First homicide of the year in Amarillo

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

Police: Homeowner Fatally Shoots Alleged Robber

Police say two men attempted to break into a home on the 4100 block of South Hughes in Amarillo this morning.

The homeowner, police say, used a long gun to shoot one of the suspects. The other alleged robber managed to run away.

When police arrived at the home, 4117 S. Hughes, they found one of the suspected robbers lying on the ground with several gun shot wounds. They attempted to resuscitate him, but were unsuccessful.

snip

Police call this the first homicide of 2009.

The owner of the home went to the police station, as part of the investigation. But police have not made any arrests.

snip

Link here: http://www.newschannel10.com/Global/story.asp?S=9633273


Sad another criminal commits suicide by invading the home of an armed man. Another homicide stat for the gun grabbers.

David

[safeinOhio]

1. I hope the homeowner has seen this video

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/28/law-prof-and-cop-agr.html

Never, Never talk to the police without a lawyer.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. You are correct but he's probably safe in Texas.

[ZombieHorde]

3. I just can't understand what you have against

medic Dave. He does not deserve to be fired!


(sorry, couldn't resist)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. Scary thing is you might be right.

[tucsonlib]

5. More Texas-Style Gunplay

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Racial_profiling_suspected_in_shooting_of_0108.html

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. and you want us all to give up our weapons and trust these people to protect us.

Thanks for taking my side and posting this.

David

[tucsonlib]

7. Um, No...

When or where did I ever say that I wanted "us all to give up our weapons"?
Oh, sorry, that pesky "gray" area again. I sometimes forget that I'm required here to limit my choices to a Bush-like "good or evil"

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. Without violating the Constitution what do you want exactly?

[Hugabear]

20. You do realize all it takes is a Supreme Court decision

All you would need is for the Supreme Court to rule that the 2nd Amendment refers to the states' national guards (militia units). Nothing is ever set in stone. Hell, just look at abortion. Roe v Wade established a woman's right to an abortion. Yet all it would take is a few more ultra-conservative Supreme Court justices, and that decision gets overturned.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. Yes and then it would become a state rights issue.

My state is very liberal in regards to gun laws and I don't see the makeup of the court changing for quite some time.

David

[Hugabear]

24. You asked the question, I answered it.

I don't think that it's likely to happen, but theoretically the SCOTUS could turn it into a state rights issue. In that case, your state would probably keep the status quo, while other states would most likely enact strict legislation on firearms.

The other alternative, which is even more unlikely, is to pass a Constitutional Amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment, like we did with Prohibition. Either that, or a new Constitutional Convention, in which everything would be up for grabs again. Both of those scenarios, while technically possible, really aren't very likely whatsoever in today's society. But who knows what our country will be like 100 years from now.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. How did you answer my question to another poster?

[Hugabear]

26. I assumed your question was about how to get rid of guns

without violating the Constitution. Sorry if I misread that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. No worries.

My question was what plan that particular poster had for reducing the level of gun violence in this country without violating the constitution.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. No answer I see.

What's wrong can't come up with a nuanced position?

[tucsonlib]

10. mmmmm......

maybe, to start with, an admission that nothing, including our so-called "rights", is absolute.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. Okay you've admitted that, now what do you propose?

[tucsonlib]

12. Still Haven't Gotten That Admission...

you go first.....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. I responded to you I don't know how it ended up under my post.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. So let's hear it, I really am interested.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. Sorry I don't believe that.

Regardless, I'd like to hear your proposal.

David

[tucsonlib]

16. Okay, For The Last Time, I Propose..

that first you admit nothing (or certainly nothing proposed by man) is absolute. Including any so-called "rights" bestowed to us by other fallible beings. But you've already dismissed that possibility, so I'm forced to retreat, since debating complex issues with black/white, good/evil true-believers is a frustratingly futile waste of time.
As for our absolute, non-debatable, don't-tread-on-me RKBA, and by extension our inalienable right to execute evil-doers, take a listen to somebody who was a far more eloquent debunker than I could ever hope to be:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ7XFvniWWE

(Ironic thing is, I'm pretty sure you'll wholeheartedly agree with every word he speaks. Though for the wrong reasons.)

[tucsonlib]

17. Searching For A Little Common Ground...

In This Mean Ol' World..

