Insurance is a gamble, early in my life I worked for the Insurance company Prudential and basically when you acquire insurance it is a wager between you and them, think about it,

You bet your preminm that you will get into an accident, ,the insurance company' bet is whatever the policy states based on your bet that you won't have an accident.

This is common sense stuff, If you knew for certain you would not get into an accident than why would you buy insurance and vice versa if the ins co knew you would get into an accident then why would they insure you. There are alot of people who are UN-insurable, why??

People that don't drive don't buy auto insurance, I wonder why?...HMMMMM I hope you get my drift

Same thing with CC, if you knew you would never need it then why go through all the hoops, the back ground checks and the cost of insurance if you just like to drive around with a gun.
Where I live flooding is a very small chance and because of this I don't carry flood insurance, would I sleep better knowing I am protected if I had the insurance maybe but I don't perceive this as a threat and I chose where my money is better used, a personal choice.
I am not talking about I am better off to have it and not need than the reverse, Most Police never shoot their weapons in their entire career and they put themselves in harms way 40 or more hours a week. The sad thing about these idiot people that cause mayhem, what happens it costs every law abiding citizen time and money, more regulations more hoops to jump through and so on. Look at the cost to our society the 9/11 has caused it lead to so new laws and restriction the creation of new federal agency and 10' of thousands on new jobs, the jobs sound good but their wages are coming out of your pocket for what some radical with a plan.

For some reason I have always thought of insuarance as not a gamble but an investment in security. I don't buy fire insuarance because I EXPECT to have a fire I buy it to reduce my loss financially if I DO have a fire. Why do cars come with spare tires (I know they now just come with kits to reinflate or such) not because the manufacturers EXPECT you to have a flat but know you MIGHT have one and wish you to be able to continue your journey. And so on and so on,but you will not be swayed by any logical thought pattern as you seem to have that part of your brain on hold. It's called SELF Defense and it has been practice since the birth of man. Do you have a Doctors number in your personal phone directory? Do you know where the closest hospital is? If so why do you have this knowledge,do you THINK you are going to be ill? I have never read such drivel in my life and I've lived a few years. I feel sorry for you to have lived so long and yet to understand so little. What a waste.

First I have nothing against Law Enforcement, I was on the Job for over 30 years.

Trust me the Police will NOT be there to protect you from the bad people. It is not their fault, bad people will not usually attack you when the police are around, and the Police cannot be everywhere.

So your Personal protection is up to you.

There are many things you can do:
Have a home alarm system, turn it on and keep your doors locked.
Do not go into bad parts of town.
Do not go out after dark, unless it is absolutly necessary.
NEVER go to an ATM or a cinvience store after dark, etc...

But the bottom line is NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO the only way to have any kind of a chance to protect yourself, and you loved ones, is to be ARMED AT ALL TIMES, and have some training, and NOT BE AFRAID TO SHOOT.

You can worry about Problem No2 AFTER you have survived Problem No1.

EVERY STATE that has passed Concealed Carry has seen a reduction in violent crimes against law abiding citizens.

There also has been no increase of "Bad" shootings by Civilians.

Even in the short time since the DC, and Chicago handgun bans have been over turned their violent crime against law Abiding Citizens has dropped quite a bit.

Bottom line is, Concealed Carry by Citizens WORKS. In fact it works better than ANY OF THE CRIME FIGHTINING TECHNIQUES", ANY Police Dept ever tried.

Well said.

I second Will on that

I can't comment on DC, but the Chicago law was just recently changed and the law has you jumoing through so many loops it could take quite a while before it is up and running. I can't recall how many years the law was in effect but no one could own a handgun. Even Federal agent who lived in Chicago could not own one unless there agency required them. As a results all the shops closed and moved too the suburbs. The state requires an Firearm Owner Identification card (FOID) to buy transport firearms or ammunition. Most people within the city let them expire. So they need to get those first meet the new standards before they qualify to own a gun. Therefore the drop in violence has nothing to do with the law change.

The violence in chicago is predictable by the time of year time of day and weather period, hot temperatures it goes up since more people are out, cold and wet weather it may go down but car jackings go up. If the law does have effect it would take several years to determine. People have been killing each other all the time in Chicago when you can't have one just imagine how many guns will go into play when more of the population gets them. Look at the statistics most recovered gun off the street came from armed robberies and burglaries, why didn't the resident use the gun to stop them?? the million dollar question. Many resident did and were subject to illegal weapons charges but the city chose not to prosecute, and no the guns were not returned.

