My biggest pet peeve is seat belts! I am constantly telling my wife to put hers on. She seems to think that if she is in the passenger seat, she is safe. I've never been in an accident and I would definitely consider myself a safe driver, but it's the lady I seen one day eating a salad and driving that kill people. A salad is a 2 hand food!!!

That's actually pretty good, Ron. Thanks for the insight.

I wonder if this country isn't due for some innovative law enforcement. We now have volunteer fire departments. I wonder if we couldn't have similar volunteer law-enforcement departments. There would immediately be a cry of Vigilantism, that it wouldn't work. But in reality that is what conventional law enforcement and firefighting units are made up of, ordinary citizens, trained and dedicated to a job but none-the-less. With proper controls and safeguards in place, I think it would work. It's really the same thing only part-time and volunteer.

It would be so important that no unnecessary public harm inadvertently occur which would mean a lot of volunteer training. Also, I have been told, and observed, that law enforcement jobs attract not only the altruistic, but also an unstable "Dirty Harry wannabe" element that must be most fortunately discovered and eliminated during a probationary period. Some cost involved sure, but quite possibly worth it.

There is a precedent. Back in the '60's and early '70's I was assigned to a newly formed MP company in the National Guard. The reason was that the Army was starting to crack down on excessive alcohol and drug use and the traditional wild two-week camp for National Guard tended to overwhelm local law in the nearby small town. Subsequently, we were sworn in as temporary deputies with the right to make an arrest or at least detain offenders until more professional help arrived.

The "deputy" idea worked pretty good although there were the usual overzealous enforcements from some rooky MP's with their "new-found" power. Wisely, they did not arm us with firearms, only nightsticks, but I think they would have provided .45's under the lethal threats found in your neighborhood. Keep in mind this occurred not too long after the Kent State/guard disaster.

Hard to believe a new-found MP gate guard would confiscate beer away from the same guy he abused alcohol with last year, but I saw it happen. Lucky we patrolled in pairs through bars. I recall the term "pig" was in popular use referring to police (us) at the time. After the first swipe attempt, I kept one hand on my nightstick. Probably wouldn't have been the first cop conked with his own stick, eh? :rolleyes:

Before I was assigned to the 191st MP Company, I was a member of the 131 Engineering Battalion. Abuse beer?... heck, we were known as the hundred-and-thirsty-first (131). :D



...

Wes,we'd be better off if every dectective in America was a "Dirty Harry" clone*.And every Chief/Sheriff was a Buford Pusser clone.


*but there are some wack-jobs that apply to the PD.:JEKYLHYDE

The sad thing is...you shouldn't HAVE to kill someone who's trying to steal a TV. But unfortunately, with all the liberals and the litigeous age of liberal judges out there, you almost have to kill someone who's doing ANYTHING on your property, not to expose yourself to some sort of negative backlash.

Those states think they're being humane, but in reality, all they're doing is sending a message to everyone else out there that if you get into a situation where you have to defend family and home, and you happen to injure the assailant, FINISH HIM OFF, cause if not, you're probably going to get sued or prosecuted for some bullshat law protecting criminals more than you. (OR the spineless judge will let the guy off easy or the inundated penal system will let him out early anyway).

The bureacracy is encouraging more extreme solutions. I shouldn't have to execute some punk kids who come on my property to throw eggs or spray paint something. But in MA, I'd be more worried about showing them my gun (brandishing a firearm) than anything. The option of killing them and then dragging them back in the house seems horrible...but that's about the only option you have unless you want to just do nothing and be a victim.

I always said that Boston is the only city in the NE that I'd choose to live, but I don't think I could stomach living in MA.

You should read up on The Castle Doctrine/Law.It addresses your concerns and many States have passed it.

"The castle law says the use of force or deadly force is presumed to be reasonable if someone unlawfully and with force enters an occupied home, business or car. Further, if the force used against the intruder was reasonable according to the statute, the occupant is immune from civil liability for injuries or death."

http://loneranger2008.wordpress.com/...stle-doctrine/

Major provisions of Texas’ Castle Law:

• Presumes you are reasonable in using force if someone – illegally and with force – enters or is attempting to enter your occupied home, car or workplace. You are not given this presumption if you provoked the person or are engaged in a crime.

• Removes your obligation to retreat if possible before using deadly force if you are anywhere you have a right to be. The previous law obliged you to retreat if a “reasonable person” would have, except in a situation where someone unlawfully entered your home.

• Gives you added protection from lawsuits by injured attackers or their families. Previous law granted this protection if someone illegally entered your home, but not in other situations.

I agree with all that. What I'm saying is that if you live in MA, and someone breaks into your place and you shoot them and happen to injure them and neutralize them (rather than destroy them) where they're no longer a threat, but in need of medical assistance, you're taking a big risk by not finishing them off.

By prosecuting law abiding citizens who are trying to defend themselves and their property, the government only encourages more "drastic" outcomes to lesser violent encounters.

In TX or FL in that situation, you could call 911 with a much more solid expectation that you're not going to get sued or prosecuted after the incident. You don't HAVE to execute someone for breaking into your house so to speak.

Gotta agree with you, Bill. Using Dirty Harry as an example of a psycho wasn't good, since he served sane justice only, even if he left the carcass smoking. I think I've even got all the DVDs of the series, as a Clint Eastwood fan in general.

And of course, "Walking Tall", original 1973 movie, very satisfying to watch. :D


...