Jackbooted Thugs!!

[Josh Ward]

I waded thru most of the dribble in this thread.

My 2 cents...

The punks started the sheit....It'll be a cold day in he'll before 3 punk a z z hoodlums tell me where I can or cannot be. Not being and feeling/seeing the body language ect ect ect there is no way for any of us to say what the proper response would be. But packing up and giving in to their demands sure as heck isn't the right one.....

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

For those who think their dogs are "well trained"...

I have no reason to doubt you.

Police dogs are also "well trained"...correct? Probably some of the best training? (perhaps?)

And yet just recently an officer had to shoot his own K-9 officer because it was biting another officer and wouldn't heed commands.

Well-trained or not, there is absolutely no 100% guarantee that your dog will listen to you.

It may very well pay to remember that.

-J-

 

[Excalibur]

I didn't even know Punks were still around this day and age? The 80s is just something that just wouldn't die

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

It's all about what a reasonable and prudent man would do in the same situation, would a reasonable and prudent man unleash dogs on people with the intent of causing harm to them as a result of a chicken wing thrown on the floor? If I was one of the 12, I would vote no.

A reasonable and prudent man wouldn't have raised his kids to be "punks" .

A reasonable and prudent man would've taught his kids that threats and intimidation aren't the proper way to get what they want in life .

Apparently none of the three had reasonable and prudent fathers so it's now up to the rest of society to teach them acceptable boundaries .

I'm not a lawyer but I think Indiana does have codes about "assault & battery" .

IMO , the "assault" came from the punk communicating the threat of " you should leave NOW " .

The "battery" came in when said punk flipped his food on the floor .

IMO , a reasonable and prudent man would've realized the "disparity of force" in this situation , how quickly things could've went bad and ventilated all three of them then let them explain their side to the police .

Apparently the OP is more of a reasonable and prudent man than I am .

Good job OP .

 

[Josh Ward]

A reasonable and prudent man wouldn't have raised his kids to be "punks" .

A reasonable and prudent man would've taught his kids that threats and intimidation aren't the proper way to get what they want in life .

Apparently none of the three had reasonable and prudent fathers so it's now up to the rest of society to teach them acceptable boundaries .

I'm not a lawyer but I think Indiana does have codes about "assault & battery" .

IMO , the "assault" came from the punk communicating the threat of " you should leave NOW " .

The "battery" came in when said punk flipped his food on the floor .

IMO , a reasonable and prudent man would've realized the "disparity of force" in this situation , how quickly things could've went bad and ventilated all three of them then let them explain their side to the police .

Apparently the OP is more of a reasonable and prudent man than I am .

Good job OP .

Well said..... and I agree ....

 

[Cpt Caveman]

...Unleashing dogs because someone touched your food and making statements like that is a an indicator of instability and should result in the removal of your right in my opinion.

Burnsy is one of those enlightened folks that thinks they have the superior intelligence required to decide who gets to keep their rights and who doesn't. People like him are dangerous.
Those young men invaded his personal space and intended to intimidate him. I think he did the exact right thing.

 

[Burnsy]

1. He isn't able-bodied and there were 3 of them.

2. Food you pay for = your property. You have a right to defend your property here in Indiana.

I understood that my right to defend my property was my home, castle doctrine. I did not know property in this context to be be defined as things I own not in my home even if the theft includes words that tell me to leave. IE if I happen upon a thief stealing my car from a parking garage while telling me to get away the use of deadly force does not apply because I was not in danger of death or great bodily harm.

In the same way I do not understand that someone stealing my piece of chicken in shelter while telling me to leave denotes the same use of deadly force.

I am not trying to "win" in this discussion, I am trying to learn.

That's my point of confusion.

If one of the dogs had savagely killed one of them, would he be held as innocent and the homicide justified even though they presented no threat of using deadly force?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I understood that my right to defend my property was my home, castle doctrine. I did not know property in this context to be be defined as things I own not in my home even if the theft includes words that tell me to leave. IE if I happen upon a thief stealing my car from a parking garage while telling me to get away the use of deadly force does not apply because I was not in danger of death or great bodily harm.

In the same way I do not understand that someone stealing my piece of chicken in shelter while telling me to leave denotes the same use of deadly force.

I am not trying to "win" in this discussion, I am trying to learn.

That's my point of confusion.

If one of the dogs had savagely killed one of them, would he be held as innocent and the homicide justified even though they presented no threat of using deadly force?

As I see it, the chicken was not the issue. The intimidation was. The response may or may not be what would be preferable in the event we have time to think and second-guess rather than being in the event and having to make a decision on the spot.

