Here's a case where Stand your ground probably should not have been evoked

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/29/us/stand-your-ground/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

I'll post the link only and let you read. From what was reported, I think this was murder. I'll look around later for more facts but basically you had a man in an SUV that was not touched, only yelled at. So instead of driving away he shot the man doing the yelling because he had a "metal pipe". The man had no pipe.

I personally think a pipe is very little threat to a person inside a car...even if the guy had been wielding one...which he wasn't.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Sousuke

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

tough call. guy who was shot appears to have been in front of the vehicle, shooter would have had to drive past him to get away.

entire story seems iffy though. and both the guy and the gal in the vehicle probably have hearing loss now.

[luckytxn 2,263]

I think it was not needed to shoot the kid myself. I am good at not getting into encounters and also I am good at getting out of these encounters and can handle any kid unarmed easily. The only time I would shoot anyone is if they enter my house and I am there. You are dead period. If I hear anyone creeping around outside better be running when my door opens to check it out.

If I am carrying concealed I will only think about using that weapon if I am threatened and the person will have to have a weapon or be anywhere near my wife or family. I would never chase someone down the street or anything. My taxes pay the cops to do that.

To own a weapon is a responsibility. Everyone needs to be responsible if they want to own a weapon for protection. To be fair though also everyone needs to expect anyone they want to confront to be armed and act accordingly. Responsibility goes two ways. You act hostile to someone and present yourself as a threat then you could die if you escalate the threat.

Pretty much leave me alone and I will leave you alone.

Edited May 1, 2012 by luckytxn

[Iyawo Ijebu 157]

I think it was not needed to shoot the kid myself. I am good at not getting into encounters and also I am good at getting out of these encounters and can handle any kid unarmed easily. The only time I would shoot anyone is if they enter my house and I am there. You are dead period. If I hear anyone creeping around outside better be running when my door opens to check it out.

If I am carrying concealed I will only think about using that weapon if I am threatened and the person will have to have a weapon or be anywhere near my wife or family. I would never chase someone down the street or anything. My taxes pay the cops to do that.

To own a weapon is a responsibility. Everyone needs to be responsible if they want to own a weapon for protection. To be fair though also everyone needs to expect anyone they want to confront to be armed and act accordingly. Responsibility goes two ways. You act hostile to someone and present yourself as a threat then you could die if you escalate the threat.

Pretty much leave me alone and I will leave you alone.

Well said.

I used to live in Celina, Texas and know all too well about the stand your ground thing.

Though I have no data to back it up but I think most get involved in these shootings and are the shooter have other issues.

Even if the kid has a pipe, retreat.

Like you I would never even draw in public when carrying concealed but come inside my residence and its going to eb a different ball game.

I was in traffic once in Dallas, and one dum dum was trying to ease into my lane (I was being an idiot and wouldn't let him in) would you believe that he flashed his handgun at me (little did the co-idiot know I had a PSS on me)? So what do we do know start a shootout over a lane change in traffic because I have a non retreat law on my side? (I had it on my in car cam).

It seems people have lost their conflict resolution sense.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is a case that demonstrates the problems with a law that basically gives license to kill based merely on a person fearing for their life. Where is the middle ground? Why can't non-lethal methods be promoted over lethal ones? It just seems that such laws are giving too much power in the hands of an individual to be judge, jury and executioner. I support defending your life, but it's not always someone trying to kill you. They may want to fight you, but that shouldn't give you license to kill, IMO.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[xebec 195]

This is a case that demonstrates the problems with a law that basically gives license to kill based merely on a person fearing for their life. Where is the middle ground? Why can't non-lethal methods be promoted over lethal ones? It just seems that such laws are giving too much power in the hands of an individual to be judge, jury and executioner. I support defending your life, but it's not always someone trying to kill you. They may want to fight you, but that shouldn't give you license to kill, IMO.

