Home Invasion? Defensive Gun Use? Or Creative Headline?

Davie shooting

While I was visiting Florida recently, this news headline caught my eye:

Man fatally shot during Davie home invasion, police say

This piqued my curiosity, because I’d already written a post discussing how the frequency of home invasions is very greatly overestimated. Additionally, this appeared to be the kind of incident that would probably be classified as a defensive gun use (DGU), which, as I’ve discussed, is also vastly inflated.

So I read the story, which includes this statement:

The resident of the apartment had some company over and they tried to rob him, Capt. Dale Engle said.

Huh??? The resident of the apartment had some company over? How exactly is it a “home invasion” if you willingly let people into your home? This is a strong indication that the alleged defender has been hanging out with the wrong company; and while it doesn’t automatically negate the claim that he acted in self-defense, it certainly does place a big question  mark next to it.  And reading a little farther, we see this:

The man who was shot was found about 8 p.m. outside the front door of the apartment in the 6100 block of Southwest 48th Street.

Now it’s possible that he might have been shot inside the apartment and then stumbled outside to die. But in the absence of solid facts, we have to allow for the possibility that he already might have been outside when the resident grabbed his gun, then came out and shot him. Very defensive, no?

Finally, there’s this:

The names of those involved haven’t been released, and no charges have been filed in the case. An AK-47 assault rifle found in the grass of a nearby home Friday morning was being examined, Engle said.

An AK-47? Hey, just the perfect thing to defend yourself against home invasion. Especially by some of your buds that you’ve invited inside.  Again, owning an AK-47 doesn’t automatically mean that you’re trigger-happy. But it certainly would seem to increase the odds dramatically.

Despite frequent wild claims of millions, the “confirmed” DGUs number no more than about 1000 per year. And a great many of those “confirmed” DGUs, on closer inspection, turn out to be not so confirmed after all because, as in the Davie shooting, the circumstances are fishier than Chicken of the Sea. Meanwhile, there are at least 400,000 crimes committed with a gun in the U.S. every year, and between 15,000 and 20,000 accidental shootings; altogether there are at least 100,000 gun injuries and/or deaths annually. All in all, it doesn’t add up to a very compelling argument that guns make us safer.

Advertisements

37 thoughts on “Home Invasion? Defensive Gun Use? Or Creative Headline?

  1. P.O.P.
    What source documents 15,000 to 20,000 accidental shootings annually?

    By the way, the Supreme Court has agreed to address a straw purchaser (who transferred a gun to a legally qualified recipient) on Wed. Jan. 22, 2014.
    What? Straw Purchase a Gun? Abramski v. US. (Daily Kos article)

    Say, please accept my deep appreciation for your measured, substantive approach to the gun mess in the U.S.

    reasonablegunsplz

  2. Hello POP

    I am sure that many gun enthusiasts, are somewhat paranoid, and so, what motivates them to have weapons is not really always in line with the actual dangers presented by home invasions. And, I enjoy your debunking a myth like the idea that good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns easily. As you have already illustrated in previous posts, the math does not do justice to the claims that are actually made.

    In regards to the body on the front porch though, isn’t it entirely understandable that a homeowner might justifiably be concerned about an antagonistic visitor who is screaming threatening remarks etc. So, wouldn’t it sometimes be reasonable or, at least understandable, for a homeowner not to wait until the threshold of his home is actually crossed before opening fire? The stand your ground type of reasoning might sometimes actually apply, even if it can often embolden certain gun toting hot–shots to shoot first and think later.

    But I do agree that most of the reported incidents are not exactly exemplary models of how self-defense is supposed to work, and, the idea of inviting “company” over and then having a gun battle with them, reeks suspiciously of a skewed account about what truthfully happened.

    Most of us know that the world can sometimes be a violent place, but, the adamant refusal to accept any kind of reasonable regulations of firearms— supposedly because personal weapons are desperately needed to defend against a government takeover, is entirely paranoid, and not what most sane people would reasonably consider.

    Can’t gun advocates meet the need for prudent safety and prevention measures halfway, and actually accomplish something truly rational that will reduce violence? But I suppose that already every word I have written is being semantically dissected to divert attention away from the simple rational precautions which are obscured by over analysing the simple observations of those who endorse sane regulations!

  3. You’re right, hardly a home invasion, though possibly a valid DGU. The news article is pretty vague when it comes to details.

    But it is the South, and the South, outside the larger cities, looks increasingly like a foreign country to me. Guns and violence have become part of their life and no one seems especially concerned about shootings and deaths. Even if CDC studies showed that the presence of a gun in the house increased the chances for a homicide, accidental shooting, or suicide in that home by 10,000%, it wouldn’t matter to most. The NRA would find some way to spin the truth and convince people they need a gun now more than ever,

    Thanks for examining and debunking the gun lobby’s propaganda. The news media are beginning to recognize and report on the terrible price innocent Americans pay every day for letting our politicians trade public safety for campaign funds.

    • Let’s hope. I suspect that in this case, the news outlet was just using shorthand, as it were, applying the most recognizable terminology it could, rather than deliberately distorting the facts.

  4. Unsure about this story because media can give 1/2 truths. If some1 is burglarizing your house, apartment or stealing from your store, then you have a right to use reasonable (not excess) force to end the crime. Each case is different and must be judged individually. But some thoughts on guns.

    Never have never will own a gun. I have no interest in guns unless it’s seeing military weapons used by us in WW2 to defeat Japan and Germany such as Sherman M4 tanks, weapons we used in Korean War (we used Napalm in WW2, Korea and Vietnam), Huey Helicopters we used in Vietnam and so on. Though off topic here are my thoughts on 1945 atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. President Harry S. Truman should have dropped the atom bombs elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths, but there is no guarantee that this would have ended the war. President Truman had bad options. He could have done what he did and it ended the war. If it had gone to a ground war with Japan, more people both Allied and Japanese would have been killed. Japanese would have used women and children in combat with house to house fighting and they were already doing so. Japanese had Bushido (Samurai way) and fighting to death was preferred to suicide. Yes, the newborns killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are innocent war victims. War is a bad thing. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong, but there were only wrong choices for President Truman to choose from. War is bad and an invasion of Japan would have been worse. If Japan and Germany had the atom bombs, they would have used them as the Japanese airforce had used parachuted fleabombs against China were many were killed in biological warfare. Japan had a program to build the atomb bombs.

    Anyhow, know my 2nd paragraph is incidental to this topic but getting back to main topic with guns, my view is that if 1 owns a gun, they must go through same process as getting a car which means licensing, insurance, gun registration and background checks for any1 buying a gun-reqd. anyhow if not mistaken. They must require marksmanship for hunters such as if a person is going to hunt ducks and deer for food, it must be a fast kill.

    • Abner,

      I am happy to say that I agree with most of the things your said in this post regarding the use and ownership of weapons, and, also your mention of the tough decisions required by President Truman. It is very possible that conventional warfare might only have resulted in prolonging the war, and causing even more deaths.

      However, I think the issue of DGUs for home invasions, has to do with the unfortunate reality that innocent people can easily be mistaken for intruders, and so, there needs to be some clear definitions about just what is meant when something is classified as a home invasion. Otherwise the next time a girl scout rings someones doorbell in order to sell cookies, an overly wary resident could shoot through the doorway and kill her, and then use the law to claim self defense his actions.

      Freedom is good, but can’t come without also requiring responsibility.

      • POP,

        I’ve got to mention that I did some more reading on the topic of whether it was necessary to drop Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end the ware with Japan. What seems apparent, is that many of Truman’s generals, including the observations made in Eisenhower’s memoirs, offer proof that many of them thought that the Atomic bombs dropped on Japan were not necessary to end the war, and that some considered the Empire to be on the brink of total collapse and/or surrender. But while it is quite true that (without) these bombs (at some point in time), Japan would have surrendered anyway, that does not clear up speculation on just how long the war would have continued anyway.

