]security officers were wannabe's or yahoo's but I do contend there's quite a few that are. Anyone can claim their the stores or businesses security guard without any training or qualifications, all they need to be is an employee. I've know a couple of yahoos who applied for work for a bail bondsmen to be bounty hunters, I don't know if they ever got the job, I hope they didn't because they wern't much different than the people they wanted to hunt. Yahoo's are out there working as so-called security guards and bounty hunters etc. I know you probably know that but it seems that some on here believe every person accused is quilty and all private security guards are hero angles.

[quote name='SWJewellTN' timestamp='1354030311' post='851303'] Tennessee Law: [b]40-7-109. Arrest by private person -- Grounds. (a)[/b] A private person may arrest another: [b](1)[/b] For a public offense committed in the arresting person's presence; [b](2)[/b] When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the arresting person's presence; or [b](3)[/b] When a felony has been committed, and the arresting person has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed the felony. [b]( [/b]A private person who makes an arrest of another pursuant to §§ 40-7-109 -- 40-7-115 shall receive no arrest fee or compensation for the arrest. . [/quote] They had better be sure the person they intend to arrest is actually comitting a crime or this could come into play. [quote][b]( (1) [/b]Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is [b]not engaged in unlawful activity[/b] and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or [b]attempted use of unlawful force.[/b] [/quote]

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1354020185' post='851218'] Then you are in the wrong state. A citizen in this state can make an arrest just like a cop. Just because someone that doesn’t have a badge stops you when you are committing a crime, doesn’t give you the right to attack them. People that are wrongly accused don’t fight. They stop, they deal with the situation, they get a lawyer and they sue. Guilty people fight and try to get away. [/quote] People who are wrongly accused don't fight? what utter bull sh!t. First of all, i'm sure most all shoplifters are actually guilty but some accused are innocent. Second, I don't shoplift or steal so I know i'm innocent, and I also have principals so i'm not going to allow some Jo Blow neanderthal civilian, no matter what title he claims for himself to put his monkey hands on me, that's called an assualt. The "situation" will be delt with. You had better have an "official" badge if you want to arrest or detain me or be prepared for me rightfully defending myself.

I don't have much sympathy for a common theif but OFTEN, a completly innocent person will be accused and assualted by some over zealous private security guard or employee. That was the case of a friend of mines wife, a very nice lady who has a good job and no reason to shoplift. I guess she made the mistake of putting her gloves, ones she owned for some time and it was determined very quickly that the store didn't carry or sell that brand and style of gloves, in her coat pocket when some idiot employee/guard came up behind her and grabed her arm so tight it left a mark. needless to say she didn't even get an apology from the manager after being assualted and declared innocent. Although it would have been tempting to help him, I had to talk my friend out of waiting for that idiot outside the store after closing hours. The one thing I hate more than a guilty person getting away with a crime is an innocent person being accused and assualted by some store security guard or employee who is not a law enforcement officer and I really believe that happens quite a bit. They had better be damn sure and have undisputable evidense before they put their claws on a person. My mom is 84 and doesn't drive hardly so me and other family members take her to where she needs or wants to go, when I take her shopping I get on to her for sticking her hands in her pockets to warm them up in the store because I will not tolerate some store security/employee accusing her of stealing, and if they ever put their claws on her there WILL be an incident. When I started this thread I really wanted to address "PRIVATE SECURITY" and how far they can and should go, not weather some thief deserved to die for some CD's which I believe he deserves jail for that crime. I still contend that a security guard that is not a government law enforcement officer or deputized in some way has no more authority to physically handle anyone else than any other "PRIVATE CIVILIAN" unless it's a matter of self defense or defense of another person, or defense of your personal property in which there are limits to that. If someone want to arrest or detain me, they had better have the name of a city, county, state, or U.S. in front of an official title.

[quote name='scoutfsu' timestamp='1353970435' post='850989'] I'm talking about people thinking it's ok to let a thief be a thief because it's not on their property or it's a corporations property. The corporation doesn't think its worth the risk because the legal system has been so corrupted that anyone and everyone can be sued over nothing. If they wouldn't face frivolous lawsuits, then maybe they would be a bit more stringent about keeping their rightful goods in their store and not watching them walkout. Stealing pennies? Those pennies add up and they are someone's pennies. Rambo wannabe? Police reject private security? renta-a-cop? cop wannabe? Sounds like a lot of people here are carrying baggage. You talk about risk/reward? Here's one for you - [b]if you risk breaking the law, you risk consequences[/b]. Also under the "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" doctrine. This thief's death is [b]directly [/b]attributable to [b][i]his [/i][/b]decision to break the law. If he did not decide it was ok to steal merchandise, he would still be alive. He decided he was above the law and things spun up from there. Hoping that the thief's family sues Walmart for millions . I hope Walmart sues them for the thief's bad decision. He is the one that kicked this whole thing off. Everything that happened is a direct result of the decision he made. People think it is ok to stand there and watch a criminal flaunt the law. Remember that when someone decides to come into your house or place of business and walk out with your stuff. [/quote] Well i'm glad you cleared that up, so the next time I catch some thief breaking into my tool shed i'll just shoot him in the back, much easier that way. He started the situation anyway.

[quote name='Volzfan' timestamp='1353947701' post='850806'] Killing someone over stuff is a bit extreme but my question is why bother with a loss prevention team if they can't physically detain the thief? [/quote] But who should detain the thief? It seems like the security guard who choked out the thief wasn't trained to well. I don't see too many Walmart cashiers that looks qualified to get into a physical altercation with a thief either. There maybe some well trained private security guards, maybe ex-cops but I really believe that most are barely qualified to call 911 on their cell phone, much less to properly take down a criminal. Unless you're licenced and trained by a law enforcement acadamy or school approved by law enforcement then you have no business getting physical with a suspect. Now if you're in your own home or on your property that is different, hired security guards usually don't own the property they guard. Also if they are "PRIVATE" security, they are private citizens with no real police authority, no more authority than me or you. I told my neighbor I would keep an eye out on his property below me but if I see a strange car on his property all i'm going to do is call him and let him know, I have no authority to detain anyone on his property because i,m not a city, county, state, or federal cop.