These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Just had a guy try and kick down our door!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#81 - 2012-03-23 00:28:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
A small government would not let a SCOTUS decision become law by fiat.


Correction: your ideal small government would never have allowed religious doctrine (with no factual support at all) to become law in the first place, therefore there would have been no need to challenge the non-existent laws against abortion. The supreme court decision is 100% in line with small-government ideology, and you should be praising the fact that it became law as a perfect example of how to reduce the power of government.

The fact that you can find anything to object to in this case suggests that, like most "small government" advocates, you're really concerned with your own personal agenda, not an actual minimization of government power.

Quote:
So both sides think they can put on the One Ring and do good with it.


One side wants to ban unjustified laws restricting individual freedom, and appeals to higher levels of government to stop those laws (since that whole "tyranny of the majority" thing keeps them from doing it at lower levels).

One side wants to pass laws that enforce religious doctrine and restrict individual freedom.

See a difference here?

Quote:
The same thing goes for the so-called "gay marriage" issue.


Err, how?

One side wants to have all marriages recognized (legally) the same way.

One side wants to use the power of the state to take away the rights of a group that the majority dislikes, including using the power of the federal government to pass laws banning local or state governments from restoring those rights.

How the **** are these two groups equal?


PS: it's not a "so-called" issue if you're one of the people who has to sit and watch while the government spends your tax money to tell you how much Jesus hates you.


Quote:
I enjoy trolling you, but a part of me hopes there is a civill war so I can get a chance to not be in the same country you are in.


I don't know which is more delusional, that you want a civil war, or that you actually think you'd be on the winning side of it. Unfortunately for you, the side with the modern weapons* tends to win, and the moral high ground isn't very comforting when a stealth bomber just wiped your town off the map.


*That would be the government, in case you were wondering.



Oh jeez one of those. I am not going to bother with you except to remind you that all the money it takes for all those special weapons comes from people like me, so when it's time to kill me, they have to print more money to keep that war machine going. And you can feel good about yourself watching a gallon of gas cost fifty bucks. You are a perfect example of what happens when government schools stop teaching civics.

You got me categorized. You probably think I am with the Tea Party when I post links about how co-opted it is. You probably think I listen to Rush and the other sock puppets. You have no idea who I am and what I do, but it does not matter. I am hated by liberals and conservatives alike, and I am proud of that.


Not only am I not going to change, for you I promise to try harder in doing what I do. Thanks for the motivation. I want you and people like you to suffer only for the fact that I keep breathing, and creating more people like me by waking them up.

Yes, it's possible, though you are no proof of that. But for every one of you there are 10 I can De-Zombify.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#82 - 2012-03-23 01:03:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Merin Ryskin
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Oh jeez one of those. I am not going to bother with you except to remind you that all the money it takes for all those special weapons comes from people like me, so when it's time to kill me, they have to print more money to keep that war machine going. And you can feel good about yourself watching a gallon of gas cost fifty bucks. You are a perfect example of what happens when government schools stop teaching civics.


1) Since when has a tiny little detail like "we don't have money for this" ever stopped the government from doing anything? You of all people should be very familiar with the fact that the government has been spending more money than it takes in for as long as I can remember. Running up a bit more debt to pay for a war (just like every other war lately) would just be business as usual.

2) Existing stocks of weapons are more than enough to end any attempted rebellion by people like you. After all, it's not like you need expensive stand-off cruise missiles to bomb an enemy that doesn't have any anti-aircraft defenses. Or expensive gps-guided bombs to precisely kill the target without massive collateral damage*. All it takes is a few B-52s/artillery guns/etc firing nice simple "dumb" weapons to carpet bomb you until you surrender.

3) Congratulations on missing the point that I don't want this to happen. I'm just not delusional enough to think that an attempt at armed revolution is going to be anything other than a one-sided massacre. Unlike you, I actually understand just how horrifyingly effective modern weapons are.




*Any case where the government is evil enough that armed revolution is morally justified is almost certainly going to involve a ruthless government that does not care about pesky little details like how many innocent people have to die to put down the rebellion.

Quote:
You got me categorized. You probably think I am with the Tea Party when I post links about how co-opted it is. You probably think I listen to Rush and the other sock puppets. You have no idea who I am and what I do, but it does not matter. I am hated by liberals and conservatives alike, and I am proud of that.


