Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 01, 2014, 02:54:57 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81414 Posts in 2243 Topics by 1046 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff )
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 31 Print
Author Topic: We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff )  (Read 218239 times)
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2141


« Reply #900 on: February 22, 2012, 06:26:41 AM »

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/21/new-hampshire-man-faces-felony-charge-after-firing-gun-into-ground-near-burglar/

I hope my neighbor would do the same.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30671


« Reply #901 on: February 22, 2012, 08:18:44 AM »

Wow  cry
Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #902 on: February 22, 2012, 02:06:07 PM »

It will be a terrible day when the only people that are armed are everyone except for the general public i.e. the government and people that just refuse to to listen to the law.

Got to love progressive politics or anyone that thinks the right to defend oneself can in any way be controlled under law.

The right to self preservation comes from oneself and their Creator and is not subject to any other person's say, no matter what other people think.

I feel bad for this guy.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #903 on: February 22, 2012, 09:15:02 PM »

I'm going to take the unpopular viewpoint; what else is new?  smiley

DF; I absolutely agree with you; self preservation and the right to defend ourselves should be inviolate. 

BUT....  Is it ok to shoot someone, kill them, for taking your neighbor's TV set?  They are unarmed, no threat to you,
but there is that pesky little with your neighbor's TV running down the street.  So shoot him you say?

On another thread, it was pointed out,
"if you look closely at NH's laws, the use of deadly force against someone committing a burglary has to involve a threat to the person, not just property"

Frankly, if there is no physical threat, killing someone should not be an option; sorry.  I agree with NH law.  I mean some teen age kid breaks into your house,
takes your TV set, and you think you are entitled to shoot and kill him for that as he's running down the driveway, unarmed (except for the TV) away from you? 
I suppose if the police did that our jails would be empty, but somehow it doesn't seem right.

But you might argue, he just shot at the ground, he didn't shoot to kill.  I will leave it to GM to defend, but it seems to me policemen don't "shoot at the ground"
as a warning.  Nor do they shoot if someone is taking a TV set down the street.  IF they need need to shoot, it seems to me they are shooting to defend themselves
or another person in possible fear of their life, and they shoot to kill.

Further, I rarely disagree with bigdog, but I'm not sure I want my neighbor walking up the street, shooting his gun in my yard, and if the thief started to run, my
neighbor shoots to kill him on my property.  Oh yeah, I saved my TV set.  But no one was threatened or in fear of their life except maybe the unarmed thief. 
I bet the fallout will cost more than my TV set.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11851


« Reply #904 on: February 22, 2012, 09:43:41 PM »

Gee, if only someone would write a book about the self defense laws of all 50 states......

If only there was someplace I could buy such a book.....   grin



Anyway, as a rule of thumb, if it's not worth dying over, going to prison over, getting sued over, it's not worth fighting/shooting over.

A lawfully armed citizen or LEO shoots to stop the immediate threat of serious bodily injury/death. Once the threat is ended, the shooting stops. You do not "shoot to kill". Death may result, but that is not the intent.

Now, some enlightened places like Texas grant much wider latitude, but I, myself would restrict myself to the concepts mentioned above no matter the laws in any jurisdiction you might live in or visit.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30671


« Reply #905 on: February 22, 2012, 09:58:28 PM »

Perhaps my powers of reading for comprehension fail me, but I fail to see where anyone, including the citizen in question, tried to shoot anyone over a TV set.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #906 on: February 22, 2012, 10:40:00 PM »

 Crafty; I don't know what the thief stole; I used a TV set as an example.  Since he put everything in a backpack, I doubt if it was truly a TV.
Does it matter what he stole from the neighbor's house?  A TV, or a computer, or some CD's?

The citizen in question, down the street, at a neighbor's house, saw a guy climbing out of a window and fired his gun.  The bad guy was
unarmed, non threatening (he was climbing out of a window).  If the guy got out of the window and proceeded to run away (non threatening)
are you entitled to shoot him?  IMHO the answer is still no.  Burglary is not a capital offense. 

I brought GM into the equation since I notice Police never (to my knowledge) shoot at the ground, nor do they shoot to wound;
IF their life is threatened, they shoot to defend themselves (I meant no offense by my comment, "shoot to kill", but that's fine with me). 
However, IF their life or someone else's life is NOT threatened, the bad guy is unarmed,I presume the police will not shoot a simple burglar. 
Nor should a private citizen.

GM's post succintly summarizes my opinion.  Wow; we agree!   smiley
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11851


« Reply #907 on: February 22, 2012, 10:54:50 PM »

The only law enforcement entities that allow for "warning shots" to be fired are correctional facilities, given that they have controlled environments.

Outside of controlled environnments, any shot that you fire has the potential to ricochet and injure/kill innocents. Bad idea.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30671


« Reply #908 on: February 23, 2012, 12:45:54 AM »

JDN:

I still don't think you are tracking my point.   You speak (a tad self-righteously) of not shooting someone over property (TV set, whatever) yet that is not the question presented.  The citizen in question fired at the ground.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30671


« Reply #909 on: February 23, 2012, 12:55:55 AM »



*Second gun used in ICE agent murder linked to ATF undercover operation* (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57383089-10391695/second-gun-used-in-ice-agent-murder-linked-to-atf-undercover-operation/?tag=contentMain%3BcontentBody)

By Sharyl Attkisson


Prosecutors recently sentenced a Texas man, Manuel Barba, for trafficking a weapon connected to the murder of Immigration and Customs (ICE) Agent Jaime Zapata. Nobody was more astonished to learn of the case than Zapata's parents, who didn't know that Barba had been arrested or linked to their son's murder.

"The family was obviously surprised to learn that there was a case involving a weapon linked to the Zapata incident," attorney Trey Martinez told CBS News. Martinez represents Zapata's parents and the surviving ICE agent in the assault, Victor Avila. "They were surprised they had never been contacted in the capacity as victims so they could give a response or some kind of reaction at the time of sentencing."

Barba was sentenced to 100 months in prison on January 30th. When we asked why the Zapatas weren't contacted, prosecutors in Houston told CBS News they only handled the weapons charges: conspiracy, false statements and exportation/receipt of firearms. Zapata's actual murder "is being handled by another US Attorney's office and... is separate and apart from the firearms case that was handled by our district," said a spokeswoman. She added the firearms offenses "are crimes that do not involve victims in the legal sense of the word and therefore, notifications are not part of the legal process."

In a related development, CBS News has obtained documents showing that Barba was under ATF surveillance for at least six months before a rifle he trafficked was used in Zapata's murder. Zapata's government vehicle was ambushed by suspected cartel thugs in Mexico Feb. 15, 2011.

