HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense

imported post

HankT: "It Is Always a Bad Strategy To Shoot An Unarmed Man."

Flame and Defend below.
I'm going to make popcorn.

imported post

Cut off everyone's hands then it will be correct. Every person is armed. 'Weapons' are just tools, without them people are still armed and are capable of being dangerous.

imported post

That troll already has his own thread on his BS "postulate", please don't feed his ego by giving him any more screen space than he grabs for himself. :quirky It's already been beaten to death in numerous self-defense threads, anyone with sense can see that the "postulate" is useless.

imported post

I'm going to jump into the fray for a second and say that I think HankT is playing word games. He's a troll, but he's right.

Strategy is the "Big Picture" goal. One could argue that a person's "strategy" in life is to be happy. It doesn't define how to achieve that happiness. On a smaller scale, a person's "strategy" in self-defense should, in fact, never be to shoot an unarmed man. Your strategy in self-defense should be to survive with the least amount of harm to anyone involved.

If your strategy in self-defense is to survive, then you may have to use the tactic of shooting an unarmed man, but shooting the unarmed man should not be your strategy. If shooting an unarmed man is your "Big Picture" goal, then there is another word for it: premeditated murder.

imported post

The ONLY strategy is to survive the fight. Everything else is bull, and always has been.

Regards

imported post

Joe: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! ROFLOL!!!

I'm #2 to vote that you should die :lol:

I wonder if HankT was vote #1 :lol:

imported post

GuitarMan270 wrote:

I'm going to jump into the fray for a second and say that I think HankT is playing word games. He's a troll, but he's right.

Strategy is the "Big Picture" goal. One could argue that a person's "strategy" in life is to be happy. It doesn't define how to achieve that happiness. On a smaller scale, a person's "strategy" in self-defense should, in fact, never be to shoot an unarmed man. Your strategy in self-defense should be to survive with the least amount of harm to anyone involved.

If your strategy in self-defense is to survive, then you may have to use the tactic of shooting an unarmed man, but shooting the unarmed man should not be your strategy. If shooting an unarmed man is your "Big Picture" goal, then there is another word for it: premeditated murder.

Click to expand...

Hank's "postulate" is not in any sense... right. It is a carefully worded psychological propaganda statement intended to put forth a dangerous concept cloaked in quasi truth.

That "postulate" is stated as if it has something to do with self defense.... but it has nothing to do with self defense. It is cloaked in a sanctimonious sermon from the mount type of statement implying it has something to do with self defense.

And that "postulate" posted on a forum that has self defense as one of it's main talking points is intended for one purpose only.... to cause folks to think that shooting an attacker who is not "armed" in the general sense of having an external weapon of some sort would be unacceptable under any circumstances.

The leftys of the world love to use wordsmithed statements like HankT's "postulate" because those things allow the anti message to be absorbed while seemingly making sense.

It is my opinion, nay my fervent belief, that because of it's psychological sneakiness HankT's "postulate" is the single most heinous anti gun, anti self defense, anti right to protection of life, statement I've ever seen.

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."

So much for the "postulate" and it's "unarmed" portion.

imported post

To further Bikenut's post above:

(and conveniently stolen from my own post on another topic...)

In Seattle last year nearly half of the MURDERS were conducted WITHOUT any GUN.

Extrapolate that up the full 32,120 violent crimes in Seattle alone this year and that's an awful lot of suffering at the hands (and feet) of "unarmed" assailants.


"The Seattle Police Department says there were 32,120 violent crimes in Seattle during 2009 (so far).
http://www.seattle.gov/police/Crime/STATS.HTM

Are we going to ban everything that was used as a weapon MORE times than "assault rifles"?

Such as, well, nearly everything else? Starting with hands and feet which kill nearly 12 times as many as all rifle types combined!

FBI murder by weapon type for Washington on 2008 (newest provided)
Total | Guns | Handguns | Rifles | Shotguns | Other Guns | Knives | Other weapons | Hands, feet, etc.2

190 110 82 2 10 16 32 25 23

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.htm... "

imported post

The key problem with the postulate is the term "always." If the postulate said, "It is generally a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person" then it would make logical sense. Of course, we don't expect HankT to make any sense.

imported post

I suppose I can't propose to know his intentions, so perhaps my interpretation is incorrect.

