Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, June 15, 2018

Former MLB pitcher Kevin Brown reportedly held two mail thieves at gunpoint until police arrived

Former MLB All-Star Kevin Brown is now a neighborhood watchdog.

According to Laura Corley of The Telegraph, Brown recently caught two mail thieves in his Macon, Georgia, neighborhood and held them at gunpoint until police arrived.

Sounds like he handled these thieves better than he handled David Ortiz in Game 7.

Nasty Nate Posted: June 15, 2018 at 09:31 AM | 309 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: steals home

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 
   101. McCoy Posted: June 16, 2018 at 07:27 PM (#5693568)
Brown was on his neighbor's property watching the road. His neighbor's driveway was somewhat hidden by foliage. It is unclear from the articles whose mailbox that final time was robbed but I have read that the only person in the neighborhood to file a report for theft was Kevin Brown so it is probable that they were targeting him again.

Apparently they are from Florida and they were using a rental car that they got from the Atlanta Airport area. Apparently they recovered quite a lot of high value stolen material from inside the car so my guess is they figured that Brown as a former athlete was receiving high value goods and checks in the mail and targeted him specifically. Either that or the rest of the community either didn't know their stuff was getting stolen or didn't bother to tell the cops. But the story is a bit confusing because the articles are talking like Brown would get multiple mail deliveries each day. Like he got robbed twice in a day and then did a stakeout and got them on the third time.
   102. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 16, 2018 at 07:51 PM (#5693573)
Are you prepared to fire that gun and kill someone?

Yes. If a burglar makes any aggressive move towards me, I have no qualms about killing him. It was his choice, not mine.


So I should attempt to detain 20 drunken hooligans? Thanks for the advice but I'm going to pass.


If twenty drunken hooligans break into your house, just start shooting. A belligerent mob is an imminent threat to life and limb.
   103. The George Sherrill Selection Posted: June 16, 2018 at 08:02 PM (#5693575)
Either that or the rest of the community either didn't know their stuff was getting stolen or didn't bother to tell the cops. But the story is a bit confusing because the articles are talking like Brown would get multiple mail deliveries each day.


That happens here with packages. Normal postage mail person comes by with your pension checks/bank statements/etc. and someone else comes by, perhaps at a different time, delivering Amazon packages.

Or pain pills: http://www.kcra.com/article/veteran-s-pain-pills-intercepted-by-mail-thieves/6430506
   104. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 16, 2018 at 08:10 PM (#5693578)
We are talking about pulling a gun on someone standing on public property opening a mailbox.

On "public property"? Merely "opening a mailbox"? LOL. Read the description in #41. Those criminals had clearly targeted Brown, and had robbed his mailbox three times. They got what they deserved.
   105. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: June 16, 2018 at 08:16 PM (#5693580)
Those criminals had clearly targeted Brown, and had robbed his mailbox three times. They got what they deserved.


I have no sympathy for the criminals. I am merely uncomfortable with private citizens pulling guns on people who are not engaged in violent behavior. Especially by one who has done so irresponsibly in the past.
   106. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: June 16, 2018 at 08:20 PM (#5693585)
On "public property"?


Yes. The vast majority of mailboxes outside of urban areas are on public property. Asare many in urban areas. It is extremely unlikely that in Rivoli Downs, the mailboxes are on the house and the mailman walks the neighborhood walking up to each home.
   107. McCoy Posted: June 16, 2018 at 08:25 PM (#5693588)
If twenty drunken hooligans break into your house, just start shooting. A belligerent mob is an imminent threat to life and limb.

And then the rest kill me in anger. I'd rather be alive than do what is legally allowable or what my neighbor might think is the best decision for the community as a whole.
   108. The George Sherrill Selection Posted: June 16, 2018 at 08:32 PM (#5693594)
And then the rest kill me in anger. I'd rather be alive


If twenty drunken hooligans broke into your house, you think their plans are what? To make you post to BTF saying that Jack Morris should have been elected to the HOF in the first round?

The vast majority of mailboxes outside of urban areas are on public property. Asare many in urban areas. It is extremely unlikely that in Rivoli Downs, the mailboxes are on the house and the mailman walks the neighborhood walking up to each home.


Rivoli Downs is an HOA which means the streets are almost certainly private.
   109. McCoy Posted: June 16, 2018 at 08:34 PM (#5693597)
Based on Google Earth they have mailboxes on the side of the road by their driveways.
   110. Lassus Posted: June 16, 2018 at 08:36 PM (#5693600)
You have no weapon of any kind in your house? Not even a baseball bat?

I lived in South Central Los Angeles for a year in 1992 with no weapon in the house. I lived in Hell's Kitchen in 1993 and 1994 with no weapon in the house. I lived in NE Portland with no weapon, I lived in the CD in Seattle with no weapon, I lived in the Castro with no weapon EXCEPT MY FABULOUSNESS, I've lived in the country where no one would hear me if I honked my horn and screamed with no weapon, I've lived in East Harlem with no weapon in the house, I lived at Hunts Point in the Bronx with no weapon.

I'm almost 50 and I've never had a weapon in the house anywhere I've lived, which is a LOT of places, some of them rather bad. Still here. Nothing has ever happened.
   111. McCoy Posted: June 16, 2018 at 08:38 PM (#5693601)
If twenty drunken hooligans broke into your house, you think their plans are what? To make you post to BTF saying that Jack Morris should have been elected to the HOF in the first round?