Documents indicate ATF opened its case against Barba, entitled "Baytown Crew," in June of 2010. During the investigation, court records state Barba recruited straw purchasers and "facilitated the purchase and exportation of at least 44 firearms" including assault rifles. On August 20, 2010 Barba took delivery of the WASR-10 semi-automatic rifle later used in Zapata's murder, obliterated its serial number, and sent it to Mexico with nine others just like it. Nearly two months later, on Oct. 8, 2010, ATF agents recorded a phone call in which Barba "spoke about the final disposition of ... firearms to Mexico and also about the obliterating of the serial numbers before they were trafficked." Barba told straw purchasers the guns were destined for the Zeta drug cartel.

A warrant wasn't issued for Barba's arrest until four months later; coincidentally, the day before a rifle he trafficked was used against Zapata.

Barba is now the second weapons trafficker who had been under ATF surveillance to be linked to Zapata's murder. As CBS News previously reported, ATF had also been watching suspect Otilio Osorio during the time he trafficked a different weapon used in Zapata's assault. Records show ATF watched on Nov. 9, 2010 as Osorio, his brother Ranferi and Kelvin Leon Morrison transferred a cache of illegal weapons to a confidential informant but failed to arrest the men at the time.

The government has kept a close hold on nearly all information surrounding Zapata's murder, denying the family's Freedom of Information requests on the basis of an ongoing investigation. The Zapata's attorney says they will keep pursuing the information by "whatever means necessary."
---End Quote---

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #910 on: February 23, 2012, 08:14:08 AM »

JDN:

I still don't think you are tracking my point.   You speak (a tad self-righteously) of not shooting someone over property (TV set, whatever) yet that is not the question presented.  The citizen in question fired at the ground.

I am.  The citizen in question illegally FIRED a gun.  He was not in fear of his life; in contrast he went down the street looking for problems. The thief was climbing out of a window.  No one was hurt or physically threatened.  As GM succinctly explained, even trained police think firing "warning shots" is a "bad idea".  Further, if this thief did not stop, but rather ran, is this citizen, after firing a warning shot, entitled to shoot the unarmed thief in the back as he runs? That's why NH has the law; that is why he was arrested.  You can ONLY shoot (where is aimed doesn't enter into the discussion) (use deadly force) when you are in fear of your life.  That is how the law should read.

As a further question, what's a "warning" shot?  At the ground?  In the air?  One aimed 5 feet from your head.  Closer?  The answer is easy; simply don't fire the gun unless you are in fear of your life.  Things go wrong; no property is worth it.

That said, in this case no one was hurt.  The thief "cooperated".  Probably time to move on.  This is not a good case for the DA.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30671


« Reply #911 on: February 23, 2012, 08:47:24 AM »

I would not call stopping a neighbor's home from being burglared "looking for trouble"!

Again, NO ONE here is advocating shooting a fleeing thief over a TV or whatever.

So, lets take a look at this afresh: What was our heroic neighbor to do?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #912 on: February 23, 2012, 09:11:52 AM »

I would not call stopping a neighbor's home from being burglared "looking for trouble"!

At this point in time, there was absolutely no threat to Fleming's (citizen) body or property.  Instead,
"Police later found out that Fleming had been looking for Hebert (thief) for about half-an-hour after the robbery."

I call that "looking for trouble.


Again, NO ONE here is advocating shooting a fleeing thief over a TV or whatever.

No offense, but indirectly, yes you are.  What is a "warning shot"?  Basically, a command that if you don't respond/cooperate you will be shot.
The thief was not armed, nor did the thief threaten Fleming (he was too busy climbing out of a window).  So the only reason to shoot was
to preserve property.

So, lets take a look at this afresh: What was our heroic neighbor to do?

Call the Police!   "Fleming told WBZ-TV Monday he was wrong to take the law into his own hands."
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2141


« Reply #913 on: February 23, 2012, 09:29:26 AM »

I wonder if this is the deterrent effect that the state was looking for. That is, was he wrong to take the law into his own hand, or has decided he was wrong due the implications of the arrest and pending prosecution?  And if it is the latter, the consequence, intended or not, goes far beyond the discharge of a firearm.  It is more likely to make good, moral, upstanding citizens look out for their neighbors, friends and family in times of distress. 
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #914 on: February 23, 2012, 09:50:39 AM »

It is more likely to make good, moral, upstanding citizens look out for their neighbors, friends and family in times of distress. 

I happen to live in the City of LA.  My little area is a little hilltop surrounded by gang/crime.  Many of us who live on our hill work at home.  We have
a superb neighborhood watch program, many people go for walks, people are friendly; we know one another.  It's a diverse crowd; my immediate neighbor works for Bank of America, others are lawyers, doctors, professors, film directors, artists, and business people.  Most are straight, but we have a high percentage of gay/lesbians.  The excellent local public elementary school is strongly supported by parents.  I feel quite safe here.  Often I don't lock my doors.

My point is that we do look out for one another.  We try to help one another in times of distress.  But I don't think any of us would bring a gun, much less shoot it, if all we saw is a robbery.  We would call the police.  Bringing a gun to robbery can cause all sorts of negative repercussions.   However, if I thought my neighbor was being physically threatened, she was clearly in fear of her life, I would have no problem bringing my gun and shooting the person, if necessary to defend her life.  Further I have no qualms about defending inside my home with deadly force if I or my wife are threatened.

I distinguish between property which is insured or can be replaced and human life.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #915 on: February 23, 2012, 10:45:09 AM »

I am not advocating anyone break the law, just enjoying the freedom of this venue to disagree with laws and try to distinguish between right or wrong.

I couldn't disagree more strongly with the idea presented that a home invasion, a stranger with known criminal capacity forcibly or wrongfully entering the structure you bought or built to separate yourself and your family from such strangers, is only an insurable property crime??  To me, that is very wrong.  By entering, they put your irreplaceables into an unacceptable risk of danger, IMHO. 

My thought is that if a person willing to threaten or scare a family to that extreme extent received a shot from a neighbor that hit only his earring, that would also only be an insurable property crime. 

Who is the victim of the shot into the ground?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #916 on: February 23, 2012, 11:00:25 AM »

Doug, the citizen at that time WASN'T defending his property.  The thief was NOT inside HIS house.  Nor did the citizen even own the structure.  The thief did not put any person in danger or even scare a family. He was climbing OUT of a window, unarmed, with a few CD's or whatever in his backpack. 

I agree, IF he had put anyone in direct danger, if anyone was fearing for their life, then sure, go ahead and shoot the earring off (nice shot).  But if NO ONE
is physically threatened, and you shoot the earring off, YOU could/will go to jail not to mention civil repercussions; rightfully so.  Shooting the earring off someone who is unarmed and no threat to anyone is not a minor insurable property crime, it's probably attempted murder or some other serious criminal offense. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #917 on: February 23, 2012, 12:03:47 PM »

JDN, Entering one's home when you are home or not home has a TERROR affect on the family and the neighborhood; that is not just a property crime and that is MY opinion, not the law.  Almost grazing their cheek with a bullet if you have that ability does no harm either by your standard if you think the only damage of forcible entry with a stranger in a family home is the loss of CDs.  I was clear BTW about not advocating breaking the law so don't take my comment out of its context.  Thank you.

