Union thug shoots businessman who wouldn't play along

[Balog]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/17/union-organizer-suspected-of-shooting-non-union-ohio-employer/

I only hope he gets armed and prepared to defend himself in the future.

[Jamisjockey]

Unpossible.  Really it was a tea partier painting "scab" on a black man's suv, and then shooting the black man.  Had to be.  Only the tea party engages in violence, after all....

[dogmush]

So here's a question for the fabled "Reasonable Man":

With this history of threats, assault, and violence, if the next time he sees someone in his driveway messing with his car, what if he just shoots him from the house?*

I think a case could be made that with a pattern of escalating threats and violence (moving from threats to vandalism to shooting) you could reasonably be in fear for your life at that point.

*I know that the law wouldn't support that action, but if it goes to trial the DA better hope he doesn't get me on the jury.  We had a case in FL a couple years back where a shopowner chased down and ran over a robber because he was in fear he would come back and rob/shoot him at a later date.  The Jury went for it.

[vaskidmark]

Bloodlust and uncontrolled frustration do not make for a civilized society.

That's why the law says the threat has to be imminent.

The law cannot control for how people react emotionally to bloodlust and/or uncontrolled frustration.  Thus prosecutors who do not bring charges and juries that do not convict.

Notwithstanding how someone might wish they could respond, it is necessary to at least publically take the position that bloodlust and uncontrolled frustration, especially in the absence of imminent threat, are not excuses or justifications for violating the law.

That, or "It was dark.  I could not distinguish facial features.  I believed he was pointing a weapon at me.  I was in fear for my life.  I'll be happy to respond to your questions after I have had the opportunity to consult with my attorney."

In closing, why do folks persistin going outside, unarmed or armed, to investigate the presence of a stranger on their property?  Do they not have telephones with which to call the police?  Do they not have insurance to cover the repair/replacement of property and the expenses of lost wages?  Do they not have a prepared plan for hunkering down in a fortified defensive position to await either the arrival of the police or the storming of their house by the bad person(s) presently outside?

I'll probably get tired of asking those questions when folks get tired of going outside to see who the bad person is and what they are doing before deciding what to do about them being outside doing whatever it is they are doing.

stay safe.

[Tallpine]

In closing, why do folks persistin going outside, unarmed or armed, to investigate the presence of a stranger on their property?  Do they not have telephones with which to call the police?

In my area it would take a deputy a minumum of 30 minutes to get here.

I own all of my 40 acres, not just the house.  I also have livestock that I consider family.

I am dam sure not going to be confined to my house because somebody is creeping around my place. 

And I am dam sure not going out there unarmed.  Actually, I never go outside the house unarmed with at least my six shooter that goes on with my pants in the morning.  If I think there might be something going on out there then I take a rifle also to investigate.

[gunsmith]

 why do folks persistin going outside, unarmed or armed, to investigate the presence of a stranger on their property?  Do they not have telephones with which to call the police?  Do they not have insurance to cover the repair/replacement of property and the expenses of lost wages?  Do they not have a prepared plan for hunkering down in a fortified defensive position to await either the arrival of the police or the storming of their house by the bad person(s) presently outside?

I'm always armed, outside, inside & even when I'm dreaming
Telephone? nope, no land line & cellphone , my plan? I go out side and investigate, but with 40 acres and three dogs I'm reasonably certain I'll be able to see them before they see me. The police do not come unless I drive 20 miles into phone range and call them

[gunsmith]

Actually, I never go outside the house unarmed with at least my six shooter that goes on with my pants in the morning.  If I think there might be something going on out there then I take a rifle also to investigate.

same here except EDC is a Glock with a spare mag, one of these days I'm getting a cool six shooter or 1911 so I can look like a for real cowboy I'm semi cowboy though, for outside patrolling during uninvited folks that the dogs don't seem to like is a winchester lever action that mr ranch owner has- I think its 45LC, kind of cowboy ish...we have cowboys around these parts-I never see them armed, I guess they have something in the truck though

[gunsmith]

so, have they caught the criminal shooter yet?

[Tallpine]

we have cowboys around these parts-I never see them armed, I guess they have something in the truck though

My ranch neighbors carry revolvers when out walking or riding their 4-wheelers.

I don't think they ride horses anymore.

[gunsmith]

one of the neighbors still uses horses to monitor cattle or what ever it is they do on horseback, but they're to far away to see if they are packing, the other cowboys are always driving pick ups & I see them in town. The cattle ranch neighbor is about ten or fifteen miles away, they graze nearby though. but I would have to drive/walk to the other end of the ranch & over a road and a fence to get close enough to see if they were armed, they were over for a visit last yr & I was the only one open carrying at the bbq-I was also the only one not drinking

[vaskidmark]

OK!  OK!

I'll change it.

Why do folks who live in cities ......

Is that better?

stay safe.

[Perd Hapley]

In that situation, it's perfectly understandable that a person believes that a) a vandal will probably leave if confronted, and b) they should at least get close enough to see the person's face, so they can give a description later. That ain't so crazy.

As for why people go about unarmed, well, most Americans do it. It's a good question.

[dogmush]

Skidmark,

What part of a civilized society allows for organized campaigns of intimidation and violence against one who's business practice you dislike?

Much like the folks who did/are planning to stand around outside polls and intimidate voters, I would beginning to be of the opinion that are society is not as civilized as those who wrote the laws would have liked.

And as for not going outside?  Completely separate from the issues of property rights and living in fear of bottom feeders, for the majority of people in this country confronting the vandal stops both the damage and curtails violence right then.  Why shouldn't you go out and try and stop them?

Also, and I see this sentiment a lot, the fact that I have insurance doesn't mean I'm not out time and money if a crime is committed against me.