Bad people generally have the upper hand and the general population isn't ready or willing to deal with them.
As far as alarm systems, sounds good but they are a pain in the neck, many PD's assess a fine for false alarms and rightfully so since it takes the police off the street. The best alarm is a dog, very few people want to deal with a dog, the most effective crowd control the Chgo PD has is canine and horse, no one want to get smart with either because the dogs and horses just don't care.
Professional burglars are not intimidated by either dogs or alarms, again they will do their business when you aren't home. Even sophisticated alarms are not that tough to defeat. LE often get court order to put in surveillance equipment and bugs into private homes and businesses. I was a back of tech agent and although I never circumvented alarms I have been there when it is done and it is done more than you think. And guess what it surveillance equipment was in the white house when VP Agnew was in office when he was charged with accepting bribes, tax evasion and several other charges whether you believe it or not. When someone shows you a video with audio it is pretty hard to say you didn't do it.

And not one word of your last babbling post supports your theory that those of us who do not live in Chicago should go unarmed.

You will never hear me say that it is the law that allows s you , that is your decision, and your decision only, all I will say know what your gonna do before it happens and the alternatives, I support running but what is they got you in a corner , get my drift. I never pull up close to the car in front of me a t a stop light, I park in a lighted area the old herd principal has been around for a long time

quote:

I never pull up close to the car in front of me a t a stop light,

Neither do I, and it's saved me some trouble more then once.

Little things like that is what makes the next sunrise happen, don't back yourself in a corner know your opponents weakness, and know when the tea is to hot to handle
When my agency switched to semi auto, 27 firearms instructor went to Austin Texas for indoctrination training on 3 weapons that the G was contemplating, our input after the training would be used for the final choice. The companies where Sig Sauer, S&W and Glock. Each company had a firearm repre to train us and show the benefits of their particular pistols.. This was a game of egos, 27 guys all knowledgeable, most exceptional shooters ( who wouldn't when you had access to unlimited ammo to practice with)
The first repre I don't recall what company told us right off the bat "think of yourself like sponges, your here to absorb, don't try to impress because you won't" Quite a few guys started grumbling, I am quite confident in the use of handguns but what they showed us during that week I still talk about today. I can only say I hope no one ends up on the other side with guys with this level of training, unbelievable.
I will explain one sequence, a pro shot trainer is an electronic device which will emit a sound( to commence firing) and then it will record the time to get off the first and all subsequent shots fired. Apparently these repre are in a fraternity of trick shooters who all know each other and regularly have regional and national events to see who is the best.
The one guy said when they thought up this sequence their consensus was so many seconds to complete. They were fairly accurate on the consensus but after quite a few rep-petitions it gradually got shorter. They performed this and the time was 2.5 seconds
2 silo target 5 meters apart, shooter centered at 5meters. Semi one round in chamber and 1 round in he mag , extra mag in pouch with 2 rounds.
shooter with his back to the target, on signal turn one round per target unload reload one round each target....like I said 2.5 seconds. All X rings

Some guys you just don't want to piss off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DpCellB_UQ

I forgot to mention, shooting was done with a stock semi, standard issue type holster with thumb release, no fancy trick shooting equipment or low recoil ammo, they did some of the fancy rig shooting latter on.

I just heard on the radio that 20 people where shot in Chicago last night not one by the PD, 5 dead so far and these are just the ones reported, bodies will develop a smell over the next couple of days so the count will go up a few more, and handguns are or were illegal for umpteen years. I t is a war zone

your state of residence pretty much underscores the point.

I have found two diametrically opposed viewpoints by LE, active and retired.

Group One wants only LE and Military to possess firearms. It makes their job easier if everybody with a firearm is a bad guy. They are the ones who have "Tools" in their duty holster. They also seem to be the ones most concerned with a post-shooting lawsuit. They have issues with the phrase "better to be tried by twelve than carried by six..."

Group Two wants every law abiding US citizen to have the option to own and carry. They prefer that option to taking a report about some one's wife being raped and murdered because the citizen did not own firearms.

People who worry about a lawsuit in response to a justified shooting, and they are pretty easy to discern; live in some socialist hellhole. Illinois, California, and Massachusetts come quickly to mind.

