• 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"

cleveland

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
289
Location
West Allis, WI
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.
 

HankT

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

HankT

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

It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


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

HankT

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

cleveland wrote:
What is "HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense"?

Puhleeeeeze.

It's:

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

[suP][/suP]

A right unexercised is a right lost.:cuss:
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
imported post

HankT wrote:
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[sup]© [/sup]simply (and powerfully) states that shooting an unarmed person is pretty much gonna be a bad thing. With costs. And trauma.

Hank... anytime someone must defend themselves there are "costs" and "trauma" regardless of if the attacker uses bare hands or what are considered traditional weapons. And anytime some one does defend themselves there will be "costs" and "trauma" regardless of if the defender uses bare hands or what are considered traditional weapons. So what exactly is your point there?

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.

Dang it Hank... there is no such thing as an "unarmed person". And shooting anyone, even to save you own life, will be much much more than just "regrettable. It doesn't matter if the attacker is using bare hands, a pipe, a club, a car, or a gun the defender is going to suffer "costs" and "trauma" anyway!

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

Exactly how does your postulate help anyone survive an attack by advocating that a person not shoot an unarmed person by "avoid doing so"? Do you live in the real world Hank?



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....

There are times when to (as you said) "avoid doing so" one would have to physically move and begin a new life in another county... or even country... in order to not be there when the threat showed up.

Here is some real life for you Hank. A while back my testimony put a real nasty bad guy in prison. Before conviction he vowed... vowed, not just threatened.. to kill me. During the trial/conviction process the police took it seriously enough to provide protection, including stopping by at odd hours just to see if I was still alive, even to the point of making sure I carried my gun. The prosecutor suggested I keep my gun handy too.

3 days before the bad guy's release from prison the prison called me to warn me of his release because they had documented threats he had made on my life. Also... 2 days before his release the county prosecutors office called to warn me of his release.. and threats. Now even I know someone is taking things seriously if both the prison and the prosecutor's office call. And remember, the prosecutor's office knew full well I was armed. And the police protection started again.

So my choices were... run away and move costing me a house and money while leaving my kids and grandkids in danger of him coming around looking for me... or standing my ground.

I stood my ground and I got him put back in jail for disregarding restrictive court orders. By the way... he is still around and, although I won't start anything, I'll be damned if I'll allow a dirt bag to ruin my life.

Hank... the real world doesn't adhere to your "postulate".

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[sup]©[/sup] :

It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.

If Yan had followed your "postulate" he would either have had to move out of town and restart his life somewhere else... or he would be strangled to death.

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

I, and others, have presented several challenges to your "postulate" yet you continue to ignore and not answer those challenges. Ignoring and failing to answer do not equate to your "postulate" having never being successfully challenged.

So... how does your "postulate" fit a woman having consensual sex with an AIDS infected man without prior knowledge of the AIDS infection? After all... you have repeatedly ignored those 1990 cases where courts have ruled that an AIDS infected penis is.... a deadly weapon... making that undressed dude still "armed". That alone makes the "unarmed person" portion of your postulate... rubbish.

And I'll go one step further. Your "postulate" is a dangerous thing for people to see because, on it's very face, it advocates potential victims to not defend themselves unless the attacker is using what most people consider a traditional weapon. Hank... you may think you are doing a great thing with your postulate but the truth is ... you are promoting a misleading concept that can result in victims not understanding they do have the right.. and even the legal right... to defend themselves from what is traditionally considered an "unarmed person". And from that standpoint, if you are as intelligent as you wish us to think you are, you should see the danger inherent in your "postulate".
My comments are above in red.

I have some common sense for you Hank:

"It is unwise to shoot any person who is not actively attacking."

You may steal that for your next "postulate" if you wish. I didn't even copyright it.
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
imported post

Well, I gotta chime in here.

It sounds like the restaurant owner wasn't an educated carrier.
He probably was in shock when the event went down.

Firstly, some people are so shocked that they have to shoot someone they just pull the trigger until the gun is empty, no matter if the BG falls down or not. Cops routinely shoot waaaaay too many bullets.
Its kind of like, you've been working on a report, but the file is corrupted and won't open, you will try 55 more times before you call geek squad.

