Self-Defense laws in your state?

[Psilent Knight]

I am just now noticing this post:

the guys point,seemed to be that he,should be,entitled to shoot them, just for being there, regardless of the threat

Them being there automatically makes them a threat. They are uninvited criminals who broke into my home. What more do you need to realize you and your family are now in danger?!! For goodness sake man THINK! What, am I supposed to wait to see whether or not they intend to shoot me? Or should I wait to see whether or not they will tie me up and then gang rape my wife and menace my kids? I REFUSE TO WAIT AND SEE!! I choose to MAKE SURE those things do not happen. I will not cooperate with them because I don't have to. Now if you feel confident in waiting and seeing and cooperating with them when you don't have to, then have at it my friend. I sincerely hope you never face such a situation.

 

[jks9199]

TRUE! Unfair, but TRUE!!

Who told you life or living among others was fair?

And this is where I have a problem. The two statements in your quote that I placed in bold emphases. The so-called law determines whether or not defending yourself should be considered a criminal act or not. The so-called law WAS NOT THERE when I had to defend myself and/or my family so they have NO IDEA about the pressure of the situation and how fast it all went down. When defending yourself, especially if you're fighting for your life, you would be a complete and utter FOOL to think so-called excessive force. Defend yourself and survive is all you should be thinking about. Nothing more.

When I say that I'd rather be tried by 12 instead of carried by 6 I am not trying to come off as some sort of tough guy who has no fear or no conscious. When I say that I am implying that I do see the value in my life and in who I am and you would at least have a chance in court whereas you have ZERO CHANCE in the grave. At that point it's all over and your family will still have yet more sociopaths to worry about and now they must fend for themselves because you are no longer there to protect them.

Sorry -- but you're not allowed to simply be a lizard, doing whatever it takes to survive. And I'm willing to bet you'll agree that you should be responding with judicious force. Would you defend yourself with the same force against an attack from an 8 year old as an 18 year old? While there are certainly exceptions (an 8 year old with a gun is no less deadly a threat than an 18 or 98 year old...), I don't think you would. I sure hope you wouldn't... or I'm not all that sure I want to know you.

You live in a society. As such, you tacitly agree to follow the rules of that society. There are ways to change them, and you may choose to disregard them IF you are willing to accept the consequences. The written and formal rules are laws; for the purpose of discussion, we'll ignore unwritten laws (they're a topic to themselves) right now. Those laws have said that it's bad to hurt other people deliberately -- but they've left an out that you might hurt someone who is trying to hurt you. But that out isn't carte blanche to slaughter someone for nudging you in the grocery store, either. It must be "reasonable and appropriate" to the threat. So, no matter how unreasonable you find it, you must either respond with appropriate force, or accept that you may well be tried and even convicted if you don't. This is the world cop's and similar force professionals deal with every day...

...

Yes I Do. I want to defend myself so I get to fight back in order to do so. Fighting back and defending myself usually involves doing something to the person who is trying to harm me.

Review ability, intent, opportunity, and preclusion. Hint... that last one is pretty important.

I agree. You just need to realize that you cannot always dictate the altercation and at which point your attacker ceases to be a threat. He may cease via knockout or broken bones or loss of life. When $**t hits the fan in a FAST and CHAOTIC scuffle $**t happens and I'll be too busy focusing on surviving than to worry about your self defense laws.

You have little or no control over an assailant's stopping the fight -- unless you tie him up with some sort of lock, knock him out, or otherwise incapacitate the attacker. You do have control over how you respond to his actions. And society has said it's kind of a good idea for people to exercise a degree of restraint or judgement when they defend themselves.

 

[oftheherd1]

...
And this is where I have a problem. The two statements in your quote that I placed in bold emphases. The so-called law determines whether or not defending yourself should be considered a criminal act or not. The so-called law WAS NOT THERE when I had to defend myself and/or my family so they have NO IDEA about the pressure of the situation and how fast it all went down. When defending yourself, especially if you're fighting for your life, you would be a complete and utter FOOL to think so-called excessive force. Defend yourself and survive is all you should be thinking about. Nothing more.