Here in Idaho, the criminal is the one that has the problem in court, not the law abiding citizen who deals with him at the time and location of the attempted crime.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by raamw:
I just heard on the radio that 20 people where shot in Chicago last night not one by the PD, 5 dead so far and these are just the ones reported, bodies will develop a smell over the next couple of days so the count will go up a few more, and handguns are or were illegal for umpteen years. I t is a war zone

Since you admit no cop is going into the south side, what is the point of the cops having guns? Protect themselves but no one else?

And you're against CC. What a hypocrit.

Stay with me here, Cops have guns they have an increased amount of manpower devoted to the bad areas now only the district but by tac teams, not to mention ATF, FBI Sheriff's Police Private security forces normally off duty Police and gang task forces funded through HIDTF federal funding, and these bad guys don't care that is my point.

As far as a hypocrite obviously you don't read that well or fail to understand what has been said...not once have I said I am against CC, if I am mistaken please point it out as I will correcty it

quote:

not once have I said I am against CC

You don't have to.

We can read the bias in your posts.

If you are not against it, lets see you post it right here, in black and white, that you believe Concealed Carry is a right for the law abiding citizen, and that any Police Officer who abridges that right is violating his/her oath to uphold the Constitution.

The worst part of all is this guy apparently believes all this kool-aid he has been fed.

Does nothing to change my general distain for cops and government bureaucrats.

I beleive in the right to bear arms, if the state you live in gives you the right to carry more power to you, Lets see how this gets interpreted

quote:

Originally posted by raamw:
I beleive in the right to bear arms, if the state you live in gives you the right to carry more power to you, Lets see how this gets interpreted

This is the first intelligent thing you've said in this post. Of course, that is because it completely contradicts all your previous posts in this thread.

Stop digging.

George

Will- I live pretty close to you and I am a CCW permit holder. Don't know for sure but I am guessing that you are too. So, under the reasoning of people like our friend raamw, that puts everyone between you and me in significantly more danger.
Does anybody else here subscribe to that point of view or is it the load of crap that I feel it is?

raamw,

Law Enforcement officials generally arrive at a violent crime scene in a dead heat with the TV and newspaper reporters. They basically take reports and see if they can apprehend the criminal and bring him to trial. As far as the victim, one is left to be buried or be taken to the hospital.

I feel very confident that should I be threatened, the report will be how I dealt with the situation; not how severely I was injured or who saw me be murdered.

In Idaho, the criminal bears the responsibility for his/her actions; not the law abiding CC licensed citizen who thwarts said criminal enterprise.

You live in a place where the criminal has rights, I live in a state where the criminal has the responsibility to live with the consequences of his actions.

It's a choice we all make. Like the difference between family and friends: you get to pick your friends...

Rich

There is not a state in the nation that I am aware of that have a different interpretation on the right to use deadly force, the law is:

You have the right to use whatever force is necessary to prevent someone who is threatening death or serious bodily injury to yourself or someone else, no different than what LE operate under although the exact wording might say; use of necessary force to STOP the chance of death or serious bodily injury. Again LE are trained for center mass or double tap one to the center mass and one to the head (body armor) either place generally results in death.

Even in a highly restrictive state like Illinois people who defend themselves against bad people do not get prosecuted, if they break a law the police are required to present this to the state attorney but they rarely approve the charges knowing it would be against the public's best interest and there would be very low probability of getting a jury to convict.

I agree police are generally late to a situation and if your in a position to defend yourself that is your decision

As I said in an earlier post it doesn't take a wizard to return fire, that was made by the idiot who started the shooting and it is clear what the individuals intent is. Most robbers just want the spoils may point a gun just to control a situation , which will turn into a shooting situation if provoked, if you get lucky all is good but what if your action escalates the situation and someone else takes one for the team, those are the life death situation that one must deal with.

Criminal aren't criminals till they are convicted that is the law in this country so yes they have the same rights as you and I have. If there is no witnesses to a shooting and both people have guns do you think the police will automatically believe you where the good guy, what if the other guy is cleaner than you on paper????.

Years ago I was newly married living in a condo by a large forest preserve. My wife was working and would come home at about 8PM, dark out . We did not know any of the neighbors so one day she was late so I looked out and saw the car was parked, I waited a little while and she still hadn't returned so after an hour I started looking for her with no results. I called the police and explained to them what was going on and they spent the next hour or more interrogating me and my neighbors about me. I was livid I stated I am a LE officer and you guys are wasting valuable time, it fell on deaf ears as spouses are always prime suspects. long story short my wife walks into the condo and there are 6 cops tearing up our house or drilling me, seems she walked in at the same time with another resident and ended up in her condo to chat. Point is the police have to act on their training and what they see.

quote:

There is not a state in the nation that I am aware of that have a different interpretation on the right to use deadly force,

You need to do more research.
try looking at Texas 1st;
a property rights state, where after dark,
on private property, perps have little protection by the laws, even if unarmed.

Don't get me wrong but if that is true that scares me and I don't get scared easy. You mean if some person staggers unto your property for no other purpose other then to seek help you can legally shoot them.

I don't profess to know all the game laws but wardens in Illinois can trespass with no probable cause for the purpose of enforcing the law, in Texas he would be a target.

That seemed so out of line I researched this and I do not see what you just said, here is the Texas Statue scroll down to property right, If I am mis-reading this please correct me

he Self Defense Laws Of Texas



The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

Self Defense Statutes
(Texas Penal Code)

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,1994.
Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Deadly Force in Defense of Person

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."

Defense of Another Person

"A person is justified in using deadly force against an attacker to protect another person if he would be justified to use it to protect himself against an unlawful attack and he reasonably believes his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the other person from serious injury or death."

Deadly Force to Protect Property

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

Protection of the Property of Others

"A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."

"Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child."

Reasonable Belief

"It is not necessary that there should be actual danger, as a person has the right to defend his life and person from apparent danger as fully and to the same extent as he would have were the danger real, as it reasonably appeared to him from his standpoint at the time."

"In fact, Sec 9.31(a) [of the Penal Code] expressly provides that a person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary."

Justification for Using Deadly Force Can Be Lost

"Even though a person is justified in threatening or using force or deadly force against another in self defense or defense of others or property as described in the statute, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification for deadly force is unavailable."

"A person acts recklessly when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to the circumstances surrounding his conduct or the results of his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation of the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise, viewed from the person's standpoint under all the circumstances existing at the time."

Self Defense Definitions

"Assault is committed if a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, causes bodily injury to another, or causes physical contact with another when he knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative."

"Aggravated assault is committed if a person commits Assault (qv.) and causes serious bodily injury to another, or causes bodily injury to a peace officer, or uses a deadly weapon."

"Burglary is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Enters a building, or any portion of a bulding, not open to the public with intent to commit a felony or theft, or 2) Remains concealed in a building with the intent to commit a felony or theft."

"Criminal Mischief is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the property of the owner, or 2) Tampers with the property of the owner and causes momentary loss or sustained inconvenience to the owner or th

raawm,
Can you name the agency that is teaching officers to shoot one shot to center mass and one to the head?

Also, what type of firearms class is this being offered in?

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco Georgia is the academy that set most firearms standards for agencies that utilize them. It is referred to the double tap, again qualification can be different but this is basic stuff, Seals used it on Bin Laden shooting a guy in the center of mass that has a vest on ain't gonna stop them, but the head shot would. Center of mass is a bigger and easier target to hit but a vest would defeat that

FLETC does not set local agency firearms standards! Federal agency's "rules of engagement" are way different than state and local agencies.

A "double tap" is just two quick shots.

Head shots are not "basic stuff"! Head shots are not taught in any "basic" handgun class I've ever taken or heard of in 30+ years in and around local and state LE agencies! Basic classes are just trying to get center mass hits at the end of the day.

I went to Glynco back in the late seventies and latter for advance firearms training plus instructor courses. Glynco also developed their own silhouette I seemed to have forgotten the name but it was shades of blue the kill ring went up to accommodate the head target
http://letargets.com/estylez_item.aspx?item=LTR-IIFLC

If your active LE just request any qualification material they have

Someone above posted that words to the effect that criminals are not criminals until they are
convic ted of a crime. As a fomer LE I will tell you that some, in fact many criminals are criminals BEFORE they are convicted. I say this in the sense that they may commit numerous, may hundreds or thousands of crimes BEFORE they are convicted. ESPECIALLY in jurisdictions where
court calenders are crowded and plea bargains
are standard operating proceedure. These yet UNCONVICTED criminals are often times as dangerous or more dangerous than other known criminals. In the meaning of the content of this forum the person who is armed and confronts you could be anyone forementioned or not. It is your life and saftey at stake and most likely only you can turn the outcome of events at that moment. Something to think about and it should be thought over before you decide
to be armed.

