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 3 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 
   201. Lassus Posted: June 20, 2018 at 09:32 AM (#5695952)
cops are bound by the same laws ordinary citizens are

- spit-take -
   202. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 20, 2018 at 09:36 AM (#5695960)
It is to the person who loses a $5000 check, or their IRS refund, or has their identity stolen.


What percentage of those financial transactions are done by mail? .6?
   203. Rusty Priske Posted: June 20, 2018 at 09:52 AM (#5695975)
Barbarism begins at home.
   204. McCoy Posted: June 20, 2018 at 09:58 AM (#5695978)
All of the stuff you describe are emergency incidents in which no planning was involved. Brown was not in an emergency situation. He went hunting for criminals.
   205. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 20, 2018 at 10:14 AM (#5695988)
All of the stuff you describe are emergency incidents in which no planning was involved. Brown was not in an emergency situation. He went hunting for criminals.


He knows this, and he's responded that he doesn't care. He gives those examples to justify vigilantism.

Maybe the police in GA welcome, condone, civilians brandishing guns to deter non violent criminals from committing non violent crimes. I know they don't welcome it in my town.
   206. Swoboda is freedom Posted: June 20, 2018 at 10:25 AM (#5695994)
All of the stuff you describe are emergency incidents in which no planning was involved. Brown was not in an emergency situation. He went hunting for criminals.

What if he were only armed with a bat? Would that have been okay?

Don't get me wrong, if that incident with the neighbor truly happened, he should lose his license to carry, but I don't think he was wrong in the incident.

Mail fraud was a serious issue, but I think most scammers are using the internet. Is is nice to see some kids getting off their phone and using the old fashioned methods.
   207. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 20, 2018 at 10:28 AM (#5695996)
He knows this, and he's responded that he doesn't care. He gives those examples to justify vigilantism.

This incident is not vigilantism. You were corrected on this earlier but persist.

Maybe the police in GA welcome, condone, civilians brandishing guns to deter non violent criminals from committing non violent crimes. I know they don't welcome it in my town.

Who cares what the cops welcome? Brown had every right to do what he did, in MA or GA. Lots of cops don't even like citizens owning guns, because it reduces their monopoly on force.
   208. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 20, 2018 at 10:30 AM (#5695997)
if that incident with the neighbor truly happened, he should lose his license to carry

And also be charged with menacing, or the equivalent in GA.
   209. PreservedFish Posted: June 20, 2018 at 10:32 AM (#5696002)
I don't have a problem admitting that Kevin Brown seems to have acted responsibly, as far as these things go. But it is my feeling that his cowboy attitude is just as likely to result in stupid, unnecessary violence as it is in safer neighborhoods. I don't want my neighborhood to have more Kevin Browns, I want fewer.
   210. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 20, 2018 at 10:32 AM (#5696003)
What if he were only armed with a bat? Would that have been okay?



I might have answered this already, in some form, but if not: If someone was futzing around my mailbox, I'd come outside, with my cell phone, and, from my deck, say "HEY!...the #### away from my mailbox!" If that didn't work, I'd call the cops. Even if they did leave, I'd still call the cops. In fact, I might call the cops as soon as I saw them near my mailbox. Whichever was more convenient.

I would not confront anyone with any weapon, in that situation.
   211. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 20, 2018 at 10:35 AM (#5696005)
Lots of cops don't even like citizens owning guns, because it reduces their monopoly on force.


That may be part of the reason they don't like us having guns. Another part is that often the wrong people have them, and cause unnecessary casualties with them.
   212. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 20, 2018 at 10:41 AM (#5696012)
That may be part of the reason they don't like us having guns. Another part is that often the wrong people have them, and cause unnecessary casualties with them.

You mean criminals? Who don't acquire the guns legally in the first place. Cops kill more innocent people than CC permit holders.
   213. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 20, 2018 at 10:56 AM (#5696033)
You mean criminals? Who don't acquire the guns legally in the first place. Cops kill more innocent people than CC permit holders.


I'm not too far from you on this point. But even "law abiding" citizens misuse guns on occasion, in the heat of the moment. It seems like any yahoo can legally get and keep a gun.
   214. McCoy Posted: June 20, 2018 at 11:06 AM (#5696044)
A monopoly of force is not a reason. Cops don't want to get shot. Period.

Like the old saw of civilians caring guns and standing up to a tyrannical government. If you challenge the police with a gun it is only going to end one way. With you full of bullets. Cops will not be nicer to you, they will not correctly follow procedures or laws because you're carrying a gun.
   215. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 20, 2018 at 11:24 AM (#5696063)

He went hunting for criminals.
Why do you keep misrepresenting this? They came to his house; he didn't go hunting for them.
   216. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 20, 2018 at 11:33 AM (#5696075)
Like the old saw of civilians caring guns and standing up to a tyrannical government. If you challenge the police with a gun it is only going to end one way. With you full of bullets. Cops will not be nicer to you, they will not correctly follow procedures or laws because you're carrying a gun.

More likely with you shot once or twice, and the buildings and bystanders behind you riddled with bullets. Most cops can't hit the broad side of a barn.

Another reason cops are so trigger happy; they mostly don't know how to shoot, and are actively discouraged from extra and/or realistic training. It should be a national scandal how badly trained most cops are. I cringe when I see them carrying fully auto M-16s.
   217. McCoy Posted: June 20, 2018 at 11:33 AM (#5696076)
He went to his neighbor's house with a gun to seek out his prey. That's hunting. He didn't look out the window and see a crime being committed. He went hunting for them.
   218. McCoy Posted: June 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM (#5696077)
And yet a cop just downed a fleeing suspect on a crowded street while managing not to hit bystanders.
   219. PreservedFish Posted: June 20, 2018 at 11:41 AM (#5696086)
If a deer walks on your property and you shoot it, you didn't exactly "go hunting," but if you notice that the deer comes every morning, and you hide and patiently wait for it to emerge before shooting, you obviously did "go hunting."
   220. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 20, 2018 at 11:46 AM (#5696094)
He went to his neighbors house with a gun to seek out his prey. That's hunting. He didn't look out good window and see a crime being committed. He went hunting for them.

