TexasCHLforum.com

mctowalot wrote:There are sick, sick, (SICK!!!) "people" in this world who get pleasure from hurting others. Some folks can't wrap their head around this concept.

I've held off mentioning what I'm about to bring up for years because it's so incredibly disturbing, but I suppose there's a time and place for everything so here goes:

"The Wichita Horror"

I can't find the words...

Except, if only one of the victims had a gun...

Or, if only the victims had realized how bad it was going to get, perhaps they would have fought back, with anything...

I do want to say that it's a nightmare of a tale, and if you were disturbed by the story in the OP, I suggest you NOT look up anything about this.

I've heard of that case before and almost as disturbing as what the predators did is the total passivity of their victims, who made no effort to defend themselves at any time, even when ordered to kneel down so they could be shot, and their fate was thus certain. The three men made no attempt to defend the two women or stop them from being raped, in spite of the fact that they were left unguarded in a closet while the predators raped the women. These predators split up, one taking victims to an ATM machine one at time, leaving in some instances, three men and a woman in the house with one man, who spent his time drinking and raping whichever woman was present. Apparently, no one even attempted to escape and get help. In at least one instance the predator put down his gun and raped one of the women while the men stayed compliantly in the closet. Apparently the victims in the closet were not bound or secured in any way.

It seems one of the reasons they offered no resistance is that they felt incompetent to resist. At one point, the surviving victim had an opportunity to grab the gun her rapist had laid next to her on the floor, but was afraid to do so because she'd never shot a gun. This is the result you get from years of conditioning children in school, and the general population by the media, to be obedient and submit, because only "professionals" are capable of using violence to defend themselves or others. This attitude defies common sense and I consider it to be a sign of moral degeneracy to condition people to believe that someone else is responsible for their defense. How much harder it would be for predators to live in a world where every potential victim had been taught the rudiments of self-defense and was prepared to fight to the death. Not to mention the fact that a child taught to defend himself will develop some real self-esteem, and not this phony everyone-automatically-has-worth-no-matter-what-they-do nonsense being promoted in school and in our media, which actually reduces the rightful shame that used to be associated with doing bad things.

Warhammer wrote:LOL! I know, I know... I just didn't have time to go into it with her right then. Their town has really gone down hill since back when I lived there in the 80's. A few years ago there was a home invasion and shooting right in their neighborhood. Everyone dismisses it a "drug related." Like if you aren't deal drugs, nobody will break into your house. They've had cars broken into, burglary, etc... Honestly, I feel MUCH safer in my neighborood than in my parents'.

Oh, indeed, drug dealers are so meticulous about avoiding harm to innocent it's not like they could make a mistake and kick down the door of the wrong house; or run into another house to avoid being shot in their own. "Feeling" safe is an interesting mental state. I was looking at various security devices on Amazon and it was amazing to see how many users commented that such and such a device made them "feel" safe, in spite of numerous other comments explaining how such a device is ineffective.

Warhammer wrote:Ever since I began carrying, I make it a point to carry everywhere I can. A few weeks ago, at my parrents house, my Mom noticed (only because my Dad, who also has his CHL asked about my current holster). She made a comment to the effect of "Why do you have a gun here? Our house is safe." I told her that there were plenty of unsafe miles between my house and theirs. I'm especially vigilant for anyone on foot while I'm stopped and I'm obsessive about keep the car doors locked. I also make a point of leaving room between my car and the car in front of me when stopped. A little thought goes a long way in preventing car-jacking.

What makes your parent's house so safe? Bad guys can't kick in their door in a home invasion? No one can knock on their door, and when, say, your dad or mom answers, shove a gun in their face? Apparently the Doctor in Connecticut who lost his family to a couple of predators lived in an exclusive neighborhood, and they no doubt all thought they were safe, since they apparently didn't even lock their doors at night --now his wife and daughters are dead.

Bart wrote:

VMI77 wrote:The question is, how much weight do you give to the potential for such horrific consequences when you determine how to react to a car jacking?

If someone makes a non-violent, polite request, you can politely decline, and that's the end of it.

If someone threatens you with violence, the best response is an overwhelming counter-attack that leaves them unable to hurt you.

From a legal perspective, I think it's open and shut in Texas.

The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment

I agree, but that's not exactly what I was alluding to. Maybe I can't explain myself very well because I'm just asking a dumb question, but I'm operating under the assumption that drawing and shooting and getting shot right there is the only choice if the alternative is abduction; however we can't know in advance that abduction is the alternative we're facing --might be if you just surrender the car you can get out and walk away. You've got a gun or two pointed at you. You can't know how events will play out so do you assume the worst and act accordingly from the outset, or do you let events unfold under the assumption that the worst case is an unlikely conclusion that you may be able to avoid?

Excaliber wrote:The prosecution of this horrific crime is another example of why so called "hate crime" penalty enhancements make no sense whatsoever.

The people who committed these heinous acts clearly didn't do so out of love.

The only state of mind that should be relevant to a prosecution is the degree of intent - intentionally, recklessly, with criminal negligence, etc, and penalties should be set in accordance to the crime.

Motivation behind the intent is speculative and irrelevant. Attempting to separate crimes with certain motivations from others is only useful for currying favor with some groups and denying equal protection to others.

I agree. I saw another thread here on the subject of hate crime law and agree with Charles Cotton's position in that thread.

I did a search and didn't see this posted. It may be something to consider for anyone who ever has the misfortune of facing a car jacking --especially if they're with a loved one. Obviously, if you expect consequences like this, you really only have one course of action. The question is, how much weight do you give to the potential for such horrific consequences when you determine how to react to a car jacking?

WARNING: this is a horrific crime and even the mere factual description in Wikipedia is very gruesome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of ... her_Newsom

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp

The Snopes account presents some of the information initially released in the media and provides a different picture of the crime and coverage, but also seems to try to minimize the true horror.