-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
SWAT standoff in Billerica
- Thread starter abomb60
- Start date
- Status
To stir the pot a bit, though...
How would you feel if someone had drove off the road and smashed into your house vs someone unintentionally shooting your house? Yes, I realize that any gun owner should know better. Car owners might know better too
for keeping their car on the road in a residential neighborhood.
Both were likely preventible, both were likely due to some form of negligence or another. Yet, at least in criminal law circles, we let the pedal stomping Bluehairs with the cars slide all the time, particularly if they don't kill or injure anyone. If Negligence is to be frowned upon, why do we frequently hold people to different standards?
Of course, one distinction here is the "jump to conclusions mat" problem. If it involves an evil killy gun somehow, intent is automatically assumed to be nefarious in nature... where someone flying off the road is "assumed" to not
be nefarious. Part of the problem with these things is "callibrating the douche factor. " Is the guy who had an ND in his house (that hit your house) more or less of an a**h*** than the guy that went flying around the corner while the roads were icy and put the front of his Kia into my porch? I guess something else that plays into it again too is the presumption of repeatability- oh the guy with the gun might make that mistake again so it becomes a concern, whereas the person who crashed into your house... probably won't be back anytime soon.
I'm not saying, of course, that I wouldn't be pissed if a bullet came cruising into my living room, or I found a hole in my house that had a corresponding hole in the neighbors house from where it came. The context of such discovery, however, would play a critical role in how I reacted/responded to it.
-Mike
![[pot]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/037.gif "Stir the pot [pot]")
Most reasonable people recognize there are different levels of culpability. Someone shooting at a deer a half mile away and the round hitting your house isn't the same as someone target shooting in their back yard with a piece of plywood as a backstop and shooting towards your house which isn't the same as a pissed neighbor intentionally shooting at your house. Each scenario has the same result, but different intent. One is an accident (with some negligence), one is retardation, the other is malicious. I've always held intent as the deciding factor in most crimes of this nature.
If he shot at the house intentionally, then he deserves to get slapped hard. I would think it a reasonable thing to shoot back if in the house at the time.
If he shot the house accidentally, then we are in the realm drgrant covers above. Take the gun angle out of it and the risk is similar to a car hitting your house, a neighbor burning leaves on a windy day and catching your house on fire, etc. That is, we have a serious screw up with potentially serious consequences. But it's not self-evident we have a criminal act.
The immediate response is dependent on the act as well. If the guy shot intentionally then I'm all for overwhelming force in response. Assuming he initiated force (not clear that we know that) then it is perfectly fine to crush him in response. An accident is less of an issue, but I can understand in the moment how one might err on the side of caution (just as I would if a round hit my house).
Initially, I thought we had a case where no shots were fired, a neighbor spotted a gun, overreacted in a big way and police followed suit. That is completely believable. One big reason many of us react strongly to these things is we know that we all are just one phone call away from a SWAT team of our own, no matter how law abiding we may be.
If he shot the house accidentally, then we are in the realm drgrant covers above. Take the gun angle out of it and the risk is similar to a car hitting your house, a neighbor burning leaves on a windy day and catching your house on fire, etc. That is, we have a serious screw up with potentially serious consequences. But it's not self-evident we have a criminal act.
The immediate response is dependent on the act as well. If the guy shot intentionally then I'm all for overwhelming force in response. Assuming he initiated force (not clear that we know that) then it is perfectly fine to crush him in response. An accident is less of an issue, but I can understand in the moment how one might err on the side of caution (just as I would if a round hit my house).
Initially, I thought we had a case where no shots were fired, a neighbor spotted a gun, overreacted in a big way and police followed suit. That is completely believable. One big reason many of us react strongly to these things is we know that we all are just one phone call away from a SWAT team of our own, no matter how law abiding we may be.
Sure, but my understanding is the shot was fired, the police were called, then he locked himself up in the house with someone else and wouldn't talk to police. That's why SWAT was called. That's also much different than shooting a house, intentionally or unintentionally, then when the police show up coming out and saying 'yep, my bad'.
To stir the pot a bit, though...
How would you feel if someone had drove off the road and smashed into your house vs someone unintentionally shooting your house? Yes, I realize that any gun owner should know better. Car owners might know better too
for keeping their car on the road in a residential neighborhood.
Both were likely preventible, both were likely due to some form of negligence or another. Yet, at least in criminal law circles, we let the pedal stomping Bluehairs with the cars slide all the time, particularly if they don't kill or injure anyone. If Negligence is to be frowned upon, why do we frequently hold people to different standards?
Of course, one distinction here is the "jump to conclusions mat" problem. If it involves an evil killy gun somehow, intent is automatically assumed to be nefarious in nature... where someone flying off the road is "assumed" to not
be nefarious. Part of the problem with these things is "callibrating the douche factor. " Is the guy who had an ND in his house (that hit your house) more or less of an a**h*** than the guy that went flying around the corner while the roads were icy and put the front of his Kia into my porch? I guess something else that plays into it again too is the presumption of repeatability- oh the guy with the gun might make that mistake again so it becomes a concern, whereas the person who crashed into your house... probably won't be back anytime soon.
I'm not saying, of course, that I wouldn't be pissed if a bullet came cruising into my living room, or I found a hole in my house that had a corresponding hole in the neighbors house from where it came. The context of such discovery, however, would play a critical role in how I reacted/responded to it.
