Battlezone Forums

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/family- ... d-justice/

When a group of strange men barges into the house of a marine, who is holding a gun to protect his wife and child, and is shot 22 times, that's murder. There was no trial. There was no due process, and it was all over a suspicion that he might have Marijuana.

The Blaze is run by Glenn Beck. I'd expect everything said there to be at least a bit fictionalized.

Actually do the research on the case. There was an internal investigation on the SWAT team's actions, and they were found to be reasonable. That's why there was no criminal trial. Don't just go to an idiot's website and spout "information" that doesn't have a real source.

VSMIT wrote:The Blaze is run by Glenn Beck. I'd expect everything said there to be at least a bit fictionalized.

Actually do the research on the case. There was an internal investigation on the SWAT team's actions, and they were found to be reasonable. That's why there was no criminal trial. Don't just go to an idiot's website and spout "information" that doesn't have a real source.

Actually I've checked and The Blaze is rather accurate. Also, all their commenters, super conservative AND their liberal trolls hate me.

Being English I cannot really understand why anyone would even want to keep an assault rifle in their house, let alone be holding it when armed police raid your home. But I also cannot understand why anyone finds it necessary to use such violent means to prevent people from inhaling burnt leaves. So they get tarry lungs, so what? what has that really got to do with anyone else?
What you see there is a law creating far greater problems and resulting in far graver crimes than it is trying to prevent.

British Police would have probably done the same thing as soon as they saw the assault rifle, but then having one in your home is, quite sensibly, not legal here, so they can safely assume that you have it because you intend to use it.
A "right to bare arms" must also be understood as being prepared to be shot to death by someone who also has that right.
A "right to bare leaves" would have been far more sensible.

Little factoid: Personal 'Assault Rifles' are just common semi-automatic guns in cases that make them LOOK like fully automatic military firearms. Half the time the inside is closer to a hand gun than anything else.

MrTwosheds wrote:Being English I cannot really understand why anyone would even want to keep an assault rifle in their house, let alone be holding it when armed police raid your home. But I also cannot understand why anyone finds it necessary to use such violent means to prevent people from inhaling burnt leaves. So they get tarry lungs, so what? what has that really got to do with anyone else?
What you see there is a law creating far greater problems and resulting in far graver crimes than it is trying to prevent.

British Police would have probably done the same thing as soon as they saw the assault rifle, but then having one in your home is, quite sensibly, not legal here, so they can safely assume that you have it because you intend to use it.
A "right to bare arms" must also be understood as being prepared to be shot to death by someone who also has that right.
A "right to bare leaves" would have been far more sensible.

Echoed. We must just be being English.

MrTwosheds wrote:Being English I cannot really understand why anyone would even want to keep an assault rifle in their house, let alone be holding it when armed police raid your home.

My guess was there was some kind of conditioned response from the ex-marine. Wherein, he was trained to grab his gun in situations that probably made him feel defensive or whatnot. There's been a lot of people who have a hard time readjusting to normal life after coming out of the military. Especially if they've experienced trauma while overseas. Wouldn't surprise me if a reaction like this occurred.

MrTwosheds wrote:But I also cannot understand why anyone finds it necessary to use such violent means to prevent people from inhaling burnt leaves. So they get tarry lungs, so what? what has that really got to do with anyone else?
What you see there is a law creating far greater problems and resulting in far graver crimes than it is trying to prevent.

British Police would have probably done the same thing as soon as they saw the assault rifle, but then having one in your home is, quite sensibly, not legal here, so they can safely assume that you have it because you intend to use it.
A "right to bare arms" must also be understood as being prepared to be shot to death by someone who also has that right.
A "right to bare leaves" would have been far more sensible.

I completely agree with this.

Nielk1 wrote:Little factoid: Personal 'Assault Rifles' are just common semi-automatic guns in cases that make them LOOK like fully automatic military firearms. Half the time the inside is closer to a hand gun than anything else.

Not only that but most hunting rifles fire rounds that are far more powerful and accurate than the typical "assault rifle."

The point is the SWAT team was unnecessary. They could have used any number of other methods to get him to court, before resorting to a SWAT team. Just think. You're sleeping, and your wife wakes you up because there are strangers outside. Naturally you want to defend your home. Then they burst in and and shoot you to death for holding a gun.

P.S. He was a marine. That's why he had the rifle.

Clavin12 wrote:P.S. He was a marine. That's why he had the rifle.

Marines dont have firearmes at home. If that were the case every pilot would have a jet in his garage...

Red Spot wrote:

Clavin12 wrote:P.S. He was a marine. That's why he had the rifle.

Marines dont have firearmes at home. If that were the case every pilot would have a jet in his garage...

Surely not a jet, as jets are expensive. Though, if they can afford it, they might buy a small airplane to fly around, to satiate their fixation. Likewise for an ex-marine. He might hoard guns.

We have a right to bear arms. There is nothing wrong with owning a gun, let alone holding to defend your family and private property. All they had to do was stick a notice on his door, or in his mailbox, to bring him to court. If that fails they can have a Sheriff knock on his door. If that fails they can send a couple of policemen. The last thing they should have done was break down his door and shoot him.

Clavin12 wrote:There is nothing wrong with owning a gun

Yeah, must be 'cause I'm English.

swat team debriefing probably categorized it as a 'good kill'

There is also "nothing wrong" with inhaling burnt leaves, allot less people die suddenly from it than from being shot. So quite why people feel the need to smash in someone's door while heavily armed, in order to prevent him from doing it is a bit of a mystery. Given that he is allowed to own a gun and was very likely to be provoked into using it by their actions, I would seriously question the wisdom of those who think this is what should be done. It could just as easily have ended with half a dozen dead cops.
Did you know some US city's have a higher annual murder rate than our entire nation. I like our gun laws, there are just too many idiots about, its much better that they are unarmed idiots.