My guess is that you did not intend for your responses to sound condescending or like you consider it automatically necessary to forget using effective means of defense and drop trousers and apply Vaseline, but it did sound that way.

 

[cobber]

If one of the dogs had savagely killed one of them, would he be held as innocent and the homicide justified even though they presented no threat of using deadly force?

If you go picking on people like these clowns did, you need to be prepared for the consequences, 'unreasonable' as they might be.

The punks were depending on the OP being a nice guy.

Next time they may mess with the wrong guy and get worse than happened here.

A reasonable person might believe under these circumstances that they were in imminent danger of a forcible felony or bodily harm.

 

[Burnsy]

Burnsy is one of those enlightened folks that thinks they have the superior intelligence required to decide who gets to keep their rights and who doesn't. People like him are dangerous.
Those young men invaded his personal space and intended to intimidate him. I think he did the exact right thing.

No I am not dangerous at all, my whole point is that I would error on the side of avoiding violence rather than causing it. We all have the right of free speech though and as such have the right to express my opinion.

My opinion is if one's purpose is self preservation then attempting to cause violence in a situation where it doesn't currently exist instead of letting the people who get paid to deal with might not be in one's best interest.

I agree that the three were in the wrong, I agree that something needed to be done, but as the OP was not currently in the threat of death or great bodily harm (The threat might have been intended, but did not exist yet) I feel that a better course of action would be to remove himself from the situation and contacting the police.

Had one, two or three of the three then displayed a threat and intention of death or great bodily harm toward the OP then it is my opinion that any action he took toward self preservation would have been the correct course of action.

 

[Burnsy]

As I see it, the chicken was not the issue. The intimidation was. The response may or may not be what would be preferable in the event we have time to think and second-guess rather than being in the event and having to make a decision on the spot.

My guess is that you did not intend for your responses to sound condescending or like you consider it automatically necessary to forget using effective means of defense and drop trousers and apply Vaseline, but it did sound that way.

That was not my intention at all, if I came across as condescending, I apologize. My intent was to express my opinion that the action of releasing potentially uncontrollable deadly force was an over reaction in the given situation.

Edit:

I feel it's the same as them walking up to him and saying "HEY...OLD MAN...this is my park bench, MOVE" and him pulling his gun and double tapping because they told him to leave. The means of force is different but the result is the same. He intended for his dogs to scare them off, I get that, but if the dogs attacked with the intent to kill, his own claimed handicap would have very likely prevented him from being able to stop them. He would then facing a homicide trial and his defense is three teens threw poultry on the ground and yelled at me to leave so I killed them. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[littletommy]

Geez, I'm getting a head ache!

 

[AndersonIN]

Geez, I'm getting a head ache!

We're sorry, we didn't mean to. Please don't be offended. We always try to play nice. We'll do better next time!!! Please stay and play! You can even wear purple hair and throw our chicken on the floor!!!

 

[traderdan]

Punks...

I agree, as the story unfolded I was already getting amped up, don't underestimate the damage 3 teens could do. Turns out they were just likely posers but you never can tell.

Not too far from there a couple of young teens beat and killed an old man and almost beat his wife to death after knocking on their door...That happened a year or two ago.

 

[lashicoN]

You'll shoot your eye out, good on you. And thank you. Most people would have rolled over and let the tyrants win. Red coats, jack boots, rooster hair, doesn't matter. A bully is a bully and they reap what they sow. Messing with my food is a really bad idea, especially if I'm hungry.

What do you think the jury would find you? You released your dogs with the intent of stopping an attach that did notexist.

If I was on the jury, completely innocent. The OP is an older gentleman. This guy sat at the same table, and threw his food on the ground. It seems to me like the OP is trying to not reveal weakness to us. It sounds to me like after this idiot threw his food (his property) on the ground, the dogs went crazy over it, and got lose from the aging OP. The OP didn't start it, the guy throwing his food on the ground set things in motion for the dogs to break free, or at least that's what I'll repeat until the rest of the jury is ready to go home.

I am not willing to risk my freedom on something thatI cannot guarantee. Its worth more than that, if you are then you value you life less than I value mine. I am fine with that.

What freedom, though? If you let bullies run you off of public property just because they say so, are you really free? You're alive, in the European sense of the word, but are you free?

The point is, sicking dogs on people that throw foodon the floor is stupid, you were in no danger.

You right to carry a gun is given to you to protect your life...Unleashing dogs...should result in the removal of your right in my opinion.

You keep saying he was in no danger. How can you possibly know that? Three people intimidating and converting private property of one person sounds dangerous to me.

My right to self defense is not given to me by anyone, and can be removed by no one. My right to self defense arises as a result of having a self, and having the notion that my self is valuable, by having the knowledge and power to wield a tool capable of defending that self. As long as I have a life, I have the duty to defend that life.

You released dogs with the intention of them attackingthe punks. How is that not starting a fight. Did you intend your dogs to sing them songs?

"I SAVED THEIR LIVES with my dogs!"

Your delusional....

It's not starting a fight, because the word start means the beginning of something. The beginning of this confrontation was caused by the intimidation, and then the destruction of private property. Cause and effect, Burnsy.

Also, he could have saved their lives with his actions, instead of these bullies continuing to hang around, or call in more bullies, to further escalate the situation which may have resulted with You'll shoot your eye out shooting their eyes out to defend his family.

And name calling? Come on now, I have a name for people who tuck tail and shame their family by scurrying off at the first sight of confrontation. Bravery means standing your ground in the face of tyrants, and protecting what is yours from thieves and bullies.

No I am not dangerous at all, my whole point is that I would error on the side of avoiding violence rather than causing it.

I feel that a better course of action would be to remove himself from the situation and contacting the police.

He didn't cause it. Which of these two things are the cause of violence?

1. Eating a picnic in a public place with your family.
2. Intimidating a family having a picnic at a public place.


1. Telling someone to enjoy the public place and have a ball.
2. Destroying someone's private property.

Your solution to this bully problem is to let someone else deal with it. Big surprise. I applaud, literally I just clapped, the OP for dealing with this himself, like a man.

Honestly, I don't know how you could have handled it better. Perhaps to armchair for a moment, after he flipped your chicken on the floor, it may have been effective to look him dead in the eye, as you did, and say, "Oh...now I'm going to have to eat your thigh."

Another sound response would have been to blow his head off the moment your chicken hit the ground. Then force the other two idiots to eat the chicken, bones and all, at gun point. Just kidding, I just wanted to make burn's head explode for a second, like he did mine with every single one of his bold, brave Sir Robin responses.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Wow, is this still rocking? First I want to apologise to everyone for providing controversy into these forums. Next I want to state that I was not in fear for my life. I was packing heat and accompanied by my two best friends in the world. I WILL trust my dogs with my life. Not with my socks, or my shoes and absolutely not with my chicken! But I am very sure that nobody will push me down (or at any rate, twice) while they are available. I can control my dogs, for the most part. However if someone actually strikes me I am not sure that I could hold them both at the same time.

If I had been in fear of my or any one of our lives then I was prepared to handle it. What I WAS in fear of was letting the situation progress to the point where I would HAVE to hurt three ignorant kids. THAT WOULD OF BEEN MY FAULT. They didn't know that I would not (or even could not) retreat. They didn't know that it could be a gunfight. If the punk had slapped me then I would certainly of let the leashes go, I am pretty sure that both pups would of been pretty unruly if I had been Physically assaulted.

If I was like Burnsy thinks I am, I COULD have let it go on, even act like a coward so as to embolden these thugs. I am easily able to manipulate children so as to create an opportunity To LEGALLY Kill all three of them. INSTEAD OF DOING THAT, I chose to Run them off before I lost the ability to do so. My dogs are good dogs. They have never bitten anybody, yet. They are also very intelligent dogs who can tell when a threat to the family is imminent.

Yes I chose to loose the hounds. They jumped to the front and were extremely fearsome. The husky never left the chicken, and I let the boxer run to the parking lot before I called him back. As I expected nobody got bit. Even if one or more had gotten bit that would still be better than a bullet to the skull! My fighting (and running away) days are behind me. My personal defense choices are extremely limited. My dogs increase those choices.

I have $100.000 invested into my neck. The back surgery is still pending. I am in extreme pain 24/7, and I don't take drugs to try to relieve it. (both ineffective and contrary to my core values) I WILL NOT take a punch on purpose, A beating could do much worse than kill me, It could easily leave me a quadriplegic. Burnsy leaves out one known factor in his calculations. The kids end intentions are an unknown factor, The dogs are a potentially unknown (not to me) factor. The KNOWN factors are that I AM NOT likely to run away, even if I should have, and I AM likely to go ahead and shoot someone rather than get into a physical struggle (at least right now), even if I shouldn't have.

Now how many men, seeing children engaging in an extremely life threatening behavior wont take a small risk to protect them from a certain deadly outcome? Yes I did an irresponsible thing...... For very responsible reasons. Now that Burnsy has relieved me of my right to self defense, And even a right to being left to enjoy a picnic in peace without slinking away like a coward, I might as well cower in fear at home. Unless of course somebody tough wants that space too...... Then what?

