Tacoma homeowner shoots 2 men breaking into his garage

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/b9fa11e32e524967be4a22c7e23a7d6a/WA--Tacoma-Garage-Shooting/
TACOMA, Wash. — Tacoma police say a homeowner apparently fired in self-defense when he shot two men he caught breaking into his garage.

Spokesman Mark Fulghum told KIRO-TV the man was defending his property early Monday when he held the men at gunpoint and protecting himself when they both charged at him.

One man was found dead in an alley. The wounded man was taken to St. Joseph Medical Center and is expected to survive.

MORE AT LINK

Getting blown away is an occupational hazard for criminals. The wounded one can now be charged with the murder of his partner.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

3. Why to you support a right for criminals to steal? N/T

[Orrex]

7. Why do you value property over life?

[eqfan592]

13. I DON'T!

But that also doesn't mean I think people don't have a right to attempt to defend their property! And the simple fact is that if I hear a noise in my house or garage, one that very clearly doesn't belong there, I'm going to investigate and I'm doing so armed. I'm not going to waste to wondering if the person that BROKE INTO MY HOUSE OR GARAGE is simply there to steal some stuff and won't do anything to harm myself or my family.

Maybe have no idea the sort of fear that runs through your mind when you discover somebody in your home that does NOT belong there. Not just fear for yourself, but for your family. My guess is you don't. But that apparently doesn't stop you from casting down judgment on the rest of the world.

[Orrex]

22. Nowhere in this thread have I attacked those who believe differently from me

Yet I've been attacked several times already for expressing a view at odds with the prevailing sentiment here.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't kill an intruder in my home, but I wouldn't claim some kind of divine right to do it; I would do it as a matter of necessity and accept the consequences thereafter. I would not expect (nor want) to be praised as a brave crusader for property-justice.

[eqfan592]

31. Your very first post...

...implied that the homeowner was clearly out for blood, go so far as to suggest that he sneak into the hospital to kill the other criminal. So honestly, you have no room to attempt to take some sort of "moral high ground." This was offensive in the extreme.

I don't think anybody is praising him as a "brave crusader" of anything. They are pointing out that this is yet another example of a person using a firearm to defend both themselves and their property.

[Orrex]

43. Are you unable to distinguish topical snark from personal attack?

If the shooter shows up in this forum, then I promise that I won't accuse him of bloodlust. However, since he is not participating in this discussion but is instead the source of the discussion, it's not unreasonable to fling a zinger at him in much the same way that others in this forum routinely trot out the "they had it comin' to 'em" mantra when alleged criminals are shot.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. 'only one side of the story to tell'.

One of the people shot seems likely to survive, so we will likely hear both sides of the tale, in this case.

I do consider that fortunate, as strong a supporter of self-defense as I may be, I do expect the law to be adhered to, tightly. I will not excuse extra-judicial or vigilante killings, no matter how 'justified' they may seem at a glance.

[eqfan592]

117. Listen, I'll be honest...

...this particular story hit a bit close to home for me, which is why I think I reacted so very negatively to your remarks. I do apologize for flying off the handle at you and letting my anger get the best of me.

[Orrex]

119. That's very cool of you to say. Thank you.

And I understand what you mean about anger getting the best of you. I can hardly cast the first stone, after all...

[eqfan592]

121. You're welcome. :)

:toast:

[GreenStormCloud]

20. Some property IS my life.

If someone steals my car I don't have a way to work. It will be days, maybe weeks before the insurance settles and they won't pay enough to get a car of comparable value. In the meantime I will have been unable to get to work and will have lost my job and the health insurance that comes with it. I am a senior citizen and take several prescription drugs, including daily insuling shots. Insurance makes them affordable. Without a job I would not be able to buy my meds. Damn right I will shoot to protect my car. And in Texas I can legally do so.

You can meekly surrender critical possessions of yours to any thug that demands them if you want to. I won't.

[Philippine expat]

37. Thats easy

its my stuff and your life. You decide to steal it you take your chances.

[Orrex]

42. So if I think you're stealing my stuff, I can kill you?

That's...


Interesting.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. No, but if you try to stop someone from stealing your stuff, and they attack you

You may be justified in shooting them, depending on circumstances. No duty to retreat in WA. (No castle doctrine, either)

[Orrex]

61. In reply #29 I conceded a similar point

Basically, I agreed that if the homeowner was indeed under direct threat, then he was clearly justified in defending himself.

