# Self-Defense laws in your state?



## Pepsiman (May 5, 2017)

As far as self-defense goes in terms of martial arts, any seasoned veteran will tell you that in most cases, the best course of action is to exercise self-control and walk away, which is perfectly fine in most cases. Discipline is as much mental as it is physical. But I think we can all agree that having the ability to defend yourself is a good thing. Martial Arts is perfect for developing the tools to protect yourself, but legally speaking the subject can be a bit.....tricky. I'm sure it also doesn't help that the laws regarding self-defense could be different, depending on which state you hail from. So, out of curiosity, what are the laws regarding self-defense in the state (or part of the world for anyone outside of the US) you live in?

In the state of Florida, we have in place something called a *"Stand-your-ground"* law. What that basically is, according to Wikipedia, _"is a justification in a criminal case, whereby defendants can 'stand their ground' and use force without retreating, in order to protect and defend themselves or others against threats or perceived threats. An example is where there is no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be, and that they may use any level of force if they reasonably believe the threat rises to the level of being an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death."
_
So, what about you guys? Do you have a law like this, or something completely different?


----------



## Paul_D (May 6, 2017)

Does SYG only apply to certain situations though? Suchas if you are in your home defending yourself against an intruder.  Or does it literally apply anehete you have a lawful right to be, such as a street?


----------



## Buka (May 6, 2017)

I have no idea what the law in my state is. I'll check, though. But to me, any case of self defense, in any state, pretty much comes down to common sense.


----------



## Headhunter (May 6, 2017)

No idea and I don't care. If I'm ever attacked and think my life's in danger I couldn't give a stuff about the law I'll do what I have to do to survive and I'll take the consequences whatever they are. If you hesitate because of worrying about law or getting in trouble that's when you get seriously hurt or killed


----------



## jks9199 (May 6, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> No idea and I don't care. If I'm ever attacked and think my life's in danger I couldn't give a stuff about the law I'll do what I have to do to survive and I'll take the consequences whatever they are. If you hesitate because of worrying about law or getting in trouble that's when you get seriously hurt or killed


You're setting yourself and anyone you instruct up for a trip to jail.  Self defense should include prevention strategies and tactics, tools for handling violence when it happens, and planning and preparation for the aftermath -- including avoiding the gray bar hotel.  Ideally, avoiding trial at all.  Learn the rules, and you won't hesitate; you'll know what you can and can't do.  Or are you unable to control yourself in a ring and fight under the rules of the event in question?

You need to learn the self defense laws where you live.  They're generally not insanely hard; in most of the US, the general principle can be summed up with "You may use the force reasonably necessary to safely resolve the situation."  A lay person won't be held to the same standards as, say, a cop -- or a trained fighter.  Oh, crap.  Trained fighter.  It just might behoove you to understand how things will play out, so that you can avoid a very expensive criminal trial, and a grievously expensive civil trial -- even if you're right.

Or you can roll the dice on any variant of the "tried by twelve rather than carried by six" saw...


----------



## Paul_D (May 6, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> No idea and I don't care. If I'm ever attacked and think my life's in danger I couldn't give a stuff about the law I'll do what I have to do to survive and I'll take the consequences whatever they are. If you hesitate because of worrying about law or getting in trouble that's when you get seriously hurt or killed


Once you learn the law then you don't need worry about it, and therefore won't hesitate, and don't go to jail.   Choosing to not learn the law so you risk breaking it and going to jail doesn't make sense to me on any level.


----------



## jobo (May 6, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Does SYG only apply to certain situations though? Suchas if you are in your home defending yourself against an intruder.  Or does it literally apply anehete you have a lawful right to be, such as a street?


I understand it applies in all public places


----------



## Paul_D (May 6, 2017)

In the U.K. there is no legal requirement to retreat, in order to later claim self defence.  However, if you had the opportunity to do so and chose not to, that will be taken into consideration.


----------



## jobo (May 6, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> In the U.K. there is no legal requirement to retreat, in order to later claim self defence.  However, if you had the opportunity to do so and chose not to, that will be taken into consideration.


which law says that?


----------



## Paul_D (May 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> which law says that?



Failure to retreat when attacked and when it is possible and safe to do so, is not conclusive evidence that a person was not acting in self defence. It is simply a factor to be taken into account rather than as giving rise to a duty to retreat when deciding whether the degree of force was reasonable in the circumstances (section 76(6) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008). It is not necessary that the defendant demonstrates by walking away that he does not want to engage in physical violence: _(R v Bird 81 Cr App R 110)._


----------



## Headhunter (May 6, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> You're setting yourself and anyone you instruct up for a trip to jail.  Self defense should include prevention strategies and tactics, tools for handling violence when it happens, and planning and preparation for the aftermath -- including avoiding the gray bar hotel.  Ideally, avoiding trial at all.  Learn the rules, and you won't hesitate; you'll know what you can and can't do.  Or are you unable to control yourself in a ring and fight under the rules of the event in question?
> 
> You need to learn the self defense laws where you live.  They're generally not insanely hard; in most of the US, the general principle can be summed up with "You may use the force reasonably necessary to safely resolve the situation."  A lay person won't be held to the same standards as, say, a cop -- or a trained fighter.  Oh, crap.  Trained fighter.  It just might behoove you to understand how things will play out, so that you can avoid a very expensive criminal trial, and a grievously expensive civil trial -- even if you're right.
> 
> Or you can roll the dice on any variant of the "tried by twelve rather than carried by six" saw...


Well I don't teach so that's no problem and I'll always try and avoid it but if I can't and they're seriously trying to hurt me I'll put them down hard and fast


----------



## CB Jones (May 6, 2017)

In America, the difference in laws will be:

Castle Doctrine:  in short you're allowed to  protect yourself on your property without being required to retreat.

Stand your ground:  2 differences

1). Some states do not require you to retreat from anyplace you are legally allowed be

2). Some states require you to retreat if you can.


Also some states have actual stand your ground and castle doctrine laws....others only have court precedents governing It


----------



## hoshin1600 (May 6, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Castle Doctrine: in short you're allowed to protect yourself on your property without being required to retreat.


need to be careful here with wording, as specific words in law are important.

_Ma. castle doctrine.
General law , Part IV, Title II  Chapter 278
Section 8A: Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling._

in Massachusetts the Castle Doctrine will only apply to "within the Domicile"  meaning within the four walls of the building, take one step outside of the house and you will be under different circumstances.


_MA. General law, Part III, Title II, Chapter 231_
_Section 85U: Death or injury to unlawful dwelling occupants; liability of lawful occupants_
_Section 85U. No person who is a lawful occupant of a dwelling shall be liable in an action for damages for death or injuries to an unlawful occupant of said dwelling resulting from the acts of said lawful occupant; provided, however, that said lawful occupant was in the dwelling at the time of the occurrence and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said lawful dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said lawful occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall not be a duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling._


In general Massachusetts has a "duty to retreat" . to my knowledge there is no "stand your ground" in Mass at this time.  
my understanding is the intent of "stand your ground" is to  protect the defender when he/she is out side the home, in public.


----------



## CB Jones (May 6, 2017)

Louisiana has a Stand Your Ground Law with no requirement to retreat


----------



## Balrog (May 23, 2017)

As peaceably as possible, as forcibly as necessary.  Texas has no "duty to retreat", but I think one could make an argument that stepping back into a defensive stance is retreating, since you are moving away from the attacker.

Here's the TL;DR version:

PENAL CODE  CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY​


----------



## CB Jones (May 23, 2017)

Balrog said:


> As peaceably as possible, as forcibly as necessary.  Texas has no "duty to retreat", but I think one could make an argument that stepping back into a defensive stance is retreating, since you are moving away from the attacker.
> 
> Here's the TL;DR version:
> 
> PENAL CODE  CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY​



Legally, retreat means to leave the area.

Just getting into a defensive posture is not gonna meet the requirement for most states that require retreat.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 23, 2017)

Pepsiman said:


> So, what about you guys? Do you have a law like this, or something completely different?



This is Michigan's law on self-defense:

Michigan Legislature - Section 780.951

*PRESUMPTION REGARDING SELF-DEFENSE (EXCERPT)
Act 311 of 2006*

*780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.*

Sec. 1.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).​
There are exceptions.  The above is an excerpt of an excerpt.  I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.  My opinion only.

I have always advocated that people learn the laws of self-defense in the area where they live, but few feel it necessary or they're just too lazy.  Like the people who carry guns but can't be arsed to practice with them.  Some people are just foolish that way.

I know more that a few who will read the above excerpt from the law and decide it says something it does not say.  I don't know how to address that.  I guess maybe they should think about paying an attorney for an hour's time to explain to them.

I'd also remind people that even when a person uses self-defense (lethal or otherwise, but especially when deadly force is used), their life is about to change, permanently and in ways they never expected.  You can be within the law and still find your life turned upside down.  You can lose your job, be arrested, charged with a crime, sued in civil court, and so on. You can end up mortgaging your future to hire lawyers to defend you EVEN when you are IN THE RIGHT.  Even when you eventually win in court because you literally did nothing wrong, you may find your future virtually destroyed, and that's assuming that you can get past the actual even in question from a mental health point of view.

Bottom line - you know who scrubs the bad guy's brains off the walls?  You do, sport.  You do.  Might want to keep that in mind.


----------



## lklawson (May 23, 2017)

Pepsiman said:


> Martial Arts is perfect for developing the tools to protect yourself, but legally speaking the subject can be a bit.....tricky.


No.  It's not.  Self Defense is Self Defense and Justifiable Deadly Force is Justifiable regardless of what deadly force was used.  It really isn't all that hard.  Don't be an Initial Aggressor.  Walk away when you reasonably can while maintaining your own safety and that of other innocent third parties you may be responsible for.  Only use Deadly Force when there is a reasonably articulable threat of death or serious bodily injury to yourself or a third party which you know to be innocent.

It just ain't that hard.




> I'm sure it also doesn't help that the laws regarding self-defense could be different, depending on which state you hail from. So, out of curiosity, what are the laws regarding self-defense in the state (or part of the world for anyone outside of the US) you live in?


Don't take legal advice from people on the internet.  Go find a lawyer or legal advice in your state.  Pay for it if you must.



> In the state of Florida, we have in place something called a *"Stand-your-ground"* law. What that basically is, according to Wikipedia, _"is a justification in a criminal case, whereby defendants can 'stand their ground' and use force without retreating, in order to protect and defend themselves or others against threats or perceived threats. An example is where there is no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be, and that they may use any level of force if they reasonably believe the threat rises to the level of being an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death."_


Don't take legal advice from Wikipedia.  That's even worse than taking legal advice from strangers on the internet who may or may not have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.  

In particular ignore meanderings about Stand Your Ground laws because the vast majority of people blabbering about it have no frigg'n clew what they're talking about.  The U.S. Firearms Community is slightly more clewed in than most others (including, I've found, "martial artists") but even then there are misunderstandings.



> So, what about you guys? Do you have a law like this, or something completely different?


Around 3/5ths of the U.S. has some form of Stand Your Ground law.  Most of them are similar but some of them are just a bit different.  Ohio is an example.

Go talk to a lawyer or find your states major firearms-for-self-defense advocacy organization, such as the Buckeye Firearms Association here in Ohio, and find out their information on it.

Ignore everything else.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 23, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Does SYG only apply to certain situations though? Suchas if you are in your home defending yourself against an intruder.  Or does it literally apply anehete you have a lawful right to be, such as a street?


That's usually Castle Doctrine here in the U.S.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Buka (May 23, 2017)

lklawson said:


> No.  It's not.  Self Defense is Self Defense and Justifiable Deadly Force is Justifiable regardless of what deadly force was used.  It really isn't all that hard.  Don't be an Initial Aggressor.  Walk away when you reasonably can while maintaining your own safety and that of other innocent third parties you may be responsible for.  Only use Deadly Force when there is a reasonably articulable threat of death or serious bodily injury to yourself or a third party which you know to be innocent.
> 
> It just ain't that hard.
> 
> ...



That there post says it all.


----------



## Pepsiman (May 25, 2017)

lklawson said:


> No.  It's not.  Self Defense is Self Defense and Justifiable Deadly Force is Justifiable regardless of what deadly force was used.  It really isn't all that hard.  Don't be an Initial Aggressor.  Walk away when you reasonably can while maintaining your own safety and that of other innocent third parties you may be responsible for.  Only use Deadly Force when there is a reasonably articulable threat of death or serious bodily injury to yourself or a third party which you know to be innocent.
> 
> It just ain't that hard.



You're preaching to the choir on this one, my friend lol. There is _absolutely nothing wrong _with defending yourself if you have to, morally speaking. However, I don't think that means you'd be exempt of legal consequence. 

If you were to use lethal force, wouldn't you have to prove in court that said lethal force was justified? Even legally-speaking, there's always a possibility of your case being deemed "imperfect self-defense".



> Don't take legal advice from people on the internet.  Go find a lawyer or legal advice in your state.  Pay for it if you must.



Wasn't really asking for any, but you aren't wrong. Legal advice isn't really hard to come by if you know where to look, so I do agree that people contact a state lawyer if needed.



> Don't take legal advice from Wikipedia.  That's even worse than taking legal advice from strangers on the internet who may or may not have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.



I think you're confusing Wikipedia for WebMD, here. :



> In particular ignore meanderings about Stand Your Ground laws because the vast majority of people blabbering about it have no frigg'n clew what they're talking about.  The U.S. Firearms Community is slightly more clewed in than most others (including, I've found, "martial artists") but even then there are misunderstandings.
> 
> Around 3/5ths of the U.S. has some form of Stand Your Ground law.  Most of them are similar but some of them are just a bit different.  Ohio is an example.



Which is why this thread exists. Laws can be different, whether slightly or vastly, so I wanted to hear from people on the forum. So far I've seen good discussions, here.  



> Go talk to a lawyer or find your states major firearms-for-self-defense advocacy organization, such as the Buckeye Firearms Association here in Ohio, and find out their information on it.
> 
> Ignore everything else.
> 
> ...



I don't live in Ohio, but "Buckeye Firearms Association" is a cool name for an organization. In my case, I've got Home - Florida Carry, Inc.

May peace favor your sword, also, friend.


----------



## lklawson (May 26, 2017)

Pepsiman said:


> If you were to use lethal force, wouldn't you have to prove in court that said lethal force was justified? Even legally-speaking, there's always a possibility of your case being deemed "imperfect self-defense".


Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  Differing jurisdictions use differing people to decide who gets prosecuted and who doesn't.  Sometimes that person(s) will look at a case and decide not to press charges.  Sometimes they will.  But the decision is not usually made for what most people believe.

In many (most?) states, a non-LEO/non-government-authorized-person deliberately killing someone is considered a crime regardless of whether or not it was justified.  Seriously.  It's still a crime.  In those cases Self Defense is considered an Affirmative Defense.  The short version is that you admit that you broke the law (by killing someone) but affirm that it was justified and required because it was a reasonable act of self defense.  Showing that requires going to Court and presenting the legal defense of "Self Defense" which would be (depending on applicable legalese, which varies from state to state) be called "Justifiable Homicide."  In those cases in which a state has a Homicide law similar to what I've mentioned and where a Prosecutor/DA/whatever decides not to charge, that decision was made because the entity believes that the Affirmative Defense would be accepted in court.  Remember, you've already admitted that you killed someone but are now just claiming that you will be reasonably acquitted. 

Some of the Stand Your Ground laws work like that.  Some don't.

Most Castle Doctrine laws sort of work like that.  Some don't.

The internet is a terrible place to find which is which.  

This is just the tip of the iceberg and I drown in the well pretty quick.  This is why anyone who thinks they might possibly, at some point, employ violence in the name of personal self defense needs a lawyer.  The laws are a veritable mine-field that, frankly, only a trained and experienced lawyer is qualified to navigate.  Joe Sixpack, even one who is well read and well informed, is simply not qualified and will just as likely screw himself.

The cheapest way to get where you need to go is to join one of the "self defense 'insurance'" programs like Texas Law Shield, Armed Citizens Legal Defense Fund, USCCA, Carry Guard, Second Call Defense, CCW Safe, or one of the others.  They're all around (roughly) $150/year starting.  They'll pretty much all send you some sort of material that will help educate you about the pitfalls so that you are less likely to screw yourself until your lawyer gets on scene.  Most will provide the lawyer or will pay for one you already picked out.

Seriously, the more I learn the more I find out how much I didn't know and the more I realize that 99.999% of people giving self defense legal advice on the 'net are uninformed bozos who will probably get you arrested.  Start with the often repeated advice for after a self defense incident, when the police ask questions, that you should do 3 things: "Shut up. Shut up. Shut up."  Currently the legal eagles say that for a justified self defense even, this is not only wrong, but will get you arrested and will almost certainly do great, possibly irreparable harm, to your self defense case.  But neither should you be chatty.  There are certain things that you should communicate and tell the officers.  I'm not really at liberty to give out their advice since they're wanting people to pay for it, but a good primer/overview was discussed a few months ago, on the weekend broadcast, for The Armed American Radio broadcast.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tgace (May 26, 2017)

defend yourself!



> _*From the NYS Penal Law:*_
> 
> _(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is:
> 
> ...


----------



## PhotonGuy (May 29, 2017)

Pepsiman said:


> As far as self-defense goes in terms of martial arts, any seasoned veteran will tell you that in most cases, the best course of action is to exercise self-control and walk away, which is perfectly fine in most cases. Discipline is as much mental as it is physical. But I think we can all agree that having the ability to defend yourself is a good thing. Martial Arts is perfect for developing the tools to protect yourself, but legally speaking the subject can be a bit.....tricky. I'm sure it also doesn't help that the laws regarding self-defense could be different, depending on which state you hail from. So, out of curiosity, what are the laws regarding self-defense in the state (or part of the world for anyone outside of the US) you live in?
> 
> In the state of Florida, we have in place something called a *"Stand-your-ground"* law. What that basically is, according to Wikipedia, _"is a justification in a criminal case, whereby defendants can 'stand their ground' and use force without retreating, in order to protect and defend themselves or others against threats or perceived threats. An example is where there is no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be, and that they may use any level of force if they reasonably believe the threat rises to the level of being an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death."
> _
> So, what about you guys? Do you have a law like this, or something completely different?



In the USA the law says you're allowed to defend yourself. It doesn't matter where you are in the country in the USA you have the right by law to defend yourself if you're attacked. Now that doesn't mean you can continue to beat on an attacker once you've stopped them. When it comes to self defense you're intent should be to stop the attacker. You're intent should not be to kill, it should not be to injure, it should be to stop. Once you've stopped your attacker you've fulfilled your intent so there is no reason to keep using force at that point and thus it would not validate self defense. But up until you've stopped your attacker you can fight back as that would be self defense.

There are many members on this forum who don't live in the USA and I don't know how it is regarding the legality of self defense in other countries but that's how it is in the USA.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jun 2, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> No idea and I don't care. If I'm ever attacked and think my life's in danger I couldn't give a stuff about the law I'll do what I have to do to survive and I'll take the consequences whatever they are. If you hesitate because of worrying about law or getting in trouble that's when you get seriously hurt or killed



I side with Headhunter on this one. I've reached a point where I now say to hell with those laws and the scoundrels who make them. 

You guys really need to remind yourselves that the value of your lives and the lives of your loved ones should not be determined by laws made by people who do not live among the common citizens, who travel with bodyguards and live in million dollar gated communities.


----------



## Paul_D (Jun 2, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> I side with Headhunter on this one. I've reached a point where I now say to hell with those laws and the scoundrels who make them.


You can defend yourself and stay within the law.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jun 2, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> You can defend yourself and stay within the law.



I'm not arguing against that possibility. What I'm saying is if your life or the life of your loved ones is at stake you have  a choice to make; worry about self defense laws (most of which is ridiculous) and possibly lose yours or your loved one's life OR take on the attitude/mindset that yours and your loved ones lives *HAVE MORE VALUE* than laws that protect criminals and punish the good guys. Laws fabricated by people who DO NOT live in the real world among society's sociopaths like you and I do.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 2, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> worry about self defense laws (most of which is ridiculous)


Actually, most Self Defense law in the U.S. is pretty reasonable.  



> and possibly lose yours or your loved one's life OR take on the attitude/mindset that yours and your loved ones lives *HAVE MORE VALUE* than laws that protect criminals and punish the good guys.


Most law in the U.S. supports this the person defending themselves and their family against lethal force. 



> Laws fabricated by people who DO NOT live in the real world among society's sociopaths like you and I do.


Maybe you're confusing the recent trend in some locals in the U.S. for politically motivated prosecutors to bring charges which are poorly supported by law and most often would fail when opposed by competent legal Defense.  Two different things.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 2, 2017)

Really the three things to keep in mind:

1). Is it a stand your ground state or are you required to retreat if possible.

2). Force you use is a reasonable force for the threat encountered

3). Did you deescalate and stop once the threat was over.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jun 2, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Actually, most Self Defense law in the U.S. is pretty reasonable.



I highly beg to differ. Personal experience and observation has taught me that most self defense law in the U.S. is very unreasonable.



lklawson said:


> Most law in the U.S. supports this the person defending themselves and their family against lethal force.



Again, I beg to differ thanks to personal experience and observation.



lklawson said:


> Maybe you're confusing the recent trend in some locals in the U.S. for politically motivated prosecutors to bring charges which are poorly supported by law and most often would fail when opposed by competent legal Defense.  Two different things.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Not confusing anything. Politically motivated prosecutors, distasteful _"Legal Defense"_ and the policy makers all occupy the same dirty basket; they all occupy a place in the world in which they place themselves above the people who do not occupy the same place as them; the place of law, law enforcement, legislation, policy making and politics.

Laws are meant to keep average people in line and let criminals do whatever they want so it's really a suckers game. And these same laws are passed down and enforced by people many of whom are criminals themselves. They simply get a pass since they make and enforce the laws. Again, IT'S A SUCKERS GAME!!


----------



## lklawson (Jun 2, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> I highly beg to differ. Personal experience and observation has taught me that most self defense law in the U.S. is very unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Then I guess we're just going to disagree.  I've based my opinion on reading a bunch of the laws, looking at case law, and listening to the opinions of self defense attorneys and Expert Witnesses.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jun 2, 2017)

lklawson said:


> I've based my opinion on reading a bunch of the laws, looking at case law, and listening to the opinions of self defense attorneys and Expert Witnesses.



And I've based mine on observing the application of these laws in reality and actual practice.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 2, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> And I've based mine on observing the application of these laws in reality and actual practice.


Oh.  You mean the difference between politically motivated prosecutors bringing charges which are poorly supported by law and most often would fail when opposed by competent legal Defense and the actual law?


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 2, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> And I've based mine on observing the application of these laws in reality and actual practice.



How so?

