Use of Force Law

[PhotonGuy]

That isn't what you said and it is, again, a false assumption. The level of force you may confront is defined by size, training and intent. Making the assumption "usually a man..." is going to get you hurt and really seems to simply be a continuation of you trying to justify what has been an endless string of false assumptions and statements regarding use of force.

Generally speaking a man is going to be larger and stronger than a woman or child. But yes, it depends on the individual and the specific situation as people come in all different shapes, sizes, and levels of training.

Example How do you define child? there are some HUGE 16 year olds on HS football teams.

Again, that would depend on the situation. A large 16 year old with ill intentions can be a serious threat. And as it is 16 year olds are often not considered children in court in terms of how they can be charged. Lots of 16 year olds are charged as adults particularly for violent crimes. So in court 16 year olds often are considered adults at least in terms of how they can be charged for crimes.

 

[Tez3]

Yes and in the "strip poker" version, the clue is in the word 'strip', every round whoever loses removes an article of clothing. At least that's how they play strip poker around here.

And? it's played by consenting adults with a sense of fun.

On a more serious note, this is something you do a lot....make a statement such as 'drawing cards to see who takes their clothes off' which you know isn't a true statement because you then say 'every round whoever loses removes an article of clothing' which is how the game is played. You distort the truth a lot, trying to twist it to mean something else. When it's strip poker I don't suppose it matters but you have said things like 'you can't defend yourself in the UK' along other more serious accusations and lies. You post up these things as if they were true causing long explanations from us showing you how and why you are wrong, then you still persist in thinking only you are right. As an example again, drawing cards and playing a game are different things but you don't see it and make it as if they were the same because it fits your version not the truth.

 

[PhotonGuy]

And? it's played by consenting adults with a sense of fun.

On a more serious note, this is something you do a lot....make a statement such as 'drawing cards to see who takes their clothes off' which you know isn't a true statement because you then say 'every round whoever loses removes an article of clothing' which is how the game is played. You distort the truth a lot, trying to twist it to mean something else. When it's strip poker I don't suppose it matters but you have said things like 'you can't defend yourself in the UK' along other more serious accusations and lies. You post up these things as if they were true causing long explanations from us showing you how and why you are wrong, then you still persist in thinking only you are right. As an example again, drawing cards and playing a game are different things but you don't see it and make it as if they were the same because it fits your version not the truth.

Drawing cards is sometimes part of a game, depending on what game you're playing. Poker is one of those games. Poker involves drawing cards, at least that's how it was played the last time I checked.

The fact of the matter is that in strip poker it involves taking clothes off, and consenting adults do play it but asking somebody if they want to play strip poker, its not the kind of thing you would ask a random person or you could get in trouble, at least around here you could.

I don't recall ever saying you can't defend yourself in the UK and as it is I don't know how things are run over there and the fact of the matter is I don't really care. I don't live there and I don't hang out there.

 

[pgsmith]

And? it's played by consenting adults with a sense of fun.

On a more serious note, this is something you do a lot....make a statement such as 'drawing cards to see who takes their clothes off' which you know isn't a true statement because you then say 'every round whoever loses removes an article of clothing' which is how the game is played. You distort the truth a lot, trying to twist it to mean something else. When it's strip poker I don't suppose it matters but you have said things like 'you can't defend yourself in the UK' along other more serious accusations and lies. You post up these things as if they were true causing long explanations from us showing you how and why you are wrong, then you still persist in thinking only you are right. As an example again, drawing cards and playing a game are different things but you don't see it and make it as if they were the same because it fits your version not the truth.

And that's exactly why I put him on ignore quite some time ago. I always used to tell my boys "If you find yourself making excuses, stop and figure out what you did wrong. There's never one without the other."

P.S. I'm for anything involving strip poker!

 

[Tez3]

Drawing cards is sometimes part of a game, depending on what game you're playing. Poker is one of those games. Poker involves drawing cards, at least that's how it was played the last time I checked.

