Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: Restaurateur Kills Man in "Self-Defense"

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

    Post imported post

    This one is kind of muddled. Self-defense? Kind of.

    Consorting with criminals regarding illegal activity, kind of.

    Reminds me a bit of the anty506 case in Louisiana.

    One thing forsure. As usual, HankT's Postulate on Civilian Self-Defense applies...







    Yan De Yang is accused of shooting and killing a customer inside his Chopsticks & Sushi Restaurant.
    Sushi Bar Owner Says He Killed Man In Self-Defense
    Restaurant Worker Said Her Boss Was Being Pressured To Pay Debt
    Alan Gathright

    POSTED: 1:27 pm MDT October 27, 2009
    UPDATED: 5:41 pm MDT October 27, 2009


    DENVER -- [/b]A Denver sushi bar owner facing murder charges for gunning down a man in his crowded downtown restaurant last week said he acted in self-defense when two men attacked him.

    Yan De Yang, 40, owner of Chopsticks & Sushi, at 1630 Welton St., told police he shot a man who began choking him, while another man held him, according to a police report. Yang said he had run across the man who was choking him before. A week earlier, Yang kicked him out of the restaurant for being drunk.

    But a restaurant worker said the dispute was over two men pressuring Yang to pay off a debt, while the owner insisted he had paid back the money.

    Yang is being held in jail for investigation of first-degree murder in the death of Lloyd Running Bear, 29, who was shot repeatedly in the chest last Thursday, according to an investigator's statement supporting an arrest warrant for Yang.

    Asked if police were investigating whether Yang had problems with loan sharks or gambling debts, Denver police spokeswoman Loretta Beauvais said: "The investigation is ongoing. I'm sure everything is being explored."

    She said police have interviewed the second man who was with Running Bear. Police consider him a witness.

    Yang, who uses the first name Dave, told police that three men had come by the restaurant looking for him the day before the shooting. Yang was out but his wife told him that the men "were angry and were making threats about killing Dave," the police report stated.

    On the day of the shooting, Yang said a man left a threatening message on his cell phone saying "people would be coming to the restaurant to kill him," the police report stated. Yang told police he armed himself with a handgun he keeps at the restaurant.

    As Yang was working about 3:30 p.m. Thursday, he said the two men entered and attacked him. Yang told police the tall man choking him was Running Bear, and he had "kicked him out" of the restaurant for being intoxicated the prior week. He said a second man, described as an east Indian male, grabbed him from behind.

    Yang, who is 5-foot-2, 140 pounds, said he feared "they would kill him."

    "He got his gun out and shot the male choking him," Yang told police. The second man ran from the restaurant.

    Running Bear, who was 6 feet tall, 220 pounds, had a history of arrests in Denver on charges of assault, car theft and clashing with police. In April 2009, he was convicted of assault and disturbing the peace. He was also convicted in 2007 of refusing a police order, and in 2002 for assault and disturbing the peace.

    The female restaurant worker told investigators that when the east Indian man began talking to Yang, the owner insisted, "I paid your uncle the money." The east Indian man then called someone on his cell phone and handed the phone to Yang, who spoke with whoever was on the other end.

    After the worker entered the kitchen, she heard Yang yell, "Do not intimidate me" and "Do not touch me." She stepped back into the dining room and saw Yang yelling at the "tall man."

    The worker stepped back into the kitchen and heard a gunshot, according to the police report. She look into the dining room and saw Yang "slightly bent over and pointing toward the ground." She then heard two more shots and saw the east Indian man fleeing the restaurant.

    A man eating lunch told police he heard a "pop" and looked up to see a short man extending his arm and heard several more "pops."

    After the shooting, the customer recalled Yang saying, "He is a big guy. He came after me."

    A decision by prosecutors on whether to file formal charges is expected later this week.