        Most of us have read about the Japanese culture, as well as many oriental societies, which stress that duty and honor, are far more important than we Americans consider them to be, and that, causing dishonor, had at times motivated many a disgraced warrior who chose to commit suicide rather than go on bearing the shame of their surrender. So even well after the point when the war was no longer winnable by the Japaneses, couldn’t many of them have continued to fight with enormous ferocity and dedication to extend the end of violence, or make up for, the disgrace of losing?

        I just can’t believe that Truman and his generals would have decided to go ahead anyway with mass nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for no credible reasons! My guess is that a war weary Truman decided to forget about the collateral damage concerning many innocent civilians who undoubtedly had to die, in favor of the war-weary realization that the bomb could end the war rapidly and without further allied bloodshed.

        Of course Truman probably believed that all human life is sacred, yet he had to be aware that even Japanese citizens were not as worthwhile as the life of a single American soldier who might be spared by taking actions to end all of the killing and pain as rapidly as possible. So, just as the allies bombed Dresden and Berlin unmercifully in order to force Germany’s surrender, and were not concerned about the many innocent deaths and collateral damage done when condemning ordinary German’s to death, rather than wait any longer. I’ll bet that Truman also decided that even the lives of 140, 000 civilians who were killed in the blast, were not nearly as important as the process of protecting the lives of only a handful of American soldiers who could then be spared. We need to take care of our own, even IF vast numbers of Japanese had to perish in order to win such a small but important victory!

        So, even if Japan postponed defeat after being completely resigned to its own fate, none of us really knew just how long that surrender would have taken to happen. And after 20 million lives had been lost, including six million Jews who were tortured to death in Nazi extermination camps, as well as thousands of American POW’s who were forced to march without adequate rest, nourishment, or protection from the elements, on their long “death marches,” It could be that Truman decided to no longer play nice, while making attempts at liberation, without first totally crushing the enemy. There are no atheists in fox holes, and Truman knew that there are no sacrifices more important than acting quickly to save American lives. Perhaps this philosophy persuaded him to do something not necessarily required, but definitely, militarily advantageous!

        We may be entitled to sit back years later and play armchair warriors. But how in the world could Generals like MacArthur and Eisenhower be expected not to give precedence to American soldiers and their well-being, if the opportunity arose to destroy every last one of the enemy strongholds with one precise drop of a nuclear weapon.

        Knowing that Nuclear technology might be forbidden to pass on to our enemies, President Truman probably decided to take the final bombings as a quick way out. Can we really blame him?

        When someone is actually sitting in the Oval Office and dealing with real threats to American lives, The buck stops there! And although hindsight is often 20/20, it can sometimes enable the tragic results from the process of ignoring the dignity of all human beings, once our zeal is only to work and do our jobs, becomes more important than the lives of our many fellow men!

      • My last paragraph above:

        “When someone is actually sitting in the Oval Office and dealing with real threats to American lives, The buck stops there! And although hindsight is often 20/20, it can sometimes enable the tragic results from the process of ignoring the dignity of all human beings, once our zeal is only to work and do our jobs, becomes more important than the lives of our many fellow men!”

        Should read something like this:

        “When someone is actually sitting in the Oval Office and dealing with real threats to American lives, The buck stops there! And although hindsight offered by ordinary pundits is often 20/20, it can sometimes ignore the tragic results that arise when we ignore the dignity of all human beings because our zeal to preserve our own kind becomes more important than the lives of many others of our fellow men!”

      • My thoughts are that President Harry S. Truman should have dropped the atom bombs elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths, but there is no guarantee that this would have ended the war. President Truman had bad options. He could have done what he did and it ended the war. If it had gone to a ground war with Japan, more people both Allied and Japanese would have been killed. Japanese would have used women and children in combat with house to house fighting and they were already doing so. Japanese had Bushido (Samurai way) and fighting to death was preferred to suicide.

        Yes, the newborns killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are innocent war victims andthey did nothing wrong. War is a bad thing. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong, but there were only wrong choices for President Truman to choose from. War is bad and an invasion of Japan would have been worse. If Japan and Germany had the atom bombs, they would have used them as the Japanese airforce had used parachuted fleabombs (similar to daisy cutters used in Vietnam) against China were many were killed in biological warfare. Japan had a program to build the atomb bombs.

        Japanese soldiers were taught to think that fighting to death including suicide missions was better than surrender as surrender considered dishonorable. Japanese military had Bushido which is Samurai Way and Japanese soldiers did Banzai charges in suicide missions along with Kamikaze Airforce-which included human piloted rockets (Okha or Cherry Blossom) and suicide boats. Also the daisy cutters (parachuted bombs) that the Japanese airforce used during World War 2 were fleas carried plague, typhoid and anthrax bombs.

        The daisy cutter bombs used during the Vietnam War were bombs that exploded and did not have fleas. We did use Agent Orange herbicides to kill crops during Vietnam War but biological war was not used. North Vietnamese used booby traps such as Bouncing Betties and we used cluster bombs during Vietnam War. The Germans did have the nerve gases Sarin, Tabun and Soman but Hitler rejected all ideas to use them during the war. Professor R.J. Evans in his book the 3d Reich at War mentions that the Nazis did have experimental nerve gas killings in the concentration camps. Nazis mainly used Zyklon B and diesel gas (Carbon Monoxide) to kill people. Nazis and Japanese military did heinous experiments on prisoners as happened in Nazi concentration camps or Unit 731 in Manchuria on allied POW. The intentional killing of civilians is an evil act and is wrong-war alone is bad.

        There are only wrong and bad choices which President Harry S. Truman had. My view always will be that the atom bombs should have been dropped in other places in Japan with fewer civilians death but I admit that there is no guarantee there would be surrender. There was no guarantee that Japan would surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki as they had not surrendered after Tokyo and other cities were bombed with so many civilian deaths. If it goes to an invasion, many more civilians get killed and Japanese would have used women and children soldiers in combat. 14 year old Japanese boys would fly planes in kamikaze missions. In Okinawa, families committed suicide such as Japanese women with their children would jump off of cliffs to their deaths.

        And must repeat that Japan would have used the atom bombs if they had them and we may still be dealing with them today and Japan would likely have expanded or tried to expand by taking over other nations such as India. As it currently is, Communist China and north Korea are the 2 Communist powers in Asia which we deal with and China has done it’s expansions into Tibet, wants territory from Vietnam (1979 was last war between Vietnam and China), India (1962 war) and other places.

  5. 1 thing to add is that they keep adding new words such as home invasion. Burglary is an easier word. If a person forcibly enters your house or business with intent of stealing or other crime, then it is burglary. Burglar is a thief but a thief is not a burglar. For eg. if a person shoplifts candies (misdemeanor shoplifting) or diamonds(felony shoplifting), then that person is a thief but the person is not a burglar because the shoplifting thief (who is a customer) was permitted into store, but he or she committed a crime when inside by stealing. A burglar is some1 who breaks into your store or house to commit a crime such as steal, vandalize, etc. & again, you have a right to use reasonable force to end the burglary and hopefully call the cops so that police arrest the burglar and the courts convict the burglar.

    With this Florida case, the police investigate & if cops think the shooting is justified then no arrest is made and the prosecutors do not bring charges. In 2013 as known there was the George M. Zimmerman trial (though not a burglary case) where a man was acquitted. Here are my thoughts on that case. Media has called George M. Zimmerman White because his dad’s German. That’s fine but he is only 1/2 White-he is Mestizo as his mom’s Peruana. President Barack H. Obama is 1/2 White as his mom’s White but he is usually thought of as Black. If you want to call George M. Zimmerman White, then that is fine, but as David E. Duke said, calling George M. Zimmerman White would be the same thing as calling President Obama White. But to the Zimmerman trial.