What leaves me squeamish is that we have only his claim that the alleged burglars charged him. For all we know, they "charged" toward him to reach the only means of escape. At this point it's simply too uncertain to declare one side guilty.

That's why I've been such a stickler for "alleged" but more free in using "shooter" to refer to the homeowner, rather than "alleged" shooter. I don't think that he would dispute the fact that he shot them, after all.

[one-eyed fat man]

73. They could have waited.

The homeowner was holding them waiting for the police to arrive. They cops would have advised them of their rights, cuffed 'em and taken them SAFELY to jail.

They gambled and lost. At least one of them will definitely give up burglary as a career.

[Orrex]

76. It's fortunate that you have information that the rest of us do not

Those of us who have only the article to help draw our conclusions have no idea whether or not they "charged" him. We have only the indirect quote of the homeowner, paraphrased in the 150-word article/blurb. In short, you've decided that the alleged burglars are guilty of everything as described, with no more evidence than the testimony of one of the parties involved.

I'd be interested to know how you've determined this so conclusively, rather than waiting until all the facts are available.

[one-eyed fat man]

79. You have it; you ignored it.

From the OP, the operative phrase, "...when he held the men at gunpoint...

I suppose you are right, he could have been holding them for the fucking tooth fairy.

Unless you maintain the premise the homeowner went out there to execute the bastards, if they had put their hands in the air and waited, they would be safe and in jail.

[Orrex]

83. Curiously, you see only those elements that support your preconception

I don't doubt that he held them at gunpoint. What is less clear, because we have only the shooter's testimony, is that the alleged burglars charged him. This is the point that you seem somehow unable/unwilling to recognize.

if they had put their hands in the air and waited, they would be safe and in jail.

I'm sure that you believe that. It's also possible that he shot them while trying to flee the scene. Since we don't yet have the facts, we can't conclude anything with your degree of certainty.

[cleanhippie]

90. So what is YOUR theory then, Mr. Holmes?

Alleged?

Then what were two strangers DOING in another mans garage? Taking a nap?

[Orrex]

96. Why should I bother answering, when you've apparently read nothing I've posted so far?

My theory is this: at present we have nothing at all except a brief, half-assed blurb featuring paraphrased, indirect quotes of one party regarding an event that involves at least three parties.

Yet you're willing to pronounce sentence from this handful of non-evidence?

[cleanhippie]

103. You make a good point.

But you also seem to be glossing over the fact that it is highly probable that there were, in fact, attempting to steal this mans property.

[one-eyed fat man]

95. Facts are what juries decide.

That's if and when, the investigation leaves any issues in doubt.

In a homicide trial the jury has only two issues to resolve:

1) did the defendant kill the decedent and,

2) did the decedent need killing?

Any time there is a claim of self-defense, the answer to question 1 is not in doubt.

I will admit, I am prejudiced, and have a very low opinion of thieves. Caught red-handed, they gambled and lost! My gut instinct is, it went down as the homeowner claims.

Regardless, their decision to break in started the chain of events. It would take some pretty good forensic evidence to contradict the home-owner's story for me to give any credence to any tale concocted by the surviving thief. The bullet hole is pretty conclusive evidence that he was at the scene of the break-in and subsequent shooting.

[oneshooter]

67. That would depend on the laws where you are at the time. n/t

[Philippine expat]

84. As far as I'm concerned

yes you can

[Blown330]

38. Grossly obvious...

...that the thieves thought that property was worth more than their own lives. Property owner simply obliged them.

[Orrex]

41. That's one way to spin it, sure

But since you know none of the backstory and very little of the story, you're just guessing.

Let's have some more facts, please, before you sentence the alleged burglars.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Did you miss the part where they charged him?

A police officer would have shot them just the same.

[Orrex]

52. I most certainly did not miss the part where there are *alleged* to have charged him

Did you?

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Fair enough.

I would suggest withholding estimations on how 'likely it is' that two unarmed men might charge an armed man, similarly. There is most certainly historical precedent.

[Orrex]

57. So stipulated.

If I could still edit that post, I'd probably change it to "doesn't seem to smart" instead of "seems unlikely."

[AtheistCrusader]

62. High-five!

We have attained common ground!

[Orrex]

66. Look at us--agreeing in the midst of all of this!

There may be a Santa Claus after all!

:toast:

[petronius]

105. Get a room, you two

We won't stand for that sort of thing in public around here...