GO out the back door, go out a window. You think my plans should be to make a dash for the safe, opened it, pull out a gun, load it, turn around, and spray and pray? That's the better plan?
   112. McCoy Posted: June 16, 2018 at 08:39 PM (#5693603)
Rivoli Downs is an HOA which means the streets are almost certainly private.

I have an HOA we don't have private roads.

The entrance to Rivoli Downs is not gated.
   113. The George Sherrill Selection Posted: June 16, 2018 at 08:50 PM (#5693611)
The entrance to Rivoli Downs is not gated.


Not a requirement for a private road. I don't think an HOA can build a gate if it's a public road, since it's a public road and anyone can drive on it. There are a ton of private roads around me (typically long driveways that serve multiple homes set well off the main road) and I don't remember any that are gated - here's an example. The condo association where my SO lived had private roads that were also not gated, and you'd never even think they were private roads unless you got a parking ticket from them.

My crappy apartment complex has a private road. If someone parks in the fire lane and I call the cops, they say they can do nothing because it is a private road and they have no right to ticket.
   114. McCoy Posted: June 16, 2018 at 08:57 PM (#5693614)
Wasn't saying it was a requirement. Just noting that they don't have a gate.
   115. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: June 16, 2018 at 10:48 PM (#5693677)
Only the good Republican Lord above knows why The Yankee Clapper chose (cowardly, some would say) a professional life at a desk rather than what he clearly wishes he had done and roam the suburbanside with his pistol, attempting citizens arrests on mail thieves and loitering teens. But, then, Suburban Cowboy probably doesn't have as good a publicly-funded pension.
   116. Jess Franco Posted: June 16, 2018 at 10:54 PM (#5693682)
I live in a downtown zip that's majority Black. No gun, no bat, my kitchen knives are dull.

But I have a mean takeout slide.
   117. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 16, 2018 at 10:59 PM (#5693690)
re: #115

It's certainly not surprising that a supporter of MS-13 would attack a dedicated public servant. Sad.
   118. McCoy Posted: June 16, 2018 at 11:03 PM (#5693695)
I have never lived in a black hole of Calcutta type area but I've lived in urban areas for most of my adult life and have had days where you hear gunfire throughout the night, a murder or two at the end of the block, arson, breakins, and general city interactions with urban criminal elements and hoodlums. I have yet to need a weapon to defend myself or others. Doesn't mean it will never happen but the idea that I need a weapon to defend my castle is a little far fetched.
   119. Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com Posted: June 16, 2018 at 11:23 PM (#5693714)
I lived in South Central Los Angeles for a year in 1992 with no weapon in the house. I lived in Hell's Kitchen in 1993 and 1994 with no weapon in the house. I lived in NE Portland with no weapon, I lived in the CD in Seattle with no weapon, I lived in the Castro with no weapon EXCEPT MY FABULOUSNESS, I've lived in the country where no one would hear me if I honked my horn and screamed with no weapon, I've lived in East Harlem with no weapon in the house, I lived at Hunts Point in the Bronx with no weapon.

I'm almost 50 and I've never had a weapon in the house anywhere I've lived, which is a LOT of places, some of them rather bad. Still here. Nothing has ever happened.


This sounds interesting. How'd you end up living in all those bad places?
   120. Srul Itza Posted: June 16, 2018 at 11:45 PM (#5693736)
How about if they advance toward him and look ready to fight? Can he shoot them?


If you are on somebody else's property, and they have a gun, and you think the best thing to do is to advance on them, then, yes, they should shoot you. If only to improve the gene pool. One less stupid to breed.
   121. Srul Itza Posted: June 16, 2018 at 11:49 PM (#5693739)
So, if you saw people robbing your neighbor, you'd ignore it?


No.

I'd hold the door for them as they were carrying things out.

Then again, you haven't met my neighbor.
   122. Jess Franco Posted: June 17, 2018 at 12:17 AM (#5693749)



I'm almost 50 and I've never had a weapon in the house anywhere I've lived, which is a LOT of places, some of them rather bad. Still here. Nothing has ever happened.


BBO
   123. Meatwad Posted: June 17, 2018 at 01:57 AM (#5693753)
I feel bad siding with clapper but I dont blame brown at all for doing this. At somepoint its gotta stop and if the cops arnt getting it done then a stake out is the way to do it. Its what I would have done.
   124. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 17, 2018 at 02:39 AM (#5693755)
Apparently he pulled a gun on a guy who was yelling at him. You're good with that? Because freedom!!?
Setting aside the question of whether showing a gun but not pointing it at someone constitutes "pulling a gun on" that person, it kind of depends what the guy was yelling. If the guy was yelling, "You shmuck! Stop doing that! This is why everyone in baseball hated you!", then it would be unjustified to "pull a gun on" the guy. If the guy was yelling, "You shmuck! I'm going to come over the fence and beat you within an inch of your life!", then I'm good with that, yeah.

But I'm not sure why you're trying to change the focus from the mailbox thieves to the neighbor.
   125. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 17, 2018 at 02:47 AM (#5693756)

What's your stance on the civilian shooting the thieves when they call his bluff and run away?
My stance is that (a) I don't know why you keep arguing that the rule for soldiers and other people should be different, and (b) it's illegal in Georgia to do that. You can only use deadly force (a) in self-defense or in defense of another; (b) to defend a home; (c) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or (d) if Sam gets uppity. Which sounds reasonable to me.
   126. PreservedFish Posted: June 17, 2018 at 05:32 AM (#5693757)
Having moved recently from urban CA to rural New England, I've gone from a place where nobody owns a gun, but everyone locks their doors, to a place where everyone owns a gun, but nobody locks their doors.
   127. Lassus Posted: June 17, 2018 at 06:31 AM (#5693760)
Setting aside the question of whether showing a gun but not pointing it at someone constitutes "pulling a gun on" that person

I can see why you'd set that question aside, as it's dumb. I had someone pull out a gun at me in Los Angeles while asking for my wallet (about 4-5 miles from my house), but not actually point it at me. Wasn't really any different.
   128. Lassus Posted: June 17, 2018 at 06:47 AM (#5693761)
This sounds interesting. How'd you end up living in all those bad places?

