British Pensioner 78, Arrested For Murder Against Home Intruders

Two things that maybe should be cleared up,

First, I was taught in my Critical Thinking Skills class the necessity to avoid fallacies by recognizing and not misrepresenting the words, "some", "all" and "none". IOW's "many" would qualify as "some" and to take it as "all" and to to go off on that and use it as as a Reverse AD Hominem is immediately recognized as a fallacy by me. I don't get offended by misuse of those qualifiers but I might not let someone in a debate misrepresent my position by switching "many" to "all" either so that they can make an argument against me.

Second, let's be clear, I would not expect a frail person to be subjected to taking an unnecessary risk of being severely injured or killed. Also, this does not mean that the frail person may not possess the opportunity to show some grace rather the pull the trigger when he has the drop on an intruder in his house. Nor does it mean that a frail person cannot be cowardly in his use of a gun.

Lastly, my post above was in reference to giving guidance to some young men, clearly stated in the first sentence of that paragraph, who were getting into confrontations in a bad neighborhood about valuing life (not merely justifying deadly force according to secular laws) and followed my objection, in the unanswered (Reynolds) questions above that paragraph, about the claim of a sitting judge that demonstrated absolutely no value for life. To take my argument as if it was meant to make the frail defenseless or insinuate such is a rather poor and unfortunately maybe too easily taken as an insulting argument. .

 

Its much worse. Arresting the innocent intentionally is much worse.

 

One thing that must be remembered is that firearms are not meant to be pointed at people for long periods of time and not shot. You point a handgun at me inside 10 to 15 feet, give me much time and you will be disarmed. I might be shot, but you will be too.

 

Yes. INNOCENT man ARRESTED

 

Yeah, well, that's one excuse to justify taking a life but if you're worried about it how about shooting them in the leg?

BTW, I couldn't help to notice you didn't answer these questions:

Reynolds said: ↑
We arrested a man here in rural Georgia for home invasion burglary. The owner of the home held him at gunpoint until we arrived. At sentencing, the judge threw out the plea deal and threw the book at the intruder. Judge told him, "I don't like how this turned out. I wish he had shot you dead instead of waiting for the Sheriff. If you broke into my house, I promise you I would have killed you."

 

Yes, because your system of killing unarmed men in possession of large amounts of pigment is so much better: Unarmed black man with pants around his ankles shot by US police

 

I hear this pompous rhetoric all the time on your DailyMail comments, & it shows you buy into any sort of garbage the msm doles out to you. Save your lectures, there is a comeuppance right around the corner for you to explain away to us US Baptists.

 

No, the judge thought he should have shot him prior to the situation being brought under control. That would not be murder.

Any use of force training would teach you to NEVER shoot to wound.

 

Agreed with the new twist. Our training changed to two center mass then fire into the head until the threat stops. We sent one of our SWAT guys to Israel to train for a period of time. That training adaptation came back with him. It has spread to be accepted protocol in Georgia. Officially it is "Two center mass, evaluate, one to the head, evaluate, one to the head, evaluate........"

 

Indeed. Our guy said the Israelis say the two to center mass are to make him be still enough so you can hit the head.

 

No, the judge in your story made his wishes well known.

Maybe I don't like your and TC expert training ethics. Got news for you, if I got the drop on you and need to hold you for the cops you're going to sit down and cross your legs and you ain't disarming nobody. I'd be the boss and you either sit down or get shot in the leg, easy enough. Thus, you can thank me for my Christian grace of not killing you unnecessarily because I was scared you might <cough> disarm me. .

 

Yup, kind of funny about pure stupid Hollywood thought there with that Bruce Lee disarming thingy. LOL

 

Your post demonstrates your extreme ignorance of the topic at hand.

 

Actually the OP was wrong. The pensioner was not arrested for Murder, but on suspicion of murder. The police have to investigate such deaths but it is not in their power to prosecute. They have to hand over their findings to the Director of Public Prosecutions who decides if their is a case to answer, On this occasion, they decided that there was no case to answer and the pensioner has been told he will face no further action.

 

Your posts demonstrate that you are set in your in ways and that you are not able to reason apart from the values you have which are apparently different from mine.

I only hear your arguments based on common practice, popularity and groupthink fallacies but I do not conform my thoughts and actions to that type of reasoning.

I’m not interested in qualifying toward having the worldly standards as an “expert” gun carrier if those standards are in conflict with my God given conscience and defy my abilities to better serve my Lord.

I have a choice, a higher standard to live by and the free will in such situations which I will be accountable for by a Just God whose all His ways are judgment, in truth.

My fears are under control and go far beyond the judgment of those which conform to the use of these tools according to this world’s values.

Mat 10:28

(28) And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.