Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: OH Pastor shoots arguer/assailant

  1. #1
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    What a mess.

    One thing for sure, though. We do know that HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense© (HPCSD) applies. It always does...

    Developing...





    Police: Pastor Shot Teen Outside Church
    September 17, 2009 2:02 PM
    Updated: Friday, September 18, 2009

    COLUMBUS, Ohio — Police said a pastor opened fire outside of a northeast side church on Thursday, hitting a teenager in the shoulder.

    La'queven Cook, 17, said he and his girlfriend were arguing Thursday outside the New Jerusalem Baptist Church, located on Joyce Avenue. That argument led to an altercation involving several people at the church.

    The pastor went inside and returned with a gun, 10TV's Brittany Westbrook reported.

    "I took off as soon as I seen the gun," Cook said. "My mom was in front of him as soon as he started shooting. He shot right over her and he shot me in my back."

    Some witnesses told a different story. They said Cook and the people he was with charged at the pastor. They said the pastor was trying to protect the girl, Westbrook reported.

    "A couple young men was beating up on a young girl," Bishop Donald Washington said. "Tried to stop the altercation and they turned on him."

    Witnesses said several people attempted to intervene.

    Cook maintains that he was not hurting his girlfriend and did not attack the pastor.

    "The only thing I kept hearing him say is, 'I'm a pastor, I'm a pastor,'" Cook said. "I never thought a pastor would do something like that."

    Cook was treated for a gunshot wound and a broken arm. He was released from a hospital on Thursday afternoon.

    Charges against the pastor were not immediately filed.

    Watch 10TV News and refresh 10TV.com for additional information.

    http://www.10tv.com/live/content/loc...g.html?sid=102

    --------------------

    Pastor shoots 17-year-old at his church
    It started as boy-girl fight at bus stop, grew wild after reverend intervened
    Friday, September 18, 2009 3:15 AM
    By Theodore Decker

    THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

    A pastor who tried to break up a fight between a 17-year-old boy and a girl ended up shooting the boy outside his North Side church after the confrontation escalated, police said.

    The Rev. Marcus Martin, pastor of the New Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church, was being interviewed yesterday by Columbus police detectives who are working to determine whether the 12:17 p.m. shooting was justified.

    No charges have been filed against anyone in connection with the incident.

    The youth, La'queven Cook, was shot in the shoulder. Detective Pat Dorn of the homicide squad said he was taken to Ohio State University Medical Center for a minor gunshot wound. Cook later was released.


    Police gave the following account:

    Cook and a girl were across from the church at 2121 Joyce Ave. at a bus stop when they began to fight. The fight was volatile enough that police received four separate calls about it.

    Martin and another church member saw the fight from the front doors of the church and decided to stop it.

    Cook was argumentative, leveling threats and sucker-punching the pastor, police said. At that point, Martin and the other church member grabbed the youth and hauled him back to the church to hold for police.

    Cook lives only a few doors from the church and hollered for help when a car passed with his brother and several other friends inside. The group came to his aid, and a larger confrontation occurred, police said.

    "The reverend was struck about the head by one of the individuals," Dorn said.

    At that point, Martin went into the church and retrieved his 9 mm handgun, Dorn said. He was standing at the side door to the church when he thought someone in the rowdy crowd was reaching for a weapon.

    "He did not see a weapon, but he thought one of the individuals was drawing a weapon," Dorn said. "He fired."

    Police found the gun in the church. Dorn said police have been told that the gun was legally owned, although the investigation is continuing.

    "It's a case that might go to a grand jury," Dorn said. "He felt that they were going to rush into the church."

    The pastor and the girl involved in the initial fight did not require treatment.

    http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live...F.html?sid=101


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Milton, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    103

    Post imported post

    "Cook lives only a few doors from the church and hollered for help when a car passed with his brother and several other friends inside. The group came to his aid, and a larger confrontation occurred, police said."


    I beleive a preponderance of force constitutes a weapon in this case. Wouldn't you agree that a group of people could easily overpower the pastor and cause serious bodily harm or death?
    Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    RebelHell wrote:
    "Cook lives only a few doors from the church and hollered for help when a car passed with his brother and several other friends inside. The group came to his aid, and a larger confrontation occurred, police said."