Being itinerant and young and poor, I suppose. Enjoyed travel, didn't have a trade of note, but capable of eking out work wherever. Dispersal of college friends. I mean, I also lived in nice places, Chelsea (NY), Fremont (Seattle), SE Portland, The Castro was beautiful, I gigged for the Gettys once, Park Slope was irritating but certainly nice enough, nicer parts of the East Village. I really did end up in crappy places simply because it was cheaper and it didn't bother me, generally.

(To be fair, I was at 707 West 23rd St. in Los Angeles in 1992, which by all accounts was in the northwest corner of South Central Los Angeles. It wasn't the blocks NWA ran in or the movie FRIDAY was set in and appears to be on the slowest definitive gentrification path in history currently, but at the time we still heard gunshots frequently.)
   129. dlf Posted: June 17, 2018 at 07:47 AM (#5693762)
But I'm not sure why you're trying to change the focus from the mailbox thieves to the neighbor.


Because this is not a situation where we know nothing of Brown's priors. The likelihood that someone who, when confronted by a neighbor for having dumped grass clippings in said neighbor's yard, brandishes a gun during the confrontation, acting in a calm & rational manner looking merely to prevent the theft seems remote. We have gotten to the point where police have license to be judge, jury and executioner, using what I believe to be grossly excessive force to apprehend non-violent criminals; I would prefer not extending that horrid trend further to untrained vigilantes roaming the streets looking for people taking stuff out of mailboxes. What is next, Brown pulling a gun on Tom Glavine for having stolen a CYA from him?
   130. Batman Posted: June 17, 2018 at 09:34 AM (#5693777)
(To be fair, I was at 707 West 23rd St. in Los Angeles in 1992
I think USC is working their way up there in their plan to buy the whole neighborhood for a controlled gentrification.
   131. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 17, 2018 at 11:46 AM (#5693817)

Re 66. Brown ain’t a cop.
So what?
Brown went hunting for criminals.
"Went hunting"? Pretty much sounds like they came to him.
   132. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 17, 2018 at 11:52 AM (#5693819)
Yes. The vast majority of mailboxes outside of urban areas are on public property.
This is literally completely made up.

It's also based on the false idea that a mailbox at the bottom of one's driveway is necessarily on public property, but even if that idea were true, the claim that the vast majority of mailboxes are located there is completely made up.
   133. McCoy Posted: June 17, 2018 at 11:57 AM (#5693825)
Brown went on another person's property to stage them out, with a gun. That's called hunting.
   134. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: June 17, 2018 at 12:00 PM (#5693827)
It's also based on the false idea that a mailbox at the bottom of one's driveway is on public property,


Are you denying that:

Pubic easements exist or

Public easements are public property
   135. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 17, 2018 at 12:05 PM (#5693831)
Are you denying that:

Pubic easements exist or

Public easements are public property


The easement for the gov't to use the first 10 feet (or whatever) of your property, for things like gas and electrical lines, etc., does not convert that land into public property. The home owner is still responsible for maintenance. Random people just can't show up and park on that land or have a picnic.

An easement is an easement, not a transfer of property rights. My neighbor has an easement to use part of my driveway. Doesn't mean she own that land, or can make any changes to it.
   136. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 17, 2018 at 12:08 PM (#5693834)
Because this is not a situation where we know nothing of Brown's priors.
Right; we know that he didn't shoot his neighbor. Or do anything that law enforcement thought was worthy of action.

acting in a calm & rational manner looking merely to prevent the theft seems remote.
Huh? Even if the grass clipping incident was bad on his part, how would it be relevant to this discussion? This isn't a situation where we're advising Brown what he should do in the future if thieves come to his house. This is a situation where we know exactly what he did. He did act calmly and rationally.

I would prefer not extending that horrid trend further to untrained vigilantes roaming the streets looking for people taking stuff out of mailboxes.
Every word of that is pejoratively misphrased.

1) I'm not sure what "untrained" refers to; I certainly agree that I don't want someone who does not have experience handling a firearm employing it (at all, but certainly not outside of imminent life-and-death situations), but why do we think Brown doesn't have such experience?

2) A vigilante is someone who engages in extrajudicial punishment of criminals. Apprehending criminals to turn them over to the police is absolutely not vigilantism.

3) And Brown was not "roaming the streets." He was guarding his own property. Whether (pace McCoy) Brown happened to be standing on his neighbor's lawn or his own at the time doesn't change the fact that he was defending his own property.
   137. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 17, 2018 at 12:14 PM (#5693836)
Are you denying that:

Pubic easements exist or

Public easements are public property
The latter.

(Well, to be technical, the "easement" itself is public -- but you misunderstand the word. The easement refers to the right to access the property, not the physical property itself. If I grant someone the right to cross my property for some reason -- whether it's a utility company to put lines in, or whether it's to access their property on the other side of my property, or whatever, they own that right. They don't own the land itself; I do.

