An astute reader (who forgot to provide me with a nickname and will therefore remain anonymous. You know who you are) sent me this link to an article in Time about how NOLA is circling the drain, turning into one of the most dangerous places in the nation thanks to goblins running rampant.
On a more positive note, it also describes how the many law-abiding and upstanding citizens of NOLA, understandably pissed off and not willing to just sit back and take it, are arming themselves at an unprecedented rate.
Anyway, as is so often the case, Time managed to dig up the obligatory Dumb as a Sack of Hair Officer Friendly™ with an axe to grind when it comes to private gun ownership. I cannot imagine how much work it must be for rags like Time to dig up one of those for every article touching upon the subject of armed citizens because, honestly, I don’t know a single cop who has any problem at all with responsible gun owners and their use of their firearms in self-defense. Quite to the contrary, every cop I’ve ever known and asked was very much in favor of private gun ownership, since it makes their jobs much easier and, more importantly, cuts back on the number of grisly crime scenes that they have to process. Scooping up a dead goblin, pouring him in a sack and sending him off to the big fridge doesn’t bother them much. Doing the same for a family of four killed because they couldn’t defend themselves, on the other hand, does. A lot.
So either the lamestream mediots are making those Officer Dumbasses™ up out of whole cloth, or I’m forced to accept that there are a few of our boys in blue who aren’t quite right on the top floor. What I do know is that they are few and far between.
Predictably, such chatter has law enforcement officials concerned. “Not just for our safety or theirs,” says New Orleans Police Department sergeant Donovan Livaccari. “But people should know where their rights begin and where they end.
Your concern for the citizens and the legal trouble they might find themselves in after a shooting in self-defense is touching. However, in the situation, I do believe that they’re more concerned with their right to live another day. Yes, I know I’m going out on a limb here, but that’s my guess and I’m sticking to it. And judging by the murder rate in NOLA these days, I’d say that they have every reason to be concerned, to put it mildly.
I think a lot of people are unaware that, in Louisiana, you can have a weapon in your car, but once you leave your car, you’re subject to a whole different set of circumstances.
That might very well be so, it certainly is in Texas (at least until September, mheh), but I have to point out that it, while undoubtedly very important after the fact, isn’t quite as important as maintaining vital signs. Charge me with whatever moronic, criminal-coddling laws you want when the goblin has assumed room temperature, I don’t really care. It still beats being dead.
Also, where you’re allowed to use deadly force; by law, you’re not allowed to use deadly force to protect property.”
Is that so? No, it’s an honest question, since I don’t know what the laws regarding defense of property are in Louisiana, and such laws vary immensely from state to state. In Texas, for instance, it is quite legal to use deadly force if you cannot reasonably hope to get the property being stolen back in any other way. Not that I’d shoot somebody running down the street with my car stereo (note that the threat is gone and the perpetrator is retreating in this scenario. If that’s not the case, he’s going down with two to center mass and one to the head), but I most certainly could. Killing somebody, even when it is perfectly justifiable, is still a killing and it will stay with you forevermore, no matter how quickly the Grand Jury hands you a no-bill. Just make sure that the price is worth paying, is all I’m saying.
But that’s neither here nor there. I once again find myself digressing.
What is the point is that there is no way of knowing that the goblin “just” wants your car stereo or your iPod. If anybody reading this still believes in the Brady Bunch claptrap that you just have to hand over your valuables and then the goblin will leave in peace, then I strongly urge you to knock that idiotic idea out of your head, right now. Because it will get you badly hurt if you ever, heaven forbid, find yourself staring down one of the troglodytes.
Goblins are sick, deranged individuals, as proven by them having not the slightest moral qualms about relieving you of your property at gunpoint. What on Earth would make any rational, sentient being think that they’re going to act all calm and sensible when they have a quivering, submissive victim cowering before them, telling them to do as they please? That’s a serious temptation for a sociopath, especially if you’re a pretty lady. And even if you’re not, chances are that the goblin has quite a few outstanding warrants with his name on it and, guess what?, you’re an eyewitness to an armed robbery with him as the perpetrator.
You do the math.
Yes, he might just grab your wallet and run, but are you willing to take that chance? You shouldn’t. Google “crime scene photographs” if you want to see why you shouldn’t.
So, in summary, I don’t give a fuck what Louisiana law says about use of lethal force in defense of property. If I’m being mugged or burgled by an armed goblin, only one of us will leave the scene under his own power, and I intend to do anything I can to make sure that it is me.
Livaccari points out that, in a holdup, a gun-waving victim is more likely to end up shot than one who simply hands over money — though his message isn’t helped by incidents like one last October in which a would-be victim shot and killed a man he told police was trying to rob him and a female companion at gunpoint near the French Quarter.