However, I do have my own "postulate." I postulate that it is always undesirable to kill anyone in self defense. To avoid sounding too much like HankT, let me explain. I believe that ending another person's life in self defense is always the last resort--it is the second most undesirable outcome of a self-defense situation (the most undesirable being the attacker completing his or her assault).

Based on this (and not having read many of HankT's other posts), I interpreted his postulate to be a subset of my own viewpoint.

Somebody tell me if I'm 100% off-base.

imported post

A better postulate would be that it is a bad strategy to shoot anyone.A strategy is aplan of action designed to achieve a goal. Unless you are a criminal, your plan should not include shooting anybody... ever.However, every good plan needs to be flexible enough to accommodate the unknown.

As an example, say you are walking along minding your own business. Your strategy for theday is goingswimmingly. You have your dry cleaning in hand and are about to jump into your station wagon to rush onhomeand kiss the wife on the cheek and play with the kids and the dog.Suddenly youare attackedandare forced to defend yourself. If you have to shoot the attacker ('s) to save your life, it really doesn't matter whether they had a gun, a knife, a pitchfork,a black belt in Kung Fu, or just their own two hands. At no point was it your strategyto shoot them, they gave you no choice.

A stupid postulate written by a pointy headed pontificatorwho seeks to control others to think and act as he sees fit. Some folks look in the mirror and fall in love with the genius they think they see.

imported post

At my age......don't try to hurt me, armed or not. :dude:

Took me a long time to get this old and NOBODY is gonna deny me more time.

Now.....I do NOT want to ever hurt or kill anyone.

imported post

A "strategy" is a "plan".

No law abiding person has a "strategy" to shoot any persons, armed in the conventional sense or otherwise. Law abiding folks only have a "strategy" to protect themselves by stopping the attack. Any attack. Using what ever means will work. If stopping the attack using shooting as a means is required because of the attacker's actions that is tragic and unfortunate (and entirely the attacker's own fault) but the shooting certainly wasn't the defender's "strategy"/plan.... the "strategy" or "plan" was only to stop the attack. Hence, HankT's "postulate" is baloney for the concept of self defense.

However, that "postulate" presented as an absolute with the wording used sounds just sensible enough to be taken as a truth and as such is a very dangerous statement for the uninformed/new to self defense folks to read.

And apparently some folks who know better deep down inside themselves are taking that "postulate" to have some kind of validity and are busy trying to think through the wording to find that validity.... a validity that isn't there but the wording was chosen to promote folks to go searching for some kind of validity.

Now y'all can call me paranoid but I've seen statements/wording similar to that "postulate" with the words carefully chosen to make a person start thinking and come up with their own "understanding" of what was written/said. The last Presidential campaign comes to mind....

When words are carefully chosen to lead the reader/listener into thinking up a definition/meaning inside their own heads that definition/meaning seems to be their own idea.... and as such has much more power of belief than just the words. But the problem is.... they were carefully led right to that idea.

That entire "postulate" is like a computer worm.... it slides around inside the mind causing folks to rethink their "strategy" of stopping the attack using shooting when necessary IF the attacker isn't using what is considered a conventional weapon.... because.... exactly what concept comes to mind with the two simple words of "unarmed person"? That "postulate" is psychological propaganda at it's worst.

If I were to push such an insidious thing as that "postulate" I would not be able to shoulder the responsibility of just one victim of a horrific crime who didn't shoot because their attacker was "unarmed". I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

Please note I'm not saying HankT is a bad person. I'm saying lending any credence to his "postulate" is a bad thing.:X

imported post

Bikenut wrote:

...A "strategy" is a "plan".

No law abiding person has a "strategy" to shoot any persons, armed in the conventional sense or otherwise. Law abiding folks only have a "strategy" to protect themselves by stopping the attack. Any attack. Using what ever means will work. If stopping the attack using shooting as a means is required because of the attacker's actions that is tragic and unfortunate (and entirely the attacker's own fault) but the shooting certainly wasn't the defender's "strategy"/plan.... the "strategy" or "plan" was only to stop the attack. Hence, HankT's "postulate" is baloney for the concept of self defense...

