On 10/19/11 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:15:21 -0400, X `
wrote:

Had a young guy walk into my house a few years back, at 1:30 in the
morning.. I used a baseball bat to remove him, not a gun. Turns out he
was a escaped patient from a home down the street, and didn't know where
he was... If Harry had had the same, a innocent person would be dead
instead of just having a broken rib...


We're smart enough down here to tell the difference between a little
**** intent on violence (like you) and someone suffering from a
non-violent mental disorder.

I suppose we really don't know if this guy had violence on his mind.
He was taken out before he could do what he came there for.
It would be interesting to track him down and see what he is doing
now. If he turns out to have killed someone later, was not shooting
him better for society?
Breaking into a strangers house at 0130 is not an indication of a
person with good things on his mind.

As a purely legal thing, shooting someone and hitting them with a bat
is pretty much the same thing.


My assumption is that anyone breaking into the house has criminal intent.

I'm not a spy or a drug dealer or a terrorist, so if the police come
calling, it'll be during the day, they'll knock on the door and have
proper credentials.

At 1:30 am, whoever is breaking in pretty much deserves what he gets.

On 10/19/11 1:36 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:27:39 -0400, X `
wrote:

It's fairly easy to tell a non-violent, unarmed, confused mental patient
from a hot-tempered, sawed-off little **** like you

Ted Bundy looked like an insurance salesman and he usually used
weapons of opportunity, picked up at the crime scene.


Ted Bundy was the exception, not the rule. If I see a short, disheveled,
smelly guy with a pony tail and a manic look on his face breaking into
the house, I am going to assume he is not an insurance
salesman.

On 10/19/2011 1:34 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:15:21 -0400, X `
wrote:

Had a young guy walk into my house a few years back, at 1:30 in the
morning.. I used a baseball bat to remove him, not a gun. Turns out he
was a escaped patient from a home down the street, and didn't know
where
he was... If Harry had had the same, a innocent person would be dead
instead of just having a broken rib...


We're smart enough down here to tell the difference between a little
**** intent on violence (like you) and someone suffering from a
non-violent mental disorder.

I suppose we really don't know if this guy had violence on his mind.
He was taken out before he could do what he came there for.
It would be interesting to track him down and see what he is doing
now. If he turns out to have killed someone later, was not shooting
him better for society?
Breaking into a strangers house at 0130 is not an indication of a
person with good things on his mind.

As a purely legal thing, shooting someone and hitting them with a bat
is pretty much the same thing.


My assumption is that anyone breaking into the house has criminal intent.

I'm not a spy or a drug dealer or a terrorist, so if the police come
calling, it'll be during the day, they'll knock on the door and have
proper credentials.

At 1:30 am, whoever is breaking in pretty much deserves what he gets.

You would kill a guy whose only crime up to that point was breaking and
entering yet you think a convicted murderer SHOULD NOT be executed. That
sounds like a good topic to debate. Too bad no one wants to debate a
piece of ****e like you.

On 10/19/11 1:37 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:54:21 -0400, X `
wrote:

You know, I'm not aware of an organization dedicated to converting
Christians into atheists.

The Catholic Church? ;-)

That reminds me of a story my Jesuit priest friend told me once. It's
clean, but too sophisticated for rec.boats.

On 10/19/2011 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:15:21 -0400, X `
wrote:

Had a young guy walk into my house a few years back, at 1:30 in the
morning.. I used a baseball bat to remove him, not a gun. Turns out he
was a escaped patient from a home down the street, and didn't know where
he was... If Harry had had the same, a innocent person would be dead
instead of just having a broken rib...


We're smart enough down here to tell the difference between a little
**** intent on violence (like you) and someone suffering from a
non-violent mental disorder.

I suppose we really don't know if this guy had violence on his mind.
He was taken out before he could do what he came there for.
It would be interesting to track him down and see what he is doing
now. If he turns out to have killed someone later, was not shooting
him better for society?
Breaking into a strangers house at 0130 is not an indication of a
person with good things on his mind.

