Is this illegal?

[oddyager]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
You can't possibly jog in a safer location like the school's gym?

No, I think he made his intentions clear with this post.

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Drekce
Treadmill?

So I should just cower in my home and let the criminals roam free?

He's confused whether he wants to go jogging or go out dressed in black with a giant skull painted on his shirt with his piece on his side.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Dumbass, you fail at linking. Your link didn't even detail the tragedy of his death. You should have posted this one - http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/30254.

You still haven't posted a link about a male being assaulted/mugged/raped while jogging.

edit - fwiw an ex-gf of mine graduated from Columbia. She never felt the need to carry a gun nor fear for her life.

The others are security alerts and don't make it into the papers. Furthermore, I see no reason talking to you further if you cannot comprehend the violent nature of the area around Columbia. You are an arrogant and ignorant piece of human shit. I'm sure your parents wished they wore a condom that terrible night. Then you would've been thrown out like the garbage you turned out to be.

Wow, you have, beyond doubt, proven that you, sir, are the idiot. Capt obviously hit a nerve, and if you're ready to unload like this on an Internet message board I hope to never get to handle a concealed weapon. I've been to Columbia, too, to visit friends who went to school there. Not one of them got raped/mugged/stabbed, nor felt the need to carry. Something seems like shens if you're so concerned you need to carry a firearm while jogging. Get a treadmill.

lol. He certainly hit no nerve, just like people that come to NYC read about how it's gotten a whole lot safer the past decade think they can go for a midnight jog or take a stroll down Broadway and assume things will be safer. I've lived in the City for 15 years and know that isn't true. Your one-time experience or friend's stay in New York without getting hurt doesn't change the fact that the University is close to a dangerous neighborhood. As I noted earlier, the danger is amplified when the sun goes down and the thugs operate in the shadows.

That idiot got the plethora of insults because he came into this thread as a troll. I actually enjoy insulting people like that and I'll do the same to you if you act in a similar manner. No doubt, he hasn't been back since the last insult. But, as with all idiots, I'm sure he'll make his return for more.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
You can't possibly jog in a safer location like the school's gym?

Gyms aren't 24-hours. Besides, why should we let the criminals control the night?

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Mo0o
You can't possibly jog in a safer location like the school's gym?

Gyms aren't 24-hours. Besides, why should we let the criminals control the night?

Right, let's have vigilantes control it instead.

KT

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Mo0o
You can't possibly jog in a safer location like the school's gym?

Gyms aren't 24-hours. Besides, why should we let the criminals control the night?

Right, let's have vigilantes control it instead.

KT

Please explain how you have confused self defense with vigilantism.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: andy04
do you feel that your life is threatened? are you sure he is going to kill you? what did he say before he pulled out his weapon? how big was his knife? was his gun loaded? did you see the expression on his face? was he of the same race as you? did you ever participate in any race related discussions/gathering. Does anyone in your family has a history of violent behavior? Were you having any trouble at home?

Lawyers will do anything to add a success story to their resume... they are the worst the mankind can offer... we are electing one as our president!!!

You think any of that is going through my mind when someone is threatening to take my life over a couple of bucks? If my life is worth that much to them then their life is worth a few shells.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Dumbass, you fail at linking. Your link didn't even detail the tragedy of his death. You should have posted this one - http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/30254.

You still haven't posted a link about a male being assaulted/mugged/raped while jogging.

edit - fwiw an ex-gf of mine graduated from Columbia. She never felt the need to carry a gun nor fear for her life.

The others are security alerts and don't make it into the papers. Furthermore, I see no reason talking to you further if you cannot comprehend the violent nature of the area around Columbia. You are an arrogant and ignorant piece of human shit. I'm sure your parents wished they wore a condom that terrible night. Then you would've been thrown out like the garbage you turned out to be.