-Mike
Ironically, that almost happened to me once. Luckily the car didn't have enough momentum to actually hit the house. Anyway, I have no sympathy there either. Controlling a car isn't that difficult and neither is controlling a gun. I'll amend my previous statement though, don't f****n hit my house. Shooting the house seems a bit more killy/douchy though I'd be happy to be proven wrong on that one.
In God We Trust
NES Member
Ever hear that saying "If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck."? For someone that the police know is armed and they have a LEGITIMATE (not for pot plants or unpaid taxes) reason to arrest them because they are a danger to the community, I have no problem with SWAT kicking the door in when they refuse a polite request to come out and face the music.
Do SWAT teams over-react on a daily basis? Of course and they should be dealt with accordingly when they do. That does not mean that I don't think there is a legitimate place and a time for a SWAT team to be called out. Not sure if this was one of those times, but the guy did shoot at a neghbor's house. AT least he had proven himself to be a threat. Also the guy had a rotty and the dog survived. For that reason alone, I have gained a little respect for the NEMLEC guys. Seriously.
We have someone who shot at his neighbor's house then won't talk to police? Of course it matters that he had someone in the house with him. You guys have crossed the line to anarchists.
Seriously. Some of you on this site live in full retard mode.
No one here said police shouldn't respond or not exist. I think you, ThatGuy and Treischl need to learn what actual anarchy is, and then come back and contribute to the discussion in an intelligent manner.
The first SWAT team was created in 1967. I think it's clear that police had to deal with shots fired at houses long before SWAT existed. It is clear that the normal local police should be handling these calls. We don't need to call in the light infantry because a gun was used.
Why the hell would anyone want to talk to the police, that's what lawyers are for.
No one here said police shouldn't respond or not exist. I think you, ThatGuy and Treischl need to learn what actual anarchy is, and then come back and contribute to the discussion in an intelligent manner.
The first SWAT team was created in 1967. I think it's clear that police had to deal with shots fired at houses long before SWAT existed. It is clear that the normal local police should be handling these calls. We don't need to call in the light infantry because a gun was used.
I'm am discussing the topic in a RATIONAL and intelligent manner. It's your "no victim no crime" anarchists that have gone full retard.
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah? Then if you're going to shoot your neighbor's house, step outside and get arrested and let your lawyer do the talking. Save the taxpayer's some money.
No one here has said there is no victim or crime in this instance. Nor did anyone call for the complete abolishment of law, government and the police. So, again I'm not sure why you keep shouting anarchy.
Seriously, every time one of you three uses that term this is how I picture you:
Last edited by a moderator:
schnips
NES Member
If some a-hole had put a round into my house like this guy did, you better believe I'm calling the cops. Going over and confronting him like some people have suggested is a good way to get shot.
The confronting was based on the shot being fired in a non-malicious manner, i.e. a stray target/hunting round. No one here suggested confronting a person who is actually firing at you in anger. On the contrary, I believe most of us would suggest returning fire immediately in such a case.
You are correct. I used the word to describe what you we claiming we wanted, which in fact was a lie.
You still either
1) Don't read what we type and instead respond with your talking point: You're a bunch of anarachists.
or
2) You really have no idea what actual anarchy is, and thus keep misusing the term.
No one has ever called for anarchy in these discussions. Instead you assert we do want it by lying about what we have said in the past. So keep lying and I'll keep calling you out on it.
George D
NES Member
So, how many shots need to get fired at my house before I call the police? If I witness someone shooting at me/ my house, I am not going to go over there and ask if they are having a case of the Mondays.
![[rules]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/034.gif "Rules [rules]")
Seven if they came from a revolver, 11 if from a post-ban semi-auto or 101 if from a pre-ban semi-auto.
That way you know it was intentional, and they reloaded. Otherwise, MYOFB... right? I think that's the logic here.
I recommend waiting until AFTER they are done shooting before you go and ask them why.
/sarcasm
![[banghead]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/045.gif "Bang Head [banghead]")
Yeah it does.
flintoid
Banned
look in the classifieds- a lot of my guns are going up for sale as a result of them.
Where's the victim? The neighbor should have just gone over and worked it out with the drunk shooting at her house.
flintoid
Banned
I think people have already addressed this- no one is saying there is no victim here.
I forgot my sarcasm tag.
Held without bail...hearing Friday. 20 year feud with neighbor. They say he shot a bb gun. Interesting details: http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_21784756/suspect-billerica-gun-case-held-without-bail
Last edited:
George D
NES Member
So this guy got SWATTED over a BB gun?
flintoid
Banned
Red Riders are srs biznus.
Never knew bb guns were regulated also:
No person shall discharge a BB shot, pellet or other object from an air rifle or so-called BB gun into, from or across any street, alley, public way or railroad or railway right of way, and no minor under the age of eighteen shall discharge a BB shot, pellet or other object from an air rifle or BB gun unless he is accompanied by an adult or is the holder of a sporting or hunting license. Whoever violates this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars, and the air rifle or BB gun or other weapon shall be confiscated. Upon a conviction of a violation of this section the air rifle or BB gun or other weapon shall, by the written authority of the court, be forwarded to the colonel of the state police, who may dispose of said article in the same manner as prescribed in section ten.
- Status
Similar threads
