“Presently, as the result of underfunding and inadequate staffing at the Van Zandt County (TX) Sheriff’s Office, homeowners need to take appropriate precautions to protect their families.” So advises Sheriff Michael Ray. Fortunately, an unnamed local woman had already realized the importance of having the ability to protect herself. Which is why deputies who arrived at her house found Christopher Foster whose body temperature had already begun dropping to match that of the early Texas morning . . .
The recently sprung Foster was trying to break into the woman’s home through a side door when she relieved Lone Star State taxpayers of any further future expense or bother.
Foster, who had a lengthy criminal history, and recently was released on bond from the Van Zandt County Jail, after he was accused of failing to comply with registration requirements as a sex offender.
Thankfully this happened in rural Texas where there’s no question of a woman defending herself and her home from free roaming pervs.
“I will continue to support the law abiding citizens of our community when they are forced to take actions to protect their lives, liberty and property.”
God bless Texas.
This is how it should be everywhere. A happy ending even if it was a bit late in coming.
I like “bang, bang” and he’s a capon!
God Bless Texas, except for Austin. Austin PD Chief Acevedo thinks she should have let him just rape her:
Oh good, they have services for victims and survivors… Man, that’s a load off my mind, I’ll be selling my guns now.
Watching that makes my blood boil. Someone should rape Acevedo and then he can see for himself how wonderful it would be to be part of a “victim services program”. UNBELIEVABLE. ……
hes a real piece of work ,he used a cell phone to record a female ofiicer ” bl^$$4ing him and showed it to fellow officers and got his ass kicked out of californis ,,and slithered over to texas
Only in Austin…
No worries. He had the right last name which, in Austin politics, counts for a lot. Oh, and being from California did hurt either since he’s just the kind of guy to be familiar to so many of Austin’s new residents.
If I understand him right, he’s saying that if an armed woman gets assaulted, the attacker might get the gun away from her and kill her with it. OK fine, that could happen.
The other alternative is, she kills her attacker.
Now what are the alternatives if she isn’t armed?
1) She gets raped and her attacker lets her live.
2) She gets raped and her attacker kills her anyway.
Seems to me that if she is armed then you have a good outcome or a bad outcome, whereas unarmed you just have two bad outcomes.
It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out which way is better.
What you described is pretty much the Descartes model based on scenario and outcome:
No gun, women gets raped
No gun, women gets killed
Gun, women does not get raped
Gun, women does not get killed
Gun, women gets raped
Gun, women gets killed
In all possible outcomes the only one that exist were the women is not raped or killed is when she has a gun. She has an equal outcome of being raped or killed with or without a gun.
Not equal. chance or equal possibility just that there is a still possibility of rape and getting killed with a gun. Choose the scenario where you have the best possibilty of not being the victum.
Each outcome has an equal chance of occurring, which is 1/6. So my statement that with or without a gun is true since all outcomes have the same probability. Without taking into account other variables which can or cannot be measured accurately this is about as basic as you can get.
Why I rarely go to Austin anymore…..
And my local sheriff (McLennan County) spoke in favor of campus carry.
I thought one of the best quotes I have seen came from the Chancellor at Texas A&M (from DMN article):
Sharp wrote that Texas A&M wouldn’t oppose the legislation, saying that the matter ultimately came down to trust.
“The real question is: Do I trust my students, faculty and staff to work and live responsibly under the same laws at the university as they do at home?” Sharp wrote. “Of course I do.”
I was extremely pleased (and surprised) to see that. Sharp has held office as a Democrat, but he’s one of the rare old moderate ones, plus he’s an Aggie and an old friend of Rick Perry.
His response was infinitely better than that of that jerk McRaven at UT.
Had an interesting experience with Sharp’s campaign, can’t recall what he was running for (Guv? Lt. Guv?). I was all set to vote for him, then the Dems at the national level began pulling all kinds of the usual Dem crap (blocking the potential first Hispanic AG because he was a Republican, changing the rules for US Senate elections in NJ to assure a Dem would be elected, etc, etc, etc. ) For the first time in my life I decided I would vote straight-ticket R ( I still don’t like straight-ticket, as a matter of principle) Called Sharp’s campaign HQ more or less to explain why I couldn’t vote for him. Had a very reasonable conversation with one of his managers, who of course tried his best to distance Sharp from the national party. Glad Mr. Sharp has some reason left in him.
Your sheriff is a great one! He actually taught my first CHL class quite a few years back. I’d give (insert almost any body part here) if Dallas County could elect a sheriff with similar common sense.
What the actual f*ck, I can not believe he said that.
Just get raped, enjoy it, we’ll get you a counselor.
He’s a scumbag.
Clayton Williams lost a chance at the Texas governorship for saying similar, albeit more crudely. But then, he was a Repub, they can’t get away with garbage like that like Dems can.
In fairness his concern was that the sexual assault victims would become murder victims. He is just a poor speaker as far as saying the clearly. From just that video alone it is not clear whether he thinks it is more likely than not that the gun will be turned against the woman, or if he is thinking that rapists now refrain from carrying guns but would totally do it if it were legal, and thus might kill them.
The second is of course even dumber than the first.
As if someone willing to commit rape would be bothered in the least by silly laws prohibiting him from carrying a firearm on campus?
Here’s some common sense for the MDA types (and Chief WarOnWomen): the only person impacted by gun laws is the law-abiding rape victim.
Who the hell hired that puke?
The Austin City Council, of course. They couldn’t find a mixed-race transgender Muslim atheist so they made do with Acevedo.
I watched that video several times and still can’t seem to figure out just exactly what he was trying to say. But then again, I know Art and have talked to him personally. So I am sure that he really thinks that it is best that the “Lesser People” simply take it and not complain.
As a retired City of Austin employee…. I live as far from that foolishness as I could get when I left.
His argument sounds full retard because he is trying just ever so hard to dance around the legal use of deadly force elephant in the room. He’s using examples that allow the use of immediate deadly force: home invasion, sexual assault, and aggravated sexual assault.
Chief Acevedo is a former CHP officer from CA.
He likes obedient, compliant and submissive victims. If they are raped or killed, sometimes thats just what happens and the way it goes. If you live, we have a program for you.
Those willing to scale force and fight in self defense legally under TX Tile 2 Chapter 9……he really detests those types.
This Jackass Chief just demonstrated how the mind of law enforcement works. He compartmentalized his brain and associates gun use with criminals and completely dismisses lawful self-defense. Frame the meaning of his words and here is what he meant…
Guns escalate non lethal crimes to homicide, and we (police) don’t want that…because it’s MORE paperwork. For a rape we fill out a form, possible transport to hospital for a rape kit and we’re done. Homicide involves more resources, getting out the yellow tape, detectives are brought in, many more forms..enough for a book…just to much work that doesn’t bring in any revenue.
He’s from the Los Angeles
police departmentstreet gang. His vision of the APD is for it to become more like LAPD and for Austin to become more like LA.It makes perfect sense that the lefty Austin legislature would hire him because they want Austin to become more like Los Angeles too.
I’m sure he just wanted to borrow some sugar… of sorts.
Restore his rights! Oh…nevermind.
Ah, I see what you did there…
Squeaky wheel time:
http://cqrcengage.com/gunowners/home
At least he was decent enough to not go about stealing someone’s gun. Possession would’ve been illegal.
How many on TTAG argued a few days ago that scumbags like this should get their gun rights back after they have “paid their debt to society”? And here was I, all heartless and insensitive, saying that scumbags like this forfeit their voting rights and gun rights when they prey on others.
It’s irrelevent at this point, because armed self defense did the job. Well done, Texas citizen. Chance of recidivism: 0%.
“Foster, who had a lengthy criminal history, and recently was released on bond from the Van Zandt County Jail, after he was accused of failing to comply with registration requirements as a sex offender.”
Why was a person with a lengthy criminal history including sexual assault set free on the streets? Our discussion of having all rights after release from prison does not include people like the home invader in this story because he never should have been set free. The problem here is not restoring rights. The problem here is the joke that is our criminal justice system which failed us entirely.
Wouldn’t it be exceedingly clever of the ruling class if they did this sort of thing on purpose? They can throw their hands up in the air and act like this sort of criminal justice system screw-up is unavoidable and the very reason why we must never let anyone have their rights after getting out of prison — because they could be a dangerous and violent repeat offender. The fact that our criminal justice system should never release such degenerates is never discussed.
The problem here is that the voters need to balance their choices among:
– keeping violent criminals off the streets
– spending money on prisons
– keeping drug users and dealers off the streets
Taxpayers have a limited appetite for prisons. We could keep both violent criminals and druggies off the streets if we were willing to build enough prisons. We won’t. Conservatives want to reduce drug use and also associate drugs with violent or property crime. Noble goals they may be, but they require prisons the taxpayers won’t fund. The easy thing for politicians to do is release violent criminals. The politicians won’t be blamed; it’s just an indirect consequence of their catering to the voters’ wishes. It’s we voters who have to decide what our priorities are. Perhaps we should optimize by defending the 2A.
I am agnostic regarding legalization of drugs, but I see no public benefit of putting pot heads and coke heads behind bars.
You do realize that there are people who are felons for non-violent crimes, right? Are you saying that someone who, say, fences stolen property should be denied from owning a firearm after sentence completion just like a serial rapist?
Hmmm. I’ve been in law enforcement for 14 years, so I’ve realized that. We have a slew of BS felonies that have nothing to with gun rights. I never argued possession of a Taser should be a felony for example.
Rape, murder, sexual assault of children, are a different story.
So basically your initial post was a big ol’ strawman, then.
Nope. I never argued rapists, child milestones, and murderes should have gun and voting rights restored. Not sure how you missed that, but it certainly happened. I’ve got some personal stake in the matter because I’ve actually dealt with killers. But if you think those people are all just fine, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion.
Oops, meant to say child molesters but my edit function shut down on the phone.
