Road Rage... Bad News!

[HankT]

imported post

just_a_car wrote:

USN_MA1 wrote:

WTF is OP?

OP = Original Poster; e.g. the person that started the thread.

OP also can mean theOriginal Post.

Here's a decent list of forum acronyms:

http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-160376.html

Funny, though, I couldn't find the one that unrequited occasionally uses in replies toposts he doesn't like.

 

[apjonas]

imported post

My appologies. I didn't realize that you were a master of unravelling complex conspiracies. You have caught me red handed. I am the OP, we are one in the same. I fed you this story to manipulate your emotions and waste your time. That's just the kind of coniving trickster I am.

Sarcasm can an effective tool when used properly. When employed simply as coversation killer, it just indicates weakness in the argument of the person who uses it. I simply made a comment. A denial of changing your underwear would have been sufficient.

You have a very well developed sense of paranoia that spies and imposters like myself could only dream of having. I'm sure it has helped you to get to the bottom of many an internet case where someone said something happened, but didn't have evidence to back it up.

You obviously don't know what paranoia is but that isn't a hanging offense. Whenthere is "something wrong with this picture," I ask for details. It is relatively simple for the person in question to provide a couple of pieces of information to put my doubts at rest. He (you?) refuses to do so. Instead we are treated to ad hominem attacks. That is the surest evidence that my hunch is correct. What would you think in a similar situation?

A quick read through the WA board might help you to understand that I am a regular poster on this board, and while my points are not always agreed with, they are usually respected as those of a decent individual that wouldn't post a somewhat pointless story, just for the joy of not explaining it or proving it happened. I would appreciate you not accusing me of such rediculously time-wasting practices, and kindly piss off. If I wanted to have a factless emotional arguement I would email the brady group. I won't be doing that here with you.

Whether or not you are a regular posterandeven if every single one of your points is respected is not the issue. Since you agree that the OP is "pointless," why did you come so vociferously to the defense of the author? You suggest that I am engaging in a "factless emotional arguement" (notice correct spelling).This is called projection - attempting to paint another person with the shortcomings you yourself possess as a method of psychological relief.

Telling tales of the Walter Mitty variety and those ofopen carry derring-do may be entertaining but harm the gun rights effort. Since they are easily refuted, it makes the teller look like an idiot and reduces the credibility of anyone who relates a positive account of a (true) open-carry experience.

This is the same beast that destroyed PDO. Allow the most outrageous, clearly fictional, stories to be posted; permit the fringe to shout down anybody who does not walk in lockstep with these kooks; accuse anybody who has an independent thought of being a "troll" or worse.

I had hoped that OCDO would be different but the signs have appeared (a lot faster than PDO in fact). For some reason it has taken the wingnuts a while to move here. I give this board 6 - 12 months before the pod people finally wrest control from the rationally thoughtful posters. May it R.I.P. when that happens.

 

[USN_MA1]

imported post

Thanks for the info.

 

[DrewGunner]

imported post

Christ, I leaving town for a couple day and look what happens. hahaha.

 

[DrewGunner]

imported post

joshmmm wrote:

IANAL, yet... but I just took Criminal law this past semester.

We discussed imperfect defense to criminal law but, as far as I know, there is no suc thing as a "perfect defense" in the terms of criminal law--I suppose you could say it is the opposite of an imperfect defense???.

In State v. Abbott the New Jersey supreme court ruled that a duty to retreat does not exist when using a force less than lethal. Thus, if pushed or punched, one does not have a duty to retreat and may respond with a less than lethal amount of force similar to the amount of force needed to stop the asault.

The court stated further that in regards to using deadly force and when it would negate self-defense to a murder charge"if the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating." (keywords are, according to my textbook, knows and with complete safety-- IE: hindsight is not the view, we are talking about knowing at the moment).

We are talking about a honk--an action that would certainly not allow for the use of self-defense if the person being honked at opened fire on the honker. Thus he had no business assaulting her with the weapon (threatening with a weapon is considered assault).

We then come back to whether the honk would negate a self-defense for her if she had returned fire against him assaulting herwith a deadly weapon; iow: did she become the aggressor when she honked? If so (an idea I think would be tough to suggest--as citizen is, let alone prove) we would have to determine if self-defense would be available to her.

In United States v. Peterson the judge said that mere words do not constitute provocation or aggression. He further stated that if you withdraw from an altercation by words or acts, that self-defense is once again available. In this situation, a honk would probably be equal to words and is thus not a provocation or aggression--she is not the aggressor and self defense is still viable.

The case goes on saying that it has long been accepted that one cannot support a claim of self-defense by a self-generated necessity to kill. The right of homicidal self-defense is granted only to those free from fault in the difficulty; it is denied to slayers who incite the fatal attack, encourage the fatal quarrel or otherwise promote the necessitous occasion for taking life.

Nowhere in the situation described did the woman incite an assault on her. Honking is an everyday occurrence that we are all accustomed to. Honking is no more inciteful, most likely, than whatever caused her to honk. Because she did not aggress the guy with the gun, he was in fact the aggressor when he assaulted her with the weapon. In a civil society, we can certainly not permit assault against people for legal everyday actions. Thus, we can not deny her right of self-defense against assault when the assailant is the aggressor.