;)

[slackmaster]

80. The proper question is why the ROBBERS valued another person's property more than THEIR OWN lives

HTH

[cleanhippie]

87. Why do you ignore the self-defense part of the story?

Always taking the side of the criminal.....

:puke:

[Orrex]

97. Why are you ignoring that the *alleged* burglars are *alleged* to have charged the shooter?

Always taking the side of the gun-wielder.....
:puke:

[oneshooter]

100. Who used a *alleged* handgun to put an *alleged* hole in both *alleged* intruders. n/t

[cleanhippie]

104. I'm not, I am going on availbale info.

If the facts change, so will my opinion.

The one fact that will most likely remain unchanged, is the fact that these people were attempting to steal another mans property. Had they NOT done that, none of this would have happened, right?

[eqfan592]

6. What a load of garbage.

So in your book, a homeowner that goes to investigate a noise on his property is just looking to kill somebody? They charged him when he caught them in his garage! Seriously, people like you disgust me. You put the lives of criminals above those of people defending their home.

[Orrex]

11. I can see that you've analyzed the story in its entirety and avoided hasty conclusions

You put the lives of criminals above those of people defending their home.

No, I put the lives of human beings over the value of property. Unless the shooter calls his garage his home, of course.

[Confusious]

15. A garage is part of the home

Whether attached or separate. You're just parsing shit now.

Just as an aside, I'm iffy on the gun thing seeing how I got a 40 cal through my leg, but I'm not on the right of a person to protect their home.

[eqfan592]

16. If it's an attached garage...

...which is likely the case if they were able to hear the noises so clearly, then it is for all intents and purposes a part of their home.

And my ASS you put the lives of human beings over the value of property. You put the lives of criminals over the lives of people who will not be their victims, just as the other poster said. Pure and fucking simple.

Also, you are a FINE one to talk about "jumping to hasty conclusions." You totally failed to recognize that the attackers charged the homeowner. You speak as though he just walked in and started blasting, yet there is no evidence available to support that conclusion.

[Orrex]

24. No shortage of people in this forum willing to declare how other people think

Also, you are a FINE one to talk about "jumping to hasty conclusions." You totally failed to recognize that the attackers charged the homeowner. You speak as though he just walked in and started blasting, yet there is no evidence available to support that conclusion.

In point of fact, we have no evidence at all. We have only the account of the man who pulled the trigger, and even that much is paraphrased. For instance, you're willing to believe that the alleged burglars "charged the homeowner." On what basis do you conclude this? On the indirectly quoted say-so of the shooter?

[ohnoyoudidnt]

18. He didn't know if they were armed or not and it was two against one.

I used to work with a guy whose wife worked at a gas station. It was robbed one night and after doing everything she was ordered, the robber shot her anyway. That is not an uncommon story.

[RSillsbee]

23. At the point the shooting occurred it had nothing to do w/ "property"

He was holding the two at gunpoint and they attacked him. Two on one ( disparity of force) confident enough to charge a gun? I'd have shot too.

[Orrex]

26. In point of fact, the *allegedly* charged him

Again, you're basing the entirety of your conclusion on the homeowner's account. Why? Because he had the gun?

[RSillsbee]

27. Because criminals are stupid

If I was one of the crooks I might well have said "Let's rush him he can't get us both". There are a lot of idiots out there who don't believe that you'll (generic) shoot. Plus the home owner killed one, why not the other?

All that said , if it comes out that the home owner just shot the two then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of th elaw

[Orrex]

29. It's a mistake IMO to dismiss criminals as stupid.

Some criminals are stupid, just as some homeowners are stupid. Many criminals are intelligent and desperate.

All that said , if it comes out that the home owner just shot the two then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law

Fair enough. And if it's shown that the homeowner had a reasonable fear for his life or safety, then I will wholly support his decision to shoot.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Certain firearm policy control advocates base conclusions upon intial news stories all the time.

Not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot, eh?

[Orrex]

56. We're talking about different shoes, though

In every thread I've read in the Guns forum, the shooter is presumed to be justified and the bullet-recipient is presumed to be guilty.

So it has nothing to do with shoes after all. Instead, it's a request that maybe, just maybe, we could maintain a presumption of innocence for both parties instead of declaring outright that the shooter did the right thing.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. That is true.

Both sides could use a gut-check on 'presumption of innocence'

[Loki]

2. Who needs police.

n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

4. The police get there AFTER tthe crime.

AFTER the criminals have fled with the stuff they steal.

