"Ken Davey" wrote

My point of view in this is NOT the bring a knife to a gunfight thing but
rather the use of a weapon that can cause serious injury in response to a
(weapon?) water balloon which, at worst, can damage one's dignity.
I do areee that the response of authority was 'over-the-top' and could
have been handled better.

Without actually being present during the incident we have no way of
knowing if the actions and reactions of everybody concerned were
appropriate.

Regards.
Ken.



Tell it to a ten year old that is being attacked by five people. If I were
her parents, I would say, "Nice aim."

Steve

"jim rozen" wrote



OK, but how do you square that with the 5 to 1 difference in
numbers? Do five water balloon throwers equal one rock tosser?

Jim


Now, Jim, let's analyze this equation from the Kalifornikate liberal
bent......

First, five and one are not numbers, but nouns, according to the NEA.

Was the rock igneous?
Was it sedimentary?
Was it conglomerate?

What was the velocity of the rock?

What was the mass of the rock?

What was the energy of the rock, using the recognized formula for computing
energy using velocity and mass as variables?

What was the trajectory of the rock?

What was the intent of the rock?

What was the intent of the rock thrower?

Were the five individuals related?

Were the five rockthrowers documented aliens?

Was there any sexual overtones to the incident?

What was the color of the water balloon?

What was the shape of the water balloon?

Was the shape of the balloon actually a phallic symbol?

Does the use of a phallic symbol as a weapon by a female imply lesbian
tendencies?

Was the water tap water, Evian, or distilled water?

Was the alleged water used in the alleged incident ever analyzed by the
Kalifornikiate Department of Health for biohazards?

I could go on for hundreds of lines.

Bottom line .......... you act like an idiot, you get smacked in the head.
End of case.

Well, in 49 states, anyway.

Steve

"Peter Wiley" wrote

Had it been my kid
that copped the rock, he woulda copped a kick in the ass to go with it,
for being a bully.

PDW

Whaaa? you'd kick your kid's ass for defending themself? What are you
training him/her/it to be, a liberal?

Steve

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 18:43:04 -0700, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Ken Davey" wrote

My point of view in this is NOT the bring a knife to a gunfight thing but
rather the use of a weapon that can cause serious injury in response to a
(weapon?) water balloon which, at worst, can damage one's dignity.
I do areee that the response of authority was 'over-the-top' and could
have been handled better.

Without actually being present during the incident we have no way of
knowing if the actions and reactions of everybody concerned were
appropriate.

Regards.
Ken.



Tell it to a ten year old that is being attacked by five people. If I were
her parents, I would say, "Nice aim."

Steve

Too bad someone wasn't standing by equipped to retaliate in kind, with
water from a water jet device capable of pattern cutting armor plate.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

SteveB wrote:
"jim rozen" wrote



OK, but how do you square that with the 5 to 1 difference in
numbers? Do five water balloon throwers equal one rock tosser?

Jim



Now, Jim, let's analyze this equation from the Kalifornikate liberal
bent......

First, five and one are not numbers, but nouns, according to the NEA.

Was the rock igneous?
Was it sedimentary?
Was it conglomerate?

What was the velocity of the rock?

What was the mass of the rock?

What was the energy of the rock, using the recognized formula for computing
energy using velocity and mass as variables?

What was the trajectory of the rock?

What was the intent of the rock?

What was the intent of the rock thrower?

Were the five individuals related?

Were the five rockthrowers documented aliens?

Was there any sexual overtones to the incident?

What was the color of the water balloon?

What was the shape of the water balloon?

Was the shape of the balloon actually a phallic symbol?

Does the use of a phallic symbol as a weapon by a female imply lesbian
tendencies?

Was the water tap water, Evian, or distilled water?

Was the alleged water used in the alleged incident ever analyzed by the
Kalifornikiate Department of Health for biohazards?

I could go on for hundreds of lines.

Bottom line .......... you act like an idiot, you get smacked in the head.
End of case.

Well, in 49 states, anyway.

Steve



I move we start a new organization to put an end to this rock violence
that has become so common. CERV (Center to End Rock Violence). The damn
things are too easily acquired by felons, other criminals, and children!
We should immediately pass legislation to have each and every rock be
imprinted with a bar code at the moment it is grasped in hand. This
would aid the authorities...blah...blah...

Good for the girl. Too bad she didn't fire off a couple more, lessons
all round.


buckshot

"michael" wrote


Good for the girl. Too bad she didn't fire off a couple more, lessons all
round.


buckshot

I ( especially as being an abused child ) loved the line in Forrest Gump,
when he says, "Sometimes, there just aren't enough rocks."

She needed four more.

Steve

In article , Ken Davey
wrote:

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Ken Davey says...

My point of view in this is NOT the bring a knife to a gunfight
thing but rather the use of a weapon that can cause serious injury
in response to a (weapon?) water balloon which, at worst, can damage
one's dignity.

OK, but how do you square that with the 5 to 1 difference in
numbers? Do five water balloon throwers equal one rock tosser?

Jim

In a word - NO!

Don't think anyone else agrees with you. What, IYO, was she supposed to
do? Stay there & cop it? Run off to mummy? Throw her shoes at them?
Walk up to one & punch him out? What?

Hey. 5 kids started it by throwing water balloons. That was totally
unacceptable behaviour. One copped a rock in return. Had it been my kid
that copped the rock, he woulda copped a kick in the ass to go with it,
for being a bully.

PDW

Ken Davey wrote:
jim rozen wrote:

In article , Ken Davey says...


My point of view in this is NOT the bring a knife to a gunfight
thing but rather the use of a weapon that can cause serious injury
in response to a (weapon?) water balloon which, at worst, can damage
one's dignity.

OK, but how do you square that with the 5 to 1 difference in
numbers? Do five water balloon throwers equal one rock tosser?

Jim


In a word - NO!

Ken.


You're thinking analog in a digital situation. Assault and battery,
regardless of the weapons involved, is what it is. It's a case of
yes/no- was she assaulted and battered? Yes. That's the only line you
can draw, and at that point she has the right to defend herself in any
fashion she chooses. It's the only way it can be, anything else works to
the benefit of the criminals.

John

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.....

PDW

In article V3UJe.81360$4o.18197@fed1read06, SteveB
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote

Had it been my kid
that copped the rock, he woulda copped a kick in the ass to go with it,
for being a bully.

PDW

Whaaa? you'd kick your kid's ass for defending themself? What are you
training him/her/it to be, a liberal?

Steve

In article 42f8b4dc$0$11018
, says...
Ken Davey wrote:
jim rozen wrote:

In article , Ken Davey says...


My point of view in this is NOT the bring a knife to a gunfight
thing but rather the use of a weapon that can cause serious injury
in response to a (weapon?) water balloon which, at worst, can damage
one's dignity.

OK, but how do you square that with the 5 to 1 difference in
numbers? Do five water balloon throwers equal one rock tosser?

Jim


In a word - NO!

Ken.


You're thinking analog in a digital situation. Assault and battery,
regardless of the weapons involved, is what it is. It's a case of
yes/no- was she assaulted and battered? Yes. That's the only line you
can draw, and at that point she has the right to defend herself in any
fashion she chooses.

I don't agree with that last sentence, but do believe it's
unreasonable to expect an 11 year old girl to make a finely
calibrated split-second decision in the midst of being
assaulted by 5 bullies. The boys had an opportunity to plan
their attack and consider the consequences, the girl didn't
have that luxury.

Ned Simmons

In article , Ken Davey
wrote:

Peter Wiley wrote:
In article , Ken Davey
wrote:

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Ken Davey says...

My point of view in this is NOT the bring a knife to a gunfight
thing but rather the use of a weapon that can cause serious injury
in response to a (weapon?) water balloon which, at worst, can
damage one's dignity.

OK, but how do you square that with the 5 to 1 difference in
numbers? Do five water balloon throwers equal one rock tosser?

Jim

In a word - NO!

Don't think anyone else agrees with you. What, IYO, was she supposed
to do? Stay there & cop it? Run off to mummy? Throw her shoes at them?
Walk up to one & punch him out? What?

Hey. 5 kids started it by throwing water balloons. That was totally
unacceptable behaviour. One copped a rock in return. Had it been my
kid that copped the rock, he woulda copped a kick in the ass to go
with it, for being a bully.

PDW

Was it unacceptable behavior?
Had the girl been 'trolling for trouble' for some time and it was just her
turn?
You or I were not there so comments like bullying (or the above) from us are
meaningless.
Was her response reasonable? I don't know because I don't know all the
circumstances that led up to the rock.

In which case, equally you cannot state that her response was
inappropriate, now can you?

Bottom line; All things being equal it is NOT appropriate behavior to
attempt to injure when no such attempt was directed toward her.

I guess you have a different definition of 'injure'. Fine. As I said,
nobody else agrees with you. Far as I'm concerned, 5 kids pelting one
with water bombs *is* an attempt to injure.

