Louisville man:Billy Jack(son) wins against 2 armed robbers

[HerbM]

The text version:
http://www.wlky.com/news/16509622/detail.html

The raw video (a nicely done interview that lets him tell the entire story):
http://www.wlky.com/video/16509601/index.html

To see the video at all you must have Scripting enabled. I recommend using Internet Explorer (although my browser is usually FireFox) for this due to the requirements:

Then if you don't have Microsoft Silverlight installed you will be informed and required to do that.

Then if you have scripting and Silverlight (using IE) you will get a bunch of Flash/scripting errors (dismiss those).

Then you will have to sit through a commercial.

THEN the guy finally starts talking in detail.

Believe it or not, it's still worth it, 15+ Minutes of real conversation from the real guy in detail.

[Keith B]

He handled himself very well, but not sure I would have talked that much to the media. Howver, he did a great job.

Interesting that the perps Tec-9 had been stolen from the police department.

[The Annoyed Man]

I found interesting his comments about his own anguish in the aftermath of it. On another board, I was once ridiculed for saying that I would feel bad about it if I had to kill another man, but this gentleman expressed my own viewpoint pretty accurately. I would hate to have to do it, but I would do what I have to do to survive. I don't think my conscience would bother me, because the self-defense is absolutely justifiable, and I don't think I would lose any sleep on that account. But, I do think that I would be pretty shaken up, and that I would feel the same kind of anguish and sorrow over having to kill someone as this man does. Note that he said he was a combat veteran, and he was just doing what he'd been trained to do. Lots of good men come out of combat with clear consciences over what they've had to do, but anguished none the less over having had to do it.

I think that is a good thing, otherwise there's not a lot to separate me from people like the two blackhearts he had to shoot.

[HerbM]

I found interesting his comments about his own anguish in the aftermath of it. On another board, I was once ridiculed for saying that I would feel bad about it if I had to kill another man, but this gentleman expressed my own viewpoint pretty accurately. I would hate to have to do it, but I would do what I have to do to survive. I don't think my conscience would bother me, because the self-defense is absolutely justifiable, and I don't think I would lose any sleep on that account. But, I do think that I would be pretty shaken up, and that I would feel the same kind of anguish and sorrow over having to kill someone as this man does. Note that he said he was a combat veteran, and he was just doing what he'd been trained to do. Lots of good men come out of combat with clear consciences over what they've had to do, but anguished none the less over having had to do it.

I think that is a good thing, otherwise there's not a lot to separate me from people like the two blackhearts he had to shoot.

While I can comprehend what you say, I don't really understand it completely presuming a situation like this. As you say, he thought he was going to die and (perhaps more importantly) he thought his wife was going to die unless he did something and you would feel not guilt nor lose any sleep.

So what is to hate? That two violent criminals left some citizen no choice but to refuse to let his wife die by their hand.

Anything I say is based solely on supposition from self-knowledge, since until a real incident happens we don't really know how we will feel, but I hope that it would be the same amount of anguish as I feel right now. They are dead. I didn't cause it. I feel a lot worse for the two little girls who were murdered in OK this week, or those children who are dying around the world.

It doesn't matter who ended the career of these two violent, murderous criminals -- you, me, him -- that person had no choice so it doesn't matter to me emotionally who does it. It deserves no more hate than killing dinner, or putting down a favorite but terminal horse or pet who is in extreme pain.

[I say it doesn't matter emotionally since it would definitely matter from a practical point of view dealing with all the details and stresses of the aftermath that are external.]

Now, I am all about logic and rationality, but that it just me.

Since most people are not so logically focused, perhaps you are right that it would affect most people in a highly negative emotional way and that it is better they share your feelings.

[M9FAN]

I found interesting his comments about his own anguish in the aftermath of it. On another board, I was once ridiculed for saying that I would feel bad about it if I had to kill another man, but this gentleman expressed my own viewpoint pretty accurately. I would hate to have to do it, but I would do what I have to do to survive. I don't think my conscience would bother me, because the self-defense is absolutely justifiable, and I don't think I would lose any sleep on that account. But, I do think that I would be pretty shaken up, and that I would feel the same kind of anguish and sorrow over having to kill someone as this man does. Note that he said he was a combat veteran, and he was just doing what he'd been trained to do. Lots of good men come out of combat with clear consciences over what they've had to do, but anguished none the less over having had to do it.

I think that is a good thing, otherwise there's not a lot to separate me from people like the two blackhearts he had to shoot.