    I do not believe it was a hate crime. My reason for convicting George Michael Zimmerman of negligent homicide THOUGH HE POSSIBLY ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE is because as a security guard he did not follow rules which he was supposed to know when he was trained for this job and he should’ve ended pursuit when asked to and let cops take it from there. Yes, the jury did what they believe is right verdict. But his situation would’ve been avoided if he had waited for the cops to arrive and he knew this as a security guard. George M. Zimmerman once wanted to be a cop but my guess is a reason he wasn’t hired is because he acts on his own & doesn’t believe in teamwork. The prosecutor overcharged him and what they should’ve done is argue to jury that once the dispatcher told George M. Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon B. Martin, he should’ve stopped.

    My reason for believing it’s negligent homicide is because the incident would’ve been avoided if George M. Zimmerman had waited for the cops to arrive and take care of Trayvon B. Martin and as George M. Zimmerman’s a security guard night watchman, he is held to higher care standard. George M. Zimmerman did not do that and instead acted on his own which he had no right to do. The prosecutor should’ve told jury that these are the rules security guards are to follow and George M. Zimmerman violated them. But prosecutor poorly tried this case by overcharging and while this was not Murder 2, George M. Zimmerman was negligent. George M. Zimmerman seems like an arrogant person & he has since the acquittal gotten into trouble with accusations of domestic violence though he was not prosecuted for assault and battery in those cases as prosecution thought proof was insufficient. Yes, it’s possible that George M. Zimmerman was falsely accused of domestic violence. Yes the verdict in the murder trial was made and jury did what they believed is right verdict. I do believe that George M. Zimmerman should have been convicted of negligent homicide but I also do not fault the jury for acquitting him because the prosecutor did a poor job.

  6. P.O.P, see video link in article here http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/calif-man-80-guns-pregnant-home-invader-shot-best-dead-article-1.1878188 Assuming what we’re hearing is true then was the man’s reaction justified or excess? Here are my thoughts. A jury must decide if there is a trial-unless there’s a pleabargain to let’s say manslaughter or negligent homicide. If some1 is burglarizing your house, apartment or stealing from your store, then you have a right to use reasonable (not excess) force to end the crime. Each case is different and must be judged individually.

    But if this case is tried, then here are arguments both the prosecutor and defense lawyer will raise. With the defense-defense lawyer will argue that the pregnant woman in the news article with the help of a man was burglarizing the man’s house and the man was a victim of assault and battery by them. 1 of the burglars (the man escaped) and the pregnant woman was shot and killed by the 80 year old man who had been wounded during the robbery. Defense lawyer would likely argue the unpredictability of this situation-that while the woman said she was pregnant, she pretended to surrender & if the man had not shot and killed her, she would have attacked him. If it’s true the pregnant woman with her boyfriend have a history of burglarizing houses and attacking the residents, then defense will raise that. Defense will argue that the man acted in self-defense and used justified force to end the threat.

    With the prosecution-prosecution would argue that yes, the pregnant woman with another man did burglarize the 80 year old man’s house and yes, the 80 year old man was injured during the burglary with the man fleeing the house. However, the pregnant woman had surrendered and was pleading for her life. Prosecutor would argue that with self-defense, once a danger is over, you have no right to use deadly force or continue hitting. Prosecutor would argue that the 80 year old man should have called the police and the cops would have arrived to arrest the pregnant woman for burglary, assault and battery. Prosecutor would argue that what the 80 year old man did was an execution and that he used excess force because he had no right to be her executioner and he should have let the authorities take care of this.

    After both the prosecutor and defense argue their cases, then the jury would decide if it’s justified or excess. As known with murder cases, there is Murder 1, Murder 2 and Manslaughter which is a jury topic. A jury can acquit or if they convict, they can convict a person on lesser charge. If the jury finds the 80 year old man used excess force, then my guess is that they would convict the 80 year old man of the lesser charge of manslaughter by considering-yes he was victimized by the 2 during a burglary but he used excess force.

    Anyhow P.O.P., a jury would have to decide this case if it is prosecuted. It’s possible that no charges will be brought against the 80 year old man if the prosecution does not think they can get a jury to convict. It’s possible that there will be a pleabargain to this case-most criminal cases are pleabargained. & it’s possible there will be a trial. If there is a trial, then I support the prosecutor’s right to argue that this was excess and I support the defense lawyer’s right to argue that it was justified and raise criminal acts the man and woman did during the burglary before the 80 year old man reacted. A jury would have to decide. I was reading some of the comments in Political Forum (where I found the article) and it’s wrong to be happy about the pregnant woman burglar being killed. Assuming again that we heard in the news is true it is wrong to be happy that a pregnant woman was killed because even if 1 believes the 80 year old man acted in self-defense, the pregnant woman’s death is sad even if she was a burglar.

  7. P.O.P., as known in news, there was a shooting in Ferguson Missouri where a 19 year old kid Michael Brown Jr. was shot by a cop. Though as of this post, the investigation isn’t complete, speculations made on whether this shooting is justified or excess force & race discussions as the cop is White and the youth’s Black. We know that 10 minutes or so before the shooting, the kid had robbed a convenience store & there is video of this. My thoughts are that we must wait for the investigation to be done such as autopsy, interviewing witnesses, before we conclude.

    If the kid tried to grab the cop’s gun & was resisting arrest, then this shooting could be justified in that these situations can be unpredictable with a robbery suspect who does not want to go to jail. Now if the kid did not resist arrest and was going to be arrested without incident, then the cop had no right to shoot him, as he could’ve arrested and put the handcuffs on the kid, taken him to jail and then help the prosecution prove the suspect committed robbery, which based on the video, it could easily be proven in court the kid committed robbery so they would have no problem getting either the kid to plead guilty by plea bargain or a jury to convict him if it were tried.

    But whether this shooting’s justified or excess, let’s wait for the investigation to be done before conclusion. This case is not the same as Zimmerman’s in Florida, because George M. Zimmerman’s not a policeman and had no right to pursue Trayvon when the 911 dispatcher told him not to pursue Trayvon and to wait for police to arrive. In the Missouri case, the policeman had a right to stop the 19 year old kid. Now whether the 19 year old kid surrendered without incident and was shot execution style or whether the 19 year old kid resisted arrested & attacked the cop after which he was shot and killed, we will hopefully know after the investigation is done.

    • From what I have seen in the Ferguson Missouri case, the question of the cops possible culpability rests not on the fact that the young man may have wrestled for a gun through the police car window, or if he had just a short time ago robbed a store. The thing that got the community so enraged, is that supposedly video taken at the scene, proves that his the young man’s hands were held in the air above him, and he had told the cop not to shoot!

      Of course, we should wait until further investigations are done. But, if what is alleged really happened the way many witnesses claimed, then the cop had no right to shoot a surrendering person who clearly had no gun in his hand.

      • Peter W. Johnson., though my post here won’t be about burglary, it will be indirectly about guns because it deals with a topic you talked about regarding killing of German POW by Jewish guerrillas, usually by gunfire during and after WW2. I didn’t see the movie Inglorious Basterds but I know the movie deals with this. Yes, the critique of the movie comes from David Ernest Duke, but I know about the 2 World Wars, Korea & Vietnam & I have read alot about WW2 in Europe whether it’s the 2 books by Ian Kershaw-Hubris and Nemesis, the 3d Reich @ War by Professor RJ Evans-3 good books written on Hitler and Nazis.

        Getting to topic, I am against killing POW. While the German soldiers fighting for Nazi Germany were fighting for the wrong side, soldiers sent to a war are doing their job though they were fighting for Hitler-as long as they don’t commit atrocities. Years ago, I saw interviews by Soviet guerrillas (partisans) some of who were Jews that fought against Nazis. The partisans sometimes killed German POW usually by shooting them though sometimes by other ways. The argument the guerrillas especially Jewish guerrillas gave when they executed the German POW is that the German soldier killed their relatives during the Holocaust.