If you don't believe me, try allowing a dangerous condition on the property subject to the easement, and when you get sued argue that it's the easement owner's liability, not yours. You will find out how wrong you are.)


EDIT: Two cokes to Snapper, because he was so spot on..
   138. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: June 17, 2018 at 12:36 PM (#5693855)
The latter.

(Well, to be technical, the "easement" itself is public -- but you misunderstand the word. The easement refers to the right to access the property, not the physical property itself. If I grant someone the right to cross my property for some reason -- whether it's a utility company to put lines in, or whether it's to access their property on the other side of my property, or whatever, they own that right. They don't own the land itself; I do.

If you don't believe me, try allowing a dangerous condition on the property subject to the easement, and when you get sued argue that it's the easement owner's liability, not yours. You will find out how wrong you are.)


EDIT: Two cokes to Snapper, because he was so spot on..


OK, I'm probably using the wrong terminology. Perhaps it's not universal, but where I live, the first 10 feet or so is a public right of way, and the property owner is very limited in what one can do with it. You cannot build a fence, plant trees, put up landscaping boulders or any other large solid objects. The public has the right to walk and park on it. Over the years, I have had several run ins with law enforcement and the court system that informed me of this.
   139. Tom Nawrocki Posted: June 17, 2018 at 12:39 PM (#5693858)
Is it the case that if you are chasing after someone who is stealing your property, you have to stop once they cross the line off your own land? Is it like cops who aren't allowed to cross a state line?

Or do people just think it's somehow unsporting to continue to pursue these criminals off your own property?
   140. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 17, 2018 at 01:34 PM (#5693879)
Is it the case that if you are chasing after someone who is stealing your property, you have to stop once they cross the line off your own land? Is it like cops who aren't allowed to cross a state line?

Or do people just think it's somehow unsporting to continue to pursue these criminals off your own property?


You can pursue, but unless you want to physically tackle them and hold them for police, it's going to be real hard to stop them.

You could pursue while calling police to help them locate the perp.
   141. McCoy Posted: June 17, 2018 at 01:44 PM (#5693881)
Sounds like sidewalks but I've never lived in a community where you could park a vehicle legally off the road and on someone's property without their consent.
   142. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 17, 2018 at 04:24 PM (#5693922)
Perhaps it's not universal, but where I live, the first 10 feet or so is a public right of way, and the property owner is very limited in what one can do with it. You cannot build a fence, plant trees, put up landscaping boulders or any other large solid objects.

That's certainly not universal. It's fairly common for public utilities to have an easement to put up poles and/or run wires underground in the normally fairly narrow strip of land between the sidewalk and the curb, along with other restrictions, but it's still the owner's property, and certainly not a sanctuary for mail thieves. There's no legal significance to where Brown or his mailbox were positioned - it's illegal to rob him, and perfectly legal for Brown to apprehend the criminals.
   143. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 18, 2018 at 08:15 AM (#5694192)
I re-read yesterday's comments. Snapper's 57 and 61 were in alignment with my view on this.

Then he quickly morphs into Charles Bronson. "IF" they "invaded" his home, he'd shoot them full of holes. Yikes. A home invasion didn't occur. Wasn't going to occur. But let's talk about what we'd do in such a case, anyway.

I'm giggling at the window into the psyche.

   144. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 18, 2018 at 08:32 AM (#5694200)
A big part of gun culture is otherwise sackless, cringing types fantasizing about going Full Metal Bronson on some young punk. This is probably a result of formative years getting wedgies and lock-room depantsings but not spending the requisite time to learn boxing or jiu-jitsu.
   145. SandyRiver Posted: June 19, 2018 at 10:08 AM (#5695064)

A big part of gun culture is otherwise sackless, cringing types fantasizing about going Full Metal Bronson on some young punk. This is probably a result of formative years getting wedgies and lock-room depantsings but not spending the requisite time to learn boxing or jiu-jitsu.

This caricature may apply to a tiny proportion of gun owners, though we probably have no way of knowing if Brown was among that group. My dad was a life NRA member, taught gun safety for decades, ran the trapshooting program at the local fish and game club, and as a collector owned over 80 firearms when he (unexpectedly) passed. In no manner shape or form did he ever resemble the above description. (And he never had occasion to "pull a gun" on another person.)
   146. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 10:14 AM (#5695071)
This caricature may apply to a tiny proportion of gun owners, though we probably have no way of knowing if Brown was among that group. My dad was a life NRA member, taught gun safety for decades, ran the trapshooting program at the local fish and game club, and as a collector owned over 80 firearms when he (unexpectedly) passed. In no manner shape or form did he ever resemble the above description. (And he never had occasion to "pull a gun" on another person.)

If that's YR you're responding to you should just ignore him. He's the most "sackless, cringing" poster on here. Hurling inanities, bigotry, and insults safe from behind his anonymous screen name.
   147. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 11:07 AM (#5695123)
If that's YR you're responding to you should just ignore him. He's the most "sackless, cringing" poster on here. Hurling inanities, bigotry, and insults safe from behind his anonymous screen name.


Yes well according to #102 you're a vicious killer just waiting to be unleashed so I'd be foolish to want to interact with you.

