Yes; although he seriously injured someone, he didn’t actually kill them.
Shooting accurately under stress is much, much, MUCH harder than you seem to think it is.
The movies are very misleading. It is not point and shoot and then everyone gets hit. If your hands are shaking or if you are moving while you are shooting (something that you’re not supposed to do) your accuracy will be terrible.
If you went to a range today as a firearms newbie and tried to shoot a torso-sized paper target at 50 feet, chances are you’d miss the paper a lot and many of your rounds wouldn’t hit anywhere near the middle of the paper. And that would be when you’re holding perfectly still and in a calm and safe situation.
That’s what I asked him. I’ve fired a gun, but never measured my accuracy. But I’ve heard from guys that have been firing guns for 20+ years that you shouldn’t train to shoot the legs. They say that because you can’t rely on it, you shouldn’t even train for it. (Of course, they’ve also said things like “If someone breaks into my house, I’ll shoot first and ask questions later”, so take that how you will. I’d hate to be their kid asking for a glass of water.)
I’m not going to fight unless I thought I would get hurt either. But (hand to hand at least) I don’t think it would be that hard to end the situation without someone dying. Permanent damage, maybe, but not killing. I’d make sure I wasn’t in danger anymore, but mostly by defending myself in the situation, then leaving the situation as soon as possible. Hopefully break a leg and then run or something. Maybe I’m showing my naivety here, but I don’t think it would be that hard to defend against a hand-to-hand attack without it getting lethal (I know it’s hard to break a leg in a fight, but I would think it’d be easier than killing someone).
Weapons are another story. If you can get the weapon away, good, but if not you might be forced to kill them. I hope I’m never in that situation, but if it’s him or me I guess it’s him. That’s why I hate guns (and am not comfortable with concealed carry laws). No martial art can ever train you to be more powerful than a gun. Guns offer no defense other than a good offense. Against someone with a gun who’s willing to use it, you’re pretty much screwed, whether your armed or not.
Excellent points.
I find it outrageous the people are required to retreat.
OTOH, I can envision a number of OK corrall scenarios in which people get shot who weren’t threatening anyone.
This law will require a lot of intelligent jurors to sort things out.
Nowadays I think most jurors are played quite easily by a moderately good
lawyer, so it would be scary to rely on the intelligence of a jury if your life
(or 15 years or whatever) hung in the balance. Maybe I’m too jaded, but I’ve
seen some really weird verdicts. Lately …
So hopefully a law like this will make those trials unnecessary, so overzealous
prosecutors can’t pin 20 years on some dude for blasting a carjacker - the case
would never qualify for prosecution(?) Is that what this law is supposed to do?
If you blast someone, you SHOULD be put on trial unless there’s definitive proof tht things happened exactly as you claim.
This is where we differ. I don’t believe a real life encounter is going to be a sparring match. It will most likely be decided in 2-5 seconds. I’m taking any shot I can. If you are thinking about breaking a leg, and you miss the chance to bury a punch to the face, then you are putting yourself at risk. IMHO, anyways.
Now, I have not read the statute specifically, but that is probably not what the law is supposed to do. What I think the law is doing is expanding the defense of self defense. Which is an affirmative defense.
Because when you use a lethal (deadly) weapon on someone (a gun or knife) it is considered lethal (deadly) force. Period. And your chances of going to jail actually get bigger if you say “well I didnt’ want to hurt him, so I tried to shoot him in the leg.” Because then they assume your life wasn’t in danger and you weren’t acting on impulse to stop him before he killed you. (Self Defense is only applicable if your life is in danger or you risk serious bodily harm.)
You may be doing yourself a disservice by speculating about the difficulty of defending yourself in either a hand to hand situation or an armed situation. I’m not asserting that you are wrong or right in either case, but that by assuming that the hand to hand situation is going to be easy (if you are ever unfortunate enough to face it and I sincerely hope that you arn’t) you may be more likely to misjudge the intent of the attacker. If the attacker has the sole purpose of killing you for whatever reason (it doesn’t have to be logical or even resemble making sense) then you are in a different situation that than the one that you are currently invisioning. If the attacker just wants to alpha-male hump you at the bar, then you are probably very well equiped in your current way of the thinking. My suggestion is to stop speculating on what a fight is going to be like, and just train hard for whatever comes. I hope that this isn’t coming across as me talking down to you since I made the same (what I will call a) mistake in the past (refer to the eye poke thread).
As far as the law change in Flordia goes: I’m all for it. I hate having to give up the responsibilty of my protection to strangers who have decidely less concern for my well-being than I do. I also believe that, on a long enough time line, giving people more of a right to defend themselves will decrease violent crime. That, however, is just my opinion.
Well, I would punch to the face, I just would stop before the other guy was dead. My point isn’t that I would treat it like a sparring match (quite the opposite, really) but rather that I would try to establish enough dominance that I wouldn’t have to kill the guy.
What would you define as a MINIMUM of definitive proof? A weapon on the perp? Prior criminal history? I am assuming that witnesses/video tape would be definitive, but what else?
Look, it’s a 5 year old. IT’S COMING RIGHT AT US!!
:qleft7:
Whew! I was afraid for my life.
I didn’t do a good enough job communicating. I don’t think I’d be unstoppable, or that I’d automatically be able to win the fight. I know that one of the biggest mistakes you can make is to underestimate your opponent (sparring has taught me this lesson repeatedly). However, I was working off of the assumption that I could eventually defeat the opponent, asking the question that if you are sucessful in defending yourself, do you think that it could be done without killing the other person? I would think that if you are able to break a leg or two, and the person doesn’t have a gun or buddies or whatever, you should be able to escape from the situation. I don’t think that a hand-to-hand attack has to end in death. I was merely asking people who’ve been in that situation if I was totally off base on that. Basically, if I ever get into that situation, is it unreasonable to try to end it without death?
Basically, if I ever get into that situation, is it unreasonable to try to end it without death?
Not unreasonable, but rather stupid I think. It should be easier to defeat a person if you aren’t worried about their well being.
A child with a gun is really fucking scary.
Even if the defense works in a case like that, I can see a wrongful death suit coming next.
Just like with O.J., you’d get O.J.'ed. :eusa_doh:
Well, the 5 yr old child reference was just me goofing.
However, just think… if you see a black guy with a gun, you can claim that he looked dangerous and you feared for your life. Blam, you get to shoot you black guy. Of course, if you’re black and see a white guy with a gun, you can claim the same as well. Currently, the law would require you to try and escape if you felt threatened. Thus preserving the peace, if you were mistaken about the other person’s intent. If this bill passes, you can just shoot.
You can’t escalate the violence though. So just a five year old can’t shoot.
A 5 year old with a real gun coming at you ~ shoot to kill.
I don’t agree. 5 yr old with gun coming at me = run away.