[Ilsa]

17. And after the people who live there are maimed, raped, or murdered.

I have no sympathy for those invaders who were shot.

[Loki]

35. Judge, jury and executioner, how convenient.

Don't need no stinking courts or police or due process. Everyone gets the death penalty.

[rl6214]

39. Sure, defend the criminal

the law abiding home owner has not rights.

[Orrex]

44. We should absolutely defend the *alleged* criminal.

Or don't you accept that pesky notion of presumptive innocence?

[AtheistCrusader]

48. I assume the same for the shooter.

Is that ok?

[Orrex]

49. Certainly. Have I suggested otherwise?

[AtheistCrusader]

53. One could read one of your initial posts on this subject that way.

But since you state it that way, I will certainly give you benefit of the doubt.

I look forward to additional details. My boss lives not far from there.

[Orrex]

59. I appreciate that.

It's now clear to me that my first-post snark ratcheted up the discussion more than I intended, and my subsequent posts have been read with that in mind.

[RSillsbee]

50. Good point

That said. If you are attacking me I don't have to hold to that standard I can defend myself

[Orrex]

60. If I were attacking you, I wouldn't hold you to that standard either

But if a third party comes upon the scene after you've shot me, and you claim that I was committing a crime against you, I am then the alleged criminal and you are the alleged victim.

[rl6214]

54. You keep throwing out that word "alleged"

yet most of the drive-by posters here will automatically call the gun carrier guilty just by posting a news story about a shooting whether in committing a crime or in the act of self defense. Do you always fall on the side of the criminal?

[Orrex]

58. In these discussions I always fall on the side of presumed innocence

I haven't seen many threads in which the shooter in a case like this is declared a criminal. The justification for his or her actions is frequently questions, but that's a very different matter.

[one-eyed fat man]

74. Huh?

"........pesky notion of presumptive innocence?"

Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation and great book-learning to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, "You're coming with me," her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error. There is little chance that she is going to shoot the wrong person.

A noise wakes you up in the middle of the night, you find some guy in your kitchen, it's an odds on bet he is not there to borrow a cup of sugar because he is baking cake for his invalid mother in the nursing home.

Thieves do not have to choose occupied dwellings to steal stuff. That they chose to break in while people were there indicates to me they were willing to risk being discovered, and the resultant confrontation. What presumption of innocence does an intruder deserve when you see him carting off armloads of your stuff?

It REALLY is that simple, you don't want to get shot, don't break into people's houses.

[Orrex]

77. Again, you've determined that the event occurred exactly as described

You've drawn your conclusion from the paraphrasing of the homeowner's account of the event.

Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety,

Of course the acts themselves are generally unambiguous. But the post hoc descriptions of those events are subject to a range factors that can impart a great deal of ambiguity. If, for instance, I were to claim that you had robbed me, with no other witnesses present, would you turn yourself in on the basis that the claimed act was not "rife with ambiguity or subtlety?" I rather suspect that you would not.

The two men are alleged to have broken into the garage and are alleged to have charged the man. It may be the case that they are guilty of the acts attributed to them, but we don't yet know that.

I'm sorry that the presumption of innocence is bothersome to you. It would indeed be a simpler world if we could condemn (and execute) based on hearsay.

[one-eyed fat man]

82. I understand now.

The homeowner should be charged with "shooting over bait."

He filled his garage with stuff Les and his buddy, Miserables wanted.

http://www.nwcn.com/news/Tacoma-homeowner-shoots-kills-burglar-in-home-invasion-122443269.html

The homeowner was awakened by dogs barking. He had been a victim of burglaries recently and went outside to investigate. Several neighbors said they have dogs and guns for protection. As for police, ideally they'd like homeowners to wait for officers to arrive, but in this case, they said it was understandable that the homeowner was trying to defend himself.

Tacoma police said the homeower had a medical kit and tried to help one of the suspects he shot, but that person died at the scene.

[oneshooter]

70. So you do not believe in self defence...................

But rely instead on the Law Enforcement Officer to arrive in time to catch and detain the goblin before he can complete his alleged crime?
Now, if the LEO doesn't arrive in time and you are injured and/or killed by the goblin what then? Surly you, if you are alive still, or your relatives can then find justice in the courts? A suit against the authorities, possibly another against the LEO's who failed in their sworn duty to defend you from all harm?