What standard would you apply? What standard would rise above "merely" fearing for your life? Would one need to fear for the life of their entire family before they have a "license to kill" (whatever that is.....oh, yeah-hyperbole. That's what it is.) Maybe one would have to fear a mass killing? Or a genocide? The bit about "judge, jury, and executioner" is cute too, and speaks volumes about the progressive mindset on the issue of self-defense. Sometimes the world doesn't behave according to some liberal ideal....it almost never does. When a predator turns his attention to me or my family, then he has put himself outside the safety zone of process and law. Judges, juries, and executioners have nothing to do with it- it's much simpler than that. He has chosen to contest me for my control over my own life, or the life of a loved one. He may win that contest. He may lose that contest. And I will apply whatever force is necessary to retain this control. Simple enough for you?

As to someone wanting to fight me..... Are you saying that I have to accept an assault as some sort of "honorable contest?" Sorry fancypants, but I decided long ago that if some swingin' richard feels the need to try to smash his fists into my skull, then he is a threat. I refuse to risk permanent disability or death, or allow someone to destroy my family's future and livelihood, over someone else's idea of when I should be able to use necessary force to defend myself.

Stand your ground is simple also....and sensible (to all but progressives, apparently). The standard applied to self-defense remains the same- fear of death or great bodily injury. There is no "license to kill" written or implied. It simply removes the burden of retreat from the equation. People don't have to make ridiculous calculations under stress.... Can I outrun the perp? Can my wife outrun the perp? Is there an accomplice at the back door, in the path of my retreat? Can I get loose of my seatbelt before he stabs me? I couldn't be happier that we are rid of this absurd requirement, at least in some places. I would encourage the quivering slaves of the police state to stand clear, and let the rest of us do what we need to to keep our family safe. You should continue to live in a place that forces you to retain your false sense of 911 security.

[sara..... 371]

I would personally call this murder....there was no threat that could not have been over come with out the use of a weapon.

I carry a concealed weapon with the concealed weapon permit......I personally would never open fire on someone if I found myself in this particular situation.

just my opinion

sara

[Dan and Judy 614]

Murder. going with the info provided

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What standard would you apply? What standard would rise above "merely" fearing for your life? Would one need to fear for the life of their entire family before they have a "license to kill" (whatever that is.....oh, yeah-hyperbole. That's what it is.) Maybe one would have to fear a mass killing? Or a genocide? The bit about "judge, jury, and executioner" is cute too, and speaks volumes about the progressive mindset on the issue of self-defense. Sometimes the world doesn't behave according to some liberal ideal....it almost never does. When a predator turns his attention to me or my family, then he has put himself outside the safety zone of process and law. Judges, juries, and executioners have nothing to do with it- it's much simpler than that. He has chosen to contest me for my control over my own life, or the life of a loved one. He may win that contest. He may lose that contest. And I will apply whatever force is necessary to retain this control. Simple enough for you?

As to someone wanting to fight me..... Are you saying that I have to accept an assault as some sort of "honorable contest?" Sorry fancypants, but I decided long ago that if some swingin' richard feels the need to try to smash his fists into my skull, then he is a threat. I refuse to risk permanent disability or death, or allow someone to destroy my family's future and livelihood, over someone else's idea of when I should be able to use necessary force to defend myself.

Stand your ground is simple also....and sensible (to all but progressives, apparently). The standard applied to self-defense remains the same- fear of death or great bodily injury. There is no "license to kill" written or implied. It simply removes the burden of retreat from the equation. People don't have to make ridiculous calculations under stress.... Can I outrun the perp? Can my wife outrun the perp? Is there an accomplice at the back door, in the path of my retreat? Can I get loose of my seatbelt before he stabs me? I couldn't be happier that we are rid of this absurd requirement, at least in some places. I would encourage the quivering slaves of the police state to stand clear, and let the rest of us do what we need to to keep our family safe. You should continue to live in a place that forces you to retain your false sense of 911 security.

