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

[LP1]

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.

+1 for logic and thoughtfulness.

 

[indytechnerd]

Ok, for those in Danielson's camp, let's switch some things up a bit....

Let's say you open an elevator door and find a man mounted

He's force feeding rat poison to another man.

The feeder has the feedee's arms pinned, and the feedee is choking because of all the rat poison shoved in his mouth. There's bits of it all over the place, and the guy is absolutely helpless.


Likewise, you open the door, find a guy mounted, leaning into a large hunting knife, like this:

Now, in both of those cases, if you don't act, the guy on the receiving end of the attack is gonna get hurt, may already be hurt, and will possibly be killed. Are you still of the opinion that you won't shoot because the attacker might actually be the good guy?

 

[danielson]

Ok, for those in Danielson's camp, let's switch some things up a bit....

Heres the effin problem RIGHT HERE^^^^^

This thread has turned into two posters against each other, and now apparently we have CAMPS...

Jesus. Im done, I was already PMd by many people telling me to not waste my breath on someone who wont listen. People who dont have the time, patience, or will to bother with it.

This isnt about ME vs someone.

The only thing I tried to do was make it known that there is more than one choice. I can only hope that whoever does roll up onto that scene for real, realizes that.

I dont want to see another piece of left wing propaganda talking about how we are all gung ho rednecks just waiting to shoot someone.

 

[heofon]

Unless you are old or weak, there are other options than shooting someone. I guarantee you, if I was unarmed and I knew the guy choking the other guy was the bad guy and he was killing the victim I would end it, without a weapon. Much less shooting the guy in the head. It's not about garrotes, its about taking defensive carry classes every time you get a chance and can afford it. I'm not saying jbombelli is wrong. I'm not saying danielson is wrong. Both made excellent points. I'm saying I would want to make the best choice in the matter and the more I review scenarios with an open mind the more prepared I'm gonna be.

 

[gungirl65]

This is an example of a reasonable argument.

The purpose of the discussion here is to share knowledge and the appropriate actions to take instead of "Yeah, I'd shoot that person if that happened here."

You do what you feel is right, and deal with the consequences afterwards.

Now if we stop hypothesizing this, the fact is, you would have shot a man, without trying to use less than lethal methods, resulting in the death of a young man who wasnt actually threatening anyone. Would you be in the wrong? I guess thats subjective, but your gonna have a hell of a time living with yourself after that.

This is why thought is always necessary when handling a firearm.. Theyre a stupidly high amount of responsibility.

I understand if your talking out of your ass, alot of people do that IN PERSON, let alone on the internet, but you continue to argue for a "shoot first worry later" mindset, and thats just not the way a responsible gun owner should be.

Just curious why you're singling out and hating on jb? Several people before him have said they would shoot the guy. Why aren't you attacking them as well? I thought his arguments were well thought out. I actually tried to rep him for them but I have apparently already repped him recently. He must not be too full of crap. I usually require people to make me laugh or make me think before I will rep them. Hell he's done it twice in a couple days. Have I repped either of you recently?

Hg if you are as intuitive as you claim to be you would already know his age. He stated it a few posts up. Bet it would be funny if he's old enough to be your dad.

Regardless how you new kids feel about jb, I don't know him, I've never talked to him but I hope if I am ever in a similar situation as the staged one, that he is the first guy there when the door opens and not one of you.

 

[gungirl65]

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

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.

I know how we can prove how harmless garrotes are. We could conduct an experiment. We could have hg & d stand directly in front of the two of you. One in front of each of you. Each of you will have a garrote and you will attempt to choke them from behind. They will be their bad A selves and attempt to take the garrotes away from you and then choke you with them.

By doing this we will be able to determine if their self defense scenario is a valid possibility.

 

[gungirl65]

Ok, for those in Danielson's camp, let's switch some things up a bit....

