Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

2010-03-22 Thread Mike Dixon
Wow, Rick, that's pretty radical of you. You would actually consider shooting 
someone who only wanted a few of your *things* to sell and feed his poor 
starving family? What's up with that?  Must be one of those Hindu thangs. You 
did say, if I were her. I guess you meant,if you were in her body. But 
shooting an intruder in the leg is really stupid. What if they pulled out a gun 
and shot you back or hobbled over to you and cut your throat? My third rule, if 
you're going to pull a gun on somebody, be prepared to use it, with deadly 
force,or they might take it away from you and use it on you. But then if your 
horoscope doesn't show you going through a death cycle at that time, you might 
consider a shot in the legif you're really that mean.





From: Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, March 21, 2010 8:38:25 AM
Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

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



  

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

2010-03-21 Thread Rick Archer
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 7:08 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times
 
  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote:
 That's the way gangs work. They mete out justice swiftly and finally
 without messing with all that legal stuff. You, apparently, would like the
 whole society to function that way.
Rick, I believe gangs typically interact with other gangs.  When they
encroach on traditional law abiding citizens they generally run into a lot
of organized resistance from police or other organized groups.
Take a look at what is happening in Mexico.  There you have the gangs
encroaching into non gang,  traditional life.  The response from the
authorities is rising up to deal with the crisis.  When the gangs were just
killing each other, the concern wasn't so great.  There are many other
examples.  Look at how the west was won.  Why did not outlaw gangs take
over?  Because most citizens are law abiding, have strong sense of right and
wrong, and know what constitutes justice.  And they are willing to enforce
that by consensus, and often that mens force.  Isn't that what kept law and
order during this period.
I think it is a little lame to suggest that I am advocating gang  type
revenge justice.  I am just saying that you tread on me in such a way as to
deprive me of my rights, be prepared for forceful action.  
Certainly there are many times when I would like to harm someone for
treating me in what I feel to be an unfair manner.  And I recognize that I
must pursue it in a civil (court) manner.  
I have a customer right now who owes my (our) company $600.00, and he won't
discuss it, and I would like to do something radical to show my anger and
frustration.  But I recognize that I may just have to go after him in small
court. 
What do you think.
You're points are well-taken. I suppose we have laws to offer a civil
alternative to venting our anger in ways our baser instincts might dictate.
I once knew a woman in the Indian Village area of downtown Detroit, a
wealthy neighborhood directly abutting a poor neighborhood. She said that
more than once, she'd wake up in the middle of the night to find a thief
rummaging through her belongings in her bedroom. She got a dog, but the guy
make friends with the dog when she was walking it in the park, so the next
time he broke in, the dog didn't react. It's hard for me to imagine shooting
anyone, but if I were her, I'd be tempted to have a gun under my pillow and
shoot the guy. Maybe I'd aim for the legs. That should send a pretty clear
message.


Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

2010-03-20 Thread WLeed3
Just do NOT take a woman's purse when there, of course U had no such  
intension in any way to do so, HA! HA! HO! NO it is NOT such a resonance to  Ur 
travel plans,but to let U know how free U may be in Texas
 
 
In a message dated 3/20/2010 9:05:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
no_re...@yahoogroups.com writes:

--- In  FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wle...@... wrote:

 When Asked By  The Arraignment Judge,
 Why Did You Shoot The  Man 6  Times?
 ~
 The Woman Replied Under  Oath,

  Because, When I Pulled The  Trigger The 7th Time, It Only 
 Went  Click..

The day before I have to go there, I'm kinda 
hoping this  is not a belated response to my 
request for fun things to do in  Houston.