Brown was in his own neighborhood where he had every right to be. The same criminals robbed him 3 times, targeting him. There has been no suggestion that his neighbor objected to Brown secluding himself in their driveway to observe his own mailbox. Brown's location is irrelevant - he still acted legally in everything he did. Brown's critics have repeatedly misstated the law and facts here.
   221. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 20, 2018 at 11:54 AM (#5696101)
In the instance you repeat, those are emergencies. Stealing mail isn't an emergency.
It's not a life or death situation. It is, however, a time sensitive matter. If your approach to someone pilfering your mail is to call the police, you can expect them to be arrested about 3 years after never. You'd be lucky if you could get cops to show up at all for that, let alone in time to catch the criminals.
   222. McCoy Posted: June 20, 2018 at 11:54 AM (#5696103)
I missated the laws and facts? Which ones? Your entire post has virtually nothing to do with what I wrote.
   223. McCoy Posted: June 20, 2018 at 11:55 AM (#5696105)
And yet the cops did come out when called by brown. Twice. He couldn't write down their license plate?
   224. PreservedFish Posted: June 20, 2018 at 11:57 AM (#5696110)
And yet the cops did come out when called by brown. Twice.


Well let's be fair, anyone that calls the cops and says "I've apprehended two criminals and they won't try anything because I'm loaded" is going to get a response, as well they should.
   225. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 20, 2018 at 11:59 AM (#5696113)

If a deer walks on your property and you shoot it, you didn't exactly "go hunting," but if you notice that the deer comes every morning, and you hide and patiently wait for it to emerge before shooting, you obviously did "go hunting."
Or, obviously, you did not, since you didn't "go" at all; you stayed. Sitting on your porch waiting for game to pass by is not going hunting.

Hunting.
v.
pursue and kill (a wild animal) for sport or food.
search determinedly for someone or something.
pursue and capture someone.

All of those require something more active than just staying at home and waiting for someone to come to you.

(And, yes, since I'm being pedantic I know I'm going to get someone responding by saying that people do lie in wait for animals to come to them when they go hunting. Which I concede. But only after one goes out looking for them.)
   226. PreservedFish Posted: June 20, 2018 at 12:05 PM (#5696120)
I can barely respond to #225, it's too stupid. Explain how exiting your home doesn't count as "going out." Your entire ridiculous response seems to rely on us pretending that Kevin Brown walking to a neighbor's property and hiding behind a bush is essentially the same as relaxing on his front porch.
   227. McCoy Posted: June 20, 2018 at 12:05 PM (#5696121)
Geez, brown did go out looking for them. That was his whole point of doing what he did. Someone was stealing from him so he started on his gun, walked over to his neighbour's yard, and hid waiting for his prey to come to the watering hole.

You say you're being pedantic. You're not. You're just wrong.

Edit. Or possibly what PF thinks.
   228. McCoy Posted: June 20, 2018 at 12:06 PM (#5696122)
Re 224. That would be the third time.
   229. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 20, 2018 at 12:08 PM (#5696124)

And yet the cops did come out when called by brown. Twice.
True; I suppose when a multimillionaire calls, he's more likely to get a police response. But it wasn't a timely response, until he actually captured them.
He couldn't write down their license plate?
Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't. Based on the newspaper reports, he was able to identify it as a white Mustang.
   230. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 20, 2018 at 12:16 PM (#5696134)

What percentage of those financial transactions are done by mail? .6?

Enough that A lengthy interview with investigators revealed the brothers committed several thefts, authorities said. Deputies recovered more than $3,000 in cash and more than $16,000 in checks belonging to other people, the sheriff's office said in a news release Thursday.

I don't understand people arguing counterfactuals when we know the specifics of this case.

Based on his prior behavior, Brown probably shouldn't own a gun, but I don't understand people who think he did something wrong here. We know how the situation turned out, which was with the criminals unharmed and in custody.
   231. dlf Posted: June 20, 2018 at 12:44 PM (#5696163)
I don't understand people arguing counterfactuals when we know the specifics of this case.


To use the analogy that the other David used in a different context -- if a manager decides to make a strategic move based on instructions from his astrologer, it is a stupid decision even if it works. In this particular case it appears(*) to have worked, but my interest approaches zero in having someone that believes in the propriety of brandishing a firearm when a neighbor confronts him for dumping yard clippings separately utilizing a gun in attempting to apprehend accused felons.

(*)Just as Clapper voiced concern over taking the reporting of Brown's lawn confrontation at face value, I similarly have concern about believing the mail thief reporting contains all relevant, and hopefully independently verified, facts, but am willing to assume it for the sake of the argument.
   232. flournoy Posted: June 20, 2018 at 12:56 PM (#5696178)
Based on his prior behavior, Brown probably shouldn't own a gun


What prior behavior is that, and what do you mean by "shouldn't?"
   233. McCoy Posted: June 20, 2018 at 12:57 PM (#5696180)
Re 229. The third time as he was laying in wait would have been a good time to get the license plate. The first two times he only saw the perps via his security camera.
   234. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 20, 2018 at 01:09 PM (#5696199)
Just as Clapper voiced concern over taking the reporting of Brown's lawn confrontation at face value, value, I similarly have concern about believing the mail thief reporting contains all relevant, and hopefully independently verified, facts . . .