You wrote yourself: "This is not a good case for the DA."

Why not?  Because he didn't do anything wrong.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30671


« Reply #918 on: February 23, 2012, 12:24:01 PM »

JDN:  That is a remarkably clueless description of a home burglary.  You're better than that.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #919 on: February 23, 2012, 05:08:43 PM »

"I'm better than that".  Perhaps, but maybe I'm a little tired today....  I still don't get your point as it relates to this shooting.  Objectively,
I thought I was quite clear.  The citizen was wrong.

Home burglary, someone invading your home and your privacy, even when no one is home, while of course terrible, is not, by definition, a violent crime.  Notice, it was not robbery; plus no one was home when the thief went through the window.  Nor did the thief even have a weapon.  Bottom line, the thief didn't threaten anyone.

In this particular case, the citizen shot his gun in a situation where the thief was not even in the citizen's (the shooter) home or property.  He was down the street.  The citizen was not threatened in any way.  Nor was anyone else.

I presume Doug is speaking tongue in cheek; the criminal punishment for shooting at someone and "almost grazing their cheek" when they had never physically threatened you or anyone else whatsoever is far more severe than simple daytime home burglary with no one home.  Not to mention, think about the civil repercussions.  

Bottom line; the citizen had no legal justification to fire his firearm.  He committed a crime.  Period.  He should have simply called the police.

As for the DA, the publicity is a nightmare therefore he will probably not press further charges or some community service will be agreed upon.  No one was hurt, but if the thief had been shot, or an innocent bystander hit, serious criminal and civil issues would arise for the citizen.  We all cheer for the citizen, this is a pro gun (I am too) forum, but we don't think about what could go wrong; as GM pointed out even trained police don't fire a warning shot for fear of hurting others.  The average citizen is not nearly as well trained as a police officer.

« Last Edit: February 23, 2012, 05:19:29 PM by JDN » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #920 on: February 23, 2012, 07:14:34 PM »

"Home burglary, someone invading your home and your privacy, even when no one is home, while of course terrible, is not, by definition, a violent crime."

If your wife walks out of the bathroom to discover the 'unarmed' (how do we know that at the time) burglar who only wants the necklace, not to rape, torture and kill her (how do we know that at the time), then has she only lost a necklace, or some CDs?  No!  She has lost perhaps forever the feeling of safety and security that she once had in the privacy of her own home.

I honestly don't know what you don't get about that unless you and your wife have no capacity for fear or a personal feeling of violation.

Yes, he 'should have' called the police instead.  The odds that the police would apprehend him if the call is made as the man is leaving: near zero.

The odds that he will return to that home or that neighborhood if the job was successful: extremely high.

The odds that he will return after thinking he was shot at while escaping: zero.

Seems to me the shot fired harmlessly will cause him extreme fear that he deserves to feel and cause him to not return, which is protecting the neighbor's home too.  A firecracker might have served the same purpose; he just didn't have one handy and also no doubt illegal.

Of course we don't want to encourage people to take the law into their own hands or to discharge weapons in residential areas for no good reason, but in this case a pretty good result came out of it -  at least until they sue or prosecute or the wrong guy. (IMHO)
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #921 on: February 23, 2012, 07:33:29 PM »

Doug you don't get it. My wife, his wife, has NOTHING to do with it. It was burglary; that means NOBODY was home!  No one was in fear of their life nor was anyone threatened. Zero!

If my wife was home like in your example that's robbery. If my wife felt fear for her well being because this stranger broke into her house she can shoot him for all I care.

But your analogy is night and day.

So what's your point?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #922 on: February 24, 2012, 12:01:30 AM »

Reminds of when you thought the French supermarket wasn't vandalized.  A waste of my time. Let's not answer each other's posts.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #923 on: February 24, 2012, 12:23:59 AM »

Huh?  No offense but you've got your facts mixed up.  NO ONE was threatened. No wife, NOBODY was threatened. . And he still used lethal force!

I'm still waiting for your point...  Or you can simply say I was wrong.  And then let's move on.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #924 on: February 24, 2012, 09:33:04 AM »

I don't find that pointing out elephants in a room productive on a 4th try to someone who denies seeing them on the first 3.

A home INVASION with a criminal in a home is not like losing a couple of 20s in the wash.  Yes, if you don't see that you are simply wrong and I should stop there.  A known criminal of unknown limits and capacities and presumed dangerous was in the home where you secure your family even if you are a family of one.  You really need that explained further?

Shooting at the ground is not using lethal force, shooting in the head or chest is.  It was to scare someone who has no qualms about scaring others.  Actually kind of funny that the guy with nerves of steel to do that in the first place got scared and ran. If just the fact that it is a gun makes it lethal, then backing your car out of the garage while your neighbor is outdoors is the use of lethal force also.  The car is also a lethal weapon.  Would you like case law cited on that?

I see this from the point of view as a father homeowner whose daughter could have been home, wishing I could explain to you as a husband whose wife could have been home.  I don't believe that wouldn't bother you, like I said, just wasting my time. To the neighbor it is empathy for that situation and desire to not have it next at his house.

In this TYPE of break-in, how did he (the burglar) know for sure she (a hypothetical wife or daughter or whoever that someone might want to protect) wasn't home.  He didn't.  He was still willing to enter not knowing no one was home for sure.  How did we know AS IT HAPPENED he was unarmed.  We didn't.  Do we know on sight of him if he not is also a rapist and a murderer?  No, we don't.  But we KNOW he is a CRIMINAL IN OUR HOME and those are other things criminals in homes do.  If he is so comfortable entering, got away with it and  knows his way around now and knows what else to take next time, why wouldn't he come back?  He probably would.  You say insurable loss? FYI if you didn't know, they steal the insured stuff and then they come back to get the new stuff that the insurance company buys to replace it. Have you ever had your home invaded?  Would he the criminal kill her with his bare hands or other implement within reach next time if she was home and startled him?  Yes, it's possible. Should she worry about that every moment she is home and thinks about it?  Yes, that would be a perfectly normal reaction. Keyword TERROR. Will she be home next time?  Yeah, maybe.  Will she now live in fear? Yes, that would make sense.  Or have to sell, move and leave her home to try to escape that fear.  Should the neighbor rationally believe that his home and his family is next if the guy gets away with this one so close and within sight of his home without incident?  Yes.

Was he right to discharge his firearm safely, but illegally?  That depends on his judgment of the likelihood of prosecution and size and scope of the expected penalty as opposed to the cost of doing nothing when you could have scared off that intruder forever. 

Do I believe that you, a double major college graduate, really don't get that a home invasion is an INVASION, and is not equivalent to losing a couple of 20s in the wash? Just an insurable loss? No. I don't.