    I beleive a preponderance of force constitutes a weapon in this case. Wouldn't you agree that a group of people could easily overpower the pastor and cause serious bodily harm or death?
    I would concur with this.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grand County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    249

    Post imported post

    Two news reports, both with a lot of different information.

    Hard to judge something like this without all the facts.

    I guess if I was already beaten on and more people came to fight against me, I might have no choice but to defend myself with deadly force. I don't know about this situation. Wasn't there.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    From what I am reading, it is very difficult for me to defend this pastor.

    It appears he acted inappropriately and unlawfully.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    What a mess.

    One thing for sure, though. We do know that HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense© (HPCSD) applies. It always does...
    Hank... your "postulate" does NOT "always" apply...

    Would it be a bad strategy for a frail 80 year old woman to shoot a healthy 18 year old man who is attempting to strangle her with his empty hands?

    Let me ask you Sir... are you shrouding an anti gun agenda behind a pseudo intellectual "postulate"?
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  7. #7
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    I agree .... the postulate does NOT always apply.. as disparity of force is what must be kept in mind.
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    autosurgeon wrote:
    I agree .... the postulate does NOT always apply.. as disparity of force is what must be kept in mind.
    unless the mind in question is closed....like Hank's.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    The first thing to keep in mind is that Hanky has a history of posting news stories with incomplete or vague information.

    Posters get into arguments with each other as they fill in the missing info in the story with their own unstated assumptions. At a certain point one is reasonable to assume Hanky enjoys starting the arguments. He's been posting these stories for a long time.

    The other thing to keep in mind is that Hanky is not stupid and knows himself that his postulate and his representations about it are flawed.He's trying to get a rise out of people.
    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.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    The first thing to keep in mind is that Hanky has a history of posting news stories with incomplete or vague information.

    Posters get into arguments with each other as they fill in the missing info in the story with their own unstated assumptions. At a certain point one is reasonable to assume Hanky enjoys starting the arguments. He's been posting these stories for a long time.

    The other thing to keep in mind is that Hanky is not stupid and knows himself that his postulate and his representations about it are flawed.He's trying to get a rise out of people.
    You give him more credit than do I.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    You give him more credit than do I.
    Watch carefully what he writes; and ask yourself frequently why he would write it.

    He can be very subtle in his needling,baiting, and trolling. Hank may be a number of things, but he is definitely not lacking intelligence. He's only dumb in very narrowly definedareas.
    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.

  12. #12
    Regular Member MSC 45ACP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,845

    Post imported post

    We know only one thing for certain:
    Hanky's postulates are not always right.

    In life, there are only TWO certainties:
    Death and Taxes.
    "If I know that I am headed for a fight, I want something larger with more power, preferably crew-served.
    However, like most of us, as I go through my daily life, I carry something a bit more compact, with a lot less power."
    (unknown 'gun~writer')

    Remington 1911 R1 (Back to Basics)
    SERPA retention or concealed...

    "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
    (Borrowed from "The Perfect Day" by LTC Dave Grossman)

  13. #13
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    You give him more credit than do I.
    Watch carefully what he writes; and ask yourself frequently why he would write it.

    He can be very subtle in his needling,baiting, and trolling. Hank may be a number of things, but he is definitely not lacking intelligence. He's only dumb in very narrowly definedareas.
    I am beginning to think that Hank may be the quintessential leftist... intelligent enough to twist facts and emotion in a manipulative way to further his agenda... arrogant enough to expect folks will be dazzled by his intellect, and dumb enough not to realize those who are intelligent see right through it all.

    And, judging by the responses to Hank's "postulate" throughout this entire website, I'd say darn near everyone here can see right through Hank's attempts to push his own ego.

    Hank... tell me please... how would it be a bad strategy for an 80 year old frail woman to shoot an 18 year old man who is strangling her with his bare hands? Your "postulate" says it would be.... and your "postulate" is wrong.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  14. #14
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Bikenut wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    You give him more credit than do I.
    Watch carefully what he writes; and ask yourself frequently why he would write it.

