RobertNashville

[quote name='maroonandwhite' timestamp='1354303635' post='852959']...off topic but I just noticed your "name" under you username and it made me chuckle. [/quote] I'm glad it provided a chuckle...that was bestowed on me by another member, quite recently in fact (although I can assure you that he did not intend it to be funny).

If she really doesn't have the money (rather than just not being willing to do what's necessary to pay the loan) then it's almost a moot issue anyway. All this lender(s) can do is sue and assuming they win they can then seek to place a lien on property (if there is any) and/or try to take wages but in most states, the amount of wages that can be attached is fairly small...plus there are slow-pay motions, etc. that, given the woman's age, seems to me to make it at best problematic for the lender to ever collect much.

[quote name='drv2fst' timestamp='1354302483' post='852945']...[/quote] Having done a couple of deals with you I could perhaps understand. From all I've read about them it seems that they just don't need to sell very often (maybe their profit margins are high enough that they can be very picky about when they actually sell)! I've been to car dealerships like that where is seems as if they don't really want to sell a car - there has been more than one I've walked away from scratching my head about how such a business stays in business. Coming full circle; obviously FGS continues to stay in business so I guess what they are doing works for the people they want to sell to..

I feel for the mother; I can't hardly imagine the pain involved in losing a son at such a young age plus someone who is helping to support the young grandson that her son left behind. However, I agree that a co-maker should be held responsible for where they place their signature; in fact, I'm in total agreement with Dave Ramsey in that no one should ever co-sign for another but if you are going to do so, understand the potential consequences and prepare for them.

[quote name='87toy' timestamp='1354297900' post='852894'] An officer wrongly shoots a dog so you have bad feelings towards the whole city? Is that a joke? [/quote]I think I already sufficiently addressed the issue above.

I believe I've pretty much answered that question in this thread and in at lest one other thread. I also believe that you and I have very different opinions on the matter that aren't going to change.

[quote name='10-Ring' timestamp='1354295158' post='852875']I know the officer in question professionally and have had dealings with him several times. I'm not sure what happened that night with the dog but Officer Hall (I believe that he is a detective now) is absolutely a stand up guy. Perhaps he made a split second bad decision but my dealings with him have been nothing but top notch.[/quote] Obviously I don't know the officer personally or professionally and of course, I wasn't there but that whole incident seemed to be an example of what not do to at a traffic stop from stopping a car that wasn't involved in a crime in the first place to the amount of force used on the gentlemen (for which I believe the state trooper was found to have used excessive force and fined) to the killing of the six month old family dog. As an animal lover in general and a dog lover in particular, it's just hard for me to overlook it whether the officer acted properly or not - I guess we all have our blind spots. All of which, of course, has nothing to do with the thread so I apologize to the OP for injecting myself in it!

Clearly some of us have different conditions that we think should apply but I find it both interesting and encouraging that over 85% of respondents (as I write this anyway) agree that there should be a restoration of 2A and other rights after being convicted of a crime or at least, a path to making that happen. I am a person who has made mistakes, none serious enough for me to have ever lost my Constitutional rights but my point is that I know I'm not perfect and I know people make mistakes...I also know that sometimes the system we depend on to protect the good guys from the bad guys also makes mistakes (and more often than many would like to admit or think about). Given that, I believe that no one should lose their rights forever except under some very specific circumstances. Thanks to all who participated so far!

[quote name='RED333' timestamp='1354233972' post='852600'] I wil not join "Facebook", any way to get info another way? [/quote]While I do understand your aversion to Facebook, it costs nothing to join the network and you can be as anonymous as you want to be. I think the only "accurate" piece of information is that you need to use a working email address but those aren't very difficult to come by. That said, I too am sure the info will be on NA's website or available other ways.

I don't know if I'll have have good feelings about Cookville...I seem to recall that the police like to shoot family pet dogs at erroneous traffic stops.

[quote name='Lumber_Jack' timestamp='1354222277' post='852542']the whole premise of yours are Roberts argument is based on the fact that we KNOW the suspect died.... If I chase a thief off my property, and he has a heart defect, and falls dead in the street, is that different? [/quote] I think so, yes. That hypothetical question of yours hits a bit close to home, literally...this morning, a back window of mine was broken; apparently by "somebody". This immediately set of two alarms, my security system sensing the glass break and my four-legged system. Whoever it was ran and was gone from my back yard before I could even get to that part of the house. Had the "somebody" been subsequently hit and killed by a car as he ran across the street trying to get away because he was afraid of the alarm I would not feel in any way to blame...were I actively chasing him and he was hit by the same car then yes, I would have, in my opinion, played a part in his death; even if it was only a small part. The premise of my argument is not that I know someone died. Accidents happen...they are unintentional...that's why we call them accidents. But if I can help it, I'm not going to engage in actions that may result in the death of another human being just to protect stuff unless that person is threatening me; that is the premise of my argument...while there are things I would hate to lose, I don't own anything that is worth killing for or dying for and frankly, if my stuff was that important to me I hope I would examine my priorities (even if thinking that way makes me a "presumptuous elitist").

