On Oct 28, 4:06*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Larry Fishel wrote:
Several comments:

I've always wanted to have some signs printed up saying "Trespassers
will be eaten."

On the serious side:

In many (most) areas of the U.S., the Castle Doctrine only applies to
the inside of your house/trailer/car, not all of your property.

In many areas, you can legally shoot someone trespassing on your
property, but ONLY if you have very specifically worded signs at
minimum intervals around your property. Using your creatively worded
signs won't cut it legally.

Use of deadly force against a simple trespasser alone is never justified.

Sorry Wrong but thank you for playing. In Texas as just one example
any person intruding into the enclosed curtilage of a home during the
hours of darkness is fair game. No warning required. Shooting them
dead is justifiable homicide.


I knew some of the comments were in jest, but for anyone who might not
know, in most of the U.S. at least any kind of intentional booby trap
is illegal even if no one has any legal reason to be there. And they
are certainly the definition of "premeditation" if that turns out to
be important.

Use of booby traps is universally condemned and considered illegal
everywhere. There are any number of people who can lawfully enter your
property without your knowledge and even against your wishes.

* A peace officer with a warrant,
* Fireman, paramedic, animal control officer, or anyone else under exigent
circumstances,
* A child who has no criminal capability,
* A simple civil trespasser,
* Meter reader, postman, delivery service, and the like
* And maybe a hundred other classifications.

They don't have to be inside your home in most states. The attempt to
enter is sufficient. You cant shoot them for knocking in the daytime
but if they try the door nob you can put the full clip in the center
of mass.
--
Tom Horne

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Anyway, if you're gonna be all "responsible citizen" on us, your
first call should be to 911 for an AMBULANCE. The entire
conversation should be: "Gunshot victim, (address)." When the
paramedics get there, THEY will call the cops. That way you're not
on the (recorded) hook for what you might say to the police
dispatcher.
If that is how they do it in your area, I would probably quit as
a medic. Everywhere else, you have a gunshot victim call they roll the
cops (probably quite a few) immediately along with the ambulance.
Depending on the area, there are some places where the ambulance
protocols say the cops should secure the area before the medics are
allowed in.

In my area the first words out of the mouth of the 911 operator are "Fire,
police, or ambulance?" and they route you to the proper dispatcher (we have
over twenty police agencies in this county). When you say "gunshot
victim..." to the ambulance dispatcher, the ambulance dispatcher sends the
paramedics then picks up the 'phone and notifies the police.

Our paramedics are not afraid of the neighborhood - very many of them carry
guns (or so I'm told).


Your SECOND call should be to your lawyer. If you don't have a
lawyer, you should complain to the paramedics about feeling faint,
heart pounding, chest pains, and priapism. They'll take you to the
hospital so you can delay talking to the cops until you have
adequate advice.

If you tell about priapism it has to be present for more than 4 hours
(g).
Or, you can tell the cops at the scene that you don't want to talk
to them until your attorney arrives. And don't fall for all that bunk
about how that makes you look guilty.

Why give them a reason ("... until my attorney arrives")? Why even tell them
you don't want to talk to them? If you're at the scene, they'll arrest you
("Felony Possession of Marijuana" - later dismissed) so they can get
fingerprints, gun-shot residue, DNA, etc.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Anyway, if you're gonna be all "responsible citizen" on us, your
first call should be to 911 for an AMBULANCE. The entire
conversation should be: "Gunshot victim, (address)." When the
paramedics get there, THEY will call the cops. That way you're not
on the (recorded) hook for what you might say to the police
dispatcher.
If that is how they do it in your area, I would probably quit as
a medic. Everywhere else, you have a gunshot victim call they roll the
cops (probably quite a few) immediately along with the ambulance.
Depending on the area, there are some places where the ambulance
protocols say the cops should secure the area before the medics are
allowed in.

In my area the first words out of the mouth of the 911 operator are "Fire,
police, or ambulance?" and they route you to the proper dispatcher (we have
over twenty police agencies in this county). When you say "gunshot
victim..." to the ambulance dispatcher, the ambulance dispatcher sends the
paramedics then picks up the 'phone and notifies the police.

Which is exactly what I said and a little different from your
assertion that they will call the cops after they get there. You will
still very much be on the recorded hook anyway since almost all of the
EMS 911 centers are recorded.

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article
,
Tom Horne wrote:

On Oct 28, 4:06*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Larry Fishel wrote:
Several comments:

I've always wanted to have some signs printed up saying "Trespassers
will be eaten."

On the serious side:

In many (most) areas of the U.S., the Castle Doctrine only applies to
the inside of your house/trailer/car, not all of your property.

In many areas, you can legally shoot someone trespassing on your
property, but ONLY if you have very specifically worded signs at
minimum intervals around your property. Using your creatively worded
signs won't cut it legally.

Use of deadly force against a simple trespasser alone is never justified.

Sorry Wrong but thank you for playing. In Texas as just one example
any person intruding into the enclosed curtilage of a home during the
hours of darkness is fair game. No warning required. Shooting them
dead is justifiable homicide.


I knew some of the comments were in jest, but for anyone who might not
know, in most of the U.S. at least any kind of intentional booby trap
is illegal even if no one has any legal reason to be there. And they
are certainly the definition of "premeditation" if that turns out to
be important.

