Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Kristin, Feb 24, 2008.
What and who are you referring to?
Kerry, my thoughts exactly. LE cannot protect us from river side car prowls. Somebody's gonna' get caught, shot, and buried in a loose gravel bar to be carried away at the next high water. If it's a tweaker, no problem as no one will miss them. But if it's some stupid high school kid whose parents are convinced their kid would do no wrong, . . . well that could be troublesome, even if the kid deserves it.
All right, I think we have all had enough criticism of people, and such. Lets just continue to talk about fly fishing, not who has a closed mind or what kind of people exist in communities.
You're right Sg. Somebody's gonna get hurt someday and I hope it isn't the stupid high school kid that had a few beers that day and was screwing around or the over zealous vehicle owner getting in over his head protecting a few bucks worth of stuff.
I worry every time I put the boat in if some ahole is going to bust up my rig. I also wonder what I would do if I caught somebody in the act. Being several years past 50 and mostly a desk jockey now days, I am not to sure how well I would fare in a one on one with a wacked out tweaker let alone a scared shitless teenager.
Salmo_g, I expect better from you.
The constitution was written to protect all of us. As you well know, a person who shoots and buries someone in a loose gravel bar is entitled to, and deserves, far harsher punishment than someone who breaks into your rig or mine. It's also fair to point out that, even if it some "tweaker," the LAW is not going to say they don't have time for the investigation and it is a whole lot more likely that the person meting out vigilante justice will be caught than will the person doing the breaking and entering. Furthermore, those 'tweakers' are often only a few months or years away from being someone's good kid who got mixed up with the wrong crowd and are likely to have parents or other family who are concerned about them. I suspect there are more than a few on this forum who would be there, but for the grace of God (or whoever happens to control their fate), or a friend, family member, etc. who reached out at a time of need.
The discussion of vigilante justice on this forum is frightening. I suspect that for some of the folks who write about it, it's all in good fun, but as we occasionally are reminded, there are a substantial number of rather impressionable people (of all ages) on this forum who may take your comments seriously.
I was up on the Sauk late the day of the break-ins. Note the use of the plural. There were 5 rigs broken into in 1 day that I know of. Glass all over the ground at the boat launches and take outs. A day or two later I noticed one guy had just opted to leave a window down in his truck, which hopefully sends a clear message that NOTHING of value has been left behind. I rely on the fact that I haven't washed my van more than a few times in 7 years and leave empty coffee cups and other crap strewn all over the interior. Sadly, I took a step further and parked where I can see my van while I fish. Pretty limiting, but being anxious sucks too.
Sorry, it was partly in jest, but equally serious.
It's my take that society is on a trajectory of being more dangerous, not less. LE can't provide sufficient protection now. That condition will be exacerbated. As our population increases, and lives and works in denser conditions, and becomes more diverse, the rate of personal assault and personal property crime will increase. I'm not a student of social theory, but I think what I've written is consistent with it. To improve personal security people will increasingly take a more personal role in it. We see this already with more gated communities, home and business security systems, car alarms, women purchasing hand guns and taking lessons at shooting ranges, . . . the list goes on.
If someone breaks into my house, the law allows me to fear for my life and shoot the intruder. While not an accurate extension of logic by law, if I'm returning to my car along the river and encounter a prowler who has broken into it, I might also reasonably fear for my life. I don't know if the prowler is armed or not or what his intentions are, the same as for the house intruder. With or without legal advice, my primary concern under either circumstance is my personal safety. I'd far rather the prowler be killed than me.
The rules of personal accountability require drug users and ner’-do-wells to bear the consequences of their actions, concerned parents, family, and friends notwithstanding. It’s unreasonable to expect me to “own” the drug user’s problem.
Referring to Constitutional protections, I believe the perp retains those up to the point where I perceive him as a direct threat to me. He has the right to a speedy trial, but the services of a jury of his peers and endless appeals won't be necessary due to his untimely death, occasioned by the poor choice he made. I know I sound like such a redneck re-reading this, but some times it really is that simple. If the SOB doesn't want to be shot, he ought to leave other people, their homes, their cars and property alone. In the process of trying to defend one’s property, one can find themselves in a situation of self defense. That is not vigilante justice.
There you have some background as to why I think it's just a matter of time before some tweaker gets shot. Since tweakers are considered potentially violent, does he deserve it? Unfortunately some bleeding heart jury will most likely decide.