But we have been through this before.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #925 on: February 24, 2012, 10:40:10 AM »

Doug, I think you are out of your element here; you may want to go back to economics and politics.  Just like I don't usually address the issues of sun spots or climate change; my limited science education
is inadequate.


A home INVASION with a criminal in a home is not like losing a couple of 20s in the wash.  Yes, if you don't see that you are simply wrong and I should stop there.  A known criminal of unknown limits and capacities and presumed dangerous was in the home where you secure your family even if you are a family of one.  You really need that explained further?

Nope, I agree.

Shooting at the ground is not using lethal force, shooting in the head or chest is.  It was to scare someone who has no qualms about scaring others.  Actually kind of funny that the guy with nerves of steel to do that in the first place got scared and ran. If just the fact that it is a gun makes it lethal, then backing your car out of the garage while your neighbor is outdoors is the use of lethal force also.  The car is also a lethal weapon.  Would you like case law cited on that?

Actually, that is not quite right.  As GM has pointed out, shooting a warning shot can be dangerous.  If you shoot your gun, it is to defend yourself or another.  And it definitely is considered use of lethal force.  Even if a police officer fires their gun, they need to justify it later.  Further, how about if i shoot five feet in front?  Or I shoot at the earrings as you suggested?  Is that use of lethal force?  Of course it is.  A car can be a lethal weapon; I agree, but merely backing it out of my driveway while my neighbor is outdoors is NOT use of lethal force.  If I swerved towards him and tried to hit him, then it's consider lethal use of force.  A  gun is different.  But you know that.


In this TYPE of break-in, how did he (the burglar) know for sure she (a hypothetical wife or daughter or whoever that someone might want to protect) wasn't home.  He didn't.  He was still willing to enter not knowing no one was home for sure.  How did we know AS IT HAPPENED he was unarmed.  We didn't.  Do we know on sight of him if he not is also a rapist and a murderer?  No, we don't.  But we KNOW he is a CRIMINAL IN OUR HOME and those are other things criminals in homes do.  If he is so comfortable entering, got away with it and  knows his way around now and knows what else to take next time, why wouldn't he come back?  He probably would.  You say insurable loss? FYI if you didn't know, they steal the insured stuff and then they come back to get the new stuff that the insurance company buys to replace it. Have you ever had your home invaded?  Would he the criminal kill her with his bare hands or other implement within reach next time if she was home and startled him?  Yes, it's possible. Should she worry about that every moment she is home and thinks about it?  Yes, that would be a perfectly normal reaction. Keyword TERROR. Will she be home next time?  Yeah, maybe.  Will she now live in fear? Yes, that would make sense.  Or have to sell, move and leave her home to try to escape that fear.  Should the neighbor rationally believe that his home and his family is next if the guy gets away with this one so close and within sight of his home without incident?  Yes.

No offense, but you are confusing the circumstances.  I repeat; this was BURGLARY.  Not robbery.  No one was home.  NO LIFE OR ANY INDIVIDUAL WAS IN DANGER OR THREATEN.  No weapon was present.  That is the part you keep mixing up.  You gave analogy after analogy that weren't relevant.  IF someone was home and the thief entered, youR points would be correct.  And I would tell my wife shoot away if she felt in danger; inside your home you have every right.  BUT, no one was home, no one was threatened, the thief was leaving out out the window, he did not have a weapon, etc.  It's not a violent crime. 


Was he right to discharge his firearm safely, but illegally?  That depends on his judgment of the likelihood of prosecution and size and scope of the expected penalty as opposed to the cost of doing nothing when you could have scared off that intruder forever. 

I agree.  But I'm curious.  The citizen yelled, "freeze". What happens if the guy doesn't "freeze"?  He just starts walking away.  Or sideways.  Or even towards you, but he is obviously unarmed.  Are you going to shoot him since you already fired a warning shot?  I mean you've got this gun in your hand.  You have already fired it once. Imagine the adrenaline pumping.  For stealing two twenties off the kitchen counter, are you going to kill him?  If he walks towards you unarmed, will you shoot him?  Just think about the repercussions.  You will have lots of time while you are in prison to say I wish I didn't do that. 

Do I believe that you, a double major college graduate, really don't get that a home invasion is an INVASION, and is not equivalent to losing a couple of 20s in the wash? Just an insurable loss? No. I don't.

I do get it; it's far worse than losing a couple of twenty's in the wash.  I do agree it's an invasion.  I don't like it.  But if someone burglarized my house and stole those two twenties off my kitchen table, the law doesn't call it a violent crime.  Frankly, the law probably calls it a misdemeanor - sort of like getting caught with a joint.  Not good, but not worth potentially killing someone.

For your benefit; I'm going to repeat myself.  We are talking burglary, not robbery.  There is no elephant in the room.  No one was home, no one was threatened or in fear since no one was home.  He was unarmed.  Conjecture, and what ifs changes the facts.  In contrast, I fully agree that if you are home and feel in danger, shoot away.  But for this discussion, don't confuse the facts.  In this case it was a robbery.


But let's move on.  I think everyone understands and while openly cheering for the citizen, inside is happy nobody got hurt or that there were no repercussions.  IMHO Lethal Force should ONLY be used if you are in fear of your life or for another persons life.  Period.


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #926 on: February 24, 2012, 12:43:45 PM »

"But let's move on."

I was right about wasting my time.  I don't come here for escalating insults.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #927 on: February 24, 2012, 12:59:49 PM »

Doug; I meant no insult.  Home invasion is terrible.  It's emotional.  Approximately fifteen years ago it did happen to me once while I was on vacation.  The house was a mess; from the refrigerator he had even drank a few beers and tossed the bottles on the floor.  Not a wine guy though; he left all the wine stacked up.    smiley   I remember the whole situation quite vividly even though it happened a long time ago, perhaps that is indicative of your point; i.e. it's serious.  You and I just disagreed on the proper response.  I was never there, I was never physically threatened, so I didn't go looking for him with a gun. 

That said, I do have a gun(s).  IF I'm home, I have no qualms about shooting if someone invades my home and threatens me or my wife.

However, I like to think I educated you on the distinct differences between burglary and robbery.  There is a big difference; both legally speaking and emotionally.

But here nor there, yes, let's move on....
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #928 on: February 24, 2012, 01:10:39 PM »

You did not educate me.  Put the insults in a private message so that I can not read them over there.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30671


« Reply #929 on: March 06, 2012, 07:45:44 PM »

The following is posted from a semi-private forum.
=========================================

http://ia600501.us.archive.org/1/ite...72.docket.html

Go to document 53. It's a PDF of the order.

This ruling is good, solid reasoning that will stand up, and be tough to get around - but it's not as good as it could have been.

The Court views the carrying of handguns outside the home as outside the core areas of 2nd amendment protection as Heller's ruling focused on the fundamental rights to have a firearm in the home for protection; therefore, this court reasons that the right must exist outside the home, as the bearing of arms doesn't occur at home, but it's not part of Heller's core rights.