As a purely legal thing, shooting someone and hitting them with a bat
is pretty much the same thing.

Well, in this case you are 100% wrong.. I could have swung for the cheap
seats, but two hands on either end of the bat, cross block to the chest
technique I used (instead of swinging it like a bat), was specifically
intended "NOT" to kill him, just back him out to, and then off of the
front porch. Once he landed on his back in the front lawn, I didn't
follow him, I retreated back into the house and waited for the cops. If
he stood up and came back to the porch, I would swing for "the cheap
seats" and I made that real clear to him from inside the house...

For the record in hindsight, after finding out who he was (a patient
from a group home down the street), I doubt he meant any harm, I believe
he is still a resident there to this day. I do know one thing though, if
the "only" weapon I had was a gun, I would have shot him and never
doubted my decision. My wife and kids were standing behind me screaming,
I doubt anybody but JPS (who would try to talk to him) and our own
internet hero (who is just waiting for the opportunity to kill someone
with his guns) would do anything different than I did right then and
there...

On 10/19/2011 1:37 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:54:21 -0400, X `
wrote:

You know, I'm not aware of an organization dedicated to converting
Christians into atheists.

The Catholic Church? ;-)

You got me there. I know several of their victims. My church too for
that matter, just not in as great a number... I know for a fact that the
people in my Church (not the church itself) were instrumental in turning
at least on of my children, Athiest.. And several of my peers coming up
as a teen too, but that was again more due to one hypocrite with power,
than the church itself...

In article om,
says...

On 10/19/2011 10:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In articlef8idnfns9evGQwPTnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

On 10/19/11 10:16 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 10:15 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 10:01 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 8:05 AM, BAR wrote:
In raweb.com,
says...

On 10/18/2011 7:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 6:54 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:52 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:41 AM, Tim wrote:









On Oct 17, 7:30 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:22 AM, Tim wrote:

On Oct 17, 5:30 am, X ` wrote:
In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a
peasant
revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants
attacked
and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there and
roasted
him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of
the
serfs
raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and
then
they
forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they
killed her.

Now that is serious class warfare.

Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this
country
should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the
"French"
treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial
chiefs
would
provide quicker results.

Wiki gives credit of the story to one Jean La Bel, but I
thought this
line was interesting:

"The peasants involved in the rebellion seem to have lacked any
real
organization, instead rising up locally as an unstructured mass.
It is
speculated by Jean le Bel that evil governors and tax collectors
spread the word of rebellion from village to village to inspire
the
peasants to rebel against the nobility. When asked as to the
cause of
their discontent they apparently replied that they were just
doing
what they had witnessed others doing. Additionally it seems
that the
rebellion contained some idea that it was possible to rid the
world of
nobles. Froissart's account portrays the rebels as mindless
thugs
bent
on destruction, which they wreaked on over 150 noble houses and
castles, murdering the families in horrendous ways."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie#The_uprising

In the 14th Century, the serfs had every reason to murder
nobles. They
still do.

Harry, nobody has the right to 'murder' anyone...

In the 14th Century, the nobility murdered just about anyone it
pleased,
and with impunity. Since the serfs had no justice whatsoever
available
to them, turnabout was seen as fair play.

Even in this country and in this century, we have official murder.
Some
may say that those killed in wars or by the executioner are not
murdered, but "the state" will say anything to justify its actions.

Harry,. who do you have the right to murder, and who has the
right to
murder you?


Murder simply defined is *illegal* homicide. The country and many
states
engage in homicide and justify it by saying it was *legal*.
The state of course can make anything it likes legal, but that
doesn't
make it justified. Executions may be legal, but they are not
justified.
Killing of non-combatants in a war is murder.

The situation is different in a case of self-defense. I don't have
the
right to murder anyone, but I do have the legal and I think moral
right
to defend myself or my wife from intruders who break into the house
and
intend bodily harm. If that means shooting the intruders, so be it.

It's not the same as execution. The state has a choice. It can
warehouse
violent offenders until they die of old age. There are no such
alternative when dealing with a home invader.

