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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I want to add that self-defense is not about inflicting punishment for a crime, it is about defending yourself, and only the state can legally carry the death penalty.

Again, no one died in this instance (thankfully). Here is another concept for you to wrestle with; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

I do not think you understand. I said something. You basically repeated it. It was not word for word, but really, really close. So I thought I would just do the same, and repeat it again. Now, you have broken the circle by saying something else entirely. That makes me a sad panda .

forgotten ghosts wrote:
in america you can legally shoot a man that breaks into your house as long as you fire a warning shoot so why wait around for the system to start working (as it is more broken than gw)

Yeah, why fix the system when you can be a cowboy vigilante .
The U.S. needs more cowboy hats. And horses.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Except that the wording does no such thing, the narration of the incident comes from the police. It does not say what sources that they used to arrive at their version of events and that does not mean they relied solely on the person who defeded himself.

The fact that they have a record of what the shootee is supposed to have said indicates they are going off a witness statement. Don't know of too many cctv systems with sound recording.

Othet than that, certainly. I am not attempting to suggest with authority what the police do and do not have in the way of evidence. It is my view that the police curently have the words of the shooter and potentially some cctv that may show the shooter turning and getting shot.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of self defense, and risk of imminent harm. When a person feels that his/her life is in imminent danger of being harmed (such as having a gun pointed at you by a stranger in a parking lot) then that person is entitled to take reasonable steps to defend him/herself.

I don't call in to question the ability to defend yourself as stated by whatever laws you live under, and your suggestion that I somehow don't understand the concept of self defense is rather odd.

My point remains that plenty of posts on the first page were trumpeting self defense on incomplete information and failing to spot the logical fallacy of proposing guns as the solution to the problem of people having guns.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I've never lived in a state that required firing a warning shot. In fact, in many places what you would consider a warning shot will get you in trouble.

Yup. If you are in a position to fire a warning shot then legally you have a very difficult time in claiming that your feared imminent harm

Except in Florida, which just stupidly changed its law to permit warning shots.

http://s247.photobucket.com/user/CptJake_Minis/media/IMG_0581.mp4.html





I have 8 horses, but lack a cowboy hat (though I do have my old Cav stetson).

That is Starbuck and the guy who trains our horses for us, showing the results of Starbucks desensitization work. Click it for video.

http://s247.photobucket.com/user/CptJake_Minis/media/IMG_0581.mp4.html

 SilverMK2 wrote:
The fact that they have a record of what the shootee is supposed to have said indicates they are going off a witness statement. Don't know of too many cctv systems with sound recording.

Othet than that, certainly. I am not attempting to suggest with authority what the police do and do not have in the way of evidence. It is my view that the police curently have the words of the shooter and potentially some cctv that may show the shooter turning and getting shot.

CCTV would show whether or not the aggressor pointed the firearm that precipitated the shooting. The point about any potential statement by the aggressor still stands too. That is why I said that the police may have used more than one source to corroborate the defender's claims

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I don't call in to question the ability to defend yourself as stated by whatever laws you live under, and your suggestion that I somehow don't understand the concept of self defense is rather odd.

The only thing that is odd is your conflating self-defense with the police investigating the incident. They are not mutually exclusive

 SilverMK2 wrote:
My point remains that plenty of posts on the first page were trumpeting self defense on incomplete information and failing to spot the logical fallacy of proposing guns as the solution to the problem of people having guns.

The only fallacy here is your starting from a false premise. Have the defender not had a firearm then it could very likely have been him taken to hospital. The premise that a gun for self defense has not been disproven. In fact, quite the opposite.

 CptJake wrote:
I have 8 horses, but lack a cowboy hat (though I do have my old Cav stetson).

Do you have santiags? And a pistol belt?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I've never lived in a state that required firing a warning shot. In fact, in many places what you would consider a warning shot will get you in trouble.

Yup. If you are in a position to fire a warning shot then legally you have a very difficult time in claiming that your feared imminent harm

Except in Florida, which just stupidly changed its law to permit warning shots.

I believe if you put the round straight into the ground(dirt) you are alright. Its the off to the side or in the air shooting that will convict you. Being you (shooter) took the chance of killing someone else where ever the round gets to final destination

Santiags?

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=santiags&tbs=imgo:1&gws_rd=ssl

OK. I always had ropers.

Maybe Santiags is not the proper English word for it, though. Anything that looks cowboyee enough is fine.

I have a pistol, a holster that fits on my belt, and a coat to cover it. People have no idea I have a firearm on my person and that's what you want.