I believe I said that it was the neighbor's account that deserved some skepticism, since the reporting indicated he declined to press charges in the backyard incident. In contrast, in the mailbox incident, the actions at issue do seem to align with how they are described/reported.
   235. SandyRiver Posted: June 20, 2018 at 01:18 PM (#5696210)
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.

Ever read the 1960s novel The New Centurians? Written by a former cop, it's a fictional account of the Detroit police force, and one thing that struck me was the very clear and stark "us" and "them" attitude the book portrayed. Yes, it's fiction, but I'm confident that it was based on truth.

Explain how exiting your home doesn't count as "going out."

In over 60 years of deer hunting, I've spent more time on stand (usually on some kind of seat, actually) than any other method. Not once in those 60 years has my spot been within sight of a house, or any other kind of occupied building. In the context of hunting, walking out the door into the yard, or the yard next door, is not "going out."
(Disclosure: Our home is more than 500' from the nearest house, so by law I could legally hunt from my front porch as long as I did so safely. I'm still waiting for a chance to fill my tag with a buck chowing down on drops from the front yard apple trees.)
   236. McCoy Posted: June 20, 2018 at 01:21 PM (#5696216)
From what I can find in 2006 Brown had an incident with his neighbor. Brown has accused his neighbors of dumping on his property and by that it appears to be yard waste. Brown admitted he'll occasionally send a limb over as a subtle message to knock it off. He said he carries a gun on his property because of snakes. It seems to me in this incident Brown was dumping clippings to send a message as his neighbor said in the interview afterward he was getting a mulching lawnmower. The two were arguing at the fence. Brown didn't like something that was said and so he took some steps back from the fence and pulled his gun out. The neighbor called the cops afterwards.
   237. Lassus Posted: June 20, 2018 at 01:22 PM (#5696219)
He said he carries a gun on his property because of snakes.

Oh please.
   238. McCoy Posted: June 20, 2018 at 01:23 PM (#5696222)
Now see 235 would be a pedantic argument about hunting. Try more of that, David.
   239. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 20, 2018 at 01:24 PM (#5696224)
The third time as he was laying in wait would have been a good time to get the license plate. The first two times he only saw the perps via his security camera.

So, Brown should have put himself at risk if the thieves noticed he was taking down their license plate, because some folks object to him legally carrying a gun? Brown did exactly what a cop would have done if one had caught the thieves in the act - detain them until additional help arrived. Despite the silly objections here, Brown had as much right to do that as a cop.
   240. McCoy Posted: June 20, 2018 at 01:28 PM (#5696230)
Brown was prepared to put himself at risk already. At least with getting a license plate there is a chance the neighborhood doesn't get shot up.
   241. PreservedFish Posted: June 20, 2018 at 01:37 PM (#5696236)
SandyRiver, if you were to set up a deer stand 10 yards from your front door, and shoot deer from it, would you call that "hunting?" I sure would. If we turn this into an argument on the definition of "go" or "out" then we let the libertarian terrorists win.

McCoy said that Kevin Brown went hunting for these bad guys. And he did. Brown didn't just happen upon them - he staked out the area where he knew they would return, hid, and then emerged from hiding to apprehend them. He hunted them. I find it astonishing that Dave can't admit the truth of this, because it doesn't really impact the argument at all! If you think that what Brown did was brave and intelligent, then just own it, say he hunted the #### out of those thieves like a good cop would.
   242. Rusty Priske Posted: June 20, 2018 at 01:51 PM (#5696256)
This whole discussion hinges on a faulty premise.

If the laws were just, Brown would have been charged for carrying a weapon.
   243. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: June 20, 2018 at 01:55 PM (#5696262)
there's a reason people are bringing up Charles Bronson.

Because they're incapable of engaging most subjects beyond their emotional responses to them and want pats on the back from those who are similarly limited, thus the shallow quippery?
   244. flournoy Posted: June 20, 2018 at 02:11 PM (#5696278)
If the laws were just, Brown would have been charged for carrying a weapon.


Speaking of faulty premises, please elaborate on "charged for carrying a weapon."
   245. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: June 20, 2018 at 02:20 PM (#5696288)
He said he carries a gun on his property because of snakes.

Oh please.
You're not going to be so flippant when the libruls confiscate everyone's guns and the snakes in Kevin Brown's yard impose tyrannical rule on our once-great country.
   246. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 20, 2018 at 02:20 PM (#5696289)
Brown was prepared to put himself at risk already. At least with getting a license plate there is a chance the neighborhood doesn't get shot up.

Well, Brown, not McCoy, gets to decide what risks he wants to take while exercising his lawful rights. Approaching the thieves vehicle unarmed to get the license tag number strikes me as significantly more risky than what he actually did. And the neighborhood didn't get shot up. Insisting that Brown is responsible for all these scary hypotheticals that didn't happen seems to confirm that there was nothing wrong with his actual actions.
   247. McCoy Posted: June 20, 2018 at 02:32 PM (#5696309)
YC is yet more proof that people are bad at probability
   248. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 20, 2018 at 03:01 PM (#5696342)
You're not going to be so flippant when the libruls confiscate everyone's guns and the snakes in Kevin Brown's yard impose tyrannical rule on our once-great country.
We can deal with that.
   249. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 20, 2018 at 03:05 PM (#5696345)

Brown was prepared to put himself at risk already. At least with getting a license plate there is a chance the neighborhood doesn't get shot up.

Again with the counterfactuals. There is "a chance the neighborhood doesn't get shot up" under the course of action Brown chose -- indeed, we know for a fact that it didn't.

To use the analogy that the other David used in a different context -- if a manager decides to make a strategic move based on instructions from his astrologer, it is a stupid decision even if it works. In this particular case it appears(*) to have worked, but my interest approaches zero in having someone that believes in the propriety of brandishing a firearm when a neighbor confronts him for dumping yard clippings separately utilizing a gun in attempting to apprehend accused felons.