We also know, and I'm not going into case law on this, that when threatened (assaulted) with a gun, self-defense shooting is justified if you reasonably believed that your life was in imminent danger. If she had the gun pointed at her, a reasonable person would certainly believe his or her life was in danger and would be permitted to return fire against her assailant-- the aggressor.

I hope this makes sense, I tried to compress a lot of information into as small a space as possible.

Nice post.

 

[DrewGunner]

imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:

joshmmm wrote:

Honking is an everyday occurrence that we are all accustomed to.

She was warning motorists that a vehicular traffic hazard existed, mainly, his effort to cut her off caused her to apply the brakes rapidly, honking informed those behind her and around her that evasive manuevers may be required to avoid an accident, due to the reckless driving of the motorist directly in front of her...

:celebrate:

Exactly! Although I usual use it to get the attention of the other driver to make sure they see my outstretched middle finger.

 

[DrewGunner]

imported post

apjonas wrote:

expvideo wrote:

I've personally witnessed much worse things that never made the paper. A guy walked across the parking lot at the club and pointed a mac11 at a crowd of about 30 people and was threatening to shoot them. Never made the paper.

Clearly you live a more exciting life than I do.

On a seperate occasion, a gun was pulled in a fight in the club parking lot and one of our bouncers shot a couple of times at the guy (not accurately apparently). Didn't make the paper (that incident I wasn't there for, but all of my co-workers were, so I'm pretty confident it happened).

I have no reason to dispute your colleagues either.

I was walking around greenlake (crowded, rich neighborhood)with my now fiancee on our first date when somebody emptied a .45's magazine across the street (you could tell from the sound and it was close enough to make a distinction, that's why I say it was a .45). Never made the paper.

It could have been a .44 .

There's a lot more, but I think I'm making a good enough point. Seattle's not that dangerous if you stay in the safe parts. After dark in the gang-infested neighborhoods a lot of bad things can happen. I'm sure that's true of any city.

Frankly, I don't know what point you're trying to make.

Nearly 2.5 millioncases of an individual being able to protect themselves with the presence of a firearm are reported every year. Few of those cases ever make the paper. I'm sure a lot happens in your own city that doesn't make the paper. I know for a fact that it happens in mine.

Perhaps but a defensive use is not what we were talking about anyway.

So why don't we leave the seattle-area expertise to the people that live on this side of the country? If you have never lived here, stop telling me I'm wrong about what I've seen; it makes you sound like an ass.

I am perfectly willing to concede superior knowledge of Seattle to you. I never said anything to the contrary. Why you have erected this strawman is not clear. Perhaps you and the OP are one and the same person. My point is that the story lacks the ring of truth. This position is bolstered by the fact that the OP refuses to provide any information that could be checked out. Your assertion that somehow I claimed special knowledge of Seattle is false and was clearly used as a strawman that you could bash in order to take the focus away from the real question - is this a true story. No need to get testy. Just provide some evidence that this is not fiction.

Dam, you caught us, I mean you caught me, I am expvideo, expvideo is me, we are one (the same).. hahaha. Oh and yea this thread is fake, expvideo and me were drink beers the other night and couldn't think of everything else to do... What a dipshit.

Yes this is a real story. Unless my friend is lying to me but I don't think so.

No, I don't have a last name. Sorry. Susie is more of an acquaintance.

 

[DrewGunner]

imported post

expvideo wrote:

ConditionThree wrote:

May I suggest a turret mounted ma duece?

All kidding aside, I think this brandishing bozo really needed to try that with any other lawfully armed citizen. Im certain he wouldnt have gotten very far attempting to intimidate someone prepared to defend themselves.

Tell "Susie" to upcaliber her self defense weapon. A .25 will just make a fat man angry, unless you hit him in the eye.

I may not be fat, but I was shot with a .25 and it nearly killed me (well technically it did, but the paramedics revived me). My friend and I were being irresponsible, and long story short, I caught a .25 in my chest. It went through my heart and dropped me. I am very lucky to be alive.

This says 1 of 2 things about .25acp*:

1) .25 acp was able to take me down, and therefore is not as weak of a round as it gets credit for.

<or>

2) I was hit in one of the only places that can guarantee fatal results, and lived to tell the tale, and therefore .25acp deserves it's bad rep as a weak round.

I haven't decided which statement I agree with.





*it also saysseveral things about irresponsible handling of firearms, needless to say I've taken a gun safety class since then, and I am now a big advocate of proper gun handling and safety. The four rules would have stopped this event from ever happening, if only I had known them. Perhaps teaching gun safety in school would have prevented a potential tragity, like the many others each year that have worse results. I say if the school can teach you how to use a condom, and not claim that it is advocating underage sex, than the school can teach you to use a handgun and not claim that it is advocatingviolence.

Ouch! Glad to see that your still with us.

The human body is very delicate. A .25acp probably isn't the best round for self defense but if you get hit in the right spot it can kill ya. Shot placement is key. There's a thread over in News and Political Alerts about a guy that was trying to kill himself, took him 3 blast with a shotgun, maybe all he needed was a .22LR...

I CC a Walther P22 with some 40gr. stingers (maybe there 32gr.)at work most of the time, then OC my .45 whenI get off. A 9mm or my 45 would definetly havemore stopping power but I'm pretty confident that I could unload the 22 with excellent placement pretty darn quick becuase of the lack of recoil.