    Previous Stories:



    http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...68/detail.html



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    This seems to me like a case where the restaurant owner was paying protection money or something. Maybe they were loan sharks, but whatever it is they shouldn't threaten his life or attack him. In my opinion, the shooting was justified. 220 vs 140? Come on

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    biggin215 wrote:
    This seems to me like a case where the restaurant owner was paying protection money or something. Maybe they were loan sharks, but whatever it is they shouldn't threaten his life or attack him. In my opinion, the shooting was justified. 220 vs 140? Come on
    First shot maybe? Two more with him on the ground, maybe not.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    biggin215 wrote:
    This seems to me like a case where the restaurant owner was paying protection money or something. Maybe they were loan sharks, but whatever it is they shouldn't threaten his life or attack him. In my opinion, the shooting was justified. 220 vs 140? Come on
    First shot maybe?* Two more with him on the ground, maybe not.
    +1

    Once the guy is on the ground the threat is gone. At that point the restaurant owner became the aggressor. This is murder, pure and simple.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  5. #5
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613

    Post imported post

    Bookman wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    biggin215 wrote:
    This seems to me like a case where the restaurant owner was paying protection money or something. Maybe they were loan sharks, but whatever it is they shouldn't threaten his life or attack him. In my opinion, the shooting was justified. 220 vs 140? Come on
    First shot maybe? Two more with him on the ground, maybe not.
    +1

    Once the guy is on the ground the threat is gone. At that point the restaurant owner became the aggressor. This is murder, pure and simple.
    And you know this as fact? How so? Were you there? Was the man on the floor merely wounded and moving around? Was he reaching in his coat or pockets?

    Bottom line, if he's still moving, he's a threat.

    And how long should this man have allowed himself to be choked? Till he felt queasy? Till he started blacking out? Till he was lifeless?

    The relationship of the aggressor and the restaurant owner is not known or has not been given. They mention that one of the aggressors said that the guy owed his uncle money. Perhaps, but was it a loan or was it some thug protection scheme that some gang or other organized crime had going on?

    If anyone threatens your life by choking, for whatever reason, you have the god-given right to defend yourself.

    In this case, it was multiple attackers and the storeowner should not have to wait until they've almost killed him before he defends himself.

  6. #6
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164

    Post imported post

    I suppose it depends if the entrance/exit holes lined up with the bullet holes in the floor
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  7. #7
    Regular Member Hendu024's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    447

    Post imported post

    rscottie wrote:
    Bookman wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    biggin215 wrote:
    This seems to me like a case where the restaurant owner was paying protection money or something. Maybe they were loan sharks, but whatever it is they shouldn't threaten his life or attack him. In my opinion, the shooting was justified. 220 vs 140? Come on
    First shot maybe? Two more with him on the ground, maybe not.
    +1

    Once the guy is on the ground the threat is gone. At that point the restaurant owner became the aggressor. This is murder, pure and simple.
    And you know this as fact? How so? Were you there? Was the man on the floor merely wounded and moving around? Was he reaching in his coat or pockets?

    Bottom line, if he's still moving, he's a threat.

    And how long should this man have allowed himself to be choked? Till he felt queasy? Till he started blacking out? Till he was lifeless?

    The relationship of the aggressor and the restaurant owner is not known or has not been given. They mention that one of the aggressors said that the guy owed his uncle money. Perhaps, but was it a loan or was it some thug protection scheme that some gang or other organized crime had going on?

    If anyone threatens your life by choking, for whatever reason, you have the god-given right to defend yourself.

    In this case, it was multiple attackers and the storeowner should not have to wait until they've almost killed him before he defends himself.
    +1

    Just because the guy is on the ground doesn't mean he's not a threat anymore. Using the statement "shoot to stop the threat" that so many people use, who knows if the guy was on the ground and made a move for a weapon that he had on him. If so, then shooting to stop the threat would mean a couple more rounds while the guy is on the ground.

  8. #8
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    rscottie wrote:
    Bookman wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    biggin215 wrote:
    This seems to me like a case where the restaurant owner was paying protection money or something. Maybe they were loan sharks, but whatever it is they shouldn't threaten his life or attack him. In my opinion, the shooting was justified. 220 vs 140? Come on
    First shot maybe? Two more with him on the ground, maybe not.
    +1

    Once the guy is on the ground the threat is gone. At that point the restaurant owner became the aggressor. This is murder, pure and simple.
    ...
    Bottom line, if he's still moving, he's a threat.
    ....

    Oh, really?

    Where does that bit of wisdom come from?



