• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Shooting The Unarmed Man – The Fallacy Of Modern Perception

I find it a bit paranoid and it definitely suggests escalation. Imagine two people fighting, then one pulls a gun and kills the other, but goes to court and says he thought we was going to be knocked unconscious and murdered. How would that play out 95% of the time? Statically, about five thousand homicides occur each year from means other than firearms. That's about on par with malaria. Can you shoot people who try to sneeze on you?
 
ultimately it's a question of reasonable fear for your life, if a jury can find that any reasonable person would fear for their life from such an attacker then it's a justifiable shooting.

In the case of a police shooting there is belief/hope by the citizenry that the police would be trained and skilled at a higher level and would not automatically resort to deadly force, unfortunately there is a growing perception the police are trained to shoot first and ask questions later.
 
Not a good analogy. Kicking someone's ass is a voluntary action. The aggressor could step away at any time. Sneezing is not a voluntary action. Even fake sneezing would not be an immediate life or death struggle. You can go to hospital to seek treatment at a later time. While dude getting his ass kicked has to find an immediate way out of the situation.
 
" Kicking someone's ass is a voluntary action."

Possible new sig line.
 
KrustyKruser said:
Not a good analogy. Kicking someone's ass is a voluntary action. The aggressor could step away at any time. Sneezing is not a voluntary action. Even fake sneezing would not be an immediate life or death struggle. You can go to hospital to seek treatment at a later time. While dude getting his ass kicked has to find an immediate way out of the situation.
Click to expand...

Time to death matters? I wonder how many people are beaten to death die right on the spot and not a week later in the hospital? Doesn't really matter, it was a statistical comparison. Both are incredibly unlikely.
 
Also, I definitely understand the perspective, which is why I don't think I'd make a good police officer. I've been in two fights in my life and if someone were to attack me on the street with their fists, my inexperienced and paranoid mind would undoubtedly drive me to shoot them if I were carrying. Also part of the reason why I don't want a CCW, I'd rather take the beating and risk the highly unlikely chance that I'll be murdered, rather than the near guarantee that I'd spend twenty years behind bars.
 
I think this article is fairly idiotic like mentioning Randy Couture, an UFC heavyweight champion, as an example of someone who can exert lethal force.

It is possible for the average person to kill another with their bare hands, but it is so situational, there is no blanket policy that covers all of them.

Take the Baton Rouge shooting in 1992. A Japanese exchange student dressed in a Halloween costume, a tuxedo, knocks on the wrong door, and the mother tells her husband to get the gun. He shoots the student in his driveway. Acquitted of manslaughter charges.

He draws a conclusion which is also idiotic.

Bear in mind that more people were beaten to death with hands and feet than were killed by so-called assault rifles in 2012. Those victims were not allowed to use deadly force simply because their attacker did not have a weapon? I think not. Laws on self defense seldom mention the use of a weapon.
Click to expand...

He's right that more people are killed in beatings than assault rifles. But he has no idea if how many of these people were women and children killed in domestic violence, hardly a situation covered in traditional self-defense.

The perfect self-defense scenario is you are sitting in your living room polishing your gun when a crazed unarmed stranger kicks in your front door.

That doesn't happen in real life.
 
byke said:
Time to death matters? I wonder how many people are beaten to death die right on the spot and not a week later in the hospital? Doesn't really matter, it was a statistical comparison. Both are incredibly unlikely.
Click to expand...

I had a homicide case like that. The guy was beaten by some gangster youngsters, but they used more than just hands and feet. The guy died a month later in a hospital from complications.

Anyways, the justification for using deadly force isn't an immediate threat of death. It's an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death.
 
Any idea what courts consider to be serious bodily injury? Like stomping on someone's tib/fib?
 
What if it's just to see if a head whistles like an empty beer bottle and then you put it back?
 
byke said:
Any idea what courts consider to be serious bodily injury? Like stomping on someone's tib/fib?
Click to expand...

243 of the penal code describes serious bodily injury as:

(4) "Serious bodily injury" means a serious impairment of physical
condition, including, but not limited to, the following: loss of
consciousness; concussion; bone fracture; protracted loss or
impairment of function of any bodily member or organ; a wound
requiring extensive suturing; and serious disfigurement.
Click to expand...
 
tuxumino said:
In the case of a police shooting there is belief/hope by the citizenry that the police would be trained and skilled at a higher level and would not automatically resort to deadly force, unfortunately there is a growing perception the police are trained to shoot first and ask questions later.
Click to expand...

If I were a cop in today's world, I would probably err on that side of caution too. You slip for even a second and you end up in the body bag instead.

I've heard and we've seen so many stories of cops being shot on routine traffic stops by some maniac with a gun. Better safe than dead, I guess.
 
That attitude of killing people just to be on the safe side promotes the very things people want to avoid. If you ever lose it and hit a cop, which then sets the societal standard and is eventually applicable to all citizens, you have no choice but to to kill them before they kill you for hitting them. It's just a big snowball made of shit.
 
Last edited:
You poke a tiger through the bars, you bear some of the responsibility when it scales the fence and eats you.
 
Assuming you're dealing with a primitive being. I was shooting in the backyard and the neighbor came over and yelled at me like a full on lunatic. Who on earth yells crazy style at someone with a gun? I should shoot him next time because it's generally considered unwise to yell at people with guns. Restraint is for people who want to die.
 
byke said:
That attitude of killing people just to be on the safe side promotes the very things people want to avoid. If you ever lose it and hit a cop, which then sets the societal standard and is eventually applicable to all citizens, you have no choice but to to kill them before they kill you for hitting them. It's just a big snowball made of shit.
Click to expand...

:thumbup
 
Warning NSFW. Police shoot this man.

He is armed with a knife. He is walking towards the officers.

What if he wasn't armed? Would this be a justified shooting? After he is on the ground?

I take it officers are trained shoot to kill yes? Because they continue after the subject is incapacitated.

[youtube]j-P54MZVxMU[/youtube]
 
I know I'll probably get flamed for this, but really, how hard is it to refrain from fighting with the police? It kind of goes back to the Chris Rock video. It's idiotic, and you're not going to win. Take that shit to court later, if you think they're wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top