    He can be very subtle in his needling,baiting, and trolling. Hank may be a number of things, but he is definitely not lacking intelligence. He's only dumb in very narrowly definedareas.
    I am beginning to think that Hank may be the quintessential leftist... intelligent enough to twist facts and emotion in a manipulative way to further his agenda... arrogant enough to expect folks will be dazzled by his intellect, and dumb enough not to realize those who are intelligent see right through it all.
    Wow. And which combinations of letters do you (and ole Citizen) add after your name when you sign it on a formal paper, BN?




    Bikenut wrote:
    And, judging by the responses to Hank's "postulate" throughout this entire website, I'd say darn near everyone here can see right through Hank's attempts to push his own ego.

    Throughout the life of HPCSD (two years)and with my repeated explanations of it, you'd be surprised who has agreed with it. For example, dvdaughtry gets it. He posted here at OCDO recently in the HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense thread. Did you read it by any chance, BN?If not, you should.



    [color=navy]Bikenut wrote:

    Hank... tell me please... how would it be a bad strategy for an 80 year old frail woman to shoot an 18 year old man who is strangling her with his bare hands? Your "postulate" says it would be.... and your "postulate" is wrong.


    Well, your example is imprecise, NB. But I know what you mean. You mean an 80-year-old frail woman who has done nothing wrong, has a gun,and is being attacked by a (presumably UNhealthy) strong 18-year-old male who has no weapon andwho is trying to severely injure or kill her in violation of law. That's what you really mean...

    But I'm not going to niggle.

    The answer is, of course, yes. Yes, it is a bad strategy for such a woman to shoot the felonious attacker. Is not the wording of HPCSD simple enough for you to understand that? ("It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.")


    But you're asking the wrong question, BN. I think you really want to ask if Iam of the opinion thatole grandmaw should shoot therotten punk maniac. If that is what you want to ask, go right ahead and ask.



    Remember,HPCSDalways applies. It's really an amazing conceptualization...no one has been able to refute it in two years on OCDO....





  15. #15
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Bikenut wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    You give him more credit than do I.
    Watch carefully what he writes; and ask yourself frequently why he would write it.

    He can be very subtle in his needling,baiting, and trolling. Hank may be a number of things, but he is definitely not lacking intelligence. He's only dumb in very narrowly definedareas.
    I am beginning to think that Hank may be the quintessential leftist... intelligent enough to twist facts and emotion in a manipulative way to further his agenda... arrogant enough to expect folks will be dazzled by his intellect, and dumb enough not to realize those who are intelligent see right through it all.
    Wow. And which combinations of letters do you (and ole Citizen) add after your name when you sign it on a formal paper, BN?

    Hank... it is a bit arrogant to imply that if someone doesn't have degrees from the very best universities that the absence of those degrees proves the person must be... lacking in intellect? ... And conversely the person with those degrees must be... much more intelligent than the poor dolt without those degrees? Now that is certainly elitist thinking of the highest order my friend..

    Oh... and I didn't say I don't have, or do have, any of those degrees you are looking for... nor is that of any concern in this discussion.



    Bikenut wrote:
    And, judging by the responses to Hank's "postulate" throughout this entire website, I'd say darn near everyone here can see right through Hank's attempts to push his own ego.

    Throughout the life of HPCSD (two years)and with my repeated explanations of it, you'd be surprised who has agreed with it. For example, dvdaughtry gets it. He posted here at OCDO recently in the HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense thread. Did you read it by any chance, BN?If not, you should.

    Hank... I read more than enough of your posts to understand exactly what you are trying to say to everyone here... and it has nothing to do with your "postulate".

    Bikenut wrote:

    Hank... tell me please... how would it be a bad strategy for an 80 year old frail woman to shoot an 18 year old man who is strangling her with his bare hands? Your "postulate" says it would be.... and your "postulate" is wrong.


    Well, your example is imprecise, NB. But I know what you mean. You mean an 80-year-old frail woman who has done nothing wrong, has a gun,and is being attacked by a (presumably UNhealthy) strong 18-year-old male who has no weapon andwho is trying to severely injure or kill her in violation of law. That's what you really mean...

    How condescending of you to judge my example to be "imprecise" and then arrogantly tell me what I meant. I meant exactly what I said in my example. Your changing the facts of what I said changes nothing and proves my point that you are following the leftist playbook of juggling facts to suit your agenda.

    Shall I break it down for you according to Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"?

    First take the facts and change them to suit your own agenda. Then personalize your response to ridicule the person presenting those facts. Then present your own facts as if the person really meant what you said....