    Hendu024 wrote:
    Just because the guy is on the ground doesn't mean he's not a threat anymore. Using the statement "shoot to stop the threat" that so many people use, who knows if the guy was on the ground and made a move for a weapon that he had on him. If so, then shooting to stop the threat would mean a couple more rounds while the guy is on the ground.
    The guy was unarmed. No gun. No knife. No nothing.

    It's bad juju to shoot guys laying on the ground (who have already been shot). Hell, it's bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person in the first place. See HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense© :

    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.



    Here's some information about the deceased. I wish I could have gotten to Yan before he started shooting........

    Pity.







    Man shot, killed near Denver's 16th Street Mall was father of three trying to make ends meet, dad says
    By Kirk Mitchell
    The Denver Post
    [/url]
    Posted:10/25/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT


    The father of a man gunned down Thursday in a restaurant near the 16th Street Mall said his son had a hardscrabble life trying to provide for three young kids.

    Lloyd Running Bear Sr., 72, said Saturday that his son Lloyd Running Bear II had worked alternately as a roofer and a forklift operator and was training to become an electrician.

    About 3:30 p.m. Thursday, the owner of Chopsticks and Sushi, 40-year- old Yan De Yang, allegedly shot Running Bear II multiple times inside the restaurant at 1630 Welton St., police said.

    Running Bear II's father said his son was struck six times.

    "This individual decided to unload his gun in my son's body," he said. "I'll bet he wishes he could relive that moment."

    Yang is being held in the Denver Jail for investigation of murder.

    Police would not say what provoked the shooting. At the time of the incident, police said that the gunfire was preceded by an altercation involving three or four people.

    Running Bear Sr. said his son got along with everyone and whenever he met people he could always remember their names.

    "I don't believe my son would go in the restaurant and start a fight," he said.

    He said his son loved all types of food and was easy to please.

    Running Bear Sr. said his son's three children — two daughters and Lloyd Running Bear III — are left without a father to care for them. He said he didn't have any sympathy for Yang.

    "When he gets where he is going it will be very difficult," he said.

    Before Thursday, the most recent headline-making shooting near the 16th Street Mall happened on an afternoon in August 2007, when a clerk at a 7-Eleven store on the mall was shot in the head while people crowded the mall after a Colorado Rockies game. The clerk survived.

    http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_13636307


  9. #9
    Regular Member Hendu024's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    447

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    rscottie wrote:
    Bookman wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    biggin215 wrote:
    This seems to me like a case where the restaurant owner was paying protection money or something. Maybe they were loan sharks, but whatever it is they shouldn't threaten his life or attack him. In my opinion, the shooting was justified. 220 vs 140? Come on
    First shot maybe? Two more with him on the ground, maybe not.
    +1

    Once the guy is on the ground the threat is gone. At that point the restaurant owner became the aggressor. This is murder, pure and simple.
    ...
    Bottom line, if he's still moving, he's a threat.
    ....

    Oh, really?

    Where does that bit of wisdom come from?



    Hendu024 wrote:
    Just because the guy is on the ground doesn't mean he's not a threat anymore. Using the statement "shoot to stop the threat" that so many people use, who knows if the guy was on the ground and made a move for a weapon that he had on him. If so, then shooting to stop the threat would mean a couple more rounds while the guy is on the ground.
    The guy was unarmed. No gun. No knife. No nothing.
    Really, Hank? Were you there? Did you personally see if the guy made any moves while he was on the ground? And if some guy that outweighed me by 100 lbs starting choking me into oblivion, I'd shoot him too. The bottom line is that you weren't there and you don't know all of the facts, so **** and stop acting like you do. I know it's Halloween and all, but once in a while you can take off your @$$clown costume and act like a normal person. But then again, I don't think it's a costume... So sad for you.

  10. #10
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Hendu024 wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    rscottie wrote:
    Bookman wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    biggin215 wrote:
    This seems to me like a case where the restaurant owner was paying protection money or something. Maybe they were loan sharks, but whatever it is they shouldn't threaten his life or attack him. In my opinion, the shooting was justified. 220 vs 140? Come on
    First shot maybe? Two more with him on the ground, maybe not.
    +1

    Once the guy is on the ground the threat is gone. At that point the restaurant owner became the aggressor. This is murder, pure and simple.
    ...
    Bottom line, if he's still moving, he's a threat.
    ....