You should know that all intruders are not murderers and rapists. You
better make sure you are targeted for bodily harm before you pull the
trigger. Your paranoia will work against you in defense of a shooting.
Think about that, big boy.

When you point a gun at someone, like an intruder in your home, your
intention is to kill them not to interview them. If you are not aiming
for center mass you are in idiot.

Had a young guy walk into my house a few years back, at 1:30 in the
morning.. I used a baseball bat to remove him, not a gun. Turns out he
was a escaped patient from a home down the street, and didn't know where
he was... If Harry had had the same, a innocent person would be dead
instead of just having a broken rib...


We're smart enough down here to tell the difference between a little
**** intent on violence (like you) and someone suffering from a
non-violent mental disorder.

Bull****, when someone breaks down your door at 1:30 am, you don't take
time to check their intent.. but of course you have to defend your
cowardly ways, I get it...


It's fairly easy to tell a non-violent, unarmed, confused mental patient
from a hot-tempered, sawed-off little **** like you, Snotty. Even easier
when the lady of the house is a psychotherapist who did a year-old
internship at one of Florida's huge forensic mental hospitals, has
worked at several psych facilities, has been a licensed, practicing
psychotherapist for more than 15 years, and has been recognized by
courts in this area and several distant states as an expert witness.

Oh, so Dr. Fourchin is going to do a patient intake exam before you
decide to shoot or not?

Sure. That's standard practice at Krause house. Except for the Florida
incident where Harry decided to break the guys legs with his F150.

Without the proper mental evaluation first?

In article m,
says...

On 10/19/2011 10:16 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 10:02 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 8:10 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 8:06 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:31:01 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:45:32 -0400, wrote:

In ,

says...

CNN is a dripping wet liberal-socialism farce propaganda machine.

Not nearly as bad as MSNBC, or PBS. CNN lies by omission, the
other two
just make it up as they go along...

And Fox is fair and balanced and would never "lie by
omission"....right?

CNN may be the most balanced, based on the fact that both sides are
****ed at them. ;-)

CNN is corporate news. They're anything but in the middle. PBS and
BBC are closer to real news.

PBS and BBC are left leaning at best and communist at worst.




snerk You demonstrate the lack of formal edu-ma-ca-tion.

I am sure he has more education than you Harry, and is probably more
secure about his since he doesn't have to come here and lie about it.
You said you graduated Yale here years ago, and it was proven to be a
lie....

You are sure? Bertie joined the marines after high school and never
continued his formal edu-ma-ca-tion.

Bar's hitch in the marines made a man out of a boy. You became a
man_______________________when?

He's still a first class coward to this day!

On 10/19/2011 2:00 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In raweb.com,
says...

On 10/19/2011 10:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In articlef8idnfns9evGQwPTnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

On 10/19/11 10:16 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 10:15 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 10:01 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 8:05 AM, BAR wrote:
In raweb.com,
says...

On 10/18/2011 7:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 6:54 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:52 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:41 AM, Tim wrote:









On Oct 17, 7:30 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:22 AM, Tim wrote:

On Oct 17, 5:30 am, X ` wrote:
In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a
peasant
revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants
attacked
and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there and
roasted
him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of
the
serfs
raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and
then
they
forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they
killed her.

Now that is serious class warfare.

Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this
country
should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the
"French"
treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial
chiefs
would
provide quicker results.

Wiki gives credit of the story to one Jean La Bel, but I
thought this
line was interesting:

"The peasants involved in the rebellion seem to have lacked any
real
organization, instead rising up locally as an unstructured mass.
It is
speculated by Jean le Bel that evil governors and tax collectors
spread the word of rebellion from village to village to inspire
the
peasants to rebel against the nobility. When asked as to the
cause of
their discontent they apparently replied that they were just
doing
what they had witnessed others doing. Additionally it seems
that the
rebellion contained some idea that it was possible to rid the
world of
nobles. Froissart's account portrays the rebels as mindless
thugs
bent
on destruction, which they wreaked on over 150 noble houses and
castles, murdering the families in horrendous ways."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie#The_uprising

In the 14th Century, the serfs had every reason to murder
nobles. They
still do.

