No thanks.

I only plan on defending me and mine.

You’re on your own, sheep.

I will not kill somebody over my property, but somebody willing to threaten me FOR my property is willing to kill me no matter what I do. I WILL kill over that. –Weerd Beard

I like his thinking, but I differ on one thing, and it’s a philosophical argument which winds up in the same place.

When someone steals my stuff, they’re stealing a piece of my life. The piece that I spent working so that I could earn the money to buy that thing and the piece I’ll have to spend to replace it.

So yeah, I’ll shoot someone over my property.

Because it’s MY life.

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

Spoken like a true lawyer. Tar and feathers time.

(via FarmDad in GBC)

There are a some of great lessons here.

It can happen to anyone, anywhere, so pay attention. When that little voice tells you something is off, pay attention.

Don’t rely on someone saving you. You’re on your own out there. Someone MIGHT help or they might just decide not to get involved. Any plan that relies on other people doing the right thing isn’t a good plan.

Refuse to be the victim. Criminals expect certain behavior from their victims. Don’t comply, ever.

Fortunately Laura didn’t leave her most important weapon behind this morning and she’s not a police report.

Good job!

If you only have one leg how the hell are you supposed to run away? If you’re wheelchair bound how are you supposed to duke it out with someone ablebodied? Anti-gunners don’t care.

Read the whole thing.

Cops say legally justified.

If I couldn’t live in Texas, I guess Arizona would be almost as good.

Irish homeowners can now legally use guns to defend themselves if their homes are attacked under new legislation.

The new home defense bill has moved the balance of rights back to the house owner if his home is broken into “where it should always have been”, say top Irish police.

The police association of superintendents and inspectors, the AGSI, stated that “the current situation, which legally demands a house owner retreat from an intruder, was intolerable”.

I’m thinking they only did it because in the UK it’s illegal to defend yourself and they had to be different from the fecking British.

Whatever the reason, good for them.

If these had been real FBI agents what would have happened to the homeowner defending himself?

That’s a hell of a choice to have to make in the middle of the night. If they’re real cops, and you defend yourself you will go to jail if you live. If they’re not cops and you don’t defend yourself then you’ll probably be killed.

Of course if real cops didn’t do night raids then it wouldn’t be an issue, would it?

Good causes sometimes have bad consequences. Blacks, women, and other historical out-groups were right to demand equality before the law and the full respect and liberties due to any member of our civilization; but the tactics they used to “raise consciousness” have sometimes veered into the creepy and pathological, borrowing the least sane features of religious evangelism.

One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}.” I’ve been presented with enough instances of this recently that I’ve decided that it needs a name. I call this general style of argument “kafkatrapping”, and the above the Model A kafkatrap. In this essay, I will show that the kafkatrap is a form of argument that is so fallacious and manipulative that those subjected to it are entitled to reject it based entirely on the form of the argument, without reference to whatever particular sin or thoughtcrime is being alleged. I will also attempt to show that kafkatrapping is so self-destructive to the causes that employ it that change activists should root it out of their own speech and thoughts.

Read the whole thing. I think we’re gonna be using this a lot from now on.

Later in the comments of that post, ESR said this:

I’m still not interested in discussing the matter with kafkatrappers. Their tactics condemn them. The correct response to abusers and mindfuckers is not to try to understand their point of view, it’s to do as much violence to them as you can get away with.

I couldn’t agree more.