The fact of the matter is that in strip poker it involves taking clothes off, and consenting adults do play it but asking somebody if they want to play strip poker, its not the kind of thing you would ask a random person or you could get in trouble, at least around here you could.

I don't recall ever saying you can't defend yourself in the UK and as it is I don't know how things are run over there and the fact of the matter is I don't really care. I don't live there and I don't hang out there.

You started a thread for goodness sake saying you can't defend yourself in the UK.

Drawing a card is a random process of picking a card out of a pack or at least a hand of cards. Losing a game of poker doesn't mean drawing a card. If I lost a game of poker I would say 'I lost that game' I would not say 'I drew a card'.

If people are so uptight that being asked if they want to play a risqué game upsets them I assume the real problems in life must drive them insane.

 

[PhotonGuy]

You started a thread for goodness sake saying you can't defend yourself in the UK.

And where was that thread? Could you link it?

Drawing a card is a random process of picking a card out of a pack or at least a hand of cards. Losing a game of poker doesn't mean drawing a card. If I lost a game of poker I would say 'I lost that game' I would not say 'I drew a card'.

If people are so uptight that being asked if they want to play a risqué game upsets them I assume the real problems in life must drive them insane.

I never said that drawing a card meant that you lose, I just said that it was part of the process of the game.

I am not about to go around asking random people if they want to play a game that could involve taking their clothes off. And I wouldn't recommend you do that either if you're ever around here.

 

[Tez3]

N'importe quoi.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Gah, I close my eyes for 5 minutes and I miss this gem of a discussion

Just my 2 cents (English Law.) on self defence. (Skipping all the fluff on morality & sexism). For Self defence to be raised in court and succeed you Have to have been brought to court under some charge (anything from scaring the Victim to Murder) and have to have acted with 'reasonable force' in comparison to the force applied to you.

If you ever want to know if you'd go to jail for some form of self defence, just ask 12 random people on the street (ie: a jury) whether they believe your hypothetical actions of self defence were excessive or not.

Ie;if someone yells at you and you pull a gun on them you're going to jail.

Also 'Good Lawyers' (even 'Great Lawyers!') don't guarantee you a get out of jail free card, that's not their job. Their job is to know & interpret the law to find a the most honest and best solution for your actions.
You are responsible for your own actions, safety and the level of harm you deal to other people.

PS: Each to their own on morality and strip poker I guess, personally I'm game if anyone fancies a go? (JK)

PSS: Self defence does apply when defending other people as well.

Alright, thank you for clarifying this. I take it you must have some background in law.

 

[Tez3]

Alright, thank you for clarifying this. I take it you must have some background in law.

For crying out loud you have been told this numerous times, you seem to have a gene that allows you to totally blank information you don't want to have to deal with. Did you think I had no knowledge of the law of policing? did you think I was just talking out of my backside when telling you how the police work in the UK or how the CPS works or how the law works. Oh my days you really take the biscuit.

 

[PhotonGuy]

For crying out loud you have been told this numerous times, you seem to have a gene that allows you to totally blank information you don't want to have to deal with.

Then you must be glad I finally "caught on."

Did you think I had no knowledge of the law of policing? did you think I was just talking out of my backside when telling you how the police work in the UK or how the CPS works or how the law works.

Systems work differently from place to place and from country to country. How things are done in your country doesn't really concern me.

Oh my days you really take the biscuit.

My posts seem to really exasperate you. Therefore the way I see it these are your options. Option 1, you can simply refrain from reading my posts. Option 2, you can read my posts and take the risk of being exasperated.

And then there's option 3, learn to not let what people say on the internet get to you.

 

[Tez3]

My posts seem to really exasperate you. Therefore the way I see it these are your options. Option 1, you can simply refrain from reading my posts. Option 2, you can read my posts and take the risk of being exasperated.

And then there's option 3, learn to not let what people say on the internet get to you.

Oh dear no, you make me laugh. You don't understand human interaction properly do you?
'taking the biscuit' isn't a phrase indicative of my exasperation, it's one of humour.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Oh dear no, you make me laugh. You don't understand human interaction properly do you?
'taking the biscuit' isn't a phrase indicative of my exasperation, it's one of humour.

Since Im not from your country I didn't understand what the idiom "taking the biscuit" meant and so I looked it up. In this day and age we have this wonderful thing called the internet where you can look up all sorts of stuff. According to my searches here is what I found. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines "taking the biscuit" as, "used to describe something that is extremely surprising, annoying, etc" It doesn't sound much like humor to me.

 

[Tez3]

Since Im not from your country I didn't understand what the idiom "taking the biscuit" meant and so I looked it up. In this day and age we have this wonderful thing called the internet where you can look up all sorts of stuff. According to my searches here is what I found. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines "taking the biscuit" as, "used to describe something that is extremely surprising, annoying, etc" It doesn't sound much like humor to me.

From the Merrriam Webster dictionary website. "The most trustworthy dictionary and thesaurus of American English'' so that was a good choice wasn't it?

I think it's for the English writer to decide how an English expression is used don't you? Only you would argue the use of English expressions with an English person. I think you need to have a word with yourself.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I think it's for the English writer to decide how an English expression is used don't you? Only you would argue the use of English expressions with an English person. I think you need to have a word with yourself.

Alright than if you say taking the biscuit is an expression of humor than its an expression of humor.

 

[PhotonGuy]

No offense intended, all in good fun - but I'll back you, bro. All the way.

That was a dumb post.

 

[BigMotor]

As a source of discussion, as well as a refrence thread, I was hoping everybody would look up their state law regarding use of force. Or for those outside the US, whatever law applies.

Non Deadly Use Of Force:
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

Use Of Deadly Force:
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Florida has laws that favor the attacked, and not the attacker. There is no duty to retreat, and the victim can shoot the attacker, or use any justifiable means needed, to injure or kill the attacker.

My reference:
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

 

[Juany118]

Non Deadly Use Of Force:
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

Use Of Deadly Force:
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Florida has laws that favor the attacked, and not the attacker. There is no duty to retreat, and the victim can shoot the attacker, or use any justifiable means needed, to injure or kill the attacker.

My reference:
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

The last bit can be a bit questionable. If the only witnesses are the person who used lethal force and the dead person there becomes an issue. Additionally, unless they have amended the law this is an issue that raises a similar question. Drug dealer used 'stand your ground' to avoid charges in two killings

The head aches of the Florida Statute actually informed PA's when it was written so there are exceptions such as (paraphrase) "this law does not apply during the commission of a crime." So if you are a person not to possess or are slinging dope at the time you can't claim "stand your ground."

 

[MaxRob]

A good point and I adhere to the Law.
However if I was confronted seriously I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

 

[Transk53]

Since Im not from your country I didn't understand what the idiom "taking the biscuit" meant and so I looked it up. In this day and age we have this wonderful thing called the internet where you can look up all sorts of stuff. According to my searches here is what I found. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines "taking the biscuit" as, "used to describe something that is extremely surprising, annoying, etc" It doesn't sound much like humor to me.

Obviously I cannot use my usual profanity, but that phrase is one of politenes. I.E, if someone like me heard that, I would laugh like a Harpy, but I would still be annoyed. Get that?

 

[Transk53]

The last bit can be a bit questionable. If the only witnesses are the person who used lethal force and the dead person there becomes an issue. Additionally, unless they have amended the law this is an issue that raises a similar question. Drug dealer used 'stand your ground' to avoid charges in two killings

The head aches of the Florida Statute actually informed PA's when it was written so there are exceptions such as (paraphrase) "this law does not apply during the commission of a crime." So if you are a person not to possess or are slinging dope at the time you can't claim "stand your ground."

I.E., goading?