Right, but some people are making a different argument, and saying he actually acted inappropriately or illegally in this specific case. (And in fact, people were making that argument even before they knew he had previously brandished a gun at a neighbor.) He didn't -- or at least, there is no indication that he did.

   250. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 20, 2018 at 03:08 PM (#5696348)

What prior behavior is that, and what do you mean by "shouldn't?"

Prior behavior = brandishing his gun at a neighbor during an argument.

Shouldn't = shouldn't be legally allowed to own a firearm.
   251. Hysterical & Useless Posted: June 20, 2018 at 03:18 PM (#5696358)
What the hell, I'll play:

I'm anti-gun. Wish they didn't exist.

But they do exist.

Brown may be a cowboy, he may have* behaved inappropriately in the dispute with his neighbor, but in this particular case he didn't do anything wrong.

Having been victimized by good old-fashioned (credit card stolen from mail) identity theft, I will say it is indeed a major PITA. And the old-fashioned kind is still very popular, as it doesn't require any computer expertise (and is thus within the skill set of a much larger range of criminals).


*Nowadays, most people phrase this as "may or may not have," but the "or may not" is superfluous.
   252. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 20, 2018 at 03:20 PM (#5696360)
Prior behavior = brandishing his gun at a neighbor during an argument.

Shouldn't = shouldn't be legally allowed to own a firearm.


Agree, if that really happened. We don't know.
   253. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: June 20, 2018 at 03:23 PM (#5696364)
Nowadays, most people phrase this as "may or may not have," but the "or may not" is superfluous.


It's the exception that proves the rule.
   254. SandyRiver Posted: June 20, 2018 at 04:18 PM (#5696432)
SandyRiver, if you were to set up a deer stand 10 yards from your front door, and shoot deer from it, would you call that "hunting?" I sure would. If we turn this into an argument on the definition of "go" or "out" then we let the libertarian terrorists win.

In answer to the question, yes probably, depending on whether I actually set up a chair and waited for hours, perhaps no if I merely walked out in the yard with my deer rifle hoping for the 1-in-a-million chance that a deer would appear. Continuing with the pedantry - even with a hundred apples waiting, deer don't have quite the fixed schedule of mail delivery, so the comparison is a stretch.
(Disclosure: In Maine, and probably many other states, carrying a weapon in the woods or fields has usually been considered evidence of hunting, even if the weapon is unloaded. I'm not sure if concealed carry or "constitutional carry" has altered that. Carrying in one's yard, or in that of a neighbor who has given permission, does not constitute such evidence.)

If the laws were just, Brown would have been charged for carrying a weapon.

Since he was not charged in the 2006 incident and thus has a clean record (afaik) concerning offenses that would result in him being banned from carrying, what just law would that be? The inference seems that it would prohibit anyone from carrying a weapon at any time. I'm confident/hopeful that you would offer qualifications/exceptions, and like some posters above, interested in what (if any) they might be.
   255. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 20, 2018 at 05:18 PM (#5696499)
Do we need a specific law that says you can't pull a gun on a neighbor over a dispute about grass clippings?


scroll to "state law".


In MA, if you're convicted of a violent or gun related misdemeanor, your right to own a gun is revoked.

In GA, there are no such restrictions.
   256. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 20, 2018 at 05:33 PM (#5696505)
In MA, if you're convicted of a violent or gun related misdemeanor, your right to own a gun is revoked.

In GA, there are no such restrictions.

Rather irrelevant, since Brown wasn't charged in either state, much less convicted.
   257. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: June 20, 2018 at 05:44 PM (#5696509)
Brown wasn't charged, presumably, because GA is more cavalier about yahoos pulling guns out and waving them around* then MA is. If Brown comes to MA and pulls that crap, he gets charged and his gun gets taken away.

*yeah I know he didn't literally wave his gun. Probably.
   258. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: June 20, 2018 at 05:44 PM (#5696510)
Rather irrelevant, since Brown wasn't charged in either state, much less convicted.


My neighbor drives drunk at least once a week. I am allowed to hold the opinion that I would like him not ever be allowed to drive again, despite the fact that the has never been caught and convicted. One can hold the same opinion about a man who pulls a gun on his neighbor over dispute over lawn clippings, whether or not he was convicted.
   259. dlf Posted: June 20, 2018 at 05:46 PM (#5696513)
...if I merely walked out in the yard with my deer rifle hoping for the 1-in-a-million chance that a deer would appear.


I don't know where you live, but here in suburban Atlanta, the odds of seeing a deer, even 10 yards away from the house, are several orders of magnitude higher. There was one ~150 feet from my front door just yesterday morning when I left to go jogging. Of course the one that totaled my car a couple of years ago was well over a mile away from home. I should have been packing when that damned thing came running.

Ever read the 1960s novel The New Centurians? Written by a former cop, it's a fictional account of the Detroit police force, and one thing that struck me was the very clear and stark "us" and "them" attitude the book portrayed. Yes, it's fiction, but I'm confident that it was based on truth.


Back about two decades ago, I was the junior partner assigned to train a new associate we hired who, before going to law school, had been a cop. He made it clear that there are exactly three types of people: police, criminals, and victims and that the vast majority of not-cops were criminals. And that while he had to pretend otherwise to keep out of trouble those that were criminals had zero rights. I left that firm many years ago, but came across that associate's name in the state bar journal -- he had been disbarred for, among other things, presenting false information at trial several times. (Or, since this is a baseball site theoretically, basically what Brian McNamee did.)