Use of booby traps is universally condemned and considered illegal
everywhere. There are any number of people who can lawfully enter your
property without your knowledge and even against your wishes.

* A peace officer with a warrant,
* Fireman, paramedic, animal control officer, or anyone else under exigent
circumstances,
* A child who has no criminal capability,
* A simple civil trespasser,
* Meter reader, postman, delivery service, and the like
* And maybe a hundred other classifications.

They don't have to be inside your home in most states. The attempt to
enter is sufficient. You cant shoot them for knocking in the daytime
but if they try the door nob you can put the full clip in the center
of mass.
--
Tom Horne

I'm just curious. How many of all you tough-talking gunslingers on the
group have actually shot a civilian while you were a civilian? I'm not
saying you wouldn't or shouldn't do it, because I don't want to get into
a moral debate. I've made my choices about when to use deadly force. I'm
just wondering how many Joe Horns we really have on board here. There
sure does seem to be a lot of boasting going on, about how tough y'all
are.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
Tom Horne wrote:

On Oct 28, 4:06 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Larry Fishel wrote:
Several comments:
I've always wanted to have some signs printed up saying "Trespassers
will be eaten."
On the serious side:
In many (most) areas of the U.S., the Castle Doctrine only applies to
the inside of your house/trailer/car, not all of your property.
In many areas, you can legally shoot someone trespassing on your
property, but ONLY if you have very specifically worded signs at
minimum intervals around your property. Using your creatively worded
signs won't cut it legally.
Use of deadly force against a simple trespasser alone is never justified.

Sorry Wrong but thank you for playing. In Texas as just one example
any person intruding into the enclosed curtilage of a home during the
hours of darkness is fair game. No warning required. Shooting them
dead is justifiable homicide.

I knew some of the comments were in jest, but for anyone who might not
know, in most of the U.S. at least any kind of intentional booby trap
is illegal even if no one has any legal reason to be there. And they
are certainly the definition of "premeditation" if that turns out to
be important.
Use of booby traps is universally condemned and considered illegal
everywhere. There are any number of people who can lawfully enter your
property without your knowledge and even against your wishes.

* A peace officer with a warrant,
* Fireman, paramedic, animal control officer, or anyone else under exigent
circumstances,
* A child who has no criminal capability,
* A simple civil trespasser,
* Meter reader, postman, delivery service, and the like
* And maybe a hundred other classifications.
They don't have to be inside your home in most states. The attempt to
enter is sufficient. You cant shoot them for knocking in the daytime
but if they try the door nob you can put the full clip in the center
of mass.
--
Tom Horne

I'm just curious. How many of all you tough-talking gunslingers on the
group have actually shot a civilian while you were a civilian? I'm not
saying you wouldn't or shouldn't do it, because I don't want to get into
a moral debate. I've made my choices about when to use deadly force. I'm
just wondering how many Joe Horns we really have on board here. There
sure does seem to be a lot of boasting going on, about how tough y'all
are.

I've never shot another human being but I've given a few pepper spray
baths and damn near killed a burglar with my bare hands. I stomped the
creep until he quit twitching and thought he was dead. I was going to
throw his body in a dumpster and not call anybody but he woke up when
I started to drag him out to the truck. I made him crawl out to the
street and I went back inside and shut the door. Later I head a lot of
sirens and when I looked out there were firetrucks and police cars a
block away. I imagine the burglar had quite a story to tell about a
truck load of crazy Honkies wearing Rebel flag T-shirts who administered
a drive by ass wupping.

TDD

Tom Horne wrote:

Use of deadly force against a simple trespasser alone is never
justified.

Sorry Wrong but thank you for playing. In Texas as just one example
any person intruding into the enclosed curtilage of a home during the
hours of darkness is fair game. No warning required. Shooting them
dead is justifiable homicide.

Nope. Deadly force is justified for "criminal mischief during the nighttime"
but simple trespass is NOT criminal mischief. else we'd be stepping over the
bodies of trick-or-treaters.

Further, "Curtilage" is a specific legal definition found in the common law
meaning an enclosed, roofless, outer area, like a patio, but is nowhere
mentioned in the Texas Penal Code or Code of Criminal Procedure. In Texas we
have no distinction between curtilage, outdoors, or inside regarding deadly
force.

If you offer the defense of : "But yer honor, he was in my curtilage!" The
judge will say "What the **** is a 'curtilage'? Remanded."

Tell you what: You stick to the legal pomposity in Maryland and let me
handle Texas.


They don't have to be inside your home in most states. The attempt to
enter is sufficient. You cant shoot them for knocking in the daytime
but if they try the door nob you can put the full clip in the center
of mass.

Right. In some states they need only be in your curtilage or near your
cowabunga.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In my area the first words out of the mouth of the 911 operator are
"Fire, police, or ambulance?" and they route you to the proper
dispatcher (we have over twenty police agencies in this county).
When you say "gunshot victim..." to the ambulance dispatcher, the
ambulance dispatcher sends the paramedics then picks up the 'phone
and notifies the police.

Which is exactly what I said and a little different from your
assertion that they will call the cops after they get there. You will
still very much be on the recorded hook anyway since almost all of the
EMS 911 centers are recorded.