No offense intended - I was actually speaking generically and not about you specifically. However, I do suspect it's a bit of ego that plays a part In the "I'm going to chase them down to get my stuff back" that some here have espoused.

[quote name='Lumber_Jack' timestamp='1354219039' post='852518']...But as others have said, if you steal from me, chances are high I will chase you down and detain you. Yes, I know I cant shoot you in the back, and don't feel theft warrants death, but I can confront you. If you show force in response, well then I'll just hire a damn good lawyer and fate will be what it will be.[/quote] I may be wrong about the author but it seems to me that I remember reading in one of Massad Ayoob's books something to the effect that when one is armed and his actions escalate a situation, even if the armed citizen didn't initially start it; that the responsibility for what happens at that point will usually land on him (I'm HIGHLY paraphrasing obviously). I took that to mean that for the most part, you do your best to stay out of situations where you may be forced to pull your weapon to defend yourself if it's later determined that you could have avoided the whole thing by simply not engaging. I know it's real macho and manly to confront a thief but my opinion, my conscious and my training tells me that when you strap on a firearm you also take on the responsibility of avoiding confrontation if at all possible. Protecting stuff seems to me to be about the most unimportant and silliest reason to get into a confrontation where you may have to pull your weapon and/or end up with someone dead. The only thing even more unimportant is going through that when it's not your property and against the expressed policy of the people employing you.

[quote name='Lumber_Jack' timestamp='1354212771' post='852474'] I'm not sure this is valid. Come punch me in the face and my first reaction will be to draw. This guy chose to use his hands(choke hold). If you are being attacked (punched) at what point do you judge your life to be in danger. People die all the time in fights. I don't start them, but if you come at me I will defend myself.[/quote] You have to make that decision in a split second but it had better be the right one because a LEO and then perhaps a DA and eventually a jury will have endless hours and days to try and figure out if you made the right one. Even at my age and physical condition, I doubt I'm going to think someone hitting me in the face justifies me drawing my weapon...if they keep beating me or seem to be intent on doing so then that's another matter.

While it's true that we don't yet know exactly how/why the mane died; when has that ever stopped us? Having no idea of the facts didn't stop many of the same players in this thread, me included, from speculating all to hell about Zimmerman/Martin did it; or just about any other news story like this for that matter. While we don't know exactly what caused the man's death and won't until after an autopsy, it certainly isn't unreasonable to think that the "security guard's" choke hold played a part is it? I have, and I know of several others on this board have ridiculed WalMart for their "non-involvement/non-confrontational" policy when it comes to shoplifting yet I suspect it's situations like that that WalMart specifically wanted to avoid. Doesn't seem like such a dumb policy now. All the store employees and the security guard (who would at least be an indirect if not direct WalMart employee) involved in this incident acted against company policy (at least as I know the policy) when they pursued and attempted to apprehend the shoplifter and now the shoplifter is dead and WalMart is probably on the hook for a very fat lawsuit payout even though WalMart did nothing wrong in this case. By disobeying their employer's policy these employees have made their lives a living hell for at least a while and if the autopsy shows that the guard's action caused or contributed to the man's death the guard will probably do some jail time (and rightfully so). And all to protect a couple hundred dollars worth of stuff that wasn't even their stuff - how incredibly stupid.

[quote name='scoutfsu' timestamp='1354118100' post='851913'] Extreme sarcasm. Just like my post under that stupid f'ing picture of the Nazi. Check out my other posts in this thread. They're a bit more informative and conversational. But some things, like that quote and picture, deserve to be ridiculed. ETA: And my edited response wasn't meant to sound snippy. Sometimes threads get so long, a lot of what was said is forgotten or people don't read everything. [/quote] Even starting back in Compuserve chatroom days through to the present, I've found with electronic, written communication, it's very easy for people to misunderstand you or ascribe intent to something said/posted that was never intended. For some reason, TGO seems to be where I've experienced that most for myself. I don't know if it's me or everybody else but I guess it's probably me.