LEO
Defense Attorney
Prosecuting Attorney
Firearms instructor


----------



## Paul_D (Jun 2, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> I'm not arguing against that possibility. What I'm saying is if your life or the life of your loved ones is at stake you have  a choice to make; worry about self defense laws (most of which is ridiculous) and possibly lose yours or your loved one's life OR take on the attitude/mindset that yours and your loved ones lives *HAVE MORE VALUE* than laws that protect criminals and punish the good guys. Laws fabricated by people who DO NOT live in the real world among society's sociopaths like you and I do.


What I am saying is that you don't have to make that choice.  Familiarise yourself with he law, structure your training and your scenario drills to work within the law, and then when the time comes and you instinctively do what your training has taught you to do, you don't have to worry about the law because you stayed on the right side of it.

You do not have to think " Screw the law, I'll take the risk" in order to defend yourself and others.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jun 2, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Oh.  You mean the difference between politically motivated prosecutors bringing charges which are poorly supported by law and most often would fail when opposed by competent legal Defense and the actual law?



No, I mean politically motivated prosecutors cherry picking the charges they bring and distasteful Legal Defense that use their talents to defend and help acquit offenders who are definitely guilty. One Defense Attorney told me about two months ago out of his own mouth that he is in _"the BUSINESS of making money by defending offenders."_



CB Jones said:


> How so?
> 
> LEO
> Defense Attorney
> ...



Even better. My neighbor spending the last 8 years (of a 15 year sentence) in prison for shooting a home invader. That same defense attorney I referenced above (who is damn good at what he does btw) defending and clearing a thug who shot a guy during a robbery. The scores of LEOs who should be doing time for unjustifiable homicide of unarmed citizens. 

I will say this again. *MY FAMILY AND I ARE NOT WORTHLESS. OUR LIVES HAVE JUST AS MUCH VALUE AS SOCIOPATHS, CRIMINALS, POLICY MAKERS, PROSECUTORS AND LEOS!!!* I have a natural human right to defend myself and my loved ones and I will not allow anyone to tell me otherwise.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 2, 2017)

So the experience you are talking about is one case that happened to your neighbor and a conversation with one Attorney.......that is an awfully small sample size to make broad assumptions on lethal force laws in the US


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jun 2, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> What I am saying is that you don't have to make that choice.



But there may come a time when you WILL have to make that choice is what I am saying.



Paul_D said:


> Familiarise yourself with he law, structure your training and your scenario drills to work within the law, and then when the time comes and you instinctively do what your training has taught you to do, you don't have to worry about the law because you stayed on the right side of it.



As much as I want to do exactly what you said I don't want you to overlook that trying your best to stay on the right side of the law may cost you or a loved one's life. I'm not saying every altercation has to end in the loss of life or limb. I am saying that if I know for sure that my safety is on the line then I am in full self preservation mode and worrying about these laws maybe that one dent in my armor that can cause my family to have to bury me instead of seeing me in court. You know, the whole judged by 12 instead of buried by 6 thing.



Paul_D said:


> You do not have to think " Screw the law, I'll take the risk" in order to defend yourself and others.



Well, while defending myself I certainly will not be thinking about how much trouble I can get into if I do serious or lethal harm to someone. I'll be too busy fighting to survive.

You are just as familiar with Geoff Thompson as I am. Recall that he would always refer to the Law as _"The Second Enemy"_. There's a reason who said this.

I guess I've dealt with enough pond scum to be unable to see things the way many other posters see it in this thread. But my message to criminals, thugs, psychopaths, sociopaths, LEOs, prosecutors and judges is the same. *MY LIFE HAS JUST AS MUCH VALUE AS THEIRS DO!!*


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jun 2, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> So the experience you are talking about is one case that happened to your neighbor and a conversation with one Attorney.......that is an awfully small sample size to make broad assumptions on lethal force laws in the US



NO! That is just ONE CASE that I shared. I never said it's the ONLY CASE!! There are plenty of others. But one case is enough because what I am talking about as far as justice and these _"self defense laws"_ are concerned SHOULDN'T HAPPEN AT ALL! That's the point that I believe is eluding you.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 2, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> NO! That is just ONE CASE that I shared. I never said it's the ONLY CASE!! There are plenty of others. But one case is enough because what I am talking about as far as justice and these _"self defense laws"_ are concerned SHOULDN'T HAPPEN AT ALL! That's the point that I believe is eluding you.



Where I live the law states you have the right to defend yourself if it is reasonable to believe your life is in danger of death or great bodily harm.  The law also states you have the right to defend yourself anywhere you have the lawful right to be.

Now....explain how these self defense laws are unreasonable?


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jun 2, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Where I live the law states you have the right to defend yourself if it is reasonable to believe your life is in danger of death or great bodily harm.  The law also states you have the right to defend yourself anywhere you have the lawful right to be.
> 
> Now....explain how these self defense laws are unreasonable?



And where I live the law states what is and is not considered reasonable force (regardless of the offender and the crime he's committing against you) and what may or may not be used as a weapon for self defense (again, regardless of the offender and the crime he's committing against you).

Now....explain how these self defense laws are not unreasonable?

And other than what these laws state you still conveniently ignore how the laws are applied in actual practice. You don't seem to want to touch that which is understandable.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 2, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> where I live the law states what is and is not considered reasonable force (regardless of the offender) and what may or may not be used as a weapon for self defense (again, regardless of the offender).



Explain or post what these laws state....and I will comment on if i believe them reasonable or not.



Psilent Knight said:


> And other than what these laws state you still conveniently ignore how the laws are applied in actual practice. You don't seem to want to touch that which is understandable.



Where I live the law is applied pretty evenly along the spirit of the law.


And the laws of my state follow along with many other states....so again....how are they unreasonable.

It seems you are taking the law and it application in a few places and assuming its like that everywhere.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jun 2, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Explain or post what these laws state....and I will comment on if i believe them reasonable or not.



I live in the state of Pennsylvania. Feel free to look them up if you want.



CB Jones said:


> Where I live the law is applied pretty evenly along the spirit of the law.



And where I live it's not applied evenly along the spirit of the law. Plain and Simple.



CB Jones said:


> And the laws of my state follow along with many other states....so again....how are they unreasonable.



As I already stated, dictating what is reasonable force and what a person can and cannot use as a weapon for defending himself.....so again....how are they not unreasonable.



CB Jones said:


> It seems you are taking the law and it application in a few places and assuming its like that everywhere.



Again, you are still missing part of my point. The _misapplication_ of the law should not happen in *ANY PLACE* regardless if it's a few places or everywhere. It happens in America is my point. I live in America. I face the risk of a double whammy because of this. Who do I get victimized by, the first enemy (thug, sociopath, drug addict, home invader) or the second enemy (the law)?

*MY LIFE OR THE LIVES OF MY LOVED ONES ARE NOT WORTHLESS! OUR LIVES HAVE JUST AS MUCH VALUE AS THOSE WHO WISH TO INFRINGE UPON OUR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS!!*


----------



## Paul_D (Jun 2, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> You know, the whole judged by 12 instead of buried by 6 thing.


Which represents a false choice, because your only two options are not die or end up in court.   You can defend yourself and stay within the law.



Psilent Knight said:


> Well, while defending myself I certainly will not be thinking about how much trouble I can get into if I do serious or lethal harm to someone. I'll be too busy fighting to survive.


You don't have to think about the laws, this is the point.  If your training is structed correctly, to stay with in the law, then under pressure you will do what you have trained yourself to do, and you will thereby stay within the law without having to think about it.


----------



## Paul_D (Jun 2, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> You are just as familiar with Geoff Thompson as I am. Recall that he would always refer to the Law as _"The Second Enemy"_. There's a reason who said this.


True, however, he refers to it as such because people do not think this far ahead and do not prepare for giving their statement to the police.   

As such they are often convicted, as he says, _not on whet they did, _but on what they said in their statement which was given the immediate aftermath.  Therefore they can have acted legally, but come u stuck when giving their statement.  Which infact reinforces the point that you need to structure your training within the law (which includes knowing what key words and phrases to include in a statement).  Your opinion that you would rather not learn about the law and you will just deal with the incident (and the aftermath as and when it happens ) means you are more likely to trip yourself me up giving your statement even if your actions were within the law.

You can ignore the law and deal and worry about the legal side if and when it happens and hope you come out of it ok.  But you dont need to, you don't need to expose yourself to the possibility of legal consequences as you can defend yourself and your loved ones and stay within the law.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jun 2, 2017)

I'm not going to say there's a right way or wrong way to look at this. I'll just say there's the way I see it based on my own observations, reflections and experiences and the way others see it for the same reasons. I'll just have to leave it at that.

If forced to do so I'll do whatever is necessary to protect myself and/or my loved ones against the brain shy who wish to infringe upon my rights.

I'll see my way out of this thread by stating one final time *MY LIFE HAS VALUE! MY LIFE IS NOT OF LESSER VALUE THAN THOSE WHO THINK/SAY OTHERWISE!*

There's a bigger picture I've been looking at all along.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 2, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> I live in the state of Pennsylvania. Feel free to look them up if you want.



Pennsylvania Title 18 Section 505 - *Use of force in self-protection*

Section 505 - Title 18 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES


So basically:

_*a)  Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--*The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion._
_
Furthermore,

You have a duty to retreat unless you are :  

An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, who is not in illegal possession of a firearm and who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a duty to retreat under paragraph (2)(ii) has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force, if:

(i)  the actor has a right to be in the place where he was attacked;

(ii)  the actor believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat; and

(iii)  the person against whom the force is used displays or otherwise uses:

(A)  a firearm or replica of a firearm as defined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 (relating to sentences for offenses committed with firearms); or

(B)  any other weapon readily or apparently capable of lethal use.
_


Laws seem reasonable to me.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 2, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> As I already stated, dictating what is reasonable force and what a person can and cannot use as a weapon for defending himself



I'm not seeing where this is a problem.  Do you have a link?


----------



## Brownielox (Jun 2, 2017)

I don't usually throw in my 2 cents, but I feel like I have to because a few years ago this was a HUGE deal that affected loved ones...

Yes, in my state we have the "stand your ground" law. A few years back while I was still home, someone (without giving away any of my personal details) really hurt someone and justified it using the law. There was a huge debate about whether or not that person was in the right/wrong to use that law.

So....with that perspective in mind, my opinion is: if someone is trying to seriously hurt me, I'd use anything in my power -- my legs, feet, arms, anything -- to defend myself. I'd worry about the consequences later. Call me arrogant, but I stand by my choice.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 3, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> In the USA the law says you're allowed to defend yourself. It doesn't matter where you are in the country in the USA you have the right by law to defend yourself if you're attacked. Now that doesn't mean you can continue to beat on an attacker once you've stopped them. When it comes to self defense you're intent should be to stop the attacker. You're intent should not be to kill, it should not be to injure, it should be to stop. Once you've stopped your attacker you've fulfilled your intent so there is no reason to keep using force at that point and thus it would not validate self defense. But up until you've stopped your attacker you can fight back as that would be self defense.
> 
> There are many members on this forum who don't live in the USA and I don't know how it is regarding the legality of self defense in other countries but that's how it is in the USA.


Overly broad statement.   There are too many loopholes and specific rules to go with that statement.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jun 3, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Pennsylvania Title 18 Section 505 - *Use of force in self-protection*
> 
> Section 505 - Title 18 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
> 
> ...





CB Jones said:


> I'm not seeing where this is a problem.  Do you have a link?



OMG!! This is ridiculous. I don't even know where to begin with this.

I informed you that you need to look at the _overall bigger picture._ You mistakenly looked up 18:505 In Isolation and did not look up (and bring into play and context) 18:907, 908, 908.1, Chapters 25 and 27. When you have to engage in a physical altercation you then have to deal with CRIMINAL LAW and risk facing CRIMINAL CHARGES for the actions you were forced to take. There is absolutely _NO WAY_ you can isolate 18:505 because then that section is grossly taken out of context and plus they *do not* stand on their own anyway. Chapter 5 always stands side by side with Chapters 25 and 27, 18:907, 908, 908.1. Lie to yourself if you want to but I know better.

It is through 907, 908, 908.1, 25 and 27 that the unfairness of our so called_ Justice System_ shows itself and it is 25 and 27 that _INFORM US PENNSYLVANIA_ residents what is considered justifiable force (in their eyes) and what can and cannot be used as a weapon (in their eyes). And YES, to me this is highly unreasonable. If you disagree then feel free to act within _"their definition of reasonable/justifiable"_ when you have to defend your life or the life of a loved one.

EVEN IF I was to isolate 18:505 on it's own (as you have) I still insist it is unreasonable because all altercations do not play out in the simplistic manner that is written in that section. Every Altercation will have it's own set of circumstances and those circumstances are examined in The Court of Law and it is there that the actions of citizens will be judged by others to be appropriate or not. That is, if his actions were _*criminal*_ or not.

An example of what I mean is that the beginning of 18:505 states "_The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person"
_
The two problems that I have with this are a) THEY determine what THEY consider justifiable force (even though they weren't there and don't know the full circumstances of the situation) and b) If THEY determine  the force you used was not justified then you are looking at possibly assault or homicide charges. So 18:505 says I can defend myself. But if I feel that my life is in danger and I preempt a guy then they'll say forget about 18:505 let's throw Chapter 25 or 27 at him.

If you cannot see this then I really don't know what to tell you. Nothing I say here will make you see it which is fine by me. And I see absolutely no point in going back and forth with you on it since you see it the way you do and I see it the way that I do. If you're in a situation where you have to defend your life and/or the life of loved ones be my guest in keeping _"the law"_ in mind as you do so. As for me, I'll just repeat what @Brownielox said:

"_if someone is trying to seriously hurt me, I'd use anything in my power -- my legs, feet, arms, anything -- to defend myself. I'd worry about the consequences later. Call me arrogant, but I stand by my choice._"

I'm done and I'm out.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jun 3, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> Overly broad statement.   There are too many loopholes and specific rules to go with that statement.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk



I like the wording you chose. This is what I should have said to CB Jones concerning 18:505:

*There are too many loopholes and specific rules to go with that statement* (or rather section).

Each altercation is different and has it's own set of circumstances. There's NO WAY these people can broadly stroke _every situation_ with one brush. This is where the _truth_ of their _Justice System_ shows itself and this is how they punish many good people and basically reward bad guys due to the loopholes of their justice system and how THEY furnish the definitions of use of force and legal weapons, etc. 

I'm actually at a loss for words at how people can't see this. Or maybe it's the whole _Ostrich's head in the sand_ thing. IDK. We're letting other people tell us whether or not we can defend ourselves and our loved ones and if so what we can and cannot do in order to do so and what we can and cannot use as a weapon in order to do so. I'm truly baffled by this.


----------



## jobo (Jun 3, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> I like the wording you chose. This is what I should have said to CB Jones concerning 18:505:
> 
> *There are too many loopholes and specific rules to go with that statement* (or rather section).
> 
> ...


well no we are not, you can defend yourself, but you might be punished later, that's not the same as saying you can't defend yourself. No one is going to stand there and get beaten up because it  might be illegal to use force to stop it.

there has to be some principals as to what is self defence and how much force can be used, otherwise it would just be a free for all


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 3, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> OMG!! This is ridiculous. I don't even know where to begin with this.
> 
> I informed you that you need to look at the _overall bigger picture._ You mistakenly looked up 18:505 In Isolation and did not look up (and bring into play and context) 18:907, 908, 908.1, Chapters 25 and 27. When you have to engage in a physical altercation you then have to deal with CRIMINAL LAW and risk facing CRIMINAL CHARGES for the actions you were forced to take. There is absolutely _NO WAY_ you can isolate 18:505 because then that section is grossly taken out of context and plus they *do not* stand on their own anyway. Chapter 5 always stands side by side with Chapters 25 and 27, 18:907, 908, 908.1. Lie to yourself if you want to but I know better.
> 
> ...


 
Then why didn't you point that out in the first place


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 3, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> I informed you that you need to look at the _overall bigger picture._ You mistakenly looked up 18:505 In Isolation and did not look up (and bring into play and context) 18:907, 908, 908.1, Chapters 25 and 27. When you have to engage in a physical altercation you then have to deal with CRIMINAL LAW and risk facing CRIMINAL CHARGES for the actions you were forced to take. There is absolutely _NO WAY_ you can isolate 18:505 because then that section is grossly taken out of context and plus they *do not* stand on their own anyway. Chapter 5 always stands side by side with Chapters 25 and 27, 18:907, 908, 908.1. Lie to yourself if you want to but I know better.



1st off, Chapter 5 protects you from Chapter 25 and 27.  If it is ruled justified under Chapter 5 you cannot be found guilty of Chapter 25 (Homicide Statute) or Chapter 27 (Assault Statute).

2nd 18:907, 908, and 908.1 are statutes that deal with the use of certain instruments in the commission of a crime.  Again, if you are ruled to to be justified under Chapter 5, you cannot be found guilty of 907, 908, and/or 908.1.



Psilent Knight said:


> It is through 907, 908, 908.1, 25 and 27 that the unfairness of our so called_ Justice System_ shows itself and it is 25 and 27 that _INFORM US PENNSYLVANIA_ residents what is considered justifiable force (in their eyes) and what can and cannot be used as a weapon (in their eyes). And YES, to me this is highly unreasonable. If you disagree then feel free to act within _"their definition of reasonable/justifiable"_ when you have to defend your life or the life of a loved one.



Incorrect, 907, 908, 908.1, 25 and 27 only come into effect if it is ruled unjustified under Chapter 5........they do not supercede Chapter 5.



Psilent Knight said:


> An example of what I mean is that the beginning of 18:505 states "_The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person"
> _
> The two problems that I have with this are a) THEY determine what THEY consider justifiable force (even though they weren't there and don't know the full circumstances of the situation) and b) If THEY determine the force you used was not justified then you are looking at possibly assault or homicide charges. So 18:505 says I can defend myself. But if I feel that my life is in danger and I preempt a guy then they'll say forget about 18:505 let's throw Chapter 25 or 27 at him.



No....Chapter 5 is what you claim as your defense against Chapter 25 or 27.  If you are ruled to be justified under Chapter 5 you cannot be found guilty of 25 or 27.

And THEY are a jury of your peers.  That is how our system works.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 3, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Does SYG only apply to certain situations though? Suchas if you are in your home defending yourself against an intruder.  Or does it literally apply anehete you have a lawful right to be, such as a street?


Generally speaking, that would be "castle doctrine" (often also applied to a place of work). "Stand your ground" is the same principle, applied outside the home/place of work.


Psilent Knight said:


> I side with Headhunter on this one. I've reached a point where I now say to hell with those laws and the scoundrels who make them.
> 
> You guys really need to remind yourselves that the value of your lives and the lives of your loved ones should not be determined by laws made by people who do not live among the common citizens, who travel with bodyguards and live in million dollar gated communities.


The issue isn't the value of your life or those of your loved ones. It's more a matter of knowing how to appropriately provide that self-defense justification (often just what's different after the fact) with the best chance of using the affirmative defense successfully. In other words, in many cases (not all, and it's worth knowing what those are in your jurisdiction), all you'd change is what you do once the cops show up.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 5, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> No, I mean politically motivated prosecutors cherry picking the charges they bring


That's what I said.


----------



## thanson02 (Jun 11, 2017)

Personally, I find the dichotomy between "following the law" and "must do everything to save my family" to be false.  It is the whole, "I would rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6" mentality.  It sounds cool and makes people feel tough, but whether you end up in jail or end up seriously hurt or dying, you are causing harm to your family.  In the end it is a judgment call on what you value and following through with it, accepting the consequences of your actions.  Now as for the OP question, Here are the Wisconsin laws on self-defense:

*Wisconsin State Law:
939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.*
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m) 
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
939.48(6)(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
History: 1987 a. 399; 1993 a. 486; 2005 a. 253; 2011 a. 94.
Judicial Council Note, 1988: Sub. (3) is amended by conforming references to the statute titles as affected by this bill. [Bill 191-S]
When a defendant testified that he did not intend to shoot or use force, he could not claim self-defense. Cleghorn v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 466, 198 N.W.2d 577 (1972).
Sub. (2) (b) is inapplicable to a defendant if the nature of the initial provocation is a gun-in-hand confrontation of an intended victim by a self-identified robber. Under these circumstances the intended victim is justified in the use of force in the exercise of the right of self-defense. Ruff v. State, 65 Wis. 2d 713, 223 N.W.2d 446 (1974).
Whether a defendant's belief was reasonable under subs. (1) and (4) depends, in part, upon the parties' personal characteristics and histories and whether events were continuous. State v. Jones, 147 Wis. 2d 806, 434 N.W.2d 380 (1989).
Evidence of prior specific instances of violence that were known to the accused may be presented to support a defense of self-defense. The evidence is not limited to the accused's own testimony, but the evidence may not be extended to the point that it is being offered to prove that the victim acted in conformity with his or her violent tendencies. State v. Daniels, 160 Wis. 2d 85, 465 N.W.2d 633 (1991).
Imperfect self-defense contains an initial threshold element requiring a reasonable belief that the defendant was terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person. State v. Camacho, 176 Wis. 2d 860, 501 N.W.2d 380 (1993).
The reasonableness of a person's belief under sub. (1) is judged from the position of a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence in the same situation as the defendant, not a person identical to the defendant placed in the same situation as the defendant. A defendant's psycho-social history showing past violence toward the defendant is generally not relevant to this objective standard, although it may be relevant, as in spousal abuse cases, where the actors are the homicide victim and defendant. State v. Hampton, 207 Wis. 2d 369, 558 N.W.2d 884 (Ct. App. 1996).
The right to resist unlawful arrest is not part of the statutory right to self-defense. It is a common law privilege that is abrogated. State v. Hobson, 218 Wis. 2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825 (1998), 96-0914.
While there is no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available goes to whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent an interference with his or her person. A jury instruction to that effect was proper. State v. Wenger, 225 Wis. 2d 495, 593 N.W.2d 467 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1739.
When a defendant fails to establish a factual basis to raise self-defense, prior specific acts of violence by the victim have no probative value. The presentation of subjective testimony by an accused, going to a belief that taking steps in self-defense was necessary, is not sufficient for the admission of self-defense evidence. State v. Head, 2000 WI App 275, 240 Wis. 2d 162, 622 N.W.2d 9, 99-3071.
Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under sub. (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064.
A defendant asserting perfect self-defense against a charge of 1st-degree murder must meet an objective threshold showing that he or she reasonably believed that he or she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person and that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. A defendant asserting the defense of unnecessary defensive force s. 940.01 (2) (b) to a charge of 1st-degree murder is not required to satisfy the objective threshold showing. State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, 99-3071.
When a defendant successfully makes self-defense an issue, the jury must be instructed as to the state's burden of proof regarding the nature of the crime, even if the defense is a negative defense. Wisconsin JI-Criminal 801 informs the jury that it “should consider the evidence relating to self-defense in deciding whether the defendant's conduct created an unreasonable risk to another. If the defendant was acting lawfully in self-defense, [his] conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another." This instruction implies that the defendant must satisfy the jury that the defendant was acting in self-defense and removes the burden of proof from the state to show that the defendant was engaged in criminally reckless conduct. State v. Austin, 2013 WI App 96, 349 Wis. 2d 744, 836 N.W.2d 833, 12-0011.
When the circuit court instructed the jury to “consider the evidence relating to ... defense of others, in deciding whether defendant's conduct created an unreasonable risk.... If the defendant was acting lawfully in defense of others, his conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another," the instruction on the state's burden of proof on defendant's defense of others defense was wholly omitted and the instructions were erroneous. State v. Austin, 2013 WI App 96, 349 Wis. 2d 744, 836 N.W.2d 833, 12-0011.
Sub. (1m) does not justify continued use of deadly force against an intruder when that intruder is no longer in the actor's dwelling. The applicable definition of the actor's dwelling, s. 895.07 (1) (h), requires that the part of the lot or site in question be “devoted to residential use." While s. 895.07 (1) (h) lists several parts of a residential lot that are part of a “dwelling," it does not include a parking lot. The common denominator of the listed parts of dwellings is that all are property over which the actor has exclusive control. An apartment building parking lot is not exclusive to one tenant or devoted to the residential use of any one tenant. State v. Chew, 2014 WI App 116, 358 Wis. 2d 368, 856 N.W.2d 541, 13-2592.
A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a 3rd-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F. 2d 79 (1975).
Self-defense — prior acts of the victim. 1974 WLR 266.
State v. Camacho: The Judicial Creation of an Objective Element to Wisconsin's Law of Imperfect Self-defense Homicide. Leiser. 1995 WLR 742.
Home Safe Home: Wisconsin's Castle Doctrine and Trespasser Liability Laws. Hinkston. Wis. Law. July 2013.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

The general rule of thumb is that you can go one step above what is coming at you to end the situation.  Also, it is based on a preceded threat.  If you believe that your life is in danger and you act accordingly, it qualifies as self-defense.  If you see a knife or a gun, you are expected to be in danger of your life and you are expected to act accordingly.  Also, if you are actively working to deescalate the situation while you are defending yourself in the above matter, it improves your situation.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 11, 2017)

thanson02 said:


> Personally, I find the dichotomy between "following the law" and "must do everything to save my family" to be false. It is the whole, "I would rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6" mentality



The thing is.....no where in the US can you not defend yourself or family if you have no other choice.  What everyone needs to know is if they can legally stand their ground or are they required to retreat.......thats the difference.