Agreed - I misspoke. The paramedic DISPATCHER will call the cops, not the
first-aid team on the scene. It's just that the police dispatcher and the
ambulance dispatcher have different training and focus:

The ambulance dispatcher will ring the alarm, then ask if the victim is
breathing, is there anything icky, like blood, etc., most of which you can
answer without incriminating yourself.

The police dispatcher will ask: How many times was he shot, who did the
shooting, are there any witnesses, where is the gun, can you fashion some
sort of lathe, blah-blah-blah.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In my area the first words out of the mouth of the 911 operator are
"Fire, police, or ambulance?" and they route you to the proper
dispatcher (we have over twenty police agencies in this county).
When you say "gunshot victim..." to the ambulance dispatcher, the
ambulance dispatcher sends the paramedics then picks up the 'phone
and notifies the police.

Which is exactly what I said and a little different from your
assertion that they will call the cops after they get there. You will
still very much be on the recorded hook anyway since almost all of the
EMS 911 centers are recorded.

Agreed - I misspoke. The paramedic DISPATCHER will call the cops, not the
first-aid team on the scene. It's just that the police dispatcher and the
ambulance dispatcher have different training and focus:

The ambulance dispatcher will ring the alarm, then ask if the victim is
breathing, is there anything icky, like blood, etc., most of which you can
answer without incriminating yourself.

The police dispatcher will ask: How many times was he shot, who did the
shooting, are there any witnesses, where is the gun, can you fashion some
sort of lathe, blah-blah-blah.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

can you fashion some sort of lathe, blah-blah-blah.

Heh heh.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

can you fashion some sort of lathe, blah-blah-blah.

Heh heh.

Smitty Two wrote:

I'm just curious. How many of all you tough-talking gunslingers on the
group have actually shot a civilian while you were a civilian? I'm not
saying you wouldn't or shouldn't do it, because I don't want to get
into a moral debate. I've made my choices about when to use deadly
force. I'm just wondering how many Joe Horns we really have on board
here. There sure does seem to be a lot of boasting going on, about
how tough y'all are.

Good question. As a civilian I've never shot another civilian. I have,
however, displayed my firearm three times in the past 14 years*
(interestingly, twice in a Home Depot parking lot!) and mentally committed
myself to using deadly force if the mope took one more step forward or
raised his tire iron. Inasmuch as we have very discerning and rational
squints, goblins, cut-purses, four-flushers, and goat-petters in my state, a
fourth kind of close encounter was never necessary.

------
* It's been 14 years since my state passed a concealed handgun law.

Smitty Two wrote:

I'm just curious. How many of all you tough-talking gunslingers on the
group have actually shot a civilian while you were a civilian? I'm not
saying you wouldn't or shouldn't do it, because I don't want to get
into a moral debate. I've made my choices about when to use deadly
force. I'm just wondering how many Joe Horns we really have on board
here. There sure does seem to be a lot of boasting going on, about
how tough y'all are.

Good question. As a civilian I've never shot another civilian. I have,
however, displayed my firearm three times in the past 14 years*
(interestingly, twice in a Home Depot parking lot!) and mentally committed
myself to using deadly force if the mope took one more step forward or
raised his tire iron. Inasmuch as we have very discerning and rational
squints, goblins, cut-purses, four-flushers, and goat-petters in my state, a
fourth kind of close encounter was never necessary.

------
* It's been 14 years since my state passed a concealed handgun law.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:56:28 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

I'm just curious. How many of all you tough-talking gunslingers on the
group have actually shot a civilian while you were a civilian? I'm not
saying you wouldn't or shouldn't do it, because I don't want to get into
a moral debate. I've made my choices about when to use deadly force. I'm
just wondering how many Joe Horns we really have on board here. There
sure does seem to be a lot of boasting going on, about how tough y'all
are.

That's a fair question. As a civilian I've never shot a person. I have
ordered two men to be SHOT, if they jumped from a building, even
ordered the person to chamber her round of buck shot.

I'm not a tough guy, but I have been in hand to hand combat with a
real Nigerian Prince before.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:56:28 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

I'm just curious. How many of all you tough-talking gunslingers on the
group have actually shot a civilian while you were a civilian? I'm not
saying you wouldn't or shouldn't do it, because I don't want to get into
a moral debate. I've made my choices about when to use deadly force. I'm
just wondering how many Joe Horns we really have on board here. There
sure does seem to be a lot of boasting going on, about how tough y'all
are.

That's a fair question. As a civilian I've never shot a person. I have
ordered two men to be SHOT, if they jumped from a building, even
ordered the person to chamber her round of buck shot.

I'm not a tough guy, but I have been in hand to hand combat with a
real Nigerian Prince before.

On Oct 30, 10:56*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
*Tom Horne wrote:





On Oct 28, 4:06*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Larry Fishel wrote:
Several comments:

I've always wanted to have some signs printed up saying "Trespassers
will be eaten."

On the serious side:

In many (most) areas of the U.S., the Castle Doctrine only applies to
the inside of your house/trailer/car, not all of your property.

In many areas, you can legally shoot someone trespassing on your
property, but ONLY if you have very specifically worded signs at
minimum intervals around your property. Using your creatively worded
signs won't cut it legally.

Use of deadly force against a simple trespasser alone is never justified.