Break ins up there aren't a common occurence. The fact that a few got hit in one day probably means we'll see it again before the river closes down. I hate the idea of "driving a junker" to dissuade thieves from ripping us off. Keep an eye out for vehicles that just look out of place and call the police if things look too suspicious. If there has been a series of these break-ins that have been reported they'll jump at the opportunity to patrol real time. They will respond. Not much they can do after the fact but if they get a call or two I would suspect they'd go check things out.
Salmo, if you were truly acting in self-defense, why would it be necessary to "[bury the perp] in a loose gravel bar to be carried away at the next high water"? That sounds like something a murderer would do. If one acts in justified self-defense, there is nothing to hide. That said, the doctrine of self-defense means the degree of force you use is justified only to the extent it is proportionate to the perceived threat. Anyone who shoots a tweaker (or punk ass kid) merely because he's caught smashing a car window and ripping off a car stereo or whatever will probably end up doing time, even in conservative Skagit County, unless the perp was armed and displayed his weapon or a jury can otherwise be convinced that he represented an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the shooter or a companion (and by the way, if you shoot him in the back as he's running off with your favorite Hardy Perfect reel, you got no chance). You'll be in for a rude awakening in court if you presume a prosecutor, judge and jury are going to believe any old car prowl put you in reasonable fear of your life.
S_g - I agree with much of what you've said about the social/demographic basis for increased insecurity in our society and the inability of LE to handle it. However, I disagree that it is a bleeding heart jury that will 'unfortunately' decide this, but rather an ambitious, conservative, law&order-type DA who will be pushing for the stiffest penalty he can get for the person wielding the lethal weapon. Regardless of whether the victim 'deserved it' in the mind of the assailant or whether he felt threatened. Someone with a rock and a screwdriver trying to steal a stereo isn't going to come across as a threat to one's life.
What worries me, however, is the impressionable person who has bought a gun, because he's read so many posts about the 'tweakers' in our back country settings and then uses it on someone for breaking out a window on their rig in a parking lot.
Ladies and gentlemen,
In my daily job I come into contact with tweekers or metheads rather often. My experience is that while they will steal nearly anything that isn't nailed down and some things that are, they are rarely violent. They are generally sheepish and scared. Of course they also tend to be unpredictable. I have had to knock on the doors to their old camp trailers after fining them hundreds of dollars. They usually treat me much better than non tweekers in the same situation. I fear no tweeker. Their dogs however...
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you in your reply to Salmo_G.
If family members, friends, or parents were concerned about the tweekers, they sure as heck wouldn't be out using and breaking and entering in the first place. They would have been brought up to respect themselves, as well as respecting other folks property.
It's usually those that haven't had much of an upbringing that are the troublesome bas$%&*ds that we need to put away, however it's done.
I strongly feel this way because I know how it feels to be violated by these useless pieces of crap, when some of them stole my pickup parked at the Ben Howard boat launch. This happened in mid day, and I lost a couple grand worth of electronics. Now one shouldn't have to use some old pile of junk to get where he want's to go.
Yeah, right, their family really cares what they are doing.
I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would be defending anyone for just breaking into your personal vehicle and steeling the contents. Must be personal reasons perhaps. [tongue in cheek]
You guys obviously misunderstood me....
I don't drive a junker to deter breakins...
I drive a junker because that is what I can afford.
The whole not getting broken into thing is just about the ONLY positive side effect.
We have little to disagree about it seems. A more thoughtful reply would have included the bleeding heart jury AND an ambitious prosecutor as the decision makers and law & order model respectively. If society does in fact become more dangerous (both statistically and emotionally in the electorate), then I expect changes in state laws granting more leniency to property owners and less to criminals. I say that because I suspect that in this type of societal trajectory, human life will cheapen, and the lives of perps will be at the bottom of the heap.
Your worry is well founded because impressions (or personal perceptions of danger) are exactly what fuels the acquisition of more personal protection weapons by citizens. It would be legally and ethically wrong to advocate murder of course. However, it would be irresponsible not to inform others that they cannot depend on LE to protect them, and that they need to be able to protect and defend themselves and their property. Truthfully I don't want to hurt anyone, let alone kill them. That's one side of me. The other side of me has a deep and abiding respect for personal accountability. When one makes poor choices, they ought to expect adverse consequences - "stupidity should hurt" is the slogan.
