Sometimes stupid loses

John A. wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 23:13:47 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

John A. wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:51:33 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 02:49:02 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 12:34:03 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


Unfortunately the far more numerous occasions when guns prevent
crimes do not generally appear "in today's paper." Mostly they
do only when the intended victim has to shoot someone to
protect himself, and this is a very
small minority of cases.

Ahhhh...the "media conspiracy theory": the only reason we don't
hear about armed and brave citizens successfully thwarting thugs
is because the newspapers won't print stories that their liberal
editors and publishers don't want to see in print.

Try to pay attention to what I said instead of making up straw
men. It's that an intended crime prevented by the would-be victim
showing a gun is most often simply a non-event; it's not reported
in the news because the crime didn't occur.

Well, which is it? The Kleck/Gertz study claims 2.5 million DGU
incidents, but now you're saying most of these were "non-events".

Talk about a Straw Man.

Newspapers don't reject a story because no crime occurred. If
someone chases away an intruder before a crime occurs, and the
person reports the incident, that's newsworthy. Especially here
in Florida where the NRA is avidly seeking incidents where DGU
stories shore up their claims. Marion Hammer would drag the
homeowner into the newspaper's office.

If the person mistakenly chases away the UPS driver, or a
next-door neighbor who came over to tell the homeowner that their
car lights were left on, the newspapers may consider that a
non-event. Kleck will count it, though.

It's not logical to believe that a significant number of people
who really do chase away an invader before a crime is committed
are too shy to report the event. They'd be shouting to the
rooftops "See! I really do need to have a gun in my coat pocket
at all times.".

And you think they don't? Read the "National Rifleman" for a few
months. They don't report many things because of what happened to
people like Bernie Goetz, and he was an exception because he
actually had to shoot a few people. In most instances just the mere
possession of the weapon is enough to thwart a crime. In my case,
just my attitude when carrying was enough in many instances to
prevent any potential trouble. Its the, "I know something that you
don't know" attitude I am speaking of.

Somehow I'm picturing a gun-owners version of letters to Penthouse.

Picture whatever you want. But the fact is, I am still alive.

So am I. In fact I'd say it's a safe bet everyone involved in this
little debate session is.

Yes. And its a pity we can't know how many more would be had they carried
all of their lives as I did.

John A. wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 23:04:37 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-04-08 15:53:32 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:

Whisky-dave wrote:

Le Snip


What I'd really like to see is the number of people killed
'legally' by guns in the US or anywhere you know where you can
shoot someone should they attack
you or your property.

The laws about that vary considerably from state to state.

Generally throughout the States, the Laws, or rules for use of
deadly force are consistent. There are some differences in the way
they are interpreted for civilians vs military & Law enforcement,
but for the most part they are the same, and only slight variations
on the general principle.

There are also distinct differences between use of deadly force as a
defense in the home (The castle doctrine), and everywhere else.

The use of deadly force for self defense does not usually extend to
the defense of property. There are legally defined steps every gun
owner who intends to own that gun for the purpose of self defense
should go through before firing that weapon. Massad Ayoob, a police
captain from New Hampshire, an expert in the field of combat
shooting, who most combat hand gun enthusiasts are aware of spells
it out thus, using the acronym "AOJP":
Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, & Preclusion.

1: Ability
Your attacker must have the ability, the physical, practical
ability, to cause you harm. Common sense applies here, as does
context. A gun gives your attacker ability (lethal ability, in
fact); a knife gives ability as well. Indeed, most weapons qualify,
all the way down to glass bottles, baseball bats, and screwdrivers.
While the latter are not designed as weapons, if they are applied
as such, they can certainly kill you just as dead.
Other "ability" considerations include disparity in size or physical
power between you and your attacker, a very large man versus a very
small man, a strong man versus a cripple, a trained fighter versus a
bookworm, a man versus a woman, all can apply. And don't forget
disparity in numbers - four men attacking one can very easily kill
or cripple, unless that one is a Hollywood action hero.
Most of the above are valid lethal force scenarios, but non-lethal
force uses the same standard. Just about anyone can punch you and
break your nose, or break your arm, or bruise your stomach.
In short, common sense is a more or less effective guide on this
point. The important question is simply whether, as far as you know,
the attacker has the ability to harm you-kill or maim you, if you
respond with lethal force, or lesser degrees of danger for
equivalently lesser uses of force.

