Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumUPDATE: Texas EZ Trip Shooting Of Drunk
Update of this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/117248035
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Convenience-Store-Customer-Kills-Man-161549915.html
Once in the parking lot, the second customer pulled out a handgun and shot the man, Mitchell told NBC 5.
So the shooter was struck by the drunk. The shooter retreated. (SYG law not invoked as he DID retreat.) The drunk followed him, continuing to hit him. Shooter then defended himself.
How much of a beating is a person supposed to take before they can shoot? Do our resident antigunners require that a person be dying from the beating first?
DocMac
(1,628 posts)than buying and maintaining a weapon.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)I just googled a dojo in Dallas. $180 per quarter. $720 per year. You can get a good handgun for cheaper than that.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)As soon as you were called on your earlier statement, the argument changed to one of being in shape.
Nicely done.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)Being able to defend yourself against bullies is something everyone should consider. Am I right?
Are you going to walk this Earth and dish out justice that takes life, simply because that is the only choice you have? We are talking simple assault here!
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Good one there bubba.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)Did you read that? Does that seem right to you?
You have no shame! Now you relaced the man in the story with a woman. There is no low for you and that makes you a dangerous person. Welcome to my ignore list. Enjoy your life in fear or prison.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Of course, if you choose to simply tell them to run then that is your perogative.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)You know that, right? At that point it becomes battery.
So I'm expected to cover up a la Muhammed Ali, rope-a-dope it, and hope one well placed blow doesn't make me a victim of manslaughter at the hands of a drunk? How long am I expected to do that? Until the police get there?
Have you ever been drunk? Seriously. I have. I've been snot-slingin' drunk. Guess what? I've never battered anyone. NEVER. That this guy would not only batter one but TWO people he'd never met before says something about him in the larger picture, agreed? To me it says he probably knows how to fight. What does it say that he actually pursued someone out the door to continue the ass-whoopin'? To me it says he's a dangerous person with no regard for others. Since bullies like that never pick on anyone their own size, I'd bet the shooter wasn't near the same size as the dead bully.
It seems to me as though the shooter DID consider being able to defend himself against bullies.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)Just pray i'm not on the jury. When you leave the house in the morning with one option, there is only one result.
You're prepared for a host of horrendous things. Simple assault? Not so much!
Can't you take your shoe off and beat that asshole with it?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I have guns though; possibly more than most. I have my Grandpa's guns, which were passed to me when he died, I have my Dad's guns, which he gave me a few years ago when he decided he was too old to shoot them and wasn't interested in caring for them, and I have two guns that I bought. All are in a locked gun case and most are used at the gun range on a semi-regular basis.
Truth is, the dead guy probably wouldn't fuck with me because it's more than likely I'm his size or bigger. Bullies look for easy marks. I ain't one of those. But that's not the point.
The point is that life is fleeting, and frail. People have assumed room temperature after simply slipping in the bathtub or on their frozen driveway. The shooter retreated. He left the store. He did his part to defuse the situation. Obviously that didn't work. The bully thought he had free reign, as he'd probably had countless times before. He chased the shooter outside and continued kicking his ass. Well guess what? He fucked with the wrong guy. He took a trip on the karma highway and his exit came earlier than he expected it to. No sympathy here.
I carry a first-aid kit in my boat. Do I do that out of fear? Ditto my motorhome. Fear? Is it fear that causes me to put highway flares in my trunk? No to all of those questions. So if isn't fear that motivates me to do those things, why would fear cause me to carry a gun? I do those things because I can, and because if the need arises, I'll calmly handle the situation because I am prepared. Oh, and I don't think my first aid kits are qualified to handle "horrendous things". They're just standard off-the-shelf first aid kits albeit not purchased with savings in mind.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)You support the shooter, as described in the article, and i'll support the jury's decision. If he walks, you're free to follow his lead. If he goes to prison, you may suffer the same fate, should you choose to emulate him.
According to you, people don't get a second chance. If you have a gun, shoot em..am I right? No ability to fight, no screaming for help, no mace...no plan B...just gun.
Let's be clear. The shooter made no attempt to diffuse the situation, other than shooting him.
Well, I won't live like that...and damn the torpedoes.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)"When the man returned to the store, he apparently slapped a second customer, according to Sgt. Warren Mitchell, with the Dallas Police Department.
The second customer also retreated from the store while the man continued striking him, police said.
Once in the parking lot, the second customer pulled out a handgun and shot the man, Mitchell told NBC 5.
Your statement: The shooter made no attempt to diffuse the situation, other than shooting him.
Who are you to say that the bully never got a second chance? Who's to say this wasn't his FIFTH chance...? Sometimes we brush death without even knowing it. For instance, I used to ride a Kawasaki 750 Ninja. It was scary fast. Once, I was riding down a main thoroughfare going the speed limit, and a man was about to turn left in front of me. I looked at him. HE looked at me. Our eyes actually met. At the last moment, he decided he could get onto the street I was on before I got to where he was. I passed within an inch of his back bumper with my back brake locked and was hard on the front. It was so close I had to pull over and sit on the curb for a few minutes just to catch my breath. I knew he was going to do it, and at the time was sitting straight up on the bike, and prepared.
It would be interesting to know what your bully's criminal record was. I bet he had one.
Fighting back, screaming for help (yeah... try THAT one and expect more than one person in a THOUSAND to come to your aid) mace... those things buy you moments at best. If that one person in a thousand isn't within earshot, you're going to be getting your ass kicked for MINUTES.
I'm not going to suffer the same fate. I thought I made that clear. I don't carry. I have the luxury of being as big or bigger than your average thug.
You made the comment earlier that I should hope you weren't on my jury. Man oh man did you just out yourself as someone who should NEVER serve on a jury. I hope you haven't, because if you have, I would bet money you made a decision based on your biases rather than the facts.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)Walking away is diffusing the situation?? Is that all you need to kill a man??
You're setting the bar very low.
What are the facts about this case? What injuries did he receive? Did this person have no choice but to draw his weapon and shoot him dead? So yes, I would find him guilty if he had options and failed to use them.
I guess I need a CCW to protect myself from other people who carry. Consider this:
A person attacks me and I reverse that and start beating this guy back. A guy walks around the corner and just sees me beating this guy. He pulls his weapon and shoots me, simply because he has the right to protect any other citizen as well.
Is this who we are? Is this the society you want?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)If WALKING away from a situation isn't defusing it, is RUNNING?
In my not so humble opinion, you lied to support your point, KNOWING the shooter left the store in order to stop the beating. Your only defense to that is to say you didn't read the whole article, in which case your entire opinion and argument isn't worth a warm bucket of spit.
Is this who we are? Do bullies get the benefit of the doubt? Tell that to Matthew Shepard's parents. Or James Byrd Jr's. Could, in your opinion, James Bird Jr. been justified in shooting his attackers simply because they wrapped a chain around his neck? If he had, I bet you'd be arguing "damn, if he had only maced them..."
So you "reverse that and start beating this guy back". Well you're a tough guy. Most people aren't.
"just sees me beating this guy..." If he shoots you without any other knowledge of what's going on, he deserves whatever punishment the justice system gives him.
That's not what happened though, is it?
Does your goalpost need gas yet? How many MPG does it get? I bet it's got a Holley 650 sitting on top of it doesn't it? Hooker headers? Traction bars to keep the front wheels on the ground?
You're a piece o' work Bro. A WORM couldn't crawl under the bar YOU set.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)I guess we should accept that and just blow the hell out of people who follow?
I mentioned a few tools for this kind of thing that are less deadly. I guess they are not good enough?
You can arm yourself and you can shoot a drunk too. At the end of the day, i'm going to ask you why you used deadly force. I want to know why you had no other option. I want to know why you killed an unarmed man. If your answer is that you tried to walk away...that won't fly with me.
If you think you need a hand gun for deadly situations, shouldn't you be prepared for the situations that aren't?
I don't think you will answer without more drivel, but do try.
At the end of the day, i'm going to ask you why you used deadly force. I want to know why you had no other option. I want to know why you killed an unarmed man. If your answer is that you tried to walk away...that won't fly with me.
is exactly why, stand your ground laws are becoming more and more prevalent in the USA. People who use deadly force to defend themselves, really don't need some random asshole, sitting in the safety of a jury box, deciding that he should/could have done something different, to extricate himself from a fast moving, dangerous situation.
Keep up the good work, if we can get enough jurors in my state with your kind of thinking, maybe we can turn the tide and get SYG here in my state too.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)there is no need for a jury. You think you're in danger...you have gun...threat dead. What could go wrong?