Carrying of arms, and by extension, the permit process attached thereto, is protected under intermediate scrutiny:

Intermediate scrutiny requires more; the government‘s interest must be ―significant,‖ ―substantial,‖ or ―important,‖ see, e.g., Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 662 (1994), and the ―fit‖ between the challenged regulation and the asserted objective must be reasonable, though not perfect. See, e.g., Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 556 (2001).

The MD law does not meet this burden at all as it stands:

ii. Intermediate Scrutiny

As stated, Maryland‘s permitting scheme, insofar as it requires a ―good and substantial‖ reason for a law-abiding citizen to carry a firearm outside his home, is subject to intermediate scrutiny. In order to prevail, the State must demonstrate that the challenged regulation is reasonably adapted to a substantial governmental interest. Under this standard, the ―degree of fit‖ between the regulation and ―the well-established goal of promoting public safety need not be perfect; it must only be substantial.‖ Heller v. Dist. of Columbia, 698 F. Supp. 2d 179, 191 (D.D.C. 2010).

Beyond peradventure, public safety and the prevention of crime are substantial, indeed compelling, government interests. See, e.g., United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 748–50 (1987) (noting that ―the Government‘s regulatory interest in community safety can, in appropriate circumstances, outweigh an individual‘s liberty interest‖ and holding that the government‘s interest in preventing crime is not only important, but compelling); Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 264 (1984) (―The legitimate and compelling state interest in protecting the community from crime cannot be doubted.‖) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

The Maryland statute‘s failure lies in the overly broad means by which it seeks to advance this undoubtedly legitimate end. The requirement that a permit applicant demonstrate ―good and substantial reason‖ to carry a handgun does not, for example, advance the interests of public safety by ensuring that guns are kept out of the hands of those adjudged most likely to misuse them, such as criminals or the mentally ill. It does not ban handguns from places where the possibility of mayhem is most acute, such as schools, churches, government buildings, protest gatherings, or establishments that serve alcohol. It does not attempt to reduce accidents, as would a requirement that all permit applicants complete a safety course. It does not even, as some other States‘ laws do, limit the carrying of handguns to persons deemed ―suitable‖ by denying a permit to anyone ―whose conduct indicates that he or she is potentially a danger to the public if entrusted with a handgun.‖ See Kuck v. Danaher, No. 3:07cv1390(VLB), 2011 WL 4537976 at *11 (D. Conn. Sept. 29, 2011).

Rather, the regulation at issue is a rationing system. It aims, as Defendants concede, simply to reduce the total number of firearms carried outside of the home by limiting the privilege to those who can demonstrate ―good reason‖ beyond a general desire for self-defense.

In support of this limitation, Defendants list numerous reasons why handguns pose a threat to public safety in general and why curbing their proliferation is desirable. For example, they argue that an assailant may wrest a handgun away from its owner, and cite evidence that this possibility imperils even trained police officers. See Defs.‘ Mot. Summ. J. 15, Docket No. 26. They note that when a police officer is engaged in a confrontation with a criminal, the presence of an armed civilian can divert the officer‘s attention. Id. at 16. In addition, Defendants urge that while most permit holders are law-abiding, there is no guarantee that they will remain so. They cite studies purporting to show that the majority of murderers have no previous felony conviction that would have prevented them from obtaining a permit. Id. at 35. Thus, they argue, a permitting scheme that merely denies permits to convicted felons is inadequate.

These arguments prove too much. While each possibility presents an unquestionable threat to public safety, the challenged regulation does no more to combat them than would a law indiscriminately limiting the issuance of a permit to every tenth applicant. The solution, then, is not tailored to the problem it is intended to solve. Maryland‘s ―good and substantial reason‖ requirement will not prevent those who meet it from having their guns taken from them, or from accidentally shooting themselves or others, or from suddenly turning to a life of crime. Indeed, issuing permits specifically to those applicants who can demonstrate an increased likelihood that they may need a firearm would seem a strange way to allay Defendants‘ fear that ―when handguns are in the possession of potential victims of crime, their decision to use them in a public setting may actually increase the risk of serious injury or death to themselves or others.‖ Id. at 15. If anything, the Maryland regulation puts firearms in the hands of those most likely to use them in a violent situation by limiting the issuance of permits to ―groups of individuals who are at greater risk than others of being the victims of crime.‖
Id. at 40.

A law that burdens the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right by simply making that right more difficult to exercise cannot be considered ―reasonably adapted‖ to a government interest, no matter how substantial that interest may be. Maryland‘s goal of ―minimizing the proliferation of handguns among those who do not have a demonstrated need for them,‖ id. at 40, is not a permissible method of preventing crime or ensuring public safety; it burdens the right too broadly.

Those who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment surely knew that the right they were enshrining carried a risk of misuse, and states have considerable latitude to channel the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk. States may not, however, seek to reduce the danger by means of widespread curtailment of the right itself. ―[E]ven the most legitimate goal may not be advanced in a constitutionally impermissible manner.‖ Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 464–65 (1980).

At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government‘s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason‖ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.


The Court wishes to emphasize the limits of this decision. While it finds Maryland‘s requirement that a permit applicant demonstrate ―good and substantial reason‖ to be unconstitutional, the Court does not address any of the State‘s other regulations relating to the possession and use of firearms, many of which would qualify as presumptively lawful.

Nor does the Court speculate as to whether a law that required a ―good and substantial reason‖ only of law-abiding citizens who wish to carry a concealed handgun would be constitutional.11 Finally, the Court does not speak to Maryland‘s ability to declare that a specific applicant is unfit for a permit because of some particular aspect of the applicant‘s character or history.


This case is not the ringing decleration of the RKBA we'd all hope for.

Instead, it's an attack agains arbitrary and caprecious laws restricting the RKBA.

It says to MD "If you want to have a permit process, fine. Have one with a goal that is acceptable - public safety - and a law's methods reasonably and substantively related to that goal that is applied fairly. I'm not going to tell you want that is, just that the goal of burdening the right to make it unexcercised is NOT going to be tolerated. I'm not saying you have to go Texas...but I'm telling you that you aren't going to pass muster with a law designed as a winnowing process from the get-go."


