How many times would this guy have been shot here in Indy?

[jbombelli]

I still don't think garrotes are as dangerous as you say. I tried to Google statistics for annual deaths and nothing came up. But now if you Google ligature that's a whole new ball game.

You don't come across a proper garrote very often. They'll always use the term "ligature" instead, for whatever reason. A real garrote will be made of wire and will have handles. Occasionally they'll even be attached to leather wrist bands or gloves so THEY CAN'T BE TAKEN AWAY, and you can pull even harder.

That doesn't look much like self defense to me. And this guy's not even squeezing all that hard. It's a posed picture.

Nobody here will ever convince me you can do that in self defense.

Add a foot to the back of the victim's knee, to put him at a lower level, and then take him to the ground, and I don't care who he is - he's not fighting his way out of that.

 

[Tanfodude]

Still trying to convince people that you can strangle someone with a garrote in self defense?

Nope. I just can't grasp how huge the airspace is between your inner cranium and your meninges.

 

[jbombelli]

Nope. I just can't grasp how huge the airspace is between your inner cranium and your meninges.

Your impotent, tawdry attempts at personal attacks amuse me.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I still think your reading into it, and taking it too literal.. Realize... After 30 seconds, he will pass out. If you want to kill this man, you will need to continue pulling on the wire, for 2-5 minutes before death is likely.

A blood choke is not the same as an air choke, and is much more deadly. Choking on food or having your mouth and nose covered with plastic will give your time frame, give or take, as blood is still circulating but the oxygen content is getting lower and lower. A cord wrapped around the neck and pulled tightly is certainly a blood choke, in which blood stops circulating so the only oxygen available is what's already in the brain.

Choking someone with a cord, or a properly applied blood choke, will result in loss of consciousness in about 8-10 seconds. The interruption of cerebral blood flow will start to cause irreversible brain damage in about 20 seconds due to brain ischemia.

 

[7urtle]

A homeless man dies and nearly 25 people in Queens keep walking by - NYPOST.com if you end up wrestling you could end up like this brave man( homeless man save woman from attack. woman leaves when guy gets stabbed and no one helps)

 

[MikeDVB]

A homeless man dies and nearly 25 people in Queens keep walking by - NYPOST.com if you end up wrestling you could end up like this brave man( homeless man save woman from attack. woman leaves when guy gets stabbed and no one helps)

Everybody who walked by and did nothing should ... be ... charged with something?

Nah, I guess we can't mandate common sense with law.

 

[armedindy]

i would have done some screaming and the strangler would have had my boot planted on his face at least a few times

 

[tom1025]

You don't come across a proper garrote very often. They'll always use the term "ligature" instead, for whatever reason. A real garrote will be made of wire and will have handles. Occasionally they'll even be attached to leather wrist bands or gloves so THEY CAN'T BE TAKEN AWAY, and you can pull even harder.

That doesn't look much like self defense to me. And this guy's not even squeezing all that hard. It's a posed picture.

Nobody here will ever convince me you can do that in self defense.

Add a foot to the back of the victim's knee, to put him at a lower level, and then take him to the ground, and I don't care who he is - he's not fighting his way out of that.

It's not impossible to get out of. I would just cut the wire with my leatherman and eliminate the threat of the evil garrote. In the mean time if you don't have a leathermen you could just raise your arms above your head while riding in elevators with strangers so they can't wrap anything around your neck.

 

[jbombelli]

It's not impossible to get out of. I would just cut the wire with my leatherman and eliminate the threat of the evil garrote. In the mean time if you don't have a leathermen you could just raise your arms above your head while riding in elevators with strangers so they can't wrap anything around your neck.

If you have the sense and focus, while you're being strangled with a garrote, to get your leatherman out, open the wirecutter, reach around and cut that garrote before you are unconscious, my hat's off to you. Most people wouldn't even know what was happening until it was too late. Remember, you've only got around 10 seconds before you'd be out.

I prefer to not let people get behind me in elevators - I stand at the back. If it's less than 20 floors I'll probably take the stairs anyway. I like the exercise. LOL.

 

[danielson]

If someone gets you in a wire choke, your most likely not going to be able to do anything about it. If you can, it will be a hard body move, I doubt youd have the time it takes to think and execute a fine action, like getting in your belt and grabbing a leatherman, and cutting the wire.

Once again, unlike Hollywood, even blood chokes do not JUST EQUAL death. A blood choke is the means, to the ends, which is cerebral hypoxia, In a case of complete hypoxia, most of your cells will not start dying until 3-5 minutes, you will have passed out, and become totally non threatening within 30 seconds.

A blood choke is IN FACT, a great self defense method, if all you have are hand to hand tools. Just because a tool is used for murder, doesnt mean it cant be used for defense.

You would think a man who fancies himself a gun guy, would understand this principle.

 

[jbombelli]

If someone gets you in a wire choke, your most likely not going to be able to do anything about it. If you can, it will be a hard body move, I doubt youd have the time it takes to think and execute a fine action, like getting in your belt and grabbing a leatherman, and cutting the wire.