Oneka
(653 posts)codify what is, and what is not, a justifiable use of force. Rather than using a jury who
is not in harms way, the reasonable man doctrine, or the discretion of law enforcement, and a DA, to determine what is, or is not justifiable.
By my logic a person who uses force can still be prosecuted , if his actions fall outside the boundaries of the applicable SYG law. With a good SYG law, he at least has an opportunity , to know what those boundaries are before
he is attacked, and prepare accordingly.
With duty to retreat laws in place A jury an determine that for him at a later time.
HALO141
(911 posts)you don't get to say whether or not what someone did was "right" in your opinion. You get to get a vote as to whether or not it was legal or not. In the State of Texas it is an affirmative defense that the actor used deadly force to stop an attack on himself or another in order to prevent "serious bodily injury or death." In truth, we do not have enough information to say whether or not the threat of serious injury or death was credible. If, for instance, the attacker was 70 years old and using a walker while the victim was a healthy 32 year old, 6'4" and 300 lbs. I would agree that the threat of serious injury was not credible. If, on the other hand, the attacker was the healthy 30-something and the victim was 70, well then the threat is imminently credible. The truth, here, is most likely somewhere in the middle.
Texas law, however, does not (nor should it) establish any sort of threshold for determining the level of injury one must endure before the threat of serious injury or death is established. In fact, all that's really required is some sort of demonstration of intent and a reasonable expectation of ability to inflict such injury. It is dishonest to say that an unarmed man presents no real threat. People are killed with bare hands EVERY SINGLE DAY. The attacker demonstrated his intent and ability by the battery of not one but TWO people. In both cases, when those individuals retreated, he followed, continuing to press his attack. He made a bad choice.
I'm a fan of the force continuum. Pepper spray, tasers, etc... They do have their place. They also have severe limitations. Under many circumstances they are simply impractical. On top of that, how many such devices would you expect people to carry around? Non-LEO's simply cannot shoe horn a sam browne belt or cavernous man-purse into their lives. Before armed citizens embrace more less-lethal options there are going to have to be a lot of social changes. Primarily, they will have to be almost universal acceptance of their choice to arm themselves because I guarantee you that carrying all that crap around with them will be just like a huge sign that reads, "yeah, I have a gun."
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The shooter retreated, that is evidence of trying to defuse the situation. You are speculating.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)shadowrider
(4,941 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)If the evidence supports that the shooter reasonable believed he was in grave danger, then it will never get to criminal court. Nor will you have a chance as a biased juror to enact civil penalties because SYG laws protect legitimate self-defense shooters from civil liability.
Thank you for posting your bias and, therefore, justifying SYG laws.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Anyone who thinks the way to deal with a rowdy drunks is to kill them has much bigger problems than self-defense.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)Tejas
(4,759 posts)MY DRUNK BABY DIDN'T DO NOTHING!
permatex
(1,299 posts)is in need of psychiatrist.
The shooter tried to retreat and finally had to defend himself.
I'm curious, were you there? Do you know the circumstances of what happened, how badly injured the shooter might have been at the moment he drew and fired? How much of a beating are you required to endure before defending yourself?
Or would you rather prefer that the victim be beaten senseless or killed rather than use a gun to end the beating?
In before the Sado-Masochists tell you how much of a beating they want to see. Weird how that works around here, as long as it happens to someone else they could care less what injuries the aggressor inflicts on someone, but whatever you do DON'T SHOOT THE AGGRESSOR!
permatex
(1,299 posts)They are so anti gun that they would rather see someone injured or killed rather than use a gun to defend themselves, not all of them, but a few very vocal ones here.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)permatex
(1,299 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to walk around with a gun out of some fear of your fellow man, doesn't mean you have to use it with a drunk who can be handled without killing them. Quit acting like you are prey and unable to extricate yourself from a minor incident without resorting to lethal weapons.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)were there and saw the whole thing! What, you mean you weren't? You have no idea how violent this guy got? Maybe he was a lot bigger than the guy he was hitting, maybe he wasn't. Who knows.
If, after the investigation the shooter is arrested, there must be cause. If he isn't, he successfully defended himself.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)shadowrider
(4,941 posts)incident.
I wasn't there, it's why I'll leave it up to the cops to decide.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...should take to heart.
HALO141
(911 posts)Maybe not. The Dallas Co. DA's office has a reputation for pushing every defensive shooting to trial regardless of the circumstances. Same can be said for Austin Co.
HALO141
(911 posts)Just curious.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)so don't hold your hopes up for a response.
HALO141
(911 posts)I suppose you (or I) might have gotten a response if he could figure out a way to slip in an insult or construct a straw man. *shrug*
wandy
(3,539 posts)For trying to retreat, that is.
If the drunk continued to follow him and beat on him; sooner or later you have to do something.
Now I'm tempted to say, couldn't he have shot the drunk in the ass or something?
We all know it don't work that way.
When highly intoxicated, pain doesn't have the 'stopping' effect it has when sober.
This could have still gone on until the person being attacked got seriously injured.
At the very best, the drunk would have sobered up, got himself a lawyer and the person defending themselves would never have owned anything again. And possably spend some time in jail.
If this is the way it really went down I would say the shooter had no other choice.
By the by; did I mention I'm not exactly a gun person?
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)wandy
(3,539 posts)I may not be a gun owner, however if the drunk pursued me all the way to my car.
I am a tire iron owner.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)by anti-gun people toward those pro-gun and you'll understand why I appreciated your comment.
No one here will try and force you to buy a gun, carry a gun, hold a gun or consider the purchase of a gun.
I, personally, respect peoples opinions. If you choose not to carry, good for you. It's those that hurl insults towards those that do I have a hard time tolerating.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)That's fuckin ridiculous.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The second customer also retreated from the store while the man continued striking him, police said.
Once in the parking lot, the second customer pulled out a handgun and shot the man, Mitchell told NBC 5.
Rowdy is loud and annoying but they don't chase you in parking lots throwing punches. This is violent. I have to question the judgement of someone who can't tell the difference.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Do y'all really live in such a bubble that you aren't aware that drunk people sometimes get rowdy and try to pick fights? Do you ever wonder how the rest of us manage to live perfectly safe lives without killing anybody? It's because intelligence is much more important than a gun when it comes to personal safety.
Even in this story, the first guy who the drunk guy went after had the good sense to just leave. The toter could have done the same, and called the police, but instead he decided he wanted to be a gun hero. According to the other story, other witnesses said the shooting was unnecessary. It's funny how the whole NRA crew wants to wait for all the evidence before deciding about Zimmerman, but they have no problem trusting any old gun nut to execute a drunk guy without any kind of due process or trial of any kind.
permatex
(1,299 posts)You've pretty much ruined any credibility here.
The shooter did try to get away and was followed out the door where the drunk continued to beat on him. But to you, thats not enough to trigger, pun intended, self defense.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)be Right Wing, you don't even have to be an NRA member, you only need to be a gunowner (50% of DU respondents to the gun poll) to be hated.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Most gun owners don't go around trying to play gun hero and executing people. You're trying to pretend that all gun owners are extremists like you.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)by candlelight are thrown about here in the Gungeon occasionally. You're not a noob so you also know how the closet fascists drop in with snarks that gunowners want blood to run in the streets. Please don't act clueless.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)What kind of person responds to a killing like this by saying "good shot"? Only a gun-crazed extremist.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)it's either a good shoot or a bad shoot, there is no in between. It will also be ruled as such by a jury. Welcome to the real world.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)"Not all gunowners. Just you and the other crazies."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=48545
The reason for the alert was:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
You added the following comments:
Clear accusation of mental illness.
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this post at Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:40 AM, and voted 1-5 to keep it.
Thank you.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)They can say anything they want and it stands. Mention regional bigotry however, and it's hidden in a heartbeat.
The jury system is a joke. I quit alerting.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)on DU.
I get a perverse sense of satisfaction from the publicly acknowledged hypocrisy.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...if the accusation of mental illness had been made in the other direction.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)If someone has already alerted on a post, your alert will have no effect. It will not be judged.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)DanTex
77. Not all gunowners. Just you and the other crazies.
What kind of person responds to a killing like this by saying "good shot"? Only a gun-crazed extremist.
I think it was a "good shoot" and say it was a "good shoot" so I'm instantly called a "gun-crazed extremist"?
permatex
(1,299 posts)The only reason he hasn't gone on ignore is because I want to see what other far out statements he makes.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Better yet, you can just post over at FreeRepublic, where whenever a gun hero executes a rowdy drunk guy, or shoots a fleeing teenager in the back, there won't be any pesky liberals to ruin the party by pointing out that a person actually lost their life here, which could have been avoided if the gun hero had decided to just leave and call the cops instead of "Standing His Ground".
your views on legal conceal carriers are so far in left field that I get a good chuckle at your posts. It reassures me that the gun control movement is pretty much kaput.
Nice reference to FreeRepublic although I have never been there.
The violent drunk that lost his life, while tragic, is wholly responsible, not the person who tried to get away.
You really are losing this round with your on the moon comments.
Just keep being yourself.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)oh wait, now you're a right-winger that does circle-jerks over at Free Republic. Wow, guess he told you!
permatex
(1,299 posts)violated.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)If one owns a gun then one is automatically an NRA plant? Comparing the Zimmerman case to this? I read your post several times and seem to have missed where you faulted the drunk whatsoever, accepting that drunken assault is normal is odd to me. Maybe I'm not understanding your personal culture/upbringing/sense of decency, is drunken assault a common everyday thing in your family? If so, then I'll work with that so as to better understand the lust you seem to exude for bloodshed.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Yes, the drunk was wrong to be drunk and picking fights. He should be arrested and tried, and if found guilty, he should go to jail. This is obvious.
The gun hero who executed the drunk guy was wrong also. The difference is that nobody is defending the drunk guy, or even celebrating his actions. Killing a person is much more severe than getting drunk and picking fights.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)"Yes, the drunk was wrong to be drunk and picking fights. He should be arrested and tried, and if found guilty, he should go to jail. This is obvious.
The gun hero who executed the drunk guy was wrong also. The difference is that nobody is defending the drunk guy, or even celebrating his actions. Killing a person is much more severe than getting drunk and picking fights."
Well, so far the basis for the antis in this thread is "Oh the poor defenseless drunk".
Your scenario in this post seems to deal with the problem only after the drunk has put someone in the hospital. Tell you what, while you are waiting for the cops to show up, you are more than welcome to hug the drunk in order to encourage him to stop rubbing your face into the asphalt. If you don't mind, post a link to the Youtube vid when your brain stops bleeding and you're released from the hospital.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)...a person actually lost their life here. No trial, no due process. Yes, he was doing something wrong, but getting drunk and picking fights shouldn't be punished by death.
I really don't understand how difficult it is for you to grasp this. Who said anything about waiting for the drunk to put someone in the hospital? All the gun hero had to get in his car, drive away, and call the police.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)How can you possibly assume that the "gun hero" in this case was physically able to just, get in his car, and drive away, did he even drive to the store? Do you in fact know anything about his physical abilities? or if he even owns a car?
Getting drunk and picking fights, is not at all consistent with the actions of the dead guy.
Assault and battery, is =/= getting drunk and picking fights.
This mans death was not a punishment, it was a repercussion, "I really don't understand how difficult it is for you to grasp this."
This would have ended so much better if the drunk had simply gotten in his car, and driven away, assuming he had a car, of course.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)You keep downgrading his actions from "assault and battery" to merely "rowdy and picking fights". There is a huge difference between those two. That is defending the attacker.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Perhaps you should have clicked through to the original news story linked in that threads OP article.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=48112
DanTex
(20,709 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Link through to the original news report that the previous threads' OP was referencing.
Due diligence: I'm sure someone with your claimed academic credentials is familiar with the term, even if you don't seem to approve of it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Are we having fun yet?
permatex
(1,299 posts)watching you getting your derriere handed to you and so far I haven't seen anyone agree with your comment about gun owners.
Gee, I wonder why that is?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Plus, you learned about apostrophes today. What a great day for you: learning and having fun at the same time!
just the usual snark. Don't change a thing.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)The OP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117248035
The article the OP linked to:
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/07/man_kills_attacker_at_northeas.php
The line in that article, with the imbedded link to the original news report:
The news report at the imbedded link:
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2012/07/man-dead-in-far-northeast-dallas-shooting.html/
Now, feel free to cite where the original news report states what is claimed in the Dallas Observer article.
Or, feel free to retract your absurd statements.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It wasnt worth the loss of life, said William Powell, who witnessed the fight.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Good day to you.
HALO141
(911 posts)should really display a greater command of grammar and punctuation. *shrug*
And what's this "gun hero" nonsense??? I really am perplexed at the tendency of rabid anti's to continuously invent new pejoratives to spit at their opponents. They should really just save themselves the effort and stick with the original, "poopie-head."
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the shooter did try to get away. The article said so.
Once in the parking lot, the second customer pulled out a handgun and shot the man, Mitchell told NBC 5.
Your critical thinking skills suck even more. Who are these other witnesses and what did they base their opinions on?
Friends of the dead guy?
Bigoted towards what group the shooter happened to be a member of?
Philosophically opposed to someone defending themselves?
Or just thought shooting is too unmanly?
Tejas
(4,759 posts)the shooter calls 'timeout' and puts his CCW in his vehicle, guzzles a fifth of tequila, then goes toe to toe with the perp.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It wasnt worth the loss of life, said William Powell, who witnessed the fight.
There's no evidence at all that the gun hero was ever in any real danger. It's really very hard to get away from a drunk guy trying to pick a fight. A normal person would just get in his car, drive away, call the cops. You know, like the first customer did.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and you assume he was picking a fight, you assume the second person had the same ability to get away as the first person, you assume the second person was not targeted for some specific reason.
There is no evidence to back up your assumptions from the article other than one witness who may or may not be credible. As Oliver W. Holmes put it
"detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Yes, I'm sure the witnesses were lying. And I'm sure the drunk guy was specifically targeting the second person, because that's so characteristic of drunk people.
I guess you go with whatever unlikely story that imagination can come up. Anything to defend the glory of a gun hero!
Tejas
(4,759 posts)That's a common lust here, hate the CCW no matter what, guilty until proven innocent...OMFG-WITNESSES-SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I'm not doing anything the cops aren't doing. They are asking the same questions. I did not say he was lying. My point was "so what makes him the authority anyone should listen too." Not trying to vindicate anyone. Protect him from a lynching maybe, but not vindicate. The lawyers, when it comes to that, will be asking the same questions. You are reading something in the article that isn't there.
I don't know what drunks to, or this drunk does. You don't know either. For all of your rants about rational thinking, you are not displaying it.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)It wasnt worth the loss of life, said William Powell, who witnessed the fight.
So William, you speak from experience? When was the last time somebody cleaned your clock in a liquor store parking lot? Did you pepper spray them?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Who cares what the witnesses say. We're talking about a gun hero and his quest for glory!
Tejas
(4,759 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Which story are you backing now?
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)those women should have "the good sense just to leave," right?
hack89
(39,171 posts)the difference is that the drunk followed the second guy.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)The big difference between Zimmerman and this case are the witnesses to the entire event.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)but one that was committing assault.
That's a pretty key fact in this case.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)...no one shot me. I guess I was lucky. I was in my 3rd year in college. One Friday night a few of us had a lot of beer and got rowdy. I "liberated" a cylinder of helium from the Chemistry department and we inflated about 300 balloons and filled a teacher's office from the ceiling to about 3 feet from the floor for his upcoming birthday. No one even drew a gun!
bluedigger
(17,077 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)I assaulted the Chem Lab, the helium, a teacher's office (and indirectly the teacher using the balloons as a booby trap) and don't forget the countless balloons...
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)during the middle of her upteenth beating. shot him dead. jury found her guilty of murder and sentenced her to probation.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)one of my classmates shot his drunk step father. "Dad" was in a drunken rage beating the kid's mom to death. The kid put an abrupt end to it. The DA and family court judge decided it was justifiable even under Wyoming's duty to retreat law in the 1960s.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Really, the drunk is trying to cave your head in but all you need to do is think fast. Grab your wallet and shove a benjamin in his face, repeat until the assailant wants a hug. Is that enough kumbaya for you?
DocMac
(1,628 posts)What are the people who do not have a weapon suppose to do?
Are you suggesting that all citizens carry and make decisions like this? To shoot dead any aggresor?
Why do you think people take self defense classes when they could just get a weapon? Why a hand gun, why not pepper spray??
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And the answer is, because it's not really about self defense and personal safety. It's about the glory of shooting down bad guys and then bragging to your gun buddies.
permatex
(1,299 posts)gun grabber. Your perception of conceal carriers is so much crap it boggles the mind.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Otherwise you just end up perpetuating stereotypes about pro-gunners...
permatex
(1,299 posts)Tejas
(4,759 posts)Ya know, you may be onto something, LEO's don't need guns either, just a can of pepper spray!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and it is about self defense and personal safety. If you seriously think he is going to be bragging to his gun buddies, you don't have the slightest clue.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)They should have options to avoid a deadly decision. That isn't asking much imo.
but some states don't allow the carrying of pepper spray so that kind of narrows the options. Luckily, my state does.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)I hope you never have to use a gun. They should make gun holsters with a compartment for pepper spray.