        Yes, German soldiers sometimes did kill Jewish men, women and children by shooting them in ditches-this was usually done by Einsatzgruppen (Special Action Groups) but in some cases, ordinary German soldiers (Wehrmacht) shot and killed Jews. A few of the German soldiers also worked as concentration camp guards and they killed Jews & others by shooting, starving and working them to death, pseudo-scientific experiments and gassing deaths. Whether or not the German soldiers took part in killing Jews, the German soldiers were helping Hitler by fighting for Nazi Germany.

        But in some cases, the Soviet partisans killed children, including German children & there is no excuse for the Soviet partisans to kill children as the German children are innocent even if the parents were Nazis. The Soviet partisans also sometimes molested girls and there’s no excuse for this. A typical comment is to talk about how they lost relatives during the war including in Holocaust and that they wanted revenge. It’s 1 thing to kill those who you believed harmed you. But when the Soviet partisans killed children because the children were German or because the children’s parents collaborated with the Nazis, there’s no defense for this.

        Also, some of the Soviet partisans were Communists who had violent history long before Nazi Germany’s 1941 invasion-Operation Barbarossa. Some of the Soviet partisans helped Stalin commit his 1930s Holocaust called the Holodomor, where millions of Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians & others were sent to GULag such as Krasnogorsk, Kolyma, Dubno or Workuta (North of Arctic Circle) to be starved and worked to death, shot and killed, tortured to death. Since some of the partisans were Stalin’s thugs before Operation Barbarossa, the argument that they did it to get revenge for losing relatives during Holocaust is not always true. Incidentally, in some cases the Nazis did kill bad people-Commissar Order where the Germans executed Stalin’s Red Army officers and partisans and again those who were executed by the Commissar Order were Communists who had taken part in Stalin’s Holodomor. In some cases, Stalin’s henchmen were killed in Nazi concentration camps. So yes, in some cases the Nazis did kill bad people-Hitler’s henchmen killing Stalin’s henchmen is what the Commissar Order was.

        Though I didn’t read an Eye for an Eye, the late journalist John Sack (1930-1974) wrote about a post war partisan Salomon Morel who killed Germans after the war as a commandant in a post war Soviet prison. The argument Solomon Morel gave that the Germans killed his relatives during the Holocaust but Solomon Morel in 1 case, killed a 14 year old German boy who did nothing wrong-even if the boys parents were Nazis, there’s no defense to what Solomon Morel did. & in that Soviet prison, the guards sometimes molested girls-it’s believed Solomon Morel molested girls. Though this information comes from David E. Duke (if you see his videos he is hostile to Jews) site see http://operationwerwolf.com/2014/07/15/salomon_morel_jews_life_after_holocaust/#more-73

        If what that site says is true, then it seems Solomon or Salomon Morel had a violent history before he was Soviet commandant & the idea he became violent because he had relatives killed during Holocaust is rubbish. Anyhow Peter W. jOhnson, hope you can share your views on this.

      • Abner,

        I am not sure what point you’re trying to make when talking about violent people that commit war crimes, and just how that is relevant to the Ferguson shooting of a young man with his arms raised in surrender?

        Brutality and atrocities are committed at many different times, including when a war is not being fought. And it is truly tragic, and an uncomfortable reminder about the worst that’s in we human beings in all countries, cultures, ethnic heritages and religions. And, even American soldiers in Viet Nam, and other wars, have committed brutal atrocities against their enemies in retaliation for the horrible things to their American comrades. Some of my High School friends served in Vietnam and told me how angry they became when discovering that their friends and comrades were brutally tortured and then ruthlessly killed by their enemies. ‘So, although they were not proud of their actions, some of them did the same kinds of things to the Viet Cong.

        When it comes to war, no soldier or country is completely without moral shame—if not personally—then as part of allied forces, like those that leveled Dresden and Berlin in WWII without regard to the many civilian lives that were brutally destroyed. Are you saying that the cop who killed Brown was only acting on an urge for revenge because a fourteen year old boy resisted him, and, allegedly grabbed for his gun? What I’ve heard is that several different witnesses tell several different stories but that, it is well known that Brown had his hands up when fired upon and was not extremely close to the officer who shot him. That possibility was ruled out because of a lack of powder burns on Browns clothes, and no spatter drops on the cop’s, (which would certainly have been there if shots were fired at close range).

        To be fair, it should be mentioned that policemen in general, have very difficult jobs that require them to make split second decisions based on the protocol that they must follow, but being only human, they must also at times make mistakes as a result of fear for their own safety. What is needed is objective investigations and keeping a lid on festering resentments that could turn into full scale and violence such as riots. And, for everyone to wait until all the facts are in. Unfortunately since the cops have a history of harassing black people much more frequently than whites (regardless of population) factored in, that incidents like these can easily spark resentments and release pent up frustrations.

        I am not sure what you’re getting at when rehashing something I said about Jewish prisoners of war, acting in self defense when theoretically rising up and killing their guards and torturers in concentration camps. If my memory serves me correctly, I brought up this extremely improbable theoretical scenario in order to illustrate that sometimes massacres are carried out in order to protect the lives of those who are being systematic exterminated by the enemies that they then massacre in turn. I brought up this scenario in defense of many indigenous Native Americans such as those who wiped out Custer’s men. What I was trying to point out is that sometimes being persecuted and massacred by a hostile enemy, is sure to result in massacres in return. And yes, at times this is really done in self defense, since if the soldiers who are committing genocide are killed, then they will no longer be around to kill more of their victims.

        It is indeed a crime and a moral shame when any combatant kills women and children, or brutally tortures their enemies—including Native Americans like the Cherokee, who apparently used incredibly brutal torture to destroy their enemies, but Nazis and Jews, are not really the same kind of analogy since, extermination and “ethnic cleansing” was fully underway, and the only way resist was to kill those doing the exterminating. So, if Jews did rise up by some miracle, and kill their guards to escape from concentration camps that were sure to kill them, to me this would be a very clear case of self defensive killing in order to survive, including hypothetically committing a theoretical massacre, to destroy those who would otherwise be certain to kill the victims of their ruthlessness. This type of scenario deserves to be judged differently—since the motive for such mass killings would involve personal, and, collective survival!

        God knows there are times when, what appears to have happened, did not, or, when something that really happen, is later discovered to be fictitious—such unexpected twists and turns are all too common in our history. So it is both possible that, a young brash kid did something wrong, when trying to escape a
        authority figure who was perceived as trying to attack him, as well as the possibility that an irresponsible police officer acted with excessive force. We’ll have to wait and see what is eventually decided. But, I still think the fact that Brown’s hands were raised in surrender at the time of his fatal shooting, does not speak well for how the police handled the situation, and, in fact, provides some evidence that they may have made it much worse!

  8. P.O.P.. add thoughts about an Eye for an Eye by the late John Sack. The late Mr. Sack (again died in 2004) rationalized Salomon or Solomon Morel’s (who died in 2007) in interviews with the argument that because Salomon Morel had relatives killed during Holocaust, that this caused him to kill German children and the late Mr. Sack sympathized with Salomon Morel. Though I did not read the late John Sack’s Book and Eye for an Eye, in 2002, I had exchanged emails with John Sack & he told me that survivors didn’t think Salomon Morel should be tried for what he did but that if Solomon Morel would be prosecuted, he would be for it & John Sack denied being a Salomon Morel apologist.

