James Brady, former White House press secretary, has died

[Statistikhengst]

While one does have a right to self protection, how one exercises this right is subject to examination and review by society. I was in situation recently where I was threatened by someone on the street because I would not give him any money (he was simply panhandling. He was not a robber or a mugger.) He was bigger, stronger, and younger than me, and he raised his fist above his head and leaned back like he was going to inflict a severe blow to my head. But he was unarmed. If I had been armed, and pulled out my handgun and shot him it's quite likely, based on the results of a trial of a similar situation in my city, where the fellow who felt threatened shot and killed his assailant, that I would be spending the next 25 years in prison. I just kept on walking, which fortunately resolved the situation non-violently.

Well, lesse...
He clearly threatened you with bodily harm
He clearly had the means to inflict this harm upon you.
Did you have reason for fear for you life?

If so, then you had the right to use deadly force to protect yourself -- having means to cause harm in nio way necessitates that he have a weapon.

Thank you, that is the case. It would have been a legitimate case of self defense, as outlined. Disparity of force.
Anti gun forces are propelled by ignorance and fear.

Oh, the irony.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, lesse...
He clearly threatened you with bodily harm
He clearly had the means to inflict this harm upon you.
Did you have reason for fear for you life?

If so, then you had the right to use deadly force to protect yourself -- having means to cause harm in nio way necessitates that he have a weapon.

Thank you, that is the case. It would have been a legitimate case of self defense, as outlined. Disparity of force.
Anti gun forces are propelled by ignorance and fear.

Oh, the irony.

That I mention ignorance and fear and you show up? Yes, ironic indeed.

 

[Bill Angel]

While one does have a right to self protection, how one exercises this right is subject to examination and review by society. I was in situation recently where I was threatened by someone on the street because I would not give him any money (he was simply panhandling. He was not a robber or a mugger.) He was bigger, stronger, and younger than me, and he raised his fist above his head and leaned back like he was going to inflict a severe blow to my head. But he was unarmed. If I had been armed, and pulled out my handgun and shot him it's quite likely, based on the results of a trial of a similar situation in my city, where the fellow who felt threatened shot and killed his assailant, that I would be spending the next 25 years in prison. I just kept on walking, which fortunately resolved the situation non-violently.

Well, lesse...
He clearly threatened you with bodily harm
He clearly had the means to inflict this harm upon you.
Did you have reason for fear for you life?

If so, then you had the right to use deadly force to protect yourself -- having means to cause harm in nio way necessitates that he have a weapon.

I see your point, but a court can find you guilty of homicide if in its opinion you had other means to defend yourself than the use of deadly force. If your assailant has you cornered, like in an alley, so your only option for self defense is to shoot the SOB, the courts are more likely to approve of your action. But in that situation you could also just point your weapon at your assailant and then use your cellphone to call 911.

 

[The Rabbi]

While one does have a right to self protection, how one exercises this right is subject to examination and review by society. I was in situation recently where I was threatened by someone on the street because I would not give him any money (he was simply panhandling. He was not a robber or a mugger.) He was bigger, stronger, and younger than me, and he raised his fist above his head and leaned back like he was going to inflict a severe blow to my head. But he was unarmed. If I had been armed, and pulled out my handgun and shot him it's quite likely, based on the results of a trial of a similar situation in my city, where the fellow who felt threatened shot and killed his assailant, that I would be spending the next 25 years in prison. I just kept on walking, which fortunately resolved the situation non-violently.

Well, lesse...
He clearly threatened you with bodily harm
He clearly had the means to inflict this harm upon you.
Did you have reason for fear for you life?

If so, then you had the right to use deadly force to protect yourself -- having means to cause harm in nio way necessitates that he have a weapon.

I see your point, but a court can find you guilty of homicide if in its opinion you had other means to defend yourself than the use of deadly force. If your assailant has you cornered, like in an alley, so your only option for self defense is to shoot the SOB, the courts are more likely to approve of your action. But in that situation you could also just point your weapon at your assailant and then use your cellphone to call 911.

And here we see the ignorance of all things guns.

No, the common law in all states prescribes what is self defense. You are allowed to use deadly force to neutralize the threat of death or serious bodily harm to yourself or another. That's it. So, is a big man intent on doing you harm able to deliver death or severe bodily harm? Yes. DId he have the means? Yes. Did he have the demonstrated intent? Yes.
Meets all the tests.

 

[House]

WHO has ever said, ever anywhere, that guns fire of their own volition?

Every freedom hating automaton that insists guns kill people and refuse to acknowledge the fact that if guns didn't exist, people would still be murdered.

Apparently the key to utopia is the destruction of firearms to gun control nuts.

Bullshit.

Your answer is "I got nothin'".

If you're too stupid to comprehend my post, I guess I got nothin'.

WildMan had no problem grasping it, so I doubt it's me that's lacking somethin'.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What James Brady did for gun control (Opinion) - CNN.com

In 1981, James Brady was shot in the head and gravely wounded in a shooting that also wounded President Reagan -- despite their both being surrounded by plenty of extremely well-trained "good guys with guns."

Good article with photos but that one FACT ^^^ really says it all.

