I was waiting for a douchey comment like that and I'm glad it was you, but thank you for the well wishes. He grabbed the hand my phone was in and sliced my forearm and the handset ended up on the ground, and then I blasted him in the face with my left fist. That is why he pursued me to the truck. But it is good to know that a superior scientific mind such as yours won't just jump to conclusions.
Not being douchey, just honest. Wasn't jumping to conclusions, either. Look, you did what you did and survived. Great. Not going to get into what ifs with you, but it's different than what I would have done (and have done when I was mugged).
I can respect that. But you did jump to a conclusion whether you admit it or not. No cell phone is worth anything to me. You seem to have assumed that I was defending my phone or something stupid like that. I hope you are more honest with your research.
Yes, Cappy, douchey, is your forte. Especially when your left leaning assertions are challnged. Byz. You know I respect you, but....the minute the knife makes an appearance, the only object in your mind, should be shooting the should be decedent. Go back several pages. I said, before you pack, you need to be mentally prepared for one shot, one kill. Its that simple. If you have a gun, there should only be two possible outcomes. The bad guy took off running. I tried to kill him. (and part of that is more or less a function of todays legal climate, if je robs you and you dont kill him, you are the one on trial, just like Zimmerman is.)
So, of you were confronted, say....with your kids in tow, by some jackass with a knife...and you had a gun, you wouldnt defend your kids...you would consider the humanity of your assailant?
Don't be obtuse. [/wishful thinking] If I had a gun, and felt my family was threatened, of course I would consider using it. The "humanity of the assailant" has nothing to do with anything I've said or how I would react. That's your little warped fantasy about what you think of me and my "left leaning assertions." You're welcome to it, I suppose. If I am confronted by someone with a knife, I try to deescalate the situation, not escalate it. 99% of the time, it works, and when it doesn't, there are other strategies that are less risky to me and the people around me.
I have no issue with a legal gun carrier shooting someone who's intent is to rob, steal or kill. The problem, particularly with these gangs is the more guns on the street legally, the easier the access the greater the demand the more guns that will be readily available to criminals. NYC can't stop guns from coming into the city even with tough gun laws because the border is open. They have made it clear to kids in gangs if they bring their guns onto the street they are going to jail. They randomly pat them down. Now while the ACLU is going bat shit the city is far safer because guns are off the street. Access creates availability which creates more chances for random gun violence. I hate guns but I'm very aware that almost everyone is carrying and that alone may make me carry. Now while I'm a responsible citizens I know if I had a gun I would shoot the first kid who threw his gum wrapper on the sidewalk in front of me.
He also had zimmermans head in his hand. Slamming it on concrete. He got t dead for it, and that is unfortunate. But he wasnt a liktle kid carrying a bag of skittles. He was a guy that thought he was going to kick someones ass, and fot dead for it.
No, you dont try to talk your assailant down. Thats how you become a statistic. In fact, that is where the 'more likely to have the gun used against you' statistic comes from. Once you put your finger on a trigger. You kill. Period. End of story. P.S. im just curious, where did you come up with that 99% stat? Does it exist, or did you make it up? I will give you one irrefutable fact. A dead assailant, is no longer a threat. And, fwiw, you made my point.....its not about weapons. You need to be ready to kill, when the situation requires it.as an ex Marine, that point has been pushed home, so its an advantage, but in a case like Byz? I see a knife, i pull the gun. At the count of 2, if i dont see a back, thats a decedent.
^ okay, i have another stupid question. Were you packing that time when you were drinking yourself stupid and bashing your obviously thick cranium into inanimate objects with enough force to put yourself into the hospital?
I did not say you should "try to talk your assailant down." I said deescalate the situation. This does not simply mean talking them down. We agree. That is why it is better not to put your finger on a trigger if at all possible. That's not me being some peace-loving hippie. That is me recognizing that some acts are irreversible. If I am going to kill someone, it is going to be because I have to. Have to. I was using that as a figure of speech. My bad. To be more clear, I should have simply said that defusing a situation is often far easier and less risky than escalating a situation. In the dozen or so encounters I have had in my life, I have been able to avoid serious injury to either party in all cases except two. And in those two, I had to take the other person down as a last resort, but did so without using lethal force. Spoken like a true ex-Marine. No sense of appropriate force. If someone is threatening you or your family, you have every right to defend yourself. Ex-marine or no, if you came at me with a knife, I have little doubt I could disarm you handily without the need to resort to lethal force. We agree again. But as you are an ex-Marine, I expect that your definition of what "requires" killing lies in a far different place than my definition. Hoo-ah!
That is an easy thing to say when you are removed from the situation. Try coming to that conclusion when you are bleeding from multiple wounds, manage to get off a shot during the struggle and the guy takes off running. It's not as simple when it is happening to you. And I am very mentally prepared to take a life if I have to.
The only appropriate use of force, is ending the threat. Now, you may be an expert marksman, and can maybe disable your assailant, by blowing off his little pinky toe. But, and I didnt say this last night, but since you brought it up, the secondary condition, is our lovely legal system. You leave a live assailant, get ready to spend the rest of your life in the court system. When I was still in, our retention officer had the unfortunate experience pf waking up to a robbery. He killed two guys. The third one lived, and caused him a living legal nightmare. Which, is precisely why you see states enacting castle doctrine, and stand your ground laws. But where most of us live, in The lovely northeast, youd be a fool to spare the life of someone seeking to put you in such a position. Yes, Texas,Florida, states with appropriate laws...just put the guy down, hope he doesnt die. Here...not so much.
I see your point, my point was more or less being ready to get there, when you take the gun with you...besides once hes running, your fucked.
I think this is going to go badly. The verdict they come up with is likely to be the one they should not have been able to consider given the circumstances. That's going to leave all of the entrenched supporters on either side angry and nobody thinking that justice was done. I actually think Zimmerman may well be guilty of Manslaughter but I'm not going to be happy if he's convicted of it because of the way the conviction was obtained.
Zimmerman, had no chance to defend a manslaughter charge. And the Judges animus in berating him on the question, of testifying, leads any conviction open to appeal. This case boils down to one simple fact, and its on tape. "these assholes always get away" At that moment, Martin became the aggressor. Period. I cannot for the life of me, Figure out why the defense did not object to the special prosecutor sitting with the Martins. And why, since his argument was predicated on " provable innocence" he didnt address the fact that the police, and the regular prosecutor, declined to bring a charge, then point at the special prosecutor sitting with the Martins, and say, this is a political prosecution.