In many cases you may be right but unless you know the guy this info would develope latter, what I was saying if you got into a one on one , no witnesses two people wiht guns one winner one loser and along come a LE to pick up the peaces, your gonna get handcuffed and hauled away until a investigation figures exactly what happened, you won't get charged but nonetheless you will be held pending the results.
My nephew got arrested for the classic wrong place wrong time, seems someone started a garage on fire, my nephew seen the flames walked over to see what was going on, someone seen him, gave the description to the police when they showed up and bingo they picked him up. It took a little while to figure out he wasn't the guy since he was wearing the same clothes as the witness saw and there was no smoke or gasoline residue on the clothes so his story held up.

Not always the case. In my jurisdiction a pizza delivery guy was held up by two armed robbers.
He shot them, one dead. He was brought to HQ and interviewed. He was legally carrying. He was
right all the way.. The POLICE put him in for a citizen of the year award presented by the police union. The perps were suspected of numerous holdups before this one but were UNKNOWN, UNCONVICTED criminals. Unfortunate for it to happen but if they continued it very well could have been a victim that died.

I am no robbery investigator but a pizza guy on his route has an excuse for being where he was, he's assumed to have money hopefully it wasn't for the pizza he was carrying, gutsy guy to go one on two unless he had something up his sleeve. I always had my hand on a gun when I dealt with someone a nice hammerles 940 in my pocket made my job alot easier

quote:

gutsy guy to go one on two

It wasn't gutsy, it was necessary. He didn't pick the fight, he had just made the choice to come home alive.

quote:

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

Reading is obviously not your strong suit.

Recall , I wrote "perp"----

Here is your post


Posted 10 October 2011 16:23 Hide Post

quote:
There is not a state in the nation that I am aware of that have a different interpretation on the right to use deadly force,



You need to do more research.
try looking at Texas 1st;
a property rights state, where after dark,
on private property, perps have little protection by the laws, even if unarmed.



You never stayed committing a crime, you say on your property at night,and its target time seems there are several hoops that need to be crossed before the cross hairs come into play . Illinois doesn't permit that , seems a little to drastic for something that probably is insured but that is your law have at em.

Sorry ,
I forgot--Logic is not your strong suit either

So "perps" in your definition -
are average citizens --
at night just ambling around on other's property--


________________________________________________
Try reading ONCE more

Deadly Force to Protect Property

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

Re Read the part, about using deadly force to prevent the Imminent Commision of criminal mischief at night time.

So, if you saw someone after dark about to break your wind shield on you car, you would be justified in shooting them, as there is no other reasonable means to prevent them from breaking your wind shield.

How many states other than Texas would allow this???

I have worked several shootings where good people shot bad people.
I never even took the good people down town. Just took their statements.

Their firearm was returned to them after they were no billed by the Grand Jury.

I hear what your saying, for me I would rather beat the living crap out of them, If some guy tries to set my house on fire or enter my house He wouldn't see the next sunrise. I seriously could not kill someone for such an insignificant crime as breaking my windshield or stealing something of little value, do harm to a kid or woman I would grind them up for hog food in a new york minute.
A couple of years ago I was driving down the street and a semi dump truck pulls out going in the the opposite direction and off the side of the truck comes a rock about the size of a grape fruit, hits by front window right at the windshield wipers, probably prevented the rock from ending up in my wifes lap or face. I spin around go to get the guy to stop, driver gives me the salute won't let me get in front and then blows through an intersection. I go to the local police and file a damage to vehicle report, get the ya we' will get him, week latter I go over to get the status they tell me I would have to go civil on them. Fine give me the driver info and I will, he said no you need to get an attorney to get that info. I said wait my deductible is $500, probably the cost of the windshield what attorney is gonna take a case at that amount, if I did find someone I am certain he'd lose anyway. I then contact the state Attorney since trucks dropping their load is a sore spot after that preacher family of 6 where killed a few years back from an item that fell off a truck. They tell me get an attorney, the Illinois way, just take off the law protects the riff raff.