:-)






To  subscribe, send a message  to:
fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com

Or go to:  
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This  Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links






Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

2010-03-20 Thread Mike Dixon
Barry, it wasn't meant to make you feel *all warm and fuzzy*. That would have 
taken the perp walking up and shoving money *into* the waitress's purse, IMHO. 
That waitress deserves an award of some kind for saving society the cost of 
prosecution and incarceration of the perpetrator as well as the cost of further 
crimes and lives. I would like to do what I could to lift her spirits up and 
let her know she has my support in an effort to ease her conscience. Human 
Beings aren't an endangered species. I have no problem *culling* society of 
those that live on the edge, endangering the rest of us for their lack of 
intelligence or compassion. Maharishi once said, at the first symposium on CI, 
if your neighbor won't be quiet out of love and respect, let him be quiet out 
of fear. I would ad, and if your neighbor won't be quiet out of love, respect 
OR fear, send them on *vacation* to come back at a better time when society 
wants to deal with them.





From: TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, March 20, 2010 6:58:55 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

  
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ ... wrote:

 Now you see, here is the lesson, she should have had an 
 automatic pistol. She could have walked up to the guy, 
 shot six times, and put him out of our misery with a 
 seventh, eighth and ninth to the head! Lesson two, 
 never let the perpetrator live to testify against you.

Mike, I have to say, if this is a long-term TM
meditator's way to make us feel all warm and
fuzzy about the coming ideal society and
Age of Sat Yuga Maharishi promised, it
didn't exactly work.






  

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

2010-03-20 Thread Rick Archer
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Mike Dixon
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:48 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times
 
  
Barry, it wasn't meant to make you feel *all warm and fuzzy*. That would have 
taken the perp walking up and shoving money *into* the waitress's purse, IMHO. 
That waitress deserves an award of some kind for saving society the cost of 
prosecution and incarceration of the perpetrator as well as the cost of further 
crimes and lives. I would like to do what I could to lift her spirits up and 
let her know she has my support in an effort to ease her conscience. 
 
Hermandan0 saved you the trouble by providing a link demonstrating that the 
woman doesn't exist.
 
Human Beings aren't an endangered species. I have no problem *culling* society 
of those that live on the edge, endangering the rest of us for their lack of 
intelligence or compassion. 
 
So you get to decide who gets culled? I have a problem with that. Do you think 
everyone should carry guns around and just cull anyone they think needs 
culling? .
  
http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=3920196/grpspId=1705077076/msgId=244061/stime=1269096516/nc1=3848641/nc2=5522123/nc3=5191952
 



Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

2010-03-20 Thread Sal Sunshine
On Mar 20, 2010, at 1:13 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
 What am I missing here? Let's assume the story is true.  (i think someone 
 posted something to say it wasn't, but let's say it's true)  You've go 99% of 
 the people in the world applauding this women, who doesn't want someone to 
 her steal her hard earned money, and is willing to risk her life to that end, 
 and then you've got an unlikely alliance of Barry, Judy, and Rick twisting 
 this around to make Dixon appear as though he is advocating arbitrary 
 culling of those he deems undesireable.  Yes, this guy IS undesireable, and 
 the risk he takes when he violates someone else's rights is that he can also 
 lose his own life, or get harmed.  And aren't we all better for it?  Hell 
 yea, we are.  
 
 And while I'm at it, although I'm not the type to be overly patriotic, it 
 warms my heart when I hear about another tailiban target taken out by 
 unmanned drones.  Of course, sometimes innocent civilians are mistakedly 
 targeted, and killed, and that bothers me.  But during these times, and 
 circumstances you've got to meet force with force, or force with greatr 
 force, and that helps keep the world safe.  

You happy with the safe world we've created 
over in Afghanistan, lurk?  How about Iraq?

Sal



RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

2010-03-20 Thread Rick Archer
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 1:13 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times
 
