OC causation of self defense

[headcase]

No clue what that reference is to.



A perfectly acceptable answer to the OP's question. Good points, you actually finally answered the question instead of picking on those with less rep than you! Big step! (That's based on my experience dealing with you.)



Wow. Have I once declared myself to be omniscient on the topic of OC? Absolutely not. I have even mentioned on several occasions that I am new to it. But you may be right. Since I don't know so much, maybe I should just cease communications regarding OC. Oh wait.. this is a discussion forum.. Does that defeat the purpose? My tiny troll brain can't determine so.

I defend my arguments, as opposed to simply saying that my opponents don't know what they are talking about (which is what you seem to be a fan of doing). I bring new points to the table to counter those that argue against me. It's called, again, a discussion forum. Drop the ad hominem "you don't know jack" act and how about we try a bit of civility?

*bold is mine

OK. I'll try to be civil.

I don't think I ad homed you. I don't believe I said you don't know jack. I have absolutely seen you defend stupid things you have posted with even stupider replies. When someone corrects something you say, or identifies it as being erroneous, or a logical fallacy, you seem to stuff crap into your ears and eyes, and just bulldoze on ahead, all the while crying first about how you're being misunderstood, then escalating to complaining that you are being picked on.

In the event you post something that you don't seem to know jack about, you are going to be corrected, especially here, where proper information is the reason people come. When you start posting inflammatory comments on an inflammatory subject, you are going to get called out.

As for picking on people with less rep then I have, hmmm.... Well, I don't control my rep. I also don't control your rep. I can say that I started here by reading and not posting. I then started posting questions. When I received answers, I would take that information and double check it for myself, and then thank the posters. When I became very comfortable with my level of knowledge on a subject, I started posting replies to other people's questions, often prefacing the post with IIRC, or IMHO, or IANAL. Throughout this period, I was able to gain a great deal of real world experience OC'ing, including multiple police encounters, multiple individual public education opportunities, and private encounters. I spent, and still spend, a great deal of time researching the firearm laws of this Commonwealth, and this nation. I can say with confidence that I absolutely know what I am talking about when I state something as fact, and I will not defend my position with silliness, I will post supporting facts. I post here to help other who come looking for information, as I did, find the right information. If you take offense to being corrected by myself and others who have done so, because we have a higher rep count, well, too damn bad.

Maybe your being 21 has something to do with the scattered logic you use. Maybe it has something to do with your know it all attitude, although the class of 21 year old we generally attract is usually a bit more mature, IMO.

Post counts and rep are a general measuring stick new members can use to judge the weight to place in someone's opinion. But you know what works even better? Clarity and facts. Two thing, I might add, that a great deal of your posts lack.

I take issue with silliness that is being presented as logic. If you take issue with that, well, try not doing it so often....

[msquaredserver]

I don't think I ad homed you. I don't believe I said you don't know jack. I have absolutely seen you defend stupid things you have posted with even stupider replies. When someone corrects something you say, or identifies it as being erroneous, or a logical fallacy, you seem to stuff crap into your ears and eyes, and just bulldoze on ahead, all the while crying first about how you're being misunderstood, then escalating to complaining that you are being picked on.

Dude. You called me a troll/failed communicator. That seems a bit "against the person" to me, but I guess I might be getting my signals mixed up. But buddy, I don't really care anymore if you feel my ideas are stupid or idiotic. I reciprocate. I feel that the majority of your posts against my thoughts are as above. "You don't know what you're saying, "You seem to stuff crap into your ears and eyes," etc.

As I said before, it's a discussion board. Not a "headcase's opinion is absolute" board. Especially, and this is important, when this is an opinion!! There is no wrong way to answer these questions!! Especially a theoretical scenario to which there is no definite answer. I repeat, get over yourself.

My age has nothing to do with the amount of respect I show other members. My philosophy is "Do unto others as they do unto you." I feel it's wrong for you to label me as disrespectful when you've shown me none in return, regardless of your opinion of my thoughts. So say as you may, but when it comes to your responses, believe me, I don't really care.

And I say that with all the respect you deserve from my end.

I take issue with silliness that is being presented as logic. If you take issue with that, well, try not doing it so often....

Do you understand what the point of a discussion is? If this was just a place for newbie's to ask questions to be answered by veterans, I think it'd be a much more boring place. Also, silliness is subjective.

Maybe your being 21 has something to do with the scattered logic you use. Maybe it has something to do with your know it all attitude, although the class of 21 year old we generally attract is usually a bit more mature, IMO.

OK. You are annoying me now. Because in most of my posts where I am answering a hypothetical or opinion related content, I usually include an "in my opinion" or "if I recall correctly." I don't understand how me disagreeing with you results in me being disrespectful. I have taken (or at least tried to accomplish) an airy tone in my posts up until now. I'm not sure what you are hinting at regarding my intelligence or ability to present an argument, but you're the one being disrespectful. Jackass. OK. I was a little disrespectful there.

[msquaredserver]

If they are the neighborhood watch, they're going to give me a good reason for me to believe that. After all, the neighborhood watch doesn't normally just jump someone as a large group. They might be good Samaritans, but an unprovoked assault is an unprovoked assault. Even more so the fact that it is a large group of them. It's situation concepts like that that make me glad that I'm handicapped, otherwise I might have a harder time proving that I couldn't retreat or whatever.

Skipped over this when I posted my version of basically exactly what you said Agreed completely - neighborhood watch's don't jump people, at least to my knowledge. Maybe in Chuck Norris' neighborhood, but I don't live there, so I don't really know heh.

[GunLawyer001]

Skipped over this when I posted my version of basically exactly what you said Agreed completely - neighborhood watch's don't jump people, at least to my knowledge. Maybe in Chuck Norris' neighborhood, but I don't live there, so I don't really know heh.

I think that you're missing the point. Your attackers don't have to have a legitimate reason, or even think that they have a legitimate reason, for you to be prevented from shooting them dead. They can touch you, poke you, try to take your wallet or gun, insult your girlfriend and your momma, and throw cow poop on your car, and you STILL can't gun them down.

You have a high burden of establishing far more than a reasonable belief that they wrongfully touched or attacked you, you have the burden of proving that you reasonably believed that they were going to kill or permanently maim you, AND that you were unable to retreat safely.

Even the local gang members can attack you without entitling you to kill them; the attack is still a crime against you, and they can be prosecuted for that crime, but if you killed them and can't prove to the jury's satisfaction that you had no other choice, you're toast. And if they weren't thugs, but they were in fact the neighborhood watch, then what evidence are you going to have that they were going to kill or maim you? If they are the local good guys, then the evidence will probably tend to show that your actions were unreasonable, since the jury will presume that the neighborhood watch wouldn't act like random killers, and even if they touched you, their goal would not have been to kill you, and you should have reasonably seen that.

It's like when bad cops gun down some black guy and claim he was selling drugs and pulled a gun on them, and then it's proven that he was a CPA hitting the ATM machine on his way back to his free tax clinic at the nursing home. The facts of his life will tend to show that the cops are lying, that the thuggish behavior they claimed to observe would be inconsistent with who he was. If you gun down some guys with no priors, with steady jobs and families, and you have no corroborating evidence of your desperate struggle to save your life, then you're in a world of hurt.

[headcase]

Dude. You called me a troll/failed communicator. That seems a bit "against the person" to me, but I guess I might be getting my signals mixed up. But buddy, I don't really care anymore if you feel my ideas are stupid or idiotic. I reciprocate. I feel that the majority of your posts against my thoughts are as above. "You don't know what you're saying, "You seem to stuff crap into your ears and eyes," etc.

As I said before, it's a discussion board. Not a "headcase's opinion is absolute" board. Especially, and this is important, when this is an opinion!! There is no wrong way to answer these questions!! Especially a theoretical scenario to which there is no definite answer. I repeat, get over yourself.

My age has nothing to do with the amount of respect I show other members. My philosophy is "Do unto others as they do unto you." I feel it's wrong for you to label me as disrespectful when you've shown me none in return, regardless of your opinion of my thoughts. So say as you may, but when it comes to your responses, believe me, I don't really care.

And I say that with all the respect you deserve from my end.



Do you understand what the point of a discussion is? If this was just a place for newbie's to ask questions to be answered by veterans, I think it'd be a much more boring place. Also, silliness is subjective.



OK. You are annoying me now. Because in most of my posts where I am answering a hypothetical or opinion related content, I usually include an "in my opinion" or "if I recall correctly." I don't understand how me disagreeing with you results in me being disrespectful. I have taken (or at least tried to accomplish) an airy tone in my posts up until now. I'm not sure what you are hinting at regarding my intelligence or ability to present an argument, but you're the one being disrespectful. Jackass. OK. I was a little disrespectful there.

I'm not sure why you think I care about you being respectful. If you are not sure what I am hinting at regarding your ability to present an argument, I would suggest you re-read your previous post, then most of your other posts, but if you aren't sure by now, well, that's kind of the problem.

I guess I got my answer, I don't believe you are a troll, I believe you are just truly communicatively challenged. In this age of interwebs, I'm sure you can find a support group or some such thing.

Your airy (you say airy, I say air-headed silliness) tone belongs in the lounge with the other joke threads. Discussions on firearms law, and such, are generally a bit more serious. They generally don't need your "What if spider monkeys tried to take your gun? Wouldn't that get you in trouble with PITA?" type additions....

And as for the Woody quote, I guess that was before your time...

OASN~ This is actually a "headcase's opinion is absolute" board.. ask around...

[msquaredserver]

I'm not sure why you think I care about you being respectful. If you are not sure what I am hinting at regarding your ability to present an argument, I would suggest you re-read your previous post, then most of your other posts, but if you aren't sure by now, well, that's kind of the problem.

