HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense

imported post

Agent 19 recently posted the link about the Harold Fish case. A tragic and disheartening case it is... and is explained here:

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/



After reading through it, I'm just sad that Fish wasn't aware of HankT's Postulateof Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD):


It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.



This conceptual wisdom might have helped Fish deal with his self defense in 2006.

Once again, HPCSD is found to be supported. It is amazing how accurate and robust this postulate has been throughout the years...

imported post

I think Massad Ayoob did a story about this case. IIRC one of the issues the scumbag prosecuter made a dramatic case over was the 10mm Glock being "unusually powerful" and the HP ammo being "deliberately deadly". As if hollow points aremore deadly than a large rock slammed into your skull. Mr. Fish's lawyer wasn't the best available. He could have easily pointed out that cops use 10mm's and HP ammo, and discussed why. To argue that Mr Fish wasn't anymore of a brazen killer just itching to shoot some poor sociopath in the wilderness.

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org

imported post

HankT wrote:

Agent 19 recently posted the link about the Harold Fish case. A tragic and disheartening case it is... and is explained here:

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/



After reading through it, I'm just sad that Fish wasn't aware of  HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD): 

 
It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.



This conceptual wisdom might have helped Fish deal with his self defense in 2006.

Once again, HPCSD is found to be supported. It is amazing how accurate and robust this postulate has been throughout the years...

Click to expand...

Yeah it would have been much better for a retired school teacher to be mauled by dogs, beaten and then stabbed to death with a screwdriver...You disgust me.

imported post

FrankC wrote:

Yeah it would have been much better for a retired school teacher to be mauled by dogs, beaten and then stabbed to death with a screwdriver...You disgust me.

Click to expand...

i think hank t must be the smartest!

after all the dogs were not armed, altho they were legged.

if the teacher haddent warning shot the dogs away, then the other guywouldnt have attacked him.

coarse the dogs woulda killed the teacher, but thenthe teacher wouldnt have felt the needto kill his unarmed attacker.

Hank Ts' postulate of civilian self defence is once again proven to be correct.

:celebrate:celebrate :banghead::banghead: :cuss::cuss: :dude:

imported post

Hank, I've seen you parade your "HPCSD" multiple times around here. I'd love to know what your definition of "armed" vs "unarmed" is. Where do you draw the line? A gun? A knife? A club? A fist?

You do realize that a person with no external weapons (gun, knife, club, etc.) can still inflict damage on another person, especially if they're pissed off beyond reason, or high on something? In this case, the assailant also had dogs that (assuming they were charging Fish) posed a genuine and immediate threat upon Fish's life.

We weren't there at the scene of the incident, so we won't know the absolute truth, but let's assume that everything went down as Fish said. So assume you are in Fish's place, you see some crazed fellow yelling and screaming at you and coming towards you aggressively, and that fellow's two dogs are charging towards you in an aggressive manner (i.e. not looking for a doggie treat and a pat on the head).

What would you do in lieu of defending your life with necessary force? Ask the gentleman to stop and reconsider his ways?

imported post

HankT wrote:

Agent 19 recently posted the link about the Harold Fish case. A tragic and disheartening case it is... and is explained here:

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/



After reading through it, I'm just sad that Fish wasn't aware of HankT's Postulateof Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD):


It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.



This conceptual wisdom might have helped Fish deal with his self defense in 2006.

Once again, HPCSD is found to be supported. It is amazing how accurate and robust this postulate has been throughout the years...

Click to expand...

I do more reading than posting and have seen the postulate, although heisabit arrognant with his "revelation", for the most part he is right. It is bad strategy.

The most extreme cases have been used tocombate this maxim, but the facts are the law is not on the side of the gun owner.

Just like it is bad strategy to throw 50 yard passes, or shoot to many 3 pointers,or swing for the fences too often, so is shooting an unarmedperson. However, there are times when those three actions are the only option.

But useing them too much or too soon, is bad strategy.

imported post

I can try and say it's not likely what I would have done yet I wasn't there...I really can't say that and neither can anyone else! Having been "attacked" by dogs a couple of times with their owners nearby and not very attentive to them I can understand Fish's early concern. One of the two in my case was a small female Neapolitan mastiff (only about 185lbs) and it turned out I was only in danger of being drowned in slobber. The other was an average sized cinnamon Chow that tried to hamstring me, do you think I am a bit wary of a dog over anke-biter size that is charging at me now? Using this case to back hank's drivel is just sad.

imported post

Does Hank have a postulate about ignoring people who annoyingly refer to themselves in the third person?

imported post

buster81 wrote:

Does Hank have a postulate about ignoring people who annoyingly refer to themselves in the third person?

Click to expand...

BAHAHA!

I have a better postulate:
It is a bad strategy to shoot a person who's got no arms left.

imported post

dvdaughtry wrote:

I do more reading than posting and have seen the postulate, although heisabit arrognant with his "revelation", for the most part he is right. It is bad strategy.

The most extreme cases have been used tocombate this maxim, but the facts are the law is not on the side of the gun owner.

Just like it is bad strategy to throw 50 yard passes, or shoot to many 3 pointers,or swing for the fences too often, so is shooting an unarmedperson. However, there are times when those three actions are the only option.

But useing them too much or too soon, is bad strategy.

Click to expand...

It's really not that hard to understand....ifone has an open mind....

imported post

Guys,

HankT is not totally stupid.

He knows about disparity of force. He knows there are times when it is bad strategy to not shoot an unarmed person.

He knows the whole unarmedassailant business has been addressed in the serious self-defense community. He knows he is creating adeceptively abbreviatedsubstitutestatement toa simpledisparity of force discussion.

He knows his representations about the postulate being an absolute, never inapplicable, never wrong, are incorrect.

He's just throwing out bait for argument so he can sit back and enjoy the show.

He's just a nasty, dark littlepersonality who feeds off of other people'sunpleasant emotions. He has a proven history here of unnecessary needling and baiting people. Best to not feed him.

imported post

dvdaughtry wrote:

HankT wrote:

Agent 19 recently posted the link about the Harold Fish case. A tragic and disheartening case it is... and is explained here:

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/



After reading through it, I'm just sad that Fish wasn't aware of HankT's Postulateof Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD):


It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.



This conceptual wisdom might have helped Fish deal with his self defense in 2006.

Once again, HPCSD is found to be supported. It is amazing how accurate and robust this postulate has been throughout the years...

Click to expand...

I do more reading than posting and have seen the postulate, although heisabit arrognant with his "revelation", for the most part he is right. It is bad strategy.

The most extreme cases have been used tocombate this maxim, but the facts are the law is not on the side of the gun owner.

Just like it is bad strategy to throw 50 yard passes, or shoot to many 3 pointers,or swing for the fences too often, so is shooting an unarmedperson. However, there are times when those three actions are the only option.

But useing them too much or too soon, is bad strategy.

Click to expand...

If you read into the case, the prosecution glossed over the "unarmed" part. It was the weapon and ammo that drove home the perception Mr Fish was looking to kill someone. This could have easily been defended against as Ayoob pointed out in his case study. So Hank's arguement that shooting an "unarmed" man is "bad strategy" is a moot point. Shooting anyone, with anything that some scumbag lawyer can twist into making you look like sinister vigilante, and not having a better lawyer to point out the facts clearly, is bad stategy.

US DOJ statistics point out that %66 of violent crimes are commited with no weapon.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf

imported post

If you shoot an unarmed person you are in trouble. You may be acquitted and sent back to your normal life but you will probably be broke and it will not be back to normal. If you shoot an unarmed peson the Sheriff and DA are not going to pat you on the back and say "Good shoot". Being armed does not necessarily have to be a gun but could be a baseball bat etc. No matter what, if you shoot an unarmed person the chances that you will spend some time in the police Station and with your lawyer are pretty much 100%.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

If you shoot an unarmed person you are in trouble. You may be acquitted and sent back to your normal life but you will probably be broke and it will not be back to normal. If you shoot an unarmed peson the Sheriff and DA are not going to pat you on the back and say "Good shoot". Being armed does not necessarily have to be a gun but could be a baseball bat etc. No matter what, if you shoot an unarmed person the chances that you will spend some time in the police Station and with your lawyer are pretty much 100%.

Click to expand...

You certainly havea valid point, but in certain situations, say anelderly frail 120 pound person w/ a .38 accosted by a 275 pound musclebound parole with multiple violent convictions, I wouldn't vote for indictment. Furthermore, any DA who did prosecute should be skinned.

imported post

PrayingForWar wrote:

...in certain situations, say anelderly frail 120 pound person w/ a .38 accosted by a 275 pound musclebound parole with multiple violent convictions, I wouldn't vote for indictment. Furthermore, any DA who did prosecute should be skinned.

Click to expand...

What about a robust, yound 25 year old, 210 lbs, being acosted by a 155 lb.old wino who's looking for money to buy some MD2020?

