quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Why would everyone in a rural area be a hick, that seems very arrogant.


I live in a rural area so wrong again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Why would everyone in a rural area be a hick, that seems very arrogant.


I live in a rural area so wrong again.

Big deal, you classed people in rural areas as hicks. Where you live has little bearing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

There's at least one person on this thread whose written English is somewhat less than polished. But the brain of that person is quite the opposite.

Indeed. Unless you're thinking about a different person, I even have a picture of it.



K.

Omg...where did you get a copy of my baby picture

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Why would everyone in a rural area be a hick, that seems very arrogant.


I live in a rural area so wrong again.

Big deal, you classed people in rural areas as hicks. Where you live has little bearing.

It means that I would be calling myself a hick.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Why would everyone in a rural area be a hick, that seems very arrogant.


I live in a rural area so wrong again.

Big deal, you classed people in rural areas as hicks. Where you live has little bearing.

It means that I would be calling myself a hick.

NO IT DOES NOT

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

It did to me and even you would have to admit that I know what's going on inside my head than you do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Any chance of this thread staying (even remotely) on topic?

Just curious.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Any chance of this thread staying (even remotely) on topic?

Just curious.

K.

What a novel idea.
In another thread a person stated that if a person reveals a firearm in his waste band you are not legally or morally justified in taking any action beyond retreat. I would like to hear you view of this position.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Any chance of this thread staying (even remotely) on topic?

Just curious.

K.

What a novel idea.
In another thread a person stated that if a person reveals a firearm in his waste band you are not legally or morally justified in taking any action beyond retreat. I would like to hear you view of this position.

Reveals... I assume you mean more to the tune of purposeful exhibition, as in... lookie here. One might do such as, for example, if you don't give me your wallet... whereas another might be, are you sure you wish to demand I give you my wallet...

I see no retreat at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

What constitutes a threat of grave bodily harm? If someone shows me a gun in their waste-band and then says "I'll kill you if... " Is that sufficient, or do I have to wait till the gun is in their hand? How about if the person has a knife in hand and says "I'm going to kill you" , but isn't quite close enough to stab me? How about a 5'2", 110lbs woman confronted by a 6'4", 250lbs man, who is unarmed, but is acting aggressively. (Since aggressively is also subjective, let's say that he's maneuvered her into an alley, is using his size to move her further back, and is saying things along the lines of, "I'm gonna rape the hell out of you bitch!" But, he hasn't actually put his hands on her.) What if the aggressor is a child? Some folks here seem to think that an adult should never kill a child, even if the child is armed and threatening their life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

What constitutes a threat of grave bodily harm?

Only the moment knows.

I had two drunks climb aboard one night; I was hauled out at the time. I showed them my .38 and asked just how fast they could climb down. I had no intention of shooting either one at that moment, but neither did I know who had come aboard nor was I desirous of having any injury to myself.

They moved real fast.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

What constitutes a threat of grave bodily harm?

Only the moment knows.

I had two drunks climb aboard one night; I was hauled out at the time. I showed them my .38 and asked just how fast they could climb down. I had no intention of shooting either one at that moment, but neither did I know who had come aboard nor was I desirous of having any injury to myself.

They moved real fast.

I'm not arguing with you here, but what you said is exactly why I always thought self defense laws were pretty screwed up. If you ever have to defend yourself, you have to make a decision in the moment. Then you have to hope your definition of a threat and grave bodily harm is the same as those who'll be investigating you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Any chance of this thread staying (even remotely) on topic?

Just curious.

K.

What a novel idea.
In another thread a person stated that if a person reveals a firearm in his waste band you are not legally or morally justified in taking any action beyond retreat. I would like to hear you view of this position.

Reveals... I assume you mean more to the tune of purposeful exhibition, as in... lookie here. One might do such as, for example, if you don't give me your wallet... whereas another might be, are you sure you wish to demand I give you my wallet...

I see no retreat at all.

I was the one who posed the question in the other thread. I was pointing out that self defense laws are rather subjective.

What constitutes imminent? What I think is imminent probably isn't what someone else would. Someone staring down the barrel of a .45 in a dark alley is likely to have a very different opinion of that then say a prosecutor sitting comfortably in his office.

How about retreating? How hard do you have to try to to get away to match what a reasonably person would consider sufficient?

What constitutes a threat of grave bodily harm? If someone shows me a gun in their waste-band and then says "I'll kill you if... " Is that sufficient, or do I have to wait till the gun is in their hand? How about if the person has a knife in hand and says "I'm going to kill you" , but isn't quite close enough to stab me? How about a 5'2", 110lbs woman confronted by a 6'4", 250lbs man, who is unarmed, but is acting aggressively. (Since aggressively is also subjective, let's say that he's maneuvered her into an alley, is using his size to move her further back, and is saying things along the lines of, "I'm gonna rape the hell out of you bitch!" But, he hasn't actually put his hands on her.) What if the aggressor is a child? Some folks here seem to think that an adult should never kill a child, even if the child is armed and threatening their life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

but it seems to me, from over here where there are basically no guns, that US law now seems to favour a kind of "shoot first and the rest will be decided by lawyers" attitude.

Almost any kind of mitigation can be used, if there is any threat however small it's fine. It doesn't seem to matter whether the shooter thinks, just act, like you're in an action movie

Crossing with another thread, Scott did not have to walk out of his house with a gun and shoot someone but he did, and he has a whole host of laws to hide behind.


Unless you just walk up to a stranger and shoot them straight in the face you will get away with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

but it seems to me, from over here where there are basically no guns, that US law now seems to favour a kind of "shoot first and the rest will be decided by lawyers" attitude.

Almost any kind of mitigation can be used, if there is any threat however small it's fine. It doesn't seem to matter whether the shooter thinks, just act, like you're in an action movie

Crossing with another thread, Scott did not have to walk out of his house with a gun and shoot someone but he did, and he has a whole host of laws to hide behind.


Unless you just walk up to a stranger and shoot them straight in the face you will get away with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

What constitutes a threat of grave bodily harm?

Only the moment knows.

I had two drunks climb aboard one night; I was hauled out at the time. I showed them my .38 and asked just how fast they could climb down. I had no intention of shooting either one at that moment, but neither did I know who had come aboard nor was I desirous of having any injury to myself.

They moved real fast.

I'm not arguing with you here, but what you said is exactly why I always thought self defense laws were pretty screwed up. If you ever have to defend yourself, you have to make a decision in the moment. Then you have to hope your definition of a threat and grave bodily harm is the same as those who'll be investigating you.