 

[Pogo]

Every freedom hating automaton that insists guns kill people and refuse to acknowledge the fact that if guns didn't exist, people would still be murdered.

Apparently the key to utopia is the destruction of firearms to gun control nuts.

Bullshit.

Your answer is "I got nothin'".

If you're too stupid to comprehend my post, I guess I got nothin'.

WildMan had no problem grasping it, so I doubt it's me that's lacking somethin'.

That ^^ should tell you all you need to know.

Fact is (as PredFan knows since he squirms every time I challenge him with the same thing), no one in the history of humanity has ever declared that firearms fire themselves. The abject intellectual poverty crowd likes to play Weasel Words to pretend. Let's interpret slogans literally and pretend we don't understand how English works, isn't that fun. That's all well and good if you're like four years old but eventually the rest of us grow up.

We'll keep waiting. For a while.

 

[The Rabbi]

What James Brady did for gun control (Opinion) - CNN.com

In 1981, James Brady was shot in the head and gravely wounded in a shooting that also wounded President Reagan -- despite their both being surrounded by plenty of extremely well-trained "good guys with guns."

Good article with photos but that one FACT ^^^ really says it all.

No it really doesnt say anything other than you cannot extrapolate from one isolated case. That is a subtlety lost on idiots like you.

 

[Pogo]

While one does have a right to self protection, how one exercises this right is subject to examination and review by society. I was in situation recently where I was threatened by someone on the street because I would not give him any money (he was simply panhandling. He was not a robber or a mugger.) He was bigger, stronger, and younger than me, and he raised his fist above his head and leaned back like he was going to inflict a severe blow to my head. But he was unarmed. If I had been armed, and pulled out my handgun and shot him it's quite likely, based on the results of a trial of a similar situation in my city, where the fellow who felt threatened shot and killed his assailant, that I would be spending the next 25 years in prison. I just kept on walking, which fortunately resolved the situation non-violently.

Point well taken. I had guns pulled on me only once. I was not carrying; had I taken the attitude of the firearm fantasy and figured I was entitled to enact vigilante justice just because some stranger accosts me I wouldn't have made it to the next day (they turned out to be cops but never identified themselves as such).

Both incidents underscore the reality that violence is not the remedy to violence.

Bullshit alert.

This jagoff negged this story claiming it was a lie. Then he tells me I "wasn't there". In my own experience in 1985.

Whattaya think M14? Doesn't this mean gun loons can only argue from ignorance, emotion and dishonesty?

I'd like to think it means some cranial black holes see themselves as rhetorical fascists, dictating not only what people can say but even what their own experiences are.

Downright Orwellian.

 

[Bill Angel]

Well, lesse...
He clearly threatened you with bodily harm
He clearly had the means to inflict this harm upon you.
Did you have reason for fear for you life?

If so, then you had the right to use deadly force to protect yourself -- having means to cause harm in nio way necessitates that he have a weapon.

I see your point, but a court can find you guilty of homicide if in its opinion you had other means to defend yourself than the use of deadly force. If your assailant has you cornered, like in an alley, so your only option for self defense is to shoot the SOB, the courts are more likely to approve of your action. But in that situation you could also just point your weapon at your assailant and then use your cellphone to call 911.

And here we see the ignorance of all things guns.

No, the common law in all states prescribes what is self defense. You are allowed to use deadly force to neutralize the threat of death or serious bodily harm to yourself or another. That's it. So, is a big man intent on doing you harm able to deliver death or severe bodily harm? Yes. DId he have the means? Yes. Did he have the demonstrated intent? Yes.
Meets all the tests.

Interesting article: City officer gets 15 years in fatal shooting of Marine veteran, Tshamba shot unarmed Brown 12 times outside Mount Vernon bar in 2010
What was the police officer's defense?:

Tshamba, who has been an officer for most of his adult life, spoke briefly during the proceeding, his hands cuffed in front of him.
"I'm sorry for the tragic event that brings us here today," he told Brown's relatives and friends, adding that he prays they "find peace and closure." He also called his defense "sincere," reiterating claims made during his weeklong trial in June that he was in fear for his life the night he shot Brown a dozen times.
It's "a recurrent incident in my mind that I live with for the rest of my life," said Tshamba, who plans to appeal his conviction.

 

[The Rabbi]

I see your point, but a court can find you guilty of homicide if in its opinion you had other means to defend yourself than the use of deadly force. If your assailant has you cornered, like in an alley, so your only option for self defense is to shoot the SOB, the courts are more likely to approve of your action. But in that situation you could also just point your weapon at your assailant and then use your cellphone to call 911.

And here we see the ignorance of all things guns.

No, the common law in all states prescribes what is self defense. You are allowed to use deadly force to neutralize the threat of death or serious bodily harm to yourself or another. That's it. So, is a big man intent on doing you harm able to deliver death or severe bodily harm? Yes. DId he have the means? Yes. Did he have the demonstrated intent? Yes.
Meets all the tests.