Oh wait, you actually blocked me because you're such a sensitive, whiny crybaby despite your murderous fantasies. Well, at least you didn't shoot me.
   148. PreservedFish Posted: June 19, 2018 at 11:10 AM (#5695128)
snapper, do you find your stances in this thread to be in any way at odds with your professed devout Catholicism? I know you've been over this before several times over the years but I still find it headscratching.
   149. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 11:16 AM (#5695137)
He's just into the Deus Vult! stuff. The religion provides a nice cover for social pathology - you can be as obnoxious as you want and come out of confession clean as a whistle.
   150. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 11:25 AM (#5695147)
snapper, do you find your stances in this thread to be in any way at odds with your professed devout Catholicism? I know you've been over this before several times over the years but I still find it headscratching.

Self-defense, and defense of others is not only a right in Catholic teaching, but also can be a duty. I never advocate aggression. But, responding to aggression with the necessary force to stop it is entirely consistent with Catholic teaching. I can give you the citations to the relevant documents if you'd find them interesting.

The Pope has his Swiss Guards, and they have all the relevant modern weapons. If they're prepared to use deadly force to defend the Pope, there's no reason an ordinary Catholic can't be prepared to do the same to protect himself and his family and his neighbors.
   151. McCoy Posted: June 19, 2018 at 11:28 AM (#5695150)
to the point where innocent non violent people can be killed in the pursuit of war because, well, they shouldn't have been there to get killed in the first place. Never mind that it is their home town or neighborhood.
   152. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 11:33 AM (#5695157)
to the point where innocent non violent people can be killed in the pursuit of war because, well, they shouldn't have been there to get killed in the first place. Never mind that it is their home town or neighborhood.

That is the Catholic doctrine of Just War. Yes.
   153. PreservedFish Posted: June 19, 2018 at 11:36 AM (#5695161)
I can give you the citations to the relevant documents if you'd find them interesting.

Sure. I would.

But I'm also interested in the mindset.

"If a burglar makes any aggressive move towards me, I have no qualms about killing him. It was his choice, not mine."
"If you go onto somebody's property to commit a crime, I don't much care if you get hurt."
"If twenty drunken hooligans break into your house, just start shooting."

Doesn't seem compatible with the homilies I remember from childhood.
   154. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 11:45 AM (#5695176)
What part of "Deus Vult" don't you understand, heathen? Isn't "Kill them all, god will know his own" consistent with Catholicism?
   155. Don August(us) Cesar Geronimo Berroa Posted: June 19, 2018 at 11:45 AM (#5695177)
In this regard Just War doctrine gives certain conditions for the legitimate exercise of force, all of which must be met:

"1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3. there must be serious prospects of success;

4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition" [CCC 2309].


So, the US going into Iraq in 2003. Just or Unjust?
   156. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 11:49 AM (#5695184)
Sure. I would.

Here's the Catechism, starting at 2263.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2263

Here's St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa. See point 7.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm

But I'm also interested in the mindset.

"If a burglar makes any aggressive move towards me, I have no qualms about killing him. It was his choice, not mine."
"If you go onto somebody's property to commit a crime, I don't much care if you get hurt."
"If twenty drunken hooligans break into your house, just start shooting."

Doesn't seem compatible with the homilies I remember from childhood.


In the first and third situations, they've already committed violence and demonstrated their willingness to commit further violence by breaking into a residence. Burglary is a violent crime. That gives one the right of self-defense, and the obligation if you have any other innocent persons in the house.

In the second case, he doesn't deserve to be shot, and shooting him would be wrong unless he makes a violent or threatening action. I already said that early in the thread. Brown couldn't shoot the guy just for trespassing or robbery, or if he tried to run.

But if the criminal does commit aggression, I'm not particularly disturbed by the criminal suffering the consequences. What's the alternative? Letting him harm the property owner?
   157. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 11:50 AM (#5695185)
So, the US going into Iraq in 2003. Just or Unjust?

In retrospect? Unjust.

At the time? It depends on what the policy makers really knew and believed. The fact that they had no coherent plan for after the invasion is a major strike against them, however.
   158. Don August(us) Cesar Geronimo Berroa Posted: June 19, 2018 at 12:02 PM (#5695205)
Isn't "Kill them all, god will know his own" consistent with Catholicism?


Can never tell if you are joking or not, but, no...

CCC 2313 and 2314:

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 80, 3]A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons - especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
   159. McCoy Posted: June 19, 2018 at 12:06 PM (#5695206)

Can never tell if you are joking or not, but, no...


But you can most certainly bomb a city or village to smithereens if an enemy combatant is hiding among them.
   160. PreservedFish Posted: June 19, 2018 at 12:11 PM (#5695217)
Snapper I think it's just an attitude or phrasing thing. I'd expect a "good Christian" to say something like, "Yes, I would use lethal force if it were my only option to protect my family." I don't think anyone here has a problem with that. It's what I would say. But with the way you talk about that possibility, well, there's a reason people are bringing up Charles Bronson.

To use the "Just War" as a standard for this sort of thing, a burglar or drunken hooligan has not committed "lasting, grave, and certain" damage, nor have you exhausted or even attempted "other means of putting an end to it."
   161. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 12:16 PM (#5695228)
Isn't "Kill them all, god will know his own" consistent with Catholicism?

Can never tell if you are joking or not, but, no...


I never joke about such crimes.

When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot "Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics." The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be Catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius - Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His" (2 Tim. ii. 19) and so countless number in that town were slain.[5][6]
   162. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 12:22 PM (#5695243)
Snapper I think it's just an attitude or phrasing thing. I'd expect a "good Christian" to say something like, "Yes, I would use lethal force if it were my only option to protect my family." I don't think anyone here has a problem with that. It's what I would say. But with the way you talk about that possibility, well, there's a reason people are bringing up Charles Bronson.