  
What am I missing here? Let's assume the story is true. (i think someone
posted something to say it wasn't, but let's say it's true) You've go 99% of
the people in the world applauding this women, who doesn't want someone to
her steal her hard earned money, and is willing to risk her life to that
end, and then you've got an unlikely alliance of Barry, Judy, and Rick
twisting this around to make Dixon appear as though he is advocating
arbitrary culling of those he deems undesireable. 
His words: I have no problem *culling* society of those that live on the
edge, endangering the rest of us for their lack of intelligence or
compassion. Such a compassionate statement, huh?
Yes, this guy IS undesireable, and the risk he takes when he violates
someone else's rights is that he can also lose his own life, or get harmed.
And aren't we all better for it? Hell yea, we are. 
The implication of the fictitious story is that execution is an appropriate
sentence for purse snatching, and that all citizens should be authorized to
play judge, jury, and executioner on the spot. It might be argued that she
would have been justified in firing one shot to disable the guy, but her
intent in firing six or more was obviously to kill him. And then Bill
Hicks took it to the next logical step by saying that we should be able to
shoot people who take two parking places. The story has no inherent worth.
It merely panders to the murderous tendencies in those who find it
inspiring. And I doubt that shooting a purse snatcher or two would stop many
purse snatchers. It would probably just incline the more hardened criminals
to shoot first and then take the purse.
I find it ironic that probably many of those who get their ya-ya's from this
story consider themselves Christians, yet the mentality the story portrays
is the polar opposite of what Christ taught. But such hypocrisy is par for
the course with fundamentalist Christians, and with the right wing in
general.


Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

2010-03-20 Thread It's just a ride
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 1:13 PM, lurkernomore20002000 
steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

 What am I missing here? Let's assume the story is true.


It's not.  It's an urban legend.



 And while I'm at it, although I'm not the type to be overly patriotic, it
 warms my heart when I hear about another tailiban target taken out by
 unmanned drones.  Of course, sometimes innocent civilians are mistakedly
 targeted, and killed, and that bothers me.


Why?  The Taliban are terrorists, i.e. they target civilians.  We are
fighting terror, sort of like stomping out the vineyards where the grapes of
wrath are stored.  Some civilians will get hurt in the process.  Appears to
be Allah's will.


-- 
My late grandfather told me that if I ate a meatball every day for a hundred
years, I would live to a ripe old age.


Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

2010-03-20 Thread It's just a ride
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com wrote:



   *From:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
 fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *lurkernomore20002000
 *Sent:* Saturday, March 20, 2010 1:13 PM
 *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times



 The implication of the fictitious story is that execution is an appropriate
 sentence for purse snatching, and that all citizens should be authorized to
 play judge, jury, and executioner on the spot. It might be argued that she
 would have been justified in firing one shot to disable the guy, but her
 intent in firing six or more was obviously to kill him. And then Bill
 Hicks took it to the next logical step by saying that we should be able to
 shoot people who take two parking places. The story has no inherent worth.
 It merely panders to the murderous tendencies in those who find it
 inspiring. And I doubt that shooting a purse snatcher or two would stop many
 purse snatchers. It would probably just incline the more hardened criminals
 to shoot first and then take the purse.


In Texas, and I assume other states, you have to take a concealed weapon
course which includes reading the applicable laws, statues and ordinances.
There are lectures, some work with anger management, training on the firing
range and the constant instructions on taking aim with the intention of
killing.  This story is not true but knowing Houston, land of Lawrence v.
Texas, if the story were true, the lady would most likely be no billed as I
suspect she would be in Dallas.  Austin, well, it's 50/50.  There was the
rape case where at first the assailant was no billed because the victim
asked her rapist to use a condom thereby assenting to intercourse.

In the urban legend the woman used more force than police use and her life
was not in eminent danger.  In the training courses you're told to pull out
the gun with the intent to kill, not stop, not maim and only if in eminent
danger for your life.  The legendary woman would have violated her
instructions and overreacted.  None the less, I could see her being no
billed by the grand jury.

I think the legendary lady should be no billed as a form of grand jury
nullification.  I still maintain that zero tolerance works starting with
purse snatchers might be overkill and stretching the limits of the law, but
it would cut down this form of crime and more serious crime.

As far as Rick saying the sane people on FFL don't take me seriously, he
assumes that only those he's already or planning on interviewing are sane.

Rick is showing how full of shit he really is.



-- 
My late grandfather told me that if I ate a meatball every day for a hundred
years, I would live to a ripe old age.


Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

2010-03-20 Thread Mike Dixon
I think the law decided, not me.