« Last Edit: March 06, 2012, 07:48:09 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11851


« Reply #930 on: March 19, 2012, 05:48:28 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/19/holder-in-1995-we-have-to-brainwash-people-against-guns/comment-page-1/#comments

Holder in 1995: We have to “brainwash” people against guns
 

posted at 11:00 am on March 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
 


If you wanted to “really brainwash” people against guns, how would you go about it? Ask people to start buying anti-gun ads to combat what some might see as a pro-gun bias in entertainment (skipping MacGyver, of course). What if that didn’t work? Well, if you got a chance to be Attorney General, you might order ATF operations designed to put American gun stores in the worst possible light. Breitbart.com unearthed C-SPAN video of Eric Holder in 1995 when Holder served as US Attorney for Washington DC in the Clinton-era Department of Justice, talking about the need to “brainwash” Americans into becoming hostile to gun rights:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH253ErC9c8
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30671


« Reply #931 on: March 19, 2012, 11:50:41 PM »



*Prime gunwalking suspect was held by ATF but released, documents show (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57400267-10391695/prime-gunwalking-suspect-was-held-by-atf-but-released-documents-show/)*

By Sharyl Attkisson


The prime suspect in the botched gun trafficking investigation known as "Fast and Furious" -- Manuel Acosta -- was taken into custody and might have been stopped from trafficking weapons to Mexico's killer drug cartel early on. But the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) let him go, according to new documents obtained by CBS News.

An ATF "Report of Investigation" obtained by CBS News shows Border Patrol agents stopped Acosta's truck on May 29, 2010. Inspectors said they found illegal materials including an "AK type, high capacity drum magazine loaded with 74 rounds of 7.62 ammunition underneath the spare tire." They also noted ledgers including a "list of firearms such as an AR15 short and a Bushmaster" and a "reference about money given to 'killer.'"

The Border Patrol ran a check and found Acosta was already "under investigation for firearms trafficking" in Fast and Furious, so they called in the lead ATF case agent Hope MacAllister. Under questioning, Acosta allegedly described his contacts with a Mexican cartel member nicknamed "Chendi," and admitted going to Chendi's house for a shipment of narcotics.

But ATF knew even more about Acosta's alleged illegal activities than what he described in the interview. ATF trace records showed "a large number of the weapons purchase by the Acosta organization are AK type rifles or FN Herstal pistols" which Acosta referred to as "cop killers" and said were preferred by drug cartels.

Instead of pursuing charges, Agent MacAllister asked Acosta if he'd be willing to cooperate with federal agents. He agreed and was released. Apparently, the promised cooperation never materialized. The report notes that 17 days after Acosta was let loose, he still had "not initiated any contact with Special Agent MacAllister."

In a letter today, Congressional Republicans investigating Fast and Furious asked the Justice Department why Acosta wasn't arrested in May of 2010. They also want to know why the Justice Department failed to turn over the documents on Acosta's detainment and release, which were covered under a longstanding subpoena.

One law enforcement source calls the Acosta report "completely embarrassing." "He's exporting ammunition, which is a violation of law," says the source. "But they let him go."

Before releasing Acosta, MacAllister wrote her contact information on a $10 bill at Acosta's request, gave it to him, then warned him "not to participate in any illegal activity unless under her direction."

Acosta wasn't arrested until Feb. 2, 2011, more than eight months after the Border Patrol stop. By then, ATF had allowed more than 2,000 weapons to "walk" into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, and two of the rifles had turned up at the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

The Justice Department and ATF had no immediate comment. ATF officials who approved of Fast and Furious have said they were trying to get to the "big fish" in a drug cartel.

In a related case also run by ATF's Phoenix office, CBS News has reported a grenade parts trafficker named Jean Baptiste Kingery was caught smuggling 114 disassembled grenades in a tire in 2010, but was released. The same prosecutors faulted in Fast and Furious allegedly refused to bring charges saying grenade parts are "novelty items" and the case "lacked jury appeal." Mexican authorities arrested Kingery a year later at a stash house with enough materials for 1,000 grenades.

The Inspector General has been investigating Fast and Furious for more than a year. Attorney General Eric Holder, who's denied knowing about any gunwalking, has said use of the "inappropriate tactics is neither acceptable nor excusable."

The Justice Department had no immediate comment. ATF told CBS News: "The criminal case is still ongoing in federal court, and there is also inspector general's investigation looking at the overall case. Therefore, ATF cannot comment about the investigation.
---End Quote---
.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30671


« Reply #932 on: March 20, 2012, 06:51:35 AM »

On a visceral level, I can't say that I am real enthused about open carry.
=================

By NATHAN KOPPEL
TULSA, Okla.—Gun owners in this state could walk down the street openly packing their pistols under legislation passed by lawmakers that would make Oklahoma the first state in seven years to allow residents to openly display their handguns in public.

Advocates of "open carry" laws have been pushing for several years to make it legal for gun owners to display their handguns in public places, arguing the practice would increase public safety and is protected under the Second Amendment.

Their campaign has had mixed results. Florida last year enacted a law allowing people to "briefly and openly" display firearms, provided they don't do so in "an angry or threatening manner." That law loosened how people can handle guns in public but is considered too restrictive by most open-carry proponents.

California last year banned the open carry of firearms, as have Illinois and Texas.

Fourteen states have laws allowing handgun owners to openly display their weapons. Advocates say the practice is legal in 29 states that are silent on the issue, according to OpenCarry.org, a gun-rights organization. "Just because it is not in vogue to openly carry doesn't mean that it is improper or illegal," said Dave Workman, editor of TheGunMag.com.

In Oklahoma, people generally must conceal their handguns. In 2010, then-Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat, vetoed an open-carry bill, stating it could make it hard for police to distinguish criminals from law-abiding citizens.

But the Oklahoma House and Senate this month easily passed bills that would permit handgun owners with a concealed-carry permit to openly display their weapons. The moves are backed by Republican Gov. Mary Fallin, and are likely to be enacted after a final vote in May.

Oklahoma would be the first state since Minnesota in 2005 to allow open carry by gun owners with concealed-carry permits.

oth the House and Senate versions of the bill would generally authorize the open carry of handguns, but not rifles.

"Just because some people are not in favor of the practice doesn't mean we should forbid it," said Oklahoma Republican Rep. Steve Martin, who co-authored the House bill. "If that were the case would we would also ban face piercing."

The open-carry movement has gathered momentum in recent years. In states that don't have laws either allowing or banning open-carry, gun-rights advocates have staged events in which supporters wear holstered pistols in public places, including protests at multiple Starbucks locations.

Brian Malte, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the open-carry bills seek to normalize a practice that most people find alarming. In California, he saidopen-carry demonstrations in California prompted calls to police. "It puts police in a difficult position," he said. "How do you tell if someone with a gun should be ordered to get face down on the ground or whether they are merely grabbing a cup of coffee?"

Some observers say a sense of alarm can extend not just to the public, but also to police officers.

"Law-enforcement officers will be that much more jumpy and nervous if they see a gun," said Keith Barenberg, president of the Oklahoma State Troopers Association. He said that an issue as controversial as open carry should be put to a statewide vote. He didn't take a position on the state's open-carry legislation.

Jeannie McDaniel, a Democratic House member from Tulsa, said she voted against the open carry bill because she saw no need to return to a bygone era in the state when people routinely wore guns. "When you see a weapon it raises your level of concern," she said.