----------



## thanson02 (Jun 11, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> The thing is.....no where in the US can you not defend yourself or family if you have no other choice.  What everyone needs to know is if they can legally stand their ground or are they required to retreat.......thats the difference.



Well yea, that is why it is a false dichotomy.  If you understand this point, then it isn't an issue.  My problem is the stories that people come up with around these things to make them sound like something they are not.  I have just as much issue with the "we have to follow the laws and not do anything or we will get in trouble" mentality in this situation as "screw the laws, my families lives are in danger from the horrible monster!!!".  If you understand the law and how it works, you know that there is no issue and you can do what you need to to protect yourself and your family.

If I wasn't clear on this, thank you for the opportunity to make it so.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 27, 2017)

Brownielox said:


> So....with that perspective in mind, my opinion is: if someone is trying to seriously hurt me, I'd use anything in my power -- my legs, feet, arms, anything -- to defend myself. I'd worry about the consequences later. Call me arrogant, but I stand by my choice.



Good for you. You're not arrogant for refusing to be a victim. If your attacker gets hurt they brought it upon themselves by being a bully and an assailant.


----------



## Reedone816 (Jul 1, 2017)

The first post actually said it all, the first thing is to pacify, that is legal.
Now if you put excessive amount of force, that is the difference among countries/states.
In mine, if you kill the person to pacify, it might be legal. But if you already pacify the person then do excessive force, it might've crossed the line.
I say might because there was some trials that defy those i mentioned above, like a junior high kid was thrown to jail for killing his father whom just killed his father (kid's grandfather). 

Sent from my Lenovo A7010a48 using Tapatalk


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 4, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Good for you. You're not arrogant for *refusing to be a victim*. If your attacker gets hurt they brought it upon themselves by being a bully and an assailant.



I completely agree. It's very sad that so many people are under the _victim spell_ of _obeying the law. _


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 4, 2017)

The problem is that you can be charged with using excessive force even if its used in self defense. If you've stopped an attacker and you continue to beat on them at that point it is no longer self defense. The objective of self defense is to stop an attacker so once you've stopped them there is no reason to keep using force against them. However, up until you stop them in my opinion you should not get in trouble for using excessive force.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 4, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> The problem is that you can be charged with using excessive force even if its used in self defense. If you've stopped an attacker and you continue to beat on them at that point it is no longer self defense. The objective of self defense is to stop an attacker so once you've stopped them there is no reason to keep using force against them. However, up until you stop them in my opinion you should not get in trouble for using excessive force.



I agree with you. I just hate the thought of D.A.s turning reasonable force into excessive force and telling us common citizens what we can and cannot do to keep thugs and sociopaths from harming us and our families.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 5, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> I agree with you. I just hate the thought of D.A.s turning reasonable force into excessive force and telling us common citizens what we can and cannot do to keep thugs and sociopaths from harming us and our families.



No doubt the D.A.s that do that are all snowflake liberals. Too many of them in the USA.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 5, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> The problem is that you can be charged with using excessive force even if its used in self defense. If you've stopped an attacker and you continue to beat on them at that point it is no longer self defense. The objective of self defense is to stop an attacker so once you've stopped them there is no reason to keep using force against them. However, up until you stop them in my opinion you should not get in trouble for using excessive force.


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


----------



## Reedone816 (Jul 6, 2017)

I think what photonguy means is that one window of time when we try to stop the person while the person still a threat.
Like when a buglar is shot to the death the first time, it is self defense.
If we shot the buglar after we tied one up that is murder.

Sent from my Lenovo A7010a48 using Tapatalk


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 6, 2017)

Reedone816 said:


> when a buglar is shot to the death the first time, it is self defense.



This is a great example of what I'm talking about. If I shoot a burglar/home invader in my house I am shooting to protect my family not necessarily to end his life. But if I do end his life I agree with you that it is self defense. BUT........it is all too often up to the police, courts and jury of your peers to determine that and to me this is just plain WRONG!  If the creep had never burglarized my house in the first place the situation would have never come about in which I had to shoot him and possibly kill him. PERIOD!!

Now I know there are people here who are caught up in the mere letter of the law and who keep telling themselves that we live in America and the self defense laws here are fair and just and the law abiding citizen who was justified in taking another person's life can never be charged for excessive force blah, blah, blah. But those are the people who stick their heads in the sand and somehow seem to not notice the cases where the law abiding citizen who was (unfortunately) justified in taking another person's life end up in court anyway. I'm not looking at what the law says I'm looking at what the law actually does. And I'm also looking at the fact that these laws are an indirect way of informing us of how valuable our lives are (to them that is). *Someone else* telling you whether or not you can defend yourself and/or your family under certain circumstances and what you _can_ and _cannot_ do in order to defend yourself and/or your family under such circumstances is nothing less than these people informing you of the value *they place* on your life.

Being *BORN* and *RAISED* under such *system* (where this idea is constantly drilled into your head from childhood to adulthood) makes it near impossible for most people to _seriously ponder_ on the _logic_ and _legitimacy_ of this.


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 6, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> BUT........it is all too often up to the police, courts and jury of your peers to determine that and to me this is just plain WRONG!



Who should make the determination if it was justified then?

The Self Defense Fairy?

You think that you should be able to make you own ruling on whether or not you were justified?


----------



## jobo (Jul 6, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> This is a great example of what I'm talking about. If I shoot a burglar/home invader in my house I am shooting to protect my family not necessarily to end his life. But if I do end his life I agree with you that it is self defense. BUT........it is all too often up to the police, courts and jury of your peers to determine that and to me this is just plain WRONG!  If the creep had never burglarized my house in the first place the situation would have never come about in which I had to shoot him and possibly kill him. PERIOD!!
> 
> Now I know there are people here who are caught up in the mere letter of the law and who keep telling themselves that we live in America and the self defense laws here are fair and just and the law abiding citizen who was justified in taking another person's life can never be charged for excessive force blah, blah, blah. But those are the people who stick their heads in the sand and somehow seem to not notice the cases where the law abiding citizen who was (unfortunately) justified in taking another person's life end up in court anyway. I'm not looking at what the law says I'm looking at what the law actually does. And I'm also looking at the fact that these laws are an indirect way of informing us of how valuable our lives are (to them that is). *Someone else* telling you whether or not you can defend yourself and/or your family under certain circumstances and what you _can_ and _cannot_ do in order to defend yourself and/or your family under such circumstances is nothing less than these people informing you of the value *they place* on your life.
> 
> Being *BORN* and *RAISED* under such *system* (where this idea is constantly drilled into your head from childhood to adulthood) makes it near impossible for most people to _seriously ponder_ on the _logic_ and _legitimacy_ of this.


if we take your post,at face value, it would seem to indicate. That breaking into a house carries the,death penalty, in that you are entitled to just shoot them regardless of the,actual risk they pose to you of your ,family. That can't be,seen as a fair view.


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> if we take your post,at face value, it would seem to indicate. That breaking into a house carries the,death penalty, in that you are entitled to just shoot them regardless of the,actual risk they pose to you of your ,family. That can't be,seen as a fair view.



In the US in most states, people can use lethal force against intruders if you believe you or your family is in danger.


----------



## jobo (Jul 6, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> In the US in most states, people can use lethal force against intruders if you believe you or your family is in danger.


well yes, here in the uk as well. But the guys point,seemed to be that he,should be,entitled to shoot them, just for being there, regardless of the threat


----------



## Reedone816 (Jul 6, 2017)

Cory Richard Eric Van Gilder, is a good example of grey area of self defense.
Last year he one punched ko a drunk, the drunk fall and his head hit the concrete, dead.
He just received not guilty verdict from juries.


Sent from my Lenovo A7010a48 using Tapatalk


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 6, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> You think that you should be able to make you own ruling on whether or not you were justified?



You bet I do. It's *MY* life, isn't it? It's the lives of *MY* family, isn't it? It's *MY* home, isn't it? You can keep the self defense fairy for yourself as I have no need for it.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 6, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> This is a great example of what I'm talking about. If I shoot a burglar/home invader in my house I am shooting to protect my family not necessarily to end his life. But if I do end his life I agree with you that it is self defense. BUT........it is all too often up to the police, courts and jury of your peers to determine that and to me this is just plain WRONG!  If the creep had never burglarized my house in the first place the situation would have never come about in which I had to shoot him and possibly kill him. PERIOD!!
> 
> Now I know there are people here who are caught up in the mere letter of the law and who keep telling themselves that we live in America and the self defense laws here are fair and just and the law abiding citizen who was justified in taking another person's life can never be charged for excessive force blah, blah, blah. But those are the people who stick their heads in the sand and somehow seem to not notice the cases where the law abiding citizen who was (unfortunately) justified in taking another person's life end up in court anyway. I'm not looking at what the law says I'm looking at what the law actually does. And I'm also looking at the fact that these laws are an indirect way of informing us of how valuable our lives are (to them that is). *Someone else* telling you whether or not you can defend yourself and/or your family under certain circumstances and what you _can_ and _cannot_ do in order to defend yourself and/or your family under such circumstances is nothing less than these people informing you of the value *they place* on your life.
> 
> Being *BORN* and *RAISED* under such *system* (where this idea is constantly drilled into your head from childhood to adulthood) makes it near impossible for most people to _seriously ponder_ on the _logic_ and _legitimacy_ of this.



Someone else is telling you that it is wrong to hurt other people. The fact that you have chosen to hurt someone who was attacking or otherwise placing you in danger is justification for you to do something that would ordinarily be illegal. It's very possible for even a clean self-defense situation to lead to an arrest and even trial. If your use of force was reasonable and justifiable under the law then you may find your criminal act excused. That's what it means to live under a system of law, rather than chaos and anarchy. You don't get to do whatever you want to somebody who dare to try to hurt you. The moment they ceased to be a threat to you or another person, your justification to harm them went away.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> if we take your post,at face value, it would seem to indicate. That breaking into a house carries the,death penalty, in that you are entitled to just shoot them regardless of the,actual risk they pose to you of your ,family. That can't be,seen as a fair view.



You should read my post again and this time focus on what I actually said instead of concocting your own interpretations of what I said. If I said it, I said it. If I didn't say, then I didn't say it. Two key things that I said in my post were:

1). I specifically said that if my house is burglarized by an uninvited stranger(s) I will be shooting to protect my family and myself and _not specifically shooting to kill_. BUT if I do so happen to kill him/them it's self defense because he/they broke into my house and I have a family to protect.

2). If he/they had *NEVER* broke into my house to begin with he/they would have *NEVER* been shot by me. END OF STORY!!!!!

Have you guys already forgotten about the two scum in Wisconsin who had burglarized a house and decided to also RAPE the mother and daughter and then killed them by SETTING THEM ON FIRE?!! If my home is burglarized I will shoot to protect my family and end the threat. If killing them is the way to do that then that's what has to go down. Revisit point #2 above.


----------



## jobo (Jul 6, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> You should read my post again and this time focus on what I actually said instead of concocting your own interpretations of what I said. If I said it, I said it. If I didn't say, then I didn't say it. Two key things that I said in my post were:
> 
> 1). I specifically said that if my house is burglarized by an uninvited stranger(s) I will be shooting to protect my family and myself and _not specifically shooting to kill_. BUT if I do so happen to kill him/them it's self defense because he/they broke into my house and I have a family to protect.
> 
> ...


your just repeating what you said you didn't say in a,different way.
if you shoot someone who breaks into your house when they don't,actually pose a threat that's murder or attempted murder.
you might cover that up by saying you believed a threat was there, but in your heart you will know what you are


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 6, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> Someone else is telling you that it is wrong to hurt other people.



I'm not arguing against that at all. Of course it's wrong to _unjustifiably_ hurt other people for absolutely _no reason at all_.



jks9199 said:


> The fact that you have chosen to hurt someone who was *attacking* or otherwise *placing you in danger* is justification for you to do something that would *ordinarily be illegal*.



Good. I'm in agreement with this.



jks9199 said:


> It's very possible for even a clean self-defense situation to lead to an arrest and even trial.



TRUE! Unfair, but TRUE!!



jks9199 said:


> If your use of force was reasonable and justifiable *under the law* then you may find *your criminal act* excused.



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.



jks9199 said:


> That's what it means to live under a system of law, rather than chaos and anarchy.



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.



jks9199 said:


> You don't get to do whatever you want to somebody who dare to try to hurt you.



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.



jks9199 said:


> The moment they* ceased to be a threat* to you or another person, your justification to harm them went away.



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.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> your just repeating what you said you didn't say in a,different way.



EXACTLY! So I'll repeat something else for you: 

*If I said, then I said it. And If I didn't say it, then I did not say it*. 

So from now on if you respond to my posts please respond to *my posts* instead of an *incorrect interpretation* of my posts.



jobo said:


> if you shoot someone who breaks into your house when they don't,actually pose a threat that's murder or attempted murder.



Only in your mind and those who think like you. The second he broke into my house he immediately became a threat. That's the mindset you must have in order to avoid more than simple burglary. Home invaders these days are KILLING the occupants of the house ON SIGHT. Long gone are the days of people sneaking into a window, stealing a few things and move along. Burglary is yesterday, HOME INVASIONS are today and they are two completely different animals. People routinely get badly hurt or DIE during home invasions. 



jobo said:


> you might cover that up by saying you believed a threat was there, but in your heart you will know what you are



No need to cover up anything. I will just tell the truth. I didn't BELIEVE, I KNEW a threat was there. And I do know what I am, a person who defended his family as I'm supposed to do.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 6, 2017)

I am just now noticing this post:



jobo said:


> 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 (Jul 6, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> 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 (Jul 7, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> ...
> 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.*
> ...



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 (Jul 7, 2017)

@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.



oftheherd1 said:


> 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.



oftheherd1 said:


> 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.



oftheherd1 said:


> 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.




oftheherd1 said:


> 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.



oftheherd1 said:


> 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 (Jul 7, 2017)

@ 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 (Jul 7, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> @ 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.



oftheherd1 said:


> 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.



oftheherd1 said:


> 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.



oftheherd1 said:


> 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.



oftheherd1 said:


> 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.



oftheherd1 said:


> Living within fair and just laws is proper.



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



oftheherd1 said:


> 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.



oftheherd1 said:


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



Agreed.



oftheherd1 said:


> 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.



oftheherd1 said:


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



Nope. Read the above response to your quote.



oftheherd1 said:


> 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.



oftheherd1 said:


> 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.



oftheherd1 said:


> 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.



oftheherd1 said:


> 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.



oftheherd1 said:


> 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.



oftheherd1 said:


> 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 (Jul 7, 2017)

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 (Jul 7, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Jul 7, 2017)

@ 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 (Jul 7, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> @ 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.



oftheherd1 said:


> 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.



oftheherd1 said:


> Have a good day.



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


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 7, 2017)

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 (Jul 7, 2017)

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 (Jul 9, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> 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 (Jul 9, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> 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 (Jul 9, 2017)

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 (Jul 17, 2017)

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 (Jul 17, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> 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 (Jul 17, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> 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 (Jul 17, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> 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 (Jul 17, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> 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


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 17, 2017)

It's amazing that  some people like '_the clown_' show a serious lack of intelligence in their posts but still have the busiest keyboard fingers. At least he's honest enough to choose an avatar that's appropriate.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 17, 2017)

It takes almost zero effort to post cheap shots  in an internet forum and for a person to _only do so_ without giving a rebuttal to the argument of the person whom they're trying to attack says a whole lot about them. That's what childish and unintelligent people do when they're unable to logically argue their case.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 17, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> 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.


You're getting no response because there's no point. 

You don't like how the laws work, fine.  Work to change them.  Accept the consequences if you choose to disregard them.  You're complaining and talking about how "it should be."  Great.  Guess what?  How it "should be" isn't how it is.  Until you get that, there's no point repeating myself; you're so caught in your point of view that you're not actually getting what I'm saying.

There are laws against doing harm to someone, no matter what.  If you are attacked, you may well hurt someone defending yourself.  If you do, your actions will be judged by the standards of the law, both black letter and precedent.  If your actions are determined to be reasonable and appropriate by the relevant standards, you may not be charged.  If you are charged, one of your options is the affirmative claim of self defense. An affirmative defense means you admit you violated the letter of the law, but that you had justification that should excuse from the consequences.  A judge or jury will decide if your claim stands up or not... but it starts with your admission that you did do the crime.

Meanwhile, separately, there are tort claims.  See, we as a society have decided that if people can't peaceably settle their differences on their own, they should do so in a courtroom.  We tally the score in civil court in dollars, usually.  Many crimes have parallel torts; murder is parallel to wrongful death, assault is both crime and tort.  You may be found not criminally culpable, but still found to be liable for damages in civil court because the standards of proof are different...


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 18, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> You're getting no response because there's no point.



Maybe so. I quite often feel the same way. But I don't get the least bit upset because other people disagree with me. If I feel that there's truly no point I "_agree to disagree_" and leave it alone. I don't feel the need to take unprovoked jabs at people because they have viewpoints/opinions that are different from mine (mind you I'm not accusing you of doing this).



jks9199 said:


> You don't like how the laws work, fine.  Work to change them.  Accept the consequences if you choose to disregard them.



Well we've already covered this point earlier in the thread. I see no need to beat that particular dead horse.



jks9199 said:


> You're complaining and talking about how "it should be."  Great.  Guess what?  How it "should be" isn't how it is.  Until you get that, there's no point repeating myself; you're so caught in your point of view that you're not actually getting what I'm saying.



First of all, you have once again [indirectly] acknowledged the validity of my view on this issue by admitting that how things "should be" isn't how THEY ARE. Second of all, I DO get that. I just don't like it and do not accept it for myself. Third of all, I get what you're saying loud and clear. Your position was never missed on me. However, it is painfully obvious to me that YOU and a few others are essentially incapable of getting what I'm saying. I know that you're not getting it and I know why you're not getting it.



jks9199 said:


> There are laws against doing harm to someone, no matter what.  If you are attacked, you may well hurt someone defending yourself.  If you do, *your actions will be judged by the standards of the law,* both black letter and precedent.



This is a perfect example of you demonstrating that you are the one who doesn't get it. If you are incapable of seeing the moral illegitimacy of your bold statement in the above quote then it is truly hopeless.

Now think about the following statements you issued. I hope you read it carefully with your blinders off and I hope you reflect on it very carefully.



jks9199 said:


> If *your actions* are *determined* to be reasonable and appropriate by the relevant standards, you may not be charged.  If you are charged, one of your options is the affirmative claim of self defense. An affirmative defense means you admit *you violated* the letter of the law, but that you had justification that should excuse from the consequences.  A *judge or jury will decide* if your claim stands up or not... *but it starts with your admission that you did do the crime.*



Crime? *Crime? *So you admit that the law puts us between a rock and a hard place and sometimes makes* self protection a crime? *Do you not see the obvious and glaring problem with this? WOW! Just...WOW!

I hope you can briefly and honestly set aside your undying loyalty to "The Law" long enough to objectively reflect upon these last two posts of yours, especially the bold sentences.

What can I say except "WOW"?


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 18, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> 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.



Oh dear, oh dear, I freely admit I'm no big man, not even a man. Your posts are extremely funny in that you are trying to convince the adults you are old enough to come out and play. I'm not in the least macho, quite the opposite and I simply don't see your need to flood this place with your adolescent testosterone.
As for spelling, oh my, when you are perfect do come and tell me how I'm not......


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 18, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> It takes almost zero effort to post cheap shots  in an internet forum and for a person to _only do so_ without giving a rebuttal to the argument of the person whom they're trying to attack says a whole lot about them. That's what childish and unintelligent people do when they're unable to logically argue their case.



You've had sensible and sane answers on here, you don't like them. You don't like people disagreeing with you, we know this because you keep insulting people so tell us again why we should take what you say seriously?


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 18, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> As for spelling, oh my, when you are perfect do come and tell me how I'm not......



I already did by letting you know you can't spell. 



Tez3 said:


> so tell us again why we should take what you say seriously?



So tell me again why I should bother paying attention to a [supposed] adult who can't even spell.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 18, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> I already did by letting you know you can't spell.
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me again why I should bother paying attention to a [supposed] adult who can't even spell.



Oh diddums, don't get your blood pressure up my dear. 'Can't even spell' says the man who wants to kill people. Oh my. If all you have to concern you is one word misspelt then aren't you lucky, if that's the worse you can say about me 'ooo she misspelt one word' ( misspelt is different you know from not being able to spell) then I'm one up already because I'm not the one that sneered at genuine answers from people who care, I'm not the one who feels superior to police officers, I'm not the one who posted insults to these people. Fine, you have an opinion but you know the saying about that don't you.  Why don't you pretend it's your day for adulting.