Harry, nobody has the right to 'murder' anyone...

In the 14th Century, the nobility murdered just about anyone it
pleased,
and with impunity. Since the serfs had no justice whatsoever
available
to them, turnabout was seen as fair play.

Even in this country and in this century, we have official murder.
Some
may say that those killed in wars or by the executioner are not
murdered, but "the state" will say anything to justify its actions.

Harry,. who do you have the right to murder, and who has the
right to
murder you?


Murder simply defined is *illegal* homicide. The country and many
states
engage in homicide and justify it by saying it was *legal*.
The state of course can make anything it likes legal, but that
doesn't
make it justified. Executions may be legal, but they are not
justified.
Killing of non-combatants in a war is murder.

The situation is different in a case of self-defense. I don't have
the
right to murder anyone, but I do have the legal and I think moral
right
to defend myself or my wife from intruders who break into the house
and
intend bodily harm. If that means shooting the intruders, so be it.

It's not the same as execution. The state has a choice. It can
warehouse
violent offenders until they die of old age. There are no such
alternative when dealing with a home invader.

You should know that all intruders are not murderers and rapists. You
better make sure you are targeted for bodily harm before you pull the
trigger. Your paranoia will work against you in defense of a shooting.
Think about that, big boy.

When you point a gun at someone, like an intruder in your home, your
intention is to kill them not to interview them. If you are not aiming
for center mass you are in idiot.

Had a young guy walk into my house a few years back, at 1:30 in the
morning.. I used a baseball bat to remove him, not a gun. Turns out he
was a escaped patient from a home down the street, and didn't know where
he was... If Harry had had the same, a innocent person would be dead
instead of just having a broken rib...


We're smart enough down here to tell the difference between a little
**** intent on violence (like you) and someone suffering from a
non-violent mental disorder.

Bull****, when someone breaks down your door at 1:30 am, you don't take
time to check their intent.. but of course you have to defend your
cowardly ways, I get it...


It's fairly easy to tell a non-violent, unarmed, confused mental patient
from a hot-tempered, sawed-off little **** like you, Snotty. Even easier
when the lady of the house is a psychotherapist who did a year-old
internship at one of Florida's huge forensic mental hospitals, has
worked at several psych facilities, has been a licensed, practicing
psychotherapist for more than 15 years, and has been recognized by
courts in this area and several distant states as an expert witness.

Oh, so Dr. Fourchin is going to do a patient intake exam before you
decide to shoot or not?

Sure. That's standard practice at Krause house. Except for the Florida
incident where Harry decided to break the guys legs with his F150.

Without the proper mental evaluation first?

Hey, he is an expert, his sister "plays a doctor on the internet"... and
all those fake smarts rubbed off on him

In article ,
says...

On 10/19/11 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:15:21 -0400, X `
wrote:

Had a young guy walk into my house a few years back, at 1:30 in the
morning.. I used a baseball bat to remove him, not a gun. Turns out he
was a escaped patient from a home down the street, and didn't know where
he was... If Harry had had the same, a innocent person would be dead
instead of just having a broken rib...


We're smart enough down here to tell the difference between a little
**** intent on violence (like you) and someone suffering from a
non-violent mental disorder.

I suppose we really don't know if this guy had violence on his mind.
He was taken out before he could do what he came there for.
It would be interesting to track him down and see what he is doing
now. If he turns out to have killed someone later, was not shooting
him better for society?
Breaking into a strangers house at 0130 is not an indication of a
person with good things on his mind.

As a purely legal thing, shooting someone and hitting them with a bat
is pretty much the same thing.


My assumption is that anyone breaking into the house has criminal intent.

I'm not a spy or a drug dealer or a terrorist, so if the police come
calling, it'll be during the day, they'll knock on the door and have
proper credentials.

At 1:30 am, whoever is breaking in pretty much deserves what he gets.

Cops only go to someone's house during the day? Interesting!