Russell Cook, an assistant director of OK2A, a pro gun-rights organization, open display of guns should not cause alarm. "Criminals do not carry openly," he said. "Law abiding citizens do."

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11851


« Reply #933 on: March 20, 2012, 07:27:23 AM »

On a visceral level, I can't say that I am real enthused about open carry.
=================




On a tactical and practical level, it's not a great idea.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3980


« Reply #934 on: March 23, 2012, 11:12:46 AM »

We all know the anti gun crowd will go bonkers over th Sanford Florida thing but turning into a Demcratic party theme and of course the Farrakan/Sharptons of the world threatening to turn this into a race war.  Of course Obama is going to weigh in (oh, but he was pressured) .  There is never an end to the escalations, the attempts at extortion for more and more and more.  Why cannot this tragedy be dealt with as the individual case it is?:

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/obama-i-had-a-son-hed-look-like-trayvon-118439.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11851


« Reply #935 on: March 23, 2012, 11:40:38 AM »

We all know the anti gun crowd will go bonkers over th Sanford Florida thing but turning into a Demcratic party theme and of course the Farrakan/Sharptons of the world threatening to turn this into a race war.  Of course Obama is going to weigh in (oh, but he was pressured) .  There is never an end to the escalations, the attempts at extortion for more and more and more.  Why cannot this tragedy be dealt with as the individual case it is?:

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/obama-i-had-a-son-hed-look-like-trayvon-118439.html

Wait, I thought Obama was the post-racial healer. Still, he'd rather talk about this than Obamacare or gas prices.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3980


« Reply #936 on: March 23, 2012, 12:09:56 PM »

"I thought Obama was the post-racial healer"

Exactly.  Instead of feeding the shark frenzy how about Obama calling for calm and to stop the race baiting and threats of violence and the ridiculous attempt at turning this into a Democrat Republican thing.

To date he has not done this with any similar situation.   He simply tries to make political self gain out of it.

He did sit and have "a beer" with the Harvard professor and the Cambrige police officer after that bruhaha some years ago.   But only after HE, the ONE, looked like a fool weighing in and calling the police officer stupid.  It was more for damage control to HIS image rather than anything else.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3980


« Reply #937 on: March 23, 2012, 12:51:12 PM »

Well I guess there IS some pressure.  Though great one's (no not Marc Levin or Rush Limbaugh) response is not helpful:

http://news.yahoo.com/florida-black-panthers-rip-obama-holder-over-martin-223207436.html
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3980


« Reply #938 on: March 23, 2012, 01:28:23 PM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/the-feed/294250/rep-allen-west-statement-trayvon-martin

What was Trayvon was doing in Sandford?   Whatever the reason sounds like Zimmerman did the wrong thing yet this question is not irrelevant.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11851


« Reply #939 on: March 23, 2012, 02:22:33 PM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/the-feed/294250/rep-allen-west-statement-trayvon-martin

What was Trayvon was doing in Sandford?   Whatever the reason sounds like Zimmerman did the wrong thing yet this question is not irrelevant.

It's my understanding he was visiting a family member that lives there.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30671


« Reply #940 on: March 26, 2012, 10:49:16 PM »



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lShFbQHgoqQ&feature=relmfu
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11851


« Reply #941 on: March 28, 2012, 12:18:04 AM »



But it's not unrealistic.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30671


« Reply #942 on: April 02, 2012, 04:40:57 PM »

(http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/04/02/obama_calderon_press_avoid_fast_and_furious_discussion)
By Katie Pavlich
4/2/2012
 

President Barack Obama just wrapped up a joint press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Candadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The three world leaders discussed a number of topics including trade and energy, but what did they fail to discuss? Operation Fast and Furious. Although the topic of gun trafficking was discussed at length by both Calderon and Obama, reporters never asked about Fast and Furious specifically and the two leaders weren't going to go out of their way to bring it up.

Calderon, as a expected, blamed Mexico’s cartel violence not on the cartels themselves, but on the large “flow” of guns from the United States into Mexico. Calderon reiterated his view the United States should re-instate the ban on “assault,” or semi-automatic weapons. It seems that President Calderon, who is always harping about the “flow” of guns from the United States into Mexico, would have expressed outrage that President Obama’s Justice Department had deliberately placed 2500 guns into the hands of ruthless cartels during Operation Fast and Furious. Instead, Calderon chose to blame the Second Amendment for his country’s out of control violence. Calderon also failed to mention the reason why his people are being slaughtered is because they don’t have the ability to legally own guns and fight back against the cartels. Mexico's strict gun laws have left its innocent people as sitting ducks.

On the issue of guns flowing from “north to south,” President Obama, whose Justice Department once again, under leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder walked 2500 guns into Mexico, failed to mention Fast and Furious. In fact, President Obama predictably gave himself credit for stopping the so-called flow of guns from the U.S., south.

“When you have innocent families, women and children being gunned down in the streets, that should be everyone’s problem,” Obama said. “We’ve put in efforts to stop illegal gun trafficking from north to south.”

Calderon also gave Obama credit for stopping the so-called flow of guns from the U.S. into Mexico.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30671


« Reply #943 on: April 06, 2012, 12:07:10 PM »



www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/alaska-gun-stores-say-atf-engaging-new-illegal-activity?CID=examiner_alerts_article=
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11851


« Reply #944 on: April 13, 2012, 03:11:09 PM »

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50807

Napolitano perjured herself to Congress in Fast & Furious testimony

by Neil W. McCabe

04/13/2012




In her explosive new book Fast and Furious, Katie Pavlich makes the case that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano not only failed to stop an operation that led to the death of one of her own, Border Agent Brian A. Terry, but she may have also lied to Congress in sworn testimony at a hearing held to find out what really happened.

Inside sources told Pavlich that Napolitano’s testimony was in direct contradiction to emails she exchanged, and reports and briefing she received, according to an exclusive preview of the book by Human Events.

Pavlich’s book Fast and Furious is due to be released Monday, April 16. It is published by Regnery Publishing, owned by Eagle Publishing, which also owns Human Events.

Most of the focus in the Fast and Furious scandal has been on attorney Gen. Eric Holder, because his Department of Justice ran the program through its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, still referenced to as ATF, its old initials from before it was tasked with explosives.

But while Holder's people waved the questionable gun purchasers through the checkout line, Napolitano was in charge of the Mexican border those guns crossed.

Pavlich's book is particularly revealing, especially considering the lengths the Obama administration has gone to keep anyone from knowing anything about Fast & Furious and other gun-running operations. These operations involved multiple federal agencies facilitating illegal gun purchases, by co-opting the normal checks at gun stores in the Southwest, and then ignoring the guns as they were taken into Mexico. In Mexico, the guns were picked up at hundreds of gun sites.

Letting the guns slip away is a called “gun walking,” because the guns were allowed to walk.