...saying he actually acted inappropriately or illegally in this specific case. (And in fact, people were making that argument even before they knew he had previously brandished a gun at a neighbor.) He didn't -- or at least, there is no indication that he did.


Yeah, my argument is indeed different. While the result in the mail thief incident is evidence that he acted appropriately, it is not conclusive proof that he did so. Similarly, the actions in the yard clippings incident isn't proof that he acted inappropriately in the latter matter, but it is relevant evidence to be considered. Walking Kole Calhoun to load the bases for Mike Trout might work in a particular circumstance, but the result isn't proof that the action was correct.

I believe I said that it was the neighbor's account that deserved some skepticism...


Thank you for the clarification.
   260. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 20, 2018 at 08:39 PM (#5696595)

Brown wasn't charged, presumably, because GA is more cavalier about yahoos pulling guns out and waving them around* then MA is.
If this thread goes on a few more days, Bivens is going to be reporting the incident as having involved Brown pumping six bullets into his neighbor and then pouring gasoline on the corpse and setting it on fire, just because the neighbor said, "Hello."
   261. baxter Posted: June 21, 2018 at 01:15 AM (#5696766)
Re 235: "New Centurions" written by Joseph Wambaugh, a former Los Angeles policeman (excellent movie w/George C. Scott, Stacy Keach, Scott Wilson and I have to mention Clifton James). Wambaugh also wrote "The Onion Field" based upon the true story of a pair of ex-felons who kidnapped (off the streets of Hollywood, just a couple blocks from Hollywood and Vine) two LAPD detectives, killing 1 in a Kern County onion field (fantastic account of PTSD/survivor's guilt as to Hettinger, I think his name was).

When people in this thread say there was a "robbery," that is an inaccurate term. The two individuals did not rob the mailboxes. Robbery is a taking of property utilizing force or threat of force to take or prevent the owner from retrieving. These were thefts, which if they involved property > $900 (in California, with which I am familiar), they would be felonies.

Anyone is entitled to make a citizen's arrest using reasonable force. I don't believe that Brown could have used deadly force to stop a non-violent taking. However, bear in mind, the robbery/theft distinction. In California, one can use deadly force to stop an atrocious felony, which includes a robbery. Conversely, one cannot use deadly force in response to an attack by fists (without more). If these individuals said to Brown, "I'm going to punch you in the face," he couldn't use deadly force. If they said give me your wallet or I'll punch you in the face, he could shoot them (even kill them, in CA). The latter conduct is preventing an atrocious felony.

Taking the hunting comments further, I am not saying Brown could have shot them and be justified.

The issue is was the force reasonable under the circumstances? It was non-lethal force. Many commenters have pointed out the risk of using force that can lead to the use of deadly force. Fortunately, it did not lead to the use of deadly force.

Recently, there was an incident in a California a gas station convenience store (recorded on video) where an individual purchased some cookies at the counter, paid for them and put them in his pocket. An off duty police officer, waiting behind the individual, then withdrew his service pistol and demanded the individual take out the property from his pocket that the officer said the individual had just stolen. Aside from being mistaken concerning the transaction, the officer's used, in my view, excessive force because there was no indication the individual was threatening or non-cooperative.

For those of you who think Brown acted improperly, what amount of force would be reasonable to arrest the individuals, bearing in mind that the law permits him to use reasonable force (whether you would do so or not; personally, I would not have gone anywhere near them). Also, keep in mind, as this discussion illustrates, if a prosecutor did think the force was unreasonable, the likelihood of getting 12 jurors to agree with that would be very low.
   262. SandyRiver Posted: June 21, 2018 at 08:37 AM (#5696801)
I don't know where you live, but here in suburban Atlanta, the odds of seeing a deer, even 10 yards away from the house, are several orders of magnitude higher. There was one ~150 feet from my front door just yesterday morning when I left to go jogging. Of course the one that totaled my car a couple of years ago was well over a mile away from home. I should have been packing when that damned thing came running.

There are probably more deer per square mile in the Portland (Maine) suburbs than in my foothills locale 70 miles to the north, thanks to winter. My median for winter's coldest is -25 and for maximum snow depth, 27". Winters 2007-08 and 08-09 each produced depths of 48-49", and in March of 2009 coyotes killed a little buck in its first winter, less than 50 yards from the house. Those 2 winters probably combined to reduce deer density by half in our area. Deer are frequently in the field across the road or in the road itself, rarely in our dooryard. They seem to read the law book, and wait until the season is closed before coming in for our apples and quinces.
(And I share your pain; on a Sunday night in 2014, the day after the regular firearms season had closed, I was driving southbound at 40 on a narrow road when an adult doe chose to run westbound, rendering the plastic grill of the Ranger into dozens of bits. Not the first one I've hit - or that hit me - but I was able to track it into the woods the next morning, and get it tagged by a warden. Meat was fine - we love deer meat - but costly.)
   263. Rusty Priske Posted: June 21, 2018 at 08:55 AM (#5696805)
please elaborate on "charged for carrying a weapon."


Seems pretty simple... it should be illegal to carry around a gun.

There are places in the U.S. that embrace a barbaric, Old West mentality. It is backwards and awful.

Every time I see people countering the NRA hand-wringers by saying "we aren't trying to take away your guns", I think "you bloody well SHOULD be".

Get rid of them. If you aren't military or police, you shouldn't have a gun. (And even the police shouldn't ALWAYS be carrying a gun...)
   264. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 21, 2018 at 09:18 AM (#5696816)
Just remember post 263 when anti-gun-rights people claim, “Oh, that’s a strawman. All we care about is gun safety; nobody wants to take your guns. You’re just fearmongering.” Lots of leftists want us dependent on the government and do want to take everyone’s guns. .
   265. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: June 21, 2018 at 09:39 AM (#5696832)
Just remember post 263 when anti-gun-rights people claim, “Oh, that’s a strawman. All we care about is gun safety; nobody wants to take your guns. You’re just fearmongering.” Lots of leftists want us dependent on the government and do want to take everyone’s guns.