Nice strawman. I suppose it's much easier to simply assume what I think than to actually address any of my actual arguments.

Quote:
Not only am I not going to change, for you I promise to try harder in doing what I do. Thanks for the motivation. I want you and people like you to suffer only for the fact that I keep breathing, and creating more people like me by waking them up.


Talking about "waking people up" when you're so deep in your delusions that it's almost painful to read? Now that is irony...
Selinate
#83 - 2012-03-23 02:55:50 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:


1) Since when has a tiny little detail like "we don't have money for this" ever stopped the government from doing anything? You of all people should be very familiar with the fact that the government has been spending more money than it takes in for as long as I can remember. Running up a bit more debt to pay for a war (just like every other war lately) would just be business as usual.

2) Existing stocks of weapons are more than enough to end any attempted rebellion by people like you. After all, it's not like you need expensive stand-off cruise missiles to bomb an enemy that doesn't have any anti-aircraft defenses. Or expensive gps-guided bombs to precisely kill the target without massive collateral damage*. All it takes is a few B-52s/artillery guns/etc firing nice simple "dumb" weapons to carpet bomb you until you surrender.

3) Congratulations on missing the point that I don't want this to happen. I'm just not delusional enough to think that an attempt at armed revolution is going to be anything other than a one-sided massacre. Unlike you, I actually understand just how horrifyingly effective modern weapons are.



While I do in general agree with your viewpoint, your first point here makes me wonder how old you are. Under the Clinton administration, we did have a surplus for a while...

Also, your second point reminds me of when people made a run on the gun stores when they thought Obama was going to ban all guns for some inane reason... just made me chuckle...
Astenion
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#84 - 2012-03-23 04:17:08 UTC
I've been here for two years and Herz never ceases to amaze me. I've vehemently disagreed with him as well as vehemently agreeing with him, but the bottom line is that he comes out with some really deep, interesting, zany, and sometimes plain wacko stuff. Sometimes it leans too far to the tinfoil hatted direction, but I still enjoy it. A little less Alex Jones and a little more Bill Maher would be nice, but it's all good mang.

Please continue. *popcorn*
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#85 - 2012-03-23 04:19:59 UTC
Selinate wrote:
While I do in general agree with your viewpoint, your first point here makes me wonder how old you are. Under the Clinton administration, we did have a surplus for a while...


Yeah, I don't really count that though since it had way more to do with an exceptionally strong economy than any real attempt to have a balanced budget. The surplus was just a nice accident, and then we went right back to spending more than we had.
Rashmika Clavain
Revelation Space
#86 - 2012-03-23 12:38:50 UTC
Iskawa Zebrut wrote:
OP has the right idea

Anyone that willfully invades a home is, in my opinion, fair game. If someone breaks into mine, I will not hesitate to give them a real reason to not try it again.



This x inifinty.

I have a young daughter, woe betide anyone breaking into my home when she is present (which is most of the time!).

I'll happily panel beat your face into the ground, and then claim self defense on the basis that you wouldn't stay down whilst under Citizens Arrest.

**** the law and **** the consequences. You don't mess around when your kids are at risk.
Pr1ncess Alia
Doomheim
#87 - 2012-03-23 17:32:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Pr1ncess Alia
Rashmika Clavain wrote:
Iskawa Zebrut wrote:
OP has the right idea

Anyone that willfully invades a home is, in my opinion, fair game. If someone breaks into mine, I will not hesitate to give them a real reason to not try it again.



This x inifinty.

I have a young daughter, woe betide anyone breaking into my home when she is present (which is most of the time!).

I'll happily panel beat your face into the ground, and then claim self defense on the basis that you wouldn't stay down whilst under Citizens Arrest.

**** the law and **** the consequences. You don't mess around when your kids are at risk.


The very last sentence is why adults understand you only use the amount of force needed to eliminate the threat and nothing more.

How will things work out for your daughter if daddy goes all "fair game" on an intruder and a court decides daddy was a little to smash happy and killed a man he didn't need to?

An intruder can hurt your family, you not being there for them later can also hurt.