Just where would you draw the line, Ken? If 5 kids pelting water bombs
is ok, how about if they froze them first? Still water, right? I prefer
a nice simple rule. Don't throw stuff at other people. If you do, don't
complain about the result.

PDW

"JohnM" wrote

You're thinking analog in a digital situation. Assault and battery,
regardless of the weapons involved, is what it is. It's a case of yes/no-
was she assaulted and battered? Yes. That's the only line you can draw,
and at that point she has the right to defend herself in any fashion she
chooses. It's the only way it can be, anything else works to the benefit
of the criminals.

John

I believe you just described the liberal American justice system. Made for
criminals and not for victims.

Steve

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 17:42:40 -0700, the opaque "Ken Davey"
clearly wrote:

Bottom line; All things being equal it is NOT appropriate behavior to
attempt to injure when no such attempt was directed toward her.

Injuries come in degrees. Bullies like the rock recipient always need
a few degrees more to understand that their actions are inappropriate.
They need to feel the fear/pain they inflict so it becomes real to
them. Until then, it's only their ego they feel/know. But groups of
kids bullying other single kids have always inflicted emotional damage
on the recipients of their ire. That is sometimes much worse than
physical pain. YMMV.

BTDT with a bully in high school, but instead of fighting back
physically, I simply stood there with my arms at my side screaming
"OK, if you want to hit me, HIT ME. Otherwise LEAVE ME ALONE." About
60 kids heard me and he just walked away. I lucked out, seein's he
had 'bout 8" and 50 pounds on me.

No, none of us knows all the facts. Shall we all drop it?


--
Impeach 'em ALL!
----------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

"Ken Davey" wrote:

Bottom line; All things being equal it is NOT appropriate behavior to
attempt to injure when no such attempt was directed toward her.


Let me smack you really good flat on your face with a water balloon and see
if I can injure you. Your nose. Your eyes. Your mouth. Let's do this
little experiment, and talk about it afterward.

OK?

Steve

SteveB wrote:
"Ken Davey" wrote:

Bottom line; All things being equal it is NOT appropriate behavior
to attempt to injure when no such attempt was directed toward her.


Let me smack you really good flat on your face with a water balloon
and see if I can injure you. Your nose. Your eyes. Your mouth. Let's do
this little experiment, and talk about it afterward.

OK?

Steve

Sure - if you let me hit you in the face with a rock after.
Let's see which side of the fence you wake up on.

Ken.

"Ken Davey" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:
"Ken Davey" wrote:

Bottom line; All things being equal it is NOT appropriate behavior
to attempt to injure when no such attempt was directed toward her.


Let me smack you really good flat on your face with a water balloon
and see if I can injure you. Your nose. Your eyes. Your mouth. Let's
do this little experiment, and talk about it afterward.

OK?

Steve

Sure - if you let me hit you in the face with a rock after.
Let's see which side of the fence you wake up on.

Ken.


It's a deal. Only no restriction on how big the water balloon is, how thick
the plastic is, or how hard I can throw.

If you can get up, or can still see, it will be your turn.

Steve

"Tom Quackenbush" wrote


If someone attacked you with a baseball bat and all you had with
which to defend yourself was a pistol, you're not allowed to shoot the
guy?

R,
Tom Q.

The training I received in three CCF classes is that you pretty much have to
let them beat the **** out of you, and then the last thing you do before you
pass out is start shooting. You either have to be dying, or fear that you
will die, and there has to be a substantial threat that you WILL die.

That still won't clear you from all legal entanglements and civil lawsuits,
but at least you will have some measure of defense.

Sad but true.

Steve

SteveB wrote:
"Tom Quackenbush" wrote


If someone attacked you with a baseball bat and all you had with
which to defend yourself was a pistol, you're not allowed to shoot
the guy?

R,
Tom Q.

The training I received in three CCF classes is that you pretty much
have to let them beat the **** out of you, and then the last thing
you do before you pass out is start shooting. You either have to be
dying, or fear that you will die, and there has to be a substantial
threat that you WILL die.
That still won't clear you from all legal entanglements and civil
lawsuits, but at least you will have some measure of defense.

Sad but true.

Steve
A baseball bat in the hands of an attacker IS a lethal weapon and as such
every jurisdiction that I am aware of (including Canada) allows for lethal
force to counter the attack.

Ken.

"SteveB" wrote in message
news:JVbKe.85139$4o.52569@fed1read06...

"Ken Davey" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:
"Ken Davey" wrote:

Bottom line; All things being equal it is NOT appropriate behavior
to attempt to injure when no such attempt was directed toward her.