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> It's amazing that  some people like '_the clown_' show a serious lack of intelligence in their posts but still have the busiest keyboard fingers. At least he's honest enough to choose an avatar that's appropriate.


 that not any old clown, that's a,KILLER clown, I thought you would aprove


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 18, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> I already did by letting you know you can't spell.
> 
> 
> 
> *So tell me again why I should bother paying attention to a [supposed] adult who can't even spell*.



If that is your unbreakable rule for judging adulthood, you will miss meeting and learning from a lot of adults (and apparently already are), and you will unnecessarily face many disappointments in life. 

Coincidently, you will probably be led astray by many juveniles with non-adult ideas, who are nonetheless excellent spellers.  I wish you luck.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 18, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> *Maybe so. I quite often feel the same way. But I don't get the least bit upset because other people disagree with me.* If I feel that there's truly no point I "_agree to disagree_" and leave it alone. *I don't feel the need to take unprovoked jabs at people because they have viewpoints/opinions that are different from mine (mind you I'm not accusing you of doing this).*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, the law also defines under what circumstances something that is defined in one part of the law as a crime, may not be with a given action and the response to it.  All part of the law.  You miss that.

Glad you like the "WOW" word and expression.  Feel free to use it any time as I don't own it.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 18, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> 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.


Oh good grief Charlie Brown.  Still on this crap?    Look, the "silence" isn't "deafening," it's TELLING YOU SOMETHING.  The problem is either that you aren't listening to the message or misunderstanding what the message is.

The "deafening silence" is a message that the posters here are, by and large, tired of your argument on this subject and have moved on to ignoring it.  

The fact that you either can't or won't pick up on this not-so-subtle hint is likely due to you investing too much personal ego into "being right" and have linked your competitive nature and manhood into it subconsciously.  IOW, you've slipped into a Drunken Friday Night Monkey Dance for Male Dominance Ritual.  But no one here wants to play.  You're not going to "one up" the other male monkeys here and none of the females seem to be interested in your peacock tail-spread of Male Dominance ritual.

So let me sum it up for you in 3 bullet points:

Most people here don't care about your argument any more
You're not rising up the social ladder as a dominant monkey
The chicks are digging it

Let it go, dude.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 18, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Oh diddums, don't get your blood pressure up my dear.



LOL. You wish 'my dear'.



Tez3 said:


> 'Can't even spell' says the man who *wants to kill people*.



If you can go back in this thread and find where I ever said that I want to kill people I will not only leave this thread alone I will leave Martial Talk altogether. Come on, you know you can't resist. And let me correct one thing before you even try it. Me saying that I will not be concerned with exercising restraint if my life is on the line is not the same thing as saying I will be deliberately trying to kill someone. I made it clear that I will do whatever it takes to preserve my own life (or that of my loved ones). This is the attitude that we all should have but not everyone here has it. There are some of you here who still insist that we should be concerned about "the law" when we're in life-or-death mode.



Tez3 said:


> Oh my. If all you have to concern you is one word misspelt then aren't you lucky, if that's the worse you can say about me 'ooo she misspelt one word' ( misspelt is different you know from not being able to spell) then I'm one up



Actually, you're not. Most times spelling and grammatical errors showcase either a) the age of a person or b) the intelligence level of a person. I already know which I would choose that applies to you but I'll leave it there for now.



Tez3 said:


> I'm not the one that sneered at genuine answers from people who care, I'm not the one who feels superior to police officers, I'm not the one who posted insults to these people.



Okay first of all, I reiterate my earlier challenge. Go back in this thread and showcase for all to see where, when and how I _"sneered"_ at any genuine responses given by people here and I will leave this thread alone (even if the thread keeps going). I will remove myself from this discussion and will not reinsert myself back into even if this goes for another 100 pages or so.

Secondly, show in any of my posts (for all to see) where I EVER said that I feel superior to police officers or that I feel that they are inferior to me, for that matter. You'll never find it because I never said such a thing.

Third, and most important of all, show, for all to see, where, when and how I posted insults to these people. As far as my last few posts toward you and _"The Killer Clown"_ I only returned was hurled at me first. And I corrected one person's earlier misconception that I was comparing him to common citizens of N. Korea and Saudi Arabia. I always prefer civil discussion but if a person decides to act childish I have a choice to either retaliate or ignore them altogether. Which, my dear, would you rather I do?



Tez3 said:


> Fine, you have an opinion but you know the saying about that don't you.



Yeah, I know. Not only does everybody have one but most of them _"stink"_. 



Tez3 said:


> Why don't you pretend it's your day for adulting.



Because I'm already aware that you're pretending it's your day for adulting. I don't want to step on your toes.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 18, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> Actually, you're not. Most times spelling and grammatical errors showcase either a) the age of a person or b) the intelligence level of a person. I already know which I would choose that applies to you but I'll leave it there for now.


Most times spelling and grammar Nazis don't have a clew.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 18, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> If that is your unbreakable rule for judging adulthood, you will miss meeting and learning from a lot of adults (and apparently already are), and you will unnecessarily face many disappointments in life.



Don't be absurd dude. She's letting off some steam on an internet forum and that was just my way of letting her know that I am not taking her seriously. That's all. I honestly couldn't care less if she was completely illiterate. No concern of mine. Calm down dude. You've read way too much into that and are taking it way too seriously.



oftheherd1 said:


> Coincidently, you will probably be led astray by many juveniles with non-adult ideas, who are nonetheless excellent spellers.  I wish you luck.



Well, it hasn't happened so far. How about you? Sounds to me like you are speaking from experience.



oftheherd1 said:


> Actually, the law also defines under what circumstances something that is defined in one part of the law as a crime, may not be with a given action and the response to it.  All part of the law.  You miss that.



Wrong! I didn't miss that AT ALL. I had pointed this out to CBJones already very early on in this thread. I really don't want to repeat myself. jks9199 said he was tired of repeating himself and I have been doing that quite a bit in this thread and don't want to do it again. But in any case, you are incorrect. I didn't miss that. I already covered this in one of my earlier responses. I'm afraid You missed that.



oftheherd1 said:


> Glad you like the "WOW" word and expression.  Feel free to use it any time as I don't own it.



You focus on the word itself instead of how and why it is used. Not_ adult like_ at all. It makes me wonder if perhaps a certain someone was led astray by many juveniles with non-adult ideas.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 18, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Oh good grief Charlie Brown.  Still on this crap?    Look, the "silence" isn't "deafening," it's TELLING YOU SOMETHING.  The problem is either that you aren't listening to the message or misunderstanding what the message is.
> 
> The "deafening silence" is a message that the posters here are, by and large, tired of your argument on this subject and have moved on to ignoring it.
> 
> The fact that you either can't or won't pick up on this not-so-subtle hint is likely due to you investing too much personal ego into "being right" and have linked your competitive nature and manhood into it subconsciously.  IOW, you've slipped into a Drunken Friday Night Monkey Dance for Male Dominance Ritual.  But no one here wants to play.  You're not going to "one up" the other male monkeys here and none of the females seem to be interested in your peacock tail-spread of Male Dominance ritual.



This entire post is nonsensical. If you think you detect _"ego"_, _"the need to be right"_ or _"male dominance"_ from me you're only projecting how YOU think and what drives you while you post and this very post of yours is a perfect example of that. Hypocrite much? Everything you just tried to accuse me of you did yourself in your very post. Congratulations on showing others what you really are.



lklawson said:


> So let me sum it up for you in 3 bullet points:
> 
> Most people here don't care about your argument any more




Which is fine by me. In spite of what you think or what you want to think I was never trying to win an argument. I gain nothing by doing such thing anyway. Neither was I trying to convince the rest of you that you're necessarily wrong because some of the SD laws I agree with while certain other aspects I disagree with. YOU GUYS are the ones telling me that I'm wrong for disagreeing with those laws. All I ever wanted you guys to do was THINK. Ponder on some of these laws, think really hard about them and ask yourselves "Is This Morally Right?" If you think that it is morally right then fine. Live your lives and react in a SD situation according to your conclusions. I have pondered this a long time ago and I have come to the conclusion that it is not morally right and I will live my life and react in a SD situation according to my conclusions. No big deal. Either way we both face negative consequences because it's as I said before. It is essentially _"Damned if you do, Damned if you don't".
_


lklawson said:


> You're not rising up the social ladder as a dominant monkey




You mean on an internet forum with a bunch of faceless strangers who are not important to me I'm not rising up the social ladder as a dominant monkey? Oh woes is me. What ever am I going to do? I guess I'll try one of the pacifist religious forums. Maybe I'll have more luck there.



lklawson said:


> The chicks are digging it




The chicks ARE digging it? Well alriiiiight!!!! I guess some of my _Drunken Friday Night Monkey Dance for Male Dominance Ritual_ is beginning to pay off after all. I just hope you're not angry because I know this is why you make your _Drunken Friday Night Monkey Dance for Male Dominance Ritual_ posts.



lklawson said:


> Let it go, dude.



Gladly. I'm not one for convincing. Like I already said, you see it the way you do and I see it the way that I do. Unlike most posters here I refuse to willingly participate in the sucker's game and let other people tell me whether or not I have the right to defend myself. And I don't care what you have to say, that's exactly what the SD laws are doing.

I'm glad that I'm free-minded.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 18, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Most times spelling and grammar Nazis don't have a clew.



And 99% of the time people who try to hone in on _"grammar Nazis"_ are even more _"clooless"_


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 18, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> ...
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...






Psilent Knight said:


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



Just curious, now that the two statements are close to each other, and bolded, will you still say you did not equate my way of thinking to that of citizen of North Korea?  If so, you are committing a worse faux paux than incorrect spelling of the occasional word.


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> Don't be absurd dude. She's letting off some steam on an internet forum and that was just my way of letting her know that I am not taking her seriously. That's all. I honestly couldn't care less if she was completely illiterate. No concern of mine. Calm down dude. You've read way too much into that and are taking it way too seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


try a sensible approach and,see if you write back in green ink.
you seem to be trying to make yourself an oppressed minority.
from my perspective, I wouldn't think twice,about taking someone's life if it were me or him, even less if it were my family involved, but, having gone through the legal,system for a far from deadly bit of self defence I did, it not something I would,do except in the most dire of circumstances, even coming out on the other side as not guilty, you gave already changed your life past all recognition abd gone through a mind blowing,amount of,stress and upset.and then there is his family plotting revenge

that's why I find your casual, matter of fact,attitude hard to understand  , I'm not allowed a gun, very few are here, but if I was, for my sake, my families sake,and the other guys sake, id make sure I had no other choice before I pulled that trigger


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 18, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Just curious, now that the two statements are close to each other, and bolded, will you still say you did not equate my way of thinking *to that of citizen of North Korea? * If so, you are committing a worse faux paux than incorrect spelling of the occasional word.



Now that the two statements are close to each other, and bolded my answer is YES I am still saying that I DID NOT equate your thinking *to that of citizens of North Korea*. If you still think so I can only put that on you either not comprehending the obvious differences in the two statements OR you wish to have something to argue about.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 18, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> Now that the two statements are close to each other, and bolded my answer is YES I am still saying that I DID NOT equate your thinking *to that of citizens of North Korea*. If you still think so I can only put that on you either not comprehending the obvious differences in the two statements OR *you wish to have something to argue about.*



Quick, look in the mirror.

Anyway, I am out of this.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> try a sensible approach



I have been trying but my efforts are either misinterpreted or shot down due to some people displaying what looks to be a personal disliking of me. I tried dude.



jobo said:


> you seem to be trying to make yourself an oppressed minority.



May I ask how so?



jobo said:


> from my perspective, I wouldn't think twice,about taking someone's life if it were me or him, even less if it were my family involved,



Okay, we're in agreement here so what are we going back and forth about?



jobo said:


> but, having gone through the legal,system for a far from deadly bit of self defence I did, it not something I would,do except in the most dire of circumstances,



AGAIN, I'm in agreement. So what, exactly, are we arguing about jobo?



jobo said:


> even coming out on the other side as not guilty, you gave already changed your life past all recognition abd gone through a mind blowing,amount of,stress and upset.and then there is his family plotting revenge



Jobo, I realize this and it is very, very sad and unfortunate. But shouldn't we also look at that this situation you just described would not happen if one person or group of people never acted on the decision to invade, burglarize, car jack, ATM rob or rape? Contrary to what Tez said, I don't WANT to kill anybody. I WANT to be left alone and allowed to live my life in peace as I respect all people's right to do so. Now please tell me what, exactly, is wrong with me thinking this way?



jobo said:


> that's why I find your casual, matter of fact,attitude hard to understand  , I'm not allowed a gun, very few are here,



I say this with genuine sincerity; I am sorry if you're not allowed to have one. I don't know the reason why you're not and it's none of my business but I do think that if you are a law abiding citizen and not a law breaker then you should be allowed to own and use a gun to protect yourself and your loved ones if need be. The reason we are even having this conversation is because we all know that there are some people in this world who only understand one language. There are some people in this world who will kill you and not think twice about doing so or show any remorse. And YES, it bothers me that I can find myself in possible legal trouble if I was forced to end the life of such a person in order to preserve my own or that of my loved ones. Now, can you or anyone else here HONESTLY claim that innocent law abiding people don't get hit with double whammies due to "technicalities" within some of these SD laws? I guess this is really the meat and morsel of my views on this. 




jobo said:


> but if I was, for my sake, my families sake,and the other guys sake, id make sure I had no other choice before I pulled that trigger



Once again, AGREED! So what, I ask again, are we going back and forth for?


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 18, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Anyway, I am out of this.



Bye.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 18, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> This entire post is nonsensical. If you think you detect _"ego"_, _"the need to be right"_ or _"male dominance"_ from me you're only projecting how YOU think and what drives you while you post and this very post of yours is a perfect example of that. Hypocrite much? Everything you just tried to accuse me of you did yourself in your very post. Congratulations on showing others what you really are.
> 
> Which is fine by me. In spite of what you think or what you want to think I was never trying to win an argument. I gain nothing by doing such thing anyway. Neither was I trying to convince the rest of you that you're necessarily wrong because some of the SD laws I agree with while certain other aspects I disagree with. YOU GUYS are the ones telling me that I'm wrong for disagreeing with those laws. All I ever wanted you guys to do was THINK. Ponder on some of these laws, think really hard about them and ask yourselves "Is This Morally Right?" If you think that it is morally right then fine. Live your lives and react in a SD situation according to your conclusions. I have pondered this a long time ago and I have come to the conclusion that it is not morally right and I will live my life and react in a SD situation according to my conclusions. No big deal. Either way we both face negative consequences because it's as I said before. It is essentially _"Damned if you do, Damned if you don't".
> _
> ...


And yet you keep posting on the subject.

Prove me wrong.  Let it go.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 18, 2017)

lklawson said:


> And yet you keep posting on the subject.
> 
> Prove me wrong.  Let it go.



Well Jobo made a respectful post to me and I made a respectful reply. Instead of looking for reasons to beat your chest like a silver back you should either calmly read what he and I had to say and learn something or _"Let It Go" _yourself.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 18, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> And 99% of the time people who try to hone in on _"grammar Nazis"_ are even more _"clooless"_


Nope.  I was very deliberate in my spelling.

clew - definition of clew in English | Oxford Dictionaries

Notice #4.

People who set themselves up as spelling Nazis had better darn well know all of the ins and outs, including odd variant spellings which were still in occasional use even up to the late 1960's.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 18, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> Well Jobo made a respectful post to me and I made a respectful reply. Instead of looking for reasons to beat your chest like a silver back you should either calmly read what he and I had to say and learn something or _"Let It Go" _yourself.


Wait a tic... are you now suggesting that *I'M* the one still Monkey Dancing this.  BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 18, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Nope.  I was very deliberate in my spelling.
> 
> clew - definition of clew in English | Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> ...



My post went right past you. Try reading it again wise guy. My post about you being "clooless" had *NOTHING* to do with your spelling. Like I said, try reading it again because it went right past you. Thanks for making my job that much easier and PROVING what I know you to be. Some forum hero you turned out to be.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 18, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Wait a tic... are you now *suggesting* that *I'M* the one still Monkey Dancing this.  BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



I'm not suggesting anything. Now, what you are proving is something altogether different. 

I'll say this as nicely and grade school level as I can; I see you very clearly but you don't see me at all. I'll leave it to you to try to figure that out if you think you can.


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> I have been trying but my efforts are either misinterpreted or shot down due to some people displaying what looks to be a personal disliking of me. I tried dude.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the system has to make sure you had no other,choice, that's its job,the fact someone breaks in doesn't mean you have no choice but to shoot them. If the system find that a lawful home owner did have a,choice, then that lawful home owner is no longer lawful. That's not a double whammy that murder, the fact that wouldn't have happened if they hadn't broke in is besides the point.

if as I suspect you want the law,change so you can,shoot first ask questions later, than that a political point and not one I agree with.

 guns,are generaly illegal in the UK, hand guns always so and rifles closely controlled, they got more difficult to own after a,chap ran wild and,shot,a lot of very young children


----------



## lklawson (Jul 18, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> My post went right past you. Try reading it again wise guy. My post about you being "clooless" had *NOTHING* to do with your spelling. Like I said, try reading it again because it went right past you. Thanks for making my job that much easier and PROVING what I know you to be. Some forum hero you turned out to be.


Seriously.  Stop Monkey Dancing.  I don't give a crap.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 18, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> I'm not suggesting anything. Now, what you are proving is something altogether different.
> 
> I'll say this as nicely and grade school level as I can; I see you very clearly but you don't see me at all. I'll leave it to you to try to figure that out if you think you can.


You hacked into the surveillance camera?


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> the system has to make sure you had no other,choice, that's its job



Alright, here we go. This is what I am saying. The system was not there when I had to defend myself. The system did not see from my attacker what I had seen. The people in the system would do the same thing I had to do but will likely not face the same consequences as me due to their position and status. Do you see what I've been trying to say? The system may have it's job but you and I have ours. Is the system's job more important than ours as protectors of our families?



jobo said:


> the fact someone breaks in doesn't mean you have no choice but to shoot them.



Okay, so what if someone breaks into your house and you make one of those other choices and it proves to be a fatal error in judgement? This is what happens a lot of times and the survivors of tragedies are left with saying that they regret not making the other choice when they could have (and probably _should_ have). Like I said before, I don't want to kill anybody. But I don't want to be killed by anybody either or my loved ones. So what am I supposed to do? The system ofttimes paint the picture as black and white when most times it is not that simple. During the stress and fast paced pressure of a life or death situation you only have milliseconds to make the right choices and save your own life and/or your loved ones lives.



jobo said:


> If the system find that a lawful home owner did have a,choice, then that lawful home owner is no longer lawful.



Even though you are correct in that's how the system operates it is something I've already said that I disagree with and I have given my reasons for disagreeing.



jobo said:


> That's not a double whammy that murder, the fact that wouldn't have happened if they hadn't broke in is besides the point.



I disagree with this as well. It is TOTALLY the point because the situation of lost lives would never have happened had the guy not broken into my home. I don't know where you live, but where I live people are doing home invasions and they come in shooting from the time they enter. They no longer sneak in while you're at work. They violently break in at night while your family is in there and they no longer ask "where's the money"? They are immediately shooting the occupants and will make their own way through the house. 

My attitude towards home invasions and some of these SD laws started to change when I kept up on the plight of the one family in the state of Wisconsin, USA. Two scum bags had broken into a wealthy home, tied up the father, raped his wife and daughter and burned them alive which killed them. It started off as a simply burglary home invasion and it degraded to that. I can't even begin to imagine the mental state of the father/husband who is alive but no longer has a wife and daughter. How different would it have turned out had he been better prepared and willing to do whatever it takes to protect himself and his family?



jobo said:


> if as I suspect you want the law,change so you can,shoot first ask questions later, than that a political point and not one I agree with.



This is tricky because you can NOT shoot first and end of the one who is shot or you can shoot first and find out later that the perp either had a realistic looking toy gun or he had a real gun but it wasn't loaded. let's face it, the fact that we are having this conversation is proof positive that things go terribly wrong in SD situations and it just plain sucks! I would rather that WE ALL live in peace with no hunger and infringing on each other's rights.



jobo said:


> guns,are generaly illegal in the UK, hand guns always so and rifles closely controlled, they got more difficult to own after a,chap ran wild and,shot,a lot of very young children



Oh, so you're in the UK. Understood. I will tell you this much though; for the longest time I have always felt that people in the UK are generally "tougher" than most people in the US because of the no gun laws. I think too many people in the US are soft because of an over reliance on guns and other weapons. But much question to you is are there illegal guns on the streets in the UK? Because we have plenty of those here in the US.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 18, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Seriously.  Stop Monkey Dancing.  I don't give a crap.



Stop lying. You give a major crap which is why you can't follow your own advice and _"Let it go"_. 



lklawson said:


> You hacked into the surveillance camera?



Nope, didn't have to. Your posts revealed all that I need to know.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 18, 2017)

Don't you love a know all? Someone who writes reams of words designed to boost their importance because they are a legend in their own lunchtime. No, sweetie I wasn't letting off steam, you don't seem to realise I was laughing at you. And you bite every time someone writes something.  *If *it were allowed here I could bait you all day, you bite every time.



Psilent Knight said:


> And 99% of the time people who try to hone in on _"grammar Nazis"_ are even more _"clooless"_



I take it you don't know that 'clewless' and 'clew' are actually correct spellings. 

Your  attitude is interesting, you come across like an angry, 'misunderstood' adolescent. Telling us how much you don't care and how you aren't taking it seriously is telling to those who understand psychology.  You seem to want to reiterate how much you don't care, thus indicating how much you do. The need to appear better than others , the need to try bullying someone because of a typo, the stream of posts justifying your opinion and why everyone is wrong but you is also telling. For someone who isn't taking me seriously and doesn't care you are very careful to refute what I say and seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to belittle and bully me. Interesting. However, my boy, alas and alack your efforts are all in vain, you just make me smile at your ineptitude and crassness but far be it from me to stop you, crack on, let's have some more. Can you be ruder? More bullying? Come on, you don't want to be mediocre do you, say what you really feel. Have at me varlet... 

Am I bovvered?


----------



## lklawson (Jul 18, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Don't you love a know all? Someone who writes reams of words designed to boost their importance because they are a legend in their own lunchtime. No, sweetie I wasn't letting off steam, you don't seem to realise I was laughing at you. And you bite every time someone writes something.  *If *it were allowed here I could bait you all day, you bite every time.


Egad, how can it not bore you?



> I take it you don't know that 'clewless' and 'clew' are actually correct spellings.


I enjoy throwing that one at spelling Nazis.



> ...alas and alack...
> ...bovvered?


Bonus points.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 18, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Egad, how can it not bore you?
> 
> I enjoy throwing that one at spelling Nazis.
> 
> ...