To use the "Just War" as a standard for this sort of thing, a burglar or drunken hooligan has not committed "lasting, grave, and certain" damage, nor have you exhausted or even attempted "other means of putting an end to it."


Maybe I'm just a fairly cold, matter of fact person. I've never committed physical aggression against another person in my life, and I have no intention of doing so.
   163. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: June 19, 2018 at 12:32 PM (#5695258)
I've never committed physical aggression against another person in my life, and I have no intention of doing so.
So anyone who ever falls short of that standard to any degree, well, you're fine with spraying them with bullets the minute they do so? I get the feeling maybe Jesus wouldn't be quite on board with that.
   164. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 12:35 PM (#5695261)
this aggression will not stand!
   165. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 12:41 PM (#5695269)
So anyone who ever falls short of that standard to any degree, well, you're fine with spraying them with bullets the minute they do so? I get the feeling maybe Jesus wouldn't be quite on board with that.

Anyone who physically attacks you, and you have a reasonable fear they can hurt you seriously (not a kid or a little old lady or in a sporting contest where ten guys are going to pull you apart), yes, you are morally allowed to shoot them.

If a stranger or intruder physically attacks you or makes moves to do so, you have to assume they intend to hurt you. Why else would they do it? And they could well have a concealed knife. You try to fight them hand to hand, you can very easily end up dead.

But, I'm willing to stipulate to being a cold, heartless, SOB.
   166. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 19, 2018 at 12:53 PM (#5695283)
If a stranger or intruder physically attacks you or makes moves to do so, you have to assume they intend to hurt you. Why else would they do it? And they could well have a concealed knife. You try to fight them hand to hand, you can very easily end up dead.


Again, I don't disagree with you on this, but that type of situation is not what the linked story talks about. You pivoted to when it's ok to use deadly force, seemingly to condone Brown's pulling a gun in a situation where it wasn't warranted. And for that, I mock you. You are a frightened old fool.
   167. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 12:59 PM (#5695291)
Again, I don't disagree with you on this, but that type of situation is not what the linked story talks about. You pivoted to when it's ok to use deadly force, seemingly to condone Brown's pulling a gun in a situation where it wasn't warranted.

Which situation? Brown was wrong to pull it when confronting the neighbor (barring a specific threat of immediate violence from the neighbor).

But what was wrong about pulling the gun to apprehend a criminal? He likely spared multiple people the serious financial consequences of identity theft.

And for that, I mock you. You are a frightened old fool.

Because I'd rather risk criminals getting hurt while perpetrating their crimes than innocent people getting hurt? You appear to be the frightened one, not wanting anyone to take any action to protect their property. Let the bullies run the world. Because that's all criminals are.
   168. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 19, 2018 at 01:10 PM (#5695302)
But what was wrong about pulling the gun to apprehend a criminal? He likely spared multiple people the serious financial consequences of identity theft.


It's been explained that a civilian pulling a gun on a non-violent offender is a bad idea, and that calling the cops is the way to go, but you're stubbornly sticking to your Charles Bronson fetish.

Because I'd rather risk criminals getting hurt while perpetrating their crimes than innocent people getting hurt? You appear to be the frightened one, not wanting anyone to take any action to protect their property. Let the bullies run the world. Because that's all criminals are.


I assure you that I'm not afraid of non violent criminals. I'll call the cops to protect my property if a verbal warning doesn't work. If one of my neighbors decided it was cool to pull out a gun instead, I'd avoid that neighbor while keeping a close eye on him. That's a permanent neighborhood menace, unlike the transient non violent offender that figuratively sets your hair on fire.

edited for grammar
   169. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 01:16 PM (#5695307)
It's been explained that a civilian pulling a gun on a non-violent offender is a bad idea,

I don't agree. It seems to have had a very good outcome in this case.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.
   170. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 19, 2018 at 01:19 PM (#5695315)
We'll just have to agree to disagree.


OK, if you agree not to move to Lakeville, MA.
   171. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 19, 2018 at 01:26 PM (#5695329)
It's been explained that a civilian pulling a gun on a non-violent offender is a bad idea, and that calling the cops is the way to go, but you're stubbornly sticking to your Charles Bronson fetish.

Well, no it hasn't been "explained" why Brown dong exactly the same thing a cop would do - detain the suspects caught in the act until additional help arrived - is problematic. Is it to spare the thief the humiliation of being apprehended by a civilian? Self-defense is a basic human right, and Brown did nothing wrong. His critics here have repeatedly misstated the facts and law, while criticizing Brown for things that had nothing to do with the incident.
   172. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 01:26 PM (#5695330)
OK, if you agree not to move to Lakeville, MA.

The odds are against it. But, I've never pulled a gun on anyone. Nor threatened them. No engaged in any physical aggression.
   173. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 01:48 PM (#5695358)
I've never committed physical aggression against another person in my life, and I have no intention of doing so.

So anyone who ever falls short of that standard to any degree, well, you're fine with spraying them with bullets the minute they do so?


It's just a fantasy the gun-huggers soothe themselves to sleep with. They're all heroic vigilantes just waiting for one of you punks to push them too far. And then for the first time in their lives they explode with deadly justice and totally don't poop themselves and shoot the floor.
   174. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 02:16 PM (#5695391)

It's been explained that a civilian pulling a gun on a non-violent offender is a bad idea, and that calling the cops is the way to go, but you're stubbornly sticking to your Charles Bronson fetish.
It's been asserted, but it certainly hasn't been explained. (In particular, I still don't understand why people are calling for military enforcement of criminal law.)
   175. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: June 19, 2018 at 02:26 PM (#5695411)
(In particular, I still don't understand why people are calling for military enforcement of criminal law.)


