• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When does self-defence go too far?

has self defence gone too far in this instance?


  • Total voters
    33
I couldn't agree more. Obviously we need to ban assault'axes. Does anyone know if thus guy perchesed this axe from a licensed dealer, or did he use an axe-show loophole? This is just another example of why only the military, police and fire department need access to axes. Perhaps we can make some exceptions for hunting'axes, but you should still have to store your axe at the police department or hunting club.

So sad Jerry. It's like you did not even read a word I wrote, and then made a totally nonsensical response. Please, if you are going to respond to me, at least make a slight effort to talk about what I wrote, and not something entirely unrelated and having nothing whatsoever to do with even the smallest portion of what I said.
 
I'm not a huge fan of guns in general (for reasons of practicality, mostly - I think a lot of people have an inflated belief in their ability to use guns effectively in situations like this one) but you're right - if Axe man had used a gun and killed the guy, he wouldn't be going to prison.

Apparently this guy did not have an inflated belief in his ability to use an axe effectively in situations like these.

A part of proper gun use has to do with what gun you're using. Like my S&W .38 revolver; it's just meat and potatoes. Point n shoot. Since it's double-action-only there are no safeties to finger, because the gun can't accidentally discharge by being dropped, etc. That's the nature of double-action-only, which is why I got it. You have to pull the trigger, and it has a heavy trigger pull., too.

I can just put it in my pocket and no one ever knows, it's there if I need it, it's out of the way if I don't.
 
I couldn't agree more. Obviously we need to ban assault'axes. Does anyone know if thus guy perchesed this axe from a licensed dealer, or did he use an axe-show loophole? This is just another example of why only the military, police and fire department need access to axes. Perhaps we can make some exceptions for hunting'axes, but you should still have to store your axe at the police department or hunting club.

If you ban axes, only criminals will have them...
 
So sad Jerry. It's like you did not even read a word I wrote, and then made a totally nonsensical response. Please, if you are going to respond to me, at least make a slight effort to talk about what I wrote, and not something entirely unrelated and having nothing whatsoever to do with even the smallest portion of what I said.

Oh, my bad, for once everyone was talking about actions taken by the perp and didn't simply focus on the item in his hand, and I got all discombobulated :doh
 
If you ban axes, only criminals will have them...

According to OP, wrenches, screwdrivers, and crowbars are all "fighting weapons". Also, these gang-bangers were there to *assault* someone with their *weapons*, therefore wrenches, screwdrivers, and crowbars are all assault'weapons.
 
I fervently believe and support the Castle Doctrine, which in the States means if six yobs (or one) busts into your house armed with weapons, and uninvited, you have a right to defend your home and family. The fact that entry was gained illegally puts the issue in your favor. In a number of states that is pretty much the law. You don't have to flee, you don't have to show an attempt on your part to get away. In many states in the U.S., if you enter into a home illegally you can count on getting your butt shot at or shot off.

Now you can't walk around and execute them or anything like that. The point is that you are legally within your rights to neutralize the threat. With six armed assailants on you like white on rice how do you know exactly when it is time to back off? I'd say more power to your man with the ax.
 
Apparently this guy did not have an inflated belief in his ability to use an axe effectively in situations like these.

A part of proper gun use has to do with what gun you're using. Like my S&W .38 revolver; it's just meat and potatoes. Point n shoot. Since it's double-action-only there are no safeties to finger, because the gun can't accidentally discharge by being dropped, etc. That's the nature of double-action-only, which is why I got it. You have to pull the trigger, and it has a heavy trigger pull., too.

I can just put it in my pocket and no one ever knows, it's there if I need it, it's out of the way if I don't.

If you're trained and knowledgeable, more power to you. However, I get the impression that a lot of people who contemplate defending themselves with guns tend to create idealized scenarios for how that would work. Actual assaults tend to be a little more complicated and sometimes (maybe mostly) involve aspects that we can't really anticipate or plan for.
 
He was certainly right to defend himself, but the line between self defense and assault can become blurred, as it seems to have in this case. Without knowing more details, it's impossible to say whether the jury made the right decision.
 
If you're trained and knowledgeable, more power to you. However, I get the impression that a lot of people who contemplate defending themselves with guns tend to create idealized scenarios for how that would work. Actual assaults tend to be a little more complicated and sometimes (maybe mostly) involve aspects that we can't really anticipate or plan for.

Ahh the plot thickens.

Jason Bowman didn't have a firearm at his disposal because he and his 53 y/o wife are both felons; Delivery of a Controlled Substance, Methamphetemine; and Conspiracy to Deliver a Controlled Substance.

This explains keeping an axe next to the TV, also. Very good.