Kudos to Time for including that last bit. All too often, the MSM conveniently leave out details that might disturb the approved narrative.
And a healthy, hearty “fuck you up the Khyber Pass with a rusty I-frame” to Officer Knucklehead. I am not in the least bit interested in playing the odds if an armed sack of useless skin is about to help himself to anything he wants. Make it 60%, 30% or 5% chance of me surviving if I draw my sidearm, I know that when the bastard is done stopping a handful of .45 JHPs, I’ll be in the winning category. If I don’t defend myself, on the other hand, I’m putting my life and everything I ever will be in the hands of Lady Luck. I don’t play Russian Roulette either, Officer Birdbrain, is that stupid of me too?
Then there’s the possibility that a gun will be stolen and used in other crimes.
If my gun is stolen, then it’s because I’m dead. Consequently, it’s unlikely that I’ll give a damn. He does, however inadvertently, have a point though: As I always say to anybody who cares to listen and, I’m sure, quite a few who don’t (but I, being me, don’t give a flip), “if you intend to get a firearm, you’d damn well better be at peace with the concept of using it, and you’d damn well better make sure that you reach that point before you buy it.” Because if you don’t, if you haven’t decided in your mind beyond any doubt that you will if you have to, then you’re nothing but a walking gun vending machine. Except the gun in question, yours, will be free of charge. Don’t get a gun unless you’re ready to use it. You wouldn’t buy a Porsche if you had no intentions of driving it either, would you?
But whether it’s stolen from you or from your dead body, it doesn’t really matter. Unless Officer Fuckhead here is suggesting that the only source goblins have for guns are the arsenals of law-abiding citizens. If so, he’s dumber than I thought, and that’s saying quite a bit. It’s the same nonsense we have to listen to over and over again when some wet blanket Gun Fearing Wussy justifies gun bans in schools by saying “if anybody were armed, it would just be another place for the goblin to get a gun.”
Here’s a hint: Goblins bring their own. Imagine that! Who knew?
Not to mention that the whole concept of claiming that having your gun stolen is an inevitability is about as cluefucked as they come. By that logic, we shouldn’t own cars either. After all, they’re nothing but a car pool for drunken car thieves, right? A grand theft auto and a DUI just waiting to happen, right?
Bottom line is: You can be one of two things.
- An armed citizen capable of defending yourself.
- A potential helpless victim.
Pick one. There is no door number three.
Sgt. Livaccari responds in the comments:
I appreciate your vigorous defense of the right to own guns. However, I think that my comments in the Time article were misinterpreted.
First, I have a law degree from the Loyola University School of Law and am admitted to the Louisiana Bar. I am by no means a liberal or anti-gun.
My message is simple. If you are going to own a gun, know the laws that effect you and, more importantly, know that if you are going to display a gun, you better be ready to pull the trigger.
If you believe that you have the fortitude to take a life, you know how to use weapon, and you know the laws regarding its use, then by all means, buy a gun if it makes you feel more secure. I am certainly not giving mine back.
Finally, in Louisiana, you can not use deadly force to protect property. You can use deadly force in the event that someone invades your home, but that really isn’t a case of protecting property but protecting yourself.
Sgt. Donovan Livaccari
First, sir, I want you to know that I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Also, in order to ensure that your response doesn’t get “buried in comments”, I’ve put it up here so it won’t get lost.
Second, and most certainly no less importantly, I am glad to hear that my understanding of your comments was wrong, not to mention that I can’t find a single thing in your response here regarding the proper use of firearms and lethal force that I disagree with. There are times when it’s a joy to be off the mark, and this is one such time. Of course, that also leaves me with an obligation to apologize since, whether the misunderstanding was due to selective quoting from Time or not, my words are still mine and I do not wish to be even partially responsible for giving a false impression of your true opinions. That’s what we have the press for and they do a depressingly good job of it.
So, Sgt Livaccari, I do apologize. I apologize for having contributed to the misinterpretation of your words and I am relieved to hear that you, as one of “our boys in blue”, are not what the Time article made you out to be. I am also, again, grateful for this opportunity to set the record straight, not to mention that it serves to teach me and anybody else happening upon this post a lesson about the need to take everything the MSM say with a large amount of grains of salt, no matter what our doctor might say it’ll do to our cardio-vascular system.
Also, no less importantly, it is now clear to me that Sgt Livaccari is in no way a “birdbrain” or any of the other, er, colorful appellations that I assigned to him. I apologize for those as well.
Again, thanks for your reply.
P.S.: Thanks for your clarification of LA laws regarding defense of property. As I mentioned in the post, I didn’t know. Now I do.