<Yawn>

You can scour the internet and find someone believing - edit: excuse me saying they believe - ANYTHING. Building you argument around some dude on the internet saying something is the laziest and most boring way possible to buttress your argument.
   266. McCoy Posted: June 21, 2018 at 10:03 AM (#5696851)
I'll make it easy. The only arms one should be allowed to have in America are bolt action rifles, single or double barrel shotguns, and 6 shot revolvers. With restrictions as to caliber and firepower of those weapons. Anything else needs to be ornamental and permanently non-functioning.
   267. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 21, 2018 at 10:12 AM (#5696855)

You can scour the internet and find someone believing - edit: excuse me saying they believe - ANYTHING.


Scour? It was the post immediately preceding David's.Seems pretty simple... it should be illegal to carry around a gun.

There are places in the U.S. that embrace a barbaric, Old West mentality. It is backwards and awful.

Every time I see people countering the NRA hand-wringers by saying "we aren't trying to take away your guns", I think "you bloody well SHOULD be".

Get rid of them. If you aren't military or police, you shouldn't have a gun. (And even the police shouldn't ALWAYS be carrying a gun...)


This is exactly why gun owners don't trust the left. Lots of people believe this.

Why anyone would want to give the Gov't a monopoly on force is beyond me. And, before anyone trots out the canard that a population has no chance of resisting a military that has modern weapons, please see Iraq and Afghanistan, and get a clue.

Especially given the left's paranoia about Trump's "Fascism" and ending elections, why on earth would you want to disarm the population? I'd think you'd want to increase the range of weapons civilians can own.
   268. McCoy Posted: June 21, 2018 at 10:53 AM (#5696886)
This is exactly why gun owners don't trust the left. Lots of people believe this.

This is exactly why slave owners don't trust the North. Lots of people believe this.


Why anyone would want to give the Gov't a monopoly on force is beyond me. And, before anyone trots out the canard that a population has no chance of resisting a military that has modern weapons, please see Iraq and Afghanistan, and get a clue.

We need to get a clue?
   269. Lassus Posted: June 21, 2018 at 11:05 AM (#5696894)
Just remember post 263 when anti-gun-rights people claim, “Oh, that’s a strawman. All we care about is gun safety; nobody wants to take your guns. You’re just fearmongering.” Lots of leftists want us dependent on the government and do want to take everyone’s guns.

The exception proves the rule! :-D
   270. Lassus Posted: June 21, 2018 at 11:07 AM (#5696896)
And, before anyone trots out the canard that a population has no chance of resisting a military that has modern weapons, please see Iraq and Afghanistan, and get a clue.

I don't think guns should be outlawed as per McCoy and Rusty. Am I allowed to say that this comparison is batshit?
   271. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 21, 2018 at 11:08 AM (#5696897)
We need to get a clue?

Yes. It has been shown time and time again that an armed population can render a country ungovernable and uncontrollable when facing a, technologically advanced military. Do you really think the U.S. military could impose a deeply unpopular regime on 320 million Americans with a few hundred thousand infantry? It's already been demonstrated that "precision" bombing and drones are useless in controlling a population.
   272. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 21, 2018 at 11:10 AM (#5696898)
I don't think guns should be outlawed as per McCoy and Rusty. Am I allowed to say that this comparison is batshit?

Sure. But why? If the U.S. military couldn't control 40 million Iraqis, or 40 million Afghanis, why do you think it could control 320 million Americans? I'm talking about a situation where 30-50% of the population is deeply opposed to the Gov't and willing to use and/or support the use of violence against the regime.
   273. SandyRiver Posted: June 21, 2018 at 11:18 AM (#5696900)
This is exactly why gun owners don't trust the left. Lots of people believe this.

This is exactly why slave owners don't trust the North. Lots of people believe this.

Am I allowed to say that THIS comparison is bat****?
   274. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: June 21, 2018 at 11:19 AM (#5696901)
Especially given the left's paranoia about Trump's "Fascism" and ending elections, why on earth would you want to disarm the population? I'd think you'd want to increase the range of weapons civilians can own.
Yeah, the gun huggers have sure been a voice of resistance against Trump. They're definitely going to be the first to rise up.
   275. Lassus Posted: June 21, 2018 at 11:27 AM (#5696906)
why do you think it could control 320 million Americans?

First of all, stop it with this figure. About 120 million of those are under 14 or over 65.


I'm talking about a situation where 30-50% of the population is deeply opposed to the Gov't and willing to use and/or support the use of violence against the regime.

You want to enable less than 1/3rd of the population to overthrow whatever government is in charge? Good luck in the new world.

   276. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 21, 2018 at 11:27 AM (#5696907)
Yeah, the gun huggers have sure been a voice of resistance against Trump. They're definitely going to be the first to rise up.

The "gun huggers" like what Trump is doing. It's the leftist who should become "gun huggers" if they're really afraid of Trump becoming an autocrat.

It makes the argument unpersuasive to say "Trump is a fascist and he's going to abolish elections and impose tyranny", and at the same time "we should seize everyone's gun so only the police and military have them. It makes one think that they are not sincere in point 1, and it's just political rhetoric.

Just like when environmentalist claims fossil fuels are going to lead to catastrophic global warming, but absolutely oppose nuclear power. If one really believe global warming was an existential threat, one would be gung ho for nuclear power.
   277. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 21, 2018 at 11:30 AM (#5696909)
First of all, stop it with this figure. About 120 million of those are under 14 or over 65.