Sorry Wrong but thank you for playing. *In Texas as just one example
any person intruding into the enclosed curtilage of a home during the
hours of darkness is fair game. *No warning required. *Shooting them
dead is justifiable homicide.

I knew some of the comments were in jest, but for anyone who might not
know, in most of the U.S. at least any kind of intentional booby trap
is illegal even if no one has any legal reason to be there. And they
are certainly the definition of "premeditation" if that turns out to
be important.

Use of booby traps is universally condemned and considered illegal
everywhere. There are any number of people who can lawfully enter your
property without your knowledge and even against your wishes.

* A peace officer with a warrant,
* Fireman, paramedic, animal control officer, or anyone else under exigent
circumstances,
* A child who has no criminal capability,
* A simple civil trespasser,
* Meter reader, postman, delivery service, and the like
* And maybe a hundred other classifications.

They don't have to be inside your home in most states. *The attempt to
enter is sufficient. *You cant shoot them for knocking in the daytime
but if they try the door nob you can put the full clip in the center
of mass.
--
Tom Horne

I'm just curious. How many of all you tough-talking gunslingers on the
group have actually shot a civilian while you were a civilian? I'm not
saying you wouldn't or shouldn't do it, because I don't want to get into
a moral debate. I've made my choices about when to use deadly force. I'm
just wondering how many Joe Horns we really have on board here. There
sure does seem to be a lot of boasting going on, about how tough y'all
are.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I haven't been tough-talking, but I have shot in the general direction
of a person up to no good. I wasn't sure where they were, but they
didn't know that. It happened to achieve the desired result very
well.

On Oct 30, 10:56*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
*Tom Horne wrote:





On Oct 28, 4:06*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Larry Fishel wrote:
Several comments:

I've always wanted to have some signs printed up saying "Trespassers
will be eaten."

On the serious side:

In many (most) areas of the U.S., the Castle Doctrine only applies to
the inside of your house/trailer/car, not all of your property.

In many areas, you can legally shoot someone trespassing on your
property, but ONLY if you have very specifically worded signs at
minimum intervals around your property. Using your creatively worded
signs won't cut it legally.

Use of deadly force against a simple trespasser alone is never justified.

Sorry Wrong but thank you for playing. *In Texas as just one example
any person intruding into the enclosed curtilage of a home during the
hours of darkness is fair game. *No warning required. *Shooting them
dead is justifiable homicide.

I knew some of the comments were in jest, but for anyone who might not
know, in most of the U.S. at least any kind of intentional booby trap
is illegal even if no one has any legal reason to be there. And they
are certainly the definition of "premeditation" if that turns out to
be important.

Use of booby traps is universally condemned and considered illegal
everywhere. There are any number of people who can lawfully enter your
property without your knowledge and even against your wishes.

* A peace officer with a warrant,
* Fireman, paramedic, animal control officer, or anyone else under exigent
circumstances,
* A child who has no criminal capability,
* A simple civil trespasser,
* Meter reader, postman, delivery service, and the like
* And maybe a hundred other classifications.

They don't have to be inside your home in most states. *The attempt to
enter is sufficient. *You cant shoot them for knocking in the daytime
but if they try the door nob you can put the full clip in the center
of mass.
--
Tom Horne

I'm just curious. How many of all you tough-talking gunslingers on the
group have actually shot a civilian while you were a civilian? I'm not
saying you wouldn't or shouldn't do it, because I don't want to get into
a moral debate. I've made my choices about when to use deadly force. I'm
just wondering how many Joe Horns we really have on board here. There
sure does seem to be a lot of boasting going on, about how tough y'all
are.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I haven't been tough-talking, but I have shot in the general direction
of a person up to no good. I wasn't sure where they were, but they
didn't know that. It happened to achieve the desired result very
well.

mike wrote:
On Oct 30, 10:56 am, Smitty Two wrote:
(snip)

I'm just curious. How many of all you tough-talking gunslingers on the
group have actually shot a civilian while you were a civilian? I'm not
saying you wouldn't or shouldn't do it, because I don't want to get into
a moral debate. I've made my choices about when to use deadly force. I'm
just wondering how many Joe Horns we really have on board here. There
sure does seem to be a lot of boasting going on, about how tough y'all
are.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I haven't been tough-talking, but I have shot in the general direction
of a person up to no good. I wasn't sure where they were, but they
didn't know that. It happened to achieve the desired result very
well.

Firing without having a target? Firing a warning shot without a known
safe backstop (like the ground or a hillside)? Okay, gotcha.

Hope you don't live around here, and that your neighbors are very far away.

--
aem sends...

mike wrote:
On Oct 30, 10:56 am, Smitty Two wrote:
(snip)

I'm just curious. How many of all you tough-talking gunslingers on the
group have actually shot a civilian while you were a civilian? I'm not
saying you wouldn't or shouldn't do it, because I don't want to get into
a moral debate. I've made my choices about when to use deadly force. I'm
just wondering how many Joe Horns we really have on board here. There
sure does seem to be a lot of boasting going on, about how tough y'all
are.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I haven't been tough-talking, but I have shot in the general direction
of a person up to no good. I wasn't sure where they were, but they
didn't know that. It happened to achieve the desired result very
well.

Firing without having a target? Firing a warning shot without a known
safe backstop (like the ground or a hillside)? Okay, gotcha.