[wmenorr67]

OK!  OK!

I'll change it.

Why do folks who live in cities ......

Is that better?

stay safe.

Because still nowadays unless there is a real threat it could take the police 30-40 minutes to respond.

[White Horseradish]

In closing, why do folks persistin going outside, unarmed or armed, to investigate the presence of a stranger on their property? 

Because protecting what's yours is buried somewhere in our brains.  And because if you scare them off they might not finish stealing your stuff.

Do they not have telephones with which to call the police?

Have you ever done that? How did that work out for you?

I have. What happens is that police show up anywhere from a half hour to three hours after the call, make smartass remarks and give you a piece of paper that you can't even wipe your butt with (it's too small and hard). That's it. Nothing gets investigated, nobody gets caught. I still call, but with every call I am less sure why I bother. I also have been told that unless I am bleeding nobody will come and that I should stop by the station and fill out a report.

Do they not have insurance to cover the repair/replacement of property and the expenses of lost wages? 

Are you kidding me? If I could afford that, I likely would have a newer car and a better place to park it.

Do they not have a prepared plan for hunkering down in a fortified defensive position to await either the arrival of the police or the storming of their house by the bad person(s) presently outside?

Plans tend to evaporate when you wake up at 2am from your wife elbowing you in the ribs and telling you somebody is stealing the car you need to drive to work in the morning.

[zxcvbob]

Have you ever done that? How did that work out for you?

I have. What happens is that police show up anywhere from a half hour to three hours after the call, make smartass remarks and give you a piece of paper that you can't even wipe your butt with (it's too small and hard). That's it. Nothing gets investigated, nobody gets caught. I still call, but with every call I am less sure why I bother. I also have been told that unless I am bleeding nobody will come and that I should stop by the station and fill out a report.

You get them to show up?

Here, they tell you to fill out a form online.  Nothing ever happens to that form; I doubt anyone even reads it.  There's not even a way you can find your form online after you submit it, so I doubt they even save it.

All the officers are too busy writing seatbelt tickets at $100 a pop to actually do anything about crime.

[wmenorr67]

You get them to show up?

Here, they tell you to fill out a form online.  Nothing ever happens to that form; I doubt anyone even reads it.  There's not even a way you can find your form online after you submit it, so I doubt they even save it.

All the officers are too busy writing seatbelt tickets at $100 a pop to actually do anything about crime.

At least they make not wearing a seat belt hurt.  In Oklahoma it is a $20 fine.

[makattak]

At least they make not wearing a seat belt hurt.  In Oklahoma it is a $20 fine.

Not wearing a seat belt should hurt... if you are in a crash. Fining people for it is stupid.

[zxcvbob]

At least they make not wearing a seat belt hurt.  In Oklahoma it is a $20 fine.

I don't have a big problem with it on the major streets, expressways, rural highways, etc.  The one I got was in my own neighborhood a block from my house.  Cop saw me pull out from veterinary office and followed me 2 blocks to write the ticket.  He was on a special Seatbelt Patrol called in from Minneapolis; they were trying to see how many tickets they could write that week (they only tell you that after it's over or somebody else who got a ticket warns you)

I was worried about my dog having surgery and didnt think about the seatbelt -- I was only going a couple of blocks 5 to 10 mph on a quiet dead end street.

The city needs that $102.50 more than I do.

[AJ Dual]

You get them to show up?

Reminds me of the joke where the guy tells the 911 operator, "Okay, thanks, I understand you guys are busy. I'll just shoot the guys breaking into my shed then, bye..." 

[Nick1911]

I've found that asking someone's position on seat-belt laws for adults to be a good litmus test.  It's a very clear trade-freedom-for-safety-benefits question.

Helmet laws a are good too, especially to ask a non-rider, as it doesn't personally affect them.

[KD5NRH]

I've found that asking someone's position on seat-belt laws for adults to be a good litmus test.  It's a very clear trade-freedom-for-safety-benefits question.

Helmet laws a are good too, especially to ask a non-rider, as it doesn't personally affect them.

Seat belt vs. helmet is a bad comparison; the seat belt will affect your ability to maintain or regain control of a vehicle after the initial impact, (hopefully avoiding more impacts, or at least hitting things of lower value like guardrails instead of pedestrians) while by the time a helmet comes into play, control of the vehicle is irrevocably lost.

[birdman]

The discussion about police needs an important fact reiterated, police, by definition and charter are not tasked with PREVENTING or STOPPING crime (even in progress), only to enforce and deliver to the judiciary those that HAVE broken the law...otherwise, they could be held liable for NOT preventing or stopping crime.  While intervening during a crime, or protecting property/life, or preventing/deterring crime is valuable, and is done as it makes the actual chartered role easier/more effective, it is not a requirement.  That's why I get sick of the "why do you need to defend yourself, that's what the police are for" argument, it's both obviously, and legally wrong.

[Fly320s]

The discussion about police needs an important fact reiterated, police, by definition and charter are not tasked with PREVENTING or STOPPING crime (even in progress), only to enforce and deliver to the judiciary those that HAVE broken the law...otherwise, they could be held liable for NOT preventing or stopping crime.  While intervening during a crime, or protecting property/life, or preventing/deterring crime is valuable, and is done as it makes the actual chartered role easier/more effective, it is not a requirement.  That's why I get sick of the "why do you need to defend yourself, that's what the police are for" argument, it's both obviously, and legally wrong.

I agree. Just to add to that train of thought... Police Officers are nothing more than people performing a job. They can quit whenever they want. They are under no legal obligation to be police officers if they decide that the job is too boring/dangerous/low paying/etc.   I like to throw that into the mix when discussing CCW and self-reliance.

[Tallpine]

Not to mention some of us just don't like to put up with $hit