    What Solomon Morel did-killing a 14 year old German kid and Solomon Morel molesting girls is inexcusable. Having relatives killed during Holocaust is no excuse for antisocial conduct. Unsure how people can sympathize with him. But if it’s true that Salomon Morel committed robberies and other violence before the Nazis sent some of his relatives to the death camps in 1942 or so, then the idea he became violent because he had relatives killed during Holocaust is rubbish. Salomon or Solomon Morel was a violent thug before his family was killed during the Holocaust and used the excuse of having relatives killed during Holocaust as an excuse. Solomon Morel it seems was a Communist. Nazis were bad, but Communists were also bad. Just as Nazi thugs deserve no sympathy for shooting and killing Jewish men, women and children, Communist thugs such as Solomon Morel deserve no sympathy.

    It’s 1 thing to kill people who you believe harmed you. While I don’t agree with killing German POW as that happened w/o a trial by Jewish guerrillas as the right thing to do is give those who you believe committed war atrocities a trial and if found guilty punished whether it’s by death penalty or life in prison, the Jewish guerrillas said they did this because they believed the German POW killed their relatives during the Holocaust and that they did that in revenge, so with that you can make the argument that it’s killing those you believe killed your family. But when the Jewish guerrillas killed German children, then that is wrong because the children did nothing wrong and it’s wrong to kill children because the fathers were evil.

    This idea of ‘you killed my child so I’ll kill your child’ is wrong. With Purim-hanging Haman because Haman plotted the extermination of Jewry would be killing some1 who plotted your destruction. But when Haman’s 10 sons were hanged, there is no excuse for that because it’s not their fault their dad’s evil. If there are any Jewish posters who want to comment on this, then please do so. Do you agree with me that punishing those who harmed you is justice while killing children because their fathers were evil is wrong? Do you agree with me that Solomon Morel’s evil and that losing relatives during Holocaust is no defense to his antisocial conduct & again if it’s true that he was a robber before his relatives were killed in Holocaust, that he was a violent thug before Holocaust impacted his family?

      • Thanks P.O.P. for saying that kids aren’t responsible for sins of fathers (parents). But sadly, too many people think that if the parents were evil, then the child must be bad. I’ve even seen German posters say that because Nazi Germany did the Holocaust, invaded Poland, etc. that when ethnic Germans (millions) were expelled from Czechoslovakia & Poland (Germany lost territory to both after the war), that it was the Germans fault when sometimes Poles, Czechs and others killed ethnic Germans including children in violence against Germans after the war.

        The typical arguments are that Germany started the war and that when a nation suffered years of war violence as Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. did, that people are going to want revenge seeing how they had relatives killed by the Germans. Yes, it’s true Nazi Germany did all that. But to repeat, there is no defense to killing people just because they were German and there’s no defense to killing the German children even if the parents were Nazis.

        There have been programs done on children of Nazis. They did a program where Rudolf Hoess’s grandson went to Auschwitz to meet with Jewish people who had lost relatives during the Holocaust. There is no need for Nazis children to ask forgiveness for what their parents did. In fact, there is no need for Germans born after the war to ask forgiveness for the Holocaust. They are not to blame for their father’s deeds. It is wrong in my view for children of Nazis to do as Rudolf Hoess’s grandson to have met with Auschwitz survivors to prove he is not like his grandfather. If you did not do anything wrong, then you do not need to ask forgiveness for it.

    • Abner,

      I know very little about the incident involving solomon Morel that you discuss in your post. However, I do agree that it is a shame and a tragedy whenever any innocent person is killed by anyone, even during a war, or, to avenge the wrongs committed by someone else. It would be great if that sort of thing never happened, but during times of violent warfare, human emotions run to extremes and vengeance often seems justified.

      Of course it is fair that the actual person who committed an offense, should be punished, but when a friend or relative becomes an innocent victim, people who are driven by a desire for revenge, probably throw ideas about getting revenge on other generations out of the window—along with ideas like fairness, or any previous aversions to the extreme actions of others.

      Unfortunately,the phrase, “all things are permitted in love and war.” (or whatever the exact words are?), unfortunately has always been the norm during the entirety of human history!

      I would also like to mention that my mistaken reference to (Cherokee) Indians, should have actually been made about (Comanche) Indians.

      • Peter W. Johnson, thanks for your posts. Do you believe that the Jerusalem Mufti Amin al Husseini was involved with the Holocaust? During WW2, there were Berber and Arab soldiers in the Wehrmacht as during the African campaign, Berber and Arab soldiers in Wehrmacht helping Nazi Germany & their ally Fascist Italy (Libya & Ethiopia were then Italian colonies under Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini while Algeria was then a French colony-of course France had been under Nazi rule and was a German puppet with Vichy) when both nations fought against the Allied militaries of U.S. and U.K. The fighting took place in North Africa-Libya, Ethiopia (then Abysinnia), Eritrea and Tunisia with both Germany and Italy losing to the Allies in Africa in 1943. Nerve gases were used against Abysinnia. In Europe there were Muslim soldiers such as Croatians & Albanians who fought on the side of the Germans during WW2.

        But as asked, was the Mufti Amin al Husseini a planner of the Holocaust ? The Nazis tried to keep the Holocaust a secret, using code words and euphemisms such as Reservation, evacuation, Madagascar, etc. instead of extermination, etc. when sending reports back to Hitler. Nazi Germany did have a plan to use Einsatzgruppen Egypt where Arab & Berber soldiers would exterminate Jews in then Palestine-the Nazis didn’t make it to Palestine as they were defeated in African theater. Mufti Amin Al Husseini did not want Jews in then Palestine & was ansi-Semitic but would he want to exterminate them? The Simon Wisenthal Center says yes, but the U.S. Holocaust Museum as of 2010 makes no mention of him.

        Arabs esp. Palestinian Arabs have said that the Mufti Amin Al Husseini is a minor figure when it comes to Nazi Germany & that the reason he sought alliance with Adolf Hitler was to fight British rule in Palestine the same way as Indian leader Subhas Chandra Bose sought help from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan to fight for India’s independence from the British. Subhas Chandra Bose is a minor figure with regard to Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy & Imperial Japan. Arabs have said that the reason the accusation is made about the Mufti Amin Al Husseini took part in Holocaust is because of the Arab-Jewish conflicts and that if Hindus and Jews were fighting each other, Indian leader Subhash Chandra Bose would get the same accusation as the Mufti does today.

        Ian Kershaw in his 2 bestsellers on Hitler-Hubris (1889-1936) & Nemesis (1936-1945) gives minor reference to the Mufti. Professor R.J. Evans in his book the 3rd Reich @ War wrote of Arab and Berber soldiers in the Wehrmacht and that during WW2 in Africa, Arab and Berber soldiers forced Jews to work on Transsahran Railway and they raped Jewess women. There were also killings of Jews.

        But again, was the Mufti Amin Al Husseini’s interest to exterminate the Jews? With Israel-Arab dispute, it has been said that if the Arab nations had their way, Israel would no longer exist and some have said there would be another Holocaust. While it is true Israel would no longer exist, I don’t think it would go to the extreme the Holocaust did, in that I don’t think the interest of the Arab nations is to exterminate Jews. But what do you think Peter W. Johnson of Jerusalem Mufti Amin Al Husseini? There is disagreement on whether the Mufti wanted to exterminate Jews but how much do you know about this?

  9. Peter W. Johnson, thanks for your thoughts. I don’t have any view on the Ferguson shooting and will wait until investigation is done before concluding. Honestly, I lost interest in media coverage of that case. I raised the topic of WW2 because though it’s not about burglary, it is about guns. If Peter W. Johnson you’re talking about Warsaw Uprising where Jewish prisoners kill Nazi guards, then that is killing in a war. I addressed the topic of killing POW-my view is that is wrong because they are prisoners. If you believe the POW committed war atrocities, then the right thing to do is give them a trial and if proven guilty, then either give them life in prison or the death penalty.