Hope you don't live around here, and that your neighbors are very far away.

--
aem sends...

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
mike wrote:
On Oct 30, 10:56 am, Smitty Two wrote:
(snip)

I'm just curious. How many of all you tough-talking gunslingers on the
group have actually shot a civilian while you were a civilian? I'm not
saying you wouldn't or shouldn't do it, because I don't want to get into
a moral debate. I've made my choices about when to use deadly force. I'm
just wondering how many Joe Horns we really have on board here. There
sure does seem to be a lot of boasting going on, about how tough y'all
are.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I haven't been tough-talking, but I have shot in the general direction
of a person up to no good. I wasn't sure where they were, but they
didn't know that. It happened to achieve the desired result very
well.

Firing without having a target? Firing a warning shot without a known
safe backstop (like the ground or a hillside)? Okay, gotcha.

Hope you don't live around here, and that your neighbors are very far
away.

--
aem sends...

Such places do exist. I can fire 270 degrees and not hit anything. The
CLOSEST house in the 270 degree arc are five miles, and on many parts of the
arc, there are no houses at all. Shotgun pellets do not fly far at all,
anyway.

Steve

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
mike wrote:
On Oct 30, 10:56 am, Smitty Two wrote:
(snip)

I'm just curious. How many of all you tough-talking gunslingers on the
group have actually shot a civilian while you were a civilian? I'm not
saying you wouldn't or shouldn't do it, because I don't want to get into
a moral debate. I've made my choices about when to use deadly force. I'm
just wondering how many Joe Horns we really have on board here. There
sure does seem to be a lot of boasting going on, about how tough y'all
are.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I haven't been tough-talking, but I have shot in the general direction
of a person up to no good. I wasn't sure where they were, but they
didn't know that. It happened to achieve the desired result very
well.

Firing without having a target? Firing a warning shot without a known
safe backstop (like the ground or a hillside)? Okay, gotcha.

Hope you don't live around here, and that your neighbors are very far
away.

--
aem sends...

Such places do exist. I can fire 270 degrees and not hit anything. The
CLOSEST house in the 270 degree arc are five miles, and on many parts of the
arc, there are no houses at all. Shotgun pellets do not fly far at all,
anyway.

Steve

aemeijers wrote:

I haven't been tough-talking, but I have shot in the general
direction of a person up to no good. I wasn't sure where they were,
but they didn't know that. It happened to achieve the desired
result very well.

Firing without having a target? Firing a warning shot without a known
safe backstop (like the ground or a hillside)? Okay, gotcha.

Hope you don't live around here, and that your neighbors are very far
away.

This is one of the first techniques a warrior learns.

It's official name is "covering fire" or "suppressive fire" and its purpose
is to force the adversary to remain under cover and not return (what's known
as) "lethal fire."

When faced with both a 100% armed assailant and an unquantifiable, but
vanishingly small, probability of collateral damage, the warrior has no
question and no hesitation.

HeyBub wrote:
aemeijers wrote:
I haven't been tough-talking, but I have shot in the general
direction of a person up to no good. I wasn't sure where they were,
but they didn't know that. It happened to achieve the desired
result very well.
Firing without having a target? Firing a warning shot without a known
safe backstop (like the ground or a hillside)? Okay, gotcha.

Hope you don't live around here, and that your neighbors are very far
away.

This is one of the first techniques a warrior learns.

It's official name is "covering fire" or "suppressive fire" and its purpose
is to force the adversary to remain under cover and not return (what's known
as) "lethal fire."

When faced with both a 100% armed assailant and an unquantifiable, but
vanishingly small, probability of collateral damage, the warrior has no
question and no hesitation.


He didn't say he was TAKING fire at the time, or even that the assailant
was armed. Agreed, that would be a different situation. And if you are
out in the boonies, the issue is probably irrelevant. In town, on the
other hand, as any local LEO will attest, collateral damage is a
significant issue. Hence light loads and frangible bullets being imposed
in many departments.

--
aem sends...

aemeijers wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
aemeijers wrote:
I haven't been tough-talking, but I have shot in the general
direction of a person up to no good. I wasn't sure where they
were, but they didn't know that. It happened to achieve the
desired result very well.
Firing without having a target? Firing a warning shot without a
known safe backstop (like the ground or a hillside)? Okay, gotcha.

Hope you don't live around here, and that your neighbors are very
far away.

This is one of the first techniques a warrior learns.

It's official name is "covering fire" or "suppressive fire" and its
purpose is to force the adversary to remain under cover and not
return (what's known as) "lethal fire."

When faced with both a 100% armed assailant and an unquantifiable,
but vanishingly small, probability of collateral damage, the warrior
has no question and no hesitation.


He didn't say he was TAKING fire at the time, or even that the
assailant was armed. Agreed, that would be a different situation. And
if you are out in the boonies, the issue is probably irrelevant. In
town, on the other hand, as any local LEO will attest, collateral
damage is a significant issue. Hence light loads and frangible bullets
being imposed in many departments.

--
aem sends...


what are these police departments that require frangible bullets and/or
"light loads"?
Often police WANT to shoot thru a door,car door,inside wall.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"HeyBub" wrote:
-snip-

I used to be an LEO and never heard of such as you claim:
1. The chances of hitting an innocent person in an exchange of gunfire is
closely adjacent to zero. Of the literally thousands of gunshots in urban
environments every day, there's maybe one or two innocent people hit in a
year.