First, welcome to what police deal with too many times. People sitting in a comfortable chair in a comfortable environment, trying to ponder the correctness of decisions that the policeman had split seconds or less to decide how to react.
...
When I say that I'd rather be tried by 12 instead of carried by 6 I am not trying to come off as some sort of tough guy who has no fear or no conscious. When I say that I am implying that I do see the value in my life and in who I am and you would at least have a chance in court whereas you have ZERO CHANCE in the grave. At that point it's all over and your family will still have yet more sociopaths to worry about and now they must fend for themselves because you are no longer there to protect them.

Second, while in a general way I agree with you, preparing yourself ahead of time, in your mind, for different possibilities, may help you make correct decisions. Failure to make correct decisions may not only allow you to be alive to be in court, but may require you to be in court trying to justify what you did.
...
I hate to break it to you my friend but we DO live under a system of chaos. Just pay attention to the news and you'll understand that. The so-called system of law isn't working. It hasn't worked and it's not designed to work the way you are convinced that it is. And by you lumping the term "Anarchy" with the word "chaos" let's me know that you have no idea what Anarchy really means and what it really is so I'll just leave that alone as that is a whole 'nother subject.

Apparently you do not know jks9199, his job, nor his training and experience. He probably has more experience with what laws seem to be better or worse for helping society. But since they are laws, I think he will always attempt to apply them correctly, and expect them to be applied to him as well. You seem to feel reluctant to live within the laws we have.
...
I agree. You just need to realize that you cannot always dictate the altercation and at which point your attacker ceases to be a threat. He may cease via knockout or broken bones or loss of life. When $**t hits the fan in a FAST and CHAOTIC scuffle $**t happens and I'll be too busy focusing on surviving than to worry about your self defense laws.

All of what you write in your last paragraph may be true, except that the laws where you live may be very strict in allowing you to be too busy not to make rational decisions. As long as you are good with that, don't complain if any future actions by you should be determined to be against the law. And that doesn't make the laws wrong, except to you and anyone who thinks as you do.

 

[Psilent Knight]

@jks9199 I read your entire post and you basically expounded on what you said in your last reply to me (to which I've already presented my counterviews). I see no counter arguments to my last reply to you. As I said, you only expounded on what you already said. Your stance and arguments are the same and so are mine.

First, welcome to what police deal with too many times. People sitting in a comfortable chair in a comfortable environment, trying to ponder the correctness of decisions that the policeman had split seconds or less to decide how to react.

NO COMPARISON! Policemen have a title and a badge that help them in such scenarios. Their jobs require them to deal with such situations on an almost daily basis. It's officially part of their job description. But it's not officially part of my job description as a citizen and non LEO. I am not a policemen, I'm a regular citizen. Comparing policemen to regular citizens is like comparing mountain lions to deer. 2 different breeds who navigate 2 different roles in their worlds.

Second, while in a general way I agree with you, preparing yourself ahead of time, in your mind, for different possibilities, may help you make correct decisions. Failure to make correct decisions may not only allow you to be alive to be in court, but may require you to be in court trying to justify what you did.

In principle I agree with you but in reality........

As a practitioner of self defense you know just as well as any of us here that we are taught that we can never prepare for every possible scenario and situation. Bad guys, life and this thing called Murphy's Law have an irritating habit of throwing things at us that we have not prepared for or considered. How many of us prepare for or consider the possibility of a car jacking scenario on a bridge where 2 guys have you occupied in engagement while another guy has manged to pull an infant out of the car and is running in one direction while a fourth guy pulls your teen daughter or wife out of the car and is heading in the opposite direction. An elaborate and wild (and hopefully unlikely) scenario, I know. BUT it is definitely not an impossibility and for all we know this very scenario may have actually happened somewhere on this planet.

Apparently you do not know jks9199, his job, nor his training and experience. He probably has more experience with what laws seem to be better or worse for helping society. But since they are laws, I think he will always attempt to apply them correctly, and expect them to be applied to him as well. You seem to feel reluctant to live within the laws we have.

