RobertNashville

The homeowner could have avoided his sad ending if he had simply called 911 and then waited, armed, with his wife in the bedroom (or some sort of saferoom rather than going out a looking around.  He could have avoided it if he had put the gun down when the police, per the article, identified themselves and assuming they gave him enough time to comply. I can also understand why it may have been difficult, at his age, to hear the police...to see who was there if flashlights were shining in his face.   The police could have avoided it all if they had gotten the right address or perhaps if they had been just a bit more reluctant to shoot.   Knowing where the fault actually lies or who should bear the brunt of it is pretty difficult...it's probably with the dead homeowner but at the same time, a man's home is supposed to be his castle after all - it's difficult for me to blame this elderly gentlemen for simply wanting to defend his castle.

I don't see a problem with posting this story.  :shrug:   Something and maybe a couple of somethings went horribly wrong here and there is likely some "blame" that can properly be placed on both the police and the dead homeowner so it seems to me there could be benefit in discussing it.

I'd say their logic makes pretty good sense and if there is anyone folks need to blame for the restrictions on hog hunting in TN it's the hungers themselves; at least some of them.   It was clear that hunters/those who wanted to hunt were purposely increasing the hog population so they could hunt them...not a good move when these destructive animals need to be eradicated.

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that alcohol consumption may have played a part in this????  ;)

What I find truly disturbing is that whoever is responsible for making the decision about the use of these dogs in the UK seems so willing to bend over and take it up the backside.   I'm not for purposely trying to "offend" someone because of their religion but what the hell ever happened to common sense?   I'm beginning to think that there isn't a bureaucrat left anywhere in the world that actually has two brain cells to rub together or the common sense of a turnip.

That makes sense...I know when I'm streaming something from Netflix the performance can vary depending on whether my laptop is doing something on the network...pretty much solved that problem when I moved all the automatic stuff to overnight hours (although my firewall and virus systems tend to do whatever they want when they want to do it!).  :)

Thanks...I appreciate that! :)

This sounds really great to me,,,what to you guys think?   Press Release...   This link is how you can donate (this is a 501(c)3 organization: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/yeoman-farms

I've been thinking about making the switch to totally leave DirectTV but haven't yet...maybe I'm wrong but I believe that many of the shows I watch on DirectTV either aren't available on a device like Roku or take a long time to get there.  I use either my smart TV or my PS3 to watch Netflix and Amazon content but neither of those services had the content available on DirectTV.   So...I'm probably going to make the switch eventually but still holding out. ;)

I don't really see how barrel length should be an issue; at least not a critical one. There aren't many circumstances where one truly needs to go walking though his/her home with a long gun....unless you truly MUST clear your home or you need to get to loved ones, etc.  Every trainer I've ever trained with and I would bet 99% of all cops will tell you to wait for the cops to get there to clear your home and they are likely much better trained and equipped to do so than most civilians will ever be.   My SCAR and 12 ga are in my bedroom because that's what I consider to be my "safe room"...I'm going to be waiting for the bad guy(s) to come to me and if they do, they'll face something much more potent than any handgun of any caliber can be.   If I really do have to go clear my house, I'll be using my pistol (all my hd pistols have WML) but I'll have either my SCAR or my shotgun with me on a sling.

Of course. But if my firearm isn't welcome then neither is my money; At least that is my policy!

Hard to tell much from those two cases or the lack of any other.   I don't know of any HCP holder that would willingly risk (even if it's a small risk) getting charged with the violation (and possibly losing their HCP) just to prove a point when all that's usually needed to end the "confrontation" is to leave the premises and/or secure they weapon in the person's vehicle.  The unfortunate thing is that it leaves the HCP holder in a perpetual state of uncertainty and in somewhat of a moral dilemma.   We know it's "illegal" to carry past a properly posted sign and the firearm community so often likes to refer to itself as being "law-abiding" citizens.  There is also a large or at least vocal segment of the firearms community in Tennessee (judging by the vocally animated "parking lot" discussions here on TGO) who carry banner of "property rights" on behalf of not just private but business property as well.   Given we are law-abiding citizens and claim to value property rights, how then can an HCP holder justify ever carrying past a sign or even just carrying on a property, posted or not, if you know that the property owner doesn't allow firearms on the property?

