• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Restaurateur Kills Man in "Self-Defense"

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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:

  • October 23, 2009: Sushi Restaurant Owner Arrested In Shooting Death of Customer
  • October 22, 2009: Man Shot, Killed Inside Downtown Sushi Restaurant
  • October 6, 2009: Fights Break Out At Trendy Denver Sushi Bar

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/21440668/detail.html
 

biggin215

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
42
Location
Baton Rouge, LA
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
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
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.
 

Bookman

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
1,424
Location
Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
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.
 

rscottie

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
608
Location
Ashland, Kentucky, USA
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.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
imported post

I suppose it depends if the entrance/exit holes lined up with the bullet holes in the floor
 

Hendu024

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
445
Location
Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
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.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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[suP]©[/suP] :

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

 

Hendu024

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
445
Location
Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
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 STFU 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.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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 STFU 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!
 

Hendu024

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
445
Location
Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
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 STFU 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.
 

rscottie

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
608
Location
Ashland, Kentucky, USA
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[sup]©[/sup] :

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
 

Hendu024

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
445
Location
Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
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.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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[suP]©[/suP] 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[suP]©[/suP].



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[suP]©[/suP] is all about, RS. Avoiding that. HPCSD[suP]© [/suP]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[suP]©[/suP]. 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...
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
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.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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[suP]©[/suP]



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[suP]©[/suP]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...

 
B

Bikenut

Guest
imported post

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


HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense[sup]©[/sup]



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[sup]©[/sup]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.
 
Top