In America, we have laws covering the use of deadly force. They detail what circumstances a person may or may not use a firearm to defend himself or others. Acting like a "cowboy vigilante" will get you put in jail right with the person you shot. In fact, depending on the circumstances, it may even result in no charges against the person you shot and a lawsuit against you by him as well.

Moronic would-be thief brandishes weapon to the wrong person and gets his ass shot.

This rates a "Meh" on my give a damn scale.

Love how they refer to a guy who pulled a gun on somebody, only to get shot for being an idiot, as a "victim". Even Orwell's doublespeak is put to shame by modern day folks who push their agendas to the point of dogmatism and are willing to distort language to accomplish their goals because they know that the truth isn't so kind to their ideology.

Mounted "Knee Cap" on wall would be a good talking subject with your guests

Too bad the shot wasn't fatal as it would have saved the taxpayers a lot of money.

Now he's in state custody and in addition to the cost of imprisoning him the state covers his medical bills. It's a shame as that money could be used on somebody more deserving that actually contributes to society in a positive fashion. The would be robber deserved to get his ass killed not just shot.

 ZultanQ wrote:
Love how they refer to a guy who pulled a gun on somebody, only to get shot for being an idiot, as a "victim". Even Orwell's doublespeak is put to shame by modern day folks who push their agendas to the point of dogmatism and are willing to distort language to accomplish their goals because they know that the truth isn't so kind to their ideology.

I know, I had to re-read the article a couple of times as it didn't make sense, but then I realized they were calling the guy who drew first the "victim".

Baffling...

Technically he would be the victim of a gunshot wound. Victim being used there as a means to identify an individual who suffered something.

Just as correctly, the other guy could be called a victim of attempted armed robbery, although given the way the event unfolded victim is perhap an unsuitable term.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Technically he would be the victim of a gunshot wound. Victim being used there as a means to identify an individual who suffered something.

Just as correctly, the other guy could be called a victim of attempted armed robbery, although given the way the event unfolded victim is perhap an unsuitable term.

Intended victim of an attempt at armed robbery may be a decent description.

If only he wore his body armor and drank water. This would not have happen. Maybe

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Technically he would be the victim of a gunshot wound. Victim being used there as a means to identify an individual who suffered something.

Just as correctly, the other guy could be called a victim of attempted armed robbery, although given the way the event unfolded victim is perhap an unsuitable term.

Or victim of attempted murder.

I'm fine with Americans shooting each other. They sure seem to enjoy it.

 Jihadin wrote:
If only he wore his body armor and drank water. This would not have happen. Maybe

You forgot about the PT belt. Clearly that would have made all the difference.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I have 8 horses, but lack a cowboy hat (though I do have my old Cav stetson).

Do you have santiags? And a pistol belt?

I have a couple pairs of jungle boots, a nice pair of tanker boots, a pair of motorcycle boots, a pair of hiking boots, and two pairs of steel toe work boots. I tend to wear the steel toe work boots when working with or riding the horses. Drives my wife bonkers because I won't wear typical riding boots (she has a couple pair of different riding boots and some fancy colored/exotic leathered dress boots). Having had toes stomped on a couple of times I'm pretty happy with my decision though.

As for a pistol belt, I have a couple typical leather belts I wear. Any pistol I may or may not have would go in an in the waistband holster. I'm not an open carry fan.

 Frazzled wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Technically he would be the victim of a gunshot wound. Victim being used there as a means to identify an individual who suffered something.

Just as correctly, the other guy could be called a victim of attempted armed robbery, although given the way the event unfolded victim is perhap an unsuitable term.

Or victim of attempted murder.

I don't see a charge of that nature sticking. Nor do I think attempted murder is remotely close to the crime that may have been considered by the shootee, if in facthe were about to commit a crime.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
If only he wore his body armor and drank water. This would not have happen. Maybe

You forgot about the PT belt. Clearly that would have made all the difference.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Technically he would be the victim of a gunshot wound. Victim being used there as a means to identify an individual who suffered something.

Just as correctly, the other guy could be called a victim of attempted armed robbery, although given the way the event unfolded victim is perhap an unsuitable term.

Or victim of attempted murder.

I don't see a charge of that nature sticking. Nor do I think attempted murder is remotely close to the crime that may have been considered by the shootee, if in facthe were about to commit a crime.

I sure can. The BG pulled a gun on the GG. The GG just happened to be faster on the shoot.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
If only he wore his body armor and drank water. This would not have happen. Maybe

You forgot about the PT belt. Clearly that would have made all the difference.

Even more funny. He's Air Force

That's a lot of straps.

Also a very CLEAN weapon w/ a 203