Once again, unlike Hollywood, even blood chokes do not JUST EQUAL death. A blood choke is the means, to the ends, which is cerebral hypoxia, In a case of complete hypoxia, most of your cells will not start dying until 3-5 minutes, you will have passed out, and become totally non threatening within 30 seconds.

A blood choke is IN FACT, a great self defense method, if all you have are hand to hand tools. Just because a tool is used for murder, doesnt mean it cant be used for defense.

You would think a man who fancies himself a gun guy, would understand this principle.

Try 10 seconds to unconsciousness with a garrote. Not 30. And if it's wire, it's going to trash the victim's carotid, jugular, and probably his larynx too.

You get funnier with every post, and your stubborn desire to convince everyone that a garrote can be used in self defense.

But you're right about one thing: if someone gets a wire garrote around your neck, you most likely aren't going to be able to do anything about it. You aren't going to turn it around, take it away, take the guy's back, wrap it around his neck, and strangle him with it.

Try thinking about this critically for a change. Seriously. Think about what it takes to use a garrote. If you do that honestly, you'll see they are not defensive weapons. A garrote is about the only weapon I can think of that's NOT suitable for defensive purposes in any way because of what it takes to actually DEPLOY AND USE one. Think about what it takes to get one out of your pocket, while you're fighting close quarters with someone, under duress, and to actually deploy it, and then ask yourself "is that really a defensive weapon, in any way, shape or form?"

 

[danielson]

You need to google "within"

Im not the one who brought up using it as a self defense weapon, and have not been fighting this "cause" you so doggedly debunk.

But If something is brought up, that doesnt make sense, I usually try to show the other side of the argument, and maybe make it easier for the closed minded, to at least see beyond their own opinion.

You on the other hand, strike me as the type to get consumed by the goal of "winning the argument" thus will most likely not look past your own opinion, or if you did, you wouldnt reveal it to us, yet continue to fight for your previous opinion, in pursuit of your goal of victory by attrition..

You will "win" this argument, not because your right, but because people will just get tired of futile fighting.

 

[patience0830]

The real question is once you drew on them and they fessed up and stopped playing stupid games would you hold them at gunpoint until the police arrived?

At that point you shoot them both, take the cameras and go home.

Sorry, my purple is broken.

 

[jbombelli]

Im not the one who brought up using it as a self defense weapon, and have not been fighting this "cause" you so doggedly debunk.

Just because a tool is used for murder, doesnt mean it cant be used for defense.

You would think a man who fancies himself a gun guy, would understand this principle.

A garrote is not a defensive weapon. Period. It's not. It's a tool for murder, not defense. And as I said before... if I walk up on that scene, where one guy is strangling another with a garrote, I don't know how long it's been going on. I don't know what started it. But as you say, the victim is not going to have much of a chance to fight his way out of it, so I'm not worried about who the good guy and bad guy is. The guy with the garrote is the bad guy. I'm not going to give him the extra two seconds he might need to finish killing his victim. I'm not going to kick him in the head, because he might be on drugs, he might be insane, any number of things making the kick ineffective and allowing him that extra two or three seconds he needs to finish wrecking his victim's neck. So I'm just going to put a bullet in his head from close range.

If that worries you, don't garrote people.

This has nothing to do with "winning an argument on the internet." I'm trying to educate you and a few others. That's what this site is about. We're here to learn. You're simply refusing to learn and it's frustrating, because I actually do know what I'm talking about.


But no, you haven't been the one pushing that "defensive weapon" point. Others have. You're the guy that thinks doing something that may or may not end the assault is properly "proportional" when you have no idea how long the victim actually has before he's dead, or brain damaged (which happens in far less than the total time it takes to kill him). I'm simply not going to let him die or be brain damaged because I chose a response that might or might not do the job, or because I stood around worrying about who started what. I'm going to end it immediately and definitely with a bullet to the head. To me, that's the only proper response. And I'm pretty confident, if it was YOUR WIFE or YOUR CHILD or YOU being strangled, you'd be thankful I ended it the way I did.

 

[danielson]

A garrote is not a defensive weapon. Period. It's not. It's a tool for murder

You realize this kind of steriotyping is EXCACTLY WRONG? This is what the left is trying to do, TELL US what is for defense and what isnt..

I'm not going to kick him in the head, because he might be on drugs, he might be insane, any number of things

Your only allowing your brain to see ONE side, this has been the only reason Ive tagged along for as long as I have, on this thread. Because never once did you think about anything that did not result in you NOT shooting someone.

So I'm just going to put a bullet in his head from close range.

Possibly the wrong persons head, since you yourself admit, you have no idea what transpired before you got there. What if he was an off duty cop, or a veteran, who had been attacked, not had enough time to draw a weapon, but used his training to disarm the attacker, then used his wire to incapacitate him? ONCE AGAIN, passing out from blood asphyxiation DOES NOT equal death. You have to deliberately want to kill this man to do so with a wire, and hold it there, tightly for MINUTES after hes become a limp body..

