Self Defense: Right or Privilege?

[shropshire 0]

jgoose71

Yes, it's a loaded question.

But is the Safety On?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[lawrocket 3]

jgoose71

is exactly what our founding fathers wanted to prevent from ever happening in this country when they passed it.

Thank you. Self defense is not just defense from non-governmental actors.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[tkhayes 348]

AS I SAID,

Quote

The amount of force that you are given to defend yourself/family/property is dynamic and is a privilege.

nice try though.

And if someone had a gun to your head, in a car jacking, I expect that gun would be to the side of your head and you would not know if his finger was 'tightening' or not. And gun-in-your-hand or not, I expect you would simply sit there and shit your pants instead of being able to do anything about it.

Nice anecdote though, but that is all it is, an anecdote.'

[OHCHUTE 0]

Defend yourself; let your lawyer answer any LEO questions.

[Bignugget 0]

jgoose71

Quote

I'm surprised to see you advocating sharia law. Seems somewhat out of character, but what do I know?

I wasn't advocating it, I was using it as an example, just to clarify. You may want to re-read my post.
***
Locally, we had a case where a couple claimed that they had killed a man who had broken into their house, and claimed self defense. The police were skeptical, though, as the deceased had been stabbed and the body was in the front hallway, but there wasn't much blood. Also the guy had been dead a while before police were called. An investigation revealed a large bloodstain on the sidewalk in front of the house, which someone had tried to wash away with a hose. It turned out the guy came to the house to buy drugs, but when he didn't have enough money he grabbed the drugs and tried to run away. The wife caught up to the guy out front and stabbed him, then she and her husband dragged the body into the house and staged the "home invasion". Both the husband and the wife were on probation after serving time for drug dealing.

So, should the police have just taken their word that they were defending themselves? Are you outraged that the police actually checked out their story, and found that it did not hold up?

And in TM/GZ case, the police investigated, their investigation thrown out in the court of public opinion. A trial was set up, and when all the evidence that the police had was shown to the jury an acquittal followed. But apparently that still isn't enough. Now their are calls for civil cases, death threats and bounties have been given, etc., etc., etc.,...

Apparently in some cases it doesn't matter if the police do their job. It's part of the reason why I'm asking the question.

Here is one for you:
In your neck of the woods a home invasion was caught on a nanny cam of a burglar beating the holy fuck out of a woman in front of a kid (knocked her unconscious twice) and then threw her down a flight of stairs into a basement.

If she had a gun, would she been justified in shooting her assailant?

And if yes, at what time during the attack would she have been justified in using it?

And if no, how would you suggest she defend herself, assuming that you believe that she has the right?


The system worked as intended in the Zimmerman case, the jury just got it wrong.

Happens all the time.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

There is no 'guiltyproject.org' since people like OJ and Zimmerman and Anthony don't typically advocate FOR conviction after the verdict....but you get the idea.


Of course you have a right to defend yourself, in a manner in line with that of the attack as mentioned already.

[Bignugget 0]

jgoose71

Yes, it's a loaded question.

But with all of the debate about SYG, gun control, etc., I think it's time to stop circling the issue and get straight to the heart of the matter.

If a woman is being raped, if she get the chance to kill the attacker, is it OK? I mean the guy wasn't out to kill her, he was just needin' to get a peace of ass...

So if we kill the rapist, we'll never hear his side of the story in a court of law. For all we know, the woman was willing, kissing on him and playing with his fun parts and everything. Now that he is dead we'll never hear his side of the story. So should woman be made to just let it happen and call the cops afterwards?

After all, the general public can't be trusted on when it is an appropriate time to defend its self, especially if you are white. The rules of who you are allowed to defend yourself from and when you should actually consider yourself in danger seem to be getting more and more convoluted...

So Self Defense: Right or Privilege?

Right.

You are being raped, violently attacked with no provocation, respond in kind.

What about this scenario,

I see you, you get spooked and run away. I chase after you and confront you. I grab you. We start fighting. You start winning! Can I kill you in self defense?

[chutem 0]

Bignugget

***Yes, it's a loaded question.

But with all of the debate about SYG, gun control, etc., I think it's time to stop circling the issue and get straight to the heart of the matter.

If a woman is being raped, if she get the chance to kill the attacker, is it OK? I mean the guy wasn't out to kill her, he was just needin' to get a peace of ass...

So if we kill the rapist, we'll never hear his side of the story in a court of law. For all we know, the woman was willing, kissing on him and playing with his fun parts and everything. Now that he is dead we'll never hear his side of the story. So should woman be made to just let it happen and call the cops afterwards?

After all, the general public can't be trusted on when it is an appropriate time to defend its self, especially if you are white. The rules of who you are allowed to defend yourself from and when you should actually consider yourself in danger seem to be getting more and more convoluted...

So Self Defense: Right or Privilege?

Right.

You are being raped, violently attacked with no provocation, respond in kind.

What about this scenario,

I see you, you get spooked and run away. I chase after you and confront you. I grab you. We start fighting. You start winning! Can I kill you in self defense?

Probably not, since I'd be armed and you would not.

[wmw999 2,447]

At which point in that scenario do you think it's appropriate to use your weapon and shoot the other guy (or do you brandish it and hope he stops)

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[D22369 0]

its a right.

however nowdays with the bullshit legal twists you may be in deep shit for the actions you take in defending yourself.

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[BIGUN 1,316]

It's a question that you segued into another gun thread.
The answer is that everyone has the right to defend themselves.

