2. I'm fairly certain there was drug dealing going on in at least one of those crowds harassing the cops. If not, it would be out of character for these groups.
3. Well, you said crime on private property is no one's business but the owner...that's Bullshit, which you admit now.
Shooting a gun violates public discharge laws, sends a projectile on a random arch to impact somewhere, and creates noise violations (especially in the middle of the night like these)...or can I come to your neighbors property and start my shooting range.
4. My point exactly
5. Use of taxpayer services while shirking your duty to pay taxes is theft and treasonous.
6. once gain, business regulation didn't cause the crime problem.
7. Are you suggesting giving the public property to private industries for them to 'take over' the entire city? First, can't happen. Second, shouldn't happen. Living in Disney is terrible, oppressive, expensive, and draconian. I don't see a difference between paying taxes for services and paying 'homeowner fees' for services, except homeowner fees are usually far more expensive for fewer services and more regulation. Not the direction I think most want to go, or a place where most Oaklandites could afford.
So, you aren't anti regulation, only if a Kenyan is doing it to you? That's just dumb.
8. Yes, but those reasons are not capped and/or solely created by having a democrat in power, as you and others suggest.
Most property owners in Oakland are absentee landlords that don't inspect their property regularly, because private ownership does NOT mean better management.
I get mob justice because you keep pushing for it, it's what the Mexicans did that you keep referencing, and it's what you get with a private, unregulated, armed 'group'.
9. Send me the URL to a company that gives actual security for $35 a month that isn't simply a guy you call on the phone who then calls the police. Never heard of any such thing, and if it exists, you are paying your on-post 24/7 security guard $1 a day, I don't think they'll care so much when you get knifed in the throat for that money.

So, you don't drive, you don't US dollars, food products, electricity, mail, internet, phones, water, sewers, public property, items that are imported, items that traveled inter-state, television, or any other service provided by the feds? Impressive. So many of your fellow Americans do that it makes semse for everyone to pay for part of these things so they are available to EVERYONE. Private institutions taking over make all of these for profit, removing their usage from many if not most people.
Yes, really, many people in the bay are having trouble paying their bills and feeding themselves, it's insanely expensive there.
I don't pay much in taxes, only my fair share. That's not enough to support one indigent. If you pay enough to support Oakland by yourself, you are either Bill Gates or a liar.
Most law abiding citizens have no inclination to grab their gun and go on the streets to patrol.
This didn't seem like you ignored me, neither did the 2 other posts that followed.
Sorry, mixed up the insanity.
You always have terrible governing from any governing body, from some point of view. It's a fallacy to conclude otherwise.
If you got your 'lack of governing' you would quickly get foreign governing.
So, there is no utopian free market, just the real, regulated one you're complaining about.
I don't think most libertarians agree with you that libertarian government is anarchy. I don't.
Well, I'm confused. You've spent a bunch of time and effort trying to convince me of your points, but you claim you know it's futile to even try...so what are you doing then?
To me, good government means doing the minimum it can to do what the populace wants, with safeguards to keep one group from taking unfair advantage of another. Better safeguards could make better politicians (yes, that's regulation, of politicians).
I know very little of 'praxology' that I didn't read in Foundation. Not in my science publications that I read regularly.
The tea party took over the libertarian party, and the republican party.
I do, I vote, and I pay my taxes. I don't have these problems, or over-regulation problems where I live. WOW! It worked!

And I paid for my excessive education, I only did 2 years in public school which was daycare. You don't seem to have any information I'm looking for.
If you think a mob of only your friends and family should roam the streets armed to 'protect your interests' then you support gangs. That's exactly what they are. To get enough to regulate activities in a place like Oakland would take a HUGE mob, far more than you have friends and family I'm certain.
I might hope you DO need the police to help you (with something minor, but enough to create your 'need'), then you might realize they are not all your enemy or useless and not far worse than anarchy. It's sad to think that it would take a personal need for you to realize that, but apparently it would.
The police are not a 'foreign' army, like the red coats.

Your video, Police Harass Homeowner Over Washing Car in Driveway, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Do people realize the whole "if a good guy owns a gun" goes both ways? I love this argument because it's so one sided and utterly blind. I'd like to call it the "dumbass argument".