[Mr.Scott]

[quote="The Annoyed Man"]I found interesting his comments about his own anguish in the aftermath of it. On another board, I was once ridiculed for saying that I would feel bad about it if I had to kill another man, but this gentleman expressed my own viewpoint pretty accurately. I would hate to have to do it, but I would do what I have to do to survive. I don't think my conscience would bother me, because the self-defense is absolutely justifiable, and I don't think I would lose any sleep on that account. But, I do think that I would be pretty shaken up, and that I would feel the same kind of anguish and sorrow over having to kill someone as this man does. Note that he said he was a combat veteran, and he was just doing what he'd been trained to do. Lots of good men come out of combat with clear consciences over what they've had to do, but anguished none the less over having had to do it.

I think that is a good thing, otherwise there's not a lot to separate me from people like the two blackhearts he had to shoot.

While I can comprehend what you say, I don't really understand it completely presuming a situation like this. As you say, he thought he was going to die and (perhaps more importantly) he thought his wife was going to die unless he did something and you would feel no guilt nor lose any sleep.

So what is to hate? That two violent criminals left some citizen no choice but to refuse to let his wife die by their hand.

Anything I say is based solely on supposition from self-knowledge, since until a real incident happens we don't really know how we will feel, but I hope that it would be the same amount of anguish as I feel right now. They are dead. I didn't cause it. I feel a lot worse for the two little girls who were murdered in OK this week, or those children who are dying around the world.

It doesn't matter who ended the career of these two violent, murderous criminals -- you, me, him -- that person had no choice so it doesn't matter to me emotionally who does it. It deserves no more hate than killing dinner, or putting down a favorite but terminal horse or pet who is in extreme pain.

[I say it doesn't matter emotionally since it would definitely matter from a practical point of view dealing with all the details and stresses of the aftermath that are external.]

Now, I am all about logic and rationality, but that it just me.

Since most people are not so logically focused, perhaps you are right that it would affect most people in a highly negative emotional way and that it is better they share your feelings.[/quote]

It's easy for everyone to sit back an darm chair quarter back and say they could kill a person, even one that was intent on harming or killing you. But in the end, we are not cold callous murderers, which is why we are the good guys. It's human nature to be remorseful of killing someone, even in defense. Admitting it is not a sign of weakness, it's a sign of understanding and rational thought. IF you can kill someone and not give 2 squirts of piss about it, you have some other issues to work out.

[HerbM]

[I messed up the quoting in MY message and so you might wish to fix your message to straighten out your quoting.]

...I think that is a good thing, otherwise there's not a lot to separate me from people like the two blackhearts he had to shoot.

...It doesn't matter who ended the career of these two violent, murderous criminals -- you, me, him -- that person had no choice so it doesn't matter to me emotionally who does it. It deserves no more hate than killing dinner, or putting down a favorite but terminal horse or pet who is in extreme pain.

[I say it doesn't matter emotionally since it would definitely matter from a practical point of view dealing with all the details and stresses of the aftermath that are external.]

Now, I am all about logic and rationality, but that it just me.

Since most people are not so logically focused, perhaps you are right that it would affect most people in a highly negative emotional way and that it is better they share your feelings.

...But in the end, we are not cold callous murderers, which is why we are the good guys. It's human nature to be remorseful of killing someone, even in defense. Admitting it is not a sign of weakness, it's a sign of understanding and rational thought. IF you can kill someone and not give 2 squirts of piss about it, you have some other issues to work out.

Do you really believe that about me, or yourself? I don't feel bad for the two guys that Mr. Jackson shot in self-defense, do you?

How would YOU shooting them change the facts of their death (other than the practical difficulties you would face in place of Mr. Jackson)?

I won't feel bad about killing my dinner by hunting (although I don't practice hunting) nor shooting a rattle snake that is about to harm a child (although I might just remove it from my garden and have co-existed with sharks, barracudas, rattlers, water moccasins, and copperheads when I was a commercial diver -- they just weren't threatening me and it would have accomplished nothing to harm them.)

I won't FEEL bad about stopping a violent crime or saying my life nor especially saving the wife of my wife, kids or grandkids.

There is no reason to feel bad when we cannot, and more importantly would not, do otherwise. I reserve feeling bad for the bad things I actually do that are wrong, or the good that I leave undone. Remorse for necessary actions is not in fact human nature, but something we have learned to believe.

What separates us from those criminals is not that we would feel remorse or guilt, but rather that we will NOT rob, kill, rape, or criminally attack another person despite any "feelings" we might have.

What separates us from the criminals is that we do no harm and commit no violent crimes, not how we feel about doing what is absolutely legal AND necessary.

