Comments on: Heroic Homeowner Shot By His ‘Protectors’

By: Gringo Malo

Gringo Malo — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:52:18 +0000

Robert Glisson wrote: “I would accept the fact that the officer doesn’t know who the perpetrator is and who is the victim and would treat both myself and the other person as possible suspects.”

It’s better to order an intruder to leave rather than to try to hold him for the police. If he won’t leave, then he won’t submit peacefully to a citizens’ arrest either. If he leaves on command, then the emergency is ended without bloodshed, and the police have no reason to enter your home. Of course, that might not stop them, but having put your weapon back in its place after the intruder left, you’re less likely to be mistaken for an armed suspect, and therefore less likely to be shot.

By: Van Wijk

Van Wijk — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 01:43:52 +0000

If you confront a home invader, do not call the police until he’s either gone or neutralized. Good point. The intruder in this case admitted to discharging a firearm in the house. So now that the police see the private armed citizen as a threat rather than as a valuable resource (which is the real American way), the citizen seems to have a vested interest in making sure the intruder is dead before even calling the police. And as a result our civilization is made a notch less civilized.

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:44:20 +0000

When the police make mistakes they should be held accountable. No question about it. But all police officer’s should not be painted with a broad brush as Gestapo either. If the man was wronged, I would hope justice would be served; however, I couldn’t tell what was actually going on from the transcription. I do know that when I was a probation and parole officer, an arrest or just being in the middle of a domestic situation could get scary for everyone. People can take numerous gunshots and still be dangerous, also police are terrible shots. To answer the question, no, if I were holding a gun on someone who had broke into my house and was armed, I would have no concerns about a policeman arriving on the scene. I would accept the fact that the officer doesn’t know who the perpetrator is and who is the victim and would treat both myself and the other person as possible suspects. I would not argue with the officer, but follow his/her instructions (put my gun down) while they are securing the area for safety; when the officer felt the scene was safe, tell the truth.

By: M. B. Moon

M. B. Moon — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:03:21 +0000

"Being your masters, they will insist upon this gesture of submission, and will kill you if you don’t make it. " gringo Good advice. I doubt I personally would take it but good advice.

By: Gringo Malo

Gringo Malo — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:52:38 +0000

A Wikipedia article states that police work is less dangerous than working as a pizza delivery man, citing this 2003 MSN Money Central article. I believe it, but cops would probably tell you it's because they're ready and willing to shoot any armed person they confront. Hypothetically, police are subject to the same laws as the rest of us. The same laws regarding deadly force that apply to us are supposed to apply to them. Likewise the laws against perjury. However, the police are hardly ever prosecuted for either unjustified use of force or perjury. There's no mention of criminal charges in this case. America is a police state. Bearing that in mind, having anything (including a cell phone) in either hand when the police arrive is a serious tactical mistake. If you confront a home invader, do not call the police until he's either gone or neutralized. Do not attempt to make a citizen's arrest. Do not call 911; use the regular number; it's not an emergency any more. When the police arrive, show them your empty hands. Being your masters, they will insist upon this gesture of submission, and will kill you if you don't make it. If you avoid the foolish mistake of attempting a citizen's arrest, then you won't need to have a gun in your hand when the cops come, and you will have a much higher probability of surviving the encounter.

By: james huggins

james huggins — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:35:06 +0000

In the South I haven’t noticed any particular aversion to armed citizens by the police. Nearly everybody is armed. Every thug and homeboy carries a gun so they can be prepared for drug deals, gang activities and the occasional dispute over who gets the last chicken leg. Most citizens are armed for obvious reasons. I never noticed the cops taking exception to citizens being armed. After all, this isn’t Illinois.

By: Van Wijk

Van Wijk — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:52:22 +0000

Your average cop despises nothing more than the armed citizen. I think most of them honestly believe that firearm ownership is a privilege, and one that should be revoked in most cases at that.

Modern cops are a byproduct of state worship.

By: JP Strauss

JP Strauss — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:41:19 +0000

Remember that Hitler was one of the first statesmen to run a “no civilian guns” campaign.

By: M. B. Moon

M. B. Moon — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 03:04:28 +0000

“And my question to you is this: does being armed increase the likelihood that the police will take you out? “ Ilana

Probably. But my chief concern is the ability to take one of the cowards with me when I go.

It has been said that if just 10,000 Jews had met the Gestapo at the door with a gun that the Holocaust would have been canceled.

Maybe, maybe not. But after being in the death camps a while, I would bet many had wished they had or could have.

By: Steve Hogan

Steve Hogan — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 03:03:49 +0000

Ah, yes. To serve and protect. Not mentioned is who is being served and protected. It sure ain’t the public.