Well, for one if you accept that there are different levels of aggression and that most types of aggression are born out of conflict. Certainly, there are situations that call for lethal use of a weapon, but I'll give you some examples where there's aggression that doesn't typically call for lethal force:

1. A father at a football game gets angry, words are exchanged and things escalate quickly. Perhaps he shoves you or even clocks you. Are you gonna pull out your gun and point it at him, telling him to back off? Most likely and hopefully, there are enough people there to hold him down until the police arrive. Just because the guy's an azzhole with an anger management problem doesn't mean he deserves to die.
2. You unintentionally cut off another driver or do something that angers them. They retaliate by tailgating you for several miles and then pull up beside you cussing and verbally threatening to kick your ####. Do you pull your gun out? Suppose the person gets out of their vehicle and challenges you to get out of yours, do you pull out your gun? How many road rage incidences have happened where some gun-toting yahoo decided to take the conflict to a new level by brandishing their weapon, only to have the other person pull their weapon out and shoot?
3. You're walking on a crowded street and some guy bumps shoulders with you, then shoves you and asks you what your problem is while standing in a confrontational and somewhat threatening stance. Are you going to draw your gun? Or tell him to back off if he knows what's good for him?

Here's where I see the problems with only referring to lethal force when faced with such threats:

1. It assumes that when in such an altercation, showing the gun will cause the aggressor to suddenly fear you like in the movies. Well that's hollywood and not real life. Most aggressive behavior comes from uncontrolled anger and when people are acting on emotions, trying to scare them out of it is ineffective. What is effective in most situations is conflict resolution. That's why law enforcement have trained people to handle hostage situations or when someone has barricaded themselves in their home and threatening to kill themselves. They don't suddenly become fearful and subdue, but they can be calmed down to where they are more likely to surrender.
2. There's no turning back once you introduce a gun to the fight - that person will either take it as a threat on their own life and act accordingly, or take it as a challenge. While some may argue that people just need to change their behavior, that's not being realistic. For one, all of us have at some point in our lives, let our emotions get the best of us and acted irrationally. That's not an excuse for their behavior, but again, for most situations, effective conflict resolution will bring about a more favorable outcome that trying to meet force with force.
3. When there's a need to use force, like if someone just clocked you, containing them physically is best and can be done by just anyone with the right know-how. If your jumped by six guys on the street, by all means, pull your gun out and shoot if necessary, but if it's just you and another guy, and he's the father of one of the players on the other team, and the two of you are in a scuffle, keep your gun out of it.

[xebec 195]

Well, for one if you accept that there are different levels of aggression and that most types of aggression are born out of conflict. Certainly, there are situations that call for lethal use of a weapon, but I'll give you some examples where there's aggression that doesn't typically call for lethal force:

1. A father at a football game gets angry, words are exchanged and things escalate quickly. Perhaps he shoves you or even clocks you. Are you gonna pull out your gun and point it at him, telling him to back off? Most likely and hopefully, there are enough people there to hold him down until the police arrive. Just because the guy's an azzhole with an anger management problem doesn't mean he deserves to die.
2. You unintentionally cut off another driver or do something that angers them. They retaliate by tailgating you for several miles and then pull up beside you cussing and verbally threatening to kick your ####. Do you pull your gun out? Suppose the person gets out of their vehicle and challenges you to get out of yours, do you pull out your gun? How many road rage incidences have happened where some gun-toting yahoo decided to take the conflict to a new level by brandishing their weapon, only to have the other person pull their weapon out and shoot?
3. You're walking on a crowded street and some guy bumps shoulders with you, then shoves you and asks you what your problem is while standing in a confrontational and somewhat threatening stance. Are you going to draw your gun? Or tell him to back off if he knows what's good for him?