    Oh, really?

    Where does that bit of wisdom come from?



    Hendu024 wrote:
    Just because the guy is on the ground doesn't mean he's not a threat anymore. Using the statement "shoot to stop the threat" that so many people use, who knows if the guy was on the ground and made a move for a weapon that he had on him. If so, then shooting to stop the threat would mean a couple more rounds while the guy is on the ground.
    The guy was unarmed. No gun. No knife. No nothing.
    Really, Hank? Were you there? Did you personally see if the guy made any moves while he was on the ground? And if some guy that outweighed me by 100 lbs starting choking me into oblivion, I'd shoot him too. The bottom line is that you weren't there and you don't know all of the facts, so **** and stop acting like you do. I know it's Halloween and all, but once in a while you can take off your @$$clown costume and act like a normal person. But then again, I don't think it's a costume... So sad for you.
    No gun, no knife, twitching his last heartbeats away.....you still be shooting, eh, H024?

    Again....and again.....smell the burned nitrites....again!

    FINALLY.....SUCCESS.....got your chance!

  11. #11
    Regular Member Hendu024's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    447

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Hendu024 wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    rscottie wrote:
    Bookman wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    biggin215 wrote:
    This seems to me like a case where the restaurant owner was paying protection money or something. Maybe they were loan sharks, but whatever it is they shouldn't threaten his life or attack him. In my opinion, the shooting was justified. 220 vs 140? Come on
    First shot maybe? Two more with him on the ground, maybe not.
    +1

    Once the guy is on the ground the threat is gone. At that point the restaurant owner became the aggressor. This is murder, pure and simple.
    ...
    Bottom line, if he's still moving, he's a threat.
    ....

    Oh, really?

    Where does that bit of wisdom come from?



    Hendu024 wrote:
    Just because the guy is on the ground doesn't mean he's not a threat anymore. Using the statement "shoot to stop the threat" that so many people use, who knows if the guy was on the ground and made a move for a weapon that he had on him. If so, then shooting to stop the threat would mean a couple more rounds while the guy is on the ground.
    The guy was unarmed. No gun. No knife. No nothing.
    Really, Hank? Were you there? Did you personally see if the guy made any moves while he was on the ground? And if some guy that outweighed me by 100 lbs starting choking me into oblivion, I'd shoot him too. The bottom line is that you weren't there and you don't know all of the facts, so **** and stop acting like you do. I know it's Halloween and all, but once in a while you can take off your @$$clown costume and act like a normal person. But then again, I don't think it's a costume... So sad for you.
    No gun, no knife, twitching his last heartbeats away.....you still be shooting, eh, H024?

    Again....and again.....smell the burned nitrites....again!

    FINALLY.....SUCCESS.....got your chance!
    Oh Hank, it's so obvious you know when you're wrong, because you don't actually do anything to refute the previous statements. Although I did come up with a great idea for your next Halloween costume, and I'm guessing you already have all the items to put it together.

    P.S. I think I finally figured out what the "T" in HankT stands for.

    I'm gonna go with "Touchdown!!" Good job, quarterback. Another job well done.

  12. #12
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    rscottie wrote:
    Bookman wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    biggin215 wrote:
    This seems to me like a case where the restaurant owner was paying protection money or something. Maybe they were loan sharks, but whatever it is they shouldn't threaten his life or attack him. In my opinion, the shooting was justified. 220 vs 140? Come on
    First shot maybe? Two more with him on the ground, maybe not.
    +1

    Once the guy is on the ground the threat is gone. At that point the restaurant owner became the aggressor. This is murder, pure and simple.
    ...
    Bottom line, if he's still moving, he's a threat.
    ....

    Oh, really?

    Where does that bit of wisdom come from?



    Hendu024 wrote:
    Just because the guy is on the ground doesn't mean he's not a threat anymore. Using the statement "shoot to stop the threat" that so many people use, who knows if the guy was on the ground and made a move for a weapon that he had on him. If so, then shooting to stop the threat would mean a couple more rounds while the guy is on the ground.
    The guy was unarmed. No gun. No knife. No nothing.

