magley64 Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 So what if you confront someone, punch them, and instead of punching you back, they just pull out a gun and shoot you? Was that legitimate self defense?Or what if there was a step in between where you punch someone, they pull a knife, and then you shoot them? What responsibility should you have for starting the altercation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conn-e-rot Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 So what if you confront someone, punch them, and instead of punching you back, they just pull out a gun and shoot you? Was that legitimate self defense?Or what if there was a step in between where you punch someone, they pull a knife, and then you shoot them? What responsibility should you have for starting the altercation?1. Should've thrown some elbows2. Shouldn't be bringing a knife to a gun fight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I also think there is a difference between 1 or 2 shots to protect myself and firing 8 or 9. Granted I've never been in a situation where I've needed to fire a gun at someone so maybe I dont know, but I would think 8 or 9 shoots would be a bit excessive.It's very dynamic. There are situations where 8 or 9 is fine and 2 is excessive. You shoot until the threat stops - and handguns usually don't produce immediate incapacitation. If you take 1 or 2 shots then pause to evaluate if his injuries are "going to incapacitate him shortly" then you're likely to get killed. Even a man shot through the heart can still kill you - he has enough time left in the oxygen already in his bloodstream to stab or shoot you."Excessive" force in a true defense situation (where the first shot was justifiable) would be when any of the subsequent shots were punitive in nature, not preventative. These would be any shots where the person is already incapacitated, or shots where you have had reasonable time to determine that the person has ended their threat against you.Bearing in mind that in real life a gunshot from a handgun is often not even felt at first due to adrenaline... Bearing in mind that the person you are shooting at may show no signs of being hit for seconds, or minutes... Bearing in mind that you don't even know if your rounds are hitting the guy, never mind "are they effective shots"... And then finally considering you can put 8 or 9 rounds downrange in just a few seconds.... With all this considered it is not unusual for 8 or 9 shots can to be fired at a person before they become incapacitated, for that to be totally justifiable.There is a famous video out there of a robbery where the store owner shoots one of two armed robbers. The shot man jumped back over the counter, pulled his shirt up to look at the wound, then ran away. He died hours later. Would it have been unreasonable to shoot him a second time? He was still 100% mobile and deadly until he finally bled out from being gutshot. He could easily have stood and continued shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 So what if you confront someone, punch them, and instead of punching you back, they just pull out a gun and shoot you? Was that legitimate self defense?Or what if there was a step in between where you punch someone, they pull a knife, and then you shoot them? What responsibility should you have for starting the altercation?Totality of circumstances. If you are a frail 97 year old man and get punched by a linebacker-sized person then shooting him may be justified as your only means of defense.If you punch someone and they use deadly force against you then tough. you started it. Run. You cannot win this. If you shoot them and survive you are going to go to jail. Learn to not punch people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 So what if you confront someone, punch them, and instead of punching you back, they just pull out a gun and shoot you? Was that legitimate self defense?Or what if there was a step in between where you punch someone, they pull a knife, and then you shoot them? What responsibility should you have for starting the altercation?A knife is not a "step between" a punch and a gun. There is force, and there is deadly force. Deadly force is any force likely to cause serious injury or death. A knife and a gun are on the same level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjachic Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 It's very dynamic. There are situations where 8 or 9 is fine and 2 is excessive. You shoot until the threat stops - and handguns usually don't produce immediate incapacitation. If you take 1 or 2 shots then pause to evaluate if his injuries are "going to incapacitate him shortly" then you're likely to get killed. Even a man shot through the heart can still kill you - he has enough time left in the oxygen already in his bloodstream to stab or shoot you."Excessive" force in a true defense situation (where the first shot was justifiable) would be when any of the subsequent shots were punitive in nature, not preventative. These would be any shots where the person is already incapacitated, or shots where you have had reasonable time to determine that the person has ended their threat against you.Bearing in mind that in real life a gunshot from a handgun is often not even felt at first due to adrenaline... Bearing in mind that the person you are shooting at may show no signs of being hit for seconds, or minutes... Bearing in mind that you don't even know if your rounds are hitting the guy, never mind "are they effective shots"... And then finally considering you can put 8 or 9 rounds downrange in just a few seconds.... With all this considered it is not unusual for 8 or 9 shots can to be fired at a person before they become incapacitated, for that to be totally justifiable.There is a famous video out there of a robbery where the store owner shoots one of two armed robbers. The shot man jumped back over the counter, pulled his shirt up to look at the wound, then ran away. He died hours later. Would it have been unreasonable to shoot him a second time? He was still 100% mobile and deadly until he finally bled out from being gutshot. He could easily have stood and continued shooting.Right, totally get that. But in those situations there both sides shooting. This situation only had one side shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Asking someone what time it is is different than giving them shit about their loud music. He' date=' allegedly, started an altercation while armed. In Ohio, that's a big 'no-no'. If someone attacks you because you wanted to know the time, that is legitimate cause for self-defense. If I call you a fucking cunt and you attack me and I shoot you...my ass is responsible.