Here's where I see the problems with only referring to lethal force when faced with such threats:

1. It assumes that when in such an altercation, showing the gun will cause the aggressor to suddenly fear you like in the movies. Well that's hollywood and not real life. Most aggressive behavior comes from uncontrolled anger and when people are acting on emotions, trying to scare them out of it is ineffective. What is effective in most situations is conflict resolution. That's why law enforcement have trained people to handle hostage situations or when someone has barricaded themselves in their home and threatening to kill themselves. They don't suddenly become fearful and subdue, but they can be calmed down to where they are more likely to surrender.
2. There's no turning back once you introduce a gun to the fight - that person will either take it as a threat on their own life and act accordingly, or take it as a challenge. While some may argue that people just need to change their behavior, that's not being realistic. For one, all of us have at some point in our lives, let our emotions get the best of us and acted irrationally. That's not an excuse for their behavior, but again, for most situations, effective conflict resolution will bring about a more favorable outcome that trying to meet force with force.
3. When there's a need to use force, like if someone just clocked you, containing them physically is best and can be done by just anyone with the right know-how. If your jumped by six guys on the street, by all means, pull your gun out and shoot if necessary, but if it's just you and another guy, and he's the father of one of the players on the other team, and the two of you are in a scuffle, keep your gun out of it.

It's nice that you have a set of custom scenarios prepared. I think they can be addressed as a group:

Every U.S. self-defence law that I have ever read essentially requires that a "reasonable" person, in the same exact situation as the shooter, could justify potentially lethal force because they feared for their life, the life of another innocent, or serious bodily injury to the same. The scenarios you describe would, under most cases, leave the shooter exposed to prosecution, and at the mercy of a jury. This is the way the system is designed in this country- the judcial system answers questions like "was the shooting justified under the law." No Problem. Many posters on this topic of self defense, and stand your ground are missing the point entirely, however. The laws aren't flawed. Self-defense laws have been remarkably consistent across time and place in this country. The problem, in these handful of cases used as anectdotal evidence to attack the very concept of self-defense (as the article above attempts to do), is that police and prosecutors may sometimes fail to act in a way that makes sense to the public. Such is the case above, if the facts presented here are accurate.

In your scenarios above, you present the situation in a way favorable to your own agenda (which apparently is that people who legally carry weapons are more likely to overreact during confrontations).You describe someone "clocking" a person at a public event. This implies a single strike thrown in anger as part of a confrontation I, at least in part, initiated. Of course I would not respond with lethal force, nor would any "reasonable person." This would be prosecutable. Further, your understanding of the use of a concealed handgun seems limited. A weapon isn't designed as a tool of intimidation. It would be foolish, and probably illegal, to intentionally expose it with the purpose of intimidation. Prosecutable. I would never expect a person to behave predictably when threatened in this way. When my pistol comes out it is part of a process in which I am preparing to fire one or more rounds to stop a serious threat....If the agressor is quick and smart enough to demonstrate he is willing to peacefully desist, then he may have a second or two to make this clear, while I get a sight picture. If he is any slower than that, the round will be on its way. I don't have any intention of complicating a series of events that are life-threatening with any nonsense about "scaring" him with a weapon, or shooting at knives or legs- This is pure hoplophobic, ignorant claptrap.

I have no problem with walking away from a confrontation, if it is safer to do so. Neither I, nor any CCW holder I know would escalate intentionally in order to use a weapon. I, like most others, have had heated exchanges because of frustration with other drivers, parking places, little league games, etc. Never had to even mometarily consider my weapon, nor has any CCW holder I know. These things are are going to crop up from time to time, and have nothing to do with the responsible and legal posession of a concealed weapon. red herring.

Your scenarios, however, sidestep another real possibility- an agressive and sustained assault. Not an angry softball dad throwing a punch, but a real beatdown-even by a single attacker rather than the 6 you describe. Such attacks are often permanently disabling, and even lethal. I refuse to acknowledge your implication that some "fairness" should apply here..... fist vs. fist and pistol vs. pistol. Such an attack could render me unconscious (possibly putting my gun in the fight in the hands of my attacker), permanently disable me, or end my life. I would have no qualms about meeting such an attack with potentially lethal force.

When there's a need to use force, like if someone just clocked you, containing them physically is best and can be done by just anyone with the right know-how. If your jumped by six guys on the street, by all means, pull your gun out and shoot if necessary, but if it's just you and another guy, and he's the father of one of the players on the other team, and the two of you are in a scuffle, keep your gun out of it.