Wow, you have, beyond doubt, proven that you, sir, are the idiot. Capt obviously hit a nerve, and if you're ready to unload like this on an Internet message board I hope to never get to handle a concealed weapon. I've been to Columbia, too, to visit friends who went to school there. Not one of them got raped/mugged/stabbed, nor felt the need to carry. Something seems like shens if you're so concerned you need to carry a firearm while jogging. Get a treadmill.

lol. He certainly hit no nerve, just like people that come to NYC read about how it's gotten a whole lot safer the past decade think they can go for a midnight jog or take a stroll down Broadway and assume things will be safer. I've lived in the City for 15 years and know that isn't true. Your one-time experience or friend's stay in New York without getting hurt doesn't change the fact that the University is close to a dangerous neighborhood. As I noted earlier, the danger is amplified when the sun goes down and the thugs operate in the shadows.

That idiot got the plethora of insults because he came into this thread as a troll. I actually enjoy insulting people like that and I'll do the same to you if you act in a similar manner. No doubt, he hasn't been back since the last insult. But, as with all idiots, I'm sure he'll make his return for more.

The only idiot is you. Your initial reasoning for a gun is to go jogging. You've yet to document a male jogger who has been assaulted/mugged/raped/etc. Instead, you come out different situations for the need when none of them apply to your initial need for a gun.

Sorry but you're the troll. Based on your countless other troll threads here and in P&N. I'm surprised you haven't been put on vacation for your personal insults. Obviously, you can't argue without attacking b/c you don't have any facts to back-up your case.

So again, please provide us with a case where a male jogger needs a gun to protect oneself from being mugged/assaulted/raped/etc?

I've run at night in Oakland which is as scary of a place as the Columbia area and never had an issue. That's while wearing a backpack and an Ipod on my arm. I used to visit my friend down in DC when he attended Catholic University which is in one of the worse parts of DC. We never feared for our lives walking home from the bars at night. As mentioned already, my ex-gf attended Columbia and she never had any issues or feared for her life.

You would think living in the city for 15 years, you would have some street smarts and now how to avoid things. Oh wait, you don't want to avoid confrontation. You want to meet it and be a bad ass with your gun. You want to take the streets back like a tough guy.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Mo0o
You can't possibly jog in a safer location like the school's gym?

Gyms aren't 24-hours. Besides, why should we let the criminals control the night?

Right, let's have vigilantes control it instead.

KT

Please explain how you have confused self defense with vigilantism.

Judging by the OP and subsequent posts I think it's rather clear that I haven't confused anything.

KT

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Dumbass, you fail at linking. Your link didn't even detail the tragedy of his death. You should have posted this one - http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/30254.

You still haven't posted a link about a male being assaulted/mugged/raped while jogging.

edit - fwiw an ex-gf of mine graduated from Columbia. She never felt the need to carry a gun nor fear for her life.

The others are security alerts and don't make it into the papers. Furthermore, I see no reason talking to you further if you cannot comprehend the violent nature of the area around Columbia. You are an arrogant and ignorant piece of human shit. I'm sure your parents wished they wore a condom that terrible night. Then you would've been thrown out like the garbage you turned out to be.

Wow, you have, beyond doubt, proven that you, sir, are the idiot. Capt obviously hit a nerve, and if you're ready to unload like this on an Internet message board I hope to never get to handle a concealed weapon. I've been to Columbia, too, to visit friends who went to school there. Not one of them got raped/mugged/stabbed, nor felt the need to carry. Something seems like shens if you're so concerned you need to carry a firearm while jogging. Get a treadmill.

lol. He certainly hit no nerve, just like people that come to NYC read about how it's gotten a whole lot safer the past decade think they can go for a midnight jog or take a stroll down Broadway and assume things will be safer. I've lived in the City for 15 years and know that isn't true. Your one-time experience or friend's stay in New York without getting hurt doesn't change the fact that the University is close to a dangerous neighborhood. As I noted earlier, the danger is amplified when the sun goes down and the thugs operate in the shadows.

That idiot got the plethora of insults because he came into this thread as a troll. I actually enjoy insulting people like that and I'll do the same to you if you act in a similar manner. No doubt, he hasn't been back since the last insult. But, as with all idiots, I'm sure he'll make his return for more.