In her September testimony to a Senate committee, Napolitano told senators she knew nothing about Fast & Furious until after Terry was killed in a gunfight on the night of Dec. 14, 2010 with an AK-47 purchased at one of the gun stores that was one of the key retailers where federal agents actively let guns walk.

In October, she told Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) at a hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee she never spoke to the Dennis Burke about Fast & Furious. Burke, who was the U.S. Attorney for the  Arizona Department, was her chief of staff when she was the governor of Arizona and a close friend.

In the same month, the Napolitano told Rep. Jason E. Chaffetz (R-Utah) at a hearing held by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that she never spoke to Holder about Fast & Furious.

Homeland Security insiders paint a different picture, Pavlich reports.

Members of Congress questioning the secretary seem to know it, too.

One source said to the author, “When she says that [she] and Attorney General Eric Holder have not discussed it, that is a lie. That's why they keep asking her those questions in the Judicial, Oversight, Homeland Security Committee hearings. They've asked her that same questions twice and she’s lied twice.”

How did she know? The source said, “There are five emails linking her to Holder. They go back two days after it happened—the first email was two days after Brian was killed.”

In the emails, Holder and Napolitano discuss Terry's murder, the source said to Pavlich.

The source concedes that Holder may have “kept her in the dark” about all of the details of the gun walking, but her office approved letting the guns walk into Mexico and one of the agencies under her command, Customs and Border Protection, allowed guns through.

Another source from the ATF confirmed to Pavlich that Napolitano was briefed regularly by an agent from another of her agencies, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE.

“There was an ICE agent assigned specifically to be the co-case agent of Fast & Furious. He had to [file] an ICE report that either mirrored or referenced every ATF report that was done,” the ATF source said.

Beyond reports, there were inter-agency jealousies that had to be settled in Washington, he said.

The source said to Pavlich there were constant battles between ICE and ATF agents over who would get credit for different seizures or other issues. “I know phone calls were made to both headquarters to try and settle those disputes.”

It was Terry's death that brought Operation Fast and Furious to an abrupt end. But now, more than 16 months later, no one has been charged with crimes associated with either the gun walking programs or the cover-up.

Pavlich makes a strong case that when people are finally charged with crimes, Napolitano will have to answer for her perjury to Congress.

“Let me tell you something about Janet,” another source said to the author. “Janet will be lucky not to go to prison.”

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #945 on: April 13, 2012, 03:37:43 PM »

"But now, more than 16 months later, no one has been charged with crimes associated with either the gun walking programs or the cover-up."

And I bet no one, at least anyone of substance, will be either.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11851


« Reply #946 on: April 13, 2012, 03:41:32 PM »

"But now, more than 16 months later, no one has been charged with crimes associated with either the gun walking programs or the cover-up."

And I bet no one, at least anyone of substance, will be either.

Just like the New Black Panther Party, this administration has nothing to fear from the US Dept. of (Social) Justice, no matter what crimes they commit. I'm sure you're very proud of seeing Chicago Corruption on a national scale.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11851


« Reply #947 on: April 16, 2012, 04:36:06 PM »

http://townhall.com/columnists/katiepavlich/2012/04/16/opening_the_flood_gates_on_fast_and_furious/page/full/

Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal


Katie Pavlich
 News Editor, Townhall





Apr 16, 2012
 




Operation Fast and Furious is the deadliest and most sinister scandal in American history. A scandal so big, it’s worse than Iran-Contra and makes Watergate look like a high school prank gone wrong.

 In the early days of the Obama Administration, President Obama claimed his goal was to stop the trafficking of guns from the United States into the hands of violent Mexican drug cartels. He claimed gun dealers in the United States were responsible for sending guns to Mexico. Both of his claims were lies.

 In order to push his lies and policies built around them, with a goal of implementing harsher gun control laws and reinstating the assault weapons ban, President Obama packed his administration full of anti-Second Amendment zealots. After all, personnel is policy.

 In my new book, Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Coverup, I document the conspiracy of senior Obama officials to subvert the Second Amendment, which led directly to the murders of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, I.C.E. Agent Jaime Zapata and countless, faceless lives in Mexico. It debunks the Obama administration’s lies, denials and excuses. This administration was willing to use humans as collateral damage to push a political agenda, and had no shame in doing so. Now, the administration has no shame in covering up their reckless actions.





Since just moments after Brian Terry was killed in the Arizona desert on December 15, 2010 by Mexican cartel thugs, carrying AK-47s provided to them by the Obama Justice Department through Operation Fast and Furious, the FBI, Homeland Security, ATF, Justice Department and the White House have been engaged in a full scale cover-up.  These are simply names of government agencies, but who are the people behind the cover-up?

 I unravel a tangled web connecting President Obama, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and a number of advisors and political appointees behind Fast and Furious. These officials have deep loyalties to each other and their anti-Second Amendment ideology dating as far back as the Clinton Administration. In fact, many key Fast and Furious players  have deep ties to Chicago and helped craft the 1994 Clinton assault weapons ban legislation.
 
If the majority of American people knew Fast and Furious like they know Solyndra or the GSA scandal, they would be outraged. Despite very few exceptions, the media has been complicit in the cover-up of Obama’s bloodiest scandal by ignoring and refusing to report about it. Why? To protect the President. This scandal, one that has left hundreds of bodies in its wake, would be deadly to the administration. This is the scandal that will bring President Obama down in November, so long as the American people know its details.

 Over the weekend, GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney officially made Fast and Furious a general election issue. His advisors are now directly pointing to the scandal as an example of how the Obama Administration used in its first term to “provide cover for potential efforts to restrict Second Amendment rights." In the book, I provide the documents and interviews to prove it.

 The Obama administration is acting guilty, not innocent, in its actions to continually stonewall and deny the truth. Any American who believes the President, the Attorney General of the United States, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and a long list of other government officials responsible for this reckless program are not above the law, need this book.

 Operation Fast and Furious wasn't a "botched" program. It was a calculated and lethal decision to purposely place thousand of guns into the hands of ruthless criminals. The operation was a coordinated and planned effort not to track guns, but to arm thugs south of the border for political gain. Eric Holder should be removed from office for incompetence, dishonesty and charged with perjury. My sources, documented in the book, say Janet Napolitano may also face charges of perjury and potentially obstruction of justice. It is time for President Obama to take responsibility, denounce the operation and fire those involved.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2141


« Reply #948 on: April 17, 2012, 05:43:50 PM »

walking-papers-the-incredibly-thin-speculative-zimmerman-affidavit

Zimmerman was merely reporting suspicious behavior, just as our own Department of Homeland Security advocates with its “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign, which has been created and promoted by cabinet officials appointed by the Obama Administration. Zimmerman saw someone acting suspiciously, and did precisely what DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano wants citizens to do in that situation.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30671


« Reply #949 on: April 17, 2012, 06:47:19 PM »

Nice point.  The Self Defense Law thread might be a better place for it though.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 31 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!