The number one reason some people commit property crimes is because they see that it pays to do so. They may be motivated by personal or social forces (drug addiction, poverty, no apparent future), but they choose property crime because the benefits outweigh the risks. That will never change unless and until the risks outweigh the benefits. This is totally objective and inhumane, but if and when enough property criminals are shot and or killed, then the motivational value to make different choices will shift, and property crime will decrease. The liberal side of me says that we ought to treat the root causes of such crime, and that is true. But any objective analysis will conclude that the root causes can only be reduced and never eliminated. So the most effective strategy for society is to treat both the causes and the symptom (property crime).
This is a good thread in the way it's forcing me to think. Although presently illegal, and ethical for some and unethical for others, I strongly doubt that property crimes like car prowls along the rivers we fish, will decrease unless the risk becomes too great and tweakers fear for their lives. They will only experience that fear when they know they have a reasonable likelihood of being killed.
That was part of the "in jest." Confronting a car prowl perp may or may not be a life threatening situation. And since the law and justice system place a higher value on the tweaker's life than it does on the victim's property, and self defense can be difficult to prove, the rationale exists for disposing of the evidence. (Isn't it ironic that one may have to prove self defense when all he wanted to do was have a nice day outdoors and go fishing?)
salmo_g, if you get yourself into the situation of confronting a "tweaker" i hope you just walk away. after all your talk in this thread, it's gonna be incredibly difficult to argue self defense. if you don't think internet messageboards get back to the police you should rethink things.
i visit another messageboard where a kid was turned in for smashing someones head in with a barstool. someone on the board sent the thread to the police!
i don't live vicariously through the internet. i'd urge you if that you're serious about killing someone then don't go talking about it on the internet. if that's not really "you", then also stop posting and wasting everyones time by getting everyone agitated.
Salmo...iagree with everything you've said 100%. Richard, no disrespect intended, but people have been beaten to death with rocks and stabbed with screw drivers!!
I think what you are missing here is Salmo is not suggesting he is going to aerate the next tweaker he sees breaking into someone's car as much as he is suggesting it is going to happen someday by someone. Depending on who does who in could determine if the law is called or if some evidence tampering such as disposing of the body(ies) is done. There is a certain mentality amongst some longer term residents of the up river community that prefer to take care of matters on their terms and not involve the law.
Some day some one is going to get hurt or worse breaking into vehicles. The only questions seem to be who the injured may be, the vehicle owner or the tweaker/thief and how serious the injuries are.
As I stated in an earlier post I am not sure how I would react to someone breaking into my rig if I caught them in the act but I am smart enough to know my chances of taking someone down in a one on one physical match up are not good. Being closer to sixty then fifty and in semi-bad shape I would likely get my ass kicked. Which brings up questions about alternatives for self preservation. Since I am not going to stand there and watch somebody trash my truck and I am not going to let someone kick my ass then what are my choices? I hope for all concerned that the tweaker runs.
Thanks for the advice Chris. As Kerry posted, I'm not advocating anything. I'm predicting what I think is likely to happen.
This is a very interesting thread, I am a recovering tweaker/junkie
7 years ago I weighed 100 pounds less than I do now, I was homeless and a very unproductive part of society, I came from a middle class family who cared very much about what I had become. However thay also knew that there was really nothing they could do for me, untill I figured it out for myself, I had to want to stop, I had to hit a bottom,
which I did on 9-11-01, I have not had a drink or a drug since.
The point I am trying to make is that not all tweakers and junkies are worthless piles of shit, I am also not trying to get anyone to feel sorry for them, they need to be held accountable for their actions(I was)
I know I did things that I wish I did'nt do when I was using(I never broke into cars or houses, I was too scrared) I have made ammends
and today I live a much better life. I read all the threads about break ins and how everyone starts wanting to arm themselves and blow away
tweakers and I can understand the anger and frustration, but the planning on how to kill someone and hide the body sounds completely ignorant.
Take my post and my story for what is , if you think differently or less of me now, thats ok. Today I try to be good person, good father and husband.....and I try to get out and fish as much as possible
So, yes violence in any case is not wanted, or good. But I would have a hard time walking away from someone in the act of my car being vandalized etc. No, I wouldn't try to kill them, but I would try to do something. Let's be realistic, they are probably not going to get caught, and nothing would most likely be done, and the only outcome would be a window replacement bill on your part.