Marry sir, “I might call you A thing divine, for nothing natural  I ever saw so noble.” I don't think that's too Tempestuous.....


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 18, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Don't you love a know all?



Depends.



Tez3 said:


> Someone who writes reams of words designed to boost their importance because they are a legend in their own lunchtime.



Soooooo.....is this your way of admitting that you are looking in the mirror right now?



Tez3 said:


> No, sweetie I wasn't letting off steam,



Oh, my bad. I guess you were just suffering from the hot and cold flashes that come with middle age.



Tez3 said:


> you don't seem to realise I was laughing at you.



And you seem to not realize that I WAS and STILL AM laughing at you. You are taking way too much stock in my posts and they are obviously getting under your skin hence, your reactions.



Tez3 said:


> And you bite every time someone writes something.  *If *it were allowed here I could bait you all day, you bite every time.



I choose to respond as a source of break time entertainment. Trust and believe I do not take you seriously at all. You're basically a source of amusement for me.



Tez3 said:


> I take it you don't know that 'clewless' and 'clew' are actually correct spellings.



Hahahaha!!! And you just *proved* that you are just as "clooless" as lklawson. As I said to him, my reply to his "clewless" post had NOTHING to do with spelling....AT ALL! It went past you as well as him. Dunce level troll attempts at it's finest. Thanks you guys. Here's a "clew" for you guys. "Cloo" and "Clooless" DO NOT mean clue/clew and clueless/clewless. Like I said, dunce level attempts at trolling. It went directly over your heads.



Tez3 said:


> Your  attitude is interesting, you come across like an angry, 'misunderstood' adolescent.



I find your attitude interesting as well. You come across as a middle aged malcontent who has the maturity of an adolescent.



Tez3 said:


> Telling us how much you don't care and how you aren't taking it seriously is telling to those who understand psychology.



Okay doctor, I'm all eyes. Explain to me how I do care. And I only said that I don't take you and lklawson seriously. I didn't say that about anyone else here.



Tez3 said:


> You seem to want to reiterate how much you don't care, thus indicating how much you do.



You know what? You caught me. I do care. Even more than the care bears. From now on I'm Martial Talk Bear. How's that?



Tez3 said:


> The need to appear better than others , the need to try bullying someone because of a typo,



LOL. Your misspelled word being pointed out to you touched a nerve. You are really, really, really, really harping on that. You're actually going to lose sleep because of it. That was like 10 posts ago and you are still _"steaming"_ over it.



Tez3 said:


> the stream of posts justifying your opinion and why everyone is wrong but you is also telling.



And this quote of yours is even more telling because I NEVER told ANYONE here that any of their opinions are wrong. Go back in the thread and post the quote where I ever said that. And of course I am going to justify my opinion. Isn't that what we are all doing? That's the idea behind discussion and debate. But you will never find where I told anyone that their opinions are wrong. I have told people that they are wrong ABOUT ME. I have been misquoted and my posts misinterpreted more than once in this thread and at times I had to correct those things. Like I told oftheherd; If I said it, then I said it. But If I didn't say, then I DID NOT SAY IT.

But what's even more telling is that your only participation in this thread is going tit-for-tat with me. You've added nothing constructive to the conversation itself. Now, what does that say about you?



Tez3 said:


> For someone who isn't taking me seriously and doesn't care you are very careful to refute what I say and seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to belittle and bully me.



I'M SORRY! I am not deliberately trying to bully you. I do not want to belittle or bully you. I want for you and I to either get along or stay out of each other's way. I am only throwing back what you are dishing out to me. But I do not want to do this. I want this to end now if you are going to view me as a bully because a bully I am not.



Tez3 said:


> Interesting. However, my boy, alas and alack your efforts are all in vain, you just make me smile at your ineptitude and crassness but far be it from me to stop you, crack on, let's have some more. Can you be ruder? More bullying? Come on, you don't want to be mediocre do you, say what you really feel. Have at me varlet...
> 
> Am I bovvered?



Well, let me ask you; is that what you want? Because if you ask me what I want I will tell you that I want for you and I to either behave like adults and make positive contributions to this discussion or leave each other alone. Please remember this all started with your insulting post towards me. I responded and it kept going from there.

If you don't like me, fine. If you think I'm crass and a bully, fine. But I'll tell you what I'm not. I'm not the people I've been speaking about almost entire participation in this thread. I will not try to stick you up. As a female I will never hit you. I will not break into your house. I will not car jack you. These are the people you should be concerned about in the real world. Not little 'ole me on an internet forum.

I've decided I'll let you continue to hurl insults and bandying of unnecessary words. If I retaliate I'll only be labeled as a bully. Not cool Tez, not cool at all. Was it James Brown who said _"Don't start none, won't be none"_? But I have a feeling you don't want peaceful interaction between you and me. I think you really have it in for me (for whatever reason which I cannot figure out).

You can have the last say and you can insult me all you want. But I think it's sad though.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 18, 2017)

Come on you kids you are climbing the walls on this long summer break!! It is too good a day outside for that the sun is shining! Lets get out in the fresh air and skip rocks on the water   What you say! come oooooooonnnn you know you want to!!


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 18, 2017)

Jenna said:


> Come on you kids you are climbing the walls on this long summer break!! It is too good a day outside for that the sun is shining! Lets get out in the fresh air and skip rocks on the water   What you say! come oooooooonnnn you know you want to!!



Sorry, it's late evening here with heavy rain and thunderstorms forecast. 

However I am sincerely flattered that our hedge knight thinks I'm middle aged, even more flattered that he spends sooo much times composing posts about me. Shame he won't stick around, he'll go off with his faux indignation, all huffy, oh dear how sad never mind, There's one born every minute they say.
Now I would reply to his posts but the World ParaAthletics Championships is on live and WOW it's fantastic. I recommend everyone looks for somewhere to watch it.
London 2017 World Para athletics championships - Day 5: Live updates


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 18, 2017)

There is something I wanted to clear up a few posts back but I never got the chance to because I've allowed myself to join in the festivities of the entertainment committee. But the thing that started the full scale attack was my _"Deafening Silence"_ remark. I can see why that would put a sour taste in some people's mouths.

Okay, first and foremost, that was an unnecessary and over the top remark and would have been better left unsaid. I accept accountability for the brief interlude in discussion that remark initiated.

Secondly, it was not the multi colored comparison post that I was referring to and was awaiting a response for. It was the two youtube links I provided and asking the participants what they would do in those situations.

Third of all, my _"deafening silence"_ remark was not hinting at people's _incapability_ to answer the question. I was hinting at an _unwillingness_ to answer because no matter how you answer or approach it the possibility exists of those incidents being lose-lose situations. You either lose to aggressors or lose to the judges and jurors. So to answer would force us to be honest with ourselves and possibly negate what has been said (stance wise) up to that point. That is all I was referring to.

Fourth, I actually reached a point where I was no longer expecting a response to the links because of what I just said in the above statement.

I guess I didn't do a very good job of making my position *crystal clear*. Even now there are people here STILL TELLING ME that I have some kind of uncontrollable blood lust. 

But basically I am saying that the law breaking trouble makers and the policy makers who do not live among or have to be bothered with said trouble makers are all saying that your life, health and well being mean little to nothing at all to them. They each say this in their own ways respectively. The trouble makers who want to end your life to take what you have and the legislators, prosecutors, judges and jurors placing protocols upon you to defend your life (not your material possessions mind you. If I know that's all they want and they have no intention of doing me any physical harm I would just hand over my material possessions and live to see another day). But these protocols aren't as solid and flawless as law makers would have you believe. I know that if a man who is 5'7, weighs 150 lbs. and is not a fighter wakes up in the middle of the knight to find a man who's about 6'2 or 6'3 and maybe 230 lbs raping his teen daughter and he shoots the guy (shooting to end his actions not specifically shooting to kill) and the guy ends up dead somehow, then this 5'7, 150 lbs. father is in hot water. We all know this. The law, the system, the courts CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW the immediate circumstances of this type of situation. The fear, the anger, the pressure, the tunnel vision, THE SHOCK. The inability to do anything else with this monster. What else can this father and husband do?

Now, I'm well aware of what the SD laws in my state say in letter, but I am as equally aware of what they say in _practice_ and _application_. If I tell my employees that they have the right to speak their minds and air out their grievances but usually suspend them or fire them for doing just that then what am I REALLY saying? I'm really saying that they don't have the right unless I grant them that right. And me suspending and/or firing them is me letting them know that I do not grant them that right in application. Only in letter. 

If the laws tell you that you have the right to self defense but STILL prosecute you even in cut-and-dry situations of SD then what are these laws REALLY saying? These laws are saying you really don't have the right to defend yourself unless THEY grant you that right. And them prosecuting you is their way of letting you know that you don't have the right to SD regardless of what the letter of the law says. What I'm saying there are people in this world who decide whether you live or die and I'm not talking about the law breakers when I say this. How can you allow others to tell YOU what value YOUR LIFE has in this world? No one here can HONESTLY claim (let alone prove) that there are no law abiding citizens sitting in prison now because of circumstantial evidence (or the lack thereof), an overzealous prosecutor and the defendant not having the needed representation.

You guys seem to forget that prosecutors are not good people. They make a living out of putting people in prison. They love doing this and they are very happy with themselves for doing this. And they are NOT concerned with the actual guilt or innocence of their prey. They're only concerned with amassing a _"lock 'em up and throw away the key" _reputation.

But I said it before. This idea was ingrained in us from the time we were little kids all the way into adulthood. Very people are willing to sit back and ask themselves "Is this morally right?". Very few people are willing to question this arrangement. Very people are unwilling or unable to see the holes and flaws in this arrangement. Very people are able to realize and admit that other people have more control over your ability to defend yourself and your family than you do. And those who do realize this seem to not see anything wrong with it.

I could go into other reasons why I so thoroughly disagree with this arrangement but that would be outside the scope of a Martial Arts discussion forum and would require me to pull out the soap box (some here may think I have already).

It's essentially a never ending topic, but an important one.


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> Alright, here we go. This is what I am saying. The system was not there when I had to defend myself. The system did not see from my attacker what I had seen. The people in the system would do the same thing I had to do but will likely not face the same consequences as me due to their position and status. Do you see what I've been trying to say? The system may have it's job but you and I have ours. Is the system's job more important than ours as protectors of our families?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you start of well, then you go to extreme situations to make a point, if someone kicks down your,door and runs in,shooting or any thing like that then I and I would hope the law would support your actions if you shot one or more of them.

but not all possible cases are that extreme or that cut and dried.

yes there are guns,around if you know the right people you can get one, but they are expensive and ammo is hard to come by and the,consequences of being caught with one is high, a likely five year,sentence, so they don't get carried around, they are hidden away for special occasions, every now and the the local gangs fall out and,start shooting each others windows in, once in a while they try and shoot each other and,occasionally,succeed, they,aren't very good shots,as there is no where to practise and,ammo is hard to get, the safest place to stand is right next to the guy they are aiming at


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> you start of well, then you go to extreme situations to make a point,



I only bring up extreme situations because they actually exist. They are real. I think it best to keep the extreme situations in mind so as not to live the rest of our lives with agony and mental anguish like the poor gentleman in Wisconsin I told you about. I'm going to see if I can track that case down for you. It's very disturbing.



jobo said:


> if someone kicks down your,door and runs in,shooting or any thing like that then I and I would hope the law would support your actions if you shot one or more of them.



I would hope so too. But this situation WILL be investigated and that investigation leads to the possibility of prosecution. As I said earlier no one here can honestly claim that it does not happen. No one here can honestly claim that there aren't any innocent people who well within their rights to perform certain actions sitting in prison right now. No one here can honestly claim that there aren't cases that shouldn't even go to trial let alone punishing someone who was well within their rights to defend themselves and their loved ones. It happens when it shouldn't.



jobo said:


> but not all possible cases are that extreme or that cut and dried.



I agree with you on both counts. Not all situations are that extreme but that extreme does exist and is a possibility. I'd say always hope for the best but prepare for the worst. The worst does exist and is a very real possibility.

I also agree that not all cases are that cut and dried but that is my point about the legal system. Far too many cases are tried and the the law is applied in a cut and dried manner when NOTHING is cut and dried. Nothing. If someone kicked your door in and you shot him I, nor anyone else, can possibly say what you should or should not have done. Only you know the real threat you were under. Even if you relate the story to me of what went down, your narration of the event can never be the same as actually being caught up in the actual event itself and being forced to make a split second life or death decision. Everything moving so quickly that you barely have time to think or react.

But anyway for me the Bottom Line is that I personally place more value on my life than the law actually does and I hope we don't kid ourselves here that the law does place a value on us. We can't win. We either keep our minds on restraint (though unwarranted) and suffer the consequences by our attackers or do what we have to do and suffer very possible consequences by the courts and the legal system. Yep, damned if you do, damned if you don't. This is what we're dealing with.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 18, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> 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.


I find it rather unusual to find martial artists in a pro compliance crowd.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 18, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> 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.


Of course people are entitled to their opinions, including opinions where they disagree, and its sometimes good when people disagree, if everybody always agreed it would be quite boring, but I don't think its too much if somebody disagrees to ask why they disagree and to ask them to explain their position. I am not going to ask everybody to agree with me about everything but if somebody does disagree with me I would like for them to explain why.

BTW when Psilent Knight was typing in different colors he wasn't hooting and roaring he was making an analogy and he was using the different colors to explain his analogy.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Of course people are entitled to their opinions, including opinions where they disagree, and its sometimes good when people disagree, if everybody always agreed it would be quite boring, but I don't think its too much if somebody disagrees to ask why they disagree and to ask them to explain their position. I am not going to ask everybody to agree with me about everything but if somebody does disagree with me I would like for them to explain why.
> 
> BTW when Psilent Knight was typing in different colors he wasn't hooting and roaring he was making an analogy and he was using the different colors to explain his analogy.



Thank you so much for your mansplaining, however you have missed the entire point of my post. Your post should be directed to the hedge knight not myself, he is the one who doesn't like being disagreed with, no one else on this thread does.  Don't you think though it's a shame he can't spell 'pestilent' though?


----------



## Jenna (Jul 19, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Sorry, it's late evening here with heavy rain and thunderstorms forecast.


It had been quite hot there though recently no? I like how clear the air becomes after electrical storms!


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2017)

Jenna said:


> It had been quite hot there though recently no? I like how clear the air becomes after electrical storms!



It's 11 in the morning here, we have grey clouds and that awful muggy feeling, we are waiting for the storms still but they've been fierce elsewhere. Will be glad when the storm breaks and we can breathe. This is one of my most favourite places in the world last night  Flash flood sweeps through Coverack in Cornwall - BBC News  the Paris hotel is named after the SS Paris which ran aground on the headland, one of thousands of shipwrecks ( like this thread lol) off the Cornish coast.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 19, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> It's 11 in the morning here, we have grey clouds and that awful muggy feeling, we are waiting for the storms still but they've been fierce elsewhere. Will be glad when the storm breaks and we can breathe. This is one of my most favourite places in the world last night  Flash flood sweeps through Coverack in Cornwall - BBC News  the Paris hotel is named after the SS Paris which ran aground on the headland, one of thousands of shipwrecks ( like this thread lol) off the Cornish coast.


My son live in Cardiff said the same weather there too.. Wow yes that is crazy bad weather I caught that on BBC world.. well after they finally stop talking Trump and politics that is #booooring Well take care in the storm if it comes.. Michael Fish say it is unlikely though! Do not put up your umbrella! You are tough northerner so you can borrow your hubs cloth cap for the rain haha.. just kiddin  take care out there


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 19, 2017)

maybe i shouldnt get into the mud but here goes.....



Psilent Knight said:


> You guys seem to forget that prosecutors are not good people. They make a living out of putting people in prison. They love doing this and they are very happy with themselves for doing this. And they are NOT concerned with the actual guilt or innocence of their prey. They're only concerned with amassing a _"lock 'em up and throw away the key" _reputation.


i think this is your problem in dealing with all the posters.  you have a quite defined distrust and perhaps warped view of the US legal system.
i read the bulk of your posts and overall you have said nothing wrong or out of the ordinary.  


Psilent Knight said:


> I know that if a man who is 5'7, weighs 150 lbs. and is not a fighter wakes up in the middle of the knight to find a man who's about 6'2 or 6'3 and maybe 230 lbs raping his teen daughter and he shoots the guy (shooting to end his actions not specifically shooting to kill) and the guy ends up dead somehow, then this 5'7, 150 lbs. father is in hot water.


maybe i am naive,  but the way i read the law, this scenario you have given would be 100% legal to shoot an intuder/ rapist. but then you go on saying with a certain amount of venom that the shooter would be all but hanged for his crime 


Psilent Knight said:


> And they are NOT concerned with the actual guilt or innocence of their prey. They're only concerned with amassing a _"lock 'em up and throw away the key" _reputation.



i think your position on self defense is correct , i just think you have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to the legal system.


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 19, 2017)

To get back on Topic.

Currently, traveling through New Mexico....quick research shows there is no stand your ground law. 

Here, I have a duty to try and retreat if possible.


For residents, this is a castle doctrine state that releaves you from the duty to retreat when in your home.


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 19, 2017)

Headed to Arizona.

Arizona does not have a specific stand your ground law but its laws do not require you to retreat so in essence it is a stand your ground state.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 19, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> I find it rather unusual to find martial artists in a pro compliance crowd.



Or perhaps our expectations of martial artists are warped. As a kid there were many martial arts movies that I loved but two of them that I could never get enough of watching were Chinese Connection (aka Fist of Fury in Hong Kong) and Shogun Assassin (Lone Wolf and Cub). I remember always admiring the heroes of those movies for not allowing official titles and unfair rules persuade them from rightfully fighting back no matter the cost. I believe that kind of attitude should be admired in reality.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 19, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> Or perhaps our expectations of martial artists are warped. As a kid there were many martial arts movies that I loved but two of them that I could never get enough of watching were Chinese Connection (aka Fist of Fury in Hong Kong) and Shogun Assassin (Lone Wolf and Cub). I remember always admiring the heroes of those movies for not allowing official titles and unfair rules persuade them from rightfully fighting back no matter the cost. I believe that kind of attitude should be admired in reality.


Warped expectations of martial artists and then a reference to a personal story of setting expectations on martial artists based on movies?

Look, martial artists are just people and are populated with every opinion related to self defense ranging from pacifistic bunnies and light straight through assassinate your enemies from ambush and every permutation in between.

Movies?  I enjoyed everything from "Challenge of the Ninja" through "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" but I don't expect them to tell me anything about the nature or expectation of martial artists beyond the fact that they can fly.

Whatever expectations anyone has for "martial artists" is already wrong.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 19, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i think this is your problem in dealing with all the posters.  you have a quite defined distrust and perhaps warped view of the US legal system.



Okay, may I ask you if you know for 100% certainty that law abiding citizens are never, ever victimized by the legal system? Can you honestly claim and assure me that there isn't one person caught up in the legal system who rightfully defended him or herself but has to face consequences due to the "the system's" dislike of how he/she defended him/herself or that the assailant has lost his or her life during the altercation? Can anyone here do that and be acting on 100% honesty?

Besides that, I am convinced that my _real problem_ in dealing with all the other posters is that most of them insist that I have a desire to kill any and all offenders no matter how many times I tell them otherwise. They deliberately choose to misinterpret my position as such no matter what I say. Insisting on my human right to self preservation and not being held back by _some_ (but not all) rules that I deem unrealistic is not the same thing as wanting to kill someone.




hoshin1600 said:


> i read the bulk of your posts and overall you have said nothing wrong or out of the ordinary.



I guess it's the way that I am saying what I have to say that's causing some people to go on the attack. But I can't worry about that since it's _par for the course_ when posting on internet forums.



hoshin1600 said:


> maybe i am naive,  but the way i read the law, this scenario you have given would be 100% legal to shoot an intuder/ rapist.



Yes, it is 100% legal to shoot a rapist but it isn't 100% legal to KILL a rapist if you didn't feel that your life was at stake. I should have elaborated a little more on my scenario but I intended to paint a picture of the father shooting the intruder/rapist in the head thus killing him. Know and believe that this father faces a 97 or 98% chance of being prosecuted. THAT is how the law works. Technically he could have done something else to stop the intruder without killing him and his own life was not in immediate danger. This scenario I'm giving sucks on may levels (especially since it's extreme on many levels as well) but I know for certain that this is how the U.S. legal system operates.

I am on very friendly terms with two lawyers. One of them is my Kyokushin Instructor. The other one is the young man who told me (verbally mind you) that he is in the business of getting people out of trouble (he's a defense attorney and one of the best in Pgh). He didn't say this in so much as a bragging manner as he did in a _matter of fact_ manner. But I can tell that he doesn't see anything wrong with what he does for a living and how the system _actually works in practice_ (regardless of what the letter of the law says on paper). Not everyone questions the appropriateness or inappropriateness of certain ways the legal system is practiced.

I also have a police officer friend (he and I are really, really good friends and have been for a few years now) that I talk to a few times a month. We like to talk about martial arts, RBSD, things like that and he always likes to share with me what he knows about what happens during acts of crimes on the streets and how even he sees so many things wrong with the legal system. He sometimes vents to me because his hands are tied, if you know what I mean. When these three people talk to me about law and the legal system I do two things; I LISTEN INTENTLY and I ask the right PROBING QUESTIONS. You'd be surprised to learn that even some lawyers and police officers say that the legal system is messed up. And they don't mean the _letter_ of the law, they are referring to how the law and the legal system are carried out and how they see people getting in trouble when they shouldn't. But technicalities and loopholes and, of course, prosecutors who are only looking for a big score victimize law abiding citizens who were forced into a really bad predicament.

I share their views. I have no problem with some of the SD laws in letter but I do have a problem with it in actual practice and application.



hoshin1600 said:


> but then you go on saying with a certain amount of venom that the shooter would be all but hanged for his crime



No, I said that he faces _the very real possibility_ of being hanged. The law says that taking another life is justifiable for the preservation of your own or a loved ones life but not for sexual assault. At least in any state other than Texas.

Sometimes the man isn't charged and there is a happy ending:

Texas father who beat Jesus Flores to death for raping 5-year-old daughter will NOT face murder charges | Daily Mail Online

And sometimes the man IS charged and a not so happy ending is in sight:

http://nypost.com/2016/05/31/husband-charged-for-beating-would-be-rapist-to-death/

Sometimes we have the absolute worst outcome ever. This is the very disturbing story I told @jobo  about. Read it at your own risk if you want. Be warned though it will make you sick to your stomach and is beyond disturbing:

When Horror Came to a Connecticut Family




hoshin1600 said:


> i think your position on self defense is correct , i just think you have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to the legal system.