Well, I don't see the need to know jks9199 or his job because I don't see why that should be my concern or what it has to do with what I have been saying over and over during my participation in this thread. Most importantly is what you said in your last statement in bold. It's not that I feel reluctant to live within the (fair and just) laws we have. I feel reluctant to allow man's law to tell me whether or not I can defend myself and what I can and cannot do in order to defend myself. YOU seem reluctant to realize that certain people have more control over your life than you do which, to me, is not how it's supposed to be. This control that they exercise places a value on us (in their eyes) and more times than not put the safety of ours and our family lives at a considerable amount of risk. But as I said earlier this power and control feel very natural and normal to at least 95% of people because we were taught this from the time we were little kids in grade school all the way into adulthood.

I have no problem following laws that keep society peaceful, safe and in order. But I still think that you (and many others here) are STILL misunderstanding my stance even though I have explained it I don't know how many times. I will say it again and I hope it will be the last time I will have to say this:

I am not saying that EVERY SD SITUATION calls for the use of extreme force. An 18 year old kid cat calling my wife or calling me nasty names is not worthy of any response from me at all, let alone a physical altercation. A coworker harassing me on the job and/or sabotaging my work is hardly any reason for me to get physical with that person. I can just report his actions to the boss. But if that same coworker takes a swing on me I will defend myself and of course I will use the appropriate level of force to end the altercation as quickly and neatly as possible. In spite of what many of you here wish to believe I DO know how to exercise restraint when it is appropriate to do so. That restraint teaches me that not all incidents need to degrade into violent altercations and not all physical altercations need to be taken to the extreme.

HOWEVER.....my sense of restraint ends in other scenarios and I am mainly talking about getting jumped by multiple attackers, car jacking, home invasions and armed robbery among other things. In these situations I make the decision that I need to end this threat and survive this. And if ending the threat requires for me to use extreme force then you're damn right that's exactly what I'm going to do. Now here's the important point you all seem to keep missing from me so please pay attention:

My purpose for using extreme force is not to end anyone's life. My purpose for using extreme force is an attempt to preserve my own life and, if necessary, the lives of my family.

But my use of extreme force just might end another person's life (even if unintentionally) which is sad and unfortunate but I will be in survival mode and I CANNOT AFFORD TO TRY TO EXERCISE RESTRAINT while I am in survival mode fighting for my life and/or the lives of my loved ones. Can you guys tell the difference yet? Have I made my stance clear or must I still explain this over and over again?

Now if I'm getting ganged up on by multiple attackers I may have to use my firearm or another weapon and someone may lose their life. MY PROBLEM is some prosecutor or judge telling me that I should have handled it in such a way as not to cause the loss of life and because I handled it the way that I did I am now facing criminal charges and a possible prison sentence. There are a million freakin' things wrong this, so many that I don't even know where to begin. And I am at a complete and utter loss for words that people in our society are too busy obeying orders (that do not make sense) to sit and ponder how wrong it is to be forced to obey certain orders.

Label me as you please and judge me as you please. But I have made the decision that I will not allow these laws tell me that my life has no value while the people who make and pass these laws set it up to where their lives do have value. Much, much more value than us common citizens who do not live in gated communities next door to other legislators surrounded by security guards. Legislators who do not punch a time clock like we do and walk these streets of the concrete jungle like we do. To hell with them and to hell with their SD laws. If enough of you guys with your heads stuck in the sand were to take that position our society actually would become safer and less violent. It would actually be a win-win and I would be more than happy to elaborate on how if anyone cares for me to do so.

So that's my stance and my issues in 2 steps. 1) That if I'm fighting for the survival of mine or my loved ones' lives I simply cannot afford to be thinking laws and how far to go. My only thought is the survival of me and my family. And 2) prosecutors and judges possibly criminalizing my actions when they weren't there in my shoes and in my situation. So they have no idea of the fast paced pressure, the fear and the fight for survival I may have been in. But here they are after the fact passing judgement.

All of what you write in your last paragraph may be true, except that the laws where you live may be very strict in allowing you to be too busy not to make rational decisions. As long as you are good with that, don't complain if any future actions by you should be determined to be against the law.

Well, I already explained that I have made my decision on what I must do under certain circumstances and I am prepared to walk the road that comes with making that decision.