 

[Burnsy]

I was going to respond to lashicoN but then I read:

I was not in fear for my life. I was packing heat and accompanied by my two best friends in the world. I WILL trust my dogs with my life. Not with my socks, or my shoes and absolutely not with my chicken! But I am very sure that nobody will push me down (or at any rate, twice) while they are available. I can control my dogs, for the most part. However if someone actually strikes me I am not sure that I could hold them both at the same time.

If I had been in fear of my or any one of our lives then I was prepared to handle it. What I WAS in fear of was letting the situation progress to the point where I would HAVE to hurt three ignorant kids. THAT WOULD OF BEEN MY FAULT. They didn't know that I would not (or even could not) retreat. They didn't know that it could be a gunfight. If the punk had slapped me then I would certainly of let the leashes go, I am pretty sure that both pups would of been pretty unruly if I had been Physically assaulted.

If I was like Burnsy thinks I am, I COULD have let it go on, even act like a coward so as to embolden these thugs. I am easily able to manipulate children so as to create an opportunity To LEGALLY Kill all three of them. INSTEAD OF DOING THAT, I chose to Run them off before I lost the ability to do so.My dogs are good dogs. They have never bitten anybody, yet. They are also very intelligent dogs who can tell when a threat to the family is imminent.

Yes I chose to loose the hounds. They jumped to the front and were extremely fearsome. The husky never left the chicken, and I let the boxer run to the parking lot before I called him back. As I expected nobody got bit. Even if one or more had gotten bit that would still be better than a bullet to the skull! My fighting (and running away) days are behind me. My personal defense choices are extremely limited. My dogs increase those choices.

I have $100.000 invested into my neck. The back surgery is still pending. I am in extreme pain 24/7, and I don't take drugs to try to relieve it. (both ineffective and contrary to my core values) I WILL NOT take a punch on purpose, A beating could do much worse than kill me, It could easily leave me a quadriplegic. Burnsy leaves out one known factor in his calculations. The kids end intentions are an unknown factor, The dogs are a potentially unknown (not to me) factor. The KNOWN factors are that I AM NOT likely to run away, even if I should have, and I AM likely to go ahead and shoot someone rather than get into a physical struggle (at least right now), even if I shouldn't have.

Now how many men, seeing children engaging in an extremely life threatening behavior wont take a small risk to protect them from a certain deadly outcome. Yes I did an irresponsible thing...... For very responsible reasons. Now that Burnsy has relieved me of my right to self defense, And even a right to being left to enjoy a picnic in peace without slinking away like a coward, I might as well cower in fear at home. Unless of course somebody tough wants that space too...... Then what?

I give up...

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

I give up...

Thank you, Burnsy, I am sorry that I upset you. Now PLEASE (pretty please!) give me my guns back?

 

[jsharmon7]

Very interesting situation. It sounds to me like the OP made the best decision he could make given what he knew at the time of the situation. I can't say if it was the best decision, but it was the one he felt was best at the time. Just to play devil's advocate, OP I have a question for you. Let's say the dogs had bitten them, or even charged them aggressively enough to make them fear they were being attacked. Let's also say one of the kids pulled a knife or gun or other weapon and defended himself from the dogs, which would be a reasonable reaction from someone being attacked by two large dogs. What would you have done? Would you have shot to protect your dogs? Do you think that, given the behavior of the children, you were justified in defending yourself via your dogs? How do you think that conversation would have played out to responding officers?

Officer: Why did you shoot that kid?
You: He was trying to kill my dog.
Officer: Why was he trying to kill your dog?
You: I let him loose/he got away from me and was attacking the kid.
Officer: So the kid was defending himself from an attack by your large dogs and you shot him?

Again, I won't second-guess your decision because only you truly know the facts and feelings at the time. I'm just curious as to what would have happened had the dogs acted differently, or the kids took their behavior differently. I think these are always things we need to think about when assessing a situation and our response to it. Fortunately the kids beat feet, but it could have just as easily turned out very differently for all involved.

 

[indytechnerd]

An alternative reality:

How do you think that conversation would have played out to responding officers?

Officer: Why did you shoot that kid?
You: He was trying to kill my dog.
Officer: Why was he trying to kill your dog?
You: I let him loose/he got away from me and was attacking the kid.
You: Because my dog was defending me.
Officer: So the kid was defending himself from an attack by your large dogs and you shot him?
Officer: ...

Again, I won't second-guess your decision because only you truly know the facts and feelings at the time. I'm just curious as to what would have happened had the dogs acted differently, or the kids took their behavior differently. I think these are always things we need to think about when assessing a situation and our response to it. Fortunately the kids beat feet, but it could have just as easily turned out very differently for all involved.