Let's think for a moment: kids looking for friend suddenly have a man open fire on them, so they all pull out their firearms to protect themselves from the raving lunatic old man who opened fire on them first. Old man is dead, riddled with dozens of bullets. Good guys win. Oh . . . wait. That's not what happened. The good guys didn't have a gun. Or was the old man a good guy? I'm confused now. Who's the good guy?

We had something similar here in Florida where a man was going door to door to sell lobster. Homeowner shot him in the head as he walked away, kept shooting him, and went to reload while an officer was trying to arrest him.

The real issue is the fact this man, and the man in my example, simply thought owning a gun meant they could shoot and kill someone for almost a pathetic reason. Both were "defending my home" against the evils of lobsters and ice skating. I believe this is the movie line of "shoot first, ask questions later." This is what is referring to as the "gun culture."

Yeah, guns (unless it's a colt) don't kill people, people with guns kill people. But there's an old mentality (that's pretty much dead now) that using a gun was cheating. That using a gun wasn't personal, so they resorted to swords and fists. Now, it's so easy to kill a person that it's almost impersonal just to shoot at some brown kid who's "invading" your home by showing up in a car, knocking on the door politely, and asking "Dónde está Paul?"

So anyway, now that we're arguing on the internet . . . .

Caught and fired, but only after the homeowner put the video on YouTube.

http://www.khou.com/news/crime/UPS-employee-caught-red-handed-stealing-Christmas-gift-184373811.html

There is a nice part of Yes, Prime Minister regarding nuclear deterrent that outlines my position quite nicely. http://youtu.be/IX_d_vMKswE

See, your government isn't going to sell you to slavery overnight. More likely they'll strip your rights away bit by bit. How do you protect yourself against that with a firearm. At what point do you organise a militia to overthrow the tyrants, and tbh...why hasnt it happened yet? I didn't see many gun owners defending themselves from say, the patriot act or demanding that money be out of politics while waving a 9mm around.I like the spirit of the 2nd ammendment, I think europeans are perhaps too complacent, I just don't think its really practical. Its a law from another era.

As for school shootings etc. Well, correlation doesn't equal causation. Other countries might have less firefarms and less shootings, but we also don't lock up 1/7 of black men. Some shootings you can definitely see that gun control would probably have prevented it, but you can see that if somebody really wants to kill, and spends time planning it then they're probably going to find a gun somehow.

I do think that guns raise the stakes on a lot of non-violent crimes that can turn fatal though. Neither the homeowner or the burgler want to kill the other, but both fear that the other might pull the trigger first. Its a sort of prisoners dilemna where really the only winning option is to shoot first and ask questions later. Maybe with less guns swimming around you'd get less twitchy fucks shooting black kids carryin nothing more than a bag of skittles. I don't think it does anything as a way of deterrent either, desperate people do tend to somewhat ignore all risk.

Homeowners or renters insurance. They can't recover the boxes, it is a loss to their company. The real problem here is (apparently based on his comments) Geico. They should be covering the cost of the cable boxes and paying him for the cost he was charged. Verizon is not the only company to do this, every major media provider will require you to cover the cost of damaged equipment, which seems fair to me, as they didn't damage it. If you borrow a friends Xbox and the fire burned it up, you would be fighting for his xbox to be covered or buying him a new one, you wouldn't be telling him "sorry dude, your loss." Was Your responsibility.

>> ^Sagemind:

The pedestrian didn't even turn his head in the direction of the oncoming traffic.
Typical of what I hate about pedestrian law in Canada (and the US?) In 99% of cases the pedestrian has the right of way. If the car had hit him or other traffic. The driver would have been at fault.
This is mostly because the pedestrian would be long gone or because pedestrians don't have insurance so there is no one to sue for damages.


I think it's more likely because the driver is in a big, heavy vehicle that moves really fast. In most cases, the presumption is going to be that the driver owes a duty to take care not to injure anyone due to the potential danger of operating a motor vehicle, and has more ability to avoid incidents due to the speed of the vehicle. After all, you have to get a license to drive. You don't have to get one to walk. Unless you have a dashcam or other documentation to prove that liability is on the pedestrian, or unless the pedestrian admits fault, these other factors are probably going to carry the day.