When I participate in this particular thread I don't speak of threats as being a verbal altercation at the grocery store with another patron, or the guy behind the desk of a hotel with whom I've made reservations and things got heated. I'm not talking about some punk on the street who asks me "what the f*** am I looking at" and asks me if "I want a piece of him". Neither am I thinking about the auto mechanic who seems to be screwing me over or the annoying neighbor who keeps placing his trash can on my side of the street during garbage pick up. Nor the bastard who pick pocket me at the amusement park or something. When I talk about a serious threat to my life I am specifically talking about THUGS (who have no regard for life and no remorse), SOCIOPATHS (who have no regard for life and no remorse), PREDATORS (who have no regard for life and no remorse), HOME INVADERS (who have no regard for life and no remorse), the CRIMINALLY INSANE (who have no regard for life and no remorse) and sometimes (unfortunately) the non criminally insane who may have serious mental issues or may have had some sort of mental breakdown and just snapped. Perhaps that's what the situation was with the doctor who started shooting inside that hospital in Bronx, NY a week ago or that guy who shot that congressman a couple of weeks ago at the Republican baseball gathering. Sometimes people just snap and as unfortunate that is you still have a decision to make as to whether or not you want to survive this person's rampage.

And that doesn't make the laws wrong, except to you and anyone who thinks as you do.

And that doesn't make the laws right, except to you and anyone who thinks as you do.

 

[oftheherd1]

@ Psilent Knight.

Wow. Just wow. Seems I hit a nerve which wasn't my intent. But ...

A title and badge don't guarantee leniency with prosecutors, juries, or judges. Police are expected to protect everyone from whatever they want to be protected from, and never make mistakes doing so. I'm comparing citizens to police in the perceived or real injustices under the law. Especially when the actions under consideration may be in a grey area.

True, one probably can't prepare for every possible scenario, or even think of every possible scenario. But the more you do, the fewer you may make a mistake in. Perfect way to ensure you never cross the line? No.

Living within fair and just laws is proper. But we as individuals aren't given the right to choose which laws we don't wish to obey, unless we are prepared to accept the consequences. You can disobey any law you choose if you are willing to accept being caught and sanctioned. Your choice.

Interesting your saying you can't afford to exercise restraint while in survival mode. Can you tell when you cease to need to be in survival mode, and instantly when it occurs? If not, you may find yourself trying to explain the unexplainable. And getting back to police and citizens, consider how many police have been publically if not legally sanctioned because they might not have been able to determine when their survival was no longer on the line. You may be surprised that it can happen to citizens as well. And to say your use of extreme force may result in loss of life, even unintentionally, makes it seem you can decide which it should be, in that you have set out to make it a deadly response, or changed your mind mid-stream.

I am bemused that you think I subject myself blindly to control by others. Staying within the law where I am is the price I pay to live in the society I wish to live in. If that ever changes I will have to seek a different society, not try to see how many laws I can violate. I will give you the point that laws may not be right, but then they need to be changed, not selectively violated because we don't like them. Anticipating your answer, I will also agree that it is seldom easy to get laws changed. You need a lot of people agreeing and prodding lawmakers. If you are not a part of the "lot of" then perhaps you should take that under consideration.

 

[Psilent Knight]

@ Psilent Knight.

Wow. Just wow. Seems I hit a nerve which wasn't my intent. But ...

No, not at all. You didn't hit any nerve and I know it is not your intent to do so. Calm down big guy. I'm just a bit passionate about this subject. Nothing personal at all towards you or anyone else participating in our discussion.

A title and badge don't guarantee leniency with prosecutors, juries, or judges.

9 times out of 10 it actually does and this is well proven and documented. Please don't kid yourself.

Police are expected to protect everyone from whatever they want to be protected from, and never make mistakes doing so.

I'm well aware of what the police are expected to do just like I'm well aware of what some police actually do. Again, let's not kid ourselves here.

I'm comparing citizens to police in the perceived or real injustices under the law. Especially when the actions under consideration may be in a grey area.