Let me smack you really good flat on your face with a water balloon
and see if I can injure you. Your nose. Your eyes. Your mouth. Let's
do this little experiment, and talk about it afterward.

OK?

Steve

Sure - if you let me hit you in the face with a rock after.
Let's see which side of the fence you wake up on.

Ken.


It's a deal. Only no restriction on how big the water balloon is, how
thick the plastic is, or how hard I can throw.

If you can get up, or can still see, it will be your turn.

Steve


Use the "big"one http://scientificsonline.com/product.asp_Q_pn_E_3041755.

"Ken Davey" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:
"Tom Quackenbush" wrote


If someone attacked you with a baseball bat and all you had with
which to defend yourself was a pistol, you're not allowed to shoot
the guy?

R,
Tom Q.

The training I received in three CCF classes is that you pretty much
have to let them beat the **** out of you, and then the last thing
you do before you pass out is start shooting. You either have to be
dying, or fear that you will die, and there has to be a substantial
threat that you WILL die.
That still won't clear you from all legal entanglements and civil
lawsuits, but at least you will have some measure of defense.

Sad but true.

Steve
A baseball bat in the hands of an attacker IS a lethal weapon and as such
every jurisdiction that I am aware of (including Canada) allows for lethal
force to counter the attack.

Ken.

Nice try, Ken, but wrongo.

In a court, some smart ass lawyer is gonna ask why you just didn't run away
instead of shooting this poor mother's son, who was a promising student at
welding school and who had a promising career as a baseball player. And you
know, he's right. This poor kid may have been on the way to baseball
practice and you misread the situation. Or, yes, he might have been ready
to do batting practice with your round melon. In court, they will crucify
you unless he has hit you.

You MUST exhaust every avenue before you can shoot someone. You must run.
You must announce you have a gun. You must order them to back off. You
must say if they come closer that you will shoot. If you start shooting,
and they haven't touched you, you might as well as pile all your stuff and
money in the street and set it on fire with five gallons of gasoline.
Because either way, it's gone. Some ambulance chaser is going to spin it
towards this poor youth, even though he has a record of 39 arrests. (you
can't bring that up in court) And then, he can run off, and call the cops,
and you have to prove that you were NOT brandishing a weapon which is a
felony, and which you can lose your CCF permit for, if you have one. If you
don't have a permit and a registered weapon, you will go to jail for assault
with a deadly weapon.

It's stupid, but hey, I don't make the rules.

Read up on it. The days of the old west are gone when one could defend
himself with deadly force. Welcome to the new century of liberalism.

It is not a simple thing any more.

Are you licensed to carry a gun? Have you ever had training in this area?

Steve

"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:
Tom Quackenbush wrote


If someone attacked you with a baseball bat and all you had with
which to defend yourself was a pistol, you're not allowed to shoot the
guy?

The training I received in three CCF classes is that you pretty much have
to
let them beat the **** out of you, and then the last thing you do before
you
pass out is start shooting. You either have to be dying, or fear that you
will die, and there has to be a substantial threat that you WILL die.

That still won't clear you from all legal entanglements and civil
lawsuits,
but at least you will have some measure of defense.

Sad but true.

I gather that you're speaking tongue-in cheek?

Is there a law in California that requires that you respond with an
equal level of force?

I'd learned that you were allowed to use deadly force in self
defense if you were in fear for your life.

Civil suits - who knows?

R,
Tom Q.

You are right. But in California, the average person cannot get a permit to
carry a weapon.

And if you are speaking of defending yourself with that board that happens
to be handy, you better damn well have some hefty lumps to prove that you
were assaulted. You then have to prove that you attempted to flee and
disengage from the confrontation. Then you have to counter the other
person's claim that it was mutual combat. In that case neither can be
prosecuted and it is one person's word against another. This is usually
done by sore losers. Or they file against you, another tactic of sore
losers. Unless there are witnesses who don't evaporate and who are willing
to put down their phone numbers on easily obtainable police reports for the
bad guy to visit, you are hanging there, slowly twisting in the wind.

It's all just intellectual masturbation here. What I would do. What is
legal.

Read the laws. Ask police officers. Investigate the procedures.

It's not as cut and dried as you put it out there to be.

You can be totally in the right, and still go to jail.

Wasn't there an eleven year old girl recently that experienced exactly the
same thing?

Steve

RAM^3 wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message
news:JVbKe.85139$4o.52569@fed1read06...

"Ken Davey" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:
"Ken Davey" wrote:

Bottom line; All things being equal it is NOT appropriate
behavior to attempt to injure when no such attempt was directed
toward
her.