The only idiot is you. Your initial reasoning for a gun is to go jogging. You've yet to document a male jogger who has been assaulted/mugged/raped/etc. Instead, you come out different situations for the need when none of them apply to your initial need for a gun.

Sorry but you're the troll. Based on your countless other troll threads here and in P&N. I'm surprised you haven't been put on vacation for your personal insults. Obviously, you can't argue without attacking b/c you don't have any facts to back-up your case.

So again, please provide us with a case where a male jogger needs a gun to protect oneself from being mugged/assaulted/raped/etc?

I've run at night in Oakland which is as scary of a place as the Columbia area and never had an issue. That's while wearing a backpack and an Ipod on my arm. I used to visit my friend down in DC when he attended Catholic University which is in one of the worse parts of DC. We never feared for our lives walking home from the bars at night. As mentioned already, my ex-gf attended Columbia and she never had any issues or feared for her life.

You would think living in the city for 15 years, you would have some street smarts and now how to avoid things. Oh wait, you don't want to avoid confrontation. You want to meet it and be a bad ass with your gun. You want to take the streets back like a tough guy.

My gawd. Your entire argument against armed self defense is that YOU don't see a need for HIM to be prepared to defend himself?

Wow...

I want you to prove you deserve to use your first amendment rights.

No man should be forced to prove he has a "need" to his rights.

At any rate, Google "jogger assaulted." I see quite a few stories about men in those results.

Meanwhile, scare tactics like yours are moot. In every case, localities that pass CCW on demand laws have seen violent crime rates drop. They have not turned into the sick "wild west" fantasy that the gun grabbers screamed would happen and CCW holders are not running around acting like Charles Bronson in Death Wish.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Mo0o
You can't possibly jog in a safer location like the school's gym?

Gyms aren't 24-hours. Besides, why should we let the criminals control the night?

Right, let's have vigilantes control it instead.

KT

Please explain how you have confused self defense with vigilantism.

Judging by the OP and subsequent posts I think it's rather clear that I haven't confused anything.

KT

The OP asks if it is legal to use deadly force to stop an attacker who has brandished a deadly weapon.

The answer to that is yes, and it is not vigilantism to do so.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Dumbass, you fail at linking. Your link didn't even detail the tragedy of his death. You should have posted this one - http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/30254.

You still haven't posted a link about a male being assaulted/mugged/raped while jogging.

edit - fwiw an ex-gf of mine graduated from Columbia. She never felt the need to carry a gun nor fear for her life.

The others are security alerts and don't make it into the papers. Furthermore, I see no reason talking to you further if you cannot comprehend the violent nature of the area around Columbia. You are an arrogant and ignorant piece of human shit. I'm sure your parents wished they wore a condom that terrible night. Then you would've been thrown out like the garbage you turned out to be.

Wow, you have, beyond doubt, proven that you, sir, are the idiot. Capt obviously hit a nerve, and if you're ready to unload like this on an Internet message board I hope to never get to handle a concealed weapon. I've been to Columbia, too, to visit friends who went to school there. Not one of them got raped/mugged/stabbed, nor felt the need to carry. Something seems like shens if you're so concerned you need to carry a firearm while jogging. Get a treadmill.

lol. He certainly hit no nerve, just like people that come to NYC read about how it's gotten a whole lot safer the past decade think they can go for a midnight jog or take a stroll down Broadway and assume things will be safer. I've lived in the City for 15 years and know that isn't true. Your one-time experience or friend's stay in New York without getting hurt doesn't change the fact that the University is close to a dangerous neighborhood. As I noted earlier, the danger is amplified when the sun goes down and the thugs operate in the shadows.

That idiot got the plethora of insults because he came into this thread as a troll. I actually enjoy insulting people like that and I'll do the same to you if you act in a similar manner. No doubt, he hasn't been back since the last insult. But, as with all idiots, I'm sure he'll make his return for more.

