Wow, Rick, that's pretty radical of you. You would actually consider shooting someone who only wanted a few of your *things* to sell and feed his poor starving family? What's up with that? Must be one of those Hindu thangs. You did say, "if I were her". I guess you meant,if you were in her body. But shooting an intruder in the leg is really stupid. What if they pulled out a gun and shot you back or hobbled over to you and cut your throat? My third rule, if you're going to pull a gun on somebody, be prepared to use it, with deadly force,or they might take it away from you and use it on you. But then if your horoscope doesn't show you going through a death cycle at that time, you might consider a shot in the leg....if you're really that mean.
________________________________ From: Rick Archer <r...@searchsummit.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, March 21, 2010 8:38:25 AM Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times From:FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:FairfieldLi f...@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of lurkernomore2000200 0 Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 7:08 PM To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "Rick Archer" <r...@...> wrote: > That's the way gangs work. They mete out "justice" swiftly and finally > without messing with all that legal stuff. You, apparently, would like the > whole society to function that way. Rick, I believe gangs typically interact with other gangs. When they encroach on traditional law abiding citizens they generally run into a lot of organized resistance from police or other organized groups. Take a look at what is happening in Mexico. There you have the gangs encroaching into non gang, traditional life. The response from the authorities is rising up to deal with the crisis. When the gangs were just killing each other, the concern wasn't so great. There are many other examples. Look at how the "west was won". Why did not outlaw gangs take over? Because most citizens are law abiding, have strong sense of right and wrong, and know what constitutes justice. And they are willing to enforce that by consensus, and often that mens force. Isn't that what kept law and order during this period. I think it is a little lame to suggest that I am advocating gang type revenge justice. I am just saying that you tread on me in such a way as to deprive me of my rights, be prepared for forceful action. Certainly there are many times when I would like to harm someone for treating me in what I feel to be an unfair manner. And I recognize that I must pursue it in a civil (court) manner. I have a customer right now who owes my (our) company $600.00, and he won't discuss it, and I would like to do something radical to show my anger and frustration. But I recognize that I may just have to go after him in small court. What do you think. You're points are well-taken. I suppose we have laws to offer a civil alternative to venting our anger in ways our baser instincts might dictate. I once knew a woman in the Indian Village area of downtown Detroit, a wealthy neighborhood directly abutting a poor neighborhood. She said that more than once, she'd wake up in the middle of the night to find a thief rummaging through her belongings in her bedroom. She got a dog, but the guy make friends with the dog when she was walking it in the park, so the next time he broke in, the dog didn't react. It's hard for me to imagine shooting anyone, but if I were her, I'd be tempted to have a gun under my pillow and shoot the guy. Maybe I'd aim for the legs. That should send a pretty clear message.
