Deadly Force

[Anonymous Poster]

Re: Deadly Force/more than you wanted to know

Grant,

[[[ I'm not saying it's wrong to do that just that I don't have the time and money to be tied up in the legal system for such an action.]]]

Isn't this the core-element regarding the entirely-appropriate detestation of "lawyers"? -that they have created a "legal system" so costly, intimidating, and irrational that no-one has any confidence in the "justice" of an outcome, nor in being able to "survive" financially, the outrageous costs of pursuing it?!!

The bad-guy's thinking: I'll steal this guy's hard-earned stuff. If nobody catches me, ...home free. If they do, they'll let me go soon, just like (all those times) before. If the guy hurts me, some lawyer will help me "own" his land, house, etc. (as long as the lawyer gets his "cut" of the loot). Whatever happens, I win.

In my opinion anyone who participates in any part of this bad guys success is simply ( yeah, SIMPLY!, ...not everything is as "complex-an-issue" as some would want us to think) A PARTNER IN CRIME!!

They're every-bit-as-guilty as the "fence" who helps dispose of the goods, the key-shop operator who made a "spare" key and sold it to the thief, the getaway-van driver, etc.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, ...when first we practice to deceive." (anyone know where this line came from?)

Interesting coincidence that the word "practice" is included in this thought!

Having "practiced" deception for some time now, the "tanglers" have us ensnared in a web from which only THEY are "licensed" to extricate us. Which they will happily (that is the sick-part) attempt, for a fat fee.

How nice FOR them.
How unprincipled and despicable OF them.

In the current scenario, all the "losers" WIN!
The only one who loses is the "good guy"!!

Outrage, anyone??

Larry

ps: The experience behind the intensity -- Years ago, I stood with one foot figuratively in the "lawschool door", ...all systems "go!", all feedback positive, standards exceeded, abilities demonstrated, motives noble, enthusiasm high, and eyes bright.

I walked away.

As I had become more educated as-to the realities of a law-career, disappointment replaced naive expectation, disillusionment shouldered aside hope, and the "real"-ization that rewards went to those most adept in corrupt "practice" of the law, and frustrations to those most intrigued by the shining "principles" of law, convinced me (along with some very open-and-honest appraisals of the "business" by some loving and trusted "insiders") that this was not the arena in which I wanted to spend my life.

So I chose to fight fire, ... not people.

The young man I was then, wanted to do something with his heart, instead of with his anger. In the career I rejected, I suppose I MIGHT-HAVE "made a difference". In the career I chose, I KNOW I DID.

The old man? Never been sorry. Still angry! It's the (lack-of))PRINCIPLE of the thing! Still think that "silence" in the face of patent-wrongdoing equates with acquiescence!, ... hence the "outspoken-ness".

 

[dmccarty]

Cowboydoc,

To a certain extant the suing had gotten out of hand. I don't have a clue on how to fix it. I think the English system of making the loser pay would lower the number of lawsuits but would likely price out everyone but the rich. Certainly the Legislative Litigation that is going on against big bad tobacco, asbestos, silicon implants and the gun industry is a very scary problem. At least the lawsuits against the firearms industry are slowly being thrown out of court.

Part of the problem is perception which is derived directly from our so called news media. I think some frivolous cases make the news and overshawdow the day to day legitimate lawsuits. A friend of mine at work has had to take his wedding photographer to court. Without the courts my coworker would have been ripped off and without his wedding pictures.

So I see good in our civil legal system but some abuses as well. I don't know how to make it better....

Now, the CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM really needs to revamped. That is a whole new thread! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Later....
Dan McCarty

 

[cowboydoc]

Sorry for confusion Larry. Yes I'm talking about guys that aren't in that line and are always looking for the million dollar suit. The guys that I'm talking about are ones that are into regular law, wills, business law, etc. But again I know that much of that is created as well by them. Same reason we won't ever see a flat tax is because so much money is made off of the current system by lawyers and accountants.