The only idiot is you. Your initial reasoning for a gun is to go jogging. You've yet to document a male jogger who has been assaulted/mugged/raped/etc. Instead, you come out different situations for the need when none of them apply to your initial need for a gun.

Sorry but you're the troll. Based on your countless other troll threads here and in P&N. I'm surprised you haven't been put on vacation for your personal insults. Obviously, you can't argue without attacking b/c you don't have any facts to back-up your case.

So again, please provide us with a case where a male jogger needs a gun to protect oneself from being mugged/assaulted/raped/etc?

I've run at night in Oakland which is as scary of a place as the Columbia area and never had an issue. That's while wearing a backpack and an Ipod on my arm. I used to visit my friend down in DC when he attended Catholic University which is in one of the worse parts of DC. We never feared for our lives walking home from the bars at night. As mentioned already, my ex-gf attended Columbia and she never had any issues or feared for her life.

You would think living in the city for 15 years, you would have some street smarts and now how to avoid things. Oh wait, you don't want to avoid confrontation. You want to meet it and be a bad ass with your gun. You want to take the streets back like a tough guy.

You are extremely dense. I don't want the gun because I go jogging. I want it because I want to go jogging at night around campus, which is in a bad neighborhood. Do you understand now?

When some men get robbed or assaulted, they may not report it. However, many have and, as I said earlier, these are sitting in my email. I won't release them to you. Furthermore, just because nothing has happened to you does not imply that it won't if you keep pushing your luck. Me, I minimize my risks. As I said earlier, you're an arrogant and stupid SOB if you think it won't happen to you just because it hasn't. I'm sure many others feel it wouldn't happen to them until it did.

Finally, I do have street smarts. I know where to go and no-go areas. However, why should criminals be allowed to control the certain areas? It's one thing to needlessly put yourself in danger. It's quite another to be ready if such an event occurs. I, as a citizen, should never cower in fear in my own country. You obviously have a different view. Worse, you think it's OK to go jogging without any protection because you've never heard of male joggers getting assaulted. You are clearly a fool.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: jonks

before I reply, got a link to the story?

Here's the poster's original story (site down at the moment)

www.dravness.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=86

Here is a recap from a few weeks ago (the event is several years old)

http://www.ar15.com/forums/top...=1&f=5&t=741945&page=1

Thanks. I'm looking on my own, but got any news articles by any chance? His laymen interpretation of what happened to him isn't what I was looking for.

ED: I read through the whole thread and there were shens calls even there. They point out a few inconsistencies or strange things in the story. I'm not saying it's definitely false, just that a self-defense shooting resulting in 2 dead gang members would make the papers somewhere, and if it happened in 2002 the news articles should be easily available online.

So trying to argue the legality of the charges he claims he faced is difficult if I don't know whether I'm arguing against a fictional character. On reflection, I'm calling shens until I see some sort of supporting evidence that this story really happened.

Some of the problem lies in that the original threads are gone that would have had any supporting posts. Entirely possible it's fake though. But I'd rather err on the side of caution since it's nothing over the top.

The news articles, if any, would still be around. But the real problem is we were discussing the relevence of where in the body you shoot someone. You were citing this case as the support for your position that there relevance to where you shoot someone. I said it has no relevence, and this story is unsupported.

There is no criminal charge that can be brought for shooting someone in a particular part of the body that would otherwise be justified if you shot them in another part of the body. If you walk up to someone twitching on the ground who you just plugged twice (in self defense), and then go and put another one in their head, that last shot is criminal not because it was in the head, but because you were not in danger when you took it.



In other news, this thread is pretty much a waste since OP is in NY and getting a CCW here is next to impossible. Regarding deadly force used in self defense, NY has a tiered defense system codified here:

§ 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself ... from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is [at home]

If someone pulls a knife and you can reasonably get away, you can't shoot them. But the law isn't likely to punish a person if a guy with a knife starts chasing you and you then turn around and fire at him. Retreat provisions are generally there to discourage needless killing, i.e. a drunk guy staggering outside a bar approaches you with a knife and slurs "hey...gimme your wallet". You might have a reasonable belief that the drunk intends deadly force against you, but you can easily avoid his staggering around. You don't get to kill him....in NY. Several other states are more forgiving and have no requirement to retreat at all.