    It's bad juju to shoot guys laying on the ground (who have already been shot). Hell, it's bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person in the first place. See HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense© :

    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.



    Here's some information about the deceased. I wish I could have gotten to Yan before he started shooting........

    Pity.







    Man shot, killed near Denver's 16th Street Mall was father of three trying to make ends meet, dad says
    By Kirk Mitchell
    The Denver Post
    [/url]
    Posted:10/25/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT


    The father of a man gunned down Thursday in a restaurant near the 16th Street Mall said his son had a hardscrabble life trying to provide for three young kids.

    Lloyd Running Bear Sr., 72, said Saturday that his son Lloyd Running Bear II had worked alternately as a roofer and a forklift operator and was training to become an electrician.

    About 3:30 p.m. Thursday, the owner of Chopsticks and Sushi, 40-year- old Yan De Yang, allegedly shot Running Bear II multiple times inside the restaurant at 1630 Welton St., police said.

    Running Bear II's father said his son was struck six times.

    "This individual decided to unload his gun in my son's body," he said. "I'll bet he wishes he could relive that moment."

    Yang is being held in the Denver Jail for investigation of murder.

    Police would not say what provoked the shooting. At the time of the incident, police said that the gunfire was preceded by an altercation involving three or four people.

    Running Bear Sr. said his son got along with everyone and whenever he met people he could always remember their names.

    "I don't believe my son would go in the restaurant and start a fight," he said.

    He said his son loved all types of food and was easy to please.

    Running Bear Sr. said his son's three children — two daughters and Lloyd Running Bear III — are left without a father to care for them. He said he didn't have any sympathy for Yang.

    "When he gets where he is going it will be very difficult," he said.

    Before Thursday, the most recent headline-making shooting near the 16th Street Mall happened on an afternoon in August 2007, when a clerk at a 7-Eleven store on the mall was shot in the head while people crowded the mall after a Colorado Rockies game. The clerk survived.

    http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_13636307

    This man had already shown that he was a threat by choking the restaurant owner. The restaurant owner doesn't have to wait until he produces a weapon if he is still in fear for his life.

    Also, you seem to imply that just because the man was found to be unarmed, it makes a difference. In this case, the mans bare hands were the threat, ie. he was CHOKING the restaurant owner.

    How long Mr. HankT would you allow yourself to be choked before you decided it was time to defend yourself?????


    edited to remove typo

  13. #13
    Regular Member Hendu024's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    447

    Post imported post

    rscottie wrote:
    SNIP.....

    This man had already shown that he was a threat by choking the restaurant owner. The restaurant owner doesn't have to wait until he produces a weapon if he is still in fear for his life.

    Also, you seem to imply that just because the man was found to be unarmed, it makes a difference. In this case that the mans bare hands were the threat, ie. he was CHOKING the restaurant owner.

    How long Mr. HankT would you allow yourself to be choked before you decided it was time to defend yourself?????
    I'm gonna make a guess at this scenario.

    Man grabs Hank and starts to choke him.
    As Hank's consciousness is fading, his "world famous" retarded postulate rolls through his mind.
    Hank starts to reach for his weapon. (if he even carries one)
    Hank realizes that he is about to shoot an unarmed man.
    As Hank slips into unconsciousness and uncertain death, the last thing he remembers saying is, "Bad idea to shoot unarmed man. Bad idea to shoot unarmed man. Bad idea to shoot unarmed man. Bad idea to shoot unarmed man. Bad idea to shoot unarmed man."
    OC'er in restaurant shoots BG and saves Hank's life.
    Hank wakes up and immediately starts giving the OC'er $hit for shooting an unarmed BG and then spews his stupid postulate to to everyone who will listen much to the dismay of the OC'er.
    BG (if he wasn't dead) agrees with Hank and they live happily ever after.

    The End.

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

    Post imported post

    rscottie wrote:
    This man had already shown that he was a threat by choking the restaurant owner.
    Of course. He was actually a threat before he walked in the restaurant. And that's a crucial point.




    rscottie wrote:
    The restaurant owner doesn't have to wait until he produces a weapon if he is still in fear for his life.
    Of course he doesn't have to wait ....if he is REASONABLY in fear of his life. I would assume that he was. No one is saying that he shouldn't have pulled (and used) a gun.