Click to expand...

Actually, you just explained right here why the statement is true. I'm not advocating the use of HankT's postulate as any sort of rule to live by, and I agree that it is completely unclear and ambiguous despite the seemingly specific language.

If you break it down, the postulate could also be worded as such: "It is always a bad over-all plan in life to shoot any person who does not have in his or her in possession a deadly weapon." By your definition of "deadly weapon", it could be pretty much anything--including the appendages of an attacker.

Rationally, his statement is true, but you're right that I would never present it to someone who is uninformed as to the loaded wording. I'd hate to be responsible for someone taking it to mean that they should not shoot a rapist or other attacker who is only armed with his or her appendages.

In my personal opinion (and INAL), if you fear for your life or the life of another, you have every right to use deadly force to defend yourself or that other person, whether the attacker is "armed" in the traditional sense or not.

imported post

HankT is the biggest troll on these forums.

imported post

Bravo_Sierra wrote:

HankT is the biggest troll on these forums.

Click to expand...

With that, I can, without reservation, whole-heartedly agree.

:celebrate

imported post

Bravo_Sierra wrote:

HankT is the biggest troll on these forums.

Click to expand...

Yes, which is why I can't understand the existence of this thread.

imported post

GuitarMan270 wrote:

Bikenut wrote:

...A "strategy" is a "plan".

No law abiding person has a "strategy" to shoot any persons, armed in the conventional sense or otherwise. Law abiding folks only have a "strategy" to protect themselves by stopping the attack. Any attack. Using what ever means will work. If stopping the attack using shooting as a means is required because of the attacker's actions that is tragic and unfortunate (and entirely the attacker's own fault) but the shooting certainly wasn't the defender's "strategy"/plan.... the "strategy" or "plan" was only to stop the attack. Hence, HankT's "postulate" is baloney for the concept of self defense...

Click to expand...

Actually, you just explained right here why the statement is true. I'm not advocating the use of HankT's postulate as any sort of rule to live by, and I agree that it is completely unclear and ambiguous despite the seemingly specific language.

If you break it down, the postulate could also be worded as such: "It is always a bad over-all plan in life to shoot any person who does not have in his or her in possession a deadly weapon." By your definition of "deadly weapon", it could be pretty much anything--including the appendages of an attacker.

Rationally, his statement is true, but you're right that I would never present it to someone who is uninformed as to the loaded wording. I'd hate to be responsible for someone taking it to mean that they should not shoot a rapist or other attacker who is only armed with his or her appendages.

In my personal opinion (and INAL), if you fear for your life or the life of another, you have every right to use deadly force to defend yourself or that other person, whether the attacker is "armed" in the traditional sense or not.

Click to expand...

I proved that the "postulate" is flawed in many ways, including the misleading words "strategy" (the inference is that anyone who is planning to defend themselves is planning to shoot) and "unarmed" (we already know how misleading that word is as it infers reference to a traditional weapon definition).

I see you understand that the carefully worded "postulate" is intended to cause folks to put their own meaning into an "ambiguous" statement.

I almost fell for that "postulate" at first reading but then good old grew up on a farm common sense kicked in and I saw it for the BS it really is.

Political campaigns have been rife with "ambiguous" statements lately. The last one is what tipped me off to how people are being carefully manipulated with purposeful wordsmithing... and that "postulate" is a prime example of wordsmithing.

Now... do we have any wordsmiths who can use that principle to the advantage of OC? I fervently hope so because it is an extremely effective tool.

imported post

GuitarMan270 wrote:

Actually, you just explained right here why the statement is true.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that he explained why it is not true.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Bravo_Sierra wrote:

HankT is the biggest troll on these forums.

Click to expand...

Yes, which is why I can't understand the existence of this thread.

Click to expand...

I, for one, am glad to have the opportunity to use facts and common sense to counter any and all carefully worded anti gun/anti self defense statements or "postulates" that attempt to manipulate the psyche of the average person.

Call it a quest for truth.