 

[Regs]

It's not that black and white. What would a reasonable person do in their situation? That's all that matters. The consequences that lead up to the weapon discharge, the risk of innocents around, the helplessness or capacity of the victim, etc..etc..

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
The only idiot is you. Your initial reasoning for a gun is to go jogging. You've yet to document a male jogger who has been assaulted/mugged/raped/etc. Instead, you come out different situations for the need when none of them apply to your initial need for a gun.

Sorry but you're the troll. Based on your countless other troll threads here and in P&N. I'm surprised you haven't been put on vacation for your personal insults. Obviously, you can't argue without attacking b/c you don't have any facts to back-up your case.

So again, please provide us with a case where a male jogger needs a gun to protect oneself from being mugged/assaulted/raped/etc?

I've run at night in Oakland which is as scary of a place as the Columbia area and never had an issue. That's while wearing a backpack and an Ipod on my arm. I used to visit my friend down in DC when he attended Catholic University which is in one of the worse parts of DC. We never feared for our lives walking home from the bars at night. As mentioned already, my ex-gf attended Columbia and she never had any issues or feared for her life.

You would think living in the city for 15 years, you would have some street smarts and now how to avoid things. Oh wait, you don't want to avoid confrontation. You want to meet it and be a bad ass with your gun. You want to take the streets back like a tough guy.

Are you really attempting to claim that no male jogger has ever been assaulted in NY? Because that's the only way your insistence for documentation really stands up.

I know it's not a jogger, but today's NYPD blotter contains an incident of a man being assaulted for a 6-pack of beer. The 8/25/08 police blotter contains instances of a man being beaten and robbed as by three assailants, and another man was robbed at gunpoint. There are plenty of instances of assaults against men in NYC, especially after dark. That's just the last couple of days, I didn't bother to look after that since those are sufficient.

So, we've shown that situations where a man might require self-defense do occur. I will admit that they are rare, but it is by no means impossible that a firearm has the potential to prove a useful tool.

As has been stated, it's not a matter of being in immediate fear (or even fear in general) for one's life. Rather it's a recognition that, in the unlikely event that something does develop, a firearm can prove to be an incredibly useful tool of last resort.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: jonks
In other news, this thread is pretty much a waste since OP is in NY and getting a CCW here is next to impossible. Regarding deadly force used in self defense, NY has a tiered defense system codified here:

§ 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself ... from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is [at home]

If someone pulls a knife and you can reasonably get away, you can't shoot them. But the law isn't likely to punish a person if a guy with a knife starts chasing you and you then turn around and fire at him. Retreat provisions are generally there to discourage needless killing, i.e. a drunk guy staggering outside a bar approaches you with a knife and slurs "hey...gimme your wallet". You might have a reasonable belief that the drunk intends deadly force against you, but you can easily avoid his staggering around. You don't get to kill him....in NY. Several other states are more forgiving and have no requirement to retreat at all.

Jonks, note that the statue phrases the duty to retreat thusly, "Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating". It does not say "reasonable" safety, it says "complete" safety. There's a world of difference.

I don't know about you, but I sure as hell do not consider running away from an armed assailant to be "complete" safety. My unguarded back makes an excellent target, even to a drunk.

Now, if I'm being assaulted by an unarmed guy who's 5'0" and 95 pounds but who seems intent on trying to punch me to death, yes, turning around and leaving is something that could be considered "complete" safety, IMO. He may desire to use deadly force, but if he's unarmed, he's not going to be a threat to me. An armed person, regardless of his condition, is a threat and it is only very, very, very rarely possible to retreat with "complete" safety from an armed individual. In fact, the only example that comes to mind would be if a guy with a knife tried to carjack you when you had the doors locked and the windows up and you could just drive away.