If one owns a Ruger 22/45 (or any other Mark) and has shot it so much it actually needs to be taken apart and cleaned it's probably time to go buy a new one.

Thanks for that explanation...I've got some images and nightmares too that will probably be with me for the rest of my life.   My apologies to anyone I offended...I guess I have stronger feelings about this subject than I would have thought.

I appreciate your post and agree with the vast majority. just to be clear I think what Ive maintained is the the officers should be disciplined; I dont think that I said they should be fired although I don't really want to go back and read all six pages to make sure ofvthat. I am still wondering... When a cop arrives at the scene of an accident; especially one sufficient to disable the vehicle(s); isn't it reasonable for the responding cop(s) to assume that the people involved are injured and not just injured with obvious visible injuries but spinal/neck injuries? If so and if they decide they must remove the victims (whether the movement is justified or not); why in the world would they grab and drag the person out of the car? Is is really unreasonable that they move the accident victim(s) in a way that minimizes the chance of injury; perhaps even life-changing injury?

Removing her from the vehicle was, and yes, it's just my opinion, totally unnecessary; I don't really care what most cops would do or even what they are trained to do; if doing what these cops did is SOP then it's poor SOP and needs to be changed.   That said, I'm still waiting for someone to explain why, if it was necessary to move this accident victim, did these officer do so with such disregard to potential injuries? There are ways to move a potentially injured accident victim that will minimize the potential of further injury (or causing injury where there was none before).   Is ignoring that basic rule of first aid SOP - do cops just treat every accident scene as if it's felony stop of an armed felon?

  Then 99 out of 100 cops would be wrong to do that to an accident victim.         It doesn’t “fit into this” other than to ask someone who appeared to be knowledgeable whether LEOs, in general, do or are required to have decent first aid training…seems like a reasonable thing to discuss given that the cops in this video displayed an overwhelming lack of any first aid knowledge or a significant lack of concern for an accident victim.         Fine, assume there was a firearm in the vehicle even thought there is zero indication that there was; if the only alleged alternative is to move her there is still is a proscribed/right way to move a potentially injured accident victim which these cops either didn’t know or didn’t care about.         That would be the vehicle that was so badly damaged it couldn’t be driven away, correct?   If the vehicle is that badly damaged how much of a threat can it be?   If the vehicle is that badly damaged wouldn’t that be a strong indication that the accident victim might have spinal/neck injuries and, therefore, either shouldn’t be moved at all or if they insist they have to move her, do so in the proscribed way to minimize the risk of further injury?         Condemned?  You think I condemned Sam1 when I said...   All I said was that there is no reason to play "what if" and I can't see how that statement is "condemming" anyone.  The car wasn’t on fire and if it had started to catch fire and the cops then had to move a potentially injured accident victim then they should do it the right way which is not dragging the person out of the vehicle.

  Seems to me such equipment would be a good thing to have in a first responder's vehicle wouldn't it? In any case, how about they apply basic first aid principles and keep her still or, if they really have to move her, do it the right way?   While it's sure nice to have, you don't have to have expensive medical equipment to properly apply fist aid to an accident victim if you care enough to learn how to do it.

If you mean by "get it" that I'm supposed to understand why a cop, who probably is often is early on the scene of an accident, would violate what is the most basic rules of first aid then you are right because I'll never understand that kind of idiocy and irresponsibility.

1. I long ago came to the conclusion that what deodorant I decide to use will be some kind of racial insult to someone.   2. Shortly after I came to conclusion "1" I came to the conclusion that I really didn't care.   I came to that conclusions because even earlier than I made decision "1" I made the decision that I wasn't going to waste one moment of my life worrying about things I can't control and one of the things I can't control are stupid, ignorant people who are looking for a reason to be insulted and believe everything is related to "race".