Fact remains that police are not on the same level as common citizens. I'm sorry but it really is simple as that. As an adult I expect you to be aware of that and know exactly what I mean by this.

True, one probably can't prepare for every possible scenario, or even think of every possible scenario. But the more you do, the fewer you may make a mistake in. Perfect way to ensure you never cross the line? No.

Again, I agree with you in principle. But in reality....... It is far from perfect for the simple fact that we simply cannot prepare for every possible scenario. You just said so yourself. Perfect would be the exact opposite (meaning, being prepared for every possible scenario there is). But you know just as well as I do that this is not possible.

Living within fair and just laws is proper.

I completely agree. But I only agree if the laws really are fair and just.

But we as individuals aren't given the right to choose which laws we don't wish to obey, unless we are prepared to accept the consequences.

It's too bad you cannot see the backward way of thinking it is to think and say the part of your quote that I underlined. I don't need anyone giving me the right to choose which laws to obey and which laws to disobey. I give myself that right. It is a natural and basic human right. And YES I am completely prepared to face the consequences this may bring.

Your attitude and way of thinking would make you a perfect citizen in North Korea. I'm sure you know enough about North Korea to realize that plenty of their laws are unjust and should not be imposed on any human beings anywhere on this planet. Same goes for Saudi Arabia. Do you agree that women should not be allowed to drive? Do you agree that women should not be allowed outside of their homes without being accompanied by a male relative? Like you said in your quote they aren't given the right to choose to obey those laws or not even though I'm sure you know just as well as I do that those are some of the most oppressive and unjust laws any person can concoct.

You can disobey any law you choose if you are willing to accept being caught and sanctioned. Your choice.

Agreed.

Interesting your saying you can't afford to exercise restraint while in survival mode. Can you tell when you cease to need to be in survival mode, and instantly when it occurs?

Simple. When the threat to my life and/or my family's lives is no longer so. I will achieve that objective by whatever means necessary.

If not, you may find yourself trying to explain the unexplainable.

Nope. Read the above response to your quote.

And getting back to police and citizens, consider how many police have been publically if not legally sanctioned because they might not have been able to determine when their survival was no longer on the line.

And consider how many police have never been publicly, if not legally, sanctioned when they should have been. When their survival was never at stake at all.

And to say your use of extreme force may result in loss of life, even unintentionally, makes it seem you can decide which it should be, in that you have set out to make it a deadly response, or changed your mind mid-stream.

It seems that you are still not reading my explanation of my stance OR you are deliberately misinterpreting it just to have a point to argue for. The statements in bold ARE 100% WRONG and FALSE. The reason is the explanation I gave in my last post concerning that very thing which I will not retype here. It is your choice to re-read it or not (that's if you even read it at all which seems not to be the case) but just know that those bold statements of yours are completely and utterly FALSE.

I am bemused that you think I subject myself blindly to control by others. Staying within the law where I am is the price I pay to live in the society I wish to live in.

And I will say AGAIN (as I've already said before more than once) that I TOO agree with law and order. But I also made it clear that it is specifically the so called SD laws and criminal justice system that I take issue with.

I will give you the point that laws may not be right,

THANK YOU!! I can basically rest my case here if I wanted to. This is what I've been saying from the very beginning and someone (your kind self) FINALLY said it as well. Laws that apply to people HAVE TO BE RIGHT in order for society to keep revolving in a peaceful and orderly manner. But when the laws are not right (as in our case in America) this leaves two categories of people:

1). Law abiding citizens who are just as much victimized by the law as they are victimized by the criminal law breakers.

And...

2). People like me (and I know that I am not alone) who REFUSE to be a victim. As much as a law abiding citizen that I am with no criminal history I realize that not wanting to step out of the bounds of certain (SD) laws can cause the loss of mine or a loved one's life and I simply will not allow that to happen. It is my right. My basic human right. I have the right to life and liberty as long as I am not violating natural and civil law and infringing on the rights of others. And I have the right to defend my life when I know someone is trying to either end it tragically alter it for the worse.

but then they need to be changed, not selectively violated because we don't like them.

I agree that they MUST be changed. But as long as they are set up the way that they are presently I have made the decision to not be a victim and participate in their sucker's game. My choice. You have yours to make and I have mine to make.

Anticipating your answer, I will also agree that it is seldom easy to get laws changed. You need a lot of people agreeing and prodding lawmakers. If you are not a part of the "lot of" then perhaps you should take that under consideration.

To this I would basically say see my reply above.

 

[Psilent Knight]

BTW people, check this out and let me know your thoughts on it. What would you have done if you were the victim of this senseless and barbaric attack? This is the type of nonsense that I am talking about. And there are thousands of more cases just like this one.

Attack suspects caught on camera in Center City Philadelphia

I know what I would do and I know that too many people here will have a problem with that.

But there's a saying; "More than one, use a gun."

 

[CB Jones]

No, not at all. You didn't hit any nerve and I know it is not your intent to do so. Calm down big guy. I'm just a bit passionate about this subject. Nothing personal at all towards you or anyone else participating in our discussion.



9 times out of 10 it actually does and this is well proven and documented. Please don't kid yourself.



I'm well aware of what the police are expected to do just like I'm well aware of what some police actually do. Again, let's not kid ourselves here.



Fact remains that police are not on the same level as common citizens. I'm sorry but it really is simple as that. As an adult I expect you to be aware of that and know exactly what I mean by this.



Again, I agree with you in principle. But in reality....... It is far from perfect for the simple fact that we simply cannot prepare for every possible scenario. You just said so yourself. Perfect would be the exact opposite (meaning, being prepared for every possible scenario there is). But you know just as well as I do that this is not possible.



I completely agree. But I only agree if the laws really are fair and just.



It's too bad you cannot see the backward way of thinking it is to think and say the part of your quote that I underlined. I don't need anyone giving me the right to choose which laws to obey and which laws to disobey. I give myself that right. It is a natural and basic human right. And YES I am completely prepared to face the consequences this may bring.

Your attitude and way of thinking would make you a perfect citizen in North Korea. I'm sure you know enough about North Korea to realize that plenty of their laws are unjust and should not be imposed on any human beings anywhere on this planet. Same goes for Saudi Arabia. Do you agree that women should not be allowed to drive? Do you agree that women should not be allowed outside of their homes without being accompanied by a male relative? Like you said in your quote they aren't given the right to choose to obey those laws or not even though I'm sure you know just as well as I do that those are some of the most oppressive and unjust laws any person can concoct.



Agreed.



Simple. When the threat to my life and/or my family's lives is no longer so. I will achieve that objective by whatever means necessary.



Nope. Read the above response to your quote.



And consider how many police have never been publicly, if not legally, sanctioned when they should have been. When their survival was never at stake at all.



It seems that you are still not reading my explanation of my stance OR you are deliberately misinterpreting it just to have a point to argue for. The statements in bold ARE 100% WRONG and FALSE. The reason is the explanation I gave in my last post concerning that very thing which I will not retype here. It is your choice to re-read it or not (that's if you even read it at all which seems not to be the case) but just know that those bold statements of yours are completely and utterly FALSE.



And I will say AGAIN (as I've already said before more than once) that I TOO agree with law and order. But I also made it clear that it is specifically the so called SD laws and criminal justice system that I take issue with.



THANK YOU!! I can basically rest my case here if I wanted to. This is what I've been saying from the very beginning and someone (your kind self) FINALLY said it as well. Laws that apply to people HAVE TO BE RIGHT in order for society to keep revolving in a peaceful and orderly manner. But when the laws are not right (as in our case in America) this leaves two categories of people:

1). Law abiding citizens who are just as much victimized by the law as they are victimized by the criminal law breakers.

And...

2). People like me (and I know that I am not alone) who REFUSE to be a victim. As much as a law abiding citizen that I am with no criminal history I realize that not wanting to step out of the bounds of certain (SD) laws can cause the loss of mine or a loved one's life and I simply will not allow that to happen. It is my right. My basic human right. I have the right to life and liberty as long as I am not violating natural and civil law and infringing on the rights of others. And I have the right to defend my life when I know someone is trying to either end it tragically alter it for the worse.