ZV

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jonks
the law isn't likely to punish a person if a guy with a knife starts chasing you and you then turn around and fire at him.

Jonks, note that the statue phrases the duty to retreat thusly, "Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating". It does not say "reasonable" safety, it says "complete" safety. There's a world of difference.

I don't know about you, but I sure as hell do not consider running away from an armed assailant to be "complete" safety. My unguarded back makes an excellent target, even to a drunk.

I agree, as stated above, regarding the typical knife wielding assailant. Per the staggering drunk, that's usually the textbook example of the guy you are not allowed to kill. Don't overread "complete" too much, there's no such thing as "perfect" safety. Complete will generally be interpreted to mean you have an avenue of escape. A prosecutor would ask you, "all witnesses say the deceased was staggering around drunk and could barely walk. You are telling me you couldn't have backed away or run?" NY case law is strongly against unnecessary killings.

Check this out:
http://findarticles.com/p/arti..._20050405/ai_n14590221

Cliffs:
P1 and P2 (neighbors w/long history of antagonism) are arguing in the apt building they live in.
P1 walks up nose to nose to P2, who is standing in his own doorway holding a metal pipe.
P1 puts his hand in his own pocket and says "I'm going to kill you."
P2 swings the pipe and kills P1.
P2 found guilty because he didn't retreat into his apartment, upheld on appeal to the state's highest court.

NY high ct opinion: http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I05_0039.htm

Looking to see if "complete personal safety" is ever expounded upon by the courts.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: ElFenix
is the guy with a knife charging you and does he stop when you pull the gun?

Does it matter? If he pulls a knife and threatens me, isn't that enough justification to settle the matter? Honestly, I don't want to give him a second chance to do it to someone else, possibly hurting them.

It does, because you're shooting to kill. If you were aiming for any non-vital point and just incapacitated him until the police arrived, you'd have a MUCH easier time of not being punished. The family of the attacker will sue you one way or another, but you'll at least stand a much better chance in court if you just injure them (especially if the injury is not permanent). If you simply murder the attacker, you can be convicted for murder in a lot of places.

The laws change from state to state. In some states you can pretty much kill anyone at any time, so long as you are convinced that they are a threat. In other states, you can get put away for killing someone in defense (depending on the jury, good 'ole jury nullification)

 

[Feneant2]

I didn't read the thread, but I've wondered.

Guy pulls a gun on you, you pull your own out and kill him. How will the police know who pulled our the weapon first? What if you pull a gun on someone to rob him and he pulls our his own gun and you kill him. Couldn't you tell the police you were fearing for your life? Next thing you know, you are a hero even though your intention was to rob the guy.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Dari
You are extremely dense. I don't want the gun because I go jogging. I want it because I want to go jogging at night around campus, which is in a bad neighborhood. Do you understand now?

When some men get robbed or assaulted, they may not report it. However, many have and, as I said earlier, these are sitting in my email. I won't release them to you. Furthermore, just because nothing has happened to you does not imply that it won't if you keep pushing your luck. Me, I minimize my risks. As I said earlier, you're an arrogant and stupid SOB if you think it won't happen to you just because it hasn't. I'm sure many others feel it wouldn't happen to them until it did.

Finally, I do have street smarts. I know where to go and no-go areas. However, why should criminals be allowed to control the certain areas? It's one thing to needlessly put yourself in danger. It's quite another to be ready if such an event occurs. I, as a citizen, should never cower in fear in my own country. You obviously have a different view. Worse, you think it's OK to go jogging without any protection because you've never heard of male joggers getting assaulted. You are clearly a fool.

ROFL, you sound like a mall ninja

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: Dari


That idiot got the plethora of insults because he came into this thread as a troll. I actually enjoy insulting people like that and I'll do the same to you if you act in a similar manner. No doubt, he hasn't been back since the last insult. But, as with all idiots, I'm sure he'll make his return for more.

And HE'S the troll? Are you serious, or just ignorant? Going to reclaim the night with your piece just like you reclaim this board with your insults? Lawlz.