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[RSillsbee]

93. look guys Orrex is right on this one

He's not saying that the home owner wasn't in the right to shoot if the events happened as stated. He's saying that the only people the really know what happened are the home owner and the two crooks.

I think He's also saying that the one surviving crook deserves the right to a fair trial and the best possible defense under the law before we condemn him.


While I do believe the home owner's account I also know that there absolutely are people out there that would hide behind the circumstances to dust the two burglars.

[oneshooter]

102. I am confused. Did you reply to the correct post? n/t

[RSillsbee]

107. Possibly not I was responding to you and Rooster

because you both seemed to be missing Orrex's point

[oneshooter]

108. My reply was to Loki. Who the hell is Rooster? n/t

[RSillsbee]

109. One eyed fat man

Rooster Cogburn

[oneshooter]

111. I LIKE IT!!!!! n/t

[ohnoyoudidnt]

8. People who are unable to defend themselves so the police can investigate their murder. nt

[slackmaster]

81. Everyone. Police provide many valuable services, including cleaning up messes like this one.

:hi:

[ohnoyoudidnt]

5. Darwin Award for charging at someone holding you at gunpoint. nt

[bluerum]

10. Self regulating gene pool.

[Orrex]

12. Doesn't seem especially likely that two unarmed people would charge a guy with a gun

It'll be interesting to hear the story told by the surviving alleged burglar.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

14. It is possible the homeowner is lying, but there are a lot of very stupid criminals out there. nt

[eqfan592]

19. Yeah, because it's never happened before, right?

Oh wait, actually criminals desperate not to get caught are known to do far more idiotic things than that in order to try and avoid capture. But hey, nice try. Glad to see you are more willing to believe a criminal over their potential victim.

[Orrex]

21. Glad to see you're willing to convict the accused without bothering to hear the whole story

[eqfan592]

32. I haven't..

...but I'm not calling it "Unlikely" that such a thing would happen, as you did. I was pointing out that such things are far from unheard of.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. The police officer that witnessed Joe Horn shooting those two kids in Texas

described exactly that.

Some criminals aren't terribly bright, or completely and utterly lack fear of 'law abiding' folks.

[oneshooter]

72. Those two "kids" were both known gangers. n/t

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rsmith6621]

9. Always Glad To Hear People Defend Their Property

....Sorry DU you wont hear any sympathy for the intruders from me.....so flame away...

[Angry Dragon]

25. ................

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[tularetom]

28. I came home to find a guy in my garage once

He had my chain saw in his hand and was going out the door. I don't keep any firearms in my car but I did have a pellet gun under the seat. It was one of those single shot pump type pistols and I chased after the thief pumping as I ran. When I got close enough I tried to shoot the saw from his hand but it was hard to aim accurately while running and I hit him in the ass instead. I doubt if it hurt very much since I only got a few pumps in but It startled him enough to drop the saw and he ran down to the road about 500 feet away. I went back to the house and called the sheriff and they found the guy hiding in a culvert about a mile down the road.

The sheriff called me in for a come to jesus meeting where I got an ass chewing but there really wasn't a thing he could do about it since he had stated at a public meeting about a month earlier that he could not afford to provide patrols to our part of the county and the few of us that lived out there were more or less on our own.

Would I have acted differently if I'd had a gun? Bet your butt I would have. I'm not going to take a chance on going to jail for shooting some asshole over a saw. This ain't Texas and they take sort of a dim view of that sort of thing here.

[rl6214]

34. "This ain't Texas "

No, it' pussified california.

[DWC]

36. Well, this is Texas

And our forefathers joined the Union because of United States leaders like the great Democrat Roger Sherman who said in 1790

"Conceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made."

The Bad Guys made the bad choice to attempt to steal property owned by another. When apprehended by the armed property owner, the Bad Guys made the bad choice to put the property owner in fear for his life. Using his firearm, the property owner stopped the life threatening situation.

Rodger Sherman would be proud. I know I am.

Semper Fi,

[RSillsbee]

65. "pussified"? Wow I thought this was a progressive website

Did I end up on thefiringline.org by mistake?

[ileus]

68. I'm a member at TFL...they can't say pussified

[RSillsbee]

69. I'll bet

Wild I Run Around on the few forums that haven't banned me and pretend to be a progressive gun owner Alaska (tm) gets away with it.