I still haven’t heard anything resembling an intelligent answer about those who would want *this guys* rights restored. If he had survived this alleged sexual assault, that is. So many were just saying that everybody “deserves” their rights once that had “paid their debt.” So what about this guy? Do some of you all want just like this guy packing? Voting?
I guess I’m just not that tolerant.
Seriously, *who* advocated for *violent* criminals to have their firearms rights restored?
Conveniently enough, nobody else argued for such as him to have his gun rights restored, either – which means Grindstone nailed it in one: Straw Man.
Grindstone and Chippy,
RF had a question of the day regarding the restoration of gun and voting rights regarding felons. There certainly were people arguing that all rights should be restored upon release back into society. I consistently argued that violent felons – rapists, murderers, manslaughter killers, child molesters, etc. should not have their rights restored. I made no strawman argument. Perhaps you two just don’t understand the concept, which is fairly simple: a man or woman who violently invades the rights of another doesn’t get their full rights restored when they get out of prison. Not in my view anyway.
Should you have been paying attention, I’m also thoroughly cognizant of the fact that laws don’t stop criminals.
As was argued on that other thread: murderers, rapists, and other similarly violent criminals shouldn’t be let out of prison to begin with. The restoration of rights upon release is moot, if people who have no business walking free in society are kept behind bars.
I don’t recall anyone on that thread arguing that murderers, rapists, and similarly violent criminals should ever have their gun rights restored. Some (like me) argued that they should never be released; others argued that, if released, they should not have rights restored. And there were some who argued for rights restoration after probation and petitioning (though I don’t recall if anyone argued such for violent crimiinals). But as I recall, not one person argued that they should be released and have rights restored.
So, yes: you erected a Straw Man.
I think he was prohibited from breaking and entering, rape and murder, as well as carrying a gun. He did not seem to be deterred. As we have said repeatedly, he should not have been released, gun rights are beside the point entirely. If he had wanted a gun he would have had one. Why prohibit it, when only law abiding citizens will comply? As usual.
IIRC, the guy that kidnapped a baby and killed Texas Ranger Stan Guffey had a pretty lengthy prior criminal record, but the thing that got him “felony” status was a credit-card theft conviction. At the time of the kidnapping, he was apparently being sought for forgery, another non-violent felony. Just my opinion, we separate “misdemeanors” from “felonies” for a reason, altho I do realize that more and more that distinction is being abused.
WOULDN’T IT BE CONVENIENT IF FECAL CEPHALICS CHOSE TO HAVE THEIR CRIMINAL RECORD PROMINENTLY TATTOOED ON THEMSELVES? I THOUGHT HIS TATT’S FLAME-LIKE MOTIF WAS TELLING ME MORE THAN HE WAS ONLY DEEPLY OBSCESSIVELY AND COMPULSIVLY DISTURBED.
Actually, I argued that he shouldn’t have been allowed out of prison.
If he had wanted to have a gun when trying to break into his intended victim’s home: what would have stopped him? Laws? Unrestored rights?
We don’t put child molesters away for life, and they aren’t reliably rehabilitated in prison. You gonna argue for their rights? Not me. Again, you still miss the point. We can’t and don’t keep everyone in prison. That’s not realistic.
Perhaps we should.
No; it is you who misses the point.
Laws that infringe upon natural rights, at a minimum, must have a demonstrable impact on a compelling public good. Gun control laws, in all aspects, are utterly impotent with respect to their intended public good – that is, keeping them out of the hands of violent criminals.
You can implement whatever laws you want, and it won’t change the calculus. Violent criminals using firearms in the commission of violent crimes will remain the same, whether they do so with restored or unrestored rights.
Thus, the only people upon whom the restoration (or lack thereof) of gun rights will have any impact are people who are law-abiding, or who choose to rehabilitate themselves post-conviction.
Certainly not. But keeping all violent criminals in prison is very much realistic.
My point in particular was not that he should get his gun rights back, but that once the government has done everything to someone that they say they are going to do, the authority to continue punishing that person expires. I believe questions like that should always be framed in terms of government authority.
Grindstone says:
February 13, 2015 at 23:10
“You do realize that there are people who are felons for non-violent crimes, right? Are you saying that someone who, say, fences stolen property should be denied from owning a firearm after sentence completion just like a serial rapist?”
—————————————————————————————————
What about the burglar who kills someone in a burglary “gone wrong”?
Is the fence complicit in this crime?
How about the carjacker who puts a gun in someone’s face so they can take the car and sell the parts?
Isn’t the crooked auto recycler complicit in the violence of this crime?
Would most robbers even rob if their were no fences to buy their loot?
What about the fences who make requests for certain items from their ‘suppliers’?
Or fences who provide their ‘vendors’ with the addresses of homes likely to be well stocked
with fenceable goods?
Do you really want these people to have their right to firearms restored?
How are their victims ever made whole?
….
Pervs gotta perv. And intended victim gotta shoot him in the face. Nice outcome.
Many years ago in WV had a county sheriff make a statement to the same effect as this Texas sheriff. Get a gun and use it. He wasn’t asking for more money or manpower. Just advising us residents of his deputies limits.
He was a dem and I supported him.