And there are even more children, relative to total population, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You want to enable less than 1/3rd of the population to overthrow whatever government is in charge? Good luck in the new world.

No, I want an active 30% of the population to be able to overthrow a tyrannical gov't. In the American Revolution, only 1/3 of people were active patriots. 1/3 were loyalist, and 1/3 indifferent.

You'd need a Gov't so tyrannical that 30% of people are willing to risk their lives to overthrow it. That's a very high bar. The other 70% wouldn't be all active supporters.

If Trump decided to strip black and hispanic citizens of their right to vote and own property, and somehow the police and military went along, I want the citizenry to be able to violently overthrow his Gov't.
   278. McCoy Posted: June 21, 2018 at 11:45 AM (#5696918)
So what is going on in iraq and Afghanistan is happening with only small arms? Interesting. Again we need to get a clue?
   279. McCoy Posted: June 21, 2018 at 11:46 AM (#5696919)
Re opposing nuclear power. Why would you think someone would be for one global catastrophe to possibly stop another global catastrophe?
   280. McCoy Posted: June 21, 2018 at 11:49 AM (#5696923)
Re 1776. We really had no good cause to rebel from the crown. That you like your life 200 odd years later doesn't justify the means. And let us not forget the histories of all the other minority populations that decided the government was too inept or tyrannical for their taste. A lot cleansings happened because of a small number of people thinking they had a better way.
   281. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: June 21, 2018 at 11:49 AM (#5696924)
It makes the argument unpersuasive to say "Trump is a fascist and he's going to abolish elections and impose tyranny", and at the same time "we should seize everyone's gun so only the police and military have them. It makes one think that they are not sincere in point 1, and it's just political rhetoric.

Just like when environmentalist claims fossil fuels are going to lead to catastrophic global warming, but absolutely oppose nuclear power. If one really believe global warming was an existential threat, one would be gung ho for nuclear power.
Oh, for crying out loud, Snapper. At some level, you have to know that the above is ridiculous.

I don't fit either of the descriptions above, but just in terms of logic, it's entirely possible to say "Thing A is a major problem, but Proposed Solution B is a terrible idea because it would make things worse." Or that you oppose Proposed Solution B because Proposed Solution C would be more effective and/or have fewer negative externalities.

Trump is a problem. Civilians with machine guns is also a problem. Climate change is a problem. There are also potential problems with nuclear energy (note that I'm not taking a position on the cost/benefit because I don't know enough about it).
   282. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 21, 2018 at 11:53 AM (#5696929)
So what is going on in iraq and Afghanistan is happening with only small arms? Interesting. Again we need to get a clue?

Of course not. Do you really think explosives are hard to get or make in the U.S.? McVeigh blew up a Federal building with some fertilizer and diesel fuel. In the face of a real tyranny do you think there would be a complete lack of soldiers and National Guardsmen that would covertly help people steal arms?

But the Afghani resistance to the Soviets started with just small arms, mostly old bolt action Lee-Enfields. They used those to capture better arms from the Soviets. Likewise the IRA in 1919 started with a pitifully few small arms, and used them to take better weapons.
   283. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 21, 2018 at 11:55 AM (#5696932)
Re 1776. We really had no good cause to rebel from the crown. That you like your life 200 odd years later doesn't justify the means.

Nonsense. When the British closed the port of Boston, that was an act of war. Their attempt to seize the colonies arms was another act of war.

   284. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 21, 2018 at 11:56 AM (#5696937)
Oh, for crying out loud, Snapper. At some level, you have to know that the above is ridiculous.

I don't fit either of the descriptions above, but just in terms of logic, it's entirely possible to say "Thing A is a major problem, but Proposed Solution B is a terrible idea because it would make things worse." Trump is a problem. Civilians with machine guns is also a problem.


I'm not suggesting giving civilians machine guns, any more than they currently can get them. I just want no further restrictions on gun ownership.
   285. McCoy Posted: June 21, 2018 at 11:59 AM (#5696942)
Re 282. So then why do citizens need small arms? the Irish and afghNis got there arms from foreign aid. They didn't get stinger missiles by using bolt action rifles.
   286. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: June 21, 2018 at 12:00 PM (#5696943)
I'm not suggesting giving civilians machine guns, any more than they currently can get them. I just want no further restrictions on gun ownership.
Glad to know you at least don't favor issuing each citizen a machine gun. But is this a concession that your position in 276 doesn't hold any water?
   287. McCoy Posted: June 21, 2018 at 12:01 PM (#5696945)
Re 283. Yes there was no history before all that. And you can't have an act of war on your citizens.
   288. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: June 21, 2018 at 12:05 PM (#5696946)
And you can't have an act of war on your citizens.
Er....you sure you want to lay your stake down on that? You could get pedantic about the definition of "war," sure, but there would be a lot of folks in, say, Syria who would disagree rather emphatically.
   289. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 21, 2018 at 12:05 PM (#5696947)
Glad to know you at least don't favor issuing each citizen a machine gun. But is this a concession that your position in 276 doesn't hold any water?

No. I believe most leftist don't actually have real fears that Trump is a fascist or an authoritarian. They think it's a good political ploy to brand him that way, because they fear that conservative populism has a real chance of stalling the progressive agenda.

It's the same as when rightists call Obama a socialist. Nobody really believes that he wanted Gov't control of industry.

Likewise, I don't think most leftists believe there will be catastrophic climate change because of fossil fuel use. I think their stance is a combination of a quasi-religious belief that Westerners consume too much and carbon restrictions will curb that, and a desire to give the Gov't more control over the economy to effect more wealth-redistribution.
   290. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 21, 2018 at 12:08 PM (#5696952)
Re 282. So then why do citizens need small arms? the Irish and afghNis got there arms from foreign aid. They didn't get stinger missiles by using bolt action rifles.