Seriously It's a misogynist term and it has no place on a progressive website

[ileus]

71. TFL and THR are considered "family" sites both are policed pretty well.

As you know anything goes on this site...

[RSillsbee]

75. I know but that word is offensive it reduces women to their reproductive organs

and IMO has no place on a progressive website (which THR and TFL are anything but)

[chibajoe]

86. I thought the term was derived from "scaredy cat"

and had nothing to do with the reproductive organs of women.

[Loki]

85. Wow, that's real appropriate.

But name calling is the last refuge of scoundrels when reasonable argument is lacking.

[rl6214]

89. Bad choice of words and I apologize for it

It just pisses me off sometimes the way people jump on Texas as a piece of crap.

Again, poor choice and I do apologize for it.

[RSillsbee]

92. Thank you

When I die I may not go to heaven 'cause I don't know if they let cowboys in.

If they don't just let me go to Texas "cause Texas is as close as I've been ( Except for Colorado)

[ileus]

30. 12+1 of 45.........My garage contains my gun safe.

[Starboard Tack]

40. Well you take the prize! Just when I thought I'd heard everything

[one-eyed fat man]

78. Why is that?

Some safes are so large the garage door is the only door in the house will let them pass. Mine is 72.5" tall, 51" wide, and 32" deep and weighs 2,176 lbs empty. Even if you can get it in your living room, very damn few houses are built with interior floors capable of supporting 205 pounds per square foot live load.

In the United States the minimum design floor live loads are usually stipulated in pounds per square foot by either state or local building codes. An example of typical design live loads might be 200 or 150 psf for a storage warehouse, 100 psf for a public meeting room, 50 psf for an office and 40 psf for a single family residence. So, your home most likely has the capacity to safely support a uniform live load of at least 40 psf.

Theoretically, a design safety factor of 1.5 or 2.0 means your residential floor could support 60 to 80 pounds per square foot. A fully loaded safe might have as much as 305 pounds per square foot of floor. Therefore, a good sized safe is, on slab, which means in the basement or the garage. If it's not in the basement now, jump up and down in the middle of the room, and it will be.

As Scotty said, "I kinna repeal the laws of physics, Cap'n." Those laws ALWAYS apply, break one and punishment is immediate.

[oneshooter]

91. And usually painful. Either physically or in the wallet, sometimes both. n/t

[ileus]

94. Mine isn't that large...it's only 72x42 800# or something like that.

[Starboard Tack]

110. Sounds like you're ready for WW3 and the Rapture

[oneshooter]

112. Why would say something like that?

We are collectors and shooters. You would want us to leave them lying around? My collection is valuable, not only to me as several of them are family heirlooms but as valuable pieces of history.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

116. I was addressing another member

Why do you feel the need to speak for him? We're all well acquainted with your personal arsenal. Thank you.

[oneshooter]

124. And I asked you a question, which you,

being the arrogant and rude person that you are, have not answered.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

127. Your question was "Would I have you leave them lying around?"

My answer is "No, I would have you melt them down and make something useful with them. Maybe some more tools. Then you could keep all your tools in your gun safe where they would be secure from young guys with big muscles who might covet them."

I'm not normally arrogant and rude. Do you have that effect on a lot of people? It would explain a lot.

[oneshooter]

128. I see............

"No, I would have you melt them down and make something useful with them."

Is this only my collection, or all firearms?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in texas

[Starboard Tack]

129. Let's start with yours and move on up from there

Everyone gets to keep one, if they want, to defend the homestead from bears or bearers and long legged beasties and things that go bump in the night.

[oneshooter]

130. So you want all firearms melted down? n/t

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

138. " demonstrated no inkling of common sense"

See I told you that you were arrogant and rude. And now you have proven not only that, but despite your denials you are a real anti. A gun controller.

You and Shares are one of a kind.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

139. I think you mean two of a kind

I admit it. I'm an anti toter. Don't think it makes sense. Sorry.
I'm not anti having a gun in your home. I think that's valid, also for hunting, sport shooting and target practice. But, if you want to carry one in public you should have a very good reason IMO

[oneshooter]

140. No I mean what I wrote. If I did not mean it I would not have written it.

Both you and Shares have the same fear of what they do not understand. Both of you want all firearms destroyed. You both share the same fantasy.

"I would have you melt them down and make something useful with them"

One of a kind.

