Unique scenario of deadly force

imported post

Wglide90 wrote:

Well frankly the HankT postulate sounds communist to me, certainly not American. This is the worst type of propaganda there is.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, that's an odd statement.

How in the world is HPCSD[suP]©[/suP] communist?

I would think it's quintessentially American!

Why, Wglide, do you think it's communist?

HPCSD[suP]©[/suP] would never apply in a communist country...it only could exist in a capitalist country, governed by rule of law....

imported post

HankT,

I asked you this before; For what state do youdo research and what type of reseach do you do?



You never answered.



So how'bout it?

imported post

HankT wrote:

Wglide90 wrote:

Well frankly the HankT postulate sounds communist to me, certainly not American. This is the worst type of propaganda there is.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, that's an odd statement.

How in the world is HPCSD[suP]©[/suP] communist?

I would think it's quintessentially American!

Why, Wglide, do you think it's communist?

HPCSD[suP]©[/suP] would never apply in a communist country...it only could exist in a capitalist country, governed by rule of law....

Click to expand...

HankT, While you're figuring out what youresearch and from where you perform that research, think about this:

Your communistic postulate is a poor attempt to indoctrinate your oppressionistic viewsupon free Americans who's rights, values and laws provide protection for free Americans to protect themselves.

Your postulate is based on the premiss that self protection is a strategy, this is a falacy, self protection is an Americanright. (Think about this long and hard, since it is very basic and totally comprehensive.)

Thus your postulate is proven wrong.

imported post

HankT wrote:

Wglide90 wrote:

Well frankly the HankT postulate sounds communist to me, certainly not American. This is the worst type of propaganda there is.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, that's an odd statement.

How in the world is HPCSD[sup]©[/sup] communist?

I would think it's quintessentially American!

Why, Wglide, do you think it's communist?

HPCSD[sup]©[/sup] would never apply in a communist country...it only could exist in a capitalist country, governed by rule of law....

Click to expand...

I've read many, if not all, of Hank's posts within this entire website (you know... researching the subject) and any arguments that those posts put forth pertaining to Hank's completely false "postulate" follow Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" playbook.

For those who would like to understand the playbook elitist leftist thinking people live by... and attempt to require everyone else to live by... go to:

http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/8925/alinsky.htm

Please note rule # 5...

Hank's "postulate" appears to have legitimacy on it's face with the wording used but does not stand up to the cleansing light of common sense applied to the real world.

But the insidious thing about that "postulate" is it could be believed by the uninformed and create a situation where the victim of a crime believes they cannot shoot to save their lives unless the attacker is using some kind of conventional "weapon". This alone makes that "postulate" an extremely anti self defense concept... and anti self defense concepts are commonly held by elitist leftist thinking folks.

Oh ... and I'm very curious how Hank's "postulate" can address this:

From The Free Dictionary.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."

After reading that I would suggest that there is, in the real world, no such thing as, what Hank's "postulate" refers to, an unarmed person unless they have no arms to bludgeon with, no legs to kick with, no teeth to bite with, and no deadly diseases to pass on sexually with.

To the mods... I am well aware of the rules pertaining to keeping discussions oriented (although sometimes a bit loosely) to OC but I am of the opinion that any misinformation, or outright disinformation, concerning the use of a gun in self defense situations desperately needs to be addressed regardless of if that situation occurs within the home, while concealed carrying, or while open carrying. If I am wrong about this please contact me and I'll drop it.

imported post

Bikenut wrote:

I am of the opinion that any misinformation, or outright disinformation, concerning the use of a gun in self defense situations desperately needs to be addressed regardless of if that situation occurs within the home, while concealed carrying, or while open carrying.

Click to expand...

+1

imported post

Being of semi sound mind and wore out body...hehehehe. I find the need to chyme in on this. THINK real long and hard about one thing....
How many people are walking the streets who were trained in dojo's or by the miltary of our country or some other third rate nation on how to incapacitate and/or kill with their bare hands. As a person who served many years and was taught these things and also taught that a 110 pound person with this knowledge is just as deadly as a 350 pound man I always look at every person as a threat and size them up and my avenue of regress or my preparedness of what might happen.
You may call me paranoid but spend 4plus years in Central & South America and you tend to believe everyone is dangerous and to be watched intently:uhoh:.....just sayin.....

imported post

SlowDog wrote:

Being of semi sound mind and wore out body...hehehehe. I find the need to chyme in on this. THINK real long and hard about one thing....
How many people are walking the streets who were trained in dojo's or by the miltary of our country or some other third rate nation on how to incapacitate and/or kill with their bare hands. As a person who served many years and was taught these things and also taught that a 110 pound person with this knowledge is just as deadly as a 350 pound man I always look at every person as a threat and size them up and my avenue of regress or my preparedness of what might happen.
You may call me paranoid but spend 4plus years in Central & South America and you tend to believe everyone is dangerous and to be watched intently:uhoh:.....just sayin.....

Click to expand...

Me too... but ya know what? Every now and then I find myself (especially at home but occasionally in public too :what) wandering around so far into "condition white" snow flakes follow me around. When the realization hits I am more than a little annoyed with myself...

And you Sir... are definitely NOT paranoid.

imported post

I find myself reacting to other people in public a little like I view other motorists when I'm riding my motorcycle, as if EVERY ONE is out to get me and do me harm. Am I still paranoid:uhoh:?springerdave.

imported post

As I used to tell my men when in country. "PAY ATTENTION TO DETAIL...IT'LL SAVE YOUR LIFE AND BRING YOU HOME"
So when I see people walking into a restaurant or whatever establishment I am in I always look for telling bulge or a coat worn when too hot out or just their demeanor. Yea, OK. I am just a tad paranoid but a little paranoia seems to work for me so I will keep it up and maybe I will live a little longer in this world of ours as it spirals into oblivion. No wait,that is a little much huh?:what:....just kidding....hehehehe

imported post

That's right SpringerDave.

And that's why it is important to the OP of the thread. It's all about rights, responsibility, sensability, to ensure self protection under the Constitution.

Situation awarness is the key to excersize the aforementioned given right.

As you know, we bikers are aware of everything that moves and goes on around us on the road. We have to be able to read situations and act accordingly to evade a situation on the road. That knack is the same thing that you learn when thinking about self protection, that you act according to your rights while underderstanding the situation. The law allows that.

imported post

HankT wrote:

However, you appear to have a made a fundamental error in referring to a justification for using deadly force. Although the laws do vary across the great states of our land, none of them, as far as I've seen, justify deadly force because of "fear of great bodily harm or death." (orequivalent wording)

Click to expand...

From the Tennessee statutes:

39-11-611. Self-defense


[align=justify](b) (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
[/align]
[align=justify](2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:
[/align]
[align=justify] (A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;
[/align]



[align=justify] (B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and
[/align]
[align=justify] (C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds[/align]

[align=justify]39-11-612. Defense of third person
[/align]
[align=justify]A person is justified in threatening or using force against another to protect a third person, if:

(1) Under the circumstances as the person reasonably believes them to be, the person would be justified under § 39-11-611 in threatening or using force to protect against the use or attempted use of unlawful force reasonably believed to be threatening the third person sought to be protected; and
[/align]
[align=justify] (2) The person reasonably believes that the intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.[/align]

Click to expand...

Just how did you become a "state Researcher" on this forum anyway, HankT? Itdoesn't appear you got the title from actuallydoing any state statute research.

Notice, Hank, that there is no mention in the TN code about the perp needing to be armed with a weapon other than their bare hands.