There have been many cases when cops have continued shooting after someone begins to comply/change their actions. Even with A LOT of training, your mind still goes to a special mode of thought when you go into mortal combat. certain functions of the brain go hyperactive, some become delayed, even worse, some portions of the brain nearly SHUT DOWN at this point. Once you've gone into this 'zone', it simply isn't possible to be instantly aware of certain changes in your environment.
Yet one more reason Jeff Cooper's dislike for hi-cap 9mm's proves to be valid.
Training with 1911's or 357mags will cause you to get in the habit of measured shooting, and assessing after each shot.

The reptilian part of your brain, that takes over so much of your actions at a time like this, does not care about the legal system, exactly what level of threat someone has become, if you won't have to worry because this rapist / killer / etc will be behind bars and unable to harm me. It think in absolutes. The only way your family will be safe is if threat is ELIMINATED. Wounded animals can still be dangerous, people can come back for revenge, the only think your reptilian brain wants at this point is the BG to be so far past anything remotely threatening as to be hamburger. Anyone have arachnophobia? any other phobia? Someone with Arachnophobia who hits a spider with a rolled up magazine will hit it three more times, still be terrified, and hit it another two times just because it twitched, regardless of the impossibility of it still being alive / able to move. You understand the response I'm talking about. That is the reptilian brain being triggered. Thats how it works. So, there is a short time, (seconds) after a life threatening event is stopped (Running Bear falling to floor) where, yes, just because Running Bear twitched in agony, the reptilian brain may still have enough control to make you smack that spider one more time, just to make absolutely positivily sure its ultra-no-way-its-coming back dead.

I was forced to shoot someone once, and when they fell on the ground, I heard a sucking chest wound. A sucking chest wound is obviously NOT a threatening gesture or action, yet the fact that their was audible evidence of life, even though he wasn't moving, It went through my head. Not the vendictive "I'll show you MFer." It wasn't revenge, or desire, or WANT of any kind, it was the HAVE to feeling like when the spider twitches, I thought I HAVE TO shoot him again. Not want, but have to. My full awareness became alarmed and I realized it was an irrational thought, and controlled it, and I regained more cognizant functions. I had been in a hightened state of preparedness before this event occurred, so when everything went down I was not scared, but had a gameplan and acted on it. Looking back, I can see how, if someone was truly terrified, they may NOT be able to conciously object to their reptilian instincts.

So even if you do shoot someone, they fall down, and you shoot them a few more times, I'm not going to condemn you for it. It could still part of the same response to the initial threat, NOT two different events. There would have to be irrefutable evidence that you continued out of malice or revenge. Not even witnesses or videotapes could give you this though. The only way would be a confession.

I hope Yang has good enough lawyers who can hire a psychologist to explain this to a Jury. I just wonder if the Jury has the capacity to understand it.
 

Streetbikerr6

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
389
Location
Folsom, , USA
imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:
Well, I gotta chime in here.

It sounds like the restaurant owner wasn't an educated carrier.
He probably was in shock when the event went down.

Firstly, some people are so shocked that they have to shoot someone they just pull the trigger until the gun is empty, no matter if the BG falls down or not. Cops routinely shoot waaaaay too many bullets.
Its kind of like, you've been working on a report, but the file is corrupted and won't open, you will try 55 more times before you call geek squad.

There have been many cases when cops have continued shooting after someone begins to comply/change their actions. Even with A LOT of training, your mind still goes to a special mode of thought when you go into mortal combat. certain functions of the brain go hyperactive, some become delayed, even worse, some portions of the brain nearly SHUT DOWN at this point. Once you've gone into this 'zone', it simply isn't possible to be instantly aware of certain changes in your environment.
Yet one more reason Jeff Cooper's dislike for hi-cap 9mm's proves to be valid.
Training with 1911's or 357mags will cause you to get in the habit of measured shooting, and assessing after each shot.