Oh just stop it already. You aren't being nearly as clever as you think you are.
   176. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 19, 2018 at 02:29 PM (#5695416)
You aren't being nearly as clever as you think you are.


I know of someone who uses that as a blanket statement.
   177. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 19, 2018 at 02:33 PM (#5695421)
Self-defense is a basic human right, and Brown did nothing wrong.


Those who would defend property with the potential of deadly force are weirdos. You, also, can stay out of Lakeville, please.
   178. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 03:42 PM (#5695475)

Those who would defend property with the potential of deadly force are weirdos.
Hint: if you're willing to call the police (who are civilians, despite what you people think), then you're willing to use the potential of deadly force. You're just too cowardly to do it yourself.

   179. McCoy Posted: June 19, 2018 at 03:53 PM (#5695485)
Hint: if you're willing to call the police (who are civilians, despite what you people think), then you're willing to use the potential of deadly force. You're just too cowardly to do it yourself.

And yet it is the police officers job and duty to rush into potentially lethal situations for the appeasement of David.
   180. Batman Posted: June 19, 2018 at 03:57 PM (#5695487)
Well, no it hasn't been "explained" why Brown dong exactly the same thing a cop would do - detain the suspects caught in the act until additional help arrived - is problematic. Is it to spare the thief the humiliation of being apprehended by a civilian? Self-defense is a basic human right, and Brown did nothing wrong. His critics here have repeatedly misstated the facts and law, while criticizing Brown for things that had nothing to do with the incident.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have a problem with Kevin Brown detaining someone based on Kevin Brown's knowledge of the law.
   181. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: June 19, 2018 at 04:00 PM (#5695491)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have a problem with Kevin Brown detaining someone based on Kevin Brown's knowledge of the law.
If there's anyone who shouldn't be speaking for anyone else on the topic of vigilantism, it's probably Batman.
   182. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 04:00 PM (#5695492)

And yet it is the police officers job and duty to rush into potentially lethal situations for the appeasement of David.
Um, you got me? I guess? I don't know what the gotcha here is.

I was not saying to Bivens that it's cowardly to call the police. I was saying that it's (morally) cowardly to claim that it's wrong to do something, if one is willing to pay someone else to do that thing.
   183. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 04:01 PM (#5695494)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have a problem with Kevin Brown detaining someone based on Kevin Brown's knowledge of the law.
If Kevin Brown is wrong about the law, then he exposes himself to liability. But it's not exactly a complex piece of jurisprudence to figure out that people aren't allowed to steal stuff.
   184. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 19, 2018 at 04:13 PM (#5695499)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have a problem with Kevin Brown detaining someone based on Kevin Brown's knowledge of the law.

Kevin Brown was totally correct on the law in this incident. His critics here? Not so much.
   185. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: June 19, 2018 at 04:17 PM (#5695505)
I was saying that it's (morally) cowardly to claim that it's wrong to do something, if one is willing to pay someone else to do that thing.


It's wrong for you to remove your child's appendix, but not to pay a surgeon to do so.

It is wrong for you to operate an airliner, but not wrong to pay Delta Airlines to provide a trained pilot

It is wrong for you to break into your neighbor's house to recover stolen property, but not wrong for you pay the police to do so.

It is wrong for you to do something you are neither authorized nor trained to do, but not to pay people who are to do the thing The argument is about a difference of opinion on whether it is proper for Kevin Brown (or anyone not trained and authorized to perform police functions)* to detain someone with a deadly weapon.

*commonly referred to as civilians, despite your pedantry.
   186. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 19, 2018 at 04:21 PM (#5695508)
It's wrong for anyone to claim that there is the slightest support in American Law for the proposition that it is improper for a citizen to apprehend a criminal, especially one caught in the act. Self-defense is a basic human right.
   187. McCoy Posted: June 19, 2018 at 04:59 PM (#5695555)
It's wrong for you to remove your child's appendix, but not to pay a surgeon to do so.

It is wrong for you to operate an airliner, but not wrong to pay Delta Airlines to provide a trained pilot

It is wrong for you to break into your neighbor's house to recover stolen property, but not wrong for you pay the police to do so.

It is wrong for you to do something you are neither authorized nor trained to do, but not to pay people who are to do the thing The argument is about a difference of opinion on whether it is proper for Kevin Brown (or anyone not trained and authorized to perform police functions)* to detain someone with a deadly weapon.

*commonly referred to as civilians, despite your pedantry.


You're arguing with a libertarian. In his world none of that should be wrong.
   188. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 19, 2018 at 05:50 PM (#5695598)
Hint: if you're willing to call the police (who are civilians, despite what you people think), then you're willing to use the potential of deadly force. You're just too cowardly to do it yourself.


Ridiculous. Miserlou already addressed how, so I can just point and laugh at you.
   189. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 10:42 PM (#5695792)

Miserlou already addressed
You keep making that mistake. It wasn't "addressed" and it wasn't "explained."
   190. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 19, 2018 at 10:44 PM (#5695795)

*commonly referred to as civilians, despite your pedantry.
Commonly referred to by self-important cops as civilians, in order to make cops feel like they're a special class of people.
   191. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 20, 2018 at 09:05 AM (#5695927)
You keep making that mistake. It wasn't "addressed" and it wasn't "explained."
\You're a fun guy.