Help me understand this. Are you telling me that, in order to effectively defend myself, I need years of training in martial arts? Can my 5'3" 95 pound wife can do this?- "physcially contain" an attacker? If you truly believe this is a viable option, then you know very little about combatives. I guarantee you, I could introduce you to at least five personal friends right now, none of whom you could "physically contain." Nor could a pair of police officers, if these guys chose to vigorously resist. Some people have been watching way too much WWE.... Progressives are funny creatures. They state it as axiomatic that "civilians" can't possibly be trained and mentally-equipped to use lethal force in self-defense (only the mystic powers gained by joining the police or military could possibly bestow such competency), but these same civilians should dedicate years to training in martial arts, to become masters of "non-lethal" self-defense.

Edited May 1, 2012 by xebec

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's nice that you have a set of custom scenarios prepared. I think they can be addressed as a group:

Every U.S. self-defence law that I have ever read essentially requires that a "reasonable" person, in the same exact situation as the shooter, could justify potentially lethal force because they feared for their life, the life of another innocent, or serious bodily injury to the same. The scenarios you describe would, under most cases, leave the shooter exposed to prosecution, and at the mercy of a jury. This is the way the system is designed in this country- the judcial system answers questions like "was the shooting justified under the law." No Problem. Many posters on this topic of self defense, and stand your ground are missing the point entirely, however. The laws aren't flawed. Self-defense laws have been remarkably consistent across time and place in this country. The problem, in these handful of cases used as anectdotal evidence to attack the very concept of self-defense (as the article above attempts to do), is that police and prosecutors may sometimes fail to act in a way that makes sense to the public. Such is the case above, if the facts presented here are accurate.

In your scenarios above, you present the situation in a way favorable to your own agenda (which apparently is that people who legally carry weapons are more likely to overreact during confrontations).You describe someone "clocking" a person at a public event. This implies a single strike thrown in anger as part of a confrontation I, at least in part, initiated. Of course I would not respond with lethal force, nor would any "reasonable person." This would be prosecutable. Further, your understanding of the use of a concealed handgun seems limited. A weapon isn't designed as a tool of intimidation. It would be foolish, and probably illegal, to intentionally expose it with the purpose of intimidation. Prosecutable. I would never expect a person to behave predictably when threatened in this way. When my pistol comes out it is part of a process in which I am preparing to fire one or more rounds to stop a serious threat....If the agressor is quick and smart enough to demonstrate he is willing to peacefully desist, then he may have a second or two to make this clear, while I get a sight picture. If he is any slower than that, the round will be on its way. I don't have any intention of complicating a series of events that are life-threatening with any nonsense about "scaring" him with a weapon, or shooting at knives or legs- This is pure hoplophobic, ignorant claptrap.

I have no problem with walking away from a confrontation, if it is safer to do so. Neither I, nor any CCW holder I know would escalate intentionally in order to use a weapon. I, like most others, have had heated exchanges because of frustration with other drivers, parking places, little league games, etc. Never had to even mometarily consider my weapon, nor has any CCW holder I know. These things are are going to crop up from time to time, and have nothing to do with the responsible and legal posession of a concealed weapon. red herring.

Your scenarios, however, sidestep another real possibility- an agressive and sustained assault. Not an angry softball dad throwing a punch, but a real beatdown-even by a single attacker rather than the 6 you describe. Such attacks are often permanently disabling, and even lethal. I refuse to acknowledge your implication that some "fairness" should apply here..... fist vs. fist and pistol vs. pistol. Such an attack could render me unconscious (possibly putting my gun in the fight in the hands of my attacker), permanently disable me, or end my life. I would have no qualms about meeting such an attack with potentially lethal force.

First, I appreciate your well thought out response and I would hope that you are right about leaving it up to judges and jurors to decide whether there was a reasonable belief in a threat to someone's life. However, what we're seeing in cases like the OP, is that the shooter is not being charged. The 'Stand Your Ground' laws appear to have moved the decision of determining if it was in fact an act of defense into the hands of law enforcement. The determination is not being hammered out in a court of law.