[DoubleJ]

TexasCHLforum Rule 1:No profanity, pseudo-profanity, or abbreviated profanity. If you are in doubt about a word, don’t use it. Any profanity substitute that gets the profane message across is prohibited! If you violate this rule, you may (or may not) get one warning, after which all posts violating the rule will simply be deleted.

Subject: Louisville man:Billy Jack(son) wins against 2 armed robbers

It's easy for everyone to sit back an darm chair quarter back and say they could kill a person, even one that was intent on harming or killing you. But in the end, we are not cold callous murderers, which is why we are the good guys. It's human nature to be remorseful of killing someone, even in defense. Admitting it is not a sign of weakness, it's a sign of understanding and rational thought. IF you can kill someone and not give 2 squirts of piss about it, you have some other issues to work out.

[The Annoyed Man]

Herb, I think there is a world of difference between grieving over the deaths of the two perps, and feeling terrible that you had to kill someone. The latter would describe me. Would I kill somebody if I had to? Sure. I wouldn't even hesitate. But I believe that all human life is precious, even if it needs to be taken for reasons of self-preservation. For me, it's a religious thing.

I would still sleep at night (well, perhaps after a couple of nights had gone by and I had time to settle down a bit), and I would be able to look myself in the mirror in the morning, because my conscience would be clear. But I would still feel terrible that two people had to die. I'm not going to apologize for it, and if others can't understand it, well, that's on them, not on me. I just don't want to have to face my Maker some day and confess that I considered one of His creations to be no better than a bug when I killed him. That's just me. BTW, I'm a hunter too, but I don't see any conflict in killing one of his animal creations because, in my particular belief system, God put the animals here and gave man dominion over them. Shooting a white tail deer might be more fun and have deeper significance than wringing a chicken's neck, but it is still boils down to harvesting meat. But God didn't give me dominion over my fellow human beings, so for me, killing one of them might be a necessary thing, and it might even find favor in God's eyes under the right circumstances, but that is His judgment to make, not mine. I'm just trying to survive, and I don't want to rejoice in another man's death - particularly if he dies unsaved.

If someone else isn't freighted by the same things that give me pause, well, OK for them, and I hold no opinion against them for their particular examination and conclusion on the matter. I'm just saying what works for me, and why - and why in particular I think that distinguishes me from a predator.

[HerbM]

Herb, I think there is a world of difference between grieving over the deaths of the two perps, and feeling terrible that you had to kill someone. The latter would describe me. Would I kill somebody if I had to? Sure. I wouldn't even hesitate. But I believe that all human life is precious, even if it needs to be taken for reasons of self-preservation. For me, it's a religious thing.

Something like 250,000 human beings died yesterday. Almost all of them bother me more than those 2, or the 2 who committed the murders in Garland.

I would still sleep at night (well, perhaps after a couple of nights had gone by and I had time to settle down a bit), and I would be able to look myself in the mirror in the morning, because my conscience would be clear. But I would still feel terrible that two people had to die. I'm not going to apologize for it, and if others can't understand it, well, that's on them, not on me. I just don't want to have to face my Maker some day and confess that I considered one of His creations to be no better than a bug when I killed him. That's just me. BTW, I'm a hunter too, but I don't see any conflict in killing one of his animal creations because, in my particular belief system, God put the animals here and gave man dominion over them. Shooting a white tail deer might be more fun and have deeper significance than wringing a chicken's neck, but it is still boils down to harvesting meat. But God didn't give me dominion over my fellow human beings, so for me, killing one of them might be a necessary thing, and it might even find favor in God's eyes under the right circumstances, but that is His judgment to make, not mine. I'm just trying to survive, and I don't want to rejoice in another man's death - particularly if he dies unsaved.

If someone else isn't freighted by the same things that give me pause, well, OK for them, and I hold no opinion against them for their particular examination and conclusion on the matter. I'm just saying what works for me, and why - and why in particular I think that distinguishes me from a predator.

Then (as far as I know) I give you pause -- I would not feel terrible, guilty, responsible (in a moral sense) for a necessary action.

Remember, on this subject (at least) we are NOT arguing but merely talking about our (expected) feelings.

I don't think you should APOLOGIZE for your feelings, but I do think you are putting that on yourself unnecessarily. If God gave you dominion over animals for hunting, then God either forbids you to kill someone in self-defense, or recommends you use whatever force is necessary when your life is in danger and no practical alternative is available. (Personally I don't use religious argument to justify anything that I do or don't do, but if that is your criteria this only seems logical.)

I also don't think you should hold it against anyone, or judge them untrustworthy or 'giving you pause' if they don't share those feelings. It's impossible to say what feelings I actually would have but my goal would be to remove any such remorse IF I had done precisely what was necessary to save the life of my wife and myself.

