Friday, May 29, 2009

No Guns for Negroes

Part One



Part Two

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Taser Benifits vs Risks

Disclaimer:

I want to declare that I am a stock owner in Taser. I believe the product saves lives and saves police officers injury. I fully understand that a Taser can be used inappropriately just like any other law enforcement device. My following statements are not only about the device, not about the officers who deployed them. We are all human, even the cops. So misuse of any device is possible in the hands of an untrained or dirty police officer. I have the highest respect for police officers, but also want to point out that in some areas of the US, all you need to be a police officer is a GED, High School diploma , or both (inside joke).

After stating that not all police officers are brainiacs, I would also like to point out that not all civilians are either. Actually, I truly dislike society as a whole. I like individuals, but people as a whole are a bunch of retarded followers who can not think straight and have to be told what they ought to be thinking.


Opinion:

I believe Tasers provide a far greater service to law enforcement then they do a threat to the person on the other end of the Taser. When used properly the Taser prevents contact between the police officer and the perpetrator. Small risk of the officer being hurt and smaller risk of the perp being choked, clubbed over the head, or shot.

The news loves to headline, “Taser Death”, and people sue over these deaths. They ask why did he (I will use he since most deaths are male) die? In the same article they will talk about the drugs in the man’s system. I really want to see a study on how many people die from drugs without being Tased, being in a fight with an officer while on drugs, or being shot by anyone while on drugs.

Personal Responsibility, it is all I want from Americans and anyone else in the world. Why do we expect our police officers to put themselves in danger with a drug crazed idiot? Why is the drug abuser’s life more important then the officers or for the law abiding citizens?

Exhibit A:

"We don't have an answer to why he died," said Bednarz, the attorney for Lee's parents, Bud Lee and Cindy Lundman. "It's still our contention that it was the strikes of the Taser and restraint procedures."

Police allege Lee was under the influence of LSD when he resisted arrest outside a Nashville nightclub in 2005. In addition to using pepper spray and batons to restrain Lee, police officers allegedly used a Taser on the man up to 19 times.

Opinion:

Really, REALLY? You have no answer why your son died. Let me tell you why. He was a drugged up punk. The cops used multiple options to restrain him and all failed. Is it possible that this obviously long fight, over worked his already over drugged heart? Personal responsibility people; it’s not the druggies fault it is the murderous police officers.


Exhibit B:

I can not continue with examples. I am just too pissed off. Just google, "Taser Death”, and read the stories. I have not found one story so far that resulted in a person dying when they were not acting crazy or presenting a danger to police. All were resisting arrest. What pisses me off is that these asshole’s families are getting rich by suing the police saying it’s the cops fault not the dickheads. How is a meth addicted piece of human excrement worth 2 million dollars? HOW? What is a police officers life worth? I would say one police officer is worth more then all the dead drug addicts and criminals that have died after being Tased.


Conclusion:

We are putting too high a price on vermin and too low a price on the law abiding and contributing members of our society. When will we wake up? When will we no longer defend and justify the actions of scum. Drug addiction is not a sickness; it is a weak person’s escape from reality. Let’s not make excuses for it and punish the people who try and stop them from hurting us. We may find one day that there are no longer good men and women willing to do the job.


I like to research my statements and always differentiate between my opinions and those of others. Here are a few of the sites I looked at before getting to pissed off to continue.

Research:

Taser International Research. Take this how ever you wish. I would never trust a company to provide unbiased data. http://www.taser.com/RESEARCH/STATISTICS/Pages/FieldUseandStatistics.aspx


The University of Wisconsin has done a lot of research on Tasers. Specifically John G. Webster, Professor Emeritus, and his students.
http://ecow.engr.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/getbig/bme/762/webster/sun-thesis-01-21-07.pdf - Hongyu Sun at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, 2007

Just Some Light Viewing

This is just good American fun right here. Too bad most of them couldn't hit the side of a barn.

Man Shoots in Self Defense then Executes the Bad Guy

This starts as a good shoot then turns bad. I have no idea what this guy was thinking. Obviously, he was out of his mind when he went back for a second gun and then fired 5 rounds into the disabled bad guy. Can anyone say "temporary insanity" plea?

I am not sure how I feel about this. Should the guy spend the rest of his life in prison over shooting a bad guy? NO

Do I want to know what his thinking is for changing guns and firing 5 more rounds? Hell yes I do.

