Actually, yeah, it really is that simple. The fact that you don't like the truth doesn't change it.
I'm as much a lawyer as you apparently are. So where do I get my information? From similar sources to what you're claiming you do: actual lawyers and law-makers. The difference is that 1) I didn't start with a preconceived notion and then try to make facts fit what I wanted to hear 2) the legal experts I reference specialize in this sort of thing 3) I paid attention to what they have to say.
Because you don't know what they are or how they relate to self defense. This is because you didn't read them after being advised to. Read them. The information comes from actual lawyers and is specific to using weapons for self defense.
I've been saying this for decades but few people seem to be paying attention. The larger "Martial Arts community" can really learn a lot if they'd pay attention to the "Gun Community," in particular the subset of Firearms for Self Defense. Besides important research and training on subjects such as stress and adrenal dump and its effects upon the human body, they also have an absolute metric crap-ton of legal expertise on using weapons for self defense. You should pay attention to it but, given how you've reacted so far, it seems unlikely that you will.
OK. I chose to listen to people with real names such as Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and a whole host of legal experts in the CCW and Firearms for Self Defense community.
Which is exactly what I wrote and what
you chose to ignore when you told me above that you "don't care about the 4 pillars, I'm not interested" You don't know about Preclusion or Imminent Jeopardy and the rest because you already decided before hand that you had the answer and didn't like what I was telling you. Now your buddy "Matt" is agreeing with me
and you don't even know it! You think that he's saying something different because you already refused to pay attention.
Well dang, doesn't that just sound familiar? It's exactly what I already told you and you just told me that I'm wrong. I specifically wrote that it doesn't matter if you were carrying a weapon, provided that it's legal for you to do so, but what mattered is if your use of it is justified (post #31 and several other times). But, because I know you're still not going to pay attention, let's go ask Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine about
using a weapon in self defense, shall we?
"Depending on the specific facts of the situation, an accused person may claim that the use of deadly force was justified to excuse his actions..." He then spends a couple of pages talking about the 3 "Conditions" such as the defendant not causing the situation or being the aggressor, a reasonable and honest belief of danger, and the responsibility to try to avoid the danger before using deadly force, all of which were discussed in the 4 Pillars article which you refused to read.
That's nice. However, actual examples of people using weapons for self defense seem to not bear out his concern. "What examples," you ask? Glad you asked.
Here are, literally, thousands of them. You can read for days on end of actual examples. In the vast majority of them, it doesn't matter that the person had the weapon, what matters is that the use of it was considered "justified."
I really wish you and "Matt" would stop using Straw Man arguments. I didn't write that so stop claiming I did. What I wrote was, "You're going to have to explain WHY YOU USED IT AS A WEAPON.
Where you got it and why you had it is only relevant if your explanation for why you used it is not believable because it sounds like you were starting a fight. If it's clear that you used the cane for self defense, then that's all that matters." Are you deliberately ignoring this, like the rest?
There "Matt" goes again, agreeing with what I already wrote and you already ignored: "
Where you got it and why you had it is only relevant if your explanation for why you used it is not believable because it sounds like you were starting a fight. If it's clear that you used the cane for self defense, then that's all that matters." Remember the "Armed Citizen" link I pointed you to just a few sentences ago in this post? Notice how very many of them end with "Police declined to file charges" or "the police chief said, 'this is a clear case of self defense'." or have the Police praising their actions.
Again, you made an assumption in your thread-start that you're "not sure it's the best idea for an able bodied person to walk around with a cane" because "If you're able bodied you'll probably have to justify why you had a cane to begin with." Again, it turns out that the answer is still, "No, why you had it is irrelevant as long as it was legal for you to have it." What matters is if your use of it as a weapon is legally justified. I've told you. "Matt" has told you. Mike DeWine has told you. Legal experts from the firearms world have told you.