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Mo0o
You can't possibly jog in a safer location like the school's gym?

Gyms aren't 24-hours. Besides, why should we let the criminals control the night?

Sure as hell sounds like he has some agenda to me. Let law enforcement do there job, I honestly don't feel safe with you running around with a gun "defending yourself" from anyone by whom you feel threatened.

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Mo0o
You can't possibly jog in a safer location like the school's gym?

Gyms aren't 24-hours. Besides, why should we let the criminals control the night?

Right, let's have vigilantes control it instead.

KT

Please explain how you have confused self defense with vigilantism.

Judging by the OP and subsequent posts I think it's rather clear that I haven't confused anything.

KT

I'm with KT.

Originally posted by: TheVrolok
Deadly Force / Castle Doctrine:
New York is not a Castle Doctrine state and has no stand-your-ground law.

From the NY CCP info posted earlier.

Looks like since you're already out jogging, you better start running your ass away before you do any shooting.

Like I've already said on topic, even IF this dude goes running with his weapon and gets a knife pulled on him, he better start running away because if he fires on the attacker off the bat, he's guilty. NY is not TX, you don't shoot first and ask questions later.


Now, I'm wondering, does the OP plan to go jogging with his wallet? (dumb idea) And how is he going to carry this firearm (might be tough to conceal wearing gym clothes and a tshirt while running) - personally, I don't want to see some dude running around with a handgun on his hip. It just seems like he's playing with fire more than not - why not get a teadmill or join a gym, or shit, just man up and jog?



Disclaimer: I have absolutely no problems with CCPs and handguns. I plan on getting my CCP now that I'm moved back into this area and settled. ZV has posted in this thread numerous times and I think it's great that he carries (based on his posts), the OP, however, is an entirely different story.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jonks
the law isn't likely to punish a person if a guy with a knife starts chasing you and you then turn around and fire at him.

Jonks, note that the statue phrases the duty to retreat thusly, "Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating". It does not say "reasonable" safety, it says "complete" safety. There's a world of difference.

I don't know about you, but I sure as hell do not consider running away from an armed assailant to be "complete" safety. My unguarded back makes an excellent target, even to a drunk.

I agree, as stated above, regarding the typical knife wielding assailant. Per the staggering drunk, that's usually the textbook example of the guy you are not allowed to kill. Don't overread "complete" too much, there's no such thing as "perfect" safety. Complete will generally be interpreted to mean you have an avenue of escape. A prosecutor would ask you, "all witnesses say the deceased was staggering around drunk and could barely walk. You are telling me you couldn't have backed away or run?" NY case law is strongly against unnecessary killings.

Check this out:
http://findarticles.com/p/arti..._20050405/ai_n14590221

Cliffs:
P1 and P2 (neighbors w/long history of antagonism) are arguing in the apt building they live in.
P1 walks up nose to nose to P2, who is standing in his own doorway holding a metal pipe.
P1 puts his hand in his own pocket and says "I'm going to kill you."
P2 swings the pipe and kills P1.
P2 found guilty because he didn't retreat into his apartment, upheld on appeal to the state's highest court.

NY high ct opinion: http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I05_0039.htm

If the drunk can barely stand and is clearly not capable of locomotion, then I'll agree. I was thinking of someone who was clearly drunk, but also clearly still able to move about well. The kind of "witnesses describe the drunken man throwing a table through the plate-glass window before pulling a knife and threatening you" drunk.

The case you cite is interesting, but not fully an example of the type of situation I'm envisioning (which may be my own fault for not placing proper constraints around my hypothetical situations).

1) P1 and P2 have a history of mutually aggressive behaviour. (Therefore, there is no clear "aggressor" necessary to have precipitated any later incident, which clouds the issue.)
2) P2 clearly escalated the altercation by having the pipe. (It's certainly something that a reasonable person would assume would provoke P1 given the history.) There was no need for P2 to have come to the doorway either. In essence, the opportunity to retreat occurred several times prior to the threat from P1.
3) P2 seems to have attempted, from the beginning, to bait P1 into coming into his apartment with the intent of claiming that, per the applicable NY statute, he had no duty to retreat because he was in his home.

