August 21, 200917 yr How do you know that he was a nut job ? Maybe he had a good reason to point a gun at you , maybe he had been cut off or tailgated one time too many . Did you forget use your turn signal to change lanes ? Did you not yield the right of way ? What is his side of the story ? :laugh:
August 21, 200917 yr And which of those reasons if true would make him not a nut job? Maybe he just had a phobia against hirsute individuals .
August 21, 200917 yr How do you know that he was a nut job ? Maybe he had a good reason to point a gun at you , maybe he had been cut off or tailgated one time too many . Did you forget use your turn signal to change lanes ? Did you not yield the right of way ? What is his side of the story ?Because I'm never wrong. :popcorn: Apples to oranges here since I stated earlier, if you'd been paying attention you'd know this, that if the guy pointed the gun at RM, I'd totally agree with her. :sssh: Now what? :lol:
August 21, 200917 yr This is the best info I could find on it right now since I am at work, but I'm fairly certain you can't use deadly force as "self defense" when your attacker is not using deadly force. Read more: http://law.jrank.org/pages/10128/Self-Defense.html#ixzz0OpXoG5Sc Therefore I come to the conclusion that if someone attacks you with their fists (because you originally went to pull a gun on them) you can't shoot them in self defense simply because he throws a punch at you. Umm... Are you trying to tell me that you can't kill someone with your fists? If I punch you in the head and you die, was that not deadly force? :confused:
August 21, 200917 yr Maybe he just had a phobia against hirsute individuals .Dude was hairier than me. :taz:
August 21, 200917 yr At any rate, my point was that you shouldn't be pulling out a concealed firearm unless you are absolutely planning on using it. So, in a situation where a person sees a firearm being drawn against them, it is reasonable for them to believe that their life is in imminent danger. And you don't know how people will react when their backs are against the wall. It's a dangerous situation and it's ridiculously unreasonable for a gun carrier to draw first and ask questions later. However, I'm still curious about my first question. When do those propping their guns as a means to resist tyranny, the apparent reason for bringing them to protests and townhalls concerned with policy, begin opening fire?
August 21, 200917 yr Because I'm never wrong. :popcorn: Apples to oranges here since I stated earlier, if you'd been paying attention you'd know this, that if the guy pointed the gun at RM, I'd totally agree with her. :sssh: Now what? :lol: Are you sure he pointed at you . After all we are only hearing one side of the story .
August 21, 200917 yr At any rate, my point was that you shouldn't be pulling out a concealed firearm unless you are absolutely planning on using it. So, in a situation where a person sees a firearm being drawn against them, it is reasonable for them to believe that their life is in imminent danger. And you don't know how people will react when their backs are against the wall. It's a dangerous situation and it's ridiculously unreasonable for a gun carrier to draw first and ask questions later. However, I'm still curious about my first question. When do those propping their guns as a means to resist tyranny, the apparent reason for bringing them to protests and townhalls concerned with policy, begin opening fire? Well, he didn't pull the gun out, he started to, but I get your point. Yes, if RM was packing, she would have had the right to pull her weapon in my eyes. The way I see it though, both would have likely had enough training and nothing would have happened. How else can you explain for the fact that there has really been no problem from people with CC? As to your last question, why would you think they would? It's a protest, not a militia death squad.
August 21, 200917 yr Are you sure he pointed at you . After all we are only hearing one side of the story .If you're will to help me look, I'm more than willing hunt him down so you can question him.
August 21, 200917 yr If you're will to help me look, I'm more than willing hunt him down so you can question him. I'll pass .:clap:
August 21, 200917 yr As to your last question, why would you think they would? It's a protest, not a militia death squad. Aren't the guns the means to resist tyranny? If this attempt at health reform is tyranny then when does the armed resistance begin?