As to guns...
Personally, I think a one day class to get a concealed carry is far too short.
That is about revenue for exercising your right... it is not about training one for the proper use of a weapon or self-defense.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Perhaps your irrational fear of guns could be alleviated if you would just think of them as cordless drills. You aren't afraid of a cordless drill, are you? See, isn't that better?
Now you can worry about evil clowns hiding under the bed.

[quade 4]

Gravitymaster

Perhaps your irrational fear of guns could be alleviated if you would just think of them as cordless drills. You aren't afraid of a cordless drill, are you? See, isn't that better?

Guns and cordless drills are significantly different in the ways and distances they can be lethal.

It's a silly comparison.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

quade

***Perhaps your irrational fear of guns could be alleviated if you would just think of them as cordless drills. You aren't afraid of a cordless drill, are you? See, isn't that better?

Guns and cordless drills are significantly different in the ways and distances they can be lethal.

It's a silly comparison.

Never claimed they were exactly the same. However, their objective is.

[yoink 321]

Gravitymaster

However, their objective is.

Say what now?

[Gravitymaster 0]

yoink

***However, their objective is.

Say what now?

They are both designed to make a hole.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

yoink

***However, their objective is.

Say what now?I sense a "Hold my beer and watch this" story coming.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Gravitymaster 0]

GeorgiaDon

******However, their objective is.

Say what now?I sense a "Hold my beer and watch this" story coming.

Don

Well, you see, Don, I've always found that when dealing with someone who has irrational fears of inanimate objects, it helps to get then to visualize it as something else. Something they are more familiar with and that they view as harmless. Then I find it helps to form a bridge from the fearsome object and link it to something they don't fear. A transfer of fear so to speak.

[quade 4]

Gravitymaster

******However, their objective is.

Say what now?
They are both designed to make a hole.

There's a huge difference between a melee and ranged weapon.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

quade

*********However, their objective is.

Say what now?
They are both designed to make a hole.

There's a huge difference between a melee and ranged weapon.

Both a drill and a hand gun are equally dangerous. They both are capable of equal objectives which is to make a hole. They are both cordless

[quade 4]

Gravitymaster

Both a drill and a hand gun are equally dangerous.

Negative.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ryoder 1,590]

Gravitymaster

Both a drill and a hand gun are equally dangerous. They both are capable of equal objectives which is to make a hole. They are both cordless

"I know what you're thinking, punk; Did he drill six holes, or only five?..."

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Gravitymaster 0]

quade

***Both a drill and a hand gun are equally dangerous.

Negative.

Get someone to drill a 9mm hole on your head. Then you can speak from experience.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

You are being raped, violently attacked with no provocation, respond in kind.

What about this scenario,

I see you, you get spooked and run away. I chase after you and confront you. I grab you. We start fighting. You start winning! Can I kill you in self defense?

In your scenario, it all depends on how much "I start winning." If I am attempting to kill you, yes you have the right to do what ever it takes to preserve your own life. Kind of like in the Rodney King case, there is a point where force can become excessive, and the attackee can become the attacker.

But if the above is how you perceived the GZ/TM case, I HIGHLY suggest that you get an unfiltered look at the tons of actual physical evidence that is available that the media does not report about after GZ got out of the car. TM confronted GZ.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Bignugget 0]

Gravitymaster

*********However, their objective is.

Say what now?I sense a "Hold my beer and watch this" story coming.

Don

Well, you see, Don, I've always found that when dealing with someone who has irrational fears of inanimate objects, it helps to get then to visualize it as something else. Something they are more familiar with and that they view as harmless. Then I find it helps to form a bridge from the fearsome object and link it to something they don't fear. A transfer of fear so to speak.


I am not quite as afraid of a murderous person with a drill as I am of a murderous person with a gun, but it would still concern me.

Once as many people are killed in the USA as are in Yemen due to murderous people using cordless drills as their weapon I will start to have major concerns with cordless drills. Until then....guns it is since we (Americans) use guns to murder people on par with Yemen and tons of other developing countries.....and like NO 1st world nation.

[Bignugget 0]

jgoose71

Quote

You are being raped, violently attacked with no provocation, respond in kind.

What about this scenario,

I see you, you get spooked and run away. I chase after you and confront you. I grab you. We start fighting. You start winning! Can I kill you in self defense?

In your scenario, it all depends on how much "I start winning." If I am attempting to kill you, yes you have the right to do what ever it takes to preserve your own life. Kind of like in the Rodney King case, there is a point where force can become excessive, and the attackee can become the attacker.

But if the above is how you perceived the GZ/TM case, I HIGHLY suggest that you get an unfiltered look at the tons of actual physical evidence that is available that the media does not report about after GZ got out of the car. TM confronted GZ.

Open to it.

Links to any of the physical evidence that shows who started the fight in that case would be appreciated.

Since there is no video evidence of how the fight transpired in the Zimmerman case, and you are of the position that the victim can become the attacker at a point in the fight and so the original attacker can now be justified in using deadly force, that would bolster the argument that Zimmerman is innocent, there are reports that he wasn't winning the fight seconds before he killed Martin. I am of the opinion that if you started something you get the blame for it, regardless of if you can't handle it later on in the fight.

In your original rape example would it work the same way?

Man rapes woman, woman starts stabbing man, man is afraid for his life so he kills woman. Justified? I would say no. Start something, you get the blame. You can't kill her and claim it was self defense.

I like the Rodney King comparison, wonder how differently his case turns out if there is no video.

Kinda like Zimmerman/Martin.

Do you think those cops story of self defense holds up if there is no video to refute it?