They had to prove their ability to successfully resist before other countries would send them significant aid.

Re 283. Yes there was no history before all that. And you can't have an act of war on your citizens.

BS. What do you call it when the Nazis rounded up their citizens to send to camps, or the Soviets sent their citizens to the Gulag, or the U.S. expelled the Indians from their land? Are you saying those people didn't have the right to resist their Gov't with lethal force?
   291. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: June 21, 2018 at 12:10 PM (#5696958)
Likewise, I don't think most leftists believe there will be catastrophic climate change because of fossil fuel use. I think their stance is a combination of a "quasi-religious" belief that Westerners consume too much and carbon restrictions will curb that, and a desire to give the Gov't more control over the economy to effect more wealth-redistribution.
Wow. Nary a mention of the words "science" or "data" in here.

It's the same as when rightists call Obama a socialist. Nobody really believes that he wanted Gov't control of industry.
If they didn't believe it, it was only because they didn't know that that was the real definition of "socialist." Not all, but many people on the right were/are more than willing to genuinely believe absolutely anything bad about Obama, no matter how untethered from reality. Birthers. Muslim. Death panels. I could go on.

Anyway, I'm remembering the reasons I stopped looking at OTP, so I'll adjourn from this thread.
   292. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 21, 2018 at 12:10 PM (#5696960)
It's the same as when rightists call Obama a socialist. Nobody really believes that he wanted Gov't control of industry.
Of course he did. All Democrats do. He didn't want formal government ownership of industry, but certainly he wanted control. (TBF, so does Trump.)
   293. McCoy Posted: June 21, 2018 at 12:19 PM (#5696970)
It's a time for pedantry. Doing something you don't like is not an act of war for a government on it's citizenry. What's next? A sales tax is an act of war?

If you want to argue that a government no longer acts in the best interest of its citizens have it. Just don't call it war.
   294. Lassus Posted: June 21, 2018 at 12:24 PM (#5696973)
Nonsense. When the British closed the port of Boston, that was an act of war. Their attempt to seize the colonies arms was another act of war.

You know who would have fired the first shot? No, not Han. Jesus. The first shot was Jesus Christ's, all the way.
   295. McCoy Posted: June 21, 2018 at 12:25 PM (#5696975)
Re 290. But as you say if 30% of the population is fighting the government there will be no shortage or real useful weapons at their disposal.
   296. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 21, 2018 at 12:25 PM (#5696978)
Doing something you don't like is not an act of war for a government you it's citizenry.

No. But taking away their natural rights, without due process of law, is.
   297. Lassus Posted: June 21, 2018 at 12:28 PM (#5696979)
Likewise, I don't think most leftists believe there will be catastrophic climate change because of fossil fuel use.

Nihilism for me and for thee; the latter must be true because of the former. I mean, what, caring? Nah.
   298. flournoy Posted: June 21, 2018 at 12:37 PM (#5696984)
So then why do citizens need small arms?


Well, why do citizens need trucks? Or computers? Or Frisbees? It is neither the citizenry's nor government's role to determine who "needs" what, and to deny citizens their constitutional rights on the basis of those determinations.
   299. Lassus Posted: June 21, 2018 at 12:45 PM (#5696989)
Well, why do citizens need trucks?
To drive places, like, work.
Or computers?
Because the modern world is incredibly difficult without one.
Or Frisbees?
To play catch with, annoy adults.
It is neither the citizenry's nor government's role to determine who "needs" what, and to deny citizens their constitutional rights on the basis of those determinations.
I'm not at all in favor of banning guns.

I am in favor of not comparing the use of a Frisbee with the use of an item specifically designed to fire a high-speed projectile at lethal speeds into living flesh.
   300. McCoy Posted: June 21, 2018 at 02:48 PM (#5697105)

No. But taking away their natural rights, without due process of law, is.


Where in the constitution does it say that?
Page 3 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
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogIndians deal for ace reliever Brad Hand
(31 - 10:47am, Jul 20)
Last: spycake

NewsblogOTP 2018 July 16: Why Does President Trump Balk At Attending Baseball Games?
(1120 - 10:47am, Jul 20)
Last: Zonk prescribes Rezine for TDS

Sox TherapyHalfwayish Home
(11 - 10:41am, Jul 20)
Last: jmurph

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Summer Potpourri (finals, draft, free agency, Colangelo dragging)
(3479 - 10:39am, Jul 20)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (World Cup)
(3251 - 10:27am, Jul 20)
Last: ckash

NewsblogBBTF ANNUAL CENTRAL PARK SOFTBALL GAME 2018
(163 - 9:58am, Jul 20)
Last: catomi01

Gonfalon CubsLooking Forward
(41 - 9:11am, Jul 20)
Last: Andere Richtingen

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-19-2018
(36 - 5:42am, Jul 20)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-18-2018
(25 - 12:35am, Jul 20)
Last: stevegamer

NewsblogIs one game really worth an OMNCHATTER! for July 19, 2018
(110 - 11:41pm, Jul 19)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT Gaming: October 2015
(802 - 11:39pm, Jul 19)
Last: PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina

Newsblog10 Years Ago, Two Trades Broke The Mold For MLB Deadline Deals
(18 - 10:33pm, Jul 19)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogRob Manfred: Mike Trout limits his popularity because he won't market himself
(94 - 8:21pm, Jul 19)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogManny Machado blockbuster makes Dodgers the NL's team to beat
(16 - 8:11pm, Jul 19)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogIs Chase Utley a Hall of Famer?
(71 - 2:17pm, Jul 19)
Last: this is normal 57i66135. move on, find a new slant

Page rendered in 0.6397 seconds
46 querie(s) executed