Let me smack you really good flat on your face with a water balloon
and see if I can injure you. Your nose. Your eyes. Your mouth.
Let's do this little experiment, and talk about it afterward.

OK?

Steve

Sure - if you let me hit you in the face with a rock after.
Let's see which side of the fence you wake up on.

Ken.


It's a deal. Only no restriction on how big the water balloon is,
how thick the plastic is, or how hard I can throw.

If you can get up, or can still see, it will be your turn.

Steve


Use the "big"one
http://scientificsonline.com/product.asp_Q_pn_E_3041755.

Or http://tinyurl.com/b2jyh

"Ken Davey" wrote

Or http://tinyurl.com/b2jyh

It's only water. You can't get hurt by getting hit by water.

Right, Ken?

Steve

SteveB wrote:
"Ken Davey" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:
"Tom Quackenbush" wrote


If someone attacked you with a baseball bat and all you had with
which to defend yourself was a pistol, you're not allowed to shoot
the guy?

R,
Tom Q.

The training I received in three CCF classes is that you pretty much
have to let them beat the **** out of you, and then the last thing
you do before you pass out is start shooting. You either have to be
dying, or fear that you will die, and there has to be a substantial
threat that you WILL die.
That still won't clear you from all legal entanglements and civil
lawsuits, but at least you will have some measure of defense.

Sad but true.

Steve
A baseball bat in the hands of an attacker IS a lethal weapon and as
such every jurisdiction that I am aware of (including Canada) allows
for lethal force to counter the attack.

Ken.

Nice try, Ken, but wrongo.

In a court, some smart ass lawyer is gonna ask why you just didn't
run away instead of shooting this poor mother's son, who was a
promising student at welding school and who had a promising career as
a baseball player. And you know, he's right. This poor kid may have
been on the way to baseball practice and you misread the situation. Or,
yes, he might have been ready to do batting practice with your
round melon. In court, they will crucify you unless he has hit you.

You MUST exhaust every avenue before you can shoot someone. You must
run. You must announce you have a gun. You must order them to back
off. You must say if they come closer that you will shoot. If you
start shooting, and they haven't touched you, you might as well as
pile all your stuff and money in the street and set it on fire with
five gallons of gasoline. Because either way, it's gone. Some
ambulance chaser is going to spin it towards this poor youth, even
though he has a record of 39 arrests. (you can't bring that up in
court) And then, he can run off, and call the cops, and you have to
prove that you were NOT brandishing a weapon which is a felony, and
which you can lose your CCF permit for, if you have one. If you
don't have a permit and a registered weapon, you will go to jail for
assault with a deadly weapon.
It's stupid, but hey, I don't make the rules.

Read up on it. The days of the old west are gone when one could
defend himself with deadly force. Welcome to the new century of
liberalism.
It is not a simple thing any more.

Are you licensed to carry a gun? Have you ever had training in this
area?
Steve

Steve;
Assuming we are all morons who cannot possibly have the smarts and the facts
we need to face any threatening situation makes you look the fool (or just a
low-grade troll).

Ken.

SteveB wrote:
"JohnM" wrote


You're thinking analog in a digital situation. Assault and battery,
regardless of the weapons involved, is what it is. It's a case of yes/no-
was she assaulted and battered? Yes. That's the only line you can draw,
and at that point she has the right to defend herself in any fashion she
chooses. It's the only way it can be, anything else works to the benefit
of the criminals.

John


I believe you just described the liberal American justice system. Made for
criminals and not for victims.

Steve


Yeah, and the courts seem to like their criminals- deprive them of one
and they'll do their best to replace him with you..

John

"Ken Davey" wrote

Steve;
Assuming we are all morons who cannot possibly have the smarts and the
facts we need to face any threatening situation makes you look the fool
(or just a low-grade troll).

Ken.

Or, one could do as you do and cite opinions rather than facts. And then
put down someone who does give you facts.

Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you with facts. I can see your mind is
already pretty made up.

Steve

SteveB wrote:
"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
...

SteveB wrote:

Tom Quackenbush wrote


If someone attacked you with a baseball bat and all you had with
which to defend yourself was a pistol, you're not allowed to shoot the
guy?

The training I received in three CCF classes is that you pretty much have
to
let them beat the **** out of you, and then the last thing you do before
you
pass out is start shooting. You either have to be dying, or fear that you
will die, and there has to be a substantial threat that you WILL die.

That still won't clear you from all legal entanglements and civil
lawsuits,
but at least you will have some measure of defense.

Sad but true.

I gather that you're speaking tongue-in cheek?