The potential matchups are infinite....

HankT's Postulateof Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD) operates at the strategy level, mostly. Not the tactical. You're thinking purely tactical.

Here's an example. Take the NRA Gun Safety Rule No. 1: Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.

It wouldn't take you too long to figure out that it is a) impossible, and, b) undesirable to ALWAYS keep ALL guns pointed in ONLY a safe direction.Does that mean the Rule No. 1 is bogus, since we can figure out an example where allowing the muzzleof a gunto be pointed at a person or valuable thing is unavoidable (yet still considered "safe")?

Rule No. 1 is a guiding principle, an ideal, a simple yet powerfulconcept that we can easily remember and be committed to in an unqualified manner. It's not a literal prohibition to NEVER have the muzzle ofANY gun pointed at anything that shouldn't be destroyed. ALL of usallow our guns to move in three dimensional space so that the muzzle is in fact pointed at certain objects at timesthat we would most assuredly not want to shoot.

HPCSD is at a similar conceptual level as Rule No. 1. Most of the wisdom and benefits of HPCSD are at the strategic level, not the tactical level.

dvdaughtry raised the issue of a football example which I like. A strategy of an offense based on throwing 50 yard passes in the NFL is a bad one. Everyone knows this. On the other hand, if you're on your 25 yard line, down by 13 points, with 2:21 to go in the 4th quarter of the last game in the season with a playoff spot in the balance........you air it out. Of course, of course....but that doesn't change the fact that an offense based on throwing 50 year passes is a poor choice.

But, you know, 50 yard passes are really exciting.....and that's why dvdaughtry's example is sooooooo pertinent to this discussion.

imported post

HankT wrote:

You're thinking purely tactical.

Click to expand...

That's how I've been trained I guess. I adhere to my assertion that regardless of the situation, a good lawyer, who has skill in SD cases can get said 210 lbs football star off a charge of shooting said unarmed 120 lbs emaciated wino.

Furthermore, any DA who prosecutes a citizen for SD, regardless of the anatomies or threat level, should be disbarred at least.

Most SD incidents happen in the dark, and very quickly. If you happened to be armed, and an "unarmed" attacker gets the best of you (or has friends in the shadows), you are then not only faced with being disarmed and killed, but other people can be shot later.

In regards to Mr Fish, AGAIN, the issue in this case was not predicated on grehl being unarmed. The primary attacking point of the prosecution was Mr Fish's choice of weapon and ammo, and the DA making the impression on the jury that just having a 10mm Glock and HP ammo implied Mr Fish desired -- premeditated-- the killing of someone, and was a danger to society. Mr Fish's att'y failed to point out the same logic would condemn police officers and dept's world wide.

imported post

The problem here is that screaming at someone and running toward them is not considered "deadly force" even if they are saying "I'm going to kill you you #&!@" The purpose of deadly weapons is to stop someone else using or attempting to use deadly force. If someone is using non-deadly physical force, you use non-deadly weapons against them. I had an incident one time where a drunk person had hit me in the face and then threw a cup at my head and all this happened while I was armed. I ordered the individual not to come within 10 feet yet they continued to advance. I did not draw the gun because they were not threatening deadly force. I used pepperspray and the problem was immediately solved with nobody getting seriously hurt.

You can't make "assumptions" when it comes to self-defense. Examples of assumptions are, "He may try to take my gun away and use it against me" or "he could punch me and knock me out and then take my gun." If everyone was allowed to make assumptions like these, there would be an awful lot of shootings. Carrying a gun is a responsibility and part of that responsibility is knowing how to use it when needed and not use it when you shouldn't. That also includes proper retention. If you are not positive you can retain control of your firearm, you probably shouldn't carry or at least you should get some instruction before doing so.

I've always said that if you are going to carry a deadly weapon, you should also carry a non-deadly one such as pepperspray or a taser. That is because you need to know what to do if dealing with non-deadly force since your gun is not an option. The exception is if a maniac is actually trying to get your gun away from you, then you can actually use it. There are a lot of crazy people out there but unless they are clearly demonstrating a clear and present threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm against you, you can't use deadly force.

imported post

I oppose HankT in this matter, but only because he wants to put his name on common-sense.

He is a lot like that guy who says he invented the internet... HankT is essentially claiming to have invented thinking.