2: Opportunity
While your attacker may very well have the ability to cause you
harm, it means nothing unless he also has the opportunity to do so,
right here and right now. After all, there are probably countless
criminals in the world who "could" kill you and might do so, given
the chance; but they aren't standing in front of you at this
moment, so they don't have that opportunity.
The biggest consideration here is range or proximity. Although a man
with a gun is considered dangerous at any reasonable distance, a man
with a knife standing 300 feet away is not, simply because he cannot
stab you from that far away. Yet there is another factor, as well.
If he were standing mere yards away, he still probably couldn't
reach you with his knife, but because it would only take him
moments to approach you and change that, he would still be
considered dangerous. A common police standard is to assume that a
knife-wielding assailant is capable of covering 21 feet and
striking with the blade in 1.5 seconds. Mull on that time span.
Some other considerations may apply when it comes to Opportunity.
For instance, is a knife-wielding assailant behind a locked door a
threat? Probably not. Therefore, if you were to shoot him through
the door, that would not be justifiable. On the other hand, if he
started, successfully, breaking the door down, then he would
promptly become dangerous again. Again, use common sense.

3: Jeopardy
The most subjective factor of the AOJP analysis is the jeopardy
requirement, sometimes called "imminent jeopardy." This criterion
requires that, in your specific situation, a "reasonable and
prudent" person would have believed himself to be in immediate
danger.
In other words, jeopardy is what distinguishes between a potentially
dangerous situation and one that is actually dangerous. Hundreds of
times every day, you walk by people who could punch or stab or shoot
you. The reason you aren't "defending" yourself against them is
because you have no reason to think that they are actually about to
attack you. (Why would they?)
On the other hand, if someone screams a threat and points a gun at
you, any sane person would expect that behavior to indicate an
intent to cause you harm.
It's important to recognize that you cannot actually know this
person's intent; you are not a mind reader. All you can judge is his
outward appearance and demeanor, which, in that case, are consistent
with harmful intent. If it turns out that he was joking, or lying,
or the gun was fake, or he wouldn't actually have pulled the
trigger, nothing changes, because you could not have known those
things.
The other important qualifier to remember is that the jeopardy must
be immediate. A general threat to your well-being in the distant
future is meaningless, but "I'm gonna kill you right now!" is
meaningful. Finally, it's essential to understand that the
"immediate jeopardy" condition can go away at the drop of a hat. On
the one hand, if you are attacked, beaten, and left lying in an
alley, you are not justified in shooting your attacker in the back
as he walks away, because he will have ceased to be a threat. On
the other hand, if he turns around and comes back for more, then
the immediate jeopardy resumes. Jeopardy can cease suddenly and
unexpectedly if your attacker surrenders or clearly ceases to be a
threat (if you knock him unconscious, for instance, or he tries to
run), and continuing to use force in such situations can change
your action from legal self-defense to illegal battery in moments.

4: Preclusion
Preclusion is the idea that, whatever the situation, you are
expected to use force only as a last resort, that is, only when the
circumstances preclude all other options.
In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy
criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do
something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly
lethal force, may only be that "something" if you have no other
safe options.
The word "safe" is key there, because at no time does the law ever
require you to choose an action that endangers yourself. If you can
run away or retreat, you should, but if doing so would put you in
harm's way, you are not required to do so.
Preclusion is the factor that is missing in most self-defense
arguments, and thus the reason most fail. You must remember that you
bear the burden of proof; until you prove otherwise, the law merely
sees two equal citizens in a dispute. You can say, "He tried to hit
me," but then the police and the courts will ask, "Why didn't you
_____?" You must have no options to offer to fill in that blank,
there must have been no other courses of action you could have
taken to maintain your safety except the use of force. Otherwise,
you're just fighting because you want to, and that's a crime.
Does the Preclusion standard mean that an ultimatum like "give me
your money, or I'll hurt you" requires you to, well, give him your
money? Unless you honestly believe that he may hurt you anyway,
yes. The law values "life and limb" above property. Or you can
refuse, but you may not respond with a fist. He's giving you a
choice, which, by definition, means that you still have options
other than force.
The point is simply that you must exercise self-restraint to the
greatest extent possible. One vital aspect of this requirement
concerns the appropriateness or degree of the force you employ, or
how well suited your response is to the threat itself. If a man
punches you, you probably cannot justifiably shoot him, because
that's a lethal response to a non-lethal attack. If a three-year-old
punches you, you probably cannot do anything at all. If, on the
other hand, a 300-pound boxer punches you, you may be justified in
responding with deadly force, because his fists can be deadly as
well.