[/quote']Do you have a cite for him "giving them shit"? Or is that as assumption? How do you know he didn't ask them politely and they overreacted?I don't know. That's why I'm not making assumptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Right, totally get that. But in those situations there both sides shooting. This situation only had one side shooting.We're not talking about a protracted gun battle here. If I see a shotgun barrel facing me then I'll evaluate the effectiveness of my first shots when I have to stop to change the mag. I ain't pausing until the threat stops, or the mag runs out.It IS possible that there WAS a shotgun - and that it was disposed of after the shooting.It IS possible that there WAS NO shotgun - and that the shooter saw something he through was a shotgun.It IS possible that there WAS NO shotgun - and that the shooter is just a murderer making up a false claim to try to escape justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjachic Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 We're not talking about a protracted gun battle here. If I see a shotgun barrel facing me then I'll evaluate the effectiveness of my first shots when I have to stop to change the mag. I ain't pausing until the treats stops, or the mag runs out.It IS possible that there WAS a shotgun - and that it was disposed of after the shooting.It IS possible that there WAS NO shotgun - and that the shooter saw something he through was a shotgun.It IS possible that there WAS NO shotgun - and that the shooter is just a murderer making up a false claim to try to escape justice.and again I see your point. Thank you. Now for my other question, if there was a shotgun, why didnt they use it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 and again I see your point. Thank you. Now for my other question, if there was a shotgun, why didnt they use it?Possibilities: - Not loaded- Not real- Chamber empty- Safety catch on- Didn't know how- The guy was quicker on the draw and they stopped any attempt at using the shotgun, but being inside a car they could not retreat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 A knife is not a "step between" a punch and a gun. There is force, and there is deadly force. Deadly force is any force likely to cause serious injury or death. A knife and a gun are on the same level.As expected, I disagree...Knife is an escalation from a fist fight. gun is an escalation further.You aren't prohibited from owning knives if you are a felon.Just because something CAN cause death does not mean it should be classified as a deadly weapon...I could kill someone with a pillow, but that doesn't mean that it is a reasonable response to shoot someone for bopping you with a pillow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Do you have a cite for him "giving them shit"? Or is that as assumption? How do you know he didn't ask them politely and they overreacted?I don't know. That's why I'm not making assumptions.I have a pretty large pool of responses to loud music in my personal experience. probably 80% of responses are rude/angry/confrontational20% of people who requested that I change the volume level of my music were polite about it.Just running the odds, he was probably rude/confrontational about it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Just because something CAN cause death does not mean it should be classified as a deadly weapon...Give me a second to think about that...Before I say something insulting about your intelligence, let me clarify...If an item can cause death, and is used as a weapon, then it is a deadly weapon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conn-e-rot Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 As expected, I disagree...Knife is an escalation from a fist fight. gun is an escalation further.You aren't prohibited from owning knives if you are a felon.Just because something CAN cause death does not mean it should be classified as a deadly weapon...I could kill someone with a pillow, but that doesn't mean that it is a reasonable response to shoot someone for bopping you with a pillow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 If an item can cause death, and is used as a weapon, then it is a deadly weapon.well if you didn't like the pillow example, a tablespoon of water is deadly, so you should open fire on anyone who tosses a water balloon your way, or shoots you with a super soaker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conn-e-rot Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) Turn that music down!no? Edited November 30, 2012 by JRMMiii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conn-e-rot Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Those are weapons... weapons are bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 well if you didn't like the pillow example, a tablespoon of water is deadly, so you should open fire on anyone who tosses a water balloon your way, or shoots you with a super soaker.Not worth my time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Those are weapons... weapons are badyes, you should feel free to shoot anyone who comes at you with a bopper, cause I'm sure one has caused death at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conn-e-rot Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Not worth my time.I was hoping you would reach that conclusion soon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I was hoping you would reach that conclusion soonWe sometimes agree, sometimes not. Sometimes he's on Bath Salts and it's best to let him come down in a padded room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Asking someone what time it is is different than giving them shit about their loud music. He' date=' allegedly, started an altercation while armed. In Ohio, that's a big 'no-no'. If someone attacks you because you wanted to know the time, that is legitimate cause for self-defense. If I call you a fucking cunt and you attack me and I shoot you...my ass is responsible.[/quote']Your example makes too much sense, there are some however that just can't handle that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) I just want clarification as to why a knife and a gun are on the same level of force, but a pillow and a squirt gun and a fist are not, when any one of them can be deadly given the right situation, application, and intent.Clearly Skittles and Snapple are deadly weapons. Edited November 30, 2012 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Pillow full of rocks, and a squirt gun full of acid would inflict some serious damage. Or if you were to put mini-me in a pillow and swing him around, that also can be very damaging. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCU1qQ0cw6U Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.