Also I don't lie about another DU members posts. Unlike you.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

146. Yes, but I said you can keep one

Everyone should be able to have one if they so choose. That doesn't mean melting them all down. And you can keep the antiques too. When I say keep one I mean one handgun. Shotguns are OK and sensible hunting rifles, not machine guns. I don't lie and haven't accused you of lying.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

143. I do have a very good reason - self defense.

Trouble doesn't make appointments. If it did I wouldn't keep the appointment.

[slackmaster]

120. That's a bigoted remark. I'm going to go ahead and put you on my Ignore list now.

Bye.

http://midi.mididatabase.com/queen/Another_One_Bites_the_Dust.mid

[one-eyed fat man]

122. There are investments and there are investments.

There are things a man can buy that appreciate in value, even if he uses them. At one time you could buy a low time P-51D Mustang for a few thousand dollars. One that is still flyable now will fetch between 1.3 and 2.1 million, and it's a depressed market. More realistically, you could have bought a Cessna 172 30 years ago for $12,000, and sold it now for 50,000. You have had the use of the airplane for the operating costs and recouped your initial investment adjusted for inflation.

One could say the same for a classic 34 foot John Alden sloop, or a BC-610 transmitter. In the fifty some years I have been collecting I made some shrewd or lucky buys. I will have had the fun of indulging my hobbies, and the ability to convert them to cash as I get too old to enjoy them. It's a lot nicer to go to the local grass strip and pop over to the Carolinas to see the grandkids than suffer the indignities of the TSA. In fact, for stage lengths under 500 miles, a 100 knot puddle jumper will beat most airline connections.

A fair chunk of what's in that safe has done better over the last several decades than Dow Jones. Beats the pants off most mutual funds. Selling a gun does not trigger penalties for early withdrawal.

[friendly_iconoclast]

142. Irony of ironies- Gun prohibitionists help make guns a good investment

Just like the temperance types made some bootleggers rich men, talk of gun bans make firearms a good investment.

If you had loaded up (pun intended) on 10+ round magazines prior to the 1994 ban-that-wasn't-really-a-ban, you could have made

a fair bit of coin. Forbidden fruit is always sweeter, and all that...

[one-eyed fat man]

149. If you had been an American sergeant

on leave in Hong Kong in 1968, you might have bought a newly surplussed 1916 Vickers out of British colonial stores, with it standard transport cases and spares for about $50 US. The NFA tax stamp cost more then getting the gun and shipping to the US.

For those who know how to set the headspace, adjust the fusee spring, and the packing glands on the water jacket it will still demonstrate its legendary reliability. Having the Turkish and South African spare parts allows easy conversion to 8x57 Mauser or 7.62 NATO if you are running low on cheap .303 British to shoot.

If someone's estate is not too stupid, the provenance, British Army "sold out of service" proof marks, C&R status, all the export paperwork and the spares that gun should bring $125,000. Beats the shit out of an attic full of Velvet Elvis paintings, no matter how much some arrogant Anglophile snob thinks gun collecting is for redneck rubes.

[Logical]

33. Charging him........maybe a bad idea. Pulling trigger does not take long. n-t

[MicaelS]

98. I do value property over life, here’s why….

An independent skilled tradesman, such as a plumber, electrician, carpenter, HVAC repairman, has a work truck with all his tools, which could cost as much as $100,000. He has no fixed worksite, goes from job to job, working from his truck. This truck is his sole means of supporting his family, keeping a roof over their head, clothes on their back, and food on the table.

If this truck is stolen, he can’t work. His family could go hungry, and could even become homeless.

Is it ethical and moral for someone who works hard, pays their taxes, and doesn’t commit crime to become homeless to save the life of a thief?

I say absolutely, unequivocally NO!

[RSillsbee]

99. I agree up to a point

I worked as a machinist for several years. I made my living w/ my tools and any theft of a tool (especially a specialized tool for machining) was viewed very dimly indeed.

That said if I walk out and catch you hoofing it up the street w/ my leaf blower I'm not going to kill you over it

[MicaelS]

101. So what was the most expensive tool you ever bought? n/t

[RSillsbee]

106. I paid 800 dollars for my roll away alone

I can't go down the list and give you exact prices but I'll bet I have at least 8000 USD in my tool set alone

Machinery's hand book 85$ A set of 12 inch Mitutoyos can set you back 200$ and I have 3 sets Micrometers run about 200$ a pop I have four. A set of pin gages can set you back 1000$

My leaf blower OTOH cost about 50 bucks

[opiate69]

113. Seeing as how the deceased in this instance was actually a friend of mine...

His name was Tony MacDougald. He was a fellow musician I've known off and on for almost 20 years.. to those of us who actually know a little bit about the situation, the entire story seems fishy as hell.. Pierce County Medical examiners determined that Tony died from a single gunshot wound to the back. Kinda hard to square that with the idea of them charging him. Mark my words, there is more to this than "heroic gun owner successfully defends his family and property from bad-guys".