The reptilian part of your brain, that takes over so much of your actions at a time like this, does not care about the legal system, exactly what level of threat someone has become, if you won't have to worry because this rapist / killer / etc will be behind bars and unable to harm me. It think in absolutes. The only way your family will be safe is if threat is ELIMINATED. Wounded animals can still be dangerous, people can come back for revenge, the only think your reptilian brain wants at this point is the BG to be so far past anything remotely threatening as to be hamburger. Anyone have arachnophobia? any other phobia? Someone with Arachnophobia who hits a spider with a rolled up magazine will hit it three more times, still be terrified, and hit it another two times just because it twitched, regardless of the impossibility of it still being alive / able to move. You understand the response I'm talking about. That is the reptilian brain being triggered. Thats how it works. So, there is a short time, (seconds) after a life threatening event is stopped (Running Bear falling to floor) where, yes, just because Running Bear twitched in agony, the reptilian brain may still have enough control to make you smack that spider one more time, just to make absolutely positivily sure its ultra-no-way-its-coming back dead.

I was forced to shoot someone once, and when they fell on the ground, I heard a sucking chest wound. A sucking chest wound is obviously NOT a threatening gesture or action, yet the fact that their was audible evidence of life, even though he wasn't moving, It went through my head. Not the vendictive "I'll show you MFer." It wasn't revenge, or desire, or WANT of any kind, it was the HAVE to feeling like when the spider twitches, I thought I HAVE TO shoot him again. Not want, but have to. My full awareness became alarmed and I realized it was an irrational thought, and controlled it, and I regained more cognizant functions. I had been in a hightened state of preparedness before this event occurred, so when everything went down I was not scared, but had a gameplan and acted on it. Looking back, I can see how, if someone was truly terrified, they may NOT be able to conciously object to their reptilian instincts.

So even if you do shoot someone, they fall down, and you shoot them a few more times, I'm not going to condemn you for it. It could still part of the same response to the initial threat, NOT two different events. There would have to be irrefutable evidence that you continued out of malice or revenge. Not even witnesses or videotapes could give you this though. The only way would be a confession.

I hope Yang has good enough lawyers who can hire a psychologist to explain this to a Jury. I just wonder if the Jury has the capacity to understand it.
It really relies on the law of that state. Some states have castle doctrines. Some don't. Some law states you must not use deadly force once there is no longer a threat. When you say 'not even witnesses or video tapes can prove that', you are mistaken. Show me the law that says "one must stop shooting if they are feeling vengeful". It does not exist. The law usually states one must stop the use of deadly force when there is no longer a threat. Now if you get sent to court (which most likely will happen)it is up to you to prove a man who you have shot and now laying on the ground, most likely unconscious and not moving, was a threat to anyone. I know you're probably going to say "no, it is up to the court to prove...". Correct, but good luck if your lawyer doesn't offer a rebuttal.

There is truth and misguidance to HankT's whatever you want to call it. Generally shooting someone who is unarmed can land you in court if the police investigation shows you had no threat on life or property(property depending in the state). It is pretty much up to the investigators to determine that, not your theory that they must 100% prove you had malicious intent.

Though HankT's whatever you wanna call it is misleading to the newcoming gun owner who may find himself in such an ambiguous situation.

As for a man on the ground that isn't moving, a reasonable person should believe he is no longer a threat(as long as his hands are able to be seen I guess). Most self-defense law dictates a threat of life to be defined by a reasonable person, such as a jury. If you would like the law, I can dig it up for whatever state.
 

SlowDog

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
424
Location
Redford, Michigan, USA
imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:
Well, I gotta chime in here.

It sounds like the restaurant owner wasn't an educated carrier.
He probably was in shock when the event went down.

Firstly, some people are so shocked that they have to shoot someone they just pull the trigger until the gun is empty, no matter if the BG falls down or not. Cops routinely shoot waaaaay too many bullets.
Its kind of like, you've been working on a report, but the file is corrupted and won't open, you will try 55 more times before you call geek squad.

There have been many cases when cops have continued shooting after someone begins to comply/change their actions. Even with A LOT of training, your mind still goes to a special mode of thought when you go into mortal combat. certain functions of the brain go hyperactive, some become delayed, even worse, some portions of the brain nearly SHUT DOWN at this point. Once you've gone into this 'zone', it simply isn't possible to be instantly aware of certain changes in your environment.
Yet one more reason Jeff Cooper's dislike for hi-cap 9mm's proves to be valid.
Training with 1911's or 357mags will cause you to get in the habit of measured shooting, and assessing after each shot.