Not only would that help in court, that you used option A, but also in your own mind...that you did all you could.
as I believe you are also. I look forward to reading your posts.
I sincerely hope I never have to use my gun. If I did through no fault of my own, I would not, in the words of another poster here, go bragging to my friends that I got to shoot someone. No one here has ever said that and we would not tolerate it either, I would feel deep remorse and deep anger that I was forced to do so.
Those of us that choose to conceal carry do so to defend ourselves on the very small chance that we would need to, we are not bloodthirsty ghouls looking to shoot and or kill another human and then go bragging about it.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)It's just hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that people across this country are solving fistfights and assault with deadly force. There just has to be something in between...that's not who we are.
permatex
(1,299 posts)and we don't know how close he might have been to being beaten to the point where he would be helpless. The drunk's death, while a sad tragedy, was the drunk's fault, not the man getting a beating, and, the shooter did try to get away but was followed outside where the assault continued.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)However, these SYG laws open a 55 gallon drum craziness. I just don't think the average person is qualified to make a clear decision on when their life is in danger. People are gonna die and people who carry will be put in prison. That is why I suggested options, for the good of everyone.
permatex
(1,299 posts)He didn't try to stand his ground, he tried to leave the area but was followed out where the assault continued. I disagree that the average person isn't qualified to make a clear decision on when their life is in danger. If I'm getting an ass kicking, I sure as hell will know when my life is in danger.
Are you aware that more people die because of fists and feet every year than die of guns?
Something to ponder.
Thanks for the civil conversation. I'm sure we will disagree in the future but at least we can do it civilly.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)But yes, we agree to disagree and we can be civil in doing so.
Good health to you and yours, my friend.
permatex
(1,299 posts)Regardless, there will be an investigation and if charges are warranted, then the DA will file them.
Good health to you and your family also my friend.
HALO141
(911 posts)As I said before (somewhere, maybe in one of the other threads on this item) the Dallas D.A. is known for prosecuting EVERY shooting, regardless of the circumstances. I expect that the victim in this case will be charged with manslaughter, at the very least. Being charged doesn't always mean those charges are warranted. From the information presented, this shooting sounds legally justifiable but I'm not the one conducting the investigation so I'll have to reserve judgement.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)The jury could prefer the charges, change them, or no bill. In the latter the D.A. is shit out of luck.
Also if no billed, found innocent or not guilty, the family of the drunk can not sue in civil court according to Texas law.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
HALO141
(911 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)At what point can I stop retreating?
Why does a criminal's "right" to commit a crime outweigh my Rights to peacefully go about my lawful business?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)twice as many as long guns, pistols not so much.
permatex
(1,299 posts)Thanks.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Holy. Fucking. Shit.
So, who does get to make that decision? Where are they? Are they going to be there when in incident like this occurs, so as to give the victim permission to defend themselves?
Are YOU going to be there to make these judgement calls?
Yeah, I didn't fucking think so.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)97. I don't have any answers, permatex.
However, these SYG laws open a 55 gallon drum craziness. I just don't think the average person is qualified to make a clear decision on when their life is in danger. People are gonna die and people who carry will be put in prison. That is why I suggested options, for the good of everyone.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously, this member has me stupified to that extreme.
edit to add: apologies to Beavis!
DocMac
(1,628 posts)There will always be a cell for someone who makes a piss poor decision and kills someone, including you.
I'm just going to have to trash the whole gun group threads. Most of you never give an inch...not even listen.
So, let's just stop here.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)You're gonna get soaked pissing up that rope.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)after issuing such an absurdity as this:
"I just don't think the average person is qualified to make a clear decision on when their life is in danger."
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)If you are minding your own business and someone suddenly attacks you then you are allowed to defend yourself with lethal force. The law does not require you to discern why you are being attacked or at what level of injury to yourself the agressor will be satisfied and will stop the attack. You seem to forget that people can die from beatings.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)When you leave the house tomorrow, take something to handle those situations that are not life threatening.
Pistol whip them if you must. I'm seeing a whole lot of bullshit written here.
You're not even willing to fight, kick and scream, yell for help, pepper spray the fucker, hold him off with an umbrella, run, get in your car, hit him with your shoe...not those options! The law allows me to shoot this dude and by god that's what he deserves.
The military has rules of engagement and perhaps they feel like their hands are tied, but they deal with it.
You must wake every day thinking it's your last. Why do you put yourself in that position?
Maybe you just want to get a rise from me? Is that your goal here? Well, i'm not caving!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)for half baked ideas and absurd statements.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002904834
So who's judgement "is the average person" supposed to depend on?
DocMac
(1,628 posts)Do you think this man should have shot the drunk guy dead, or no?
I'm waiting!
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Legally it looks like a clean shooting.
Whether or not it was a good shooting is still TBD since there is not enough information on the shooter as to their health and other options.
The fact is those under the influence who are violent are not rationale and often have a greatly diminished pain response. OC spray will do nothing and they will often charge a drawn weapon.
Should ones ninja skills be up to date, there are hand to hand options, but the use of them places you at markedly more risk that shooting them.
I've ninja'ed people in my day. The most recent was a couple of years back. I either destroy their elbow or their knee. Had one perp tell me later that I should have shot him...
DocMac
(1,628 posts)Are you not satisfied with the results? Would you prefer that person dead, even now?
If you are the ProgressiveProfessor of Du, I may need to reconsider my being here.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the shooter did not bring getting the shit beat out of him on himself. There is a difference. If he was not a bully and kept his hands to himself, he would not be dead.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)I made real time judgements and have lived with the outcomes. Been second guessed a few times which is why I support SYG. Legitimate self defense should not have location dependencies.
I am a progressive professor working at a California public university teaching in the geek fields. DU has multiple profs posting here. Some of us even know each other. Pro gun progressives are not nearly as rare as some believe.
In addition to on campus teaching, I also teach weekend weapons classes, mostly to GLBTQs and women, those traditionally more likely to be attacked and be unarmed. I focus on handguns and take a non-traditional approach
DocMac
(1,628 posts)Carry all the hand guns you want. If you don't equip yourself with the tools to ward off idiots that are drunk and stupid, you left yourself with no option but to fight or shoot. Is that what you teach? Is that your position?
A yes or no would suffice.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Sound bite thinking is never a good thing. Your approach smacks of ideology with no real world experience and a level of situational capriciousness that is unsuited for the law. Your fetish for so called non lethal weapons shows just how little practical knowledge you have.
A real life threatening event can be a real brain burner. Fight or flight kicks in and what works for one may not work for another, regardless of size, training, and available weapons. The military understands this and trains appropriately. I try to do the same, but in a weekend its a tall order. However the concepts are the same.
Personally I am well equipped to deal with drunk and disorderly idiots. Like you I am quite large and I also have extensive training in martial arts. However there are many situations that martial arts, non lethal weapons, and confident bearing cannot address. For those firearms are the best answer until something better comes along.
Civilian self defense is not like being in law enforcement. The victim has *no* obligation to disarm or secure the perp and has every right to do whatever it takes to safely survive the situation. For most, the best answer is a handgun, and will remain so until we invent the phaser.
Be able to defend oneself effectively against counter revolutionary operatives and other criminals is also a progressive value.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)tell us what will be needed to fend off any attack, under any circumstances, at any time?
Can you do so for drunks only?
Are attacks by drunks not potentially lethal for the attacked victim?
Some specifics would suffice.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)yeah he should have shot him. Dead? You shoot to stop. There is no evidence of a summary execution. As for the witnesses, I actually don't give a shit because eye witnesses are unreliable and biased. That is why cross examination in court exists.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)What is your problem?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Are you an "average person" not qualified to make a clear decision as to whether or not your life is in danger?
Clames
(2,038 posts)Not only would that help in court, that you used option A, but also in your own mind...that you did all you could.
Fall in the same hole as firing a warning shot. If you use the pepper spray you state you didn't fear for your life or injury to the point requiring a deadly response. Typical anti-gunner armchair lawyering at work. Also, anyone with experience using such sprays knows they can easily get a dose for themselves by splash or moving into the aerosolized residue. What do you think that does to being able to properly use a gun if the situation further escalates? Not a smart choice.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Pepper spray isn't always effective.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)They can decide not to present a lethal threat at any time.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)and give the drunk a good talking-to.
I just learned here on this forum that this is the way to stop 100% of our crimes.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)That'll stop 'em!
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Obvious answer is to prepare for a potentially life-threatening beatdown, but have some $100 bills at your disposal.
Are you suggesting that all citizens carry and make decisions like this? To shoot dead any aggresor?
Read my post slower, I suggested $100 bills as an ammicable solution to both parties. You might wind up with a broken jaw and an empty wallet, but at least you didn't shoot the drunk!
Why do you think people take self defense classes when they could just get a weapon?
Why a hand gun, why not pepper spray??
No idea why they take those classes, maybe it makes them invincible?
Ask a LEO about the wondrous benefits of using pepper spray on a meth head.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)Tejas
(4,759 posts)As ridiculous as getting drunk and going into a store and randomly hitting people and then chasing someone out of said store for no reason with the intent of beating them SOME MORE.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)if he goes to prison. You don't expect to see every person walk for killing a person when they get slapped or punched, do you?
A serious reply would be nice. Or none at all.
hack89
(39,171 posts)6 percent of all murders are due to hands or feet. Toss in manslaughter and it is not an insignificant number. Why should I gamble that I won't be killed or seriously hurt just to ensure my attacker doesn't get killed?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)"self defense classes" are merely one part of a layered defensive strategy. Weapons are another part.
Did you know that being beaten can also be lethal? (So can defensive physical force.) I'm sure you do. At what exact point are we allowed to use potentially lethal tools for defense?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Apparently, self defense classes are too expensive. Plus, you have to get up off the couch and move that big wobbly thing called a belly around. Pepper spray is for sissies and what if you can't tell which way the wind is blowing. Nah, with that trusty S&W on your hip, you can blow away anyone who looks at you the wrong way, which would be for you to judge.
This is a classic SYG case and the shooter will undoubtedly walk without going to trial. That some here consider these laws "progressive", boggles the mind.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the shooter retreated. Should I highlight and bold it for you too? So no, it does not have a fucking thing to do with SYG. I looks like you would be legal under DTR laws.
The rest of your rant, you need some coffee or Earl Grey.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)"Witness told the DMN that the shooting was uncalled for, though it's a safe guess the shooter, who has a concealed handgun license, will walk. this seems the prototypical example of the situation covered by Texas' 2007 Stand Your Ground law which "abolishes the duty to retreat if the defendant can show he: (1) had a right to be present at the location where deadly force was used; (2) did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and (3) was not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force was used," as summed up by the Baylor Law Review. All of which seems to apply in this case."
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/07/man_kills_attacker_at_northeas.php
Had two capuccinos already. Teatime in about 3 hours.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)One thing.
The fight continued outside, where the second customer pulled out a handgun and shot the man, police said. The man stumbled back inside the store before being taken to Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas, where he was pronounced dead. Police did not release his name Thursday.
Of course, if the witnesses disagreed with your preconceived view, they would be blood thirsty rednecks. I'll take the police full investigation, thank you.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)This is classic SYG, unless you think the parking lot was some walled off space from which no further retreat could be made. The shooter had a good understanding of the law and took full advantage of it.
I don't have a preconceived view. I'm just quoting those at the scene and those who interviewed them.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)to danger. His chances of retreating further was existent. It was not mutual combat.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Actually, you don't know that. The eyewitnesses disagree with you. All the shooter had to do was leave the scene, get in his car, and not kill anyone. You're just making stuff up, in order to validate the actions of yet another wannabe gun hero.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the attacker was in close range. He slapped one and was punching the second. He followed the second. That is a reasonable assumption based simple fucking logic. Until these witnesses are cross examined to verify their reliability, my guess is equally valid. Certainly more valid than your stupid and bigoted "executes rowdy drunk guy" value judgments. Some asshole throwing punches is not "rowdy" and defending yourself is not summary execution.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Witnesses might lie too, and the attorneys of the witnesses might not only disagree but also lie, good luck with your argument.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Dude, are you posting while watching 24 or something?
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Any lawyer will tell you eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Let the police and the prosecutors do their work. I'm willing to bet the DA never takes this to the Grand Jury, and even if he does, knowing the attitude here in the Metroplex, I'm willing to bet the decision would be a No Bill.
Clames
(2,038 posts)How do you know he had a car there? Maybe he walked to the store. Talk about making stuff up
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)What if he walked there, or took the bus?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)As soon as he said it you would hear, "Objection, Your Honor", "Sustained. Jury will disregard that statement. Witness will please limit himself to observed facts."
DocMac
(1,628 posts)It does boggle the mind. It hurts to think people will go through the trouble to get a handgun, but a stun gun or mace is just too much to carry along with that gun.
The only option they have when they get in a situation is a gun. It's not even open for discussion.
If you disagree, they come running like a mob. It's sad.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)That's the line whenever cops use them.
And mace doesn't always stop a person dead in their tracks. You've blinded them. And pissed them off. Great, if you're much bigger. Not so great if they've grabbed you and have a hundred+ pounds on you.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)Given a choice, i'd much rather take my chances getting stunned than shot.
I'm a big guy and a former Marine. This drunk would have had a real problem dobbing me. Someone smaller, who doesn't have fighting confidence could use mace and run to their car and lock the doors.
The point i'm tyring to make throughout this thread is that we shouldn't be solving things like this with lethal force...that there are options.
Maybe the drunk guy would have woke up the next day, full of "i'm sorry." Perhaps that incident would be the trigger for him to clean his life up.
I should also say that those people who watched this are assholes for not grabbing this drunk and stopping this.
At least keep him busy til the cops arrive.
Now, one guy is dead and another might be fighting for his freedom.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)therefore you don't need a gun, therefore no one should have one.
Isn't that basically "I've got mine, screw you"?
Why can't all those old people or small people or physically handicapped people just be big healthy dudes instead? Frankly being weak is an immoral lifestyle choice that warrants being severely beaten on occasion by stronger people. Really why would they be weak and small if they didn't want to get beaten up from time to time?
Amiright?
(mace doesn't always stop the guy, and not everyone can "run to their car". Implying that people deserve to get beaten if they are small or slow seems a lot like blaming the victim).
/he could have woken up the next day feeling remorseful and changed his life. He could have woken up in jail after hospitalizing (or worse) someone else. He could have gotten away with it only to murder someone else later (with his fists or a car, doesn't matter in the end). He could have gone on to be president and declared war on Canada and ultimately lost, leaving us all in the thrall of the great white Canadian menace to the north. We don't know what "coulda" happened. We just know what he did: commit multiple physical assaults until ultimately he was stopped using violence, not persuasion. And we know with absolute certainty that he won't hurt anyone again.
//I'm a decent sized guy myself (not huge, but above average without false modesty). But there are plenty of people who could beat me up because either they are physically stronger, get the drop on me, more skilled, or just so drunk/drugged out that they aren't feeling any pain or capable of hesitating. Knowing that I would hesitate to forcibly disarm the rest of the population that on average is significantly smaller/weaker than I am.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)Just pull that gun and shoot the next person that slaps you. That is all you can do, isn't it? You have no other way out I guess, even though I suggested several in this thread.
I can see a few ignores from this thread. It won't be any loss either.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)and filled in the blanks.
You're a big guy. Great. You don't ever have to worry about defending yourself. Great.
But acknowledge that others are not necessarily "big guys".
And that mace doesn't always work.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)I'm not saying i'll win the fight because i'm a big guy either. I would just rather fight it out till the cops arrive than shoot them.
You never know how many times a person might punch you. Would you shoot them after the second one?
Seriously, at what point do you make that choice?
A person should do what it takes to get some help. We should do something short of killing. That's how I see it.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)You would rather fight it out. I don't dispute that.
I'm just saying that there are many people who would feel threatened from the get-go and could very well be dead after the second punch.
To take an extreme example: if a 90 year old 100 pound woman were being pummeled by some belligerent drunk (not always the most chivalrous of people) I wouldn't demand she wait till the 2nd or 3rd or Nth punch before she could have permission to feel threatened. I certainly wouldn't expect her to fight it out at all. Nor would I blame her for being unable to run away from her assailant. If she were to shoot the SOB dead after the first attack I wouldn't blame her in the least. And good riddance.
I take that extreme and work backwards: at what point is it acceptable to demand an individual fight for his/her life because there's a reasonable chance that he/she will win? And frankly I can't draw a line between those who are too weak/frail to have a chance and those who may win out by bronze alone. Not a clear one anyway. Some MMA fighter? Yeah he's probably safe. An average dude? Depends.
And since this was the second guy to be assaulted after the first person ran I think it's safe to say that help wasn't on it's way. At least not in time.
If your personal ethical code forbids killing in such a situation I have no problem with that. I would be extremely hesitant to even consider drawing a gun on someone no matter the situation. All I'm saying is that sometimes it is justified.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)When a person beats on a helpless person, they deserve attempted murder charges. They should rot in prison a long time. They should be on death row if they actually do kill someone.
And it really sucks that criminals push this decision on victims like this.
And yes, I choose not to carry a gun and might become a victim some day. I'll take my chance and not begrudge those that do. But i'm a part of this society and I don't want to see life cheapened or people thinking that it's ok to gun down people because it's easier to do that than scrape a knuckle.
I'm 52 yrs. old. I'd like to think i've learned as the days roll. But you know that a lot of young people are gonna get a CCW and they are gonna get drunk and they will think it's ok to solve their issues by unholstering that weapon...they've already seen it. I don't want to see that. I don't think you want to see that either.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)at least not by much.
Sorry for going off on you earlier.
I would just say though that I don't think CCW will have much of an impact on those who are going to go out and get drunk and then look for trouble (using a gun). I think they would do that regardless.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)You're speaking your mind. I respect that. Even if I were to think that you're wrong.
Stories like this are going to get a lot of scrutiny, and rightly so.
One day, I might help someone who is in trouble...like the people standing around in this story who didn't. And maybe one day, a person with a CCW will stop a person that tries to rob me or carjack me, or worse.
I started here with offering options, and thats all I wanted to do. So let me just end with the following scenario:
If you leave the house in the morning with a hand gun and forget your umbrella, you're not even prepared for rain.
However, had you taken an umbrella, it could have been used to fend of an idiot attacker.
Thanks for your kind words, 4th.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Try another tactic.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)do is let someone wail on me until help arrives.
One lucky punch, one lucky kick and I'm down for the count. There may be other options, but for me, they're severely, severely, severely limited.
What do I do?
DocMac
(1,628 posts)People do help others, you know.
You can shoot em and take your chances I sure hope you don't, though.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)be there if I need help. If you CAN'T be there, I reserve the right to defend myself by all means necessary.
Deal?
DocMac
(1,628 posts)Do you want to adopt me so you don't have to live in fear? I have my own money! Do you have NO faith in your fellow man?
I might start using a walking cane. I don't need it but I can knock an attacker upside the head with it. That beats the hell out of dumping a shit load of bullets in them. Perhaps you would rather the bullets.
You have not learned a thing from this thread, have you?
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)for fear of retribution. I trust only myself, no one else.
My reply was not silly. Failing any type of security for my person, I alone am responsible for it. I will defend it by any means necessary.
Consider this silly or consider it real life, your choice.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)Do you realize the odds that some will beat you to death tomorrow?
So, if you shoot someone, wouldn't you be doing it because you already have that fear...that you already anticipate it? Don't you have any way of fending off a drunk idiot, besides killing them? Thats what this citizen needs to know.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)...and your head stomped. You have obviously never been in a real fight since you were a kid.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)and what do you do while waiting for help to arrive? Just take a beating?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese
Tejas
(4,759 posts)A few of the antis here recommend it instead of shooting an assailant.
Personally, I think just wearing the cape would ward off anyone intent on bodily harm.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Fear is a powerful force and fear mongers are the agents of divisiveness. Unfortunately, a number of our brethren have been sucked into this vortex of bogus logic, which has nothing to do with public or even personal safety, but selling more handguns and the endless supply of accessories that flood the market daily. It's really about power and greed manipulating the emotions of vulnerable people.
My advice is to ignore the flak. They are a loud minority. There are several reasonable members on the other side of the argument who are capable of having reasoned, intelligent conversations. Ignore the loud mouths. Most of them are here to disrupt, rather than engage.
But don't give up. They are trying to chase you away right now. There are very few of us on DU who can stomach much of the discussions around here. Most stay away and like some other controversial groups, the bullies try to take over by drowning out the voices of reason. Basic troll strategy.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Most if not all of the bogus logic on this one is coming from your side.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Clames
(2,038 posts)You must not being paying much attention to the polls started here. Yourself, Hoyt, DanTex, ellisonz,bongbong, jpak, and a few others would make up the vocal minority. Disruptive, divisive, insulting, unoriginal, and for the most part would rather see this whole group deleted than have a civil conversation.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I think you are fully aware that you do not represent the majority of DUers, who do not support SYG, or the routine carrying of concealed weapons for so called, self defense. You are part of a fringe group of DUers, that spends most of it's time in the Gungeon, trying to convince other DUers that carrying a gun around is a smart thing to do.
I have civil conversations here on a regular basis with those who reciprocate. It is obvious from all the polls here that the Gungeon is loaded with pro gun carriers, including you. I don't know anyone who opposes gun ownership or proposes a total ban. You bandy words like anti and pro around, but I don't know what they mean. I support gun ownership. I support self defense. I even support using a gun for self defense, if there is no other option available. I do not support the ridiculous behavior of grown men walking around with guns, in constant fear of their lives.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Much of what I have seen in progressive media is less than accurate in the letter of various SYG laws especially Florida's. If they actually understood how the laws work, the history and reasoning, and accurate information, I would be willing to bet many if not most would move from "against" to at least "agnostic."
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I think most people see it the way I do, which is basically an extension of Castle Doctrine. There is a huge difference between killing someone in defense of your home and family, and standing in the street "High Noon" style. It is pretty transparent that ALEC and the NRA sold this bill of goods to various state legislatures as a ploy to inflame and divide public opinion.
Now it has started to backfire, with corporate sponsors pulling out, ALEC is distancing itself.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)ALEC is simply a vehicle. Why should you or I give a rat's ass about ALEC's well being? There is not "High Noon" because the movie was about a duel. Simply by making that reference, you misrepresent the truth about the law. But then, most of the "antis" here would be opposed to defending inside the home and would equally oppose those who do retreat before firing. Should I provide the links saying that how more civilized it is to hand over the money or allow themselves be beaten? They don't use those specific words, but that is what they are saying. This thread is an obvious example. It is clear the shooter retreated. Based on the factual evidence in the article (witnesses opinion does not count, and would not be allowed in court.) this would have been a legitimate self defense case in a DTR state. The article specifically states that he tried to retreat while being attacked. Yet they failed to read or simply ignored that fact and pained the assault and battery victim as a "gun hero" and a "macho killer". How does that make them any different than the teabagger that doesn't understand or ignore that Medicare is a government program? Not much. Different issues, but the same lack of rational and honest thought and discourse.
That said, if the NRA, along with the voter suppression supporters, destroy ALEC, how is that a bad thing? If anything, it shows the oligarchs are willing to risk losing their corporate welfare out of fear bad press or a rerun of the French Revolution. Either way, if it destroys ALEC I'm all for it.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)To say that ALEC is a vehicle is like saying a Hummer is a vehicle. It doesn't alter the fact that they are both vehicles that symbolize arrogance and disdain for public safety and the environment.
"Should I provide the links saying that how more civilized it is to hand over the money or allow themselves be beaten? They don't use those specific words, but that is what they are saying.
Why use the words if they are not used and you cannot quote them? The word you do use is "antis". Anti what? Anti self defense? Anti gun? Anti is not a word, unless you include a qualifier.
It is not more "civilized" to hand over the money to an armed robber, it is more sane. We hear a lot of brave words from some of our macho friends, but I doubt any of them would shoot anyone over pocket cash. Carrying a gun doesn't mean you have to divorce yourself from common sense.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)they function for their members.
Judging from many posts, anti gun and anti self defense are almost synonymous. What I find odd is that most of them are OK with Brinks cars, diamond couriers, etc with having CCWs. So, it is OK to defend the one percent's money, but not ones self. That is part of why the Dems have a problem with white working class and white rural people. That is why the left has a problem with rural areas in general. As I regularly whine and Orwell noted years ago
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/05/obama_and_orwell.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_chunky&fb_source=timeline
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Just a drunken bully acting stupid and getting himself killed. I have no sympathy for the drunk. I feel for the guy who shot him. Can you imagine how shitty he must feel? The worst thing I can imagine is feeling that no other option is available than to kill someone.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but those you can heal from after awhile. Taking another human life for any reason, not so much. I had a neighbor who still had nightmares from WW2.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)I completely understand everything you said, thanks.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Please note that some peoples decision to not be armed is not a legal or moral limiting factor on others.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)and won't defend yourself is a sure-fire way to get him to leave you alone.
Next up: if being stalked by a hungry lion, cover yourself in bacon grease and let it lick your hand.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)You have no idea the fappage in ivory towers that you just encouraged.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)I'd charge $100 and some S'mores!
A guy's gotta eat, too.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:00 AM - Edit history (1)
The number of classes in any effective martial art that one could purchase for the price of a handgun and the ammunition needed for frequent practice at the shooting range would not put you in a position of being able to count on your training for self defense. Three of four months of classes is more likely to give a person just enough misplaced confidence to get themselves beaten to a pulp by a street thug with dozens of real fights under his belt.