Always remember:
1: The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2: Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3: Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.
If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget
the third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment.

The best way to deal with this minefield is responsible training.

I take a lesson from the police. I keep a spare gun which is
unregistred and untraceable. I can shoot first, and then place the
untraceable weapon in the hands of the assailent and fire it into
the wall behind me. And, there is my excuse for shooting the
assailent.

Remember you're living in the age of CSI (or spin-offs, anyway.)
Pretty much anyone could see through that one.

Not if done right, they can't. But a knife will work just as well. And, at
my age, nothing at all will work.

On 2011-04-08 22:34:03 -0700, tony cooper said:

There are many in Florida who want to see "Open Carry" laws.
Here's one I captured:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos...7_s49pe-XL.jpg

That is one neat belt buckle!

I didn't know Bill was visiting Florida.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2011-04-08 22:44:07 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-04-08 13:18:39 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

Neil Harrington wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:
On Apr 7, 6:10 pm, "Neil Harrington" wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:
On Apr 6, 10:25 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
tony cooper wrote:

In fact, the right to
keep and bear arms is as old as humanity on this Earth.

No it isn;t Ameraica wasn;t teh fist country on Earth either.

Irrelevant. People kept and bore arms long before this country
existed, or yours either. It is a natural right.

There's no such thing as a natural right.

Sure there is. Google it and see.

Politically, the, "Right of revolution" is a natural right.

Not exactly a "natural" right. It is part of a political philosophy
going back some thousands of years, but best spelt out by John Locke,
and used by Thomas Paine in "Common Sense" to nudge our little
revolution along.

Actually the 2nd Amendment and the "right to bear arms" is not one of
the "inalienable" or "natural" rights as espoused in the Declaration
of Independence, or the Constitution. It is a legal right established
by charter. That is what the Constitutional Amendments
are. They establish Constitutional legal rights and changes to the
basic original document, not "natural" or "inalienable" rights.

The "inalienable" or "natural" rights, of which there are three, are
the following, and you should be familiar with them. They are the
rights established before the writing and application of Law:

1: Life
2: Liberty, conditioned on non-conflict with the first right.
3: Estate, conditioned on non-conflict with the first two rights.
(replaced by Jefferson as "the Pursuit of Happiness")

And the second amendment helps insure, "life". For sure, the police
can't do this.

Wrong again.

If you are going down that road, the 2nd Amendment was not intended to
"insure life". It was to enable and ensure "Liberty".

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2011-04-08 23:04:37 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

Savageduck wrote:

UOF Verbiage ignored by Bill, in earlier posts



Always remember:
1: The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2: Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3: Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.
If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the
third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment.

The best way to deal with this minefield is responsible training.

I take a lesson from the police. I keep a spare gun which is
unregistred and untraceable. I can shoot first, and then place the
untraceable weapon in the hands of the assailent and fire it into the
wall behind me. And, there is my excuse for shooting the assailent.

So you carry two handguns? A shooter and a spare.
You announce intent, and you espouse the Hollywood myth of the "throw
down". In 25 years in Law enforcement I have only known of the "throw
down" gun being used in novels, TV drama, & Hollywood.
....and you don't seem to understand the concept. The idea is to place a
weapon not related to LE, with the individual shot by a cop, to justify
the shooting. At least that is supposed to be the way the script plays
out.

As far as "excuse" goes, there is no "excuse" for shooting anybody.
There is only justification, and that has to pass all the tests for
"Use of Deadly Force".

With your ignorance, arrogance, and contempt for the Law, if you are
ever faced with the situation of actually firing any of the weapons you
own, I doubt you will ever pass that test.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 01:17:51 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-04-08 22:34:03 -0700, tony cooper said:

There are many in Florida who want to see "Open Carry" laws.
Here's one I captured:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos...7_s49pe-XL.jpg

That is one neat belt buckle!