    Pay attention, RS.




    rscottie wrote:
    Also, you seem to imply that just because the man was found to be unarmed, it makes a difference. In this case that the mans bare hands were the threat, ie. he was CHOKING the restaurant owner.
    Of course it makes a difference that the man was unarmed. Since he was unarmed and was shot, then HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense©applies. Clearly.

    Further, since he was unarmed, shooting him x amount of times while he was on the floor is likely to be a big mistake. And the reason it's a mistake is consistent with HPCSD©.



    rscottie wrote:
    How long Mr. HankT would you allow yourself to be choked before you decided it was time to defend yourself?????
    Zero seconds.

    Running Bear's a big guy. I wouldn't want him to come after me.

    I'm not going to put myself in a position to be choked out by a guy so much bigger/stronger than me. That's whatHPCSD© is all about, RS. Avoiding that. HPCSD© is about strategy.

    Poor Yan De Yang. No strategic preparation. If only he was a member of OCDO and had seen my posts.... he would not be going through this trauma today....



    Please, RS, for your own sake....carefully read HPCSD©. Do not read words that are not in it. And read all the words that are. It is too late for H024 to carefully read it....but there is still hope for you...




  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    In the articles posted, where does it say the agressor was not armed?



    Anyways, I could give a rats ass if someone that out weighs and has a substantial height advantage has me in a choke-hold is armed or not. I see it as a threat to my wellbeing, he is going down well-ventilated.



    Carried by six, or judged by twelve? I'll choose the larger number everytime.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    I'm curious, Hank. How would you respond to a huge guy, running at you with intent to choke, but otherwise unarmed?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    I'm curious, Hank. How would you respond to a huge guy, running at you with intent to choke, but otherwise unarmed?
    I'm curious as to how you'd respond, Hank, while armed, to a person significantly larger and stronger than you actively choking you, while someone else was holding you from behind. Would you try to stammer out that you have a gun, hoping that he wouldn't take it away from you? Perhaps try hitting him with it like a hammer?

    I think the shoot was justified. I'm not voicing an opinion as to the number of bullets fired, as I've yet to see sufficient evidence of shot placement and circumstances, merely that shooting was a fully justified means of defense. HankT's Postulate of Letting Other People Kill You does not apply. You go too far in trying to support your broken theory.

  18. #18
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    NightOwl wrote:
    ... HankT's Postulate of Letting Other People Kill You does not apply. You go too far in trying to support your broken theory.
    There is no such postulate as you describe above. Please pay attention, NO. Here is the actual, correctly stated, famous postulate.


    HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense©



    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.



    A true understanding of this powerful, ever-applicablepostulate would make handlingof the Running Bear attack a trivial matter. One without shooting, for certain.

    Here's a clue:

    One crucial thing to remember is that when you become aware that someone:

    is threatening your life explicitly and repeatedly....

    and is desiring to be in your physical proximity.....

    in order to kill you....

    that it is quite stoopid tobegin the encounteron his terms....

    D'oh!



    HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense©operates mostly in the strategic levelof human self-defensive behavior in the United States. This primary American postulate and principle is one of the wonders of the 21st century. Please heed its wisdom.

    And pass it on to all you know and love. It will make their lives better...


  19. #19
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Here is the actual, correctly stated, famous postulate.


    HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense©



    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.



    A true understanding of this powerful, ever-applicablepostulate would make handlingof the Running Bear attack a trivial matter. One without shooting, for certain.

    Here's a clue:

    One crucial thing to remember is that when you become aware that someone:

    is threatening your life explicitly and repeatedly....

    and is desiring to be in your physical proximity.....

    in order to kill you....

    that it is quite stoopid tobegin the encounteron his terms....

    D'oh!



    HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense©operates mostly in the strategic levelof human self-defensive behavior in the United States. This primary American postulate and principle is one of the wonders of the 21st century. Please heed its wisdom.

    And pass it on to all you know and love. It will make their lives better...

    Hank... please stop this nonsense.