If you're a small person (like me: 5/3" 109lbs), even years and years of serious martial arts training wouldn't be enough to give me a very good chance of prevailing against someone twice my size and with experience in real fights. It only works that way is shitty action movies and those ridiculous "defense classes" that have people beating on someone lumbering around in a padded suit, not in the real world.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)pepper spray, a rock, or a stick, I guess you're gonna have to shoot em. Why are less lethal options never discussed? Why go from A straight to Z?
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)part of it is that they are not as effective and have limitations like range and wind deflection (my dream SD weapon would be a Star Trek phaser with a stun only setting, I would pick it over my Ruger or Walther, assuming I carried. Since I am either in Mayberry, the woods, or college campus the issue is moot to me.)
another might be some confusion about legality.
Another could be simply be sucky marketing. They sell them at all of the same gun shops. Some states only allow FFLs to sell them.
Either way, we know it is not price. But it is a legitimate conversation worth having.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)One has to accept a greater degree of risk if one is going to rely on non-lethals, though. Bottom line, they are not as effective. If one is willing to accept that greater degree of risk (not an unreasonable thing) then choosing something like pepper spray makes sense.
I should also point out that defensive gun usages in which no shot is fired (which would seem to be the more prevalent variety) are a legitimate consideration. A firearm would have considerably greater deterrent value, I would think.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)DocMac
(1,628 posts)he didn't happen to have a weapon? Maybe he would have raised his hand in defense?
People who don't carry need to know.
edit with sarcasm tag before some lost soul actually takes me seriously about running faster.
Fight or flight and all.
not as spry as I used to be, what would you have me do in that situation? Take a beating or defend myself with the best tool available to me?
DocMac
(1,628 posts)Some situations call for that.
permatex
(1,299 posts)especially on a drunk who is tuned up. I will use whatever is at my disposal to protect myself if I'm getting an ass whoopin, and if that means drawing my soon to be conceal carry gun and using it, then so be it.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)That way you are equipped to handle situations like this. Give yourself more options.
permatex
(1,299 posts)and I OC also. But using pepper spray in such close proximity to another runs the risk of blinding yourself, but if I could use it safely, I would, nobody, except maniacs, want to have to shoot anyone despite what another poster said in this very thread.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Victim: Stop beating me or I'll use this pepper spray!
Perp: Use the spray, I don't care
Victim: Ok, you asked for it, but first, can we change places? The wind is at your back and I don't want to get a dose in my eyes
Perp: Fool (As beating continues)
Tejas
(4,759 posts)So I hearby reject your reality and substitute my own!
DocMac
(1,628 posts)Tejas
(4,759 posts)It's not always rainbows and unicorns out here Dorothy.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)There isn't really any discussion, if not. Even the police avoid deadly force with a host of less lethal weapons. For drunks, especially. If you fear for your safety, get pepper spray, a stun gun, and a .45. Don't set yourself up with only one option. Why won't you get onboard with this?
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Your options require getting up close, within arms distance or closer. One lucky punch or one lucky kick and your lights are out.
I'm 58 with health problems. I'd NEVER get that close. It'd be an a*s-whipping waiting to happen.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)all I see everyday with my own eyes is the reality of that which is. I would suggest you take a stroll through the hood sometime, get back to me with your impressions, just keep them honest.
That said, enjoy your stroll........and be ready to run for your life.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)he's attacked. That'll stop the attack for sure.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)DocMac
(1,628 posts)You can get the money back after his conviction and your lawsuit.
sarisataka
(18,220 posts)but if a person starts carrying all of that, won't certain folks chime in that now you are just acting out cop wannabe fantasies?
DocMac
(1,628 posts)lethal force is all you have. And people shoot to kill.
Raise your hands and fight or pull the gun. So, if you're not a fighter you're a shooter. That seems to be all.
sarisataka
(18,220 posts)every problem looks like a nail.
Sometimes however the problem is a nail. Some just cannot accept that.
You do seem to allow the possibility
DocMac
(1,628 posts)shoot em. Shoot em twice. If they try to car jack you, shoot em. To me, a fist fight doesn't deserve deadly force.
Those who think it does, do it your way. Shooting an unarmed person seldom looks good.
We'll see how it works out for the guy in this story.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)A 90 lb woman in her 60s has a better case than a big guy in his prime who is a former marine. The former, just about anybody would consider reasonable. The latter could be heavily second guessed.
That is one of the main reasons SYG is gaining popularity. Such after the fact second guessing has no place in the law.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)A fist fight is deadly force.
"Shooting an unarmed person seldom looks good."
You seem to believe that having only hands and feet equals being unarmed.
The entire point of martial arts, and the fact that more people are beaten to death than killed with rifles and shotguns, entirely destroys your assumptions.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)"That seems to be all."
You seem to live in a binary process, devoid of actual logic and reason.
"That seems to be all.", indeed....
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)of the two, and it seems the drunk had a much greater advantage, my guess the victim would be in the hospital or dead. He already tried to retreat before the drunk caught up with him and started pounding on him again. There is no logical reason to assume the outcome would have been good.
permatex
(1,299 posts)but where does logical reason come into this with certain posters here?
Tejas
(4,759 posts)in a liquor store parking lot. You know, as long the drunk goes home safely.
permatex
(1,299 posts)although I really hope I'm wrong, but judging by a few of the comments here, it would seem so.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)You're very close in your assessment. Actually, many would accept the ccp to get his skull cracked open. The victim is permitted to defend himself with either ninja skills, cans of beans, a handy staff or a bicycle tire. Anything as long as it isn't a gun. See, in this group, the perp gets lots of love and the victim who defended himself (with a gun) is the bad guy.
But you're catching on quick.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)You make a choice and you live or die with the consequences of that choice.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)enki23
(7,786 posts)and didn't even seek medical attention. Must have been one tough sumbitch.
I'm not sure where I stand on this event in any case, especially without more information, but the excessively gun-loving sorts seem to be stupidly, almost gleefully exaggerating the imagined fearsomeness of the beatings being dished out by "the drunk". It seems to me that there might... there just *might* be a bit of exaggeration of the intense danger this poor little carrier of a concealed deadly weapon may actually have been in. That is, unless they have information not contained in that article to back up their claims that deadly force was justified against someone who was temporarily, and very likely permanently mentally impaired, and who may or may not have posed sufficient threat to justify resorting to a course of action the shooter had every reason to expect to have fatal consequences for his or her target.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)"I'm not sure where I stand on this event in any case, especially without more information, but the excessively gun-loving sorts seem to be stupidly, almost gleefully exaggerating the imagined fearsomeness of the beatings being dished out by "the drunk". It seems to me that there might... there just *might* be a bit of exaggeration of the intense danger this poor little carrier of a concealed deadly weapon may actually have been in. That is, unless they have information not contained in that article to back up their claims that deadly force was justified against someone who was temporarily, and very likely permanently mentally impaired, and who may or may not have posed sufficient threat to justify resorting to a course of action the shooter had every reason to expect to have fatal consequences for his or her target.
I could be wrong, but you seem almost disappointed that the CCW didn't suffer life-threatening injuries. Ray Charles could figure where you stand on it.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)If so not very well. The first was able to get away, the second one could not.
enki23
(7,786 posts)"It seems to me you did not actually read the article well and process the information without an ideological filter. Since bare hands kill more people than "assault weapons" in fact, two times more than all long guns combined, I would call that a real threat"
That's called a "base rate fallacy." And I don't mean a run of the mill base rate fallacy. I mean that has to be the grandaddy of all base rate fallacies. That's freaking phenomenal. You can't actually be serious with this shit, can you?
I can play this silly game too. The common cold is far more deadly than a nuclear weapon. It's killed <insert ass-derived number> times the number the people ever killed by nuclear weapons. The common cold is a real threat. In light of the millions of humans who have died to the common cold, surely it poses enough of a threat to justify shooting people who look like they might sneeze in your vicinity.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)bare hands are deadly weapons. If there is a difference between size and strength, there is a disparity of force. Since the shooter was unable to outrun the attacker, it was a clear threat. The shooter tried to retreat.
Since you were not there, and don't know jack shit about the situation other than what the article says, you have no business judging the shooter's actions.
What was he supposed to do? Punch it out? If some drunken bully starts beating the shit out of someone for whatever reason, I fail to see the moral obligation to risk his life or health to satisfy your moronic sense of "civilization". I'm guessing if it were you, you would have used a weapon.