I might feel bad if the person were mentally incompetent and I couldn't find another solution, but notice that it would be predicated on: Did I have a choice? Did I do what I could to prevent something that wasn't necessary (even if it was legal)?

No choice => no guilt. No guilt => no feeling bad.

If you can show me where Billy Jackson had any practical choice then THAT I might feel bad about.

You might as well feel bad for not sending aid or money to someone who died yesterday in Africa or Asia -- at least here you had a choice if you have more than enough to just get by for you and your family.

[The Annoyed Man]

Herb, I think there is a world of difference between grieving over the deaths of the two perps, and feeling terrible that you had to kill someone. The latter would describe me. Would I kill somebody if I had to? Sure. I wouldn't even hesitate. But I believe that all human life is precious, even if it needs to be taken for reasons of self-preservation. For me, it's a religious thing.

Something like 250,000 human beings died yesterday. Almost all of them bother me more than those 2, or the 2 who committed the murders in Garland.

Well naturally - assuming that those 250,000 weren't killed in the commission of a felony, and most particularly because those 250,000 weren't out to try and kill you. I would feel that way too.

I would still sleep at night (well, perhaps after a couple of nights had gone by and I had time to settle down a bit), and I would be able to look myself in the mirror in the morning, because my conscience would be clear. But I would still feel terrible that two people had to die. I'm not going to apologize for it, and if others can't understand it, well, that's on them, not on me. I just don't want to have to face my Maker some day and confess that I considered one of His creations to be no better than a bug when I killed him. That's just me. BTW, I'm a hunter too, but I don't see any conflict in killing one of his animal creations because, in my particular belief system, God put the animals here and gave man dominion over them. Shooting a white tail deer might be more fun and have deeper significance than wringing a chicken's neck, but it is still boils down to harvesting meat. But God didn't give me dominion over my fellow human beings, so for me, killing one of them might be a necessary thing, and it might even find favor in God's eyes under the right circumstances, but that is His judgment to make, not mine. I'm just trying to survive, and I don't want to rejoice in another man's death - particularly if he dies unsaved.

If someone else isn't freighted by the same things that give me pause, well, OK for them, and I hold no opinion against them for their particular examination and conclusion on the matter. I'm just saying what works for me, and why - and why in particular I think that distinguishes me from a predator.

Then (as far as I know) I give you pause -- I would not feel terrible, guilty, responsible (in a moral sense) for a necessary action.

And that is fine. You don't give me pause, and I'm not making judgment about how you would react. I'm only talking about my own feelings - which, by the way, do not include guilt. As I said, I would have a clear conscience. I just don't think that, for me personally, even a justifiable killing is not something I could just shrug off without any feelings about it. It would be a momentous event in my life, and it is something which I would feel compelled to examine with a great deal of sobriety and reflection. Again, that's just me. If others don't feel the same way, that's fine.

Remember, on this subject (at least) we are NOT arguing but merely talking about our (expected) feelings.

Exactly. Not making value judgments, just talking about my own heart in the matter.

I don't think you should APOLOGIZE for your feelings, but I do think you are putting that on yourself unnecessarily. If God gave you dominion over animals for hunting, then God either forbids you to kill someone in self-defense, or recommends you use whatever force is necessary when your life is in danger and no practical alternative is available. (Personally I don't use religious argument to justify anything that I do or don't do, but if that is your criteria this only seems logical.)

For the record, I am not able to turn my faith on and off, and I am unable to view the world through any other filter than through my faith. But I fully recognize that, in a largely unbelieving world, one has to be able to make logical secular arguments either for or against a given proposition. For instance, I mentioned the issue of abortion in another thread yesterday, not because I was making a point about abortion, but because I was making a point about legislation from the bench. I mention it the same way now. My personal sentiments about abortion are based in my religious beliefs. However, I fully recognize that a large segment of the population, possibly a majority, do not share my religious beliefs. Therefore, if I am to construct an argument against abortion to convince a non-believer that it is wrong, it has to be a secular argument, because that's how the other person is connected to their world view. That tactic would be necessary here in this thread if we were having a discussion about the legality of killing in self defense. We are not. Therefore, I don't feel that I need to make that secular justification about how I should or should not feel after having killed in self defense. I know that was long-winded, but does that make sense to you?