I agree that they MUST be changed. But as long as they are set up the way that they are presently I have made the decision to not be a victim and participate in their sucker's game. My choice. You have yours to make and I have mine to make.



To this I would basically say see my reply above.

What is confusing is the law supports what you are saying yet you are arguing the law is wrong?

By law you have the right to protect yourself or someone and use lethal force if there is a reasonable threat of bodily injury or death.

 

[oftheherd1]

@ Psilent Knight.

We each are entitled to our own beliefs, and I guess we will not be agreeing on a lot of things. So I see no point in continuing our discussion.

You may not have meant it the way it came across to me, but please do not equate my way of thinking to that of North Koreans; common citizens or officials. I find that distasteful and despicable to say the least. Nor to Saudi Arabians for that matter, little that I know of them. Have a good day.

 

[Psilent Knight]

@ Psilent Knight.

We each are entitled to our own beliefs, and I guess we will not be agreeing on a lot of things. So I see no point in continuing our discussion.

No problem and no hard feelings on my part. It was just a discussion between two people representing two differing opinions.

You may not have meant it the way it came across to me, but please do not equate my way of thinking to that of North Koreans; common citizens or officials. I find that distasteful and despicable to say the least. Nor to Saudi Arabians for that matter, little that I know of them.

Feel free to re-read that part of my post if you wish or don't re-read it, but I DID NOT equate your way of thinking to that of common citizens of North Korea or Saudi Arabia. You told me that I am not given the right to disobey laws and I responded by telling you that that mentality or way of thinking will make YOU a good citizen of North Korea or Saudi Arabia since the governments of those two countries would rather that their citizens do not even question, let alone disobey, their unjust laws. Please try to note the difference between me saying YOU would make a good citizen of those countries rather than me saying you think like the common citizens of North Korea or Saudi Arabia which would be stupid for me to say because I know that there are plenty of citizens in those two countries who realize that the laws they live under are unjust and oppressive.

Have a good day.

Thank You. And I wish you a good day as well.

 

[Psilent Knight]

Here's another link to lowlife pond scum. This time around it's a young punk going around playing the knockout game only this time he chose the wrong guy and received some comeuppance (though he lived).

NOW, the guy whom he tried to victimize and who ended up armed and shot this punk was interviewed. And at no point in the interview did he state that he consciously aimed for or consciously did not aim for any particular target on his attacker. He just took out his legal firearm and shot his attacker TWICE.

It's fortunate that there was no loss of life from this incident and I would HOPE that this young kid would learn from this and become a productive member of society. But what I want to point out is that I probably would have done what the intended victim (who REFUSED to be a victim that day) had done which is shoot my would be assailant to assure my own preservation of life and limb. BUT the sad part is that things could have ended differently. This young kid could have lost his life and the young man who is a law abiding citizen could have possibly had his actions criminalized.

This is an example of what I've been trying to say. The would be victim didn't have the time or luxury to wait and see the level of the threat he was facing. He was under threat and just may have feared for his life. This young kid got what he deserved. Let's hope he learned from this.

 

[Psilent Knight]

Guys, here's the scenario.

What would you do if you are sitting at the park with your significant other and some young punks come and start harassing and threatening her? How far would you let it go before you put an end to it? What would you do if one of them punches her and knocks her out as in the video below? I really want to hear from all of you people who disagree with my stance and would like to know WHAT WOULD YOU DO?!

You have to understand that there are people in this society who are Dangerous, Disregardful of the lives of others and have absolutely No Remorse. That lady may now have brain damage that she will have to deal with for the rest of her life all because of a little COWARD who feels tough beating up a woman whom he does not know and did not physically attack him.

To be honest with you guys, I think scum like this should automatically forfeit their own rights the minute they commit assault on innocent people who did nothing wrong to them.

 

[PhotonGuy]

You are not charged with "excessive force." You're charged with assault, aggravated assault, manslaughtet, murder, etc. Your DEFENSE against this charge is self defense, and it is a question for the trier of fact as to whether your use of forcevwas reasonable and appropriate. If you don't understand why this matters, back up, and start over until you do. Or plan on finding yourself arrested and quite possibly imprisoned.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

So the way you put it, it sounds like you're guilty until proven innocent in such a case.

