Thugs...and What To Do With 'Em

[mskafka]

FLASHBANG (BRA) HOLSTER: ULTIMATE CONCEALED CARRY - YouTube

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???

You're killing me! STOP!

 

[PoliticalChic]

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???

You're killing me! STOP!

Killing???


Now...see what you've done: you've reopened an old argument between Georgie and myself...
...he feels that killers in our society should get a stiff fine...or maybe community service.

 

[Samson]

Why do you need to ask? Is there some indication that the Bronx D.A. is not going to prosecute? We need to do what we always do in a Constitutional government.

Why do you belive that the only remediation is to wait until the act...such as the one which I believed I had sufficiently outlined in the OP...took place?

I don't want this thug convicted and imprisoned after he imprisoned his victim for life! Which on will get out of their prison sooner?

So you wanted him imprisoned BEFORE he hit her?



While that would seem to be a perfect solution, don't you see something inherently wrong with it?

 

[The Gadfly]

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, if I may interject here, stopping the crime before it is committed would indeed require preventive detention, or punishment before the fact, and obviously we can't do that here. However, we CAN stop the crime before it is COMPLETED, which as Chic pointed out, is the object of the exercise we are discussing. IF someone is in the act (not the mere contemplation) of a course of action which cannot be allowed to continue without serious harm to another, we ARE allowed to stop it before it goes further.

If I were to come upon you, with someone holding a gun to your head and threatening to kill you, would you prefer that I shoot him, or wait to see whether or not he actually shoots you first? (Of course, in the latter instance, I suppose I could just call the police, in which case they might arrive to find your corpse before rigor mortis sets in)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do you need to ask? Is there some indication that the Bronx D.A. is not going to prosecute? We need to do what we always do in a Constitutional government.

Why do you belive that the only remediation is to wait until the act...such as the one which I believed I had sufficiently outlined in the OP...took place?

I don't want this thug convicted and imprisoned after he imprisoned his victim for life! Which on will get out of their prison sooner?

So you wanted him imprisoned BEFORE he hit her?



While that would seem to be a perfect solution, don't you see something inherently wrong with it?

"...wanted him imprisoned BEFORE he hit her...'
Of course not...that is a consummation that I reserve for you alone.


The better world that I see is one in which every law abiding citizen is covered, without abridgement, by the 2nd amendment.
I juxtapose that with the city in which I live, where it is 2nd amendment-lite.


The liberal behavior as far as implementation of the 2nd can only be compared to an infant in the early stages of toilet training....pretending to try to perform what is being asked of him.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"...every law abiding citizen is covered, without abridgement, by the 2nd amendment."

So, Charley, who has never been convicted of a crime but has suffered several panic attacks due to agoraphobia chooses to arm himself whenever he finds it necessary to be out in public. This is okay in PC's ideal world.

So Charles, a member of the loco-macho 52nd Street gang but has never suffered an arrest even though his use of PCP is well known in the hood always carries a handgun when in public.

Then there's Chuck, a macho guy who bats around his wife Suzie every Friday night after drinking his unwind weekend case of Bud. Chuck's a great fan of handguns and is never without one, at home, at work and even when he goes to his kids school when called to meet with the principle to talk about Chuck Jr's. fighting with his peers. Chuck has never been arrested either.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If you legally carried a gun and could stop a deadly assault by shooting the perp why not do it?

Because it may not comport to the laws of a given jurisdiction:

Third parties:
The right to defense of others turns largely on the reasonableness of the belief that the victim deserved assistance. A minority of jurisdictions require that the rescuer be a member of the victim’s family, or the victim’s superior or employee. Similarly, a minority of jurisdictions require that the rescuer’s belief be correct, reasoning that the rescuer ‘merely steps into the victim’s shoes’, while the majority requires only that it be reasonable. Pennsylvania law imposes no such restrictions. It does, however, require the additional showing that the rescuer believed that his intervention was necessary, and that the rescuer retreats if the victim would be required to do so.

Self Defense Law

Whether third party or victim, the same standard of reasonableness applies in most jurisdictions.

You might face the wrath of left wing sissies who depend on government for their existance but that's a given. Facing an army of left wing litigators is another issue. It takes courage to do the right thing sometimes.

You’re truly an idiot.

This has nothing to do with ‘left wing,’ it has only to do with knowing the law in your jurisdiction as to justification of the use of deadly force.

The better world that I see is one in which every law abiding citizen is covered, without abridgement, by the 2nd amendment.
I juxtapose that with the city in which I live, where it is 2nd amendment-lite.