***
But, yeah, you don't need any training to effectively use a lot of firearms. A simple model and few boxes at a range and you know everything there is to know because there's not much to it.

In fact, the simplicity of firearms is why nobles didn't want peasants to have them, originally. It would take years of dedicated training to become proficient with the sword or bow, but literally just anyone cold pick up a firearm and use it effectively.

Like this one: Jerry's Album: Forbidden Love

...it's not complicated...at all....the bullets go here, point, shoot....that's all there is to it.
 
Ahh the plot thickens.

Jason Bowman didn't have a firearm at his disposal because he and his 53 y/o wife are both felons; Delivery of a Controlled Substance, Methamphetemine; and Conspiracy to Deliver a Controlled Substance.

This explains keeping an axe next to the TV, also. Very good.


***
But, yeah, you don't need any training to effectively use a lot of firearms. A simple model and few boxes at a range and you know everything there is to know because there's not much to it.

In fact, the simplicity of firearms is why nobles didn't want peasants to have them, originally. It would take years of dedicated training to become proficient with the sword or bow, but literally just anyone cold pick up a firearm and use it effectively.

Like this one: Jerry's Album: Forbidden Love

...it's not complicated...at all....the bullets go here, point, shoot....that's all there is to it.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. That's all there is to effectively using a firearm, sure, but it's not necessarily the case that that's what would happen if you attempted to use a firearm while assaulted. It might get knocked out of your hand before you get a chance to fire, you might fire, but miss, and inadvertently shoot someone walking down the street outside of your house, etc. My point is simply that there are risks involved that might create extremely bad results. I'm not suggesting that these risks necessarily outweigh the potential self-defense benefits of carrying (or at least owning) a firearm, but they do merit some serious thought.
 
This is exactly what I'm getting at. That's all there is to effectively using a firearm, sure, but it's not necessarily the case that that's what would happen if you attempted to use a firearm while assaulted. It might get knocked out of your hand before you get a chance to fire, you might fire, but miss, and inadvertently shoot someone walking down the street outside of your house, etc. My point is simply that there are risks involved that might create extremely bad results. I'm not suggesting that these risks necessarily outweigh the potential self-defense benefits of carrying (or at least owning) a firearm, but they do merit some serious thought.

Points well taken. Hopefully anyone who elects to own a firearm will take the proper training to know how and when to use it. Further, I would hope that firearm owners would practice often. Lastly, I would hope that gun slinging criminals all learn to shoot weapons from watching dumbass TV and movies, that gives the rest of us a hell of an edge should we ever find ourselves in a gunfight defending what is ours.
 
This is exactly what I'm getting at. That's all there is to effectively using a firearm, sure, but it's not necessarily the case that that's what would happen if you attempted to use a firearm while assaulted. It might get knocked out of your hand before you get a chance to fire, you might fire, but miss, and inadvertently shoot someone walking down the street outside of your house, etc. My point is simply that there are risks involved that might create extremely bad results. I'm not suggesting that these risks necessarily outweigh the potential self-defense benefits of carrying (or at least owning) a firearm, but they do merit some serious thought.

Let me turn that back on you and say if you go for someone's weapon you'll likely get shot before you can reach it.

Risks indeed, the vic isn't the only one in danger ;)

It doesn't take more than a couple hours to become 'trained and knowledgeable' on most personal firearms.

I'd like to add that your concerns are what the typical gun buyer is thinking about when they're shopping and talking shop in the store. My snub-noes has a range of a few hundred feet, and the round I use won't penetrate your typical household wall unless you put the gun right up against it; and even then the round will brake apart as it passes though. My weapon of choice is only good for short, very close range shooting, like someone just busted down your door. My weapon is no good in a firefight.
 
Last edited:
Points well taken. Hopefully anyone who elects to own a firearm will take the proper training to know how and when to use it. Further, I would hope that firearm owners would practice often. Lastly, I would hope that gun slinging criminals all learn to shoot weapons from watching dumbass TV and movies, that gives the rest of us a hell of an edge should we ever find ourselves in a gunfight defending what is ours.
point taken
gangbangerpistol.jpg
 
Here's a story making local headlines in my region.


Personally, I think 6 guys going round to another man's house get what they deserve if they underestimate the victim's ability to defend himself and I also think the 5 year jail sentence served on Bowman was a joke.


I agree entirely. You break into a man's house as an armed mob, you deserve what you get. A faceful of buckshot sounds about right.

With that said, there is a point beyond which, legally, you have to stop: when someone clearly ceases to be a threat, runs away, falls down begging for mercy, etc.
 