Heres the effin problem RIGHT HERE^^^^^

This thread has turned into two posters against each other, and now apparently we have CAMPS...

Jesus. Im done, I was already PMd by many people telling me to not waste my breath on someone who wont listen. People who dont have the time, patience, or will to bother with it.

This isnt about ME vs someone.

The only thing I tried to do was make it known that there is more than one choice. I can only hope that whoever does roll up onto that scene for real, realizes that.

I dont want to see another piece of left wing propaganda talking about how we are all gung ho rednecks just waiting to shoot someone.

The real issues were lost several posts ago when the discussion started resembling personal attacks. The comments seemed to be directed at a person and not a concept. That's when you get "camp" mentality.

I don't like to see people unfairly singled out when others have stated the exact same view. So I stirred the pot for s&g's. Yeah I can be a B sometime. Just wait until I really believe in something or know the person being picked on.

Shooting the BG would not be my first choice of action but it would be a possibility if he seemed intent on killing the guy and I couldn't stop him from doing it.

Let me throw another twist into the scenario. I am a petite female. I am not weak by any means but I am not man strong. I would be less able to make him stop than a well built man could. I would look for something to hit him with. I could try to kick him but my size 6 shoe would probably do no more than p*ss him off. I usually have a couple small folders with me but they could be too small to be effective. Besides I wouldn't want to give him an additional weapon to use against the guy he has in the choke hold or for him to use against me.

For all the women out there, what would you do? At what point would you decide to shoot the alleged BG?

 

[actaeon277]

Well gungirl, I'm not a pitite female. But it seems to me that gun drawn is universal for stop whatever you're doing. If they stop, then wait for police. If they don't stop..... Well, smile for the flash.

 

[gungirl65]

Well gungirl, I'm not a petite female. But it seems to me that gun drawn is universal for stop whatever you're doing. If they stop, then wait for police. If they don't stop..... Well, smile for the flash.

That was my whole point. For some of us showing and perhaps even shooting a gun may be the only safe and best option available in a similar situation. The action will be determined by the situation.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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.

I think you got several folks with that one.

How I imagine you looked typing that up:

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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..


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.

Hi, police officer here. One who actually had to sit through 4 hours of in-service training all about strangulation the year the IC code of the same name went into affect, making it a D Felony to strangle someone. I'm currently a detective investigating robberies, people shot, stabbed, or otherwise in critical condition but not yet dead.

1) As I previously posted, irreversible brain damage starts in about 20 seconds. Brain damage is certainly serious bodily injury, and its simply untrue you'd have to continue to hold the cord for minutes to cause death. However, remember SBI as we go to point #2.

2) He would not be in jail for the shooting. IC Code 35-41-3-2:

"(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

If you see someone on top of someone else strangling them with a cord, that's pretty hard to not see as 'reasonably believes' the person is engaged in a forcible felony, and is inflicting serious bodily injury. Note that it doesn't say "murder", it says forcible felony. Note it doesn't say you have to know every detail, nor will you be judged in hindsight, its what a reasonable person would reasonably believe. Its pretty reasonable to believe that the guy in the back is murdering the guy in the front when you watch the video. Not calling for help, not asking for assistance from bystanders, facial expressions, the whole "using a cord around the guy's neck" thing...it all adds up to "reasonable belief".

Now, as a police officer I would give verbal commands, and if they weren't complied with I would shoot the aggressor. If I had a Taser, I'd probably give that a go first, but what armed citizen has that option? Right now, I don't, because as a detective I don't carry one. Even if the person on top wasn't the primary aggressor in the beginning (which from watching the video surely isn't the impression you get and is by far the least likely scenario), he has now crossed the line. You can't "self-defense" after the other person stops being a threat. Just because someone punches you, doesn't mean you can beat them unconscious and keep punching them. Watch the video again and you can see in several of those 'encounters' the guy getting choked STOPS MOVING, as though he's lost consciousness. No longer a threat, you can't keep choking him.