David,
I've come to realize that both of us have strayed off onto unproductive (though often humorous) tangents lately. And so, I'd like to return to the OP that provoked this latest round of commentitation (as GWB might say) on my part.
It wasn't anything you wrote, actually. It was 57_TomCat's use of the phrase "Righteous Shooting" that I found offensive on so many levels.
As a medic, I'm sure you'd agree that every premature or violent death is tragic. (And I will admit that some are more tragic, some less tragic, than others.) :-) But to call any shooting "righteous" is just the sort of macho bullshit that the other side loves to point to as proof that 2A supporters are all simple-minded cowboys. "Justified Shooting", fine. But no, never "Righteous". Or at least, practically never. And none of us possesses the wisdom to declare it as such.

It goes back to my basic (and often derided) complaint that too many people on both sides of the issue resort to using inaccurate, emotionally-charged, counter-productive words, phrases and stereotypes that serve only to inflame passions and prevent the possibility of reaching any mutually acceptable solutions.
"Gun-Nuts", Gun-Grabbers", "Assault Weapons", "Righteous Shooting", etc. They should have no place in civilized debate.

Any common ground, here?
Don't really care, to be truthful. 'cause in any case.....
I am Outta Here................

Ken



:hippie: :toast: :silly: :bounce: :spank: :beer: :hi: :hide: :woohoo:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. It can be found.

Ken,
I do have to disagree. The death of someone while they are in the act of killing others isn't tragic in that it prevents more tragedy. Certainly it's tragic for someone, the assailants mom, etc. It is not tragic for society however. I'll give them the best care I can and try to save their life if it is savable but I can't find it tragic personally. The word righteous to me means morally correct. I'll give you an example of a righteous shoot in my mind here it is with the link.


Cape woman shoots, kills rapist in her home

Before shooting and killing her rapist early Friday morning, a Cape Girardeau woman had never fired a shotgun in her life.

Though the woman, whose name has been withheld, lived alone, she'd always felt safe in her neighborhood, where she'd lived for the past four years.

When Ronnie W. Preyer, a registered sex offender who was about to be charged with assaulting her a week earlier, broke into her home shortly after 2 a.m. Friday, she said a calm settled over her as she shot him in the chest before running to a neighbor's to get help.

Preyer, 47, of Cape Girardeau was pronounced dead a few hours later at Saint Francis Medical Center.

A dark bruise still marring the side of her face, the rape victim described the previous assault. She had been watching TV around midnight Oct. 25 when she heard a crash. She knew her basement door, leading up to her kitchen, was unlocked, and the noise had come from the basement.

Realizing an intruder had broken into the house, she made a beeline for the back door, but Preyer was waiting for her.

"You fight, you try to think of all the things you can do, but it's happening so fast," she said.

snip

Link here: http://www.semissourian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081101/NEWS01/711019994


Sorry, Maybe I'm just mean but I find no tragedy in his death and the shooting seems pretty righteous to me.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. Why am I not surprised that you left before the conversation ended?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. All I said was I disagree with your absolutist statement.

You are absolutely certain that nothing is absolute. I find that amusing. I think there are absolute things in this world in regards to right and wrong. I believe it is absolutely wrong to force a woman to have sex against her will. I believe it is absolutely wrong to hate someone because of the color of their skin. If you can convince me that those two things are okay in some situations then I might be more willing to believe your argument that nothing is absolute. In regards to the 2nd Amendment there are already restrictions of the 2nd Amendment and of all of the Amendments for that matter so it's fairly clear that everyone doesn't have a right to whatever weapons they choose, just like they can't say anything they want anywhere they want to. So what do you propose?

David

[jmg257]

22. Interesting that Madison thought they were absolute...

"Supposing a bill of rights to be proper the articles which ought to compose it, admit of much discussion. I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided."

"The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public, and after repeated violations in extraordinary cases they will lose even their ordinary efficacy."


Madison to Jefferson 1788


Apparently he wouldn't have proposed an article for ratification if he didn't think the restriction it imposed was absolute, that any restrictions the public/govt might eventually compromise even in emergencies should be avoided.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms wasn't left out.

Unfortunately, enough of the public has decided restrictions on their "absolute" rights IS OK, for various reasons they have chosen to give up more liberty (often because THEY choose not to enjoy it), usually for a greater sense of security.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. Good point.