sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Burden of proof is on the state (supposedly) so the state should prove there was no justification in using force.
The problem besides being rare with shooting in these attacks, it just does not make any common sense. If you have been struck by a strong young man I doubt most people have the sense to draw, acquire a sight picture, and take a shot. Besides the fact that taking the shot after the fact means prison. In these type of attacks, though rare, there is NO way to predict most of them. It is like that misrepresentation of the Tueller drill, it is not about shooting and shooting faster. It is about SA, and not getting in a spot if possible where a person can be taken advantage of. It is to demonstrate that a handgun is useless in some attacks, it amazes me that people miss that.Joe, you're making a lot of sense. But you are trying to 'thread the needle' in these arguments.
"A guy was killed..." <---as one poster said 1 or 10 deaths from this over the whole US is not an epidemic. We don't arm up at the beach to prevent shark attacks in the surf.
If a large bird attacks you, can you carry a handgun to fire and defeat this attack. Yes you can, but it will have about 1% effectiveness.
Using a firing solution for an attack by a random teenager who thinks it's a joke (and though thuggish really does not want to kill their target, just humiliate them and gain 'street cred') is STUPID, INEFFECTIVE and a poor use of your firearm.
In the 1 in 10,000 attacks where you can see it, deploy, shoot the kid as he hits you, have it on video, be declared innocent in court, stop these type of attacks in the future (since you won't have a bounty on your head for a 'KO', being made infamous in the news, right?) you're better off with another strategy...or maybe ignoring the whole darn thing, because it's RARE. If it's not rare where you are MOVE.
I don't mean to be sarcastic, or not humor you. But just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it's prudent.
FWIW
T
A lot of these attacks happen to people who are in the wrong place, or they walk with their head down not making eye contact with others. Other words acting like victims.
This post is purely racist.
There is no way that whites are not doing this.
It is called the knock out game and also called polar bear hunting. I have watched several reports on this, and as far as those went, the assailants were black males. That wasn't racist, that was reported facts. The race card wasn't mentioned until now, the liberal news media has kept quiet on these assaults, as noted by a detective in New York City. Although the Rev. Al Sharpton, has commented on them calling barbaric and that they needed to be stopped. If the race card would be removed from the deck, you would have to draw conclusions based on facts, good or bad, but at least it would be fact based, and not skewed by throwing in the race card.
First the side note--and not applicable to this thread. Its just that I thought of it earlier and didn't have time to post it; now I'm reminded of it: The media, as usual, is making the world seem far more dangerous than it really is. There are some 150M adults in this country. And, we have what? ten reports of knock-out game injuries? There were 4 "knockout" attacks in Columbia MO before I went to Iraq in 2008. There was apparently one a week ago here in Western CO though not reported as such; hit from behind while sitting on a bus stop bench and not robbed. Perhaps the problem is the press not reporting the facts
I don't know that I would start crossing the street yet to avoid a small group of young adult males. NO, just groups of BLACK young males
Regarding shooting the puncher, the law is the law. Shooting the puncher after the single punch is probably illegal in your jurisdiction.
Lets face it. You have no way to see it coming; it catches you totally by surprise. What are you gonna do? Start shying away from every small group of young adult males?Again; just groups of minorities Some things in life you can't avoid. I lump this one in the same category as the thorough-planning mugger. Even Condition Yellow won't save you from the guy who sees you coming from two blocks away, who secretes himself into the alcove, laying his trap well to catch you off guard.
On the other hand, single punches intended to cause unconsciousness may well rise to to the point that you can legally apprehend and hold him for police. You can check out the law in your jurisdiction to see what sort of things are allowed for citizen's arrest whether you are the punchee or someone else like your brother walking beside you. For sure, a single punch that is intended to cause unconsciousness rises to grave bodily injury or death. An unconscious person bouncing his head off a curb, wall, or sidewalk can have seriious brain damage. Heck, the punch itself can break the orbital bone around the eye, detach a retina, or cause brain damage.
Make sure your victim is facing you.
The common law elements of self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil, and attempt to withdraw.
--snipped--
ETA much later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
http://nationalparalegal.edu/public...sp_files/criminalLaw/defenses/SelfDefense.aspFirst, the defendant must prove that he reasonably believed that his act was necessary to defend himself. This defense is available even if it turns out that the defendant did not actually need to defend himself. As long as he reasonably believed that he needed to defend himself, he will be able to use this defense.
Second, the defendant must show that he reasonably believed that he was being threatened with physical harm.
Third, the defendant must show that the threatened harm was imminent.
Fourth, the defendant must show that he reasonably believed that the threatened harm was unlawful.
Fifth, the defendant must show that the threatened harm was of such a nature that it actually required the level of force that the defendant used.
Although these five elements must be proven in any instance in which the defendant claims self defense, one other element must be proven when the defendant has used deadly force on the victim. In such a situation, the defendant must additionally show that he reasonably believed that the other person was about to inflict death or serious bodily harm on him and that the deadly force he used in self defense was necessary to prevent the death or serious bodily harm with which he was threatened. See Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550 (1895).
I don't know if I'll get this post deleted, or any other ones addressing the same issue as this is what happened in the wisconsin forum here, but....the blacks stomping/whacking a white has been going on for about 15 years, organized anyway in the areas I am experienced in.It is called the knock out game and also called polar bear hunting.
Yes, they are random as they as the attack isn't planned for that individual. The only common characteristic is there are black attackers and the victim is white. Everyone else can fill in whatever blanks they want.Are the victims truly random? Or do they fit a predictable profile?
You getting punched in the head may not be a felony.....check your local cop shop for details.
What would a off-duty cop do if his wife was punched in the head? That is a really good question.
The Obama administration filed a federal hate-crimes charge Thursday against a man whom authorities accused of using the “knockout game” to target a black man, videotaping it, and then bragging about the assault to strangers.
The charge marks the first time the administration has taken action on a “knockout” case after the game became an Internet and media phenomenon. It chose a case in which the person accused is white, even though most other cases reported in the news have involved black assailants.
In this case, the man accused is 27-year-old Conrad Alvin Barrett, who the Justice Department says attacked a 79-year-old black man in Fulshear, Texas, just west of Houston. Justice Department officials said they brought the case to make a point about hate crimes. [snip]
There should be no such thing as a "hate crime." All that should matter is the act. The thinking--even hate--should not be criminalized.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>