Second, I think you're being either naive or ignorant about how humans behave, particularly with guns. There are countless stories of people acting like idiots with guns and I'm not talking about the crazed shooters, but gun-toting yahoos who think they are acting appropriately and within their rights. Gun ownership is no different that car ownership - there are going to be people who own guns or drive cars who behave like idiots. That said, I'm not advocating any banning of guns, but just pointing out the reality of human behavior. So what I'd like to see advocated by those who support self defense, non-lethal methods as first alternatives when faced with confrontations of aggression.

Help me understand this. Are you telling me that, in order to effectively defend myself, I need years of training in martial arts? Can my 5'3" 95 pound wife can do this?- "physcially contain" an attacker? If you truly believe this is a viable option, then you know very little about combatives. I guarantee you, I could introduce you to at least five personal friends right now, none of whom you could "physically contain." Nor could a pair of police officers, if these guys chose to vigorously resist. Some people have been watching way too much WWE.... Progressives are funny creatures. They state it as axiomatic that "civilians" can't possibly be trained and mentally-equipped to use lethal force in self-defense (only the mystic powers gained by joining the police or military could possibly bestow such competency), but these same civilians should dedicate years to training in martial arts, to become masters of "non-lethal" self-defense.

Ask any self-defense trainer, and he or she will tell you that your wife doesn't need to be a third degree black belt to effectively defend herself nor does have to be a 6 ft 3 in linebacker. In fact, they'll tell you that gun is not very effective in situations where the perpetrator sneaks up and attacks, which is what happens a lot with sexual assaults. Again, I'm in favor of concealed weapons and I do believe they can be an effective method of self defense, but I'm being realistic in knowing that you can't always rely on your gun for protection and if self defense is your primary concern, learning to defend yourself without a weapon is your best line of defense.

[xebec 195]

First, I appreciate your well thought out response and I would hope that you are right about leaving it up to judges and jurors to decide whether there was a reasonable belief in a threat to someone's life. However, what we're seeing in cases like the OP, is that the shooter is not being charged. The 'Stand Your Ground' laws appear to have moved the decision of determining if it was in fact an act of defense into the hands of law enforcement. The determination is not being hammered out in a court of law.

Second, I think you're being either naive or ignorant about how humans behave, particularly with guns. There are countless stories of people acting like idiots with guns and I'm not talking about the crazed shooters, but gun-toting yahoos who think they are acting appropriately and within their rights. Gun ownership is no different that car ownership - there are going to be people who own guns or drive cars who behave like idiots. That said, I'm not advocating any banning of guns, but just pointing out the reality of human behavior. So what I'd like to see advocated by those who support self defense, non-lethal methods as first alternatives when faced with confrontations of aggression.

Ask any self-defense trainer, and he or she will tell you that your wife doesn't need to be a third degree black belt to effectively defend herself nor does have to be a 6 ft 3 in linebacker. In fact, they'll tell you that gun is not very effective in situations where the perpetrator sneaks up and attacks, which is what happens a lot with sexual assaults. Again, I'm in favor of concealed weapons and I do believe they can be an effective method of self defense, but I'm being realistic in knowing that you can't always rely on your gun for protection and if self defense is your primary concern, learning to defend yourself without a weapon is your best line of defense.

I would love someone to explain to me how removing the duty to retreat has fundamentally altered the ability to prosecute for homicide (other than the fact that a person could not be prosecuted for failing to retreat from a place at which they are legally present). This makes no sense. Stand your ground doesn't change the realities of legal self defense- there must be a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm. That's the point I'm making here- whether the person "stood his ground" or attempted to retreat, they would be subject to the same basic requirements to claim self-defense. Demagogues have taken a few strange cases in which prosecution seems appropriate, but hasn't immediately followed, and repeated these cases endlessly to serve their social/political agenda. Further, how do you know that self-defence claims aren't being "hammered out in a court of law?" I'm certain that these cases are on court dockets across the country. Are you simply referring to this handfull of sensastionalized cases?