That may be the craziest ****ing thing you've ever said!

What are the odds that last year they were both from the same city?
Albany, NY- not exactly your wild west town, or Harlem, LA or Philly--
yet last year a couple bystanders were hit-

There was also a turd convicted for killing a little girl 2 blocks
away from where he missed his homey who stole his bicycle.

I couldn't find a nice neat chart-- but here's an old NY Times
article. Things in NY City are probably even better these days-- but
they note in this article that the number of bystanders hit by stray
bullets went from 535 in 1991 to 335 in 1993. Probably still a
couple hundred in NYC alone.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/26/ny...-in-bronx.html


2. No department is going to demand, suggest, or even allow frangible
bullets or "light" loads - that would be evidence sufficient of insanity.

Here's a 1998 article on the police going to hollow points-
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/09/ny...pagewanted=all
and according to this article they were among the last big forces in
the country to go to hollow points-
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/...esponsibility/

if you really were a LEO, was it dog catcher in podunk in 1955? You're
*way* out of touch here.

-snip-
bruise. If the mope is hopped-up on crack, shooting him is liable to make
him angry!


You're right there, though. I always love to read the wannabe's
saying they'll take a shot to wound a perp so he'll run away.

Jim

In article ,
"C & E" wrote:

Webster doesn't recognize that word, Chris. What is the meaning?


Agapanthus. I was going to correct him earlier but I used up this week's
supply of spelling cop tokens. Ubiquitous landscape plant around these
parts.


"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
My fav was "Beware! Wild Apaganthas!"

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"Jim" nospam@wherever wrote in message
el...



Saw a sign that read " I STAY UP THREE NIGHTS A WEEK
WITH A 12 GUAGE
SHOTGUN GUARDING MY PROPERTY...YOU GUESS THE NIGHT!"
thought that was
entertaining and to the point... Jim

"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote:
-snip-

I used to be an LEO and never heard of such as you claim:
1. The chances of hitting an innocent person in an exchange of gunfire is
closely adjacent to zero. Of the literally thousands of gunshots in urban
environments every day, there's maybe one or two innocent people hit in a
year.

That may be the craziest ****ing thing you've ever said!

Don't believe everything you think. And try to draw from Google and actual
history rather than that small amount of grey matter you have.

In this shootout, approximately 650 rounds were fired. Two hit the
assailant during the main exchange, and the other six or eight were when he
stepped into SWAT's scopes at the end.

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4486079

That's terrible shooting for everyone. Except SWAT, that is. Even in
regular gunfights, the % of bullets that his people are low, unless it's a
drive-by, and then, it's saturation firepower into a very small area, or a
crowd of people.

Not one innocent bystander was wounded, either at the scene, or within
range. The only officers who were injured were injured by flying glass and
bullet fragments.

Why is it that we have a FREE library larger than any other in any time of
history, and so few people choose to or know how to use it? I guess they
are just so knowledgeable in their own brains that they find it unnecessary
to seek any more information. No one so stupid as someone who knows it all
already. Unless said person makes comments on the Internet pointing it out,
that is. -snerk-

Steve

"SteveB" wrote:


"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message
.. .
"HeyBub" wrote:
-snip-

I used to be an LEO and never heard of such as you claim:
1. The chances of hitting an innocent person in an exchange of gunfire is
closely adjacent to zero. Of the literally thousands of gunshots in urban
environments every day, there's maybe one or two innocent people hit in a
year.

That may be the craziest ****ing thing you've ever said!

Don't believe everything you think.

And try to draw from Google and actual
history rather than that small amount of grey matter you have.

Did you read the links? I supported *my* contention.


Here's another-- 3 *killed* in the last month in a single city.
http://newyorkcity.injuryboard.com/m...oogleid=273148
No mention of how many were wounded.


In this shootout, approximately 650 rounds were fired. Two hit the
assailant during the main exchange, and the other six or eight were when he
stepped into SWAT's scopes at the end.

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4486079

OK- so one example. I'll even cite another; I've been in firefights
where 10s of thousands of rounds were fired- artillery dropped, air
support called in-- and nary a hair was singed.

But it is also true that the little girl in Albany was 2 blocks away
when a gangbanger took a single shot at someone, missed, and killed
her. And there have been several other instances in Albany alone
over the past couple years.

-snip-
Why is it that we have a FREE library larger than any other in any time of
history, and so few people choose to or know how to use it? I guess they
are just so knowledgeable in their own brains that they find it unnecessary
to seek any more information. No one so stupid as someone who knows it all
already. Unless said person makes comments on the Internet pointing it out,
that is. -snerk-

Do you have any data from your library that supports the idea that 2
people a year are killed by stray bullets in America- or is that just
in the shared brain of Heybub & yerself?

Google "stray bullet" and see how foolish that statement is.

Jim

In article ,
Jim Elbrecht wrote:
lf?

Google "stray bullet" and see how foolish that statement is.

Jim

AT least on Yahoo you get the band the video game and the song. include
kill or death and you get more but it is real hard to figure out who got
hit by a stray bullet because somebody hosed the place down and those
who got hit a bullet gone astray as in the discussion.