 

[jks9199]

So the way you put it, it sounds like you're guilty until proven innocent in such a case.

No, you're not "guilty until proven innocent." You ARE GUILTY! But you're saying there's a good reason that you should be excused from the consequences of what ordinarily would be a criminal act. Killing people is against the law, right? We call it Murder, Manslaughter, Criminal Homicide... and we generally punish it rather severely -- like 20 years to life in prison. Now, a prosecutor may decide not to pursue charges in a clear cut case of self defense -- or not, for lots of reasons. When a defendant asserts a claim of self defense, they're presenting an affirmative defense. They're admitting guilt (that's the affirmative part), but claiming some form of justification. Specifically, they're saying that they wouldn't have had to kill the other guy -- if the other guy wasn't already trying to hurt or kill them. Honestly, we've gone over this before. Take some classes until you get it -- because until you get the idea, you're going to keep running around with these ideas of "it's unfair" or "it's not right" or "nobody gets to tell me how I defend myself" and, if you ever do need to defend yourself, stand a frighteningly good chance of going to jail.

 

[Psilent Knight]

Like I said before guys, IT'S A SUCKERS GAME!!!

It's essentially a "Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't" situation which IS unfair, wrong, unjust or whatever word you want to use to describe it.

Here's an imaginary scenario which is sometimes used as a movie plot:

There are some sick and twisted gamblers sitting in a large room with a hundred cameras watching unwilling participants who are trapped in a sick game inside of a multi-floored, multi-room maze with a criminally insane sociopathic murderer armed with a machete and the unwilling participants have to somehow survive, live and escape this maze without killing the machete wielding murderer while this murderer IS ALLOWED to kill you. Those are the rules. Break the rules and you lose and get some type of unfair retribution by these people watching you on close circuit cameras and who are gambling with your lives.

Notice the 3 different colors used in the above scenario and how I apply those colors to real life and real people and let's see if you can make the connection.

Legislators, Prosecutors and Judges

Common, law Abiding Citizens

Thugs, Rapists, Murderers, Home Invaders, Muggers, Street Brawlers, Armed Robberers, Gang Bangers

As I said...SUCKER'S GAME!!!

SMDH!!!

 

[PhotonGuy]

Psilent Knight good post. You have not received any responses but I would like to revive this thread and see if and what anybody has to say in response to Psilent Knight. It would be particularly interesting to see if and what jks9199 has to say.

 

[Psilent Knight]

Psilent Knight good post. You have not received any responses but I would like to revive this thread and see if and what anybody has to say in response to Psilent Knight. It would be particularly interesting to see if and what jks9199 has to say.

Yeah, it would be interesting but I gave up on expecting any responses from the pro compliance crowd. It went this long without a response from them for a reason which is very telling. The silence is deafening.

 

[Tez3]

Yeah, it would be interesting but I gave up on expecting any responses from the pro compliance crowd. It went this long without a response from them for a reason which is very telling. The silence is deafening.

People with strong opinions are just that, people with strong opinions. Just because you type with colours and capital letters doesn't mean you are right. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't make other people wrong in theirs. It may seem like being a 'big man' to hoot and roar on hear but it just makes you a man who hoots and roars, something that is very easy to do on the internet so it's not surprising you are 'deafened' by the silence which is the sound of nobody caring what you think.

 

[Psilent Knight]

It may seem like being a 'big man' to hoot and roar on hear but it just makes you a man who hoots and roars

It may seem like being a 'big man' to tell a person he hoots and roars when you hoot and roar yourself but it just makes you a man who tells another person he hoots and roars when you simply hoot and roar yourself. And I don't care what a person who can't spell thinks.

 

[jobo]

Psilent Knight good post. You have not received any responses but I would like to revive this thread and see if and what anybody has to say in response to Psilent Knight. It would be particularly interesting to see if and what jks9199 has to say.

I suspect that is because his post was very childish and below a response from a mainly adult crowd,he has taken to colour coding his posts and using green ink, that's never a good sign. he seems very angry and seems intent on killing someone, probably best not to annoy him