Many, if not most, pedestrians do have liability insurance that might apply in the case of being found at fault for this kind of thing--homeowner's or renter's insurance. Most policies come with liability coverage that applies whether you're on the property or not--it's mainly used for things like dog bites, people injuring themselves on your property, etc., but depending on the policy it might apply to this sort of incident.

Also, if the pedestrian has insurance on their own automobile, in most states one can get medical coverage or personal injury protection coverage that applies regardless of whether you are in your vehicle or not--it just has to be a car accident of some kind.

That homeowner's association in Stapleton, Colo. needs to be banned because they are "offensive and distracting" from real problems in the world.

Someone needs to talk to their Homeowner's association or the county, cuz damn, Nature, you dangerous.

"this is gonna be a two day affair"

I hope he didn't give that part of the video to the homeowner

>> ^MichaelL:

Gulf War vet with two black belts?
Hmmm...
Tactically, you don't keep your hands down by your waist when an agitated aggressor is nose to nose with you. Had the thug swung first he would have tagged the homeowner. Within a couple of feet of each other, the first person to swing will catch the other -- it's not possible to see the attack and react within the fraction of a second you have to defend yourself.


Nah he's fine.

Gulf War vet with two black belts?
Hmmm...
Tactically, you don't keep your hands down by your waist when an agitated aggressor is nose to nose with you. Had the thug swung first he would have tagged the homeowner. Within a couple of feet of each other, the first person to swing will catch the other -- it's not possible to see the attack and react within the fraction of a second you have to defend yourself.

Do new atheists have to pretend this kind of awkward parody preached only to the converted is actually funny the way that fundamentalists have to pretend Christian stand-up is?

Starting with with

(Christian theology) ⇒ (humans:God as pedestrian:random homeowner)

In states with Castle Doctrine laws, you don't have to prove that someone is breaking into your house with harmful intent. The law assumes that the unauthorized entry implies felonious intent and authorizes the use of deadly force to protect yourself.

In other words, you don't have to wait around to be sure that the intruder is going to harm you, you can assume it from the act of illegal entry. This removes the troublesome and ill-defined burden of people in their own homes having to wait to get into a deadly situation where they find themselves at a disadvantage before they can defend themselves, and is, IMO a good law.

The thing that gun control advocates fail to acknowledge is that the guy breaking in was also aware of the law, i.e., that if you break into someone's home it's fair for the homeowner to assume that you're there to inflict personal injury and you can be killed with no criminal or civil repercussions on the shooter. He had the same information that she did regarding the law, yet she didn't choose whether or not to start the situation, he did.

Armed with that knowledge, he still chose to break into a woman's house carrying a weapon. There is simply nobody to blame in this situation other than the intruder. The man broke into her house intending to use violence in a calculated way to get whatever he wanted. He was met with someone who also was prepared to use violence, and he lost.

If she would have scared him off with a warning shot or something similar, he would have likely come back after her at some other place and time, when she was at a disadvantage. As unsavory as it is to take a life, the guy had it coming to him. The fact that she waited in her hall to shoot him when he came through the door is of no consequence, as it would have come to violence sooner or later. At least she was able to take advantage of her situation.

>> ^kceaton1:

Here is another video with the Mythbusters showing up to apologize for what happened.
Mythbusters Apologize
Personally, I don't blame the Mythbusters at all. I think the ultimate responsibility MUST land in the hands of the bomb range or the firing range. If the range officials told the Mythbusters that the setup was OK and would not jeopardize anyone then there isn't much more to be put at the Mythbusters feet. The Mythbusters ultimately setup the final details like the angle of fire, but the officials should have the ultimate say if it's OK or not (they should have limitations as well, such as speed and angle of fire). In every episode I've seen, that has been the way it has seemingly went (they look off camera for an OK and then typical start their countdown or fire).
This looked to be a situation where they had a device that could do terrible things as it almost did, yet simply firing in a non-populated direction (if there was one) would have been better. Maybe the "hill" they fired at seemingly gave the perception all these years that an object at speed simply could not climb it or "skip" it. In the end it will spell out extra measures that must take place at that range, or to altogether disallow any such events in the future at that location.


Wow, lucky them to see the hosts to apologize.