With that said, there is a point beyond which, legally, you have to stop: when someone clearly ceases to be a threat, runs away, falls down begging for mercy, etc.
I'd still shoot them, even if they were begging for mercy. I'm not going to take the risk that they were faking or that they will have a change of heart when they have already showed the intention to kill me or my family.
 
point taken
gangbangerpistol.jpg

Back in the early days of IPSC many "standards" had a "weak hand" stage and many people found it was faster to tilt the gun sideways so your dominant eye would line up with the sights (as opposed to shutting your dominant eye and shooting with your weak eye). we also found that shooting weakhand you got a bit more control turning the gun at a 45 degree angle towards the middle of your body. Maybe that is where these mopes got this idea. And yes I hope all the scumbags try to shoot that way when up against the people I have trained
 
Technically one of the options is an error

You are not found INNOCENT. you are acquitted or found not guilty meaning the state was not able to overcome your presumption of innocence
 
Self defense goes too far in a lot of cases. In this one, I really don't think it did. But when, for example, you have an unarmed burglar who posed no threat to the resident entering a house being shot and killed, that is simply too far. Most states now have amended castle doctrines to allow manslaughter charges for people who go too far in self defense.

Wrong. More and more states are strengthening castle law. Also, how do you know the burglar is unarmed and means you no harm? (other than wanting to steal things you worked hard for...)
 
I'd still shoot them, even if they were begging for mercy. I'm not going to take the risk that they were faking or that they will have a change of heart when they have already showed the intention to kill me or my family.

I personally don't have a problem with that... just bear in mind the law may think otherwise.
 
I personally don't have a problem with that... just bear in mind the law may think otherwise.

we teach our students to keep firing until the threat is over. and that can mean multiple targets or one

obviously if three mopes are trying to do you in you want to put rounds on the most dangerous right away and then rounds on the others and come back and make sure none are still a viable threat.

I was asked why i only used one of the 13 rounds I have available (Smith 469 second generation 9mm) when I was mugged easy answer, the mope I hit went down and the other mope ran away. threat over-no need to shoot any more
 
If you're trained and knowledgeable, more power to you. However, I get the impression that a lot of people who contemplate defending themselves with guns tend to create idealized scenarios for how that would work. Actual assaults tend to be a little more complicated and sometimes (maybe mostly) involve aspects that we can't really anticipate or plan for.

Overstated a bit. I know lots of people with concealed carry permits who seek advanced training; I've trained plenty of them myself, in how to avoid being disarmed, coping with close-quarters assault while armed, etc.

Jerry is right, though, that a few hours practicing loading and handling, a few sessions at the range, along with a measure of common sense and mature judgement, and you can readily defend yourself with a firearm. It's the only thing that gives 80yo Granny a fighting chance against a young thug.
 
Overstated a bit. I know lots of people with concealed carry permits who seek advanced training; I've trained plenty of them myself, in how to avoid being disarmed, coping with close-quarters assault while armed, etc.

Jerry is right, though, that a few hours practicing loading and handling, a few sessions at the range, along with a measure of common sense and mature judgement, and you can readily defend yourself with a firearm. It's the only thing that gives 80yo Granny a fighting chance against a young thug.

Consider that a large percentage of those that would personally accost someone to commit a crime are unlikely to stand his ground once their life is effectively threatened.
 
Overstated a bit. I know lots of people with concealed carry permits who seek advanced training; I've trained plenty of them myself, in how to avoid being disarmed, coping with close-quarters assault while armed, etc.

Jerry is right, though, that a few hours practicing loading and handling, a few sessions at the range, along with a measure of common sense and mature judgement, and you can readily defend yourself with a firearm. It's the only thing that gives 80yo Granny a fighting chance against a young thug.

true, that's why we call them equalizers.

now my 13 year old son has a black belt, my wife is close to hers and a 52 year old guy like me could still beat them in a fight in less than a minute. Some mope who just did a nickel at Terra Haute would have no problem with my son's sensei and she's a 5th dan blackbelt who trains every day since she was a little girl in Seoul. But my son with his smith and wesson, or my wife with her SIG 380 is gonna kill most punks-armed or not rather quickly
 
GB. Why am i not surprised? Cant say too much there were a Pharmacist in OKC that got sentenced for killing an armed robber when "reasonable people" decided he was no longer a threat.
 
true, that's why we call them equalizers.

now my 13 year old son has a black belt, my wife is close to hers and a 52 year old guy like me could still beat them in a fight in less than a minute. Some mope who just did a nickel at Terra Haute would have no problem with my son's sensei and she's a 5th dan blackbelt who trains every day since she was a little girl in Seoul. But my son with his smith and wesson, or my wife with her SIG 380 is gonna kill most punks-armed or not rather quickly

I didn't realize you were so freaking old. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom