Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: NY Lt. Governor proponent of "shoot to wound"

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    One of the things that has caught my attention in this hubub about Spitzer is the fact that his Lt. Governor, David Paterson, the man who would be governor if Spitzer resigns or is convicted in impeachment, has a pretty scary stance on self defense.

    He beleives that police faced with deadly force should only be allowed to shoot to wound; otherwise they could face charges of second degree manslaughter (or attempted manslaughter if the perp lives).

    If he thinks the police don't have the right to protect themselves against criminals, I shudder to think what he thinks of the rights of civilian crime victims.

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/03122008...ire_101554.htm

  2. #2
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147

    Post imported post

    How can anybody in their right mind deny the police or anyone else, the right to defend themselves. I know they like to do it to us regular folk, but the cops too. What a fukin assclown. Shoot to wound, this guy watches WAY too much t.v.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  3. #3
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post

    Comment withdrawn.
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    96

    Post imported post

    we left NY for NC almost 4 years ago and haven't looked back -- that state is a complete mess....

    unless the law has changed, in order to hold a pistol / revolver in your hand at a gun shop - you needed a permit from the county police department.........

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Looks like Paterson is in now. Spitzer just resigned. Eek.

    -ljp

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    Carolina40 wrote:
    unless the law has changed, in order to hold a pistol / revolver in your hand at a gun shop - you needed a permit from the county police department.........
    That is still true AFAIK from friends I have there. I worked in Western NY for a few years, it was shocking.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    New York - Loyal to the King since 1776!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    VAopencarry wrote:
    this guy watches WAY too much t.v.
    He's actually blind.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    174

    Post imported post

    Considering that the police have about a 3% 'Hit Rate' in firefights shoot to 'anything' is just silly.

    Not denigrating the police, when the adreniline is pumping and/or you are under fire just putting rounds downrange is an accomplishment, and hitting the target is a good accomplishment.

    Why doesn't he just require that they shoot the weapon from the perps hand?

    That's why they teach Center of Body Mass - that's the biggest target the perp presents.

    Nobody other than a few expert marksmen can consistently 'shoot to kill' - you 'shoot to stop.'

    If the BG ends up stopped AND dead, too bad for him, but at least he won't be around to testify when his family sues.

    Egg


    "Never pick a fight with an old spy. If he doesn't feel like fighting he'll just kill you."

    T.S. Eggleston, DmAt, MSI - aka The Eggman
    www.TheEggman.com
    www.TheEgglestonGroup.com

    "If You Can't Be Free, At Leat Be Irritating"

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    :shock:

    March 12, 2008 -- ALBANY - The man who will be governor, David Paterson, once sponsored highly controversial legislation in the state Senate requiring police to shoot to harm, not kill.

    Does he know how hard it is to actually hit the person ANYWHERE during a crisis situation??!!! Some cops cannot even hit the bad guy as it is! :P

    And if the cop will be charged with a crime for killing someone.. the additional stress that places on the cop?? Oh Man!!!!

    Cops have a tough time now having to decide in a split second to draw or not during a excited event. But to have to decide to draw and then decide where to shoot the person that will cause him to be wounded.. That is going to be tough.

    What if he is behind cover shootingand all you see is his head? Are you expected to shoot him in the ear??

    Better be a good shot!!!!

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    The people of NY are going to get what they deserve.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I wouldn't get too worked up over this "shoot to wound" business.

    Half an hour with a police advocate will change his thinking; all they have to do is explain it to him.

    Plus, he's not going to change the courts and the common law on self-defense all that fast.

    That's not to say he may not have numerous other objectionable anti-2A views. I just wouldn't worry about this one.


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    I wonder what would happen if the entire PD went on strike because of that?
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here and There, Washington, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    If the policy becomes "shoot to wound," can you then be much more liberal about applying such force, since it isn't meant to be deadly?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098

    Post imported post

    Sitrep wrote:
    If the policy becomes "shoot to wound," can you then be much more liberal about applying such force, since it isn't meant to be deadly?
    "Gosh, Yer Onnerer, I was aiming at his knee-cap, but he put his head/heart/femoral artery/spinal columnin the way as I pulled the trigger... Honest!!"

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    Shoot to defend.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Pointman wrote:
    If you take a self-defence course (highly recommended) you'll quickly find out the law states you can only shoot to defend, which means shoot to wound. Anything more is murder.
    Bull sh|t. http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/8365.html

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Pointman wrote:
    If you take a self-defence course (highly recommended) you'll quickly find out the law states you can only shoot to defend, which means shoot to wound. Anything more is murder.
    I would agree that it would not hurt to take a class and learn where the boundaries are when it comes to taking a life.

    Not sure how each state words what is allowed or required. It is rather hard to shoot to wound.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    SNIP It is rather hard to shoot to wound.
    Oh, I don't know, LEO 229.

    You'vre raised it (or lowered it, depending) to an art. Most of your posts directed at me are intended to wound.

    Now if you would just improve your aim.

    Maybe if you tried shooting with both eyes open?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    SNIP It is rather hard to shoot to wound.
    Oh, I don't know, LEO 229.

    You'vre raised it (or lowered it, depending) to an art. Most of your posts directed at me are intended to wound.

    Now if you would just improve your aim.

    Maybe if you tried shooting with both eyes open?
    I flinch every time I pull the trigger! Normally, my head turns back... and to the left.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    I would agree that it would not hurt to take a class and learn where the boundaries are when it comes to taking a life.

    Not sure how each state words what is allowed or required. It is rather hard to shoot to wound.
    Each state law is different.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The common law elements of self-defense are four; 1) Be innocent of instigation. 2) Be in reasonable fear of harm. 3) Use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil. 4) Attempt to withdraw.

    No need to appeal to statute law. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    The common law elements of self-defense are four; 1) Be innocent of instigation. 2) Be in reasonable fear of harm. 3) Use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil. 4) Attempt to withdraw.

    No need to appeal to statute law. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.
    I'm sure state statutes are written that way....wouldn't it be great: "Your honor, I was just attempting to deliver myself from evil. Thy kingdom come..."

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    The common law elements of self-defense are four; 1) Be innocent of instigation. 2) Be in reasonable fear of harm. 3) Use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil. 4) Attempt to withdraw.

    No need to appeal to statute law. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******
    So does #3 this include shooting through a door?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Pointman wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    The common law elements of self-defense are four; 1) Be innocent of instigation. 2) Be in reasonable fear of harm. 3) Use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil. 4) Attempt to withdraw.

    No need to appeal to statute law. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.
    I'm sure state statutes are written that way....wouldn't it be great: "Your honor, I was just attempting to deliver myself from evil. Thy kingdom come..."
    Amen!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •