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 June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
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
This is key. I still say the person who had their rights violated is the first line if "defense" with this sort of thing; if they don't believe malicious intent was there or if they believe it was an anomaly, then no police involvement is necessary. Of course, this person called the police because they felt it appropriate. Where I think some of here differ with the majority is that most laws and charges are complete BS and unconstitutional, and the idea of SWAT showing up for a single shot being fired is retarded. Things seem to go off the chain once we hit that bump in the road.
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
Why does it matter if someone else was in the house? Are we going to automatically assume that it's a hostage? I will never be able to justify a SWAT response, as they don't even need to exist. Call the police, yes. But to have a mechanized light infantry squad show up? Unnecessary.
Why does it matter if someone else was in the house? Are we going to automatically assume that it's a hostage? I will never be able to justify a SWAT response, as they don't even need to exist. Call the police, yes. But to have a mechanized light infantry squad show up? Unnecessary.
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.
Why the hell would anyone want to talk to the police, that's what lawyers are for.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.
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.
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.
FWIW, in my interactions on this board, you were the first one to actually use that word. In this thread. I just said if the shoe fits.
the idea of SWAT showing up for a single shot being fired is retarded. Things seem to go off the chain once we hit that bump in the road.
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.
Aaaaaaaaaaand, I'm done here; the stupid hurts.
Charges are:Assault by means of a dangerous weapon, Disturb the peace, Poss of a firearm while intoxicated
Charges are:Assault by means of a dangerous weapon, Disturb the peace, Poss of a firearm while intoxicated
Where's the victim? The neighbor should have just gone over and worked it out with the drunk shooting at her house.
I think people have already addressed this- no one is saying there is no victim here.
Has he been arraigned?
Do we know how he plead?
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
So this guy got SWATTED over a BB gun?
Well, if he had a bb gun, they definitely needed SWAT. Glad no police officers were hurt here. Thank God! Those things hold like 500 rounds (!!!)