 

[cowboydoc]

Re: Deadly Force/more than you wanted to know

Larry,
Have to agree on what you say there. I should have read more since your statement about yourself wanting to make a difference are the guys that I deal with and respect. They are just as much against the "partner in crime" lawyers as you are and other lawyering practices that make the law like reading arabic! The guy that I use is of the same mind as you. He hates it that stupidity like you see all the time runs things. We just spent almost $5,000 to get a person evicted from my office building for not paying rent and excessively loud noise. You would think it would be cut and dry, right? Oh no it took three months after we had filed suit to have her evicted.

 

[skent]

Doesn't putting a round at one's feet place the trump card in their hands? If armed, couldn't they claim defense of their life (you shot first) and use deadly force (even though they are tresspassing). It sure is becomming a twisted world.

My dad was a Baltimore City Policeman for 25 years and was always taught never aim a gun unless you intend to use it.

Steve

 

[Bird]

<font color=blue>taught never aim a gun unless you intend to use it.</font color=blue>

Amen, Steve. I don't know how many times I've heard people say that a cop shouldn't have killed someone; that the cop should have just shot him in the leg to stop him, or shot the gun out of his hand, etc. Not many people can shoot that well, except in the movies, and a guy shot in the leg may bleed to death. Cops are not taught to "shoot to kill"; they're taught to "shoot to stop" the suspect, but never to shoot unless they're justified in killing because that's what may happen. Another one that only works in the movies is shooting into the air to stop a fleeing suspect. In real life, it just boosts their incentive and speeds them up./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Bird

 

[Harv]

<font color=blue> Another one that only works in the movies is shooting into the air to stop a fleeing suspect.</font color=blue>

Just curious -- bullets fired into the air eventually come back down with enough force to kill, don't they? Interesting that that's techincally called "terminal velocity".

During the Gulf War I was bewildered by the soldiers from the Arabic coutries when they celebrated any little victory by spraying hundreds of rounds straight up into the air. /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif

 

[dmccarty]

Skent,

Putting a round at the feet of the person would very likely allow that person to return deadly force. Say a person was trespassing, not an act that allows deadly force, and a landowner shot a round at the trespasser's feet. How is the trespasser to KNOW the INTENT of the landowner? Does the trespasser even know that the person shooting is the landowner? Does the trespasser even know they are trespassing? The trespasser might be lost.

I could see a lawyer arguing.... "Here comes this bad, crazy, gun loving, landowning nut just shooting at some poor lost soul wondering in the woods! My client HAD to shoot to save his life!"

And the lawyer may not be wrong........

Your dad was right. But one had better have the law on their side or they may be screwed! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Later....
Dan WhoHadAGoodTractor/ChainsawDayOnSaturday McCarty

 

[dmccarty]

Harv,

I'm not sure that a bullet shot into the air will always have enough velocity to kill someone when it falls back to earth. I think it could but it depends. Just shooting straight into the air the bullet is going to rise until it the force of gravity causes it to stop and then fall back to the ground. So the question is, how fast will the bullet be traveling when it impacts the ground/person? I would have to dig up a physics book to figure that out.

On the other hand if the bullet was fired at a 45 degree or less angle, it sure seems like its going to be going very fast when it hits the ground/person. I would think the bullet would have enough energy to kill at that point.

Any physic people out in TBN land?

Later...
Dan McCarty

 

[Bird]

Harv, there's no doubt that bullet's going to ball back to earth, and the shooter will have no idea where it fell or whether it did any damage. I've heard stories of people being killed; never actually knew enough to know what angle the bullet was fired, from what distance, etc., and I really don't know what the velocity would be if it were fired straight up and fell from the pull of gravity alone. Another case of "I've heard it can kill a person", but don't "know" anything.

Another thing I see frequently in the movies is when the bad guy has a gun in his hand and the good guy yells "Police, drop the gun" (or something similar) and the bad guy does so. In real life, even if the good guy is behind the bad guy, you can almost bet the bad guy will whirl around and fire his weapon. Several years ago, Dallas used "shotgun squads", i.e., placed uniformed officers in the rear of convenience stores watching for hijackers through one-way mirrors. In one case, a hijacker robbed the store, then marched the clerk at gunpoint into the back room. The clerk said the officer had stood his shotgun in the corner and was standing behind the door with his pistol in his hand. As they passed the officer, the clerk said, "Shoot him!". The officer said, "Drop your gun." The hijacker said, "You're kiddin'." Blam, one dead officer./w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif

Bird