Not trolling, and I understand where you're coming from, but you have to consider all sides of things. All too often people act without thinking, instead acting on feeling and emotion (includes crimes of passion) and end up on the wrong end of the law without even realizing it.
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#88 - 2012-03-23 18:19:25 UTC
Rashmika Clavain wrote:
Iskawa Zebrut wrote:
OP has the right idea

Anyone that willfully invades a home is, in my opinion, fair game. If someone breaks into mine, I will not hesitate to give them a real reason to not try it again.



This x inifinty.

I have a young daughter, woe betide anyone breaking into my home when she is present (which is most of the time!).

I'll happily panel beat your face into the ground, and then claim self defense on the basis that you wouldn't stay down whilst under Citizens Arrest.

**** the law and **** the consequences. You don't mess around when your kids are at risk.


Don't worry, currently in 21 US states:
a) perpetrator does not need to be armed
b) not even near your house
c) just claim that the guy scared you and *pum* *pum* no pesky legal things are necessary; after all the guy did looked dangerous and he might had possibly one day do something against you so bets that you shot guy as pre-emptive measure.

naturally this little law was heavily lobbed by NRA to get some more guns sold.

I'm only glad I don't have to live in USA and get shot for wearing a hooded sweater at night.
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#89 - 2012-03-23 18:23:07 UTC
Selinate wrote:
how in the hell did this discussion turn to abortion. Seriously....


This thread is an abortion. Started with a good story, ended with tin foil and fire.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#90 - 2012-03-24 05:42:00 UTC
Astenion wrote:
I've been here for two years and Herz never ceases to amaze me. I've vehemently disagreed with him as well as vehemently agreeing with him, but the bottom line is that he comes out with some really deep, interesting, zany, and sometimes plain wacko stuff. Sometimes it leans too far to the tinfoil hatted direction, but I still enjoy it. A little less Alex Jones and a little more Bill Maher would be nice, but it's all good mang.

Please continue. *popcorn*



Bill Maher? Are you kidding me? C'mon now.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Jno Aubrey
Galactic Patrol
#91 - 2012-03-26 02:35:12 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Astenion wrote:
I've been here for two years and Herz never ceases to amaze me. I've vehemently disagreed with him as well as vehemently agreeing with him, but the bottom line is that he comes out with some really deep, interesting, zany, and sometimes plain wacko stuff. Sometimes it leans too far to the tinfoil hatted direction, but I still enjoy it. A little less Alex Jones and a little more Bill Maher would be nice, but it's all good mang.

Please continue. *popcorn*



Bill Maher? Are you kidding me? C'mon now.


Sounds like they want you to become foul-mouthed and abusive to women. Roll

Name a shrub after me.  Something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Rashmika Clavain
Revelation Space
#92 - 2012-03-28 12:23:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Rashmika Clavain
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:


The very last sentence is why adults understand you only use the amount of force needed to eliminate the threat and nothing more.

How will things work out for your daughter if daddy goes all "fair game" on an intruder and a court decides daddy was a little to smash happy and killed a man he didn't need to?

An intruder can hurt your family, you not being there for them later can also hurt.

Not trolling, and I understand where you're coming from, but you have to consider all sides of things. All too often people act without thinking, instead acting on feeling and emotion (includes crimes of passion) and end up on the wrong end of the law without even realizing it.



Hi, yeah I do understand where you're coming from (although I feel the first line is a potentially unecessary snipe, perhaps just badly worded as it implies I am not an adult for thinking like this). Can I ask a question, and please don't be offended! Do you have kids? Prior to having kids I had the above mindset. Now I just wouldn't take any risk. It's weird, it's like a switch has been flipped in my head. Before my daughter was born, I'd read an article about child abuse and think: "yeah that's awful" and move on. Now when I read an article about child abuse, I find myself being moved to tears and contemplate the satisfaction of beating the ****** to death. Hmm, I also developed a fascination for gardening. WTF -_-

I suppose it comes down to empathisiing with someone who is defenseless and relies upon you utterly for everything; then said person being taken advantage in the most sickening of ways.

When I hear a baby cry, even now, it cuts through me and I'm immediately alert.

For me, it's liberty versus grief. I won't be concerned over my liberty if my daughter's life is in peril. I'd rather go to jail knowing she survived than remain free mourning her death. You talk of "reasonable force to eliminate the threat" as though we're all trained to subdue people in unarmed combat. When someone is coming at you, if they put you down how do you then protect your family? If they're prepared to come and have a go at you, you have no idea what they will or will not do if they incapacitate you. Hence I would never take that risk.