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Jim Elbrecht wrote:
lf?

Google "stray bullet" and see how foolish that statement is.

Jim

AT least on Yahoo you get the band the video game and the song.

I forget that google stacks your results according to links you went
to in the past- so I get lots of newspaper stories from all over the
world.

This seemed to give me more signal than noise;
bystander gunshot cities

include
kill or death and you get more but it is real hard to figure out who got
hit by a stray bullet because somebody hosed the place down and those
who got hit a bullet gone astray as in the discussion.

I've picked a few nits in my day- but I'm not sure I see a significant
difference of "stray bullets" and "bullets gone astray".

The statement that rattled my cage was Heybub saying;
"1. The chances of hitting an innocent person in an exchange of
gunfire is closely adjacent to zero. Of the literally thousands of
gunshots in urban environments every day, there's maybe one or two
innocent people hit in a year."

Sounds to me like he's counting all the thousands of bullets.


Jim

In article ,
Jim Elbrecht wrote:

I've picked a few nits in my day- but I'm not sure I see a significant
difference of "stray bullets" and "bullets gone astray".

The statement that rattled my cage was Heybub saying;
"1. The chances of hitting an innocent person in an exchange of
gunfire is closely adjacent to zero. Of the literally thousands of
gunshots in urban environments every day, there's maybe one or two
innocent people hit in a year."

Sounds to me like he's counting all the thousands of bullets.

Yep. The earlier part was about someone taking a potshot at an
intruder. I missed the transition to more narrow focus.

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:
-snip-

I used to be an LEO and never heard of such as you claim:
1. The chances of hitting an innocent person in an exchange of
gunfire is closely adjacent to zero. Of the literally thousands of
gunshots in urban environments every day, there's maybe one or two
innocent people hit in a year.

That may be the craziest ****ing thing you've ever said!

What are the odds that last year they were both from the same city?
Albany, NY- not exactly your wild west town, or Harlem, LA or Philly--
yet last year a couple bystanders were hit-

There was also a turd convicted for killing a little girl 2 blocks
away from where he missed his homey who stole his bicycle.

I couldn't find a nice neat chart-- but here's an old NY Times
article. Things in NY City are probably even better these days-- but
they note in this article that the number of bystanders hit by stray
bullets went from 535 in 1991 to 335 in 1993. Probably still a
couple hundred in NYC alone.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/26/ny...-in-bronx.html


The fact remains that *I* never heard of such carnage. I have now. Thanks
for the information. But it doesn't change the maxim: "He who puts the most
metal in the air almost always wins."


2. No department is going to demand, suggest, or even allow frangible
bullets or "light" loads - that would be evidence sufficient of
insanity.

Here's a 1998 article on the police going to hollow points-
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/09/ny...pagewanted=all
and according to this article they were among the last big forces in
the country to go to hollow points-
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/...esponsibility/

if you really were a LEO, was it dog catcher in podunk in 1955? You're
*way* out of touch here.

A hollow-point is neither a frangible nor a light load. Last I heard,
departments in large, liberal, cities (i.e., Los Angeles, New York, Chicago,
etc.) do not allow anything but ball ammunition. That may have changed as
reality set in.

I was a deputy sheriff in Harris County, Texas (Houston) for eight years.
And it WAS a long time ago. Most things have not changed ("Geeze, I didn't
know you all were the fuzz! I thought you was just a couple of ordinary
turds") and some things have ("Go ahead, light him up!").


-snip-
bruise. If the mope is hopped-up on crack, shooting him is liable to
make him angry!


You're right there, though. I always love to read the wannabe's
saying they'll take a shot to wound a perp so he'll run away.


Heh!

The proper description, in ALL cases is: "I discharged my weapon to stop the
attack."

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:12:53 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

You're right there, though. I always love to read the wannabe's
saying they'll take a shot to wound a perp so he'll run away.


Heh!

The proper description, in ALL cases is: "I discharged my weapon to stop the
attack."

Check, double check and so forth.


Sir, "he got passed my knife defense."

http://www.rmjforge.com/images/Eagle...002A%20021.jpg

In article , HeyBub wrote:
aemeijers wrote:

SNIP to here

He didn't say he was TAKING fire at the time, or even that the
assailant was armed. Agreed, that would be a different situation. And
if you are out in the boonies, the issue is probably irrelevant. In
town, on the other hand, as any local LEO will attest, collateral
damage is a significant issue. Hence light loads and frangible
bullets being imposed in many departments.

I used to be an LEO and never heard of such as you claim:
1. The chances of hitting an innocent person in an exchange of gunfire is
closely adjacent to zero. Of the literally thousands of gunshots in urban
environments every day, there's maybe one or two innocent people hit in a
year.

2. No department is going to demand, suggest, or even allow frangible
bullets or "light" loads - that would be evidence sufficient of insanity. In
fact, most departments frown on anything but factory-loaded, ball
ammunition. Even these are often insufficient to corral the freak. Consider
cold-weather clothing, topped off by a heavy-duty leather jacket. An
ordinary 9mm or .38 bullet will merely bother the squint with a nasty
bruise. If the mope is hopped-up on crack, shooting him is liable to make
him angry!

There is a news item, slightly old, that Philadelphia police officers
will soon (likely already did) get the option of purchasing larger caliber
alternatives for their service weapons:

Glock 22 and 35, .40 caliber, magazine capacity 15 rounds.