I guess I got my answer, I don't believe you are a troll, I believe you are just truly communicatively challenged. In this age of interwebs, I'm sure you can find a support group or some such thing.

Your airy (you say airy, I say air-headed silliness) tone belongs in the lounge with the other joke threads. Discussions on firearms law, and such, are generally a bit more serious. They generally don't need your "What if spider monkeys tried to take your gun? Wouldn't that get you in trouble with PITA?" type additions....

And as for the Woody quote, I guess that was before your time...

OASN~ This is actually a "headcase's opinion is absolute" board.. ask around...

I'm the know-it-all? Whatever man. Ad hominem, ad hominem, and ad hominem. Also, it's PETA. Not that I'm an avid supporter, I'm just intelligent.

[headcase]

I'm the know-it-all? Whatever man. Ad hominem, ad hominem, and ad hominem. Also, it's PETA. Not that I'm an avid supporter, I'm just intelligent.

It's PITA, Pain In The Ass, or were you too intelligent to see the airy quality?

[msquaredserver]

I think that you're missing the point. Your attackers don't have to have a legitimate reason, or even think that they have a legitimate reason, for you to be prevented from shooting them dead. They can touch you, poke you, try to take your wallet or gun, insult your girlfriend and your momma, and throw cow poop on your car, and you STILL can't gun them down.

You have a high burden of establishing far more than a reasonable belief that they wrongfully touched or attacked you, you have the burden of proving that you reasonably believed that they were going to kill or permanently maim you, AND that you were unable to retreat safely.

Even the local gang members can attack you without entitling you to kill them; the attack is still a crime against you, and they can be prosecuted for that crime, but if you killed them and can't prove to the jury's satisfaction that you had no other choice, you're toast. And if they weren't thugs, but they were in fact the neighborhood watch, then what evidence are you going to have that they were going to kill or maim you? If they are the local good guys, then the evidence will probably tend to show that your actions were unreasonable, since the jury will presume that the neighborhood watch wouldn't act like random killers, and even if they touched you, their goal would not have been to kill you, and you should have reasonably seen that.

It's like when bad cops gun down some black guy and claim he was selling drugs and pulled a gun on them, and then it's proven that he was a CPA hitting the ATM machine on his way back to his free tax clinic at the nursing home. The facts of his life will tend to show that the cops are lying, that the thuggish behavior they claimed to observe would be inconsistent with who he was. If you gun down some guys with no priors, with steady jobs and families, and you have no corroborating evidence of your desperate struggle to save your life, then you're in a world of hurt.

Good info. I'm not really sure why you thought I disagreed with you. I'm confused on that front because I agree 100%. There's no reason to shoot and possibly kill someone if you can incapacitate them some other way, or flee and get away.

But, let's say you can't get away, and you can't incapacitate them otherwise. Is it right to shoot them because they won't stop going for your gun? If they get it you'll probably end up in a very, very bad situation. I think that's kind of begging the question of whether a gun can be used as a threat of deadly force as opposed to just deadly force, which I know is kind of a taboo topic around here. And like hell am I going to spill my mind on another taboo topic while headcase is watching the same thread.

[msquaredserver]

It's PITA, Pain In The Ass, or were you too intelligent to see the airy quality?

Ah. Ok. Never heard that one before, I guess you got me there. How about we bury the hatchet and stop this before it gets out of control and we both start pissing on each other?

[GunLawyer001]

Good info. I'm not really sure why you thought I disagreed with you. I'm confused on that front because I agree 100%. There's no reason to shoot and possibly kill someone if you can incapacitate them some other way, or flee and get away.

But, let's say you can't get away, and you can't incapacitate them otherwise. Is it right to shoot them because they won't stop going for your gun? If they get it you'll probably end up in a very, very bad situation. I think that's kind of begging the question of whether a gun can be used as a threat of deadly force as opposed to just deadly force, which I know is kind of a taboo topic around here. And like hell am I going to spill my mind on another taboo topic while headcase is watching the same thread.

I hope that we do agree, it means you're correct; but you agreed with this post:

Originally Posted by nepawolf
If they are the neighborhood watch, they're going to give me a good reason for me to believe that. After all, the neighborhood watch doesn't normally just jump someone as a large group. They might be good Samaritans, but an unprovoked assault is an unprovoked assault. Even more so the fact that it is a large group of them. It's situation concepts like that that make me glad that I'm handicapped, otherwise I might have a harder time proving that I couldn't retreat or whatever.

I'll focus on the statement "an unprovoked assault is an unprovoked assault", and sort of disagree. If I shove you to the side so that I can buy the last copy of Action Comics (do they even sell that anymore?), I have assaulted you (or harassed you); and if I start dicing you with a meat cleaver, I have also assaulted you. Both are unprovoked. Only one would allow you to kill to defend yourself, and the burden is on you to prove the existence of the lethal threat. Your attacker isn't required to prove the absence of lethal intent, the default is that none exists, so if you plan to respond to such a lethal threat, it had damn well better be provable.