I can't swear to it at this point as it's just been too long but in my former home state of Ohio I am pretty sure that before one could become a police officer (city, deputy sheriff, highway patrolman, etc) they were required to take and pass a pretty decent first aid course and had to retrain on a regular basis.   I may well be remembering incorrectly but I think that's right and it seems like a very good idea given that LEOs are often the first to arrive on the scene of someone needing medical help.

I live alone except for my dog and two cats so I don't have to worry about what weapon is best for my wife or older child nor do I have to go 'gather" them if someone breaks in which gives me some advantages. first of all, I can have one of my "tools" in my kitchen, living room, office, library, etc and not have to worry about little hands doing bad things and it means I have one of those tools available almost instantly...of course, you can accomplish pretty much the sane thing by carrying while home but my routine is that when I get home everything but the cloths (meaning watch, ring, folding knife, wallet, etc) get put in their usual spot on my upper kitchen counter along with my usual carry weapon.   In my bedroom I have one of those hand tools plus a  12ga pump on one side if the headboard and my SCAR 16s on the other along with a pair of electronic ear muffs (not only for my hearing protection but to amplify any sounds a bad guy(s) might be making.   As a general rule, I will always prefer to get to and use my SCAR (or an AR if I had one) for a number of reasons including easy of use, accuracy, optics (Trijicon Reflex), capacity and my Sig foregrip with a blinding/disorienting light integrated with it and with Hornaday TAP ammo, less chance of overpenetration. As I live in a neighborhood and my house is only partially brick, overperpetration is a real concern of mine and frankly, most handgun rounds (I use 10MM or 45ACP) are a bigger risk to overpenetration than the 5.56 round that I use.  I've trained extensively with all those weapons (not that I'm an expert by any means) and I practice what I would do if someone kicks in my door while I'm in my living room vs my office vs my bedroom, etc.   Will any of that work for you?  I can't tell you and I would say no one else can either; there are just too many factors.   If you've got a weapon now in a sufficient caliber (9MM being the minimum in my opinion) then you you have a home defense weapon and you can build from there depending on your situation.  If you are totally starting from scratch then I suggest that it's hard to beat a simply pump shotgun (and really, 20GA is more than sufficient and in may ways better than a 12GA).   Hope that helps some!  

Remember people we are talking about ILLINOIS here; not a free state!  Just because you can do something in TN or FL or MO doesn't mean it's legal to do in Illinois.   You cannot just go buy/sell a firearm at a gun show in Illinois with no record as you can in many states...you can do private transfers but both people must have valid FOID cards and they must show them to each other and the state requires you to keep pretty much the same info an FFL keeps and you must keep the info for no less than 10 years...just say you "sold it at a gun show" and you had better be able to prove it and who you sold it to.   I also doubt that you can just "lend" a firearm to anyone once your FOID card has been revoked (you can't lend a firearm to someone that you can no longer legally own).   Keep banging your heads against the wall if you want but you should either follow the laws of the state you chose to live in or get out and move somewhere else.

Illegal is still illegal...someone correct me if I'm wrong but just because residents of two different states are standing in the same state at the moment doesn't mean you can transfer a firearm between the two without going through an FFL.     Now if you don't care about bringing that kind of trouble down on your head that's your choice but I believe the way the FOID cards work is that they also know what firearms you have so you had damn well better be able to account for them and if you transfer them, do it legitimately - just saying "firearms what firearms" is not going to get you very far.

The sheer idiocy of this woman should strike terror in the hearts of everyone who carries...thank god she actually did the right thing but she clearly is not all there mentally and far more importantly; simply doesn't have a clue abut one of the most basic principles of being a human being which is the right to defend your own life.   Should, god forbid, someone tries to rape or kill her I wonder if she'll understand the concept then?