Glock 21 and 21 "slim frame", standard rails only, .45 ACP, magazine
capacity 13 rounds.

Philadelphia Police Department officers carrying these larger caliber
weapons on duty have the requirement of carrying certification cards for
such larger caliber weapons.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/d...=&cat=&page=24

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/d...or_police.html

This item has a date of December 4 2008. It appears to me that the
perps in Philadelphia have the tide turned against them a bit.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Jim Elbrecht wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:
-snip-

I used to be an LEO and never heard of such as you claim:
1. The chances of hitting an innocent person in an exchange of gunfire is
closely adjacent to zero. Of the literally thousands of gunshots in urban
environments every day, there's maybe one or two innocent people hit in a
year.

That may be the craziest ****ing thing you've ever said!

What are the odds that last year they were both from the same city?
Albany, NY- not exactly your wild west town, or Harlem, LA or Philly--
yet last year a couple bystanders were hit-

Was the coment responded to on innocents hit by police bullets or ones
hit by bullets overall?

My impression is that in most years, a few innocents get hit by stray
bullets from perps and none get hit by stray bullets from police officers.

Of thousands of daily gunshots mentioned two steps back, that sounds
like perps to me - and many of them have aim worse than avoiding hitting
more than one or two innocents nationwide total annually.

A few years ago in Philadelphia, there was a schoolyard gunfight between
two drug gangs, with 80-something rounds fired, none of which hit their
intended targets. One bullet from this incident did kill an innocent
little girl, and another caused a significant foot injury to a school
crossing guard. That is two innocents hit in one city on one day.

- Don Klipstein )

SteveB wrote:
Where can I find some to the point nasty no trespassing signs? We are
getting prowlers and burglaries during the daytime at very rural properties.

I hope word has gotten out that I'm a crazy ole man who shoots real bullets,
but I had a daytime prowler last Saturday.

Steve



Here's an interesting source:

http://www.readytodefend.com/index.php?main_page=index

TDD

On Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 3:06:19 PM UTC-7, SteveB wrote:
Where can I find some to the point nasty no trespassing signs? We are
getting prowlers and burglaries during the daytime at very rural properties.

I hope word has gotten out that I'm a crazy ole man who shoots real bullets,
but I had a daytime prowler last Saturday.

Steve

I'd suggest the sign which spells out the response time of cops, being so many minutes. Compared to the response time of a bullet. Thousands of feet/second.

On 6/26/19 12:37 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 3:06:19 PM UTC-7, SteveB wrote:
Where can I find some to the point nasty no trespassing signs? We are
getting prowlers and burglaries during the daytime at very rural properties.

I hope word has gotten out that I'm a crazy ole man who shoots real bullets,
but I had a daytime prowler last Saturday.

Steve

I'd suggest the sign which spells out the response time of cops, being so many minutes. Compared to the response time of a bullet. Thousands of feet/second.


Some choices here, or design your own

https://www.mysecuritysign.com/no-trespassing-signs

On 6/26/19 11:37 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 3:06:19 PM UTC-7, SteveB wrote:
Where can I find some to the point nasty no trespassing signs? We are
getting prowlers and burglaries during the daytime at very rural properties.

I hope word has gotten out that I'm a crazy ole man who shoots real bullets,
but I had a daytime prowler last Saturday.

Steve

I'd suggest the sign which spells out the response time of cops, being so many minutes. Compared to the response time of a bullet. Thousands of feet/second.

I saw one that said "Our dog can get to the fence in 2 seconds. Can you?".

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Tonight, instead of discussing the existence or non- existence of God,
they have decided to fight for it." [Monty Python]

On 6/26/2019 1:07 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 6/26/19 11:37 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 3:06:19 PM UTC-7, SteveB wrote:
Where can I find some to the point nasty no trespassing signs?Â* We are
getting prowlers and burglaries during the daytime at very rural
properties.

I hope word has gotten out that I'm a crazy ole man who shoots real
bullets,
but I had a daytime prowler last Saturday.

Steve

I'd suggest the sign which spells out the response time of cops, being
so many minutes. Compared to the response time of a bullet. Thousands
of feet/second.

I saw one that said "Our dog can get to the fence in 2 seconds. Can you?".


Out cycling one day I stopped to relieve myself. Cyclist with me said,
"Didn't you see that, NO TREES ****ING SIGN?

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 26 Jun 2019 12:59:01 -0400,
wrote:

On 6/26/19 12:37 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 3:06:19 PM UTC-7, SteveB wrote:
Where can I find some to the point nasty no trespassing signs? We are
getting prowlers and burglaries during the daytime at very rural properties.

I hope word has gotten out that I'm a crazy ole man who shoots real bullets,
but I had a daytime prowler last Saturday.

Steve

I'd suggest the sign which spells out the response time of cops, being so many minutes. Compared to the response time of a bullet. Thousands of feet/second.


Some choices here, or design your own

https://www.mysecuritysign.com/no-trespassing-signs


includes prepunched holes for easy mounting. The holes are "cleared"
(unlike competitors' signs).


What exactly do you think they mean by cleared and what do the
competitors do? The signs I see at the store have very nice holes. I
can't imagine competitors' signs have bad ones.