August 21, 200917 yr Well, he didn't pull the gun out, he started to, but I get your point. Yes, if RM was packing, she would have had the right to pull her weapon in my eyes. The way I see it though, both would have likely had enough training and nothing would have happened. How else can you explain for the fact that there has really been no problem from people with CC? Yesterday a woman with a valid permit, in southern Indiana, was sentenced to ten years for shooting a man that she said was approaching her car in a manner that she felt threatened her. Something for all of you shoot first ask questions later types to ponder. I would interpret someone reaching for a gun as a serious threat to my life. Would RM have been justified to pull a gun when the guy reached for his? When she reached for hers, would that have confirmed his perception of danger and justified continuing to pull his? Sounds like high noon to me. To my mind, reaching for a gun as a result of a chance bump on the street is irresponsible, stupid and asking to get shot.
August 21, 200917 yr Umm... Are you trying to tell me that you can't kill someone with your fists? If I punch you in the head and you die, was that not deadly force? :confused: I'm not sure too many people have the strength and punching power to kill someone with one punch. If that were the case, a lot of boxers and MMA fighters would be dead. The fact that this man started to draw his gun for no reason, (in our hypothetical situation) and caused the other person to attack him (out of self defense) does not give him the right to go ahead and pull his weapon and fire it. I'm not saying he would automatically be tried as a murderer, but in my opinion, he wouldn't get off easy claiming he used his weapon in "self defense". The force used in self defense must reasonably appear to be necessary to prevent the attack, and must be proportionate to the gravity of the attack. Thus, for example, if an assailant is about to slap the victim, responding with the use of a fire-arm would be excessive and therefore beyond the scope of the right to self-defense. The proportionality standard under Pennsylvania law is articulated as a prohibition on the use of excessive force, but the fact that death results does not automatically produce a finding of excessive force. One of the circumstances which helps to determine the level of threat encountered by the victim is the nature of the assailant’s weapon (if any). As a general rule, anything which might be used to kill a person, no matter how odd, is considered a deadly weapon. Thus, a chair, a lamp or a screwdriver may all be considered deadly weapons. In some instances, the law will treat a trained fighters hands as a deadly weapon, but in order to trigger the right to self-defense using lethal force against such a person, the victim must, of course, know of the attacker’s special training... ...Even an initial aggressor may be given the right to self-defense under certain circumstances. If the initial aggressor withdraws from the confrontation, and communicates this withdrawal to the other party, he regains the right to self-defense. Also, if the victim of relatively minor aggression ‘suddenly escalates’ the confrontation to one involving deadly force, without providing adequate space for withdrawal, the initial aggressor may still invoke the right to self-defense... LINK
August 21, 200917 yr Yesterday a woman with a valid permit, in southern Indiana, was sentenced to ten years for shooting a man that she said was approaching her car in a manner that she felt threatened her. Something for all of you shoot first ask questions later types to ponder. I would interpret someone reaching for a gun as a serious threat to my life. Would RM have been justified to pull a gun when the guy reached for his? When she reached for hers, would that have confirmed his perception of danger and justified continuing to pull his? Sounds like high noon to me. To my mind, reaching for a gun as a result of a chance bump on the street is irresponsible, stupid and asking to get shot. When I say I would "shoot first and ask questions later", I only mean in my own home when my family is there. If someone breaks into my home at night, knowing my cars are there, I feel like I have reason to believe that person is willing to do whatever it takes to get whatever it is they want. Therefore if they see me, or my family, they will try to kill me if it means getting what they want. Therefore, I feel like my life and my families life would be in danger. Because of this, I feel like I have the right to defend my life as well as my families, and shoot the intruder. I hope I never have to do this, but if it means keeping my family and I alive...I would do it.
August 21, 200917 yr Because I'm never wrong. :popcorn: Apples to oranges here since I stated earlier, if you'd been paying attention you'd know this, that if the guy pointed the gun at RM, I'd totally agree with her. :sssh: Now what? :lol: Fact of the matter is, this person should have never even started to draw his weapon.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.