The reptilian part of your brain, that takes over so much of your actions at a time like this, does not care about the legal system, exactly what level of threat someone has become, if you won't have to worry because this rapist / killer / etc will be behind bars and unable to harm me. It think in absolutes. The only way your family will be safe is if threat is ELIMINATED. Wounded animals can still be dangerous, people can come back for revenge, the only think your reptilian brain wants at this point is the BG to be so far past anything remotely threatening as to be hamburger. Anyone have arachnophobia? any other phobia? Someone with Arachnophobia who hits a spider with a rolled up magazine will hit it three more times, still be terrified, and hit it another two times just because it twitched, regardless of the impossibility of it still being alive / able to move. You understand the response I'm talking about. That is the reptilian brain being triggered. Thats how it works. So, there is a short time, (seconds) after a life threatening event is stopped (Running Bear falling to floor) where, yes, just because Running Bear twitched in agony, the reptilian brain may still have enough control to make you smack that spider one more time, just to make absolutely positivily sure its ultra-no-way-its-coming back dead.

I was forced to shoot someone once, and when they fell on the ground, I heard a sucking chest wound. A sucking chest wound is obviously NOT a threatening gesture or action, yet the fact that their was audible evidence of life, even though he wasn't moving, It went through my head. Not the vendictive "I'll show you MFer." It wasn't revenge, or desire, or WANT of any kind, it was the HAVE to feeling like when the spider twitches, I thought I HAVE TO shoot him again. Not want, but have to. My full awareness became alarmed and I realized it was an irrational thought, and controlled it, and I regained more cognizant functions. I had been in a hightened state of preparedness before this event occurred, so when everything went down I was not scared, but had a gameplan and acted on it. Looking back, I can see how, if someone was truly terrified, they may NOT be able to conciously object to their reptilian instincts.

So even if you do shoot someone, they fall down, and you shoot them a few more times, I'm not going to condemn you for it. It could still part of the same response to the initial threat, NOT two different events. There would have to be irrefutable evidence that you continued out of malice or revenge. Not even witnesses or videotapes could give you this though. The only way would be a confession.

I hope Yang has good enough lawyers who can hire a psychologist to explain this to a Jury. I just wonder if the Jury has the capacity to understand it.
I too need to chime in. Unless your in one of these situautions you have no clue what will happen or go through your mind. I was in more firefights tehn I would like to remember while serving in the Military but the first time I defended myself as a civillian I did not count the bullets as I fired my weapon. As Simmonnsjoe said...adrenalin kicks into overdrive. We become fixated on survival. I had no clue how many times I had pulled the trigger but I did it til the person was imobile. If he had moved at all I would have kept shooting til ammo depleted and then reloaded.

This mentality is what is killing our troops in combat. There was a Marine who shot a BG in Iraq and the BG was laying on his stomach. He moved his hands underneath himself so the Marine shot him several more times. A news reporter who witnessed this testified that he "THOUGHT THE MARINE WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN SHOOTING SAID BG AGAIN IN HIS OPINION." I look at what HankT says as the same BS that reporter spews....you've never went through it and you have no clue what it's like so SATFU. Monday morning armchair quarterbacking is what got this country in the anti gun state we were in 25 years ago. Lets try & not slip back into that state of unarmed ignorance......just sayin.....
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:
simmonsjoe wrote:
Well, I gotta chime in here.

It sounds like the restaurant owner wasn't an educated carrier.
He probably was in shock when the event went down.

Firstly, some people are so shocked that they have to shoot someone they just pull the trigger until the gun is empty, no matter if the BG falls down or not. Cops routinely shoot waaaaay too many bullets.
Its kind of like, you've been working on a report, but the file is corrupted and won't open, you will try 55 more times before you call geek squad.

There have been many cases when cops have continued shooting after someone begins to comply/change their actions. Even with A LOT of training, your mind still goes to a special mode of thought when you go into mortal combat. certain functions of the brain go hyperactive, some become delayed, even worse, some portions of the brain nearly SHUT DOWN at this point. Once you've gone into this 'zone', it simply isn't possible to be instantly aware of certain changes in your environment.
Yet one more reason Jeff Cooper's dislike for hi-cap 9mm's proves to be valid.
Training with 1911's or 357mags will cause you to get in the habit of measured shooting, and assessing after each shot.