How will things work out for her? If she's alive, considerably better than being dead or suffering things worse than death. That's my take on it anyway.

Baneken wrote:

I'm only glad I don't have to live in USA and get shot for wearing a hooded sweater at night.


I am equally glad I do not live in the U.S.A. Neither would I give a damn about the clothes one wears nor would I EVER have a firearm in my home. You assume too much Bear
Riedle
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#93 - 2012-03-29 23:36:44 UTC
Quote:
A better word would be detained. You would be detained after shooting somebody within your own home. They will not sit down with you in your living room and casually ask you how your day was over a cup of coffee. They will take you down to the station and get your side of the story from you. If they feel it was in self defense, you will go home.


Right. Not going to be nitpicky on the 'detained' part, but in your scenario if the investigators determine it was a legitimate act of self defence (or another law in which it is legal to shoot another person) then you will not be charged because the shooting was LEGAL.

Which was my whole point. Cranky pants, has repeatedly said that it was/is "NEVER LEGAL TO SHOOT ANOTHER PESON EVER" or something obnoxioulsy close to it - I was merely correcting him as he was and is factually incorrect.

The rest of the posts are his attempts to refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

So yes, the better word could be 'detained' because "arrested 100% of the time no matter what!!11!!" is just so laughably incorrect.
Riedle
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#94 - 2012-03-29 23:41:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Riedle
Quote:
Riedle still thinks that it's legal to shoot people in the US, but he's Canadian so he's obviously just trolling.


It is legal to shoot another person in the USA and in Canada if certain (differing) legal criteria are met.
So yes, I am correct and you are not.

Quote:
After trying time and time again to explain to him that shooting people is illegal in the US, I just can't get through
.

lol


Quote:
"Maybe you don't understand the difference between "prosecution" and "arrest". You may not go to trial in all states, but in all states you will be taken into custody and questioned by the police until they can determine whether or not you're telling the truth."


Perhaps it is you who do not understand the difference between arrest and investigation.
Law 101 ftw

You are only arrested after an investigation if it was suspected that you did, in fact, do something illegal. Since, for example, self defence is not ILLEGAL they therefore would not arrest and charge you for anything if they determined what you did was self defence. Ergo, shooting someone in certain circumstances IS LEGAL.

This isn't rocket science, Einstein.
Justa Altlol
Doomheim
#95 - 2012-03-31 13:45:43 UTC
ReptilesBlade wrote:
We just had a guy try and kick our door in and break into our apartment. He was turning on the knob and banging on the door, trying to kick the door down. I had my wife call 911 while I stood by the door with my staff and two hunting knifes in hand. My wife was behind me ready to fight as well, she is a black belt in Tae Kwon Do and would have had easy access to my staff as well and a large filet knife. When the cops came, we saw the officer chase the guy down and take him out in cuffs. He was clearly extremely drunk and told the officer they were having a party upstairs. There was no party upstairs. We have been home since at least 7 PM and there have been no signs of a party anywhere in our building. The cops’ response to the guys excuse was "It's pretty darned quiet for a party."

He came very close to breaking the door down (the deadbolt was the ONLY thing keeping him out) and if he had it would have been the last thing he did. I did not and do not want to kill him but so help me God I would have.

They have taken him away in cuffs. I am still just trying to come down a bit from it. Christ, I am SO glad we're finally leaving this place... I don't think we will be getting much sleep tonight.

First thing Monday we are having that talk with the apt manager and I think we are going to find a way out of here on June 1st, not the 30th.

EDIT: To correct some confusion.

The staff was leaning up against the wall behind me. I put it there after I was able to quickly grab my second hunting knife.

It was staff and knife then dual knives with the staff in reserve.

It is a 54 inch tall hickory hiking staff. I use is as a cane sometimes because I am physically disabled.

My wife and I have had a discussion on buying a gun. She does not like them but it is going to be a reality as soon as financially possible.

I had a similar experience, but in my case it was a homeless looking guy and he didn't get past the rattling the knob part. He got a bit spooked when he noticed the thin curtain in front of his face had a glowing red dot shining through. Blink I didn't bother to call the cops. He had gloves so there weren't prints and "black guy in a green coat and grey beanie" isn't a good enough description to be useful.

