Thugs...and What To Do With 'Em

[Wry Catcher]

Pssst.... The law is "force". The point is sound.

Of course it is.

Then you must agree that the premise - force or reason - is sound.

I simply made a distinction based on the context of PC's remarks, and pointed out that in my response to her. In context, shooting and possibly killing someone committing an assault/battery is not within the law.

In context -- that is, acting in one own self-defense - shooting/beating someone is certainly within the law.

In the abstract force or reason is sound. They are not mutually exclusive in a civil society. One might be foreced into treatment and violent behavior might be extinquished (Alec, in A Clockwork Orange for an extreme example. Early intervention when a child is physically aggressive is another. The debate is not simple nor should it devolve in a defense of political beliefs.

As for your judgment that shooting someone in self defense is within the law, that is open to debate. The evidence must prove the action taken was within the law, that is, the use of reasonable force.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course it is.

Then you must agree that the premise - force or reason - is sound.

I simply made a distinction based on the context of PC's remarks, and pointed out that in my response to her. In context, shooting and possibly killing someone committing an assault/battery is not within the law.

In context -- that is, acting in one own self-defense - shooting/beating someone is certainly within the law.

In the abstract force or reason is sound.

In reality, force or reason is sound.

As for your judgment that shooting someone in self defense is within the law, that is open to debate.

There is nothing up for debate as the law -clearly- allows the use for force, including deadly force, in self-defene.

Thus, in context -- that is, acting in one own self-defense - shooting/beating someone is -certainly- within the law, your cliam to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Then you must agree that the premise - force or reason - is sound.

In context -- that is, acting in one own self-defense - shooting/beating someone is certainly within the law.

In the abstract force or reason is sound.

In reality, force or reason is sound.

As for your judgment that shooting someone in self defense is within the law, that is open to debate.

There is nothing up for debate as the law -clearly- allows the use for force, including deadly force, in self-defene.



Thus, in context -- that is, acting in one own self-defense - shooting/beating someone is -certainly- within the law, your cliam to the contrary notwithstanding.

Are you stupid? The law is REASONABLE force, which may include deadly force, BUT the evidence must prove deadly force was necessary or the shooter can be charged with homicide.

 

[LAfrique]

1. A petite young Bronx woman was pummeled into a coma by a thug who was furious that she was holding a parking space in the East Village, The Post has learned.

2. [Oscar] Fuller -- whose prior busts include weapons possession and felony assault -- jumped out and started screaming at Rosas when she claimed she was holding the space, police sources said.

3. Fuller then "punched [her] in the face with so much force that the woman flew off her feet," according to court papers.

4. A police source added, "The victim suffered permanent brain damage. It's uncertain whether or not she will survive her injuries."
"Parking rage" thug Oscar Fuller puts Bronx woman, Lana Rosas in a coma - NYPOST.com

5. It was the hardest, fastest punch I've ever seen, Katherine Reilly told the Manhattan jury as she described Fuller’s strike against the 4-foot-11 Rosas, who was knocked into a coma. It sounded to me like a watermelon splitting open, the 27-year-old teacher said of the impact of Rosas head crashing against the pavement.
Woman punched in East Village parking dispute*doesn


And, in a related story...

6. (Reuters) - A South Carolina sheriff who called for women to carry guns to defend themselves against assaults said on Tuesday he has received a positive response to his advice.
"I don't want you to go for the Mace. I want you to go for the concealed weapons permit," the sheriff said, according to a video of his remarks.

"They got one called 'The Judge' that shoots a .45 or a .410 shell," he said. "You ain't gotta be accurate. You just gotta get close."
Sheriff tells women to get guns to ward off attacks | Reuters

I wonder why the world's most notorious thugs - NATO Gatlin boys - are not first on your list: Bandit NATO boys are the worst terrorists on Planet Earth. Just wondering.

Keep wondering.

I'll pick my subject. You go right ahead and do the same.

Agent, are we? Well, no amount of diversion will get you anywhere with some of us. We have our eyes on real threats.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you stupid? The law is REASONABLE force, which may include deadly force, BUT the evidence must prove deadly force was necessary or the shooter can be charged with homicide.

Apparently you do not have the capacity to understand that none of this chages the soundness of what I said --- if you act in self-defense - that is, you act within the context of the discussion - then you NECESSARILY act withing the law.