    First of all.. anyone and everyone who refuses to allow a criminal to harm them has a "strategy" to defend themselves... and that is a good thing. Also... if a person is threatened should they interrupt their normal life and run to hide in the next county in order to avoid that threat? And what about when the threat comes out of the blue completely unexpected? Would not having a "strategy" to defend yourself be a good thing... even if the threat is an "unarmed person"?

    Secondly.. there is no such thing as an "unarmed person"... not even in the legal sense.. please note the following:

    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."

    That last sentence leaves open the possibility of a woman having consensual sex with a man infected with AIDS and that man being guilty of assault with a deadly weapon... even though the woman gave her permission to engage in the act without knowledge of the AIDS factor. So Hank... exactly how does your "postulate" define "unarmed" there?

    Hank... the simple act of making the decision to not be a victim is a "strategy" in the sense that it is a "plan" to resist and fight. It isn't necessary to have a thought out step by step "plan" in order to qualify as a "strategy". Even the simple decision to carry a gun in case it is needed to defend from an attack is a "strategy".

    Hence... anyone who has decided to resist and fight a criminal has the good "strategy" of planning to defend themselves.... and since any criminal who attacks a victim is armed with what ever is being used in the attack (that includes empty hands used to strangle) there is no such thing as an "unarmed" person.

    One other thing Hank... any "postulate" that fails on so many fronts isn't "one of the wonders of the 21st century" but is actually misleading and dangerous to those who take it at face value. I wonder (not sure about the legal ramifications since I'm not an attorney) that, since you have put your "postulate" out all over the internet, a person who adhered to your "postulate" and was summarily harmed could seek redress from............. you Hank.
    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.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    Oh nvm, HankT is just here for laughs and trolling. I give up.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    NightOwl wrote:
    Oh nvm, HankT is just here for laughs and trolling.* I give up.
    Clearly. His response didn't even bother evading my question.

    Instead, he spewed a load of crap.

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Is Hank French? I think they abided by his postulates during both world wars.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Regular Member cleveland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    West Allis, WI
    Posts
    289

    Post imported post

    It's funny that the disagreement is over the unknown.

    Was he still a threat when he was on the ground? None of us know that. If he was, then shooing him again while he was on the ground was the correct decision. If he was no longer a threat, then it was murder.


    Cleveland's Holsters, LLC https://clevelandsholsters.com/

    "When your life depends on it, you can depend on Cleveland's Holsters!"

    Made in Wisconsin with 100% American manufactured materials.

    We give away a free holster every month on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cleve...19323708154588

  24. #24
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    cleveland wrote:
    Was he still a threat when he was on the ground? .... If he was, then shooing him again while he was on the ground was the correct decision. If he was no longer a threat, then it was murder.
    That's pretty succinct.

    And correct.

    Good post.

    There are some other issues, though.



  25. #25
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Bikenut wrote:
    First of all.. anyone and everyone who refuses to allow a criminal to harm them has a "strategy" to defend themselves... and that is a good thing.
    Actually, everyone, every single person, has a strategy for self-defense. That is because, even if they just do nothing and throw their safety up to the gods.....it is THEIR DECISION to do so.

    HPCSD© simply (and powerfully) states that shooting an unarmed person is pretty much gonna be a bad thing. With costs. And trauma.

    Now, it may be that one has to do it anyway, usually (not always) because of a poor SD strategy......but, still, it's gonna be regrettable to shoot an unarmed person.

    Better, much better, to avoid doing so. A comprehensive self-defense strategy, which incorporates the world-renownHPCSD© principles, is not just a good thing. It's an EXCELLENT thing.





    Bikenut wrote:
    Also... if a person is threatened should they interrupt their normal life and run to hide in the next county in order to avoid that threat?
    Well, I don't know what you mean by the next county...I don't know where that comes from....but interruption.....interruption....

    Hey, what kind of interruption is going on in Yan De Yang's life RIGHT NOW.

    I'll take a SWAG .....and say he didn't plan on being IN JAIL FOR THE LAST WEEK-AND-A-HALF WITH MURDER CHARGES HANGING OVER HIS HEAD!!!!

    It's definitely likely the ole Yan would have been better off if he'd have followed:

    HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense© :

    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


    Remember, all of you who may read this poor scribe's post---HPCSD© ALWAYS applies. It has NEVER been successfully challenged.

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
  •