My world: bad guy dead, good guy wins, game over.

Real world: This guy is an idiot and this went from a good shoot to a bad one quickly. I am having a very hard time justifying this guys actions. I really want to hear his side of the story.

This is an article on FoxNews, via the AP on Thursday, May 28, 2009 :
OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma City pharmacist who shot and killed a 16-year-old would-be robber was charged Wednesday with first-degree murder.
Jerome Ersland, 57, was being held without bail in the Oklahoma County Jail.
Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said in an afternoon news conference that Ersland was justified in shooting Antwun Parker once in the head on May 19. But Prater said Ersland went too far when he shot Parker five more times in the abdomen while Parker lay unconscious on the floor.
Ersland's attorney, Irven Box, said Ersland was protecting himself and two women inside the pharmacy.
"I think he did something in his eyes that protected both himself and two ladies in there," Box said. "He put an end to the threat."
Box said he thinks a jury will exonerate Ersland.
At an afternoon news conference, Prater showed a security video in which two men burst into the pharmacy and one is shot.
Ersland is seen chasing the second man outside before returning, walking past Parker to get a second gun then going back to Parker and opening fire.
The charge alleges Ersland shot Parker while he was incapacitated and lying on his back. Ersland's account of the incident doesn't match the video or the evidence collected at the scene, according to an affidavit written by Oklahoma City Police Detective David Jacobson.
Jacobson said the suspect who ran away from the pharmacy was armed, but no gun was found near Parker.
"Ersland shows no concern for his safety as he walks by Parker, and turns his back to Parker as he walks behind the pharmacy counter," Jacobson said. "Ersland is then seen to put the pistol he is carrying on the counter, and retrieve a second pistol from a drawer."
Ersland used this pistol to shoot Parker on the ground, the detective said.
He said an autopsy determined that Parker had been shot in the head, but was still alive when he was shot in the stomach area and died from those injuries.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Suzanna Gratia-Hupp: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For

This is an old video and an old incident, but I think it says everything about personal protection and the true reason our Founding Fathers put in the second amendment. They did not put it there our right to hunt or for our love of guns. They wrote the second amendment because it was armed civilians who defeated the British Government and it is the armed civilians that protect us from our government growing out of control.

Watch the whole video, the first segment is Suzanna Gratia-Hupp testifying about gun control and how it got her family and 20 others killed without a chance to defend themselves. Their is also another segment interviewing her at her home years later and finally has a segment from Ben and Teller on the Second amendment.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

911 Call -

This is a verified 911 call from a woman who filed 6, yes read it again, 6 complaints against Ryan Bergner a guy she had gone on one date with. I am not sure if she filed a restraining order or if the police ever had a reason to arrest the guy before this night. But the point is that no matter what, this night, she had only herself to rely on and a Fantastic Friend's gun.

Remember the saying: "Police, minutes away when seconds count".

Watch the time the call started and when it ends. I can not hear gun shots, but apparently they were muffled or something.




For those of you who say we would all be safer if there were no guns, I remind you that the gun is the great equalizer. No longer can someone pick on another just because they are bigger or stronger. Women if you fear rape, get training and a then buy a gun. Women are targets just for being women. Make the bad guys pay for thinking you are the weaker sex.

Monday, May 18, 2009

Right to Protect vs Whether You Should

The right to protect ones self and property is very important to me. My view is that no one has the right to take something that I have worked hard for. It is also my belief that I have a right to keep them from taking my property by use of force if necessary.

What started off as yours truly forwarding an email joke to my friends, quickly turned into a long and somewhat heated email discussion and debate. It got so big that we decided to take it to the blog. I, however, failed miserably to get it up here in a reasonable time. My excuse is valid and I am traveling in Europe for work. So without further ado here is the discussion and I hope we can start it up again.

Sorry more ado, quick info on the players in this.
Warthog – Blogger, gun owner, veteran, conservative, constitutionalist.
Matt - New gun owner, liberal.
Mike – Knowledgeable and experienced gun owner, I believe a conservative.
James – Police officer, gun owner duh, Iraq War Veteran, conservative, constitutionalist.
*You will see that this debate is amongst conservative gun owners, this is not a left vs right convo.

Let’s start with the joke:

HOW TO CALL THE POLICE WHEN YOU'RE OLD AND DON'T
> MOVE FAST ANYMORE....
>
>
> George Phillips , an elderly man, from Meridian,
> Mississippi, was going up to bed, when his wife told him
> that he'd left the light on in the garden shed, which
> she could see from the bedroom window. George opened the
> back door to go turn off the light, but saw that there were
> people in the shed stealing things.
>
> He phoned the police, who asked "Is someone in your
> house?"
>
> He said "No," but some people are breaking into
> my garden shed and stealing from me.
>
> Then the police dispatcher said "All patrols are busy.
> You should lock your doors and an officer will be along when
> one is available."
>
> George said, "Okay."
>
> He hung up the phone and counted to 30.
>
> Then he phoned the police again.
>
> "Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because
> there were people stealing things from my shed. Well, you
> don't have to worry about them now because I just shot
> them.." and he hung up.
>
> Within five minutes, six Police Cars, a SWAT Team, a
> Helicopter, two Fire Trucks, a Paramedic, and an Ambulance
> showed up at the Phillips' residence, and caught the
> burglars red-handed.
>
> One of the Policemen said to George, "I thought you
> said that you'd shot them!"
>
> George said, "I thought you said there was nobody
> available!"
>
> (True Story)
>
> Don't mess with old people

Then I was asked a question, which I answered after researching Arizona laws:

Matt:
this made me think: What's the law on self-defense in a situation like this? If someone's breaking into a garage on property that is separate from the house?

Warthog:
Matt I hope you don’t mind me including everyone in your question. As citizens we have no right to kill in defense of our property. We do, however, have the right to threaten deadly force. So if the criminal act portrayed below was to happen to you, you have the right to confront the criminals at the point of a gun. You do not have the right to come out shooting.

Here are a couple of scenarios that could happen if you did decide to confront them by stepping out of your house and yelling freeze:

- They run away

or

- They attack you

In the first scenario, you have no right to do anything but let them go. Hell, if I understand the law correctly, they could laugh at you and continue stealing your stuff while you yell and threaten them.

Second scenario, you shoot them. At this point, the crime changes and so does the law. If you have the right to draw on someone and they continue to come at you, you are now in self defense. It does not matter what they have in the form of a weapon, it only matters that they are threatening, have means to carry out that threat, and you are in fear for your life.

If you are still hazy on that last bit let me explain further. You have ordered them to stop stealing your property by pointing a gun at them, they are now moving toward you (this is a threat), they have the means (they are right in front of you), they have the ability (they can take your gun and shoot you with it) and if you are human you are scared to death.

These are the four things you always have to have to be found justified in a shooting.

Threat - Ability - Means - Fear of Death

Someone yelling from a roof top that they are going to stab does not justify you shooting them. You have been threatened, they do not have the ability, they have the means, and you may be afraid, but you only have 3/4 of the requirements.


Mike:

[Warthog], I totally agree with about half of you email. And I know its just personal preference, but perhaps in jury’s eyes would have provoked the criminals to attack you by yelling at them or even confronting them. I do agree that at that at the point when they are moving towards you, you do need to defend yourself. But look at what cost you are getting yourself in to, huge amounts of court trouble, taking someone’s life or losing yours. It’s all over some hedge trimmers and a lawn mower. Especially with a detached building you are in no direct danger until you put yourself in the middle of it all (intentionally). And I understand that they were stealing your stuff and a lot of people feel the need to stop them, but maybe you just committed a crime by pointing a gun at them. I know that doesn’t sound right but I have heard of criminals playing the court system to their advantage way worse than this. I believe that in almost all home defense situations you do not want to end up confronting someone in your home for a couple reasons.

1.) You are full of adrenaline and you might make a mistake and do something without thinking as long as you should.

2.) You are putting yourself into a uncontrollable situation. Most people don’t have the skill set to know how to clear a room properly, especially at night (myself included). What if the criminal hears you coming and ambushes you. That would be bad.
Why not sit and wait in a location that you are in control of. Perhaps in a bed room, or anywhere you can be in an “eyes and ears in one direction” kind of situation.

Also if someone persists to advance on you in that situation you did nothing but truly protect yourself. Honestly someone can take ever thing I own and I wouldn’t care as long as the ones I care about are ok. You don’t know if that person breaking into you tool shed is armed or not, but that is my point. I don’t care about stuff more than my life.