Commonly referred to by self-important cops as civilians,


I'm a civilian. I'm not a cop.

You seem self-important.

in order to make cops feel like they're a special class of people.


Objection! Speculation!

Cops are hired to do a job. It's not my job. It's their job.
   192. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 20, 2018 at 09:11 AM (#5695929)
Cops are hired to do a job. It's not my job. It's their job.

Do you also decline to put out fires in your house, and help people in medical distress? How about a little kid drowning in a shallow pool?
   193. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 20, 2018 at 09:16 AM (#5695931)
Do you also decline to put out fires in your house, and help people in medical distress? How about a little kid drowning in a shallow pool?


Some schmuck futzing around my mailbox isn't the same as your examples.
   194. PreservedFish Posted: June 20, 2018 at 09:22 AM (#5695935)
Oh come on snapper, you don't cotton to this narrow pedantic libertarian silliness. Cops clearly are a special class of people. Kevin Brown apprehended criminals and then waited until the cops showed up, because the cops get to do things that regular people don't.
   195. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 20, 2018 at 09:23 AM (#5695937)
Some schmuck futzing around my mailbox isn't the same as your examples.

First, it's not futzing, it's stealing mail for the purposes of financial crime. These things cost people thousands of dollars and devastate their ability to function for months.

Second, why not?

If your garage or your neighbor's garage was on fire, would you try and put it out (if you could at low risk), or just wait for the firemen?

If your kid or your neighbor's kid is drowning in the pool, would you try and save them (if you could at low risk), or just wait for the police/fire dept?

If your neighbor was choking, would you try the Heimlich maneuver, or just wait for the EMTs?

In all these cases you pay other people to do those jobs, but a good citizen still acts themselves to try and mitigate the harm.

The only difference seems to be your concern that the precious criminal is exposed to no risk.
   196. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 20, 2018 at 09:26 AM (#5695940)
Oh come on snapper, you don't cotton to this narrow pedantic libertarian silliness. Cops clearly are a special class of people. Kevin Brown apprehended criminals and then waited until the cops showed up, because the cops get to do things that regular people don't.

Just because they are a "special class", doesn't mean regular people can't do some of the things they do. They can and they should.

Firemen are a separate class; we don't expect ordinary citizens to rush into burning buildings. But, if an ordinary citizens can save someone from a fire, or prevent property damage, at low risk to themselves, they should certainly do so.
   197. PreservedFish Posted: June 20, 2018 at 09:28 AM (#5695944)
"Some of the things."
   198. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 20, 2018 at 09:29 AM (#5695947)
The only difference seems to be your concern that the precious criminal is exposed to no risk.


If it seems that way to you, that's another window into your psyche.

In the instance you repeat, those are emergencies. Stealing mail isn't an emergency.
   199. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 20, 2018 at 09:30 AM (#5695948)
"Some of the things."

Right. No one is saying Brown should have chased the perps at 90 MPH down the street until he caught them, or tackled them to induce compliance.

But, in terms of using deadly force, cops are bound by the same laws ordinary citizens are, even if they do get preferential treatment in the application.
   200. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 20, 2018 at 09:31 AM (#5695950)
If it seems that way to you, that's another window into your psyche.

In the instance you repeat, those are emergencies. Stealing mail isn't an emergency.


It is to the person who loses a $5000 check, or their IRS refund, or has their identity stolen.

A garage or an unoccupied house burning down is just property damage. Same type of loss.
Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Mike Emeigh
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogStop! Collaborate and OMNICHATTER! for Friday, July 20, 2018.
(53 - 11:46pm, Jul 20)
Last: Howie Menckel

Newsblog14 minutes of sound footage from the April 1931 Yankees-Red Sox season opener (YouTube)
(25 - 11:35pm, Jul 20)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogBaseball Is The Most Listened To Sport On Radio
(8 - 11:34pm, Jul 20)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Summer Potpourri (finals, draft, free agency, Colangelo dragging)
(3548 - 11:14pm, Jul 20)
Last: Athletic Supporter is USDA certified lean

NewsblogOTP 2018 July 16: Why Does President Trump Balk At Attending Baseball Games?
(1243 - 11:06pm, Jul 20)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogRob Manfred: Mike Trout limits his popularity because he won't market himself
(95 - 10:52pm, Jul 20)
Last: NJ in NY (Now with Baby!)

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (let's call it July 2018)
(591 - 10:40pm, Jul 20)
Last: Chicago Joe

NewsblogBBTF ANNUAL CENTRAL PARK SOFTBALL GAME 2018
(164 - 9:58pm, Jul 20)
Last: Jose Canusee

NewsblogJack White’s Bat Inducted Into Baseball Hall Of Fame
(4 - 9:14pm, Jul 20)
Last: Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB)

NewsblogAgent: Mets should trade Jacob deGrom if not interested in long-term deal
(5 - 8:57pm, Jul 20)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogIndians deal for ace reliever Brad Hand
(40 - 8:42pm, Jul 20)
Last: HOLLA(R)

NewsblogNow in Living Color: Ted Williams’s Last Game
(15 - 8:35pm, Jul 20)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogAaron Judge — Huge Talent, Phenomenal Trade Bait
(13 - 6:30pm, Jul 20)
Last: Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB)

Sox TherapyHalfwayish Home
(16 - 4:36pm, Jul 20)
Last: John DiFool2

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (World Cup)
(3265 - 4:26pm, Jul 20)
Last: J. Sosa

Page rendered in 0.6494 seconds
46 querie(s) executed