    Peter W. Johnson, with killing of German POW as you just mentioned, an argument is made as you did that when they executed the German POW is that the German soldier killed their relatives during the Holocaust. Yes, German soldiers sometimes did kill Jewish men, women and children by shooting them in ditches. A few of the German soldiers also worked as concentration camp guards and they killed Jews & others by shooting, starving and working them to death, pseudo-scientific experiments and gassing deaths. Whether or not the German soldiers took part in killing Jews, the German soldiers were helping Hitler by fighting for Nazi Germany. Nazis had auxiliaries and during Operation Barbarossa, many Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians & a few Russians fought on the side of Wehrmacht against the Red Army.

    Peter W. Johnson, it’s 1 thing to kill those who you believed harmed you. While I don’t agree with killing German POW as that happened w/o a trial, the Jewish guerrillas said they did this because they believed the German POW killed their relatives during the Holocaust and that they did that in revenge, so with that you can make the argument that it’s killing those you believe killed your family. Yes, if the partisans especially Jews became prisoners of the German soldiers, then it’s likely the Jews would’ve been shot and killed by Einsatzgruppen or sent to a concentration camp as Nazi Germany & Imperial Japan both violated Geneva Convention rules on treatment of POW.

    But Peter W. Johnson, what I wanted to discuss which you incidentally mentioned are cases where Soviet partisans killed German children only because the children were German or when Soviet partisans killed Lithuanian children, Ukrainian children or others with the accusation that their parents collaborated with Nazis. Peter W. Johnson, when the Soviet partisans killed children because the children were German or because the children’s parents collaborated with the Nazis, there’s no defense for this. Though it’s repeat, it must be said again-when the Jewish guerrillas killed German children, then that is wrong because the children did nothing wrong and it’s wrong to kill children because the fathers were evil.

    The point I’m making Peter W. Johnson, is that the Soviet guerrillas were sometimes thugs and as bad as the Nazis. It’s wrong to kill children because the parents were Nazis and it’s wrong to kill Soviet (Latvian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian, etc. of former USSR) children because their parents collaborated with Nazis. Children must never be killed because of bad things the parents did. Also must repeat Peter W. Johnson, that the Soviet partisans were often Communists and a few of them took part in Stalin’s Holodomor or Holocaust. Peter W. Johnson, I hope you can comment on other things I was hoping you would comment on, that being when Soviet partisans killed children.

    • Abner,

      Not many people will come to the defense of Stalin and the reign of terror he presided over, during which he ruthlessly killed millions of innocent people. Many historians claim that he killed many more men women and children than Hitler! I also don’t think most of us really believe that it is immoral to kill the children of our enemies just for being the children of those enemies? My point though. is that war makes ordinary men mad, and Dictators extraordinarily evil, so the rule books are usually tossed out long before the final shots are fired.

      As far as having access to guns in Hitler’s germany, I think one of the POP’s points is that even with guns, the Jews in Warsaw and elsewhere could not possibly have prevailed against the Nazi regime since it was vastly better armed and far better trained than were the Jews.

      I am not sure, but I think I remember reading that the vast majority of Jews in Europe couldn’t believe that Hitler would eventually become as evil as some people feared, and that, eventually, sanity would prevail. I have also heard that most of them preferred non-violence and trusted in the basic goodness of their fellow men, and therefore did little to resist, until it was much too late—but don’t quote me on that, because I really don’t know how accurate such accounts are.

      As far as Jews being systematically tortured and murdered by Nazi’s—they would likely not be focusing on trying to kill the children of their captors, since those children were not their captors, and especially, if they had a (miraculous) opportunity to overcome their real abusers. Obviously a “massacre” of all the guards at Auschwitz, Buchenwald, etc. etc. would have been aimed at German soldiers who guarded them as prisoners. So even if they killed every last one of their captors, this too might have been called a massacre—but one I don’t think anyone would really blame them for initiating.

      Yes, no one should kill children and thus lower themselves to the level of the Nazi barbarians who often smashed Jewish babies against walls, to kill them as fast as they could—a gruesome aspect of their extermination program. But as I said, war tends to destroy the rational minds of the people it engulfs, and I believe that the POP also pointed to the most potent weapon Hitler actually had at his disposal—the ability to mesmerize his audience with propaganda and convince them that somehow they had a moral right to support a master race of Germans, supposedly destined to rule the world!

      None of this is on the same relatively minor level of evil, that the cop who killed Brown may be guilty of, but, if our Democracy doesn’t hold impartial investigations in order to obtain justice and decide guilt, then we run the risk of potentially embarking on much the same path as Nazi Germany. Neither wealth or power should be used to determine guilt or innocence. And in a watchful democracy we must seek justice through the court system, as well as by allowing a free press to report on every significant aspect of any story before determining the truth or falseness about what happened. And even with those actions which at first, seem the least likely, we must remain objective and thorough when meticulously testing the validity of each bit of knowledge—especially when a popular explanation may be wrong. That’s all I’ve got Abner!

  10. Instead of saying:

    “I also don’t think most of us really believe that it is immoral to kill the children of our enemies just for being the children of those enemies?”

    I should have said:

    “I also don’t think most of us really believe that it is (moral) to kill the children of our enemies just for being the children of those enemies?”

    I hate when I have brain farts like that!

  11. Since Nazi Germany and Holocaust has been discussed in this forum on guns, this post will be about Adolf Hitler. With Adolf Hitler, historians can sometimes sensationalize. The 2 best books on Hitler are Hubris (1889 to 1936) and Nemesis (1936 to 1945) by Ian Kershaw. Another good book (though incidental with Hitler) is the 3d Reich @ War by Professor R.J. Evans. But to Hitler and what we know. We know that there’s mental illness in Adolf Hitler’s family. We know that Adolf Hitler wanted to be a painter (he was an architecture painter) but he was rejected for Vienna Art Academy.

    During World War 1, Hitler fought on the side of Germany and not Austria-Hungary. Hitler was wounded twice during the Great War or First World War and near end of war, he was wounded by mustard gas suffering conjunctivitis-Hitler rejected all ideas to use the nerve gases Sarin, Tabun & Soman during WW2 while the Nazis did use Zyklon B gas and Carbon Monoxide. But in the book 3d Reich @ War, Prof. R.J. Evans raises that the Nazis did in a few cases kill prisoners in nerve gas experiments in the concentration camps.There’s alot more such as Beerhall Putsch, him not being a citizen for 7 years (rejecting his Austrian citizenship).

    Hitler’seating habits-from 1931 to 1945 Hitler had mostly a vegetarian diet. Was Hitler a vegetarian ? Hitler @ various times called himself a vegetarian, but there are conflicting reports. 1 has of Hitler enjoying squab & a 1938 NY Times article writes of Hitler a vegetarian, but occasionally eats ham & caviar. Hitler definitely had an interest in vegetarian foods & Hitler proselytized about it. We know that from 1931 onwards, his diet was mostly vegetarian & @ various times, he called himself a vegetarian. Whether or not Hitler eventually became a vegetarian, he did proselytize the health benefits.

    Some have said that Nazis such as Paul Josef Goebbels propagated the image of Hitler as a vegetarian who loves animals and children to make him look kind & gentle. Nazi propaganda would show films of Hitler with children & dogs. The Nazis did pass animal welfare laws which were advanced for it’s time such as Hitler signed law to protect the eagle (Eagle on Swastika is Nazi symbol) and Hitler signed laws which created rules on when hunting foxes and Hitler signed laws on fastest way to kill crustaceans. In the end Hitler, his mistress Eva Braun and their dog Blondi all committed suicide.

    If Hitler had died in 1938 (before the Holocaust) instead of 1945 (after millions were killed), he would have gone down as a great leader in German history. Germany and later Austria (after 1938) anschluss were advanced in many ways during Hitler’s time be it automotive science (V.W. Beetle came out in 1938), veterinary science and other things. But Hitler was a dictator whose interest was lebensraum & from 1941 to 1945, the extermination of Jewry (Holocaust began in 1941 as Nazi Germany’s policy changed during Operation Barbarossa from immigration to extermination with Jan. 1942 Wannsee Conference officializing this).

    Hitler was a dictator who killed millions, whether it’s starving & working prisoners to death, shootings, gas vans & pseudo-scientific experiments + taking Europe into a war that killed millions. If Hitler is to be neutrally talked about, then even the things the Nazis did which made Germany & later Austria advanced for it’s time are to be discussed. Other things we know about Hitler is that he was an ex smoker and he did not tolerate tobacco use around him. The Nazis did campaign though unsuccessfully against tobacco-slogans they would use to stop tobacco use (Germans I find smoke alot) would be to show a German family with their Volkswagen and they would show Americans Indians smoking to discourage this by showing that the Aryan race does not smoke while the American Indians & other races do.

    We also know about Hitler’s medical problems such as the fact he had many doctors and Theo Gilbert Morell gave Hitler many useless drugs and injections. We know that Hitler had digestive problems as Hitler had a farting problem and Hitler took the antigasdrug Koster which Theo G. Morell gave him. Theo G. Morell is suspected to have given Hitler Methamphetamines. It is believed Hitler had Parkinson’s disease and he had problems with eyesight. We know that Hitler tried to keep secret his relationship with Eva Braun who was not known to most Germans (other than Hitler’s inner circle such as Goebbels) until after the war.

    With the Holocaust, before this began in Summer 1941 (Holocaust officially began in Jan. 1942 after Lake Wannsee Conference), Nazi Germany’s original policy was for Jews to leave Europe to emigrate to Palestine and during 1930s, Adolf Eichmann met with Jewish leaders in then Palestine to do this before it turned to extermination.

    Other thing with Holocaust is accusation that Jerusalem Mufti Amin al Husseini was 1 of the Holocaust architects. Now it is true that Mufti Husseini opposed Jewish immigration to then Palestine which Nazi Germany originally wanted as Nazi Germany first wanted Jews to leave Europe and immigrate to Palestine during the 1930s before it turned to Extermination in 1942 following Lake Wannsee Conference. It’s also true that the Mufti sought Hitler’s help to fight British Mandate in then Palestine. But did Hitler involve Mufti Amin Al Husseini in the Final Solution? The Nazis did try to keep the Holocaust program a secret using euphemisms such as FInal Solution, Madagascar when it had changed to extermination. The Simon Wiesenthal Center believes the Mufti was involved in Final Solution but the U.S. Holocaust Museum as of 2010 did not mention the Mufti. Palestinian groups have said the Mufti Husseini had no involvement and is demonized because of Arab-Jewish conflicts. Incidentally, both Jews and Arabs are cousins.

  12. Abner,

    Obviously you are an amateur historian when it comes to people like Hitler and the events which happened during WWII. I have also shared many related opinions based on what I know or have heard, but I’m afraid we have both been vering way off topic on this thread, since the topic actually has to do with gun use, and how guns are justified as ways of preventing “home invasions.”

    I have also been taking part in these discussions that are way off topic, and though the information you write about is important, and does have to do with guns, it really has no direct connection to American gun laws, and the justification of using personal weapons to repel home invasions.

    I am not going to tell you to stop or refrain from making comments about Nazi Germany. Its history of course, is very pertinent to our understanding of mass violence and the mentality that leads to genocide. And, the history of that time should never be forgotten or minimized, but, I am personally going to quit commenting on this topic, since, while I have also been keeping our conversation going, I think the topic we are discussing (namely HItler, and violence), would be better discussed on one of the POPs other posts, like those involving Hitler and his supposed ban on guns. The POP has posted several installments on that topic and has sparked very active commenting threads that are more directly related to guns, HItler, and the role guns played in the Holocaust. No offense intended. I just think its time for me to end this line of discussion, at least as it fails to directly relate to the post this thread is about.

  13. Peter W. Johnson, I know this topic P.O.P. wrote is about burglaries and gun use. I have commented on that but there isn’t much more which can be said. People have a right to use reasonable, not excess force to stop a burglar. Each case must be judged individually. Ferguson shooting is related to a robbery, but will wait for investigation to be done. But reason that I’m discussing Hitler, Nazis, Holocaust and WW2 is because while I know the 2 topics P.O.P. made on Hitler and guns, the problem there is that so many comments have been made in those 2 sections, & P.O.P. has no problem with us discussing Hitler, Nazis, Holocaust, etc. here as long as we keep it relevant to guns.

    There is a Holocaust topic which gets incidental coverage. It’s how often did sexual relations happen between German soldiers & Jewess women including in concentration camps? The 1935 Nuremberg Law forbade sexual relations between Germans & non-Aryans. We know that the concentration camps sometimes had brothels which allowed non-Aryan men to have sex with non-Aryan women. In his book the 3rd Reich @ War, Professor R.J. Evans wrote that the Nazis limited entertainment Poles, Czechs & Slavs could have to things such as sex. Sexual relations between Germans & non-Aryans was punished, including things such as shaving heads of women who violated this rule.

    As Prof. Ian Kershaw wrote Nemesis (1936-1945), Nazi Germany’s plan was lebensraum (living space) where Jewry would be exterminated (along with Gypsies, handicapped with Aktion-4 or T4 Program) & Germans would be Europe’s. Non-Germans such as Poles, Czechs & others would have limited education (my guess would be 5th grade though Prof. Kershaw wrote reading signs) doing unskilled jobs whose interest was to do what benefits Germans. Nazi Germans had a program called Lebensborn (Life Fountain) where blonde haired blue eyed or Aryan looking children who were Polish, Czech, etc. were taken from their families & given to German families, sometimes after the kid’s parents were killed, where the kids would be raised as Germans by the German families. Nazi soldiers were encouraged to have many children as possibile & German soldiers fathering children with Scandinavian women was also promoted as Hitler had a high view of Scandinavians or Nordics-Denmark & Norway were under Nazis, Sweden was neutral and Finland was an ally (Mannerheim was ruler).

    But what I’d like to know & w/o sensationalism, is how often did sexual relations happen between Nazi soldiers & Jewess women? Though 1935 Nuremberg laws forbade this, my guess would be that sexual relations did sometimes happen between Nazi soldiers & Jewess women though it’s mostly Nazi soldiers raping Jewess women as it’s forced sexual relations. We know that Jewish men were most likely to be killed by Nazis or sent to concentration camps to be starved & worked to death, shot, hanged, gassed, etc. We know that old people and children were killed such as shootings, starved & worked to death, die of diseases such as T.B. or typhoid, gassings, etc.

    But I would think that Jewess women who were in 20s & 30s (esp. 18 to 35 years old) would have best survival chances because they had something to offer the Nazi guards which the others could not & that is sex. Incidentally, there were women concentration camp guards-most concentration camp guards were men. But I would say that there are cases where a male Nazi concentration camp guard would tell a Jewess woman (women) that if the Jewess woman would have sex with him, then he would see to it that the Jewess woman was treated well, though he would be raping the Jewess woman. The rest of the Jewess woman’s family was likely killed or die in concentration camps, if they didn’t survive. I believe there were incidents of babies born who were children of Nazi soldiers being the fathers & the moms being the raped Jewess women. But this part of Holocaust history has gotten minor coverage & I don’t know any books on this which aren’t sensationalist.

    I believe the 1935 Nuremberg laws forbidding sexual relations between Germans & non-Aryans was violated often in the concentration camps & I think there were many incidents of Nazi soldiers raping Jewess women. We know that in Asia during WW2, Japanese soldiers sometimes raped women in China, Phillippines, etc. & women were sometimes forced to work in Japanese military brothels. I hope that if P.O.P., Peter W. Johnson or any1 else can discuss if there’s any non-sensationalist history on German soldiers raping Jewess women. We know that Arab & Berber soldiers in the Wehrmacht sometimes raped Jewess women. We also know that Ukrainians, Latvians & others who were Nazi concentration camp guards sometimes raped Jewess women. But what I’d like to know about are the incidents where Nazi German soldiers raped Jewess women & how often this happened. If any1 knows about any non-sensationalist books or documentaries which discuss Nazi German soldiers raping Jewess women in the concentration camps then please inform.