I'm sorry you feel that way and I'm sorry if it appears that I have a chip on my shoulder. But it is not a chip on my shoulder, it's awareness of reality.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 19, 2017)

i see a few glaring problems with your argument.
first the article of the husband beating the rapist to death,,
,Yes he was guilty and should go to prison.  your first scenario was about a father shooting a rapist "in the act"  i do believe that is justified force. you are allowed to use deadly force in the defense of others, even more so if within the domicile.  however when the husband met the WOULD BE rapist (remember there was no rape) he met the rapist in the hallway of an apartment building after the event. there was no self defense at that point.  self defense force can only be used to stop a threat, after the threat no longer exists, it is then deemed revenge. a punishable offense.

so yeah we all want to smash the guy, but we cant.

also i am well aware of the home invasion in CT.  i often mention it as an example (and done so here many times). it took place about 30 min from my home.



Psilent Knight said:


> Yes, it is 100% legal to shoot a rapist but it isn't 100% legal to KILL a rapist if you didn't feel that your life was at stake.


sorry interpretation is wrong wrong wrong.
this would take some time to explain in detail but to put it simply.. the use of a firearm has nothing to do with anything.  it is about *THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE* .  the use of a firearm falls under that distinction but so does a knife or a baseball bat.   you cannot use any lethal force if you do not think your life is in danger.  NO  you are not allowed to shoot a rapist.  you ARE allowed to use deadly force to stop a threat to yourself or those under your mantle of protection. (which a rape would fall under).  any use of a firearm would be seen as deadly force so , you cant  *just* shoot him in the leg.
the bottom line is, details count.  big time.  i think your trying to make a black and white judgment and you really cant do that.

but going back to you and your posts,  the attitude of the posts do come off as "kill em all let god sort em out" .  but that is because of the mix of statements about your attitude towards the legal system.  i think your logical view point towards self defense is being overcast by your distrust of the law, which tints the posts.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 19, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> Okay, may I ask you if you know for 100% certainty that law abiding citizens are never, ever victimized by the legal system? Can you honestly claim and assure me that there isn't one person caught up in the legal system who rightfully defended him or herself but has to face consequences due to the "the system's" dislike of how he/she defended him/herself or that the assailant has lost his or her life during the altercation? Can anyone here do that and be acting on 100% honesty?
> 
> Besides that, I am convinced that my _real problem_ in dealing with all the other posters is that most of them insist that I have a desire to kill any and all offenders no matter how many times I tell them otherwise. They deliberately choose to misinterpret my position as such no matter what I say. Insisting on my human right to self preservation and not being held back by _some_ (but not all) rules that I deem unrealistic is not the same thing as wanting to kill someone.
> 
> ...


Look.  Stop talking.  You're wrong and you're misrepresenting or misunderstanding facts.  The reason Diallo was charges is because he WAS NOT ACTING IN DEFENSE.  The would-be-rapist was not a threat of serious bodily harm at the time that Mr. Diallo killed him.

The law, with few exceptions, allows deadly force to be employed against an attacker who is offering an immediate, genuine, articulable threat of death or serious bodily harm to an innocent party.  That was the case when Mr. Flores was killed.  He was *in the act* of raping and thus Deadly Force was justified.  It was not the case for Mr. Diallo because his victim was not engaged in any threatening activity when Mr. Diallo killed him.

Dude.  Stop giving legal opinions.  You're wrong and little of what you write is based in precedent but most of it is in direct conflict with what lawyers specializing in self defense have said.

Go grind your ax elsewhere.

As a general warning to anyone else in the U.S. who might be reading what Mr. "Psilent Knight" is writing, stop now. This dude is more wrong than a $3 bill.  If you're U.S. based, go buy books and read articles by lawyers like Alan Gottlieb, buy videos and books by expert witnesses like Massad Ayoob, read the articles by experts at USA Carry, 2nd Call Defense, or The Armed Citizens Legal Defense Fund, understand the 4 Pillars of Justifiable Deadly Force (Opportunity, Imminent Jeopardy, Ability, Preclusion).  But whatever you do, *ignore this guy's ravings*.  At best it will only confuse the subject for you.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 19, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Thank you so much for your mansplaining, however you have missed the entire point of my post. Your post should be directed to the hedge knight not myself, he is the one who doesn't like being disagreed with, no one else on this thread does.  Don't you think though it's a shame he can't spell 'pestilent' though?



That's too bad. When somebody disagrees it can be an opportunity to learn and to see where they're coming from. Its good to see other people's viewpoints.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 19, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Look, martial artists are just people and are populated with every opinion related to self defense ranging from pacifistic bunnies and light straight through assassinate your enemies from ambush and every permutation in between.


I don't imagine a pacifistic bunny taking up martial arts in the first place.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 19, 2017)

Jenna said:


> My son live in Cardiff said the same weather there too.. Wow yes that is crazy bad weather I caught that on BBC world.. well after they finally stop talking Trump and politics that is #booooring Well take care in the storm if it comes.. Michael Fish say it is unlikely though! Do not put up your umbrella! You are tough northerner so you can borrow your hubs cloth cap for the rain haha.. just kiddin  take care out there



In Cardiff I heard they get lots of rain, something to do with the positions of the mountains. I was once in Cardiff, but that was many years ago.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 19, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> Yes, it is 100% legal to shoot a rapist but it isn't 100% legal to KILL a rapist if you didn't feel that your life was at stake.


From what I know deadly force is justified if you're in danger of death or grave bodily harm. Rape is grave bodily harm. Therefore if somebody is trying to rape you or a loved one by law you are justified in killing them.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 19, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> I don't imagine a pacifistic bunny taking up martial arts in the first place.


"Bunnies and Light" pacifism seems to be very popular in Aikido circles, or at least it was when I was still actively practicing Aikido.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> I don't imagine a pacifistic bunny taking up martial arts in the first place.


Some do, though. There are arts well-suited to them, and some are sometimes taught with a philosophy of never doing harm.


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 19, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> From what I know deadly force is justified if you're in danger of death or grave bodily harm. Rape is grave bodily harm. Therefore if somebody is trying to rape you or a loved one by law you are justified in killing them.



Don't think of it as killing them.

You are using deadly force to stop them.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> That's too bad. When somebody disagrees it can be an opportunity to learn and to see where they're coming from. Its good to see other people's viewpoints.



Captain Obvious. You had as I said tell this to the hedge knight, he's the one throwing around aspersions and tacky insults to those he disagrees with. 



PhotonGuy said:


> I don't imagine a pacifistic bunny taking up martial arts in the first place



pacifistic? That is a truly weird word. what's wrong with pacifist



PhotonGuy said:


> In Cardiff I heard they get lots of rain, something to do with the positions of the mountains. I was once in Cardiff, but that was many years ago.



Cardiff doesn't get 'lots of rain'. There's storms which are coming in from the Atlantic that are causing rain here at the moment, nothing to do with mountains.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 19, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i see a few glaring problems with your argument.
> first the article of the husband beating the rapist to death,,
> ,Yes he was guilty and should go to prison.  your first scenario was about a father shooting a rapist "in the act"  i do believe that is justified force. you are allowed to use deadly force in the defense of others, even more so if within the domicile.  however when the husband met the WOULD BE rapist (remember there was no rape) he met the rapist in the hallway of an apartment building after the event. there was no self defense at that point.  self defense force can only be used to stop a threat, after the threat no longer exists, it is then deemed revenge. a punishable offense.



How many _degrees of separation_ are there between _"in the act"_ and _"would be"_ rapist? And what is the MIND STATE of both men in the two separate incidents? Mr. Diallo's incident was still _"fresh"_ just as the Texas father's incident was _"fresh"_. Two different degrees of how far the perp went with his crime but each man caught the perp within seconds of the crime, be it _would be_ act or _actual_ act. My main thing I am trying to get you to key in on is the mind state of each protector in the cases being that the incidents were still seconds in the making. BOTH INCIDENTS. I don't know if I can say for sure that I would be able to just let the _"would be rapist" _walk past me without him feeling a taste of my indignation for trying to rape my wife. And none of us here can say for sure unless we are actually faced with that grim situation (which I wouldn't wish on anybody).

But I think you're right in the letter and technicalities of the law. Your interpretation is correct imo but I think you should start looking at individual cases as individual cases and realize that sometimes the legal system does drop the ball. I also believe another reason the two cases have two different outcomes also have to do with Texas state and NYC local laws (local NYC vs TX state). If you live in Connecticut there's a chance that you would be familiar with NYC local laws. If the father in TX was in NYC instead do you think he still would not have been charged? If Mr. Diallo was in Texas instead of NYC do you think he still would have been charged? I was never talking about a conviction in these 2 cases, I was only talking about the fact that one person was charged and the other person was not charged. In my opinion Mr. Diallo never should have been charged to begin with. His case is not the same as the Alabama man who tracked his daughter's rapist down and killed him. Mr. Diallo was in a very _"protect my wife"_ mind state when he came face to face with the deceased perp.

And BTW, the charges against Mr. Diallo were rightfully DROPPED:

Charges Dropped Against Man Who Killed Wife's Attacker



hoshin1600 said:


> so yeah we all want to smash the guy, but we cant.



Actually, you're right. I agree in certain respects. There are times when we want to but cannot and there are times when we didn't want to or set out to do so but did it even though the law says we can't. That's when the legal problems creep in. Again, I really don't think any of the men here can say with 100%, absolute certainty that they would not accost the Bronx perp in some or fashion when the attempted break in and rape took place literally seconds ago. Please try to think of the mind state of Mr. Diallo at that time and how is his mind state considered any different than the Texas father's mind state at that time. Regardless of how far each deceased perp went in their crimes both protectors in each case had the exact same mind state. And in Mr. Diallo's case the deceased perp did commit a crime. An attempted break in and subsequent rape may not be as harsh as completing the act but he attempted the act which is every bit as scary to any female and every bit as angering to any father or husband.



hoshin1600 said:


> also i am well aware of the home invasion in CT.  i often mention it as an example (and done so here many times). it took place about 30 min from my home.



An awful and very sickening event. That was one of the events that started me into looking at how we are surrounded by sociopaths and the things we must do to protect ourselves against them.




hoshin1600 said:


> sorry _*interpretation*_ is wrong wrong wrong.



This! _*Interpretation*_. This is where I start to have a problem. Who here can deny that there are prosecutors AND defense attorneys who interpret the law in such a way as to either convict a person (in the prosecutors case) or help to acquit someone (in the case of defense attorneys)? That's what it's all about; leaving the letter of the law vague and open ended so prosecutors and defense attorneys can get in court and play their _"legal interpretation chess matches"_. These court cases most times boil down to which of the two can play the better interpretation game and which of the two can persuade the opinions of the judges and jurors with their interpretation games. Who here can HONESTLY deny this? Why do you think they battle it out in courts? If the legal system was so fair, honest and cut and dried (as some of you would have me believe) then their should be absolutely no interpretation games. NONE. But there are and one defense attorney I know here in Pittsburgh is one of the best at doing so. I've seen him in court (in person) get a couple of obviously guilty thugs off of attempted homicide and robbery charges. He's good at what he does. I mean he is DAMN GOOD. But he got these people off because he knows how to play the loophole and interpretation game that is the legal system. This is why I say it's a sucker's game.

If I say that the legal system in America is a joke I would be attacked. But I shouldn't be attacked since I am not the only person who says this and thinks this. I know everyone here has heard or read other U.S. citizens express this at one time or another. If I was the only U.S. citizen who felt this way THEN I could see the validity of being scorned and attacked.




hoshin1600 said:


> this would take some time to explain in detail but to put it simply.. the use of a firearm has nothing to do with anything.  it is about *THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE*



Yes, I was only talking about deadly force. The firearm was just the example I used as the weapon used. You can substitute it with any other weapon or object (bat, knife, a pair of scissors, monkey wrench, metal pipe, hammer, whatever).* My point *was that he can be charged because the legal system says he may have been able to stop the act without killing him. Depending on the state and the prosecutor (and let's not forget _*interpretation*_ of the law) he may or may not face charges.



hoshin1600 said:


> the use of a firearm falls under that distinction but so does a knife or a baseball bat.   you cannot use any lethal force if you do not think your life is in danger.



This was exactly my point.



hoshin1600 said:


> NO  you are not allowed to shoot a rapist.  you ARE allowed to use deadly force to stop a threat to yourself or those under your mantle of protection. (which a rape would fall under).  any use of a firearm would be seen as deadly force so , you cant  *just* shoot him in the leg.



Again, my point exactly. Not sure where we are in disagreement about this. Maybe you agree with the law and/or how can be interpreted whereas I find some SD laws and, most certainly, many ways the interpretation game is played _highly questionable_.



hoshin1600 said:


> the bottom line is, details count.  big time.  i think your trying to make a black and white judgment and you really cant do that.



Yep, details DO count big time, hence my bringing up how the Texas father and Bronx, NY husband were in the exact same state of mind when they did what they did to their respective offenders. But one person was charged and the other was not charged. Thankfully, the one who was charged had the charges against dropped. He never should have been charged to begin with. And as far as black and white judgement.....I mean the two cases speak for themselves. One person was (rightfully) NOT charged and the other person WAS charged.



hoshin1600 said:


> but going back to you and your posts,  the attitude of the posts do come off as "kill em all let god sort em out"



I don't know how many times I have to explain that this is definitely not my attitude. Can you post individual quotes I've made to prove this is my attitude? And quote them in context?



hoshin1600 said:


> but that is because of the mix of statements about your attitude towards the legal system.  i think your logical view point towards self defense is being overcast by your distrust of the law, which tints the posts.



It's not so much as distrust of the law as a lack of confidence of the law and the legal system will always do what's right. Do you HONESTLY believe that mine (or anyone else for that matter) who lacks confidence in the law or does, in fact, distrust it is not justified and founded in reality and experience? Do you HONESTLY believe that? Can you HONESTLY say that?


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Don't think of it as killing them.
> 
> You are using deadly force to stop them.



 You can't shoot someone who isn't a danger to you though. This is what was so hard for some to understand. You cannot 'defend' yourself from someone who hasn't said or done anything to threaten your life just because *you think* they might do something. Pknight doesn't think there's a difference here.



PhotonGuy said:


> From what I know deadly force is justified if you're in danger of death or grave bodily harm. Rape is grave bodily harm. Therefore if somebody is trying to rape you or a loved one by law you are justified in killing them.



You cannot though use deadly force if you* aren't* in danger of your life or if you aren't being raped. This is what was trying to be explained.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 19, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> In Cardiff I heard they get lots of rain, something to do with the positions of the mountains. I was once in Cardiff, but that was many years ago.


It has indeed, you are correct! wettest places in UK are usually Welsh.. hope the folk were nice to you in Cardiff.. I like it there, like the people


----------



## lklawson (Jul 19, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> How many _degrees of separation_ are there between _"in the act"_ and _"would be"_ rapist?


One, known in legal terms as "Imminent Jeopardy" and it's enough to change a justifiable use of deadly for into murder.  Stop talking because your ax grinding and ignorance is misinformation to the reader.




> And what is the MIND STATE of both men in the two separate incidents?


Irrelevant.  People cannot read minds.  Don't claim to be able to do so as part of your Legal Defense.  It's stupid and the lawyers will rip you to shreds.  Stop talking.



> Mr. Diallo's incident was still _"fresh"_ just as the Texas father's incident was _"fresh"_. Two different degrees of how far the perp went with his crime but each man caught the perp within seconds of the crime, be it _would be_ act or _actual_ act. My main thing I am trying to get you to key in on is the mind state of each protector in the cases being that the incidents were still seconds in the making. BOTH INCIDENTS. I don't know if I can say for sure that I would be able to just let the _"would be rapist" _walk past me without him feeling a taste of my indignation for trying to rape my wife. And none of us here can say for sure unless we are actually faced with that grim situation (which I wouldn't wish on anybody).


Absolutely and categorically wrong in the U.S.  Stop talking because your ax grinding and ignorance is misinformation to the reader.



> But I think you're right in the letter and technicalities of the law. Your interpretation is correct imo but I think you should start looking at individual cases as individual cases and realize that sometimes the legal system does drop the ball. I also believe another reason the two cases have two different outcomes also have to do with Texas state and NYC local laws (local NYC vs TX state). If you live in Connecticut there's a chance that you would be familiar with NYC local laws. If the father in TX was in NYC instead do you think he still would not have been charged? If Mr. Diallo was in Texas instead of NYC do you think he still would have been charged? I was never talking about a conviction in these 2 cases, I was only talking about the fact that one person was charged and the other person was not charged. In my opinion Mr. Diallo never should have been charged to begin with. His case is not the same as the Alabama man who tracked his daughter's rapist down and killed him. Mr. Diallo was in a very _"protect my wife"_ mind state when he came face to face with the deceased perp.


Gads, please, oh please stop talking.  Go and read _Deadly Force: Understanding Your Right to Self Defense_ by Mas Ayoob before babbling another word.

Deadly Force: Understanding Your Right to Self Defense: Massad Ayoob, Jeff Weiner: 9781440240614: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 19, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Don't think of it as killing them.
> 
> You are using deadly force to stop them.



Exactly. When using force to stop a bad guy your intention should be precisely that, to stop them. You're intent should not be to kill, your intent should not be to injure, your intent should be to stop.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2017)

This thread is being dragged in political arguments over the American legal system.


No Wales isn't one of the wettest places in the UK I'm afraid, that would be the Lake District and certain parts of Scotland. rain tends to fall more during the winter than the summers which admittedly aren't that warm compared to the south of England..


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 19, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> You can't shoot someone who isn't a danger to you though



And once the threat has stopped you must stop the use of deadly force.

You use force to stop.  That is the goal....too stop the threat....if death occurs you are fine as long as you were initially justified.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 19, 2017)

Jenna said:


> It has indeed, you are correct! wettest places in UK are usually Welsh.. hope the folk were nice to you in Cardiff.. I like it there, like the people



The people were quite nice, I do remember staying in a very seedy hotel and I had quite the experience staying there. Wales would be a nice place to revisit. Scotland would be nice to visit too, never been there.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 19, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Gads, please, oh please stop talking.  Go and read _Deadly Force: Understanding Your Right to Self Defense_ by Mas Ayoob before babbling another word.
> 
> Deadly Force: Understanding Your Right to Self Defense: Massad Ayoob, Jeff Weiner: 9781440240614: Amazon.com: Books



I should check it out. I do have one of Ayoob's books. He is quite legitimate. I met him not long ago.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Exactly. When using force to stop a bad guy your intention should be precisely that, to stop them. You're intent should not be to kill, your intent should not be to injure, your intent should be to stop.



'Reasonable' force is the usual qualifier used in court. If reasonable force is used even if it results in the death of a perpetrator cases will rarely come to court. It is not reasonable force however to cause the death of someone you *think may* have an attack in mind, they have to show that they intend to harm you or someone else before a defence can be made. Put simply, you cannot go round attacking people just because you think you can read their minds and you think they are planning on committing a crime.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 19, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> 'Reasonable' force is the usual qualifier used in court. If reasonable force is used even if it results in the death of a perpetrator cases will rarely come to court. It is not reasonable force however to cause the death of someone you *think may* have an attack in mind, they have to show that they intend to harm you or someone else before a defence can be made. Put simply, you cannot go round attacking people just because you think you can read their minds and you think they are planning on committing a crime.


Pretty much, yeah.  The expansion is:

Subject: 10 - Deadly Force and the Force Continuum

In the words of Jim Keating:

   "To have a defensible self-defense case you need several
        factors in your favor. They are simple and they must be
        present or you are going to jail for a long time. These
        factors are this:

            * Opportunity
            * Imminent Jeopardy
            * Ability
            * Preclusion 

        Leave out one or more of these factors and you lose. Have
        these aspects present and provable and it's much more likely
        that you'll win."


[Elements of Legitimate Self Defense]
As noted above, it's canonical that there are four elements of
legitimate Self Defense.

Ability:
This is the physical capability to kill or seriously injure.
Sometimes this means a weapon such as a knife, club, or gun.  It can
also mean "Disparity of Force."  Disparity of Force in this context is
when there is a large enough difference between the attacker and the
attacked that raw physical capability alone is enough to be recognized
as Deadly Force.  The typical examples are a group attack, though
unarmed, against a single individual, or the proverbial attack by a
300 pound enraged linebacker against a 90 year old fragile boned
grandmother.

Opportunity:
Opportunity is similar to Ability, in that it reflects a raw ability
to inflict grievous harm.  However, Opportunity is more often linked
to physical proximity.  If the attacker is not within range to perform
the attack then there is no threat.  An attacker with a knife 30 feet
away is no attacker at all.  On the other hand, an attacker with a
firearm 30 feet away is most certainly within range to inflict bodily
harm.  An attacker must have the "Opportunity" to use his "Ability"
for the attack to be credible.

Imminent Jeopardy:
This means that the threat is immediate and that a "Reasonable Man"
would believe, based on what information is available at the time,
that the aggressor's intent is to cause severe physical harm or death.
Threats by the aggressor of some future attack do not satisfy Imminent
Jeopardy while threats or actions that indicate an immediate intention
do.  

Preclusion:
This means that all other options preceding Deadly Force were either 
exhausted or were not viable.  Some places have a Duty to Retreat law
or legal precedent.  Essentially these address the same issue.
Legally and morally the individual must reasonably eliminate all other
methods to stop an attack before resorting to Deadly Force.  This does
not mean that the individual must first "try, fail, discard, and then
try another" to eliminate all other option.  Many options are
eliminated by immediacy of the threat.  As an example, one simply does
not have time to call the police and report a burglar when an
aggressor is in the process of pounding you into jelly.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 19, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Exactly. When using force to stop a bad guy your intention should be precisely that, to stop them. You're intent should not be to kill, your intent should not be to injure, your intent should be to stop.





CB Jones said:


> And once the threat has stopped you must stop the use of deadly force.
> 
> You use force to stop.  That is the goal....too stop the threat....if death occurs you are fine as long as you were initially justified.



A HUGE thumbs up to both posts. I am in full 100% agreement. Anyone involved in this thread can read every post I made here and they will see that I never, ever, ever said I would do something with the intent to kill. I will do something with the intent to end the threat. They are NOT the same thing. I think where the problem comes about is I said that I cannot afford to worry about reducing my use of force for fear of what some would say is going too far. I am only concerned with two things and two things only:

1). Ending the threat.
2). Protecting myself and my family.

In doing these two things the outcome may be very unfortunate in that the offender may lose his life. Even though I was not telling myself _"I have to kill him"_ I may end up killing him anyway while attempting to do those two things that I just listed above. I've tried to explain this soooooooo many times in this thread but it was always in vain.

And I do believe that my mindset of _"doing whatever it takes to survive and save myself and my family"_ is also being misinterpreted as _"I am consciously aiming to kill him"_. This is far from true. I don't know WHY my position is still being misinterpreted and I don't know how many times I must explain that this is not true. What can a fella like me do?

But as far as me agreeing with PhotonGuy and CB Jones the questioned may be asked "so what's the problem then"? The problem is that now the people in both of their posts is not completely out of the woods. They now have to deal with the possibility of charges and possible conviction and I feel that this should not be so. I guess I just take up too strong of a moral stance with this issue to ever see eye-to-eye with the other posters who disagree with my position. For me it goes beyond SD laws and more into the base human condition and the subject of moral right and wrong and maybe THIS is where the real problem lies.

I take a moral stand against sociopaths. I think most posters here do as well. But I also take a moral stand against what I feel are unrealistic and far from correct applications of SD laws. I think most posters here do not take that stand and actually disagree with it. Fair enough. We all view the world based on our own respective inner compasses and experiences. 

In spite of what some here say the arguments were not about me telling anybody that their opinions are wrong because I never said such thing. No one here can post a quote where I told anyone in this thread that their opinions are wrong. I have said that I disagreed with certain opinions and I ALWAYS explained WHY I disagreed. But I never, ever told anyone here that their opinion is wrong. But I have been told that I am wrong, that my position is wrong, that my interpretation is wrong, that my attitude is wrong. When I defend my position, my interpretation and the attitude that I have toward certain things, THEN some other posters come and tell me that this is my way of telling people that they're wrong.

This is what has been happening in this thread. Those who disagree with my views and possibly dislike me; Can they put aside their disdain for me and re-read this thread from the beginning up to now and prove that I am wrong about this?

Anyway, good posts CB and Photon. I agree with you both.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 19, 2017)

lets turn this around a bit.  in Massachusetts there was a case of a women who was abused by her husband. she was found guilty of murder because during one fight he threatened to kill her and went for a knife.  she was convicted based on the distance he was from her at the time she fired the rifle and on the time duration between her 911 call and the time of the shooting.  he was at the top of the stairs, she was at the bottom.  it would be to long to describe the entire story but again the point is that details matter.
so if you were sitting in the "box of idiots"  as a juror,  how do we know if it was actual self defense with her in "imminent danger  VS if it was revenge and retribution for her abuse?   no one can read an other persons mind. every criminal has a list of excuses as long as a roll of toilet paper on how they are innocent.  this is why it is very difficult know when it is actually self defense.   

sometimes the difference between a conviction or not is the location of an entry and exit wound.  every situation is different and you have to convince the jury of your side because everyone is a lair.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 19, 2017)

Very, very informative and well thought out post hoshin. Thank You.

There is an extra benefit to this thread. This thread has convinced me that perhaps our efforts to avoid tragedies should be beefed up.

I am becoming more vigilant in practicing Awareness, Avoidance, Precautions, Deescalation, Escape and other precautionary measures. There is a saying that _an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure_.

By examining the cases that were discussed here (the Texas father, the Bronx, NY husband and the poor family in CT.) we have the opportunity to ask ourselves two very important questions:

1). What would we do in those situations?
2). What can we do to greatly minimize the possibility of being in such situations?

#vigilance

@hoshin1600 I want to *SINCERELY THANK YOU* for your approach in our discussion. Even though you disagreed with me you were willing to read my posts to see where I was coming from and addressed where you felt I had the wrong way of viewing things. You didn't immediately go into _"winning an argument"_ mode. This is where many others went wrong imo.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 19, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> lets turn this around a bit.  in Massachusetts there was a case of a women who was abused by her husband. she was found guilty of murder because during one fight he threatened to kill her and went for a knife.  she was convicted based on the distance he was from her at the time she fired the rifle and on the time duration between her 911 call and the time of the shooting.  he was at the top of the stairs, she was at the bottom.  it would be to long to describe the entire story but again the point is that details matter.
> so if you were sitting in the "box of idiots"  as a juror,  how do we know if it was actual self defense with her in "imminent danger  VS if it was revenge and retribution for her abuse?   no one can read an other persons mind. every criminal has a list of excuses as long as a roll of toilet paper on how they are innocent.  this is why it is very difficult know when it is actually self defense.
> 
> sometimes the difference between a conviction or not is the location of an entry and exit wound.  every situation is different and you have to convince the jury of your side because everyone is a lair.



I have no sympathy for wife beaters. If I was on the jury I wouldn'tve given her a guilty verdict.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2017)

I don't know what laws are in the US but I have a very good grounding in what they are here. It is extremely rare in this country to have a genuine case of self defence come to court. We have had some high profile cases where people have misunderstood the evidence as well as the law and thought someone was lawfully defending themselves when they weren't. One case being when some intruders broke into a home, assaulted family members stole property then left. The family members freed themselves then armed with iron poles went around the street looking for the intruders, they found one and beat him unto a pulp, he didn't die but suffered extreme brain damage. They claimed self defence but they were charged and convicted. Another was the case of Tony martin who shot and killed an intruder in his house, only it wasn't quite what it seemed. He had tricked some lads into thinking he had money lying around the house and he would be away, when they broke it he disturbed them and as they ran away down the garden path he shot one of them in the back and killed him. His weapons were illegal as he'd lost his shotgun licence after threatening several times to kill people one of whom was his own brother. He was a very disturbed person, which is why he was eventually have held to have committed manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. 
The police and the Crown Prosecution Service aren't stupid and it's actually far easier than you think to tell here what is genuine self defence and what isn't. People have been charged and found guilty for defending themselves or others because they went over the bounds of reasonable force ( incidentally this is the same standard police here are held to). Was stabbing someone 30+ times in a frenzied attack reasonable force? Was kicking them in the head after you'd rendered them unconsciousness self defence? 
Certain media here make a great deal of noise about what they think are self defence cases, they have political agendas to keep to but people read them, especially non Brits and think that things must be so because the newspapers say they are. Actually they aren't. 
Householders and the use of force against intruders

_"Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon._

_As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence.

The force you use must always be reasonable in the circumstances as you believe them to be. Where you are defending yourself or others from intruders in your home, it might still be reasonable in the circumstances for you to use a degree of force that is subsequently considered to be disproportionate, perhaps if you are acting in extreme circumstances in the heat of the moment and don’t have a chance to think about exactly how much force would be necessary to repel the intruder: it might seem reasonable to you at the time but, with hindsight, your actions may seem disproportionate. The law will give you the benefit of the doubt in these circumstances.

This only applies if you were acting in self-defence or to protect others in your home and the force you used was disproportionate – disproportionate force to protect property is still unlawful."


_


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> I have no sympathy for wife beaters. If I was on the jury I wouldn'tve given her a guilty verdict.



No one has sympathy for wife beaters but if she did in fact murder her husband rather than defend herself she is guilty of murder. The sentencing however could have taken account of her state of mind, her suffering etc and she could have been given a suspended sentence or a light sentence. The law would be upheld by the guilt murder verdict, justice would have been upheld in lighter sentencing. You cannot condone murder because you are then opening doors to anyone who wanted to kill someone using the fact another deliberately killed someone but got away with it because the jury felt sorry for her. it may seem harsh but understanding the law is important.
It's the same thing with so called 'mercy killings', when you unlawfully kill someone even out of mercy or the person asks you to, you have broken the law and you have to be tried in court. The law will find you guilty, justice however is served by a non custodial sentence, which is what happens here. societies now are so large that we need law and we need to uphold it. If the laws are seen to been unjust or unfair them we lobby to have them changed but you'd best understand what laws you want and the consequences of these laws are.
You allowing the woman off because you felt sorry for her would have consequences you may not like.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 19, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> I have no sympathy for wife beaters. If I was on the jury I wouldn'tve given her a guilty verdict.



Ok mr. Juror ....here is the problem, this trial is not about whether or not Mr . Jones  beats his wife.  Unless there are witnesses that he was physically beating her at the time of the shooting, we have no proof that mr. Jones does abuse his wife.  There is potential testimony that Mrs. Jones is fabricating the abuse to justify her actions.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> Ok mr. Juror ....here is the problem, this trial is not about whether or not Mr . Jones  beats his wife.  Unless there are witnesses that he was physically beating her at the time of the shooting, we have no proof that mr. Jones does abuse his wife.  There is potential testimony that Mrs. Jones is fabricating the abuse to justify her actions.



There's certainly that as well. If she was telling the truth about the abuse she is still guilty of murder and finding her not guilty will, as I have said, have consequences because you will have not just set the precedent that you can kill people even if you aren't in immediate danger, you will have given a defence to anyone who wants to kill a partner, just state they beat you and hey presto the jury feels sorry for you and away you go on your merry way.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 19, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> I have no sympathy for wife beaters. If I was on the jury I wouldn'tve given her a guilty verdict.





hoshin1600 said:


> Ok mr. Juror ....here is the problem, this trial is not about whether or not Mr . Jones  beats his wife.  Unless there are witnesses that he was physically beating her at the time of the shooting, we have no proof that mr. Jones does abuse his wife.  There is potential testimony that Mrs. Jones is fabricating the abuse to justify her actions.



I'm not going to lie. I too have a strong dislike for wife beaters. I think they're a disgrace. And I hate sexual predators 100 x worse. I want to look into the Mrs. Jones case and examine the details. Anyone here have a link or two for me?


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 19, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> I have no sympathy for wife beaters. If I was on the jury I wouldn'tve given her a guilty verdict.



The system fails when you selectively enforce the law.

The law says you have to have a reasonable belief your life was in danger.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 19, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> I'm not going to lie. I too have a strong dislike for wife beaters. I think they're a disgrace. And I hate sexual predators 100 x worse. I want to look into the Mrs. Jones case and examine the details. Anyone here have a link or two for me?



I will see if I can find it, but it's actually from the 1970's. And the name isn't Jones. I was just using it as a generic name. The case was of significance because it set a precedent.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 19, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> The system fails when you selectively enforce the law.



I agree. Not only is it bad that it happens far too often, it's bad because it shouldn't happen at all. 



CB Jones said:


> The law says you have to have a reasonable belief your life was in danger.



I almost hate to say this and may end up regretting it, but this goes in the direction of *interpretation* (as hoshin and I were discussing) and outside parties telling me the fear for my life or safety was not reasonable or reasonable enough. It's bad enough there are criminals out there gambling with our lives on one side, we don't need the legal system gambling with our lives  as well on the other side. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

This is what I've been trying to say guys. Stuck between a rock and a hard place. 

Here are the choices you are faced with; either Ignore the fear you feel and either hold back, refrain from preemptive action or don't react at all and suffer the consequences by your assailant. Or act upon your fear, preempt your assailant and do what you must do to ensure your safety and survival and suffer the consequences by the law/legal system.

A rock and a hard place guys. A rock and a damn hard place. And a sucker's game, hence my earlier multi colored analogy.


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 19, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> I almost hate to say this and may end up regretting it, but this goes in the direction of *interpretation* (as hoshin and I were discussing) and outside parties telling me the fear for my life or safety was not reasonable or reasonable enough.



That's the cost of living in society....you have to follow the laws of society and what society decides to allow.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 19, 2017)

I do know of a case in Texas of this girl who had been molested since she was 9 by a "family friend." When her dad found out he set a trap for the "family friend" and beat him up really badly. Although they said such acts of vigilantism are frowned upon the dad was not charged. If I knew the dad was beating him up, I personally would've looked the other way.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 19, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> That's the cost of living in society....you have to follow the laws of society and what society decides to allow.



Yeah, pretty much. I believe it was oftheherd who told me if I don't like the laws then I should change them. Way easier said than done.

So I'm left with one of two choices; be a victim and suffer at the hands of my assailant(s) or not be a victim and take my chances in court. I'd rather take my chances in court but that's just me. By no means would I tell those who make the other choice that they're wrong. We take a risk no matter which choice we make. It's just a matter of which risk we'd rather take.

So, _Pick Your Poison_. LOL.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 19, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> I will see if I can find it, but it's actually from the 1970's. And the name isn't Jones. I was just using it as a generic name. The case was of significance because it set a precedent.



There was a movie I watched on TV back in the '80s called The Burning Bed starring Farah Fawcett.

After putting up with years of violent domestic abuse, Farah's character finally had enough. So one night after her husband beat her up during one of his many drunken rages he fell asleep. So she packed up the kids, poured gasoline all over him and put a match to him killing him.

In the movie she went to trial and she was acquitted. But this movie is supposedly based on a true story. I think I'm going to look that up as well.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 19, 2017)

Nobody is saying do not defend yourself. They are saying understand the laws and the rules so that, when you defend yourself, you don't also go to jail. You're the one caught up on the whole idea that the rules are wrong or morally incorrect.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 20, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> Nobody is saying do not defend yourself. They are saying understand the laws and the rules so that, when you defend yourself, you don't also go to jail. You're the one caught up on the whole idea that the rules are wrong or morally incorrect.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


 
What on earth are you talking about and why are you insisting on hostile dialogue? Have you not read my last 4 or 5 posts? I said we face legal risks when we defend ourselves and this is a *fact* you can't deny unless you're willing to be blind and/or dishonest. We can't always dictate the circumstances, pace, direction and outcome of an altercation so *the risk is always there *that we may inadvertently do something that will cause us to "_go to jail_". If you disagree with that notion then that's fine by me. I have no problem with that. You react in a SD situation according to your position on this issue and I will react in a SD situation according to my position on this issue.

I have no problem with your opinion and position on this but you obviously take huge exception to mine. I wonder why.

And concerning your claim that I'm caught up on the whole idea that the rules are wrong or morally incorrect. Truth is you're caught up on the whole idea that the rules are never wrong and are all morally correct. You're looking at the same thing that I'm looking at but from a different angle. You see a square from your angle while I see a triangle from mine. Difference is what you see doesn't bother me one bit but what I see seems to seriously vex you. Agree to disagree *as I have* and move on.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 20, 2017)

On a different note, going back to the Farrah Fawcett movie; it is a movie adaptation of a non fiction/true Crime book on the life of Francine Hughes (later changed to Wilson). Francine passed away March of this year due to complications with Pneumonia. She was 69.

She went to trial and was found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity and what was dubbed _Battered Woman's Syndrome_.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 20, 2017)

There seems to be an assumption here that such cases always go to court as well as the assumption that it will be judged by laymen. That doesn't happen here and I doubt it happens in the US.
When you are attacked, defend yourself and the attacker dies, you call the police. The police don't immediately arrest you cart you off to court and you are plonked in front of a jury to be judged by a random bunch of people.

When the police turn up at the scene they have no way of knowing who is telling the truth and who isn't, they don't know what happened. You do but remember they don't know you so you may feel indignant etc that you are being questioned etc.

The case is investigated, forensic evidence taken, the story pieced together by experienced detectives. In the UK it will go to the Coroner's Court, this will decide the means of death ie unlawful killing, if it is not an unlawful killing then there will be no prosecution. The standard is the same in the Coroner's Court of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Domestic homicide is treated differently in that other agencies also become involved ... Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) (introduced by section 9 of the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004, in April 2011) are multi-agency reviews undertaken following a domestic violence related homicide.
It's rare for a 'self defence' case to come to court, if it does it's because there is sufficient evidence to show that there is considerable doubt about how the incident actually played out, usually that's not because of 'unreasonable' violence but because there's evidence to show that the act was actually premeditated. In the cases that do come to court you can see why, it needs to be examined in detail in the open. they are never straightforward one such as someone burst into my house, they were armed and I felt afraid for my life so I shot them. That's open and shut, the cases that do come to court are like this one Robert Rhodes cleared of killing wife during row - BBC News. there's still talk despite everything that he did actually murder his wife. Of course we don't know all the evidence but you can see why it came to court.
Some cases are complicated, the accused admits killing someone but the case needs to go to court for a verdict which isn't necessarily a guilty' of murder one but it could be.  Man who killed his wife while sleeping goes free

What seems simple rarely is, if you shoot and kill an intruder it seems so to you who was there but for every one genuine case of self defence there are many fake ones. Of course the only case you are interested is yours but that can't be the case for investigators. You know you are telling the truth but how do they? You don't like being questioned but would demand that investigators question everyone in other cases, would you be happy if they took the word of everyone? The situation is seen through tunnel vision when you are personally involved, often it takes other people to see the whole picture and that's what society needs.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 20, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> The system fails when you selectively enforce the law.
> 
> The law says you have to have a reasonable belief your life was in danger.


Almost.  The law says that you have to have a reasonable belief that your life, or that of an innocent third party, was in immediate danger from a party or parties capable of inflicting death or serious bodily harm, that you didn't provoke or deliberately incite the circumstance, and (often) that there were no other reasonable and immediate alternatives to lethal force.  The four pillars that I referenced above.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jul 20, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> I almost hate to say this and may end up regretting it, but this goes in the direction of *interpretation* (as hoshin and I were discussing) and outside parties telling me the fear for my life or safety was not reasonable or reasonable enough. It's bad enough there are criminals out there gambling with our lives on one side, we don't need the legal system gambling with our lives  as well on the other side. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


You seem to be really, dramatically, misunderstanding the Reasonable Man Doctrine.

_"A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.

The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person."_


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 20, 2017)

Hey people, let me sum up as briefly and best as I can exactly how I look at this and WHY I do. And by why I mean to show everyone something which validates my concerns.

Basically, if I am accosted by an assailant and I have absolutely no means to escape the situation then I am faced with three choices:

1). Do nothing and be a victim who didn't even try to defend himself.
2). Defend myself but _somehow consciously control the flow and outcome of the altercation_ so as not to perform an action that will land me in jail.
3). Don't think about anything except my immediate safety and survival and deal with the aftermath once the dust settles.

For me, #1 is simply not an option (and we'll get to this).

I would love to be able to always do #2 *but that is simply not realistic*. Maybe if I am fighting off a 13 year old 6th grader throwing a tantrum, sure. But against a thug with a knife or gun or against multiple attackers or home invaders? No way. And anyone who claims they can ALWAYS do such thing no matter the assailant or the place and circumstances of the situation *has serious reality/fantasy issues and/or honesty issues*.

#3 is *the only option* I see that can *guarantee* my safety and survival which is my primary goal in any SD situation. My primary goal in a SD situation is NOT to focus on whether or not I will end up in court. In a serious situation I cannot possibly think about that and focus on ending the threat at the same time.* IT'S SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE*. Option #3 for me not only includes shutting the fear of legal consequences out of my mind (so I can strictly focus on survival) but also includes preemption if need be. In a SD situation against society's brain shy you're either the hammer or the nail. I don't know about the rest of you guys but I choose to be the hammer and survive.

I'll just repeat once more what I said in my previous post; when you have to defend either yourself, your family or your home *THE RISK ALWAYS EXISTS* that you may end someone's life. You may have done it deliberately or you may have done it accidentally. But that risk is always there. It CAN happen and it DOES happen. In addition, *THE RISK ALWAYS EXISTS* that you may face prosecution and even conviction because of what transpired in your SD altercation.

Now, here's the CRUX of our discussion; most posters here focus on my position that the SD laws in the U.S. aren't practiced fairly across the board. This seems to be the main thing that is getting people's goat. The thing is if SD cases were fairly practiced across the board then I would have no reason to have this concern. So my position is that the legal system IS NOT always fair and just while others here (like @jks9199 ) says that it is. So I need to link to cases to validate my position concerning the legal system.

I've found plenty cases that I can link to but I all I really need is just one. Just one case of the legal system showing it's inept and ugly colors is enough to put a stain on the perception that the legal system is always fair and just. The reason one case is enough is because (according to people like jks) the system is always correct and morally right, so crookedness and unfairness shouldn't even happen at all, be it one time or one thousand times. And this one SD situation has all of the elements I've been talking about neatly wrapped into one case.

I am talking about the sad and very unfortunate case of Jesse Murray in the state of Georgia. He is on trial for murder and is refused the _"stand your ground law"_ as a legal defense. Remember when I said I will be getting back to option #1 where you just stand there and be a victim without trying to defend yourself? Well:



> Despite this threat, the court seems to be saying that_* Murray should have allowed himself to be beaten first*_ and then used his gun as a last resort. In the decision issued by Judge Albert R. Collier, Clayton County Superior Court, _*the judge felt that Murray was not in fear of his life*_ when he was _*attacked by a group of four men.*_ The judge stated that “nor does it appear to this court that the other men in the vicinity were acting in such a way that would cause the defendant to reasonably believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or a third party …



So being attacked by FOUR GROWN MEN does not cause a person to fear for his life? Really? And he should have just allowed himself to get beat up?

And there's this:



> When police arrived, Murray surrendered his weapon and was trying to explain what happened and was handcuffed by the responding officer. _*While he was cuffed, a member of the group that assaulted Murray ran forward and punched him in the head. The officer did not arrest the man who assaulted Murray and instead placed Murray into the back of his patrol car*_.



Aggravated assault in the presence of a police officer and he doesn't get arrested? Beautiful example of FAIR and JUST application of the law.

I'm providing two separate links to this story for those who are interested in reading them. The two excerpts quoted above are from the first link.

I'm not going to get into _WHY_ this particular case went in the direction that it did since that would be made apparent if you read the two links nor do I wish to see this discussion degrade into issues of race, racism and police corruption. For me the _WHY_ doesn't matter so much as that IT HAPPENED AT ALL regardless of the reason. So much for the legal system always being fair and just. And so much for a person being allowed to defend himself in an obvious SD situation and he won't find himself in legal trouble for defending himself which is his basic human right.

@jobo
@PhotonGuy
@hoshin1600

This is the best way that I can sum up and explain where I've been coming from all along. I don't know what else I can do beyond this to get people to understand. Not necessarily agree, but UNDERSTAND.

‘Stand your ground’ defense denied for Black man in Georgia

Stand your ground a double standard for 1 Black man in Georgia


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 20, 2017)

The problem is actually quite simple, the legal system is as fair and just as is humanly possible to make it. The problem is in the administration of it and that's where it's getting into politics. The judiciary needs to be separated from the politicians.

We've got a case going on at the moment in the UK where the US government/President has involved himself in a legal case, lots of talk from the US telling us that the government is wrong, it should do this or that, the child it is about has even been given US citizenship ( doesn't work, the child is a ward of court) BUT the thing is the government has absolutely and totally nothing to do with the case, they aren't involved in legal cases nor can they be. They are often actually taken to court as has happened recently. Government and judiciary separated.

The problems in Pknight's post isn't one of the law being wrong, it's in attitudes, customs and politics so despite saying he didn't want it to be about that it actually is. The laws are often fine, those dealing with them aren't. Railing against the law doesn't work, the problems are deeper than that. And before someone starts ranting about me being anti -American, it's the same everywhere, you have to have exceptional people running the judiciary, they have to be without prejudice and take their jobs seriously. There are many who do but the problem of course is the many who don't or who's beliefs are such they cannot uphold the law fairly.

The truth is this argument is NOT about the law, it's about a society which administers laws unfairly....and that's a political argument not a self defence one.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 20, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> I'll just repeat once more what I said in my previous post; when you have to defend either yourself, your family or your home *THE RISK ALWAYS EXISTS* that you may end someone's life.