And remember this is just one situation; there are a million different things that could happen that would make me change my mind and act differently.

Just my two cents, agree with me or not. Just what I have learned in the past.

Word

Warthog:
Hey, I stated facts not theory of what to do. If we want to have a discussion on what I would do that is for another email.

This email is by the law. I looked everything up in my handy Arizona Gun Owners Guide and I confirmed the Arizona statutes on the web. So everything I stated was what you can expect by the law, not whether you should do it.

James (Police Officer):

I normally don’t reply to these; however this one got me spun up. Not only do I believe a person has the legal right to confront an individual in this type of situation, I think you have a moral obligation. If more people did this and the media actually reported it maybe people would be deterred. I agree that you need a level of proficiency in order to do this. If you do not have this level, you should strive to obtain it as a responsible gun owner.

A side note……. I have first hand knowledge that the county attorney is very understanding in these situations. I have seen them decline to prosecute on several “grey area” type of incidents. The prosecutor can not go forward on any prosecution if he has no likely possibility of conviction. In this state that means he has to convince them to convict a law abiding homeowner who shot and killed a criminal.

If you were on the jury how would you decide?? And before you answer you would convict, remember that the whole jury (8 in this state) has to agree. I don’t see that ever happening.

Mike:
I first want to say that I respect everyone’s opinion and experience and I’m glad we can have this debate because its stuff like this that causes all of use to reevaluate our situations and prepare mentally for these things.

My thoughts in my previous email were just my opinion like I said. But I’m also trying to build good practices that will keep me out of jail (courts included) and alive for my entire life (natural that is). I may not live in this state forever so I want to build practices that will always be described as Self Defense. Something we all need to think about is if someone is breaking into your tool shed, would you go out and confront them, would your significant other want you to, and would you want you significant other to do so. That being said I do agree that we have a right to try and stop crimes, perhaps a duty with violent crimes. But I don’t think we have an obligation to stop any crime that is not a violent crime (as a regular citizen), because we may be creating a violent crime, and take the brunt of the repercussions. As much as I would want to go any stop the scum that was taking my stuff that I paid hard money for, I have to think twice about it. There are so many situations that could arise from one wrong move, or perhaps a right move. And remember it’s not all about whether you do or do not get charged with a crime. You have to live with the fact that you took another humans life. Me personally I know I would pull the trigger, IF I had to. But I absolutely do not want to……Last Resort

I have a book on personal defense in the home written by the NRA. That anyone is more than welcome to borrow (Except for Steve and Byrd cuz they might disagree and light my book on fire…JK )

I just wanted to put a couple of paragraphs in here that I think make everyone’s points very valid.

“Even when its necessary and justified, shooting a violent criminal is not a pleasant experience. This should be realized and planned for as part of your mental training. The willingness to take life in self defense is very different form the desire to take a life. No responsible, decent person enjoys taking a life, no matter how depraved and malignant the assailant maybe. The willingness to use deadly force in self defense does not imply a devaluation of human life. In fact, those who include firearms in their personal protection plans are affirming the value of their own live and those of their family members, The ethical person does not ever want to use deadly force, but recognizes that there are times when it may be the only option to protect Innocent lives.”

I highlighted that last part because that is what deadly force should be used for. There is no way that my life is worth whatever someone will steal from me.

And let’s remember what a concealed weapons course should have taught us…..Firing in self defense is an option of last resort.

One last quote that I thought was good from that book and I will stop my long winded ramblings.

“The use of a firearm or other deadly weapon to protect your self should be an act of last resort, when no other option is available. It is always better to escape, evade, avoid or deter and attack than to resolve it through the use of force. By employing your powers of awareness you will be able to recognize threats in your environment early on, which in turn may enable you to escape or avoid them. If you fail to maintain a state of awareness, you are more likely to become a victim of an attack, or to have to use deadly force to defend yourself.”

I hope that we can all at least understand my stand point here. You don’t have to agree with it. I defiantly see everyone else’s views about the situations and again, respect every one of them. We have all had different encounters with this kind of stuff in our lives and that is what builds our responses to them.
Thanks

The end.

James has not responded to the last comment and it might be because we decided to take it off email and go to the blog. So he may just be waiting for me to post this. I have not talked to him since I got to Europe so not sure.