I definitely can't attend on the 15th as I have a Christmas party in Knoxville that evening...Sunday the 16th is possible but to be honest, any date in December is going to be a problem for me (I guess I'm just too much of a social butterfly that I need to make plans 4-6 weeks ahead. )

As is almost always the case, those who paint with too broad a brush will splash a lot paint on places where the paint doesn't belong.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the castle doctrine only applies up to a point...there is a difference between finding someone in your hallway in the middle of the night when you live alone and there is simply no justification for anyone to be there. However, if you have a wife and you find someone in that same hallway in the middle of the day and the guy is wearing a plumbers tool belt; you had better be damn sure he isn't a plumber who you wife called to unstop a drain before you start blasting away. At first blush, I think this guy had the right to shoot the intruders (although I would probably have tried a bit more not to have to do so)...finishing the "job" with execution killings and waiting a day to call LEO...he deserves all the jail time he gets if not a needle.

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1354048074' post='851509'] It is the way you say it Robert. You ride the edge of provocative with your responses, then get indignant when someone calls you on it.[/quote] Since you feel that way then I'll refrain from commenting on your posts in the future. [quote name='TMF' timestamp='1354048074' post='851509']As for the rest, you are free to allow people to steal your property and wait for the police. People protect their property everyday without being charged with a crime. An individual has to take it pretty far to find themselves in a courtroom in this state. I choose not to allow someone to take my stuff. That is my right. If someone decides to take my things I will stop them with force from taking it. It is up to the criminal how much force I will use. That is how it works. The law supports that. It isn't about how valuable the stuff is. It is about something completely different. Being a victim is a choice, and I choose not to be.[/quote] Feel free to confront if you wish...tell me I'm "choosing to be a victim" if you wish...but I see nothing worth emulating in possibly causing the death of someone just to protect "stuff"; even less so when it's not even my stuff. I have insurance to protect stuff, I have arms to protect my life and the lives of others.

[quote name='Commando68' timestamp='1354036356' post='851377'] It is a felony in Daytona Beach to hit a surfer with your fishing rig when you cast even if it is by accident. This is one of the many erroneous "mala prohibita" BS laws in this secular progressive, entitlement, police state we call the "United States". Lose the right to defend my family in a crisis over that? Get real.[/quote] The important question is; did the fisherman slap or threaten to slap the surfer first???

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1354046099' post='851481'] I don't know that for a fact. It appears to be what happened. The loss prevention guy didn't drag him back into the store. It appears he reacted to the actions of the perp fighting the manager. If I were a security guard and saw the GM getting beat up by a shop lifter, I'd step in and restrain him too. All sounds reasonable to me. No need for you to get stirred up about it and get huffy with me.[/quote] I didn't realize asking a question was "getting huffy". Maybe I misunderstood but it seemed as if you were presenting your version as if it was what happened when the truth is we don't know anything that precisely. That said, whether we have "right to confront" or not, if the alleged thief dies during the confrontation the confronter is probably going to be charged with some sort of homicide charge and deservedly so IMHO. I think "confronting" anyone simply because he may be steeling something is a questionable choice for one to make; "stuff" isn't worth anybody dying whether the anybody is the alleged thief, the alleged victim or just an innocent bystander...some seem to be pretty content and okay with the fact that it was only the "thief" who died but had the thief in this story been armed and decided to start shooting rather than just try to get away, who knows how many innocent people in that parking lot could have been killed or seriously injured...can anybody here really tell me with a straight face that this couple hundred dollars of someone's property is worth that? If anyone can then I truly believe that person needs to reexamine their priorities because if stuff is that important to someone they have a problem.

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1354042436' post='851454'] Actually, it does. I have the right to confront someone stealing from me. If they respond with violence I can respond in kind. So, while can't shoot someone breaking into my car, I can stop them with force. If they up the ante I can increase the level of force to match theirs. That is what it appears happened here. If so, the perp is 100% responsible for the outcome. You're having a hard time discerning between the value of the items he stole with his actions after he stole them. If anyone has devalued his life to the cost of the items he attempted to steal, it was the perp himself. He chose to keep escalating the situation to the point he was restrained in a choke hold. It had nothing to do with the value of the items. His death was his own fault. The loss prevention employee has no legal liability here.[/quote] Really? You know all that for a fact? You may have a right to "confront" someone but I doubt any DA in Tennessee is going to give you much latitude if he is trying to run away and you end up killing him while trying to restrain him.

I thought the point was to meet someplace late morning on Sunday then go to MCSC to do some shooting...perhaps I misunderstood or the particulars have changed.

[quote name='SWJewellTN' timestamp='1354031265' post='851315']...What I am in perfect agreement with is that I'm not crying over a thief's death.[/quote] There is a difference between "crying over a thief's death" and being somewhat appalled, as I am, that some here seem to think property is worth a person's life; most especially appalling when these employees/security guard who acted did so against their employer's policies, did so to protect property that is worth so very little as what this man attempted to steal and did so to protect property that didn't even belong to the people who acted. Maybe thinking the above makes me part of a minority here but if so it's a minority I'm proud to be a part of.