The risk to your own life is also likewise apparent here.  If I were your family I would not want you to take risks that might get you dead


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 20, 2017)

Jenna said:


> The risk to your own life is also likewise apparent here.  If I were your family I would not want you to take risks that might get you dead



I understand exactly what you're saying Jenna. And you're right. I would not want to take _unnecessary_ risks either. If I am engaging a threat (whether to defend myself or my family) it is only because engaging that threat is the only option that I have. So unfortunately I am taking a risk that I don't _want_ to take but I _have_ to take.

This is why I said I want to become even more vigilant in taking precautionary measures. Awareness, avoidance, deescalation, escape, careful observation, etc. Things like that. Any and all safety practices that can possibly keep me and my family _out of_ these situations.

I think Jesse Murray did made two mistakes in his situation. I think the first and most critical mistake is being in a bar....specifically being in a bar with his lady friend.

Stay away from those bars guys; they're known trouble magnets. 

Thanks for your thoughtful reply Jenna.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 21, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> I understand exactly what you're saying Jenna. And you're right. I would not want to take _unnecessary_ risks either. If I am engaging a threat (whether to defend myself or my family) it is only because engaging that threat is the only option that I have. So unfortunately I am taking a risk that I don't _want_ to take but I _have_ to take.
> 
> This is why I said I want to become even more vigilant in taking precautionary measures. Awareness, avoidance, deescalation, escape, careful observation, etc. Things like that. Any and all safety practices that can possibly keep me and my family _out of_ these situations.
> 
> ...


What do you think to the idea we are in many ways conditioned to be a fearful - and therefore tending towards hypervigilance, easier manipulated to act in certain pre-ordaned ways, and perhaps less rational?  Could it be true, example.. that of all the home intrusion offences most do not make it to any media because they are common-or-garden property crime, burglary and theft?  And that the less common and but more dramatic home intrusions that involve actual bodily harm have more perceived value or interest to media consumers and are therefore given disproportionate airtime? Plainly these traumatic and frightening events do happen and but we are conditioned by media output into skewed perception of normality.. I am theorising, what do you think?

What I mean is, as martial artists, we can find our selves in a martial mindset as I am sure you know, in many cases to the good.. example being assertive without being aggressive in work or other interpersonal relationships.. Though in some cases I wonder can having a continual martial mindset cause us to be in some way blinkered to life that completely precludes the whole notion of aggression to others? I am asking you a bigger question here and possibly another thread and but I will ask anyway because I have observed posts in this one.. So like it is possible to rule out aggression altogether or it isi always me and my wish vs them and theirs? what do you think.. hope this does not digress you away.. Thank you


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 21, 2017)

Jenna said:


> What do you think to the idea we are in many ways conditioned to be a fearful - and therefore tending towards hypervigilance, easier manipulated to act in certain pre-ordaned ways, and perhaps less rational?



I wouldn't doubt that. That's a very real possibility. And if I am personally fearful and hypervigilant I don't know if I am manipulated to be so, but I would be conditioned to be so. And not by the media but by personal experiences and observation of the experiences of others around me.



Jenna said:


> Could it be true, example.. that of all the home intrusion offences most do not make it to any media because they are common-or-garden property crime, burglary and theft?



I honestly don't know. What I do know is that burglary has now become a different crime to home invasion today. Today burglary is when people break into your home while you are away, many, many times in broad daylight. Home invasions, on the other hand, happen LATE AT NIGHT and in the WEE HOURS OF THE MORNING. They break into your home while you and your family are in the home. And they come in with guns and, most times, shoot first and ask questions later. This is not a theory or suspicion that I have. This is something that I know to be a fact.



Jenna said:


> And that the less common and but more dramatic home intrusions that involve actual bodily harm have more perceived value or interest to media consumers and are therefore given disproportionate airtime?



I honestly don't know the answer to that either. I almost never miss the local evening news and I have seen news reports of home invasions where no one was seriously injured or killed but it made the news anyway. I think one of the goals of the local news (when reporting) is to make their viewers aware of where and when some of these crimes take place so that they can practice extra precaution and observation so as not to be "on the news" next (and possibly with a grim outcome).



Jenna said:


> Plainly these traumatic and frightening events do happen and but we are conditioned by media output into skewed perception of normality.. I am theorising, what do you think?



I don't know if you're right or wrong about this. I can't speak for anyone else but I honestly feel that my views of society isn't shaped by media output but by my experiences, observations, awareness of the barbaric nature of human beings and interactions with the world. The news only lets me know what happened, where it happened and to whom, among other things.



Jenna said:


> What I mean is, as martial artists, we can find our selves in a martial mindset as I am sure you know, in many cases to the good.. example being assertive without being aggressive in work or other interpersonal relationships..



Assertive without being aggressive. That is a worthy goal and way of thinking.



Jenna said:


> Though in some cases I wonder can having a continual martial mindset cause us to be in some way blinkered to life that completely precludes the whole notion of aggression to others?



What I am about to say some people may disagree with or think to be impossible. But I personally do not have a _continual martial mindset_. But I do have a _continual awareness and observation mindset_ which switches to a _protect myself and my family mindset_ if, AND ONLY IF, I am forced to do so. I can take my family to the movies or the amusement park and have nothing but a _have fun and enjoy life's precious moments mindset_, but if a group of suspicious acting people start following me and my family to our car then I will switch to a different mindset starting with awareness and very careful observation. Depending on the actions of these people and what they do will determine what type of situation, _if any at all_, this will turn into.



Jenna said:


> I am asking you a bigger question here and possibly another thread and but I will ask anyway because I have observed posts in this one.. So like it is possible to rule out aggression altogether or it isi always *me and my wish vs them and theirs*? what do you think.. hope this does not digress you away.. Thank you



Before I answer this last question you asked let me first say that I never, ever, ever start confrontations with people. And if people start confrontations with me my first goal is to walk away from that possible confrontation without any violence or physical altercation whatsoever. This is where avoidance, deescalation and escape skills come in handy.

Now, having said that, you should know that there are people in this world who only understand one language. There are people in this world who aren't content with simply robbing you of your money and letting you live; they have a crazed urge to kill you anyway. There are people in this world who are sociopaths that cannot be reasoned with and who lack remorse. You should know that the people of today are doing crazy, psychotic drugs that were not available in our generations growing up. They're doing all kinds of crazy stuff now. Bath salts, fentanyl, heroin, meth, CRYSTAL meth, acid, K-2, crack cocaine, love boat, ice, ecstasy/molly and who knows whatever the hell else these people are doing out there. These drugs make these people seriously deranged, seriously out of touch with reality and *seriously dangerous.*

So, to answer your question; if I am FORCED into a self protection situation (whether I am protecting myself or my family or both) then my answer is YES, in such a situation it is ALWAYS *me and my wish vs them and theirs*. I think to have any other mindset in such a situation is essentially akin to suicide.

My mindset goes beyond simple self defense but goes deep into the human being and the human conditions of our day.


----------



## jobo (Jul 21, 2017)

Jenna said:


> What do you think to the idea we are in many ways conditioned to be a fearful - and therefore tending towards hypervigilance, easier manipulated to act in certain pre-ordaned ways, and perhaps less rational?  Could it be true, example.. that of all the home intrusion offences most do not make it to any media because they are common-or-garden property crime, burglary and theft?  And that the less common and but more dramatic home intrusions that involve actual bodily harm have more perceived value or interest to media consumers and are therefore given disproportionate airtime? Plainly these traumatic and frightening events do happen and but we are conditioned by media output into skewed perception of normality.. I am theorising, what do you think?
> 
> What I mean is, as martial artists, we can find our selves in a martial mindset as I am sure you know, in many cases to the good.. example being assertive without being aggressive in work or other interpersonal relationships.. Though in some cases I wonder can having a continual martial mindset cause us to be in some way blinkered to life that completely precludes the whole notion of aggression to others? I am asking you a bigger question here and possibly another thread and but I will ask anyway because I have observed posts in this one.. So like it is possible to rule out aggression altogether or it isi always me and my wish vs them and theirs? what do you think.. hope this does not digress you away.. Thank you


its a good point and one that has occurred to me, the high level of concern and in a few cases borderline paranoid, about self protection seems far higher on here than in the population in general, so does doing MA make you overly worried about being attacked or does MA attract people who have security phobias?


----------



## Psilent Knight (Jul 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> its a good point and one that has occurred to me, thee level of concern and in a few cases borderline paranoid, about self protection seems far higher on here than in the population in general, so does doing MA make you overly worried about being attacked or does MA attract people who have security phobias



I don't know if you're right or wrong for most people but for me, in all honesty, I would have my mindset with or without MA practice. And besides, I do not train MA for self defense anyway. I practice Kyokushin Karate for fun, fitness and recreation.

But, going back to mindset, I'm pretty sure it's a personality thing. So you will find plenty of people in the world who do absolutely not training at all that are what may be seen as overly paranoid. And you'll find plenty of MA practitioners in the world who some may say are too lackadaisical and overly trusting.

No one here can deny that we live in a violent and dangerous society. To be aware and vigilant is to be safe. That poor family in Connecticut fell short on their precautionary measures. The two scum who invaded their home (3:00 in the morning) did not break in. They made their way into the house through an unlocked door. That was a mistake as well as the husband/father sleeping on a couch on the porch.

If it's a personality thing (which I think it is) then we should not forget that a person's personality is very, very often influenced and shaped by past experiences and even observations. So, I guess it boils down to how many people here have had past experiences like mine or close to them? How many people here have personally witnessed death as I have? Maybe...just maybe, this is what it boils down to? I don't know.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> What I do know is that burglary has now become a different crime to home invasion today. Today burglary is when people break into your home while you are away, many, many times in broad daylight



I don't know how you define crimes in the US but here burglary has always been when someone breaks into your house and steals things. Aggravated burglary is when the burglars threaten or use violence on the householders. We don't use the description 'home invasion'. 

The fear of crime is encouraged by politicians, it's a good thing to use when campaigning ie the Tories here 'Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' etc and a relatively easy thing to deal with, far easier than the economy. The crime figures especially violent crime has been falling for years ( though we have a bit of a blip at the moment because the government has cut the police numbers so crime has risen somewhat) but with so many programmes on television about 'real crime', so much coverage of crimes around the world not even just home new people have become afraid, conditioned if you like to fear crime especially violent crime. However, at no time in the UK's history has violent crime and the threat of being hurt been so low, even the terrorist threat is far less than we've had it in past years.

Have I personally witnessed violent death. Yes. Have I witnessed violence yes, of quite a few different sorts including riots. Am I paranoid and bitter? No.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> its a good point and one that has occurred to me, the high level of concern and in a few cases borderline paranoid, about self protection seems far higher on here than in the population in general, so does doing MA make you overly worried about being attacked or does MA attract people who have security phobias?



this is something i have thought a lot about and my answer is as follows,,, i will add that my opinion is something i have been been hesitant to openly discuss, but since you asked the question point blank....

martial artists are generally not paranoid.  Mark Macyoung has talked about the idea that most martial arts are not threat management but rather fear management.  most martial art schools are inept at actually teaching you self defense but give you the emotional confidence that you could deal with violence, when in fact the martial art has not given you the skills do to so.
as i look at the problem at an even deeper level i find that it is not fear.  people who sign up for martial art classes are not truly fearful that they will fall prey to violence.  what they do have is a greater than average amount of stress caused by the feeling of helplessness in their lives.  it could be any one area of a persons life that they have no control over. it could be financial or perhaps autonomy within their work place. overall they are sensitive to the fact that they do not have control and are helpless to correct the situation.  martial arts gives them one area in life that they can proactively address the stress caused by the possible threat of violence.  it is not so much the skills that reduce the fear induced stress but rather the ability to be proactive in the process of countering the helplessness.  the problem is that this is a self perpetuating issue, by that i mean as you gain some skill it will relieve a certain amount of stress, however the more skills you attain the more you realize how much you dont know and the awareness of your vulnerabilities increase.  this is similar to gun ownership. the person has an experience of helplessness /fear induced stress so they purchase a firearm, only to realize that they need another for the bedroom, then another for downstairs and one for upstairs.  there is an old adage , one gun is 0 and 2 guns is one.  this shows the growing need for protection.  
this growing need is also a driving force behind the need of skill diversification. i am good with my hands but i need ground skills "in case something happens there".  
the driving force is not paranoia or an irrational fear, it is the stress induced by the feeling of helplessness.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 26, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> martial artists are generally not paranoid.


On the contrary I think a well trained martial artist should be serene, knowing they can take care of themselves.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 28, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> I don't know how you define crimes in the US but here burglary has always been when someone breaks into your house and steals things. Aggravated burglary is when the burglars threaten or use violence on the householders. We don't use the description 'home invasion'.
> 
> The fear of crime is encouraged by politicians, it's a good thing to use when campaigning ie the Tories here 'Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' etc and a relatively easy thing to deal with, far easier than the economy. The crime figures especially violent crime has been falling for years ( though we have a bit of a blip at the moment because the government has cut the police numbers so crime has risen somewhat) but with so many programmes on television about 'real crime', so much coverage of crimes around the world not even just home new people have become afraid, conditioned if you like to fear crime especially violent crime. However, at no time in the UK's history has violent crime and the threat of being hurt been so low, even the terrorist threat is far less than we've had it in past years.
> 
> Have I personally witnessed violent death. Yes. Have I witnessed violence yes, of quite a few different sorts including riots. Am I paranoid and bitter? No.



You are correct Tez. People here in the US confuse legal terms quite often. People will often say "I was robbed" when they discover their vehicle was broken into overnight...robbery is the unlawful taking of property by force or the threat of force...not simple larceny from a vehicle or even a burglary.

A burglary in most US States is defined as when someone "enters or remains unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime therin". A "Home Invasion" is a burglary. If/When caught the offenders will have numerous additional weapons/assault/etc charges as well, but it's still a burglary. If your home is unoccupied it's a burglary, If you are sleeping and someone breaks in and leaves with you unaware it's a burglary. If they kick in your door while you are awake its a burglary.

The circumstances make it a different "degree" of burglary and it may come with various other associated charges.


----------



## jobo (Jul 28, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> I don't know if you're right or wrong for most people but for me, in all honesty, I would have my mindset with or without MA practice. And besides, I do not train MA for self defense anyway. I practice Kyokushin Karate for fun, fitness and recreation.
> 
> But, going back to mindset, I'm pretty sure it's a personality thing. So you will find plenty of people in the world who do absolutely not training at all that are what may be seen as overly paranoid. And you'll find plenty of MA practitioners in the world who some may say are too lackadaisical and overly trusting.
> 
> ...


yes we are moulded by our experience, but there has to be a degree of risk assessment otherwise being cautious and sensible can spiral away to be come a a serious personality problem. There are any number of terrible things that could happen to me or my family, but I don't want to live in a world where I'm scared to go out as some mad man might attack me with a axe, or one where im scared to stay in in case some one breaks in,and knifes me whilst I sleep. These things are quite possible, are they likely, no not very,


----------



## jobo (Jul 28, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> this is something i have thought a lot about and my answer is as follows,,, i will add that my opinion is something i have been been hesitant to openly discuss, but since you asked the question point blank....
> 
> martial artists are generally not paranoid.  Mark Macyoung has talked about the idea that most martial arts are not threat management but rather fear management.  most martial art schools are inept at actually teaching you self defense but give you the emotional confidence that you could deal with violence, when in fact the martial art has not given you the skills do to so.
> as i look at the problem at an even deeper level i find that it is not fear.  people who sign up for martial art classes are not truly fearful that they will fall prey to violence.  what they do have is a greater than average amount of stress caused by the feeling of helplessness in their lives.  it could be any one area of a persons life that they have no control over. it could be financial or perhaps autonomy within their work place. overall they are sensitive to the fact that they do not have control and are helpless to correct the situation.  martial arts gives them one area in life that they can proactively address the stress caused by the possible threat of violence.  it is not so much the skills that reduce the fear induced stress but rather the ability to be proactive in the process of countering the helplessness.  the problem is that this is a self perpetuating issue, by that i mean as you gain some skill it will relieve a certain amount of stress, however the more skills you attain the more you realize how much you dont know and the awareness of your vulnerabilities increase.  this is similar to gun ownership. the person has an experience of helplessness /fear induced stress so they purchase a firearm, only to realize that they need another for the bedroom, then another for downstairs and one for upstairs.  there is an old adage , one gun is 0 and 2 guns is one.  this shows the growing need for protection.
> ...


I can agree with all of that, there is a certain amount of my MA/fitness training that is that its one of the few things in my life where I have complete control and can therefore be a,source of accomplishment when I achieve things.

but there is still a point, where is passes from being a good thing to being a bad thing, if every time I achieve a fitness goal it makes me fell more inadequate or an ma goal and it makes me feel more vulrable, then it is indeed feeding paranoia and inadequacy and that is very very bad


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> I can agree with all of that, there is a certain amount of my MA/fitness training that is that its one of the few things in my life where I have complete control and can therefore be a,source of accomplishment when I achieve things.
> 
> but there is still a point, where is passes from being a good thing to being a bad thing, if every time I achieve a fitness goal it makes me fell more inadequate or an ma goal and it makes me feel more vulrable, then it is indeed feeding paranoia and inadequacy and that is very very bad


paranoia is brought on by anxiety but by definition is at a point of delusion and irrationality.   if you were lifting weights to look better, then you progressed to working individual muscles ..." man the medial head of my triceps needs work"  is not really paranoia but its the anxiety that keeps you from feeling like you finally got it where you want it.  bulimia/ body dysmorphic disorder on the other hand is delusional and unhealthy.  its a thin line and easy to cross.
going back to martial arts, i do not think we walk around thinking that shadow ninja's are going to attack us if we are not wearing our aluminum helmets, but when they do our training will protect us.  the anxiety is far more subtle and something most are not aware of.  once you start training you do feel "as photon guy said" serene.  you feel that you can handle yourself.  but then you get immune to that feeling and the boogie monster grows to someone bigger, stronger more trained then yourself or someone with a weapon. we are the only species that has a concept of the future and we have learned to barter with the future and be proactive to assure a better outcome.  it is what makes us human.  the anxiety is a natural motivator but in todays world we do not have the same threats as our ancestors.  the need for self protection is deeply ingrained in us.   for military and LEO they know what the threats are and prepare based on actual knowledge, the civilian on the other hand is preparing based on imagination and on a future that most likely will never come.
in my first post on this topic i said i was hesitant to talk about this...why?
well... we are either delusional or hypocritical.


----------



## Steve (Jul 28, 2017)

Burgled is just not a word that is used in the USA much any more.  "Robbed" has become a catchall phrase, even among folks who understand that it is a term of art.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 28, 2017)

As jks9199 has pointed out, if you are in a situation where you have to defend yourself against a bad guy and you do successfully stop the bad guy using whatever level of force, you will then be charged with anything from assault to murder depending on what you do. It is then up to you to defend yourself in court and to use self defense as a defense against the charge(s) being pressed. As jks9199 has mentioned and I believe we are all well aware of this, assault and murder and everything in between is illegal. That's how it is in most circumstances however there are exceptions. There are certain situations in which something that would ordinarily be against the law is allowed. For instance it is illegal to run red lights. However, there are exceptions to that. An emergency vehicle driving to an emergency with its lights and sirens on is allowed to run red lights. The driver of the emergency vehicle is not going to be charged in court because the driver did nothing wrong. In that situation the driver is allowed to run red lights so he is not guilty of anything. Likewise lets say a man is out with his wife and he gets attacked by a bad guy who is intent on beating him up and raping his wife. The man fights back and beats up the bad guy. The man should not be charged because he did nothing wrong. He is not guilty. Had the man attacked an innocent person who wasn't doing anything to him or his wife than he would be guilty but we're talking about a case of the man and his wife being attacked by a bad guy when he and his wife are the innocent people so to stop the bad guy and to use force doing so, that shouldn't get the man in trouble and shouldn't make the man guilty any more than the driver of an emergency vehicle who runs red lights while driving to an emergency.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 28, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> As jks9199 has pointed out, if you are in a situation where you have to defend yourself against a bad guy and you do successfully stop the bad guy using whatever level of force, you *will *


 Wrong word here. MAY, not will be charged.  Depending on the seriousness of the offense involved (was the guy who attacked you bruised, mangled, or killed), and the specific circumstances -- there is discretion for the responding officers or prosecutors to decide whether or not to charge you.  If they do charge you, you can then claim justification.  





> then be charged with anything from assault to murder depending on what you do. It is then up to you to defend yourself in court and to use self defense as a defense against the charge(s) being pressed. As jks9199 has mentioned and I believe we are all well aware of this, assault and murder and everything in between is illegal. That's how it is in most circumstances however there are exceptions. There are certain situations in which something that would ordinarily be against the law is allowed.


Again, not quite on track with self defense.  Self defense is a claim of justification; it says you had a damn good reason for what you did, not that you were allowed to do it.





> For instance it is illegal to run red lights. However, there are exceptions to that. An emergency vehicle driving to an emergency with its lights and sirens on is allowed to run red lights. The driver of the emergency vehicle is not going to be charged in court because the driver did nothing wrong.


Not the same as an affirmative defense.  In Virginia, section 46.2-920 gives an emergency vehicle, with lights and sirens running and due regard for safety, the authority to disregard certain traffic laws and regulations.  At that point -- they aren't breaking the law.





> In that situation the driver is allowed to run red lights so he is not guilty of anything.


So long as the driver of the emergency vehicle showed due regard for safety, they were not breaking the law. 





> Likewise lets say a man is out with his wife and he gets attacked by a bad guy who is intent on beating him up and raping his wife. The man fights back and beats up the bad guy. The man should not be charged because he did nothing wrong. He is not guilty.


And here, once again we break down.  Wrong -- he IS guilty.  He HAS broken the law.  He may have been justified in doing so, by being attacked and defending his wife, but he has still broken the law. 





> Had the man attacked an innocent person who wasn't doing anything to him or his wife than he would be guilty but we're talking about a case of the man and his wife being attacked by a bad guy when he and his wife are the innocent people so to stop the bad guy and to use force doing so, that shouldn't get the man in trouble and shouldn't make the man guilty any more than the driver of an emergency vehicle who runs red lights while driving to an emergency.


  No -- because the emergency vehicle operator has been affirmatively granted the authority to drive in that manner; he (or she) is not breaking the law.  Some states HAVE indeed created an affirmative code of self defense.  But, here, search the Code of Virginia... find it there.

Let me try using a different (and classic) example of a defense of justification.  A man is stuck in an isolated resort community in the off season, when everything is locked up and closed.  He has no food, no shelter, and the weather is life threateningly severe.  He breaks into a cabin, eats food that is there, and takes shelter from the storm.  At this point, he has committed at least breaking and entering and larceny, no?  He forced his way into a cabin that didn't belong to him, and he took food that didn't belong to him.  In breaking in -- he sets off an alarm, and the police arrive once the storm lifts.  They arrest him; his defense is that had he not committed those crimes, he would have died.  He was justified in breaking the law by a higher principle, the protection of human life.


----------

