Sign petition for HB167 Disparity of Force

[Wilderness 1864]

I signed. I have observed or read about more frequent examples of criminals acting in concert against lone or outnumbered victims. The "knockout" game is well documented. Practiced criminals will prey on people at convenience store gas stations. Usually one of the gang distracts the intended victim using some sort of friendly banter, even the offer of a handshake or a request to light or bum a cigarette, will the others encircle and ensnare. A weapon may never have to be produced, sheer numbers overwhelm the victim and a dangerous physical assault can ensue.

More recently, there are any number of incidents captured on video of so called "anti-fascists" attacking conservatives and others. The group tactic is studied and used by them. As one perp aggressively chest or hip bumps or screams in the face of the intended victim, others in the group join in closing distance to within a foot or two. While the victim is preoccupied, trying to back up, or to simply stand still, others circle from behind. Retreat is cutoff and one of the gang, often one from behind strikes a blow of some sort. In these kinds of numbers, even without the use of knives or guns, bare hands, flagpoles, or kicks to the head or body can be implements causing serious harm. The victim may not even be part of a rally. This has happened to passerbys or people just trying to get to work, cross at an intersection etc. Seniors, women and children are all fair game to them.

Even people in automobiles are attacked by mobs. No one in the mob necessarily produces a knife or a firearm, but is there any doubt that a mob is capable of eventually breaching and harming the occupants in a surrounded vehicle? One state is pushing legislation that would allow a motorist to continue to drive through mob and if someone in the mob is accidentally injured, they have no civil recourse against the motorist. The motorist cannot be intending to "run them down". That initiative is another way of trying to help the innocent in a case where disparity in force can become dangerous.

These cases are tricky and navigating actual cases are going to be difficult, but I think laws that recognize disparity of force as a mitigating factor in the use of self-defense make perfect sense. To not recognize disparity of force gives an advantage to the criminal element that attacks using "safety of numbers" in the commission of a crime and then later takes advantage of their "safety in numbers" tactics in court to hamstring a victim trying to establish a legitimate claim of self-defense.

[longcall911]

I signed. I have observed or read about more frequent examples of criminals acting in concert against lone or outnumbered victims. The "knockout" game is well documented. Practiced criminals will prey on people at convenience store gas stations. Usually one of the gang distracts the intended victim using some sort of friendly banter, even the offer of a handshake or a request to light or bum a cigarette, will the others encircle and ensnare. A weapon may never have to be produced, sheer numbers overwhelm the victim and a dangerous physical assault can ensue.

More recently, there are any number of incidents captured on video of so called "anti-fascists" attacking conservatives and others. The group tactic is studied and used by them. As one perp aggressively chest or hip bumps or screams in the face of the intended victim, others in the group join in closing distance to within a foot or two. While the victim is preoccupied, trying to back up, or to simply stand still, others circle from behind. Retreat is cutoff and one of the gang, often one from behind strikes a blow of some sort. In these kinds of numbers, even without the use of knives or guns, bare hands, flagpoles, or kicks to the head or body can be implements causing serious harm. The victim may not even be part of a rally. This has happened to passerbys or people just trying to get to work, cross at an intersection etc. Seniors, women and children are all fair game to them.

Even people in automobiles are attacked by mobs. No one in the mob necessarily produces a knife or a firearm, but is there any doubt that a mob is capable of eventually breaching and harming the occupants in a surrounded vehicle? One state is pushing legislation that would allow a motorist to continue to drive through mob and if someone in the mob is accidentally injured, they have no civil recourse against the motorist. The motorist cannot be intending to "run them down". That initiative is another way of trying to help the innocent in a case where disparity in force can become dangerous.

These cases are tricky and navigating actual cases are going to be difficult, but I think laws that recognize disparity of force as a mitigating factor in the use of self-defense make perfect sense. To not recognize disparity of force gives an advantage to the criminal element that attacks using "safety of numbers" in the commission of a crime and then later takes advantage of their "safety in numbers" tactics in court to hamstring a victim trying to establish a legitimate claim of self-defense.

Exactly. You'll note that the flyer says "Close the Don't Shoot Loophole".

Word has gotten around on the street that people can't shoot if they don't see a gun. So, they approach with weapons concealed, saying things like "don't shoot we just need directions" or "don't shoot we just need to borrow your phone". Once they are close enough (inside 21') they know you don't have time to draw. So, they now launch the attack.

[Gun]

Received a Thank You letter from the Governor's office for my concern on this matter.

[frankski]

Received a Thank You letter from the Governor's office for my concern on this matter.

I also just received a smarmy "Thank You" letter from Comrade Wolf's office.

He promises to keep my "thoughts and suggestions in mind" regarding HB 167. He goes on to say that he signed HB 263, which permits semi-auto weapons for hunting. WTF?! What do Disparity of Force and Hunting with Semiauto weapons have in common? He apparently sees both of these as Gun Nuts Issues.

[longcall911]

Wolf does not say that he will veto it. If he tries to, our response is:

"I guess you don't want women to be able to defend themselves from gang rape." and

"I guess you don't want seniors to be able to defend themselves from street thugs playing knock-out." and

"I guess you don't want the disabled to be able to defend themselves from those who kill for the fun of it."

[Emptymag]

I also just received a smarmy "Thank You" letter from Comrade Wolf's office.

He promises to keep my "thoughts and suggestions in mind" regarding HB 167. He goes on to say that he signed HB 263, which permits semi-auto weapons for hunting. WTF?! What do Disparity of Force and Hunting with Semiauto weapons have in common? He apparently sees both of these as Gun Nuts Issues.

He (claims to) support hunting which is what the 2A was intended to protect.



Get it now?

[pacodelahoya]

I'm not pissy. It's just so many on this board do nothing but bitch and moan about everything. People don't read. If they do, they read into it what they want. I asked nicely, "please don't complain about entering a cell phone number". Yet what do I get, people complaining about entering a cell phone number, so much so that they have to post their complaint.

Sign on door "no shirt, no service". Guy with no shirt enters. He is told he needs to leave. Get's angry with manager because sign said "no service" did not say "don't bother entering".

You have no idea what it is like to be busting your ass every day for 2A, giving all your time, all your energy, and all your money and have your own people bitch and complain over filling out one form because they don't like this or that about it. Let me tell you, it totally sucks. Even when you try to explain nicely why a certain thing is done a certain way, still they bitch. Sadly, it seems to be SOP for many on this board. It's just a bad habit.

Lol bitching about people bitching.
Thanks for your hard work.
Petition signed.

[ideaman]

My understanding is the "Disparity of Force" is a legal defense. Why not also use the SCOTUS, "Disparate Impact". Though it was for civil rights for minority groups. Words can have different meanings and applied to different circumstances.

[phoenix01]

Signed.

[longcall911]

My understanding is the "Disparity of Force" is a legal defense. Why not also use the SCOTUS, "Disparate Impact". Though it was for civil rights for minority groups. Words can have different meanings and applied to different circumstances.

Because Disparate Impact would have to be proven, and would complicate the legislation to the point where it would probably kill its chances. It's very simple if you read the bill.