The liberal behavior as far as implementation of the 2nd can only be compared to an infant in the early stages of toilet training....pretending to try to perform what is being asked of him.

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. At least you’re consistent.

The law is clear as to the right of self-defense and the use of a handgun accordingly – but that’s only in one’s home. Laws restricting open carry would need to be challenged in court; in Illinois a challenge would be needed for both open and concealed carry.

But a given right may not be preempted because some may abuse it, and that includes the Second Amendment.

 

[The Gadfly]

Why do you need to ask? Is there some indication that the Bronx D.A. is not going to prosecute? We need to do what we always do in a Constitutional government.

Why do you belive that the only remediation is to wait until the act...such as the one which I believed I had sufficiently outlined in the OP...took place?

I don't want this thug convicted and imprisoned after he imprisoned his victim for life! Which on will get out of their prison sooner?

So you wanted him imprisoned BEFORE he hit her?



While that would seem to be a perfect solution, don't you see something inherently wrong with it?

No, Samson, but ideally it would be appropriate to stop him before he actually delivered the blow. That CAN be done.

That said, there are a few caveats. Assuming you can carry a gun legally, you need to remember:

(1) a weapon is NOT a substitute for situational awareness. If you are not aware of a potentially developing threat around you early enough, you will not have a chance to employ your weapon. You DO NOT need to draw the weapon; you do need to have your hand on it, and be ready to draw if necessary, before a potential attacker is within kicking/striking range. Once you see a potential threat, your first priority is maintaining distance and/or a barrier(tree, wall, vehicle door, etc.) between you and the threat. If possible get away, if you can. This is a civil situation, not combat, and retreat, if possible, is a better option than engaging. NEVER, EVER, let the threat get within arm's reach.

(2) A gun, without adequate training, is worse than useless. A typical concealed carry course is NOT adequate training. A lot of practice, and competitive shooting against the clock , with realistic scenarios, to include multiple targets, is essential. Compete with whatever rig you intend to carry with, NOT a competition holster system. Your goal should be a time of under .6 seconds from a visual or audible signal to a hit on the six-inch target at 20 feet, EVERY SINGLE TIME, from your concealed carry holster, wearing normal street clothing. If you cannot or will not meet that standard, DO NOT CARRY A HANDGUN!

(3) It is a VERY bad idea to use ANY kind of weapon as a threat! If you MUST draw the weapon, you must fire when it lines up on target; at least two shots, center of mass. Hesitation is FATAL! This means, that you had better have exercised all possible precautions, and had them all fail, BEFORE you actually draw. Assuming you have, this is now the gravest extreme, and, YOU HAD BETTER NOT MISS!

( 4) A gun can save your life. It can also be a great producer of false confidence. The latter will get you dead or in prison. If you have any doubts about either your skill, or your ability to accurately size up a situation and respond appropriately, DO NOT carry a firearm! There are alternatives. In the situation described in the OP pepper spray on a keyring, or simply retreating, might have worked as well or better.

(5) There ARE alternatives, which can buy you time to get away from a mugger. A second wallet with a twenty dollar bill and some long-expired credit cards in it, makes a convenient throw down. So does a fake high-end watch, or a ring or other jewelry that looks real but isn't. Either may buy you just enough time to get out of a bad situation. In a pinch, there are a number of everyday, lawful to carry objects which can save your life. Remember, YOUR MIND IS YOUR PRIMARY WEAPON!

 

[M14 Shooter]

"...every law abiding citizen is covered, without abridgement, by the 2nd amendment."

Not every. Children are not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

NEW YORK — A mistrial was declared Monday at the trial of a man who admitted hitting a woman during a Manhattan parking dispute. She fell, hit her head and was in a coma for about a week.

The judge declared the mistrial in the case against Oscar Fuller after jurors said they were deadlocked in the fourth day of deliberations.

"We cannot reach a unanimous decision. The majority of us believe there is no benefit to continue deliberations," they said in a note.
Mistrial at NYC parking-assault trial - WSJ.com


Prosecutors say the 35-year-old Fuller hit Rosas in the face out of rage. She fell, hit her head and was in a coma for about a week. The 25-year-old still wears a helmet because of her injuries.

Fuller says he hit her after she punched him. His lawyer said prosecutors didn't prove Fuller intended to cause a serious injury, as the assault charge requires.
Mistrial Declared in NYC Parking Space Beating - ABC News