You say I'm being naive or ignorant about human behavior with guns. I say you are grossly generalizing, which renders the observation useless. I have been around armed people all of my life, and involved in combat arms training, directly or indirectly since I served with the ITB and the SOA at Benning in the early 1980s. I move constantly amongst armed people- almost everyone I know is legally packing. Sure....I have seen my share of foolishness- mostly typical brainf_rts. But the irresponsible, negligent, or criminal behavior you insinuate is exceedingly rare in my experience. I can always tell someone whose gun I need to fear- they are the ones with criminal inclination and criminal records. Often this type has as little use for a CCW permit as they do for any other law. My persoanl experience is born out by the statistical data as well. Permit holders statistically commit all crimes ata much lower rate the the general population.

"Martial arts trainers" say a lot of things, almost all of which are intended to sell their services and/or feed their egos. If you want to hear the voices of real experience then go to forums where the pros talk..... warriortalk or the like. The BS about beating up motivated criminal agressors using "karate" went out the window a long time ago friend. I can tell you from first hand experience also, that gun fighting at close quarters battle range to contact (grappling) is being taught very effectively by some of the most experienced and skilled gunfighters in the world..... some of them right in your own "backyard" fancypants.....'nuff said. A person (particularly a small female) would be much better served learning how to use a firearm to end a violent attack than wasting time with some sort of nut-kicking, eye-scratching tae-bo fitness ####### that passes for self-defense. I know or have known plenty of guys that simply can't be put down by the level of force or pain that a small female can generate, no matter how skilled or lucky. Simple physics and force of will. On the other hand, I have never met anyone that couldn't be put down by enough gunpowder-generated kinetic energy.

[james&olya 1,121]

I think it was not needed to shoot the kid myself. I am good at not getting into encounters and also I am good at getting out of these encounters and can handle any kid unarmed easily. The only time I would shoot anyone is if they enter my house and I am there. You are dead period. If I hear anyone creeping around outside better be running when my door opens to check it out.

If I am carrying concealed I will only think about using that weapon if I am threatened and the person will have to have a weapon or be anywhere near my wife or family. I would never chase someone down the street or anything. My taxes pay the cops to do that.

To own a weapon is a responsibility. Everyone needs to be responsible if they want to own a weapon for protection. To be fair though also everyone needs to expect anyone they want to confront to be armed and act accordingly. Responsibility goes two ways. You act hostile to someone and present yourself as a threat then you could die if you escalate the threat.

Pretty much leave me alone and I will leave you alone.

You have said it very well! This liberal agrees completely!

Edited May 2, 2012 by james&olya

[luckytxn 2,263]

You have said it very well! This liberal agrees completely!

Whoa!

[slim 1,514]

I blame the movies. When you see 110 lb. Angelina Jolie whooping up on 6'3", 250 lb. Liev Schrieber, it's very empowering. Grrrrl power!

Whenever a "tough girl" takes a big man's punch right to her face and wipes the blood from her nose, puts her dukes back up and asks for more, it makes us think, "Gosh, with the right amount of training and will-power, this could really happen!"

Jason Bourne really can kick the @$$es of four guys simultaneously. Jason Stathem, a dozen! All you need is training and a lot of cardio!

But then we're forced to come back to reality. Mr. Murphy says that sometimes, $#!t happens and if you're prepared for that $#!t to happen, you'll fare better than if you were unprepared. Either way, $#!t will still happen. Once in a blue moon a 110 lb. woman will beat up a 250 lb. man. But not often. Not often at all. And so what we're left with are the statistics and facts of actual encounters.

And without fail, in these "actual encounters" when someone is scared for their life, they have a legal right to defend themselves by using deadly force. More often than not, when someone scared for their life resists their threat by using a firearm - they survive the encounter. Ju-jiutsu? Not so much.

What I'm really wondering is why hasn't the Attorney General of the United States become personally involved and/or the President of the United States made a statement about the incident? I mean, they're the "stand your ground" experts, aren't they?