This is a discussion on Home Invasion Ends In Deadly Shooting (AZ) within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; The term "vigilantiism" is, IMO, exactly why such dept's say such things. They don't want to be seen as promoting folks taking steps into their ...
The term "vigilantiism" is, IMO, exactly why such dept's say such things. They don't want to be seen as promoting folks taking steps into their own hands, particularly when so many would do so without sufficient training or understanding. It's not so long ago when this line of prosecution was leveled frequently against people. Now and again, it still happens. We're still reaping the "rewards" of such thinking. And given the PC-ness so prevalent these days, dept's seem to be bending over backwards to distance themselves from any hint of promotion of folks taking control of their own destinies. Called vigilantiism or whatever, it is what it is.
My point was simply this: the laws allow claims of vigilantiism to be made; allow those who put up a defense to be prosecuted for mere appearances; and allow those who put up a defense to be sued in civil court. In some sane places, the holes have been plugged in this regard. Not everywhere. Until such things are specifically disallowed, we'll have folks and dept's second-guessing what's right and proper for people to do. The instant it's legally within everyone's right to defend themselves without fear of cannibal laws and the results they allow, we'll get a decade or so of quality self-defense cases that blast the old thinking. Until then, folks who promote guns and actual usage in self-defense will continue to be seen as blackguards at a minimum, or dangerous at the worst.
I'm with you, though, in thinking that if simply a thousand police chiefs would stand up and holler at the top of their lungs that it's okay for citizens to defend themselves and to fight back, the avalanche might well sweep away all the old crap. However, reality is that the old crap is there. It needs sweeping.
The statement of "we can't advise you" has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with lawsuits, as many in LE can tell you. If someone in LE "advises" you to do one thing or another, then in the eyes of the law we gave you permission or ordered you to do something. Therefore the liability for your actions fall on us rather than you.
If your house is getting burglarized I'm not telling you to leave your house. I'm going to ask you, "Can you leave your house safely?" I can advise you to leave your house if it is safe but I can't outright tell you to leave. What this does is to suggest an action and it's your choice on whether to act on it or not, therefore the liability stays with you, not me or the department.
Same thing for if you have a firearm and call 9-1-1. I've received many of those calls. Every single time I get the question, "should I shoot them?" My response every time is "do what you have to do", despite the fact that in the back of my head I'm saying "shoot him! shoot him! shoot him!". lol If I tell the person to shoot them and it turns out to be their 15 yr old kid coming home late (which should've been sleeping in their room), they shoot them, the kid dies, then the department and I are can be held liable for their death.
The thing I (and just about all LE) is getting at is that you have to know the laws, you have to know what you are legally able to do or not. Don't ask us because we're not going to tell you because if we do and you do something stupid somehow it's not your fault, it's ours.
Another sidenote: Police chiefs are the wishy-washy ones, not sheriff's. Chiefs are appointed by the mayor, not the people. The people elect the sheriff, that's the reason why they're usually more hard-hitting than police chiefs. Because of this you'll find that sheriff's are more likely to reflect the views of their people than police chiefs who have to kiss butt to a police chief because it literally would mean their job.
It would have been a sad day had this gone the other way and the boy be hurt or dead.. But thats always a possiblity with a fast paced home invasion like that.
Definitly something to think about...[/QUOTE]
If the guy with the shotgun would have left it up to the BG'S what would have happended to the Kid. I'm thinking that if the 23 Year old came out of his room blazing that shotgun that the BG'S attention was on that shotgun not the 8 Year old.
I say "GOOD JOB" protecting your family, thats what this forum is about, this is what we are all about!!!!!!!!!!!!
LIFES JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE "GRAVE" SAFELY ,IN A WELL PRESERVED BODY.BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS TOTALLY WORN OUT SHOUTING "HOLY S@#$...WHAT A RIDE"
Deputies showed up and found the wounded man, questioned the four others, made two arrests and let the other two go.Releasing two? Why, pray tell?
HUH!!!!???? Somebody wasn't talking to somebody here. Something seems wrong here???
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ: Buy These Stickers Here
"A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon the world" Albert Camus
Two of them were released?!?!?!
At least the situation turned out right in the end. It would have been better with 6 dead thugs but 1 dead and one in critical condition is better than nothing.
I think he did a great job.
This scenario smacks of drug or human trafficking-related violence. Six guys robbing a home in South Tucson? Unless the six know there's drug money to be found, there's not enough loot in a house in that area to justify splitting it six ways. Definitely more to that story than six bad guys robbing an innocent 23 year old.
Proverbs 27:12 says: “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.”
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
Living in Tucson is the reason I started carrying. Three armed home break ins in my neighborhood in two years is why I have a loaded legally sawed off 20 guage next to my bed. It's almost always drug money. We live in a "good" neighborhood. Ten years in DC is a cake walk compared to Tucson. And I love Tucson! Oh, it wasn't the guy's house but he was renting from the family. They were beating the door down to get into his room. Surprise!
I think the BGs put themselves there by attacking the people in their own home. the BG and their family should have no grounds for a lawsuit. I think the 23 year old did a fine job. If more people fought back this way maybe the bad guy would think twice about committing the crime.
I wonder if the perps are illegals....????
When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.