    What university did you attend Sir? Berkeley perhaps?

    But I'm not going to niggle.

    How delightfully condescending of you.

    The answer is, of course, yes. Yes, it is a bad strategy for such a woman to shoot the felonious attacker. Is not the wording of HPCSD simple enough for you to understand that? ("It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.")

    Another perfect example of Saul Alinsky's teachings... ridicule me with the implication that I must be "simple" since I obviously can't understand such a "simple" thing as your HPCSD.

    But you're asking the wrong question, BN. I think you really want to ask if Iam of the opinion thatole grandmaw should shoot therotten punk maniac. If that is what you want to ask, go right ahead and ask.

    But you are not understanding that I really asked the question that I asked... not the question that you really want me to ask. Saul Alinsky would be extremely proud of how you are utilizing his teachings by twisting what I said into what you wanted me to say.

    And I really don't give a rat's butt what your "opinion" is... if I wanted your opinion I would have really asked for your "opinion"..... we are talking about how your "postulate" fails to help an old woman being strangled by a young man who is only using his bare hands... which, according to your "postulate", means that it would be a bad strategy for the old gal to shoot that unarmed strangler.

    Remember,HPCSDalways applies. It's really an amazing conceptualization...no one has been able to refute it in two years on OCDO....

    I will agree that HPCSD is an amazing conceptualization in it's arrogant assumption of universality. And HPCSD has been refuted many times by many folks. Your refusal to acknowledge it doesn't change that but proves that your postings aren't about your "postulate" at all.

    And your arrogant condescending reply to my post, and many others throughout this entire forum, speaks volumes concerning exactly what you are about Sir.

    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    SNIP Wow. And which combinations of letters do you (and ole Citizen) add after your name when you sign it on a formal paper, BN?[color=navy]
    Hey, Bikenut!

    Maybe we should start putting a string of letters behind our name. We can borrow Hanky as an example:

    Citizen, SASDE (Self-Anointed Self-Defense Expert).

    Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
    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.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    SNIP Wow. And which combinations of letters do you (and ole Citizen) add after your name when you sign it on a formal paper, BN?

    Hey, Bikenut!

    Maybe we should start putting a string of letters behind our name. We can borrow Hanky as an example:

    Citizen, SASDE (Self-Anointed Self-Defense Expert).

    Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
    The few self defense folks (none of whom presume to call themselves "experts" although they definitely are considered "accomplished" in their fields) that I have had occasion to communicate with do not consider themselves to be "experts" since all have the common sense to understand that there is always more to learn from each and every SD incident.

    They all understand that there are some basic things that canincrease the odds of survival but there are no hard and fast rules that will always work in every situation.... because, aside from generalities (daylight, low light, no light, 1/2/3/or more attackers, etc), no two SD situations are the same. They do not ascribe to any "postulates" but are students of the real world of DGU's (defensive gun use) incidents. They learn from real world incidents and pass on the things they learn to their students.

    In the real world of a self defense situation there are no "postulates"... there is confusion, tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, screaming, shouting, people moving around all over the place, indecision, time slows down, life and death decisions are made... and unmade... and made again ... in the space of fractions of a second.

    In truth... in a true life and death (or great bodily harm/sexual penetration) situation there are no hard and fast "postulates"....

    I guess I will add these letters to my name.... BTDT.

    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    To the current Hanky post, I respond with these letters: WHAT-UP.


    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    HankT,

    After reading a few of your threads, I decided I had to comment just this once.

    If you have truly been harping your postulate for two years and even if you are just trying to annoy people, you must have an illness. From what I have read, I think you realize that your "postulate" is far too absolute in terms of self defense. Not to mention arrogant by suggesting you were the first person torealize that shooting someone while they are unarmed, even in self defense, doesn't always end well in court.

    Your "postulate,"if you insist on coining such a basic idea, has merit if you would onlyadmit occasionally that lettingsomeone kill you would be a worse strategy by far.Perhaps you could even admit that making the choice to kill someone who is trying to take your life is never easy, but it is a very good strategy when it is the only strategylikely tokeep you alive. Would you really like to learn of an armed individual who was killed by an unarmed one because he was following your misguided advice? Think about what you are telling people. If you haven't realized any of this, you should definitely consider it.