Interesting article: City officer gets 15 years in fatal shooting of Marine veteran, Tshamba shot unarmed Brown 12 times outside Mount Vernon bar in 2010
What was the police officer's defense?:

Tshamba, who has been an officer for most of his adult life, spoke briefly during the proceeding, his hands cuffed in front of him.
"I'm sorry for the tragic event that brings us here today," he told Brown's relatives and friends, adding that he prays they "find peace and closure." He also called his defense "sincere," reiterating claims made during his weeklong trial in June that he was in fear for his life the night he shot Brown a dozen times.
It's "a recurrent incident in my mind that I live with for the rest of my life," said Tshamba, who plans to appeal his conviction.

Gee it would really help if you quoted the relevant part:

Hargadon sentenced the officer to seven years for voluntary manslaughter and eight years for using a handgun in a crime of violence, with an additional two-year term held in suspension. He called the early morning incident between two intoxicated men — Tyrone Brown, who touched a woman inappropriately, and Tshamba, who pulled his service weapon to defend her honor — "truly tragic." And he chastised Tshamba for showing no apparent remorse after the shooting; instead, talking with a fellow officer about "hot chicks" that had been with him that night.

So Brown presenting a threat of death or severe bodily harm? No. Did Tshamba over react, probably because he was drunk out ofhis mind? Yes.
So the case shows nothing. Other than people get stupid with alcohol and guns.

 

[House]

Bullshit.

Your answer is "I got nothin'".

If you're too stupid to comprehend my post, I guess I got nothin'.

WildMan had no problem grasping it, so I doubt it's me that's lacking somethin'.

That ^^ should tell you all you need to know.

Fact is (as PredFan knows since he squirms every time I challenge him with the same thing), no one in the history of humanity has ever declared that firearms fire themselves. The abject intellectual poverty crowd likes to play Weasel Words to pretend. Let's interpret slogans literally and pretend we don't understand how English works, isn't that fun. That's all well and good if you're like four years old but eventually the rest of us grow up.

We'll keep waiting. For a while.

Hard to take a member that resorts to the appeal to ridicule fallacy seriously.

That said, it must be quite limiting to live in a world without tautology.

 

[Pogo]

If you're too stupid to comprehend my post, I guess I got nothin'.

WildMan had no problem grasping it, so I doubt it's me that's lacking somethin'.

That ^^ should tell you all you need to know.

Fact is (as PredFan knows since he squirms every time I challenge him with the same thing), no one in the history of humanity has ever declared that firearms fire themselves. The abject intellectual poverty crowd likes to play Weasel Words to pretend. Let's interpret slogans literally and pretend we don't understand how English works, isn't that fun. That's all well and good if you're like four years old but eventually the rest of us grow up.

We'll keep waiting. For a while.

Hard to take a member that resorts to the appeal to ridicule fallacy seriously.

That said, it must be quite limiting to live in a world without tautology.

Hey, ridiculous ideas get ridiculed. Deal widdit.

Don't want the ridicule? Don't post ridicularity. Not rocket surgery. Rhetorical onanism satisfies nobody but the onanist.

 

[Statistikhengst]

My, oh my, the the slalom journey this thread has taken.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hey, ridiculous ideas get ridiculed. Deal widdit.

Which is why we all spend so much bandwidth ridiculing you, huffer.

Don't want the ridicule? Don't post ridicularity. Not rocket surgery. Rhetorical onanism satisfies nobody but the onanist.

Rich irony indeed...

 

[House]

That ^^ should tell you all you need to know.

Fact is (as PredFan knows since he squirms every time I challenge him with the same thing), no one in the history of humanity has ever declared that firearms fire themselves. The abject intellectual poverty crowd likes to play Weasel Words to pretend. Let's interpret slogans literally and pretend we don't understand how English works, isn't that fun. That's all well and good if you're like four years old but eventually the rest of us grow up.

We'll keep waiting. For a while.

Hard to take a member that resorts to the appeal to ridicule fallacy seriously.

That said, it must be quite limiting to live in a world without tautology.

Hey, ridiculous ideas get ridiculed. Deal widdit.

Don't want the ridicule? Don't post ridicularity. Not rocket surgery. Rhetorical onanism satisfies nobody but the onanist.

I was referring to your attack against WildMan, you twit.

 

[Pogo]

Hard to take a member that resorts to the appeal to ridicule fallacy seriously.

That said, it must be quite limiting to live in a world without tautology.

Hey, ridiculous ideas get ridiculed. Deal widdit.

Don't want the ridicule? Don't post ridicularity. Not rocket surgery. Rhetorical onanism satisfies nobody but the onanist.

I was referring to your attack against WildMan, you twit.

Wildman is irrelevant. That's obvious. But you tried to use him to justify selective interpretation. And that's funny.

 

[The Rabbi]

My, oh my, the the slalom journey this thread has taken.

That would be a first for the site, right putz?

 

[Statistikhengst]

My, oh my, the the slalom journey this thread has taken.

That would be a first for the site, right putz?

I don't know, you tell me, Shaygetz.

 

[The Rabbi]

My, oh my, the the slalom journey this thread has taken.

That would be a first for the site, right putz?

I don't know, you tell me, Shaygetz.

I'll let you figure that out for yourself, chochom.