The reptilian part of your brain, that takes over so much of your actions at a time like this, does not care about the legal system, exactly what level of threat someone has become, if you won't have to worry because this rapist / killer / etc will be behind bars and unable to harm me. It think in absolutes. The only way your family will be safe is if threat is ELIMINATED. Wounded animals can still be dangerous, people can come back for revenge, the only think your reptilian brain wants at this point is the BG to be so far past anything remotely threatening as to be hamburger. Anyone have arachnophobia? any other phobia? Someone with Arachnophobia who hits a spider with a rolled up magazine will hit it three more times, still be terrified, and hit it another two times just because it twitched, regardless of the impossibility of it still being alive / able to move. You understand the response I'm talking about. That is the reptilian brain being triggered. Thats how it works. So, there is a short time, (seconds) after a life threatening event is stopped (Running Bear falling to floor) where, yes, just because Running Bear twitched in agony, the reptilian brain may still have enough control to make you smack that spider one more time, just to make absolutely positivily sure its ultra-no-way-its-coming back dead.

I was forced to shoot someone once, and when they fell on the ground, I heard a sucking chest wound. A sucking chest wound is obviously NOT a threatening gesture or action, yet the fact that their was audible evidence of life, even though he wasn't moving, It went through my head. Not the vendictive "I'll show you MFer." It wasn't revenge, or desire, or WANT of any kind, it was the HAVE to feeling like when the spider twitches, I thought I HAVE TO shoot him again. Not want, but have to. My full awareness became alarmed and I realized it was an irrational thought, and controlled it, and I regained more cognizant functions. I had been in a hightened state of preparedness before this event occurred, so when everything went down I was not scared, but had a gameplan and acted on it. Looking back, I can see how, if someone was truly terrified, they may NOT be able to conciously object to their reptilian instincts.

So even if you do shoot someone, they fall down, and you shoot them a few more times, I'm not going to condemn you for it. It could still part of the same response to the initial threat, NOT two different events. There would have to be irrefutable evidence that you continued out of malice or revenge. Not even witnesses or videotapes could give you this though. The only way would be a confession.

I hope Yang has good enough lawyers who can hire a psychologist to explain this to a Jury. I just wonder if the Jury has the capacity to understand it.
It really relies on the law of that state. Some states have castle doctrines. Some don't. Some law states you must not use deadly force once there is no longer a threat. When you say 'not even witnesses or video tapes can prove that', you are mistaken. Show me the law that says "one must stop shooting if they are feeling vengeful". It does not exist. The law usually states one must stop the use of deadly force when there is no longer a threat. Now if you get sent to court (which most likely will happen)it is up to you to prove a man who you have shot and now laying on the ground, most likely unconscious and not moving, was a threat to anyone. I know you're probably going to say "no, it is up to the court to prove...". Correct, but good luck if your lawyer doesn't offer a rebuttal.

There is truth and misguidance to HankT's whatever you want to call it. Generally shooting someone who is unarmed can land you in court if the police investigation shows you had no threat on life or property(property depending in the state). It is pretty much up to the investigators to determine that, not your theory that they must 100% prove you had malicious intent.

Though HankT's whatever you wanna call it is misleading to the newcoming gun owner who may find himself in such an ambiguous situation.

As for a man on the ground that isn't moving, a reasonable person should believe he is no longer a threat(as long as his hands are able to be seen I guess). Most self-defense law dictates a threat of life to be defined by a reasonable person, such as a jury. If you would like the law, I can dig it up for whatever state.
You obviously don't understand how a reasonable brain behaves under fight or flight conditions. read my post a little slower next time. Nobody's brain functions the same in that situation, period. There are all sorts of chemicals being released into the brain. Your thought processes actually don't get processed by the cognizant portion of your brain until after the 'lower' portion of your brain responds. The lower portion of your brain is influenced by rote process and muscle memmory. (This is why repetitive training is important, because it influences the responses of your lower brain. (This is how certain actions become 'reflex') This is why some people with amnesia can still sign their names when they don't pay attention to doing it. (creepy huh?) It is also how someone can remember how to do something they used to do regularly but haven't even thought about in a while. (riding a bike) Its aslo the reosan you can raed mlpieslsd wrods if you dno't tinhk auobt it.
 

ocgso

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
215
Location
Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
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...


Please just stop baiting HankT(roll)

Just let someone much larger than him kill him while he is armed and trying to stammer his stupid postulate.

Arguing with Hank = Troll bait
 
Top