Is there a law in California that requires that you respond with an
equal level of force?

I'd learned that you were allowed to use deadly force in self
defense if you were in fear for your life.

Civil suits - who knows?

R,
Tom Q.


You are right. But in California, the average person cannot get a permit to
carry a weapon.

Depends on where one happens to reside. Some counties/cities are more
reasonable than others.


And if you are speaking of defending yourself with that board that happens
to be handy, you better damn well have some hefty lumps to prove that you
were assaulted. You then have to prove that you attempted to flee and
disengage from the confrontation. Then you have to counter the other
person's claim that it was mutual combat. In that case neither can be
prosecuted and it is one person's word against another. This is usually
done by sore losers. Or they file against you, another tactic of sore
losers. Unless there are witnesses who don't evaporate and who are willing
to put down their phone numbers on easily obtainable police reports for the
bad guy to visit, you are hanging there, slowly twisting in the wind.

It's all just intellectual masturbation here. What I would do. What is
legal.

Read the laws. Ask police officers. Investigate the procedures.

It's not as cut and dried as you put it out there to be.

You can be totally in the right, and still go to jail.

Wasn't there an eleven year old girl recently that experienced exactly the
same thing?

Steve



Hypothetically speaking: You have a bat/board/club/knife and come toward
me in a threatening manner. You get within 21 feet of me and I draw down
and tell you to back off. You keep coming. Guess what? Whatever kind of
day you were having, good one, ****ty one, no matter cause it is over.
Six to carry you and 12 to deal with me, maybe. Certain actions justify
the use of deadly force in response. Attempting assault with a deadly
weapon is one of those actions.

buckshot

BTW According to cops I have talked with, 21 feet is the magic number.

In article ,
Tom Quackenbush wrote:

If someone attacked you with a baseball bat and all you had with
which to defend yourself was a pistol, you're not allowed to shoot the
guy?

Shoot the bat out of his hand and pick it up and use it on him

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 02:20:33 -0700, michael wrote:


Wasn't there an eleven year old girl recently that experienced exactly the
same thing?

Steve



Hypothetically speaking: You have a bat/board/club/knife and come toward
me in a threatening manner. You get within 21 feet of me and I draw down
and tell you to back off. You keep coming. Guess what? Whatever kind of
day you were having, good one, ****ty one, no matter cause it is over.
Six to carry you and 12 to deal with me, maybe. Certain actions justify
the use of deadly force in response. Attempting assault with a deadly
weapon is one of those actions.

buckshot

BTW According to cops I have talked with, 21 feet is the magic number.

ayup..Tuller Drill. Any normal human being inside of 21 feet can get
to you with a knife etc and kill you.

Hence..the 21' or larger bubble.

Hows the dog doing btw? Need more? Ive got another litter with the
same parents. 9 of them....damnit. But they are sure cute. I helped
deliver them Monday nite of last week.

Gunner

If you are going to use that phrase then you should use
the full phrase of "**** Off and Die and Rot In A Ditch
and Get Eaten By Maggots and ****ed On and **** On By
a Dysenteric Elephant (but not necessarily in that order)."

Crash Street Kidd

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 02:50:56 GMT, Tom Quackenbush
wrote:

SteveB wrote:
Tom Quackenbush wrote


If someone attacked you with a baseball bat and all you had with
which to defend yourself was a pistol, you're not allowed to shoot the
guy?

The training I received in three CCF classes is that you pretty much have to
let them beat the **** out of you, and then the last thing you do before you
pass out is start shooting. You either have to be dying, or fear that you
will die, and there has to be a substantial threat that you WILL die.

That still won't clear you from all legal entanglements and civil lawsuits,
but at least you will have some measure of defense.

Sad but true.

I gather that you're speaking tongue-in cheek?

Is there a law in California that requires that you respond with an
equal level of force?

I'd learned that you were allowed to use deadly force in self
defense if you were in fear for your life.

Civil suits - who knows?

R,
Tom Q.

Most states (some Eastern Blue states being the exception) have the
Reasonable Man criteria. To wit:

"Before you are allowed to employ deadly force, you must have
reasonable cause to believe that your life or the life of another is
in immediate danger"

If you are attacked by a 90yr old woman in a walker with a 2x4, its
not reasonable to grease her. A 17yr old 200lb varmint with the same
2x4 is fair game. And so forth.

Some states, have even looser criteria. The Home Is a Castle
rule..anyone found in your home who doesnt belong there is fair game.
Anyone found committing any crime on your property after dark is fair
game and so forth.

And the Florida Make My Day rule. If attacked, the onus is on the
attacker and you have no requirement to retreat..which is valid in
many other states as well. Some states...again Blue ones...require you
to retreat until you are unable to retreat any further, then you may
employ deady force.

Gunner, 24 yrs with a California CCW
If you are going to use that phrase then you should use
the full phrase of "**** Off and Die and Rot In A Ditch
and Get Eaten By Maggots and ****ed On and **** On By
a Dysenteric Elephant (but not necessarily in that order)."

Crash Street Kidd

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 21:29:11 -0700, "SteveB"
wrote:

A baseball bat in the hands of an attacker IS a lethal weapon and as such
every jurisdiction that I am aware of (including Canada) allows for lethal
force to counter the attack.

Ken.

Nice try, Ken, but wrongo.

In a court, some smart ass lawyer is gonna ask why you just didn't run away
instead of shooting this poor mother's son, who was a promising student at
welding school and who had a promising career as a baseball player. And you
know, he's right. This poor kid may have been on the way to baseball
practice and you misread the situation. Or, yes, he might have been ready
to do batting practice with your round melon. In court, they will crucify
you unless he has hit you.

You MUST exhaust every avenue before you can shoot someone. You must run.
You must announce you have a gun. You must order them to back off. You
must say if they come closer that you will shoot. If you start shooting,
and they haven't touched you, you might as well as pile all your stuff and
money in the street and set it on fire with five gallons of gasoline.
Because either way, it's gone. Some ambulance chaser is going to spin it
towards this poor youth, even though he has a record of 39 arrests. (you
can't bring that up in court) And then, he can run off, and call the cops,
and you have to prove that you were NOT brandishing a weapon which is a
felony, and which you can lose your CCF permit for, if you have one. If you
don't have a permit and a registered weapon, you will go to jail for assault
with a deadly weapon.

It's stupid, but hey, I don't make the rules.

Read up on it. The days of the old west are gone when one could defend
himself with deadly force. Welcome to the new century of liberalism.

It is not a simple thing any more.

Are you licensed to carry a gun? Have you ever had training in this area?

Steve..I suspect you have either bad data, or its something unique to
your state. Most states do not require you to retreat, no require you
to be physically harmed.

And yes..I am licensed to carry...24 or so years and a ex cop.

Gunner, who lives in a county that has a virtual Shall Issue policy
and the largest number of CCW holders per capita in the entire state,
and the smallest number of cops per capita.



If you are going to use that phrase then you should use
the full phrase of "**** Off and Die and Rot In A Ditch
and Get Eaten By Maggots and ****ed On and **** On By
a Dysenteric Elephant (but not necessarily in that order)."

Crash Street Kidd

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 21:39:37 -0700, the opaque "Ken Davey"
clearly wrote:

Use the "big"one
http://scientificsonline.com/product.asp_Q_pn_E_3041755.

Man, what happened to Edmund? Their prices skyrocketed.
$22 for a pair of magnets (Uber orbs) ?!?


Or http://tinyurl.com/b2jyh

404 error.

--
-------------------------------------------------------
Never underestimate the innate animosity of inanimate objects.
----
http://diversify.com Dynamic Website Applications

"michael" wrote



Hypothetically speaking: You have a bat/board/club/knife and come toward
me in a threatening manner. You get within 21 feet of me and I draw down
and tell you to back off. You keep coming. Guess what? Whatever kind of
day you were having, good one, ****ty one, no matter cause it is over. Six
to carry you and 12 to deal with me, maybe. Certain actions justify the
use of deadly force in response. Attempting assault with a deadly weapon
is one of those actions.

buckshot

BTW According to cops I have talked with, 21 feet is the magic number.

True. But for your end, what is the "12 to deal with me" gonna cost you
even if you come out winning?

BTW, my daughter and SIL are "cops".

Steve

"Gunner" wrote

Steve..I suspect you have either bad data, or its something unique to
your state. Most states do not require you to retreat, no require you
to be physically harmed.

And yes..I am licensed to carry...24 or so years and a ex cop.

Gunner, who lives in a county that has a virtual Shall Issue policy
and the largest number of CCW holders per capita in the entire state,
and the smallest number of cops per capita.


Then if really surprises me that you do not agree that you must take every
action you can before shooting. That was drilled into us, and with each
successive class I have been to, they have stressed it more.

The feeling is, "you might be right, but it is gonna cost you" because of
the lawyers who will represent the attacker and portray them in a good
light.

This does not apply to cut and dried situations where there is little doubt,
and very much probable cause. But the gray areas. And some of the other
posters make the impression that you just pull out your gun and blaze away.

That is all I am trying to convey.

Steve

Gunner wrote:

Hows the dog doing btw? Need more? Ive got another litter with the
same parents. 9 of them....damnit. But they are sure cute. I helped
deliver them Monday nite of last week.

Gunner

If you are going to use that phrase then you should use
the full phrase of "**** Off and Die and Rot In A Ditch
and Get Eaten By Maggots and ****ed On and **** On By
a Dysenteric Elephant (but not necessarily in that order)."

Crash Street Kidd

You mean the one gaurding the office door at the moment? The one that is
as a shadow of my movements? Mr. Buckshot is doing very well, thankyou.
Goes everywhere I go unless it is too hot, and I make him stay behind.

Speaking of puppies, when will they be ready for pickup? Mid/late
September? I will have to verify, but have had a couple requests. One
from a nice family with 2 kids, and another from the furniture/cabinet
man next door. Nice guy and does very nice work. He would likely make
the trip down with me and help relieve you of some Stuff.g

email addy is good or post here

buckshot & mike

SteveB wrote:
"Ken Davey" wrote

Steve;
Assuming we are all morons who cannot possibly have the smarts and
the facts we need to face any threatening situation makes you look
the fool (or just a low-grade troll).

Ken.

Or, one could do as you do and cite opinions rather than facts. And
then put down someone who does give you facts.

Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you with facts. I can see your mind
is already pretty made up.

Steve

Facts eh?
Bigger and better water balloons to illustrate the terror of such an attack?
Totally false information about California's 'rules of engagement'? (see
Gunner's reply down thread)
Bah!

SteveB wrote:

"michael" wrote


Hypothetically speaking: You have a bat/board/club/knife and come toward
me in a threatening manner. You get within 21 feet of me and I draw down
and tell you to back off. You keep coming. Guess what? Whatever kind of
day you were having, good one, ****ty one, no matter cause it is over. Six
to carry you and 12 to deal with me, maybe. Certain actions justify the
use of deadly force in response. Attempting assault with a deadly weapon
is one of those actions.

buckshot

BTW According to cops I have talked with, 21 feet is the magic number.


True. But for your end, what is the "12 to deal with me" gonna cost you
even if you come out winning?

BTW, my daughter and SIL are "cops".

Steve



TBD. At least I would be breathing.

m

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 21:54:33 -0700, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Ken Davey" wrote

Or http://tinyurl.com/b2jyh

It's only water. You can't get hurt by getting hit by water.

Right, Ken?

Steve

How long do I leave it in the freezer again?

Gunner

The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty."
Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may possibly
save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus Long

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:11:46 -0700, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote

Steve..I suspect you have either bad data, or its something unique to
your state. Most states do not require you to retreat, no require you
to be physically harmed.

And yes..I am licensed to carry...24 or so years and a ex cop.

Gunner, who lives in a county that has a virtual Shall Issue policy
and the largest number of CCW holders per capita in the entire state,
and the smallest number of cops per capita.


Then if really surprises me that you do not agree that you must take every
action you can before shooting. That was drilled into us, and with each
successive class I have been to, they have stressed it more.

The feeling is, "you might be right, but it is gonna cost you" because of
the lawyers who will represent the attacker and portray them in a good
light.

This does not apply to cut and dried situations where there is little doubt,
and very much probable cause. But the gray areas. And some of the other
posters make the impression that you just pull out your gun and blaze away.

That is all I am trying to convey.

Steve

Define "you must take every action you can before shooting"

If the threat passes the reasonable man test..the actions taken pretty
much are :

1. find cover if possible
2. 2 to the chest, evaluate, 1 to the head.

Gunner

The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty."
Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may possibly
save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus Long

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:06:00 -0700, "SteveB"
wrote:


"michael" wrote



Hypothetically speaking: You have a bat/board/club/knife and come toward
me in a threatening manner. You get within 21 feet of me and I draw down
and tell you to back off. You keep coming. Guess what? Whatever kind of
day you were having, good one, ****ty one, no matter cause it is over. Six
to carry you and 12 to deal with me, maybe. Certain actions justify the
use of deadly force in response. Attempting assault with a deadly weapon
is one of those actions.

buckshot

BTW According to cops I have talked with, 21 feet is the magic number.

True. But for your end, what is the "12 to deal with me" gonna cost you
even if you come out winning?

BTW, my daughter and SIL are "cops".

Steve

if its a good shoot on your part..only in Blue areas do you need to
worry.

Gunner

The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty."
Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may possibly
save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus Long