If that worries you, don't garrote people.

What worries me is your resistance to consider your thoughts, and if theyre the right ones or not.

I'm going to end it immediately and definitely with a bullet to the head. To me, that's the only proper response. And I'm pretty confident, if it was YOUR WIFE or YOUR CHILD or YOU being strangled, you'd be thankful I ended it the way I did.

Im sure the family of the person you would have murdered because of a misunderstanding would not feel the same.

This was not a self defense situation, your life was never at risk, it was an attempt to save someone else, and you have no excuse for not thinking it through first..

You would be in jail right now, if you just walked up to that man and shot him, and while sitting there, you still wouldnt see the error in your thinking.

What would happen if a police officer was to stumble on that situation?
If you tell me he wouldnt explore less than lethal options first, your a liar.

 

[jbombelli]

You realize this kind of steriotyping is EXCACTLY WRONG? This is what the left is trying to do, TELL US what is for defense and what isnt..

Your only allowing your brain to see ONE side, this has been the only reason Ive tagged along for as long as I have, on this thread. Because never once did you think about anything that did not result in you NOT shooting someone.

Possibly the wrong persons head, since you yourself admit, you have no idea what transpired before you got there. What if he was an off duty cop, or a veteran, who had been attacked, not had enough time to draw a weapon, but used his training to disarm the attacker, then used his wire to incapacitate him? ONCE AGAIN, passing out from blood asphyxiation DOES NOT equal death. You have to deliberately want to kill this man to do so with a wire, and hold it there, tightly for MINUTES after hes become a limp body..


What worries me is your resistance to consider your thoughts, and if theyre the right ones or not.


Im sure the family of the person you would have murdered because of a misunderstanding would not feel the same.

This was not a self defense situation, your life was never at risk, it was an attempt to save someone else, and you have no excuse for not thinking it through first..

You would be in jail right now, if you just walked up to that man and shot him, and while sitting there, you still wouldnt see the error in your thinking.

What would happen if a police officer was to stumble on that situation?
If you tell me he wouldnt explore less than lethal options first, your a liar.

1) If you have the garrote, and you're using it to strangle someone, even though you may have somehow started out the good guy, you're now the the bad guy. Period. There's no other reasonable way to see it.

2) My life doesn't have to be at risk. I can use deadly force to protect the life of a third person. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's how it is under the law.

3) When I come upon the scene, I have no way to know if it's been going on for 30 seconds or 3 and a half minutes. That means the guy with the garrote doesn't get any extra time to finish the job, or any potential half-assed "proportional responses" that may or may not be effective. Sorry if you don't like that, that's how it is. And it takes far, far less time to cause permanent and severe brain damage than it does to kill someone. It's a shame you're so fixated on how long it takes to kill by strangulation as opposed to causing severe and irreversible brain damage, which gets more severe literally with every second. But I guess that's not a concern of yours.

4) Nobody uses a garrote to "incapacitate" someone. Nobody uses a garrote unless their goal is to kill the other guy. There's no misunderstanding intent when someone is using a garrote. Their intent is to kill the other person. Sorry if you don't agree, but that's how it is.

6) I'm not a cop, and I don't have to worry about what a cop would do, or base my response to a situation on what a cop would do. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's how it is.

7) I've already thought this through. I thought it through before I made my first post on this topic. The reason I don't waiver is simple: if and when I ever am so unfortunate as to come upon a scene like this, I need to be firmly convinced and mentally prepared to do what I have to do. He who hesitates is lost, and he who questions himself hesitates. And I am 99% certain I would not be charged with a crime for shooting a person in the head who was strangling another person with a garrote. The only reason I'm not 100% certain, is that there are no 100% certainties in life beyond death and taxes. Hell, in Indiana I can shoot someone for walking through my unlocked front door uninvited with an angry look on his face. You really think I'd be arrested, tried and convicted for shooting someone who was strangling another person with a garrote?


but just for you... I'm going to be seeing my attorney this weekend anyway. I'll ask him what he thinks about the scenario, and if he thinks I'd be charged for shooting the strangler, and how everything would work out.

I'll be back after speaking with him to post what he says.

 

[danielson]

He who does not question himself, refuses to use the the very thing that sets him apart from all the other animals. His brain.

 

[GI JOE]

Mag dump...

 

[jbombelli]

He who does not question himself, refuses to use the the very thing that sets him apart from all the other animals. His brain.

I questioned myself already. I thought the scenario through, and questioned myself on it before I ever posted in this thread. I've considered it from several different angles. I'm done questioning myself - I've made my decision. You can keep questioning yourself if you want. You will hesitate, and you will probably lose if/when you're presented with a scenario you haven't previously thought through, and decided how you would handle it. It's called "mindset." If you're not mentally prepared to deal with something, you WILL hesitate if and when you have to deal with it.

 

[danielson]

It would be great if life was as black and white to me, as it is to you.