Fail.

imported post

protector84 wrote:

The problem here is that screaming at someone and running toward them is not considered "deadly force" even if they are saying "I'm going to kill you you #&!@" The purpose of deadly weapons is to stop someone else using or attempting to use deadly force. If someone is using non-deadly physical force, you use non-deadly weapons against them. I had an incident one time where a drunk person had hit me in the face and then threw a cup at my head and all this happened while I was armed. I ordered the individual not to come within 10 feet yet they continued to advance. I did not draw the gun because they were not threatening deadly force. I used pepperspray and the problem was immediately solved with nobody getting seriously hurt.

You can't make "assumptions" when it comes to self-defense. Examples of assumptions are, "He may try to take my gun away and use it against me" or "he could punch me and knock me out and then take my gun." If everyone was allowed to make assumptions like these, there would be an awful lot of shootings. Carrying a gun is a responsibility and part of that responsibility is knowing how to use it when needed and not use it when you shouldn't. That also includes proper retention. If you are not positive you can retain control of your firearm, you probably shouldn't carry or at least you should get some instruction before doing so.

I've always said that if you are going to carry a deadly weapon, you should also carry a non-deadly one such as pepperspray or a taser. That is because you need to know what to do if dealing with non-deadly force since your gun is not an option. The exception is if a maniac is actually trying to get your gun away from you, then you can actually use it. There are a lot of crazy people out there but unless they are clearly demonstrating a clear and present threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm against you, you can't use deadly force.

Click to expand...

Can't argue against your points, although in Texas you can shoot to stop car theft and things of that nature. My whole premise though is that you need to have a good SD lawyer. People have been put in jail even after stopping violent felons from killing them by unscrupulous DA's because they managed to convince the jury that the "victim" (violent felons as "victims":uhoh wasn't threating enough after having stabbed the accused and his use of a .45ACP with 230 Winchester Silver Tipswas somehow excessive and showed he wanted to kill people.

As far as I'm concerned as well, even the threat of getting a black eye from some loser is a justified use of lethal force. Most people disagree, but I have the right to walk down the street without worrying about being assaulted by some psyco. Furthermore, you can still be killed by a blow to the head, so even an "unarmed" aggressor can be a deadly threat. Someone who charges a man who is obviously armed (Mr Fish had repelled his dogs with a warning shot) is stupid and deserves to be shot.

I also agree that carrying a "less lethal" backup is prudent, where it is allowed. However, a scumbag DA can also argue you had a less lethal option but chose to kill the (violent sociopath) parolee who was "trying to turn his life around". (It always disgusts me to hear that). So again, good legal representation is essential, no matter how justified you are.

imported post

Due to substantial popular demand, here is a current example of how HankT's Postulateof Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD)once again is sustained in a heart breaking fashion.

Remember as you read this article about James Malec and Justin Eilers thatHPCSDis as follows:


It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.



This case was originally brought to OCDO in the thread:

Idaho man facing 2nd degree murder for defending himself against enraged attacker needs your help.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=26933



It's a shame, a dirty shame that Mr. Malec was not aware of .... or refused to heed ... the undeniable wisdom and practicality of HPCSD.


Here is the latest on this tragic case:





September 04, 2009

Southwest Idaho man convicted of killing stepson


A southwestern Idaho man has been convicted of voluntary manslaughter in the Christmas night shooting death of his stepson.

A jury deliberated about eight hours Thursday before convicting 48-year-old James Malec of killing 30-year-old Justin Eilers last December.

Malec faces up to 15 years in prison and a $15,000 fine. A sentencing date hasn't been set.

The defense argued that Malec properly used his former police training to stop a deadly threat when he killed his wife's son, a professional martial arts fighter.
But prosecutors told the jury that Malec's choice to shoot Eilers was deliberate, unnecessary and unlawful. They had sought a more severe second-degree murder conviction, while the defense had argued for acquittal based on self-defense.
Gwen Moore is Malec's wife and the mother of the shooting victim.

"Everyone asked me what justice I wanted," she said before weeping into her sister's arms. "I want my son back, that's what I want. And I'm not going to get that."

Defense attorney Gordon Petrie reminded jurors that Malec had testified that Eilers had threatened to kill Malec and moved toward him before Malec shot Eilers once in the chest.

"Never lose sight of the fact that Justin tried to make a living by pummeling people into submission," Petrie said.

But Deputy Canyon County Prosecutor Scott James said Eilers was not armed and moving away from Malec when he was shot.

"Justin Eilers was acting like a jerk, there's no question," James said. "He was ruining Christmas. He was disrespecting the defendant in his own home. But he didn't deserve to die."

Moore testified that Eilers was backing away from Malec just before Eilers was shot.

http://www.theolympian.com/northwest/story/960582.html