Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Monster Rain wrote:In my experience, multiple assailants quickly lose their stomach for fighting if you do something suitably gruesome to the first person you get your hands on.

Multiple assailants also loose their stomach by the time you shoot the first one

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:In my experience, multiple assailants quickly lose their stomach for fighting if you do something suitably gruesome to the first person you get your hands on.

This is true, though the safer alternative may be to simply book it.

Depends on how quick you are, though.

Better to die than live as a craven!

d-usa wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:In my experience, multiple assailants quickly lose their stomach for fighting if you do something suitably gruesome to the first person you get your hands on.

Multiple assailants also loose their stomach by the time you shoot the first one

That's cheating!

dogma wrote:

Exalted Pariah wrote:
Also, why the hate for a self-defense art? Its a hell of a lot more reliable and safe than packing heat.

Clearly someone has never had to deal with multiple assailants.

Actually, I have been in a situation with a couple armed assailants who were acting like they were on crack . The fact that I knew how to fight ended with them running away from me after I slammed one of them around.

Relapse wrote:
Actually, I have been in a situation with a couple armed assailants who were acting like they were on crack . The fact that I knew how to fight ended with them running away from me after I slammed one of them around.

I have as well, way back in the way back I fought off a couple guys that were trying to mug me, but I was much bigger then.

A year or two ago something similar happened, and I, apparently accurately, assessed that the better alternative was running. Got away pretty easily, they stopped chasing once I hit a main street. Don't really know why they chased rather than seeking another target, though. Most likely stupidity.

Generally, unless your own physical superiority is clear (or they have guns), I would stick with the "See you later gak lords!" response.

@ Dogma
Definitely good advice. It sounds like the first situation you were in was simular to mine in that you didn't have a choice but to fight.
What was funny was that a couple of weeks earlier, at the same hotel I worked at in New Orleans, I had to take down a guy with a gun.
I shortly decided after the second incident with the knife guys, I wasn't getting paid enough by the Clarion and quit.

Well, even Bruce Lee said he'd rather have a gun than fight hand-to-hand, but I'm just saying in most violent encounters, you don't have 100ft of space between you an dthem, more like 5, so reaching for a gun, aiming it, shooting and not missing in the time it takes them to stab/hit/tackle etc you is unlikely. I'd love to learn to shoot, even own a rifle or two, but a handgun? I can't think of a (realistic) scenario where I'd have to(and be able to) use it. Thats all I meant.

P.S. elbows' to the face FTW!

Relapse wrote:
Definitely good advice. It sounds like the first situation you were in was simular to mine in that you didn't have a choice but to fight.

Pretty much. In the first situation it was unlikely I was running from anyone, its hard to move around 250 pounds. In the second, I had been training for a half marathon for about a year, so I was pretty confident they weren't going to catch me.

Gotta say i teared up a bit when i heard the poor lad was just out buying sweets. Dunno why, usually pretty cold hearted.

Which is exactly why it keeps getting brought up and has no bearing on how hard he was bashing Zimmermans head into the ground.

Maybe it could be argued by the defense he was on a sugar rush.

Relapse wrote:Maybe it could be argued by the defense he was on a sugar rush.

You missed SlavetoDorkness' point.

The fact that Martin was out "buying candy" does not mean that he could not have attacked Zimmerman during the confrontation when Martin was shot.

It's an emotional factor, "Oh that poor boy was out buying candy when he was heartlessly gunned down!".

Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:Maybe it could be argued by the defense he was on a sugar rush.

You missed SlavetoDorkness' point.

The fact that Martin was out "buying candy" does not mean that he could not have attacked Zimmerman during the confrontation when Martin was shot.

It's an emotional factor, "Oh that poor boy was out buying candy when he was heartlessly gunned down!".

If Martin was meeting force with force because Z was the aggressor, then it doesn't make Z any less guilty.

d-usa wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:Maybe it could be argued by the defense he was on a sugar rush.

You missed SlavetoDorkness' point.

The fact that Martin was out "buying candy" does not mean that he could not have attacked Zimmerman during the confrontation when Martin was shot.

It's an emotional factor, "Oh that poor boy was out buying candy when he was heartlessly gunned down!".

If Martin was meeting force with force because Z was the aggressor, then it doesn't make Z any less guilty.

Yeah but if M confronted Z with force simply because Z was tailing him, then it does make Z a whole hell of a lot less guilty.

There is no situation, period, where it is acceptable to attack someone when they are simply following you...especially if you do not actually know with definitive certainty that they are following you.

Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:Maybe it could be argued by the defense he was on a sugar rush.

You missed SlavetoDorkness' point.

The fact that Martin was out "buying candy" does not mean that he could not have attacked Zimmerman during the confrontation when Martin was shot.

It's an emotional factor, "Oh that poor boy was out buying candy when he was heartlessly gunned down!".

That's one view.

Another view is that Zimmerman followed Martin because he was suspicious of him as Martin was a black guy in a place where black guys are not supposed to go.