From: Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, March 20, 2010 9:21:07 AM
Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

  
From:FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:FairfieldLi f...@yahoogroups. com] 
On Behalf Of Mike Dixon
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:48 AM
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times
 
  
Barry, it wasn't meant to make you feel *all warm and fuzzy*. That would have 
taken the perp walking up and shoving money *into* the waitress's purse, IMHO. 
That waitress deserves an award of some kind for saving society the cost of 
prosecution and incarceration of the perpetrator as well as the cost of further 
crimes and lives. I would like to do what I could to lift her spirits up and 
let her know she has my support in an effort to ease her conscience. 
 
Hermandan0 saved you the trouble by providing a link demonstrating that the 
woman doesn't exist.
 
Human Beings aren't an endangered species. I have no problem *culling* society 
of those that live on the edge, endangering the rest of us for their lack of 
intelligence or compassion. 
 
So you get to decide who gets culled? I have a problem with that. Do you think 
everyone should carry guns around and just cull anyone they think needs 
culling? .



  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

2010-03-20 Thread Mike Dixon
Our society IS culled every day! People are arrested for all sorts of crime and 
taken off the streets, if they are lucky enough to be caught by law 
enforcement. While this story is fictitious, crimes like this happen in reality 
and I believe in most states, a person can use deadly force to defend their 
lives and property. Had I been born and raised in Cuba, I probably would have 
been culled, but for political reasons, not because I was a threat to anyones 
life or property.



From: authfriend jst...@panix.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, March 20, 2010 10:16:32 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

  
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote:

Mike Dixon wrote:
snip
  Human Beings aren't an endangered species. I have no
  problem *culling* society of those that live on the edge, 
  endangering the rest of us for their lack of intelligence
  or compassion. 
 
 So you get to decide who gets culled? I have a problem
 with that. Do you think everyone should carry guns around
 and just cull anyone they think needs culling?

And Mike, what if it turns out somebody else thinks
*you're* among those who should be culled (quite
possibly for the same reasons)?





  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

2010-03-20 Thread Mike Dixon
B..B... B..Bingo!





From: lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, March 20, 2010 11:13:11 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

  
What am I missing here? Let's assume the story is true. (i think someone posted 
something to say it wasn't, but let's say it's true) You've go 99% of the 
people in the world applauding this women, who doesn't want someone to her 
steal her hard earned money, and is willing to risk her life to that end, and 
then you've got an unlikely alliance of Barry, Judy, and Rick twisting this 
around to make Dixon appear as though he is advocating arbitrary culling of 
those he deems undesireable. Yes, this guy IS undesireable, and the risk he 
takes when he violates someone else's rights is that he can also lose his own 
life, or get harmed. And aren't we all better for it? Hell yea, we are. 

And while I'm at it, although I'm not the type to be overly patriotic, it warms 
my heart when I hear about another tailiban target taken out by unmanned 
drones. Of course, sometimes innocent civilians are mistakedly targeted, and 
killed, and that bothers me. But during these times, and circumstances you've 
got to meet force with force, or force with greatr force, and that helps keep 
the world safe. 

--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:
 
 Mike Dixon wrote:
 snip
   Human Beings aren't an endangered species. I have no
   problem *culling* society of those that live on the edge, 
   endangering the rest of us for their lack of intelligence
   or compassion. 
  
  So you get to decide who gets culled? I have a problem
  with that. Do you think everyone should carry guns around
  and just cull anyone they think needs culling?
 
 And Mike, what if it turns out somebody else thinks
 *you're* among those who should be culled (quite
 possibly for the same reasons)?






  

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

2010-03-20 Thread Rick Archer
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 4:38 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times
 
 I think you're trying to violate *my* rights. Do I get to
 shoot you dead because you're advocating throwing out
 the Constitution? Somebody blatantly violates your rights.  They steal
your property. I have no problem with them suffering some immediate
consequences 
That's the way gangs work. They mete out justice swiftly and finally
without messing with all that legal stuff. You, apparently, would like the
whole society to function that way.