    I think it is far more likely you are doing this only to get under the skins of people on this board (two years, seriously?). After two years, maybe its time to give ina little.

    Otherwise, try altering your postulate so that it more closely relates to self defense; something that reflects what your choice of news story so often suggests.

    Try, "It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person, even if that person is trying very hardto kill you."

    Seriously HankT, give it up.


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/03/...ies/index.html

    This unarmed person didn't have any trouble killing another person....

  21. #21
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    [color=navy]Remember,HPCSDalways applies. It's really an amazing conceptualization...no one has been able to refute it in two years on OCDO....



    Yes they have, you just dont care to notice. Your brainfart does notalways apply. There is no such thing as one set of rules that apply toall possible situations/scenarios. As a retired Fireman I can solidly attest to that.

    Every dangerous situation requires different actions andreactions and all dangerous situations are different. What works in one incident will not work in another similar incident.

    The only amazing thing about your "postulate" is that you actually believe that it adequately covers all possible life and death situations. It dos'nt. No one plan of action, or inaction in this case, does.

    Hank, since I'm sure that you practice HPCSD I hopethat if/when you get attacked by a younger, stronger, fitter, unarmedassailent you'll share with us how well it worked. However, we'll probably need a ouija board tocontact you.
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    661

    Post imported post

    As much as I disagree with Hank on most posts, he's actually right if one speaks in generalities. It's best to break it down in order to see what I mean.

    Q: Is it generally a bad idea to shoot someone who's unarmed?

    A: Yes

    Why? Because generally it is not a good idea! Does that mean that you are never justified in doing so? Absolutely not! You may very well be justified and it may very well be a "good soot", but it's not usually a good idea.

    It very well may be a worse idea not to shoot for sure. I guess it's just one more of those variables we need to be taking into consideration when deciding whether or not to use deadly force.

  23. #23
    Regular Member FiremanJoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    77

    Post imported post

    Postulator From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In the Roman Catholic Church, a postulator is a church official who presents a plea for canonization or beatification of a person they think should become a saint.


    FWIW.... Now I have to go look at some of this Hank thing you all been talking about..............




    But I would say isn't that what a discussion board is all about to bounce ideas, thoughts, to talk open minds, to get info give info, spread knowledge or educate others???


    Favorite recent Quote:
    "As long as I'm prosecutor, if someone comes into a store with a gun and I've said it before and I'll say it again they have forfeited their right not to be shot,"
    Hamilton County, Ohio - prosecutor; Joe Deters

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pinal County, AZ, ,
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    Don't fall into the trap.Many of youare focusing on the word Bad instead of the word Strategy. Strategy involves planning and forethought (premeditation if you will). So when HankT says, its a bad Strategy to shoot an unarmed person, she may just have it right. (Believe me, typing that last sentence was very painful).

  25. #25
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    Armed4Life wrote:
    Don't fall into the trap.Many of youare focusing on the word Bad instead of the word Strategy. Strategy involves planning and forethought (premeditation if you will). So when HankT says, its a bad Strategy to shoot an unarmed person, she may just have it right. (Believe me, typing that last sentence was very painful).
    On the contrary... I plan to defend myself and shoot any unarmed person who is strangling me with their bare hands... or beating me with bare fists... or kicking me with feet. And that is a GOOD strategy since it may save my life/keep me out of the hospital.

    If a so called "unarmed" person doesn't try strangling, or beating, or kicking me then I don't plan to harm them in any way at all.

    Hence... Hank's "postulate" fails because, in those instances I mentioned, the attacker actually IS armed... with bare hands, fists, and feet.

    And, once again...

    From thefreedictionary.com

    deadly weapon n. any weapon which can kill. This includes not only weapons which are intended to do harm like a gun or knife, but also blunt instruments like clubs, baseball bats, monkey wrenches, an automobile or any object which actually causes death. This becomes important when trying to prove criminal charges brought for assault with a deadly weapon. In a few 1990s cases courts have found rocks and even penises of AIDS sufferers as "deadly weapons."


    Truth is... there is no such thing as an "unarmed person" unless they have no arms, legs, teeth, or AIDS infected penises.

    Edited for clarity and to add the definition (bold added for emphasis)................


    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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