I may have used a logical fallacy, but it is a fact found in the FBI UCR.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)2. What evidence do you have that the attacks were identically perceived by the victims?
3. Exactly how much of a beating must a victim endure before taking effective defensive measures? Please be specific.
4. "action the shooter had every reason to expect to have fatal consequences for his or her target" Did you know that the great majaority of gunshot wounds are non-fatal?
dtom67
(634 posts)as far as I am concerned, this should be a non-topic.The economy is where the Republican party threatens America most. Any time the Dems start to talk about corporate influence or economic inequality, all the right has to do is throw out a story about gun control or abortion and we run with it. All the while, stirring up the GOP base.
This is how the Repubs beat us.
By letting us do the work for them.
Like it or not. Many Americans want the right to keep and bear arms.
period.
right or wrong has nothing to do with it.
So,choose:
Rant about how we should go door-to-door confiscating all firearms, and thereby lose elections that might have helped the poor, the hungry and the uninsured,
or
Try to actually win in November by hammering the Right on its economic policies. This is where they are vulnerable. This is also where the greatest threat to our democracy lies.
The corporate takeover of our democracy is going on right now.
This is the war we should be fighting.
Arguing topics like gun control and abortion does not convert anyone to our side, no matter how irrefutably logical the argument is. It merely swells the ranks of the enemy at the voting booth.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)continue to get the Recs then we will conitnue to have an issue with getting Dems elected.
Thus the problem and the reason why this Group exists.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Are there any other issues where you'd like to see the Democrats cave to the right-wing crazies? How about we let them teach creationism in schools, and stop fighting for environmental regulation. And let's give up on LGBT rights as well. "Guns, God, and Gays", right? If we try hard enough, maybe we can out-right-wing the right-wingers!
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Never heard of Brady or VPC? Jim Brady, Sarah Brady, do those names ring a bell? Ronald Reagan/Black Panthers/Mulford Act, Wiki is your friend. Maybe I should digress but I thought you knew WTF you were talking about.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Tejas
(4,759 posts)Never said I had any sense so go easy on me!
permatex
(1,299 posts)as evidenced by some of the wild statements he's made here and elsewhere.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Hopefully the poster has enough aptitude to use Google.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Is there a limit to your delusions?
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Hello, anybody home?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)...the NRA and the gun crazies are almost all right-wingers. Wayne LaPierre, Grover Norquist, Ted Nugent, etc.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)How about the Brady Campaign that gives President Obama an F?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Tejas
(4,759 posts)Why invoke the NRA card every waking moment? Who cares?
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Gun rights, abortion rights, voting rights, civil rights of course.
Private gun ownership is a progressive value. Gun control has racist and classist roots. Those that work against gun rights are neither liberal nor progressive and keep very bad company.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)You know, ounce of prevention and all.
jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)sarisataka
(18,220 posts)Two people assaulted without provocation. Both try to retreat. One succeeds for unknown reason. Second faces continued assault and defends himself.
All the armchair QBs (I hate using sports analogies) are saying "well you didn't retreat enough", "why didn't you drive away" (who says the victim didn't walk there), "use other options", "were you really in danger"
Everyone jumps up to defend the criminal and criminalize the victim.
Who here would say about a rape victim -she shouldn't have walked alone at night, she had other choices on what to wear, why didn't she retreat, she obviously was looking for it so probably really wanted it...
All ludicrous, unless a person used a gun to defend themselves.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)"I hate rude behavior in a man...I won't tolerate it."
ileus
(15,396 posts)Tejas
(4,759 posts)But Nina Butts, a spokeswoman for Texans Against Gun Violence in Austin said the decision sends a dangerous message. "The grand jury says the murder was justifiable, but is it necessary to kill each other over broken side view mirrors."
Ms. Butts said Texans don't want a state in which ordinary citizens settle disputes with guns. "The bottom line is a person died over a side view mirror and we question whether it would have happened if Gordon Hale had not been permitted to carry the gun," she said. "This law is not about public safety, it's about selling and promoting guns."
................................................
JMHO, but I still believe Tavai getting out of his vehicle and walking over to Hales vehicle and reaching through Hale's window and beating him senseless might be the reason Tavai is dead.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Meiko
(1,076 posts)and had a lot of the scrapper in me I probably would have traded a few punches with the drunk, I was pretty feisty in my younger day's, but that was then and this is now. I am a lot older and have a multitude of health issues. I for one am not going to stand by for any amount of time and let somebody beat on me, drunk or not. I am going to defend myself as needed. If that means shooting and killing the attacker than so be it, the attacker made a bad life decision and will suffer the consequences of his actions.
I don't give a fat rat's ass about what some anti-gunner has to say about me defending myself. If I made a legitimate attempt to get away from the attacker and he pursued me, how far am I suppose to retreat? how much of a beating am I suppose to take? I am not talking about the shooting of a teenage boy by a block watch captain with bad decision making skills. I am talking about stopping an unprovoked violent attack on my person that could very easily result in death or serious and permanent injuries. Who is going to take care of me after I am paralyzed by the attacker?, you Mr. anti-gunner, yea right. As human beings we have certain rights and one of those is the right to defend ourselves.
You can argue until hell freezes over about how life would be so much better without guns and of this I have no doubt, but that's not the way it is. Until the time comes when the country has evolved to the point where we don't feel the need to kill each other, and that's the real issue here, then I will carry a gun and I will use it if I have to and I don't care what anyone else has to say about it, carry on.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Except I would dance with them a little bit before I dropped them. The goal was a one hit knockout.
Today I no longer take that chance and just drop them. Sometimes with the ninja thing, sometimes with a weapon. Its situational.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)Maybe I could dance with them until they drop. That might be my best option, particularly with a drunk.
I got no ninja training (was way tooo uncoordinated for that when I was younger) and I'm 5'6", so decking them wouldn't really have ever been an option anyway. A gun, if I had one, would most likely not be with me in the places I would be most likely to encounter drunks, i.e. in or coming out of a nightclub or bar, since weapons are not allowed in them.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)The shooter is not going to have an easy time of it either. He will have court appearances and he will have legal expenses.
When you kill someone, even if it may be justifiable, they don't let you just walk away.
Meiko
(1,076 posts)believe me. I don't know what his final outlay will be but it won't be cheap, lawyers don't work for free. Then there is the emotional end of it. Regardless of the circumstances most normal people are going to have remorse for killing someone, to what extent depends on the person I guess. I imagine it would be a lot of baggage for some people to carry around.
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)defensible shooting..no doubt.
Weren't the cc people the one's that were supposed to get drunk and shoot people?Guess this one puts that to rest
just like we were suppose to get involved in shoot outs where numerous innocent people are shot....the list goes on.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)With so many witnesses, how is it possible that all of them left unscathed?
Shouldn't 5 or 6 of them have been bleeding out in the parking lot?
Meiko
(1,076 posts)It would depend on the capacity of the magazine in the gun....that's how the cops do it, right? Just keep squeezing the trigger until the mag is empty.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Meiko
(1,076 posts)if someone isn't beating on you. I would hope the clerk was smart enough to call the cops when he saw what was going on.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Five minutes is a good response time for cops. Why do you want to give a violent felon the right to beat folks up?
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)ARRESTED.And yes I'd take an ass kicking rather than KILL someone.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)that is OK as long as he is taking one for your definition of civilization?
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Bomb Bomb BOMB
Meiko
(1,076 posts)are you serious?????? You would rather stand there and take a beating then defend yourself? How about your wife or girlfiend if you have one? would you stand by and watch while she was raped rather then defend her?
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)besides a gun? Yes in my sheltered world there is , unlike you people that obviously live in a war zone!
Meiko
(1,076 posts)I am glad you live a sheltered life but the rest of live in the real world. Of course when it is all said and done it is your right to get your butt kicked if that's what you want, enjoy it.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:34 PM - Edit history (1)
And you don't try to foist it on others, and make them live by it.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)It is not, however, one that you (or anyone else) has the ethical right to mke for me.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Anyone else ,including my Wife ,who would Drop them in a second ,with the Gun I didn't know about.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)You are free to get your ass stomped if you want to.
Spoonman
(1,761 posts)stop kicking the shit out of me so that I might ask the clerk to phone the police.
If you will just spare me a moment, I assure you that there will be adequate time for you to beat my ass until you are exhausted while we wait for the authorities to show up.
Response to Spoonman (Reply #269)
Post removed
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)mean you no longer give a shit about a human life? I think so.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Just because one has a gun does not mean all other options are now unavailable.
Also, did you actually read the incident articles? The man tried to retreat at least twice, leaving the store and trying to leave the immediate vicinity. Or should he have just taken a potentially fatal beating?