Your statement that "In context, shooting and possibly killing someone committing an assault/battery is not within the law" is, therefore, absolutly false.

BTW.... killing another person in self-defense is -always- homicide.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I wonder why the world's most notorious thugs - NATO Gatlin boys - are not first on your list: Bandit NATO boys are the worst terrorists on Planet Earth. Just wondering.

Keep wondering.

I'll pick my subject. You go right ahead and do the same.

Agent, are we? Well, no amount of diversion will get you anywhere with some of us. We have our eyes on real threats.

"...some of us."

I love unintentional humor.

Who the heck elected you, the other voices in your head?

And, as though additional evidence were necessary, this bit of a
delusion of grandeur....
"...will get you anywhere with some of us..."

Where did you glean the idea that I had any desire to 'get anywhere' with you....?


In any case, the least you should have done was offer to buy me a drink....

Now be off.

 

[chikenwing]

perp who so maliciously attacked this women would also be able to carry a firearm, if the gun nuts have their way.


Since when do they generally care if they can carry???!!!! LOL you know the criminals!

 

[M14 Shooter]

perp who so maliciously attacked this women would also be able to carry a firearm, if the gun nuts have their way.

This is, of course, nothing but nonsense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

perp who so maliciously attacked this women would also be able to carry a firearm, if the gun nuts have their way.


Since when do they generally care if they can carry???!!!! LOL you know the criminals!

The point is not that the criminal can carry, it's to give the honest citizens the ability to defend themseves.

Can one find any more unintentional humor than signs stating that some place is a 'gun free zone."
Now, how does the criminal read that sign?

 

[Cecilie1200]

perp who so maliciously attacked this women would also be able to carry a firearm, if the gun nuts have their way.


Since when do they generally care if they can carry???!!!! LOL you know the criminals!

Perp who maliciously attacked this woman can ALREADY carry a firearm, if he decides to. You don't really think a guy like this spends his time worrying about, "Ooh, that's against the law, so I'd better not do it", do you?

I'd rather live in a world where EVERYONE is armed, so at least I'm on an equal footing with the thugs, than a world where the good people are made helpless by their own government, thanks very much.

 

[Cecilie1200]

perp who so maliciously attacked this women would also be able to carry a firearm, if the gun nuts have their way.


Since when do they generally care if they can carry???!!!! LOL you know the criminals!

The point is not that the criminal can carry, it's to give the honest citizens the ability to defend themseves.

Can one find any more unintentional humor than signs stating that some place is a 'gun free zone."
Now, how does the criminal read that sign?

"Target-rich environment".

 

[The Gadfly]

In the abstract force or reason is sound.

In reality, force or reason is sound.

As for your judgment that shooting someone in self defense is within the law, that is open to debate.

There is nothing up for debate as the law -clearly- allows the use for force, including deadly force, in self-defene.



Thus, in context -- that is, acting in one own self-defense - shooting/beating someone is -certainly- within the law, your cliam to the contrary notwithstanding.

Are you stupid? The law is REASONABLE force, which may include deadly force, BUT the evidence must prove deadly force was necessary or the shooter can be charged with homicide.

Yes, and while I do not know precisely how the statute reads in CA, I do know how it reads here. The elements of self-defense (a/k/a "justifiable homicide"), are as follows: you must have (1) not initiated the violent confrontation (2) not unreasonably escalated the violence(3) have no reasonable opportunity to escape(except on your own property), and (4)be in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm before using lethal force. Note that THE STANDARD OF "REASONABLE" IS ORDINARY COMMON SENSE!

It should be obvious in the incident described,all the criteria for self-defense would have been met, had this woman been armed. "Holding a parking place" is NOT "reasonable" justification for physical assault, nor is it an "unreasonable" escalation of the confrontation, nor was there "reasonable" opportunity to flee from a suddenly enraged thug, AND a 4'11" woman facing a large and physically aggressive young man would definitely be in "reasonable" fear of death or serious bodily injury. This punk NEEDED, like so many other punks, to assume ambient temperature; he "Needed killing" and it's a pity that did not happen. Down here, it frequently DOES happen, and I can't say I am going to lose any sleep over that, nor waste any sympathy on such a sorry species!

 

[PoliticalChic]

In reality, force or reason is sound.


There is nothing up for debate as the law -clearly- allows the use for force, including deadly force, in self-defene.