The case is interesting, but I really think that they key is the fact that P2 chose repeatedly to escalate the situation rather than taking any of the multiple retreat opportunities that occurred well before the actual verbal threat. P2 could have avoided the verbal threat entirely had he simply left the door closed and remained in his own apartment. The telling part is that P2 came to the door several times before seeing P1 in the hallway. Clearly, P2 was actively seeking to continue the altercation.

I think that the case you site would have had a significantly different outcome if:

1) P1 and P2 had no history of mutual animosity.
2) P1 and P2 had not been shouting at each other through the apartment wall prior to the confrontation.
3) P2 had not come to the door with the pipe multiple times seeking an opportunity to continue the altercation with P1
4) P2 had not, upon seeing P1 in the hallway, continued the altercation.

While the case bears some superficial resemblance to a spontaneous assault in a public place, closer scrutiny reveals that the situation is not analogous and does not necessarily have bearing in such cases.

ZV

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok
blah blah blah

I'm originally from Texas and will shoot any person that threatens to harm me or my family. I'm sure the jury will pay attention to the spirit of the law rather than the letter. To hedge, I'll be sure to get a damn good lawyer.

In any case, I refuse to be a victim of anyone or any law.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TheVrolok
blah blah blah

I'm originally from Texas and will shoot any person that threatens to harm me or my family. I'm sure the jury will pay attention to the spirit of the law rather than the letter. To hedge, I'll be sure to get a damn good lawyer.

In any case, I refuse to be a victim of anyone or any law.

NOW it all makes sense. Well friend, I'm sorry to hear that you don't care about the law and you're going to do what YOU think is right. I suppose you're the kind of guy that would shoot, and kill, a dude brandishing a plastic trash can lid.

The victim of a law? Because you can't just kill someone if they try to mug you? There's no point in arguing with you. This is now essentially the same thread as the "old dude kills two dudes robbing his neighbors house" thread. Pointless.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok
Now, I'm wondering, does the OP plan to go jogging with his wallet? (dumb idea) And how is he going to carry this firearm (might be tough to conceal wearing gym clothes and a tshirt while running) - personally, I don't want to see some dude running around with a handgun on his hip. It just seems like he's playing with fire more than not - why not get a teadmill or join a gym, or shit, just man up and jog?



Disclaimer: I have absolutely no problems with CCPs and handguns. I plan on getting my CCP now that I'm moved back into this area and settled. ZV has posted in this thread numerous times and I think it's great that he carries (based on his posts), the OP, however, is an entirely different story.

I choose to believe that the OP is simply choosing his words poorly, not anticipating the visceral response to the idea of shooting someone in the head. Additionally, I think that the OP probably needs to spend time at a firearms range to understand that shooting someone in the head is not a viable option and the attempt represents an unacceptable risk to bystanders given that a miss is probable.

People who are only beginning to get acquainted with firearms are often unaware of the difficulty of hitting an extremity during a confrontation. This is seen on both sides of the aisle. Rabid pro-gunners will say to just shoot someone in the head as though it's that simple. Rabid anti-gunners will assume that people should aim for legs and arms instead, not realising that it's not easy to hit someone in the arm or leg. This isn't a case of stupidity, merely one of unfamiliarity.

I don't think the OP is a lost cause, and I doubt he really wants to be a vigilante. I do think he likely has little experience with firearms though, and I think he would benefit from training before he comes back to considering a CPL (Concealed Pistol License, or whatever the NY term is). The core question he asked is legitimate, but the post was poorly phrased and the examples are not realistic. IMO, every person with a CPL absolutely should be aware of his state's self-defense laws, but in general a better way to ask the question would have been something like, "In what circumstances does NY law permit the use of deadly force in self-defense?".

ZV

EDIT: Dari, you're not helping me dig you out of this hole here.

 

[thehstrybean]

In TN if you pull it, you better use it.