By the way, how does someone fail to kick down a door? Standard issue front doors are about as sturdy as a wet kleenex.
Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#96 - 2012-03-31 13:53:12 UTC
Justa Altlol wrote:
By the way, how does someone fail to kick down a door? Standard issue front doors are about as sturdy as a wet kleenex.


A good quality UPVC door can even cause the police problems, they are not that expensive (£300-400) and the extra security is well worth the small outlay.
Justa Altlol
Doomheim
#97 - 2012-03-31 16:40:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Justa Altlol
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
Justa Altlol wrote:
By the way, how does someone fail to kick down a door? Standard issue front doors are about as sturdy as a wet kleenex.


A good quality UPVC door can even cause the police problems, they are not that expensive (£300-400) and the extra security is well worth the small outlay.

Does that come with a new frame? Doesn't matter how strong the door is if the kick tears it right out of the wall. Not trying to say they aren't good doors. I'm sincerely curious.
Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#98 - 2012-04-01 12:00:14 UTC
Justa Altlol wrote:
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
Justa Altlol wrote:
By the way, how does someone fail to kick down a door? Standard issue front doors are about as sturdy as a wet kleenex.


A good quality UPVC door can even cause the police problems, they are not that expensive (£300-400) and the extra security is well worth the small outlay.

Does that come with a new frame? Doesn't matter how strong the door is if the kick tears it right out of the wall. Not trying to say they aren't good doors. I'm sincerely curious.


Yes £400 will get you a door with a welded steel frame, welded steel internal structure, 5 point locking and hinge bolts with tamper proof hinges and drill proof locks. The frames come with the door, they are a single unit its not just a door you fit into an existing frame.

You could kick it all day and never get through, tools like these are the only way to get through quickly.
Jon Engel
Machete Carbide
#99 - 2012-04-02 01:23:42 UTC
As someone who has done time, and had run ins with the law. Just because a cop takes you to the Police station for questioning is not an arrest. When there exists probable cause to believe that a person has committed a serious crime, a person will be handcuffed and taken against his or her will to be jailed.

Now, I had a pitbull belonging to some kings down the road on my front lawn threatening my beagle. I shot those rabid inbred mongrels in the face and had to go to talk to the police. No arrest, I was never read any rights or put behind bars. Just told what happened to the 5-0 and they wrote it down...

Now, when I was younger and full of testosterone and idiocy. I put some brass knuckles upside a gentleman's face and i was arrested. There is a difference, YOU WILL NOT BE ARRESTED EVERYTIME IF YOU KILL OR HURT SOMEONE IN SELF DEFENSE...

Now, if someone ever threatens me or my daughter, or my wife or my dogs or my neighbors or their property you bet I will be ready to use a weapon on someone.

This is the proper way to do it of course.

Secure your weapon
Notify the police of the threat against you
warn the intruder you are armed, and give him a 5 count to leave or you will take action
Garreck
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2012-04-02 06:57:49 UTC
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:

Our police in the US are a perfect example of that. In fact, CSB, one time a cop came into my house and pulled a gun on me (wrong address). Had I gone to investigate my living room armed one of us very well could be dead today. I didn't and we both realized the situation with no murdering required.

As a proud gun owner and gun rights supporter, I can't tell you how relieved I am to see someone present a balanced view on this matter. In such a circumstance YOU would have every right to be armed and ready to defend your house...and the cop (who already thinks he's going after a badguy) would have had every legally sufficient reason to shoot. Nobody would have done anything "wrong" and yet somebody would be dead and the other person would have to deal with that.

Too many gun rights folks see the issue of gun ownership and lethal self defense as a casual matter. It's serious business, and there are times when we should be VERY careful about whether or not to introduce a firearm at all.
Merin Ryskin wrote:

Existing stocks of weapons are more than enough to end any attempted rebellion by people like you. After all, it's not like you need expensive stand-off cruise missiles to bomb an enemy that doesn't have any anti-aircraft defenses. Or expensive gps-guided bombs to precisely kill the target without massive collateral damage*. All it takes is a few B-52s/artillery guns/etc firing nice simple "dumb" weapons to carpet bomb you until you surrender.

While the prospects of a modern civil war in the US are horrible to contemplate, I have to look at this and wonder what the US military has done to give you such confidence in its capacity to put down an insurgency.