[Orrex]

115. I'm sorry that you lost your friend

A very sad story indeed.

[opiate69]

118. Thanks, Orrex.. and yeah, sad all the way around..

We're all still kind of in shock.. now before all the zealots start to accuse me of making him out to be some innocent victim, let me just say that Tony was a damned fine bassist, and a smart, funny, extremely personable guy who, unfortunately, was capable of doing some of the most profoundly stupid shit when he wasn't clean. It is entirely possible that he was there to break in and steal stuff, but right now there's just so much information lacking I can't be sure what the truth is.

[RSillsbee]

125. I'm sorry that it had to be your friend

But he is the one who put himself in that boat

[cleanhippie]

133. "Detectives and forensic specialists found evidence the burglars had been inside the home"

It sucks that it was a friend of a fellow DU'er.




Read more: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/05/24/2027820/tacoma-homeowner-shoots-burglars.html#ixzz1NP9CrDGS

[opiate69]

136. Yeah that's another weird little detail..

how is it the homeowners heard them in the detached garage, but not inside the house? And who is the homeowner? Is it someone they knew, meaning they had been inside legally before explaining the "evidence"?

[cleanhippie]

137. Don't know, but its a good question.

Guess we will have to wait until ALL the details come out.

But considering that the homeowner was not arrested on scene after the investigation should lead one to believe that things are as they seem.

[eqfan592]

141. It's possible that they took much more care in the home...

...to not make any noise than they did while they were in the detached garage, thinking they would be safer making noise there.

[eqfan592]

123. Actually, it's not as hard to square as you may think.

Two people rush, shots fired, one goes down the other turns to run. At this point, person defending their home has adrenalin flowing and is likely following one of the typical rules of defense, don't stop pulling the trigger until all threats are down. All this happens in a few heart beats.

Not saying this is for sure how it happened, but I can easily see how it is possible for there to be a shot to the back and it to still square with a defense situation.

Hopefully we'll hear more information and justice will be done, one way or another.

Either way, though, and for what it's worth, you do have my sympathies.

[slackmaster]

126. Sorry for the loss of your friend.

Do you have any idea why he might have been in that garage, or what he was doing there?

[cleanhippie]

131. Sorry to hear, that, man. Do you know what he was doing there in the first place?

[opiate69]

135. Thanks hippie and slack..

at this point we have no idea why, or even if, he was actually there.. another mutual friend lives 2 doors down from there (though he's on tour right now with Zeke), but since we haven't even found out who the garage belongs to, we don't know if it was someone Tony knew or what..

[GreenStormCloud]

144. Obviously he WAS actually there.

After all, that is where the corner's office picked up his body.

The other burglar has previously been shot by police and also bitten by a police dog on a different occasion. He has previously pleaded guilty to various felonies. http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crime/2011/05/25/injured-burglar-from-south-end-shooting-booked-into-jail/

[opiate69]

145. They picked up his body in the alley

outside the garage, Hawking - which by the way adjoins another mutual friend's house. The only reason to believe they were actually in the guy's garage at this juncture is on the say-so of a man who claimed to have shot a man who was charging at him, in the back.

[GreenStormCloud]

147. There will be blood splats at the scene of the shooting.

DNA will determine if the blood is his. Also, his friend was definately there. The same friend with multiple previous felonies, previously shot by police, previously bitten by police dog.

Keep a watch for the story in your local media. We usually completely miss out on any follow-up details.

[ileus]

114. another link

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/05/24/2027820/tacoma-homeowner-shoots-burglars.html

[cleanhippie]

132. "Detectives and forensic specialists found evidence the burglars had been inside the home"

At 4:30 in the am.

[Blown330]

148. And another link...

http://tacomastories.com/2011/05/25/sixth-tacoma-homicide-of-2011-tony-mcdougald/

[GreenStormCloud]

151. Tony was a career criminal since he was 13.

According to the link he had priors for drugs, assault, theft, and other crimes.