Which is an aspect of racial divisions in present-day USA.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:Maybe it could be argued by the defense he was on a sugar rush.

You missed SlavetoDorkness' point.

The fact that Martin was out "buying candy" does not mean that he could not have attacked Zimmerman during the confrontation when Martin was shot.

It's an emotional factor, "Oh that poor boy was out buying candy when he was heartlessly gunned down!".

That's one view.

Another view is that Zimmerman followed Martin because he was suspicious of him as Martin was a black guy in a place where black guys are not supposed to go.

Which is an aspect of racial divisions in present-day USA.

That's nothing to do with Martin being out buying candy.

The whole reason that Martin was out is irrelevant to the case, unless one can actually prove that he was committing some kind of criminal activity.

What's relevant is this:
1) Did Zimmerman kill Martin in cold blood after initiating a confrontation to achieve the result of killing him?
2) Did Zimmerman target Martin specifically because of his ethnicity and did Zimmerman make a conscious effort to kill Martin because of that ethnicity?
3) Did Martin actually initiate the confrontation without provocation by Zimmerman outside of Zimmerman following Martin?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:Maybe it could be argued by the defense he was on a sugar rush.

You missed SlavetoDorkness' point.

The fact that Martin was out "buying candy" does not mean that he could not have attacked Zimmerman during the confrontation when Martin was shot.

It's an emotional factor, "Oh that poor boy was out buying candy when he was heartlessly gunned down!".

That's one view.

Another view is that Zimmerman followed Martin because he was suspicious of him as Martin was a black guy in a place where black guys are not supposed to go.

Which is an aspect of racial divisions in present-day USA.

You keep posting crap like that, which seems to be completely devoid of any factual basis at this point. It doesn't fit the known timelines and movements of the two parties (Martin made it to his house and then went BACK to Z for example).

Until you have some factual basis for your race baiting, you ought to chill out on it.

Which house was his?

I already posted a link with an estimated timeline. Obviously it is not perfect and will need to be worked out in court, but it is interesting...

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back



"D" is the house Martin was staying at.

Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:Maybe it could be argued by the defense he was on a sugar rush.

You missed SlavetoDorkness' point.

The fact that Martin was out "buying candy" does not mean that he could not have attacked Zimmerman during the confrontation when Martin was shot.

It's an emotional factor, "Oh that poor boy was out buying candy when he was heartlessly gunned down!".

I was not meaning to be taken seriously.

Relapse wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:Maybe it could be argued by the defense he was on a sugar rush.

You missed SlavetoDorkness' point.

The fact that Martin was out "buying candy" does not mean that he could not have attacked Zimmerman during the confrontation when Martin was shot.

It's an emotional factor, "Oh that poor boy was out buying candy when he was heartlessly gunned down!".

I was not meaning to be taken seriously.

My bad then.

You'd be surprised how silly some people's honest points can be in regards to these kinds of cases. The Duke Lacrosse case was a good one, which was constantly discussed in one of my courses at college (civil law). One woman in the class kept insisting that the boys had managed to bribe the state into investigating Mike Nifong to draw attention off of themselves.

No problem, it can be real easy to mistake someone's context on a forum. I should have used an indicator

Relapse wrote:I was not meaning to be taken seriously.

For your reading pleasure.

Now I've seen it all.

On the topic of the coverage this case has received:

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/12/MediaDishonestyAndRaceHustlers.htm

Honestly, I slogged my way through law school. Since day one, my attitude has been "I wasn't there, I'm not involved, I don't know the facts except what the news is tossing about." My biggest concern with this whole thing isn't the case itself, so much as how different groups of people of all different political stripes can potentially corrupt the process by using the thing as a narrative baseball bat to advance whatever agenda they happen to be pushing.

DrimGark wrote:On the topic of the coverage this case has received:

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/12/MediaDishonestyAndRaceHustlers.htm

Honestly, I slogged my way through law school. Since day one, my attitude has been "I wasn't there, I'm not involved, I don't know the facts except what the news is tossing about." My biggest concern with this whole thing isn't the case itself, so much as how different groups of people of all different political stripes can potentially corrupt the process by using the thing as a narrative baseball bat to advance whatever agenda they happen to be pushing.

Now I didn't get no fancy lawyer papers or nothin, but that there spells things out just about right.

My favorite quote from that article:

    Jesse Jackson told the Los Angeles Times that “blacks are under attack” and that “targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business,” adding that Martin is “a martyr.”

Big Business, really?

To be fair, maybe he was talking about privatized prisons.

So then there's more money in housing Blacks?

SlaveToDorkness wrote:So then there's more money in housing Blacks?

I suspect he's trying to allude to slavery. The idea being that keeping blacks down maintains an underclass that has to do all the jobs white folks don't want to if they want to live.

Albatross wrote:I practice martial arts, but I wouldn't fancy my chances against someone armed with a loaded pistol.

Thats he point.