Thus, in context -- that is, acting in one own self-defense - shooting/beating someone is -certainly- within the law, your cliam to the contrary notwithstanding.

Are you stupid? The law is REASONABLE force, which may include deadly force, BUT the evidence must prove deadly force was necessary or the shooter can be charged with homicide.

Yes, and while I do not know precisely how the statute reads in CA, I do know how it reads here. The elements of self-defense (a/k/a "justifiable homicide"), are as follows: you must have (1) not initiated the violent confrontation (2) not unreasonably escalated the violence(3) have no reasonable opportunity to escape(except on your own property), and (4)be in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm before using lethal force. Note that THE STANDARD OF "REASONABLE" IS ORDINARY COMMON SENSE!

It should be obvious in the incident described,all the criteria for self-defense would have been met, had this woman been armed. "Holding a parking place" is NOT "reasonable" justification for physical assault, nor is it an "unreasonable" escalation of the confrontation, nor was there "reasonable" opportunity to flee from a suddenly enraged thug, AND a 4'11" woman facing a large and physically aggressive young man would definitely be in "reasonable" fear of death or serious bodily injury. This punk NEEDED, like so many other punks, to assume ambient temperature; he "Needed killing" and it's a pity that did not happen. Down here, it frequently DOES happen, and I can't say I am going to lose any sleep over that, nor waste any sympathy on such a sorry species!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77TGGEYhPnM&feature=related]FLASHBANG (BRA) HOLSTER: ULTIMATE CONCEALED CARRY - YouTube[/ame]

Flashbang bra holster demo, sexy, fast, and practical. - YouTube!

 

[George Costanza]

Is that the way you really read the OP???

No?

Well then, as they asked the crook who pick-pocketed the midget...'how could you stoop so low?'

You know very well that introducing 'imagination' into the equation changes the entire calculation. In that case, my reponse would be "I can’t answer you today. The voices told me to stay home and clean the guns."

Of course the actual argument revolves (pun suggested) around ending a mugging.
There is a legal basis for that: “necessitas non habet legem”- necessity knows no law.

No - I was not responding to the OP but, rather, to this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...thugs-and-what-to-do-with-em.html#post4357909

Here, you are implying that crimes should be stopped before they are ever committed. There is only one way to do that - and it is not too realistic.

 

[George Costanza]

Are you stupid? The law is REASONABLE force, which may include deadly force, BUT the evidence must prove deadly force was necessary or the shooter can be charged with homicide.

Yes, and while I do not know precisely how the statute reads in CA, I do know how it reads here. The elements of self-defense (a/k/a "justifiable homicide"), are as follows: you must have (1) not initiated the violent confrontation (2) not unreasonably escalated the violence(3) have no reasonable opportunity to escape(except on your own property), and (4)be in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm before using lethal force. Note that THE STANDARD OF "REASONABLE" IS ORDINARY COMMON SENSE!

It should be obvious in the incident described,all the criteria for self-defense would have been met, had this woman been armed. "Holding a parking place" is NOT "reasonable" justification for physical assault, nor is it an "unreasonable" escalation of the confrontation, nor was there "reasonable" opportunity to flee from a suddenly enraged thug, AND a 4'11" woman facing a large and physically aggressive young man would definitely be in "reasonable" fear of death or serious bodily injury. This punk NEEDED, like so many other punks, to assume ambient temperature; he "Needed killing" and it's a pity that did not happen. Down here, it frequently DOES happen, and I can't say I am going to lose any sleep over that, nor waste any sympathy on such a sorry species!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77TGGEYhPnM&feature=related]FLASHBANG (BRA) HOLSTER: ULTIMATE CONCEALED CARRY - YouTube[/ame]

Flashbang bra holster demo, sexy, fast, and practical. - YouTube!

When she first reaches for the gun, the bad guy sure as hell is going to freeze, thinking, hey, am I about to get lucky here?

Very effective.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, and while I do not know precisely how the statute reads in CA, I do know how it reads here. The elements of self-defense (a/k/a "justifiable homicide"), are as follows: you must have (1) not initiated the violent confrontation (2) not unreasonably escalated the violence(3) have no reasonable opportunity to escape(except on your own property), and (4)be in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm before using lethal force. Note that THE STANDARD OF "REASONABLE" IS ORDINARY COMMON SENSE!