The assumption that, because God gives men dominion over the animals but not over other men, one may not kill in self defense doesn't necessarily follow. In fact, there are verses which tend to support the notion that Jesus did not disapprove of going about armed with lethal weapons, or that those weapons would be used for self-defense. There is even a passage in Luke where Jesus tells his disciples to take their swords with them, and if they don't have one, to sell their cloak and buy one. Furthermore, the oldest stricture against the taking of human life in the Bible says "You shall not murder," not "You shall not kill." That is an important distinction. The Old Testament goes on to make very clear distinctions between accidental and negligent homicide, and justifiable killing and murder. The implication is that in God's economy, there are situations in which one may justifiably take another person's life. So for me, there is no conflict there - only the realization that I would be taking the life of one of his creatures over whom I do not normally have dominion. I hope that makes some kind of sense to you.

I also don't think you should hold it against anyone, or judge them untrustworthy or 'giving you pause' if they don't share those feelings. It's impossible to say what feelings I actually would have but my goal would be to remove any such remorse IF I had done precisely what was necessary to save the life of my wife and myself.

Let me repeat that your thoughts do not give me pause, and I pass no judgment on it one way or the other; Nor do I judge you untrustworthy because you have the reactions you have. Possibly I have not adequately made clear that I would have a clear conscience. Remorse does not enter into it, because there is no guilt for wrongdoing. It is just that, for me, the notion of taking another human life, even if perfectly justifiable in both spiritual and secular terms, is a very sobering thought, and I would hate to have to do it - even though I would do it, and do it with a clear conscience.

I realize that these must be conflicting propositions to you - that I would both hate that I had to do something and would feel bad about it aftward, and that I would do it nonetheless with a clear conscience. I also realize that it therefore seems illogical. All the same, that is probably how I would feel. As you point out, none of us really knows how we'll react in the aftermath until we actually have to do it. I can only speak from what I know about myself already. But sometimes I surprise even myself.

I might feel bad if the person were mentally incompetent and I couldn't find another solution, but notice that it would be predicated on: Did I have a choice? Did I do what I could to prevent something that wasn't necessary (even if it was legal)?

No choice => no guilt. No guilt => no feeling bad.

If you can show me where Billy Jackson had any practical choice then THAT I might feel bad about.

You might as well feel bad for not sending aid or money to someone who died yesterday in Africa or Asia -- at least here you had a choice if you have more than enough to just get by for you and your family.

I don't believe Billy Jackson had any practical choice - other than to just lay down and die, and that's not a realistic choice. I completely understand your logic, and it makes sense to me. My reticence is simply because I am incapable of not giving due consideration to God's prerogatives.

BTW, I am enjoying this conversation very much. Thank you.

[HerbM]

I think perhaps you are saying it poorly or as I said earlier, putting a burden on your (future) self that is not justified.

You would not "have pause" towards me (now) based on my opinion (even though that was the way it was expressed before). You would not feel guilt, nor remorse, but you would have a "clear conscience" and yet you expect to "feel bad".

While I would be doing my absolute best to NOT feel bad, you are however planning or expecting to feel that way. I think you would be too hard on yourself if you did that. If this ever happens to me, I would hope you would remind me not to do that.

Sober reflection is not the same as "feeling bad" -- unless that reflection finds that you made some contributory mistake that caused the death -- otherwise you are just an instrument the same as if these criminals had decided to jump out of a plane without a parachute -- not your problem.

Note that I would have pause if someone said they could have a clear conscience without sober reflection on such an event -- that is the only way we could possibly know if we had done the right thing, made mistakes, taken the best course in a bad situation to which we contributed, or had absolutely no choice.

I think Billy Jackson MIGHT have made one (or two) mistakes -- he flashed his money roll. That doesn't in any way make him guilty or responsible. As far as I am concerned he could have told them he had a million dollars in the apartment and didn't have a gun.

If they invaded his apartment with guns to rob and kill him then that was their choice. It is still a minor mistake to invite attack.

Although I think Joe Horn should be no-billed, maybe even given a medal, perhaps Joe Horn does have something to feel bad about -- Joe Horn chose to stop the robbery and to leave the safety of his home. Those two choices led proximately to his killing the two burglars legally. Were I Joe, I might feel a little bad about that. Guilt? Not really. Remorse? A little.

Billy Jackson? No way.

We all die (at least for now -- though give it another 25-50 years) -- the real question is how do we live.

PS> I might not have responded this time, but you did say you were enjoying the conversation. And I made the same point (separately) yesterday as you did on the abortion issue, unenumerated right derived from another unenumerated right, i.e., privacy, vs. a clearly protected and long acknolwedge right from before the Constitution was even considered. I have made that point frequently. Which is why I was wrong about Ginsberg -- she should now expect to hear 20 minutes of laughter anytime she claims there is a right to abortion. (No matter what anyone's belief on the subject). She and the other 3 have proven themselves hypocrites and intellectually dishonest.