I didn't know Bill was visiting Florida.

The real shame is that the most ignorant and stupid of humanity are this
policy's most visible proponents. While keeping everyone self-armed is a
good idea, and educating them why this is so (e.g. defending themselves
against corrupt police morons, etc.), just look at the kind of people who
are promoting this off-topic crap in newsgroups.

Proving exactly what I just stated. The two biggest buffoons and off-topic
trolls to have ever infested these newsgroups are at it again.

Quick everyone! Post a photo of an STD infected penis and then lets all
talk about DaffyDuck's and Phony Coopers' lifelong STD problems!

That'll be just as on-topic.

In article 2011040901460650878-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2011-04-08 23:04:37 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

Savageduck wrote:

UOF Verbiage ignored by Bill, in earlier posts



Always remember:
1: The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2: Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3: Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.
If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the
third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment.

The best way to deal with this minefield is responsible training.

I take a lesson from the police. I keep a spare gun which is
unregistred and untraceable. I can shoot first, and then place the
untraceable weapon in the hands of the assailent and fire it into the
wall behind me. And, there is my excuse for shooting the assailent.

So you carry two handguns? A shooter and a spare.
You announce intent, and you espouse the Hollywood myth of the "throw
down". In 25 years in Law enforcement I have only known of the "throw
down" gun being used in novels, TV drama, & Hollywood.
...and you don't seem to understand the concept. The idea is to place a
weapon not related to LE, with the individual shot by a cop, to justify
the shooting. At least that is supposed to be the way the script plays
out.

As far as "excuse" goes, there is no "excuse" for shooting anybody.
There is only justification, and that has to pass all the tests for
"Use of Deadly Force".

With your ignorance, arrogance, and contempt for the Law, if you are
ever faced with the situation of actually firing any of the weapons you
own, I doubt you will ever pass that test.

Further, one suspects that he'd need to know a lot more than he has
demonstrated to fool a modern forensic team.

On 2011-04-09 7:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

Further, one suspects that he'd need to know a lot more than he has
demonstrated to fool a modern forensic team.

One problem prosecutors face these days with juries is that the
forensics are no where near the elaborate expectations set by shows like
CSI. Resources are stretched thin everywhere, time is not available,
equipment is not available, etc. (I recall LA had a huge backlog of DNA
testing not done, for example).

No large city lays charges in all murder cases. (Unsolved rate). (eg:
one online reference puts NYC at 150 - 200 unsolved murders per year
over the last couple decades).

All large cities have cases where the right guy is charged but the
prosecution can't make the case in front of a jury. (Those pesky
constitutional, procedural and evidence rules).

Forensics are an important part of solving a case, but they do not make
it happen in and of itself.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 23:13:47 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

And you think they don't? Read the "National Rifleman" for a few
months. They don't report many things because of what happened to
people like Bernie Goetz, and he was an exception because he
actually had to shoot a few people. In most instances just the mere
possession of the weapon is enough to thwart a crime. In my case,
just my attitude when carrying was enough in many instances to
prevent any potential trouble. Its the, "I know something that you
don't know" attitude I am speaking of.

Somehow I'm picturing a gun-owners version of letters to Penthouse.

Picture whatever you want. But the fact is, I am still alive.

This is one of the reasons I don't believe the figures in the Kleck
report. Bill has alluded to being able to fend off two muggers
because he carries. In some posts, the gun "saved his ass". Now he's
coming close to "the gun saved my life" while saying - at the same
time - his attitude discouraged his attackers. I think he mentioned
something about the gun saving him from getting beaten up in one post.
The story changes.

If enough people like Bill were the recipient of Kleck's 5,000 call
phone survey, there's little chance *real* facts were recorded. A
threatening looking person standing across the street without ever
approaching the respondent can go down as a DGU success story. The
real facts become confused with the "what I wudda done" and "what
cudda happened" memories.






--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 4/9/11 12:34 AM, in article ,
"tony cooper" wrote:

There are many in Florida who want to see "Open Carry" laws.
Here's one I captured:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos...7_s49pe-XL.jpg

He's got his priories straight...