It should be obvious in the incident described,all the criteria for self-defense would have been met, had this woman been armed. "Holding a parking place" is NOT "reasonable" justification for physical assault, nor is it an "unreasonable" escalation of the confrontation, nor was there "reasonable" opportunity to flee from a suddenly enraged thug, AND a 4'11" woman facing a large and physically aggressive young man would definitely be in "reasonable" fear of death or serious bodily injury. This punk NEEDED, like so many other punks, to assume ambient temperature; he "Needed killing" and it's a pity that did not happen. Down here, it frequently DOES happen, and I can't say I am going to lose any sleep over that, nor waste any sympathy on such a sorry species!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77TGGEYhPnM&feature=related]FLASHBANG (BRA) HOLSTER: ULTIMATE CONCEALED CARRY - YouTube[/ame]

Flashbang bra holster demo, sexy, fast, and practical. - YouTube!

When she first reaches for the gun, the bad guy sure as hell is going to freeze, thinking, hey, am I about to get lucky here?

Very effective.

Georgie....I hope that you realize that this product wasn't designed for you?

How many did you order???

 

[mskafka]

Are you stupid? The law is REASONABLE force, which may include deadly force, BUT the evidence must prove deadly force was necessary or the shooter can be charged with homicide.

Yes, and while I do not know precisely how the statute reads in CA, I do know how it reads here. The elements of self-defense (a/k/a "justifiable homicide"), are as follows: you must have (1) not initiated the violent confrontation (2) not unreasonably escalated the violence(3) have no reasonable opportunity to escape(except on your own property), and (4)be in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm before using lethal force. Note that THE STANDARD OF "REASONABLE" IS ORDINARY COMMON SENSE!

It should be obvious in the incident described,all the criteria for self-defense would have been met, had this woman been armed. "Holding a parking place" is NOT "reasonable" justification for physical assault, nor is it an "unreasonable" escalation of the confrontation, nor was there "reasonable" opportunity to flee from a suddenly enraged thug, AND a 4'11" woman facing a large and physically aggressive young man would definitely be in "reasonable" fear of death or serious bodily injury. This punk NEEDED, like so many other punks, to assume ambient temperature; he "Needed killing" and it's a pity that did not happen. Down here, it frequently DOES happen, and I can't say I am going to lose any sleep over that, nor waste any sympathy on such a sorry species!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77TGGEYhPnM&feature=related]FLASHBANG (BRA) HOLSTER: ULTIMATE CONCEALED CARRY - YouTube[/ame]

Flashbang bra holster demo, sexy, fast, and practical. - YouTube!

Chic, that looks scary. Make sure that you keep the safety on, ladies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, and while I do not know precisely how the statute reads in CA, I do know how it reads here. The elements of self-defense (a/k/a "justifiable homicide"), are as follows: you must have (1) not initiated the violent confrontation (2) not unreasonably escalated the violence(3) have no reasonable opportunity to escape(except on your own property), and (4)be in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm before using lethal force. Note that THE STANDARD OF "REASONABLE" IS ORDINARY COMMON SENSE!

It should be obvious in the incident described,all the criteria for self-defense would have been met, had this woman been armed. "Holding a parking place" is NOT "reasonable" justification for physical assault, nor is it an "unreasonable" escalation of the confrontation, nor was there "reasonable" opportunity to flee from a suddenly enraged thug, AND a 4'11" woman facing a large and physically aggressive young man would definitely be in "reasonable" fear of death or serious bodily injury. This punk NEEDED, like so many other punks, to assume ambient temperature; he "Needed killing" and it's a pity that did not happen. Down here, it frequently DOES happen, and I can't say I am going to lose any sleep over that, nor waste any sympathy on such a sorry species!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77TGGEYhPnM&feature=related]FLASHBANG (BRA) HOLSTER: ULTIMATE CONCEALED CARRY - YouTube[/ame]

Flashbang bra holster demo, sexy, fast, and practical. - YouTube!

Chic, that looks scary. Make sure that you keep the safety on, ladies.

And don't be carrying your rifles in there Msssy!

 

[George Costanza]

Unfortunate that the model is somewhat thoracicly challenged . . . .

 

[Cecilie1200]

Unfortunate that the model is somewhat thoracicly challenged . . . .

Well, you couldn't put guns in MY bra, because it's already completely full of boobs.