    • Abner,

      As long as the POP, lets you comment on issues about Nazis and WWII, without complaint, I hope you will continue to do so. However, the types of points you bring up, really are outside my areas of interest, and of my knowledge.

      The evil embodied by Nazis, is now apparently being reincarnated in the barbaric actions being undertaken by groups like ISIS, and is proving quite personally depressing to me, when continually discussed day after day. I just prefer, for now, to bow out of discussing the vile thoughts and actions of people like Hitler, and instead, give myself a rest from even thinking about their disgusting atrocities.

      But, thanks for your comments.

  14. EDIT TO MY POST-USE THIS ONE INSTEAD OF MY LAST 1 IF YOU DO PUBLISH>

    There have been programs done on children of Nazis. Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Hoess’s grandson went to Auschwitz to meet with Jewish people who had lost relatives during the Holocaust.

    Here are my thoughts.There is no need for children of Nazis to have to ask forgiveness for what their parents did. In fact, there is no need for Germans born after the war to ask forgiveness for the Holocaust. Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Hoess (Auschwitz commandant) grandson, children of Adolf (Karl) Eichmann and others do not need to prove to prove that they are not like their parents. It is wrong in my view for children of Nazis to do as Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Hoess’s grandson to have met with Auschwitz survivors to prove he is not like his grandfather.

    If you did not do anything wrong, then you do not need to ask forgiveness. Stalin had more victims, yet don’t usually hear his henchmen’s children asking forgiveness and they shouldn’t. Many know of Auschwitz, Treblinka, but not as many know of the Soviet camps such as Dubno, Kolyma, Krasnogork, Workuta where many more were starved, shot, tortured and worked to death. What are your views on this? Is it wrong for children of Nazis to ask forgiveness for what the Nazis did ? Again, if you did nothing wrong and if you were not born when this happened, you should not ask forgiveness for something you did not do.

  15. 1 thing which revisionists say is what did Adolf Hitler know about Holocaust with the argument that there has never been an extermination order found with regard to Jews. To repeat, the Holocaust did not begin unofficially until summer 1941 during Operation Barbarossa and during the January 1942 Lake Wannsee Conference, the Final Solution was written in codes and euphemisms. The Nazis were not dumb to announce extermination and they used euphemisms or codes such as evacuation, resettlement and reservations rather than extermination. When the reports came to Hitler, they were written in these euphemisms.

    As to Red Cross, yes the Red Cross went to the camps when rumors were made about Jews being killed there. The Nazi soldiers would ask the prisoners to dress nicely, smile for cameras and fed them well when Red Cross inspectors came. But after the Red Cross left, then it went back to extermination. The Nazis were not dumb people & of course they’d keep the extermination or genocide program a secret.

    Adolf Hitler did know about Jews being killed in the concentration camps or people being shot and killed by Einsatzgruppen in the former USSR. This will get me criticism but it’s possible Adolf Hitler did not know about the gas chambers but that is minor. Adolf Hitler knew about people (especially Jews) being killed in the concentration camps but it’s possible he did not know how they were killed as the reports were given in euphemisms. He could’ve thought that they were killed by being starved and worked to death rather than killed by gas. It’s my view that starving and working people to death killed most of the Jews in the concentration camps and that gas chambers accounted for some of the deaths though the gas chambers has been the big story. Jews were also killed by shootings, hangings, being beaten to death, lethal injections and in some cases being killed in experiments such as those of JR Mengele. Alois Brunner who was Eichmann’s associate & is believed to have died in Syria either in 1996 or 2010 (Syria denies that he lived there) said in a 1990 interview that he first learned about the gas chambers reading the newspapers after the war.

    While I believe it’s possible Hitler did not know about the gas vans and it’s possible that he did not know who JR Mengele was, those are not important if true. What is true is that Adolf Hitler knew that there was an extermination program which was done secretly, with euphemisms & codes. He knew that people were being killed in the concentration camps and it’s not important if he knew how it was done.

  16. With soldiers including German soldiers if all they’re doing is fighting for their nations as they were drafted to do and not killing POW, not mutilating or committing genocide, then while they are fighting for wrong side (Adolf Hitler), then that is 1 thing. Now if a soldier is killing POW, mutilating or other things, then that is wrong. But if all a soldier is doing is fighting for their nation but not committing atrocities, then no judgment. If any soldier be they American, British, French German, Italian, Japanese or Soviet was fighting for their nations but not committing atrocities, then I have no problem whether they fought for the right side (U.S.) or the wrong side (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Imperial Japan).

    The Japanese military did use slave labor. Japanese airforce had used parachuted fleabombs against China were many were killed in biological warfare. Japanese military (samurais following Bushido) sometimes forced Chinese, Filipina and Korean women into sex slavery where the women were raped by soldiers.

    Fascist Italy did use nerve gas believed mustard gas attacks against Abysinnia (now Ethiopia) during WW2, but Fascist Italy not as bad as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. While there were Italians who followed Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (il Duce), there were Italians who opposed him and there were Italians who tried to protect Jews from the Nazi Germans.

    Yes, the German military (Wehrmacht) had it’s share or murderers & rapists. Soviet military also had it’s share of murderers and rapists. Red Army soldiers raped women and girls, mutilated POW and Red Army soldiers even killed Red Army POW who had surrendered to Germans because the Red Army soldiers refused to fight to death. Red Army officers even sent families of Soviet soldiers believed to have surrendered to GULag in the former USSR & the even executed family members of Soviet soldiers they believed surrendered. The Wehrmacht did many bad things which you describe, yet the Wehrmacht treated Red Army POW better than the way Red Army treated others.

    The idea that Soviet soldiers committed atrocities or raped girls because the U.S.S.R. was invaded is rubbish in my view. Soviet soldiers who raped 9 year old girls did that because that is what they wanted to do & the Soviet soldiers who committed atrocities had violent histories long before Operation Barbarossa. Nazis were bad, only know that the Red Army had it’s share of murderers and rapists.

    Soviet partisans were Communists who had violent history long before Nazi Germany’s 1941 invasion-Operation Barbarossa. Some of the Soviet partisans helped Stalin commit his 1930s Holocaust called the Holodomor, where millions of Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians & others were sent to GULag such as Krasnogorsk, Kolyma, Dubno or Workuta (North of Arctic Circle) to be starved and worked to death, shot and killed, tortured to death. Since some of the partisans were Stalin’s thugs before Operation Barbarossa, the argument that they did it to get revenge for losing relatives during Holocaust is not always true.

    Nazis were bad people, but the Commisar Order would be described as bad people killing other bad people. Soviet guerrillas were sometimes thugs and as bad as the Nazis. Some of the Soviet partisans helped Stalin commit his 1930s Holocaust called the Holodomor, where millions of Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians & others were sent to GULag such as Krasnogorsk, Kolyma, Dubno or Workuta (North of Arctic Circle) to be starved and worked to death, shot and killed, tortured to death.

    In some cases the Nazis did kill bad people-Commissar Order where the Germans executed Stalin’s Red Army officers and partisans and again those who were executed by the Commissar Order were Communists who had taken part in Stalin’s Holodomor. In some cases, Stalin’s henchmen were killed in Nazi concentration camps. So yes, in some cases the Nazis did kill bad people-Hitler’s henchmen killing Stalin’s henchmen is what the Commissar Order was.

  17. Pingback: The (Poorly) Armed Assault On “Gun Control”: How the Gun Culture Manipulates Statistics (Part 7) | The Propaganda Professor

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s