Advantage Martial Arts Has Over Guns

Lethal force is defined, in a legal setting, as force likely to cause significant bodily harm or death. A handgun can most assuredly cause significant bodily harm or death, even if it's not automatically fatal.
That's just the thing, the word "likely" is relative and open to debate. Exactly when is something considered "likely" to cause signifiant bodily harm or death. When it has a 50% or greater of causing such stuff? If that's the case I would agree that handguns would fall into that category but what about if you're just using your hands and body? Would the courts see your hands and body as being "likely" to cause significant bodily harm or death?
And, in a legal setting, a "reasonable person" is someone with ordinary judgment, education, intelligence, and reason. Legal Definition of REASONABLE PERSON
That's all fine and good but often you need certain in depth knowledge in addition to all that stuff mentioned in the legal definition of a reasonable person, to be able to understand something.
 
That's just the thing, the word "likely" is relative and open to debate. Exactly when is something considered "likely" to cause signifiant bodily harm or death. When it has a 50% or greater of causing such stuff? If that's the case I would agree that handguns would fall into that category but what about if you're just using your hands and body? Would the courts see your hands and body as being "likely" to cause significant bodily harm or death?

That's all fine and good but often you need certain in depth knowledge in addition to all that stuff mentioned in the legal definition of a reasonable person, to be able to understand something.
Thats where expert witnesses come in.
 
No. I'm an ER/Flight nurse with 40+ years of experience and a Masters in Human Physiology. And a license. Other than seeing movies and displaying a propensity for confusing movies and reality, what are your credentials?
@PhotonGuy In the medical field, ER/Flight nurse with masters, roughly translates to I can plug your bleeding hole with my eyes closed, and can explain it to you while Im doing it.

Id listen to what he has to say.
 
Sounds to me like the homeowner was right, as the officer said "We have been informed that the occupant, in self defense, in attempting to defend himself, has armed himself with a knife..."

If you ask me the homeowner was absolutely justified.

He still has to move out and sleep somewhere else while his house is a crime scene though.
 
He still has to move out and sleep somewhere else while his house is a crime scene though.
How long is that likely to be, in Australia? In the US, it might be a couple hours. Sure, it might be longer, depending on the circumstances, but in cases in which the shooting is clearly self defense, you're not going to be moving out.
Ill take that over having my life burned to the ground with legal fees and murder stigma.
Self defense is not murder.
 
as long as youre acquitted. whether its murder, self defense, or some other flavor of killing a dude is a retrospective determination.
You dont necessarily go to trial for clear cut self defense instances, at least around here. Last year a homeowner shot an intruder in her home and had her weapon and house released within hours.
 
as long as youre acquitted. whether its murder, self defense, or some other flavor of killing a dude is a retrospective determination.
That presupposes that killing someone in self defense will result in your being charged with murder. Which is false.
 
That presupposes that killing someone in self defense will result in your being charged with murder. Which is false.
It may. Someone decides whether or not to press charges. The point is, its a retrospective determination. And its someone else deciding. Not you.
 
You dont necessarily go to trial for clear cut self defense instances, at least around here. Last year a homeowner shot an intruder in her home and had her weapon and house released within hours.
Who decided whether she was arrested or released? Her or someone else. Thats the point Im making. Simply that you dont get to decide if its murder, manslaughter, or self defense. Someone else does. And they do it after the other dude is dead.

Also, just for what its worth, its a legal determination, not a moral one. Though some might conflate the two, and both may lead to the same conclusion, they are different.
 
How long is that likely to be, in Australia? In the US, it might be a couple hours. Sure, it might be longer, depending on the circumstances, but in cases in which the shooting is clearly self defense, you're not going to be moving out.

Self defense is not murder.
I would have said a crime scene like that would be a couple of days at least.
 
No. I'm an ER/Flight nurse with 40+ years of experience and a Masters in Human Physiology. And a license. Other than seeing movies and displaying a propensity for confusing movies and reality, what are your credentials?
Well I don't have much of a medical background but this discussion wasn't about medical stuff it was about firearms and firearm ballistics, specifically the ballistics of handguns vs the ballistics of rifles and shotguns. If you go back to post #66 and the posts before that you will see that is what the discussion is about.

When it comes to firearms I do have an extensive background on that topic and I could go into detail if you want.
 
@PhotonGuy In the medical field, ER/Flight nurse with masters, roughly translates to I can plug your bleeding hole with my eyes closed, and can explain it to you while Im doing it.

Id listen to what he has to say.
If we're discussing medical stuff but we're not discussing medical stuff we're discussing the ballistics of firearms, handguns vs rifles and shotguns.
 
You dont necessarily go to trial for clear cut self defense instances, at least around here. Last year a homeowner shot an intruder in her home and had her weapon and house released within hours.
I can see having the house released within hours but the weapon I would think would have to be held as evidence which can take quite some time.
 
He still has to move out and sleep somewhere else while his house is a crime scene though.
Well his house is a crime scene although he was not the criminal, it was the guy who broke in and attacked him and his family who was the criminal. Just how long his house has to be considered a crime scene in which case he has to stay somewhere else is a different matter but the point is, it is a crime scene. When a bad guy breaks into your house in doing so he makes your house a crime scene.
 
I can see having the house released within hours but the weapon I would think would have to be held as evidence which can take quite some time.
No need to confiscate the firearm since there was no need for a trial.
 
Back
Top