 

[Tanfodude]

Hi, police officer here. One who actually had to sit through 4 hours of in-service training all about strangulation the year the IC code of the same name went into affect, making it a D Felony to strangle someone. I'm currently a detective investigating robberies, people shot, stabbed, or otherwise in critical condition but not yet dead.

1) As I previously posted, irreversible brain damage starts in about 20 seconds. Brain damage is certainly serious bodily injury, and its simply untrue you'd have to continue to hold the cord for minutes to cause death. However, remember SBI as we go to point #2.

2) He would not be in jail for the shooting. IC Code 35-41-3-2:

"(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

If you see someone on top of someone else strangling them with a cord, that's pretty hard to not see as 'reasonably believes' the person is engaged in a forcible felony, and is inflicting serious bodily injury. Note that it doesn't say "murder", it says forcible felony. Note it doesn't say you have to know every detail, nor will you be judged in hindsight, its what a reasonable person would reasonably believe. Its pretty reasonable to believe that the guy in the back is murdering the guy in the front when you watch the video. Not calling for help, not asking for assistance from bystanders, facial expressions, the whole "using a cord around the guy's neck" thing...it all adds up to "reasonable belief".

Now, as a police officer I would give verbal commands, and if they weren't complied with I would shoot the aggressor. If I had a Taser, I'd probably give that a go first, but what armed citizen has that option? Right now, I don't, because as a detective I don't carry one. Even if the person on top wasn't the primary aggressor in the beginning (which from watching the video surely isn't the impression you get and is by far the least likely scenario), he has now crossed the line. You can't "self-defense" after the other person stops being a threat. Just because someone punches you, doesn't mean you can beat them unconscious and keep punching them. Watch the video again and you can see in several of those 'encounters' the guy getting choked STOPS MOVING, as though he's lost consciousness. No longer a threat, you can't keep choking him.

Ok, so if I shoot first I wouldn't have to worry about it in court right? Then why does this say otherwise on chapter 5? It doesn't guarantee of not being prosecuted.

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hayes-SDLaw.pdf

The argument here was, if the defender got a hold of the garrote and the only way to subdue the attacker is by using it on him, and in that process somebody walks in, what would you do? Not knowing how the situation escalated or developed. Would the appropriate respond for us citizens is to call 911 first then try to deescalate the situation? Attempt to talk to the choker to stop or he'll be shot? Will response after that latter question would give your a good gauge of the situation?

Having an input from a LEO is really good but, have you seen this situation in court? Marty Hayes, JD prolly did and I'd rather go on the safe side in taking his advice for now until further info is chimed in.

 

[heofon]

Like BlueI's said, at least give a verbal command before shooting to see the attacker's response and don't shoot to kill right off unless you only have one bullet left and can't fight hand-to-hand. First glance alone is not enough to assess a situation. If this particular elevator door opened, you saw the situation, and you shot the "attacker" to kill, you just killed an actor whose only crime was engaging in a stupid "experiment".

 

[tom1025]

I think you got several folks with that one.

How I imagine you looked typing that up:

 

[tom1025]

If you do stumble up a situation like this are you better off to let the choker finish the job first? Then shoot the choker?

What would the quality of life be for the victim after the fact? It doesn't take long for brain damage to occur. I know a guy who almost drowned. He's now 35 with the mind of a three year-old and has to be cared for 24-7. Who's to say the victims family dosnt come after you with a civil suit? I understand wanting to save someone from being a victim, but are you really saving them or just making there once perfect life a living $#!!?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Ok, so if I shoot first I wouldn't have to worry about it in court right? Then why does this say otherwise on chapter 5? It doesn't guarantee of not being prosecuted.

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hayes-SDLaw.pdf

The argument here was, if the defender got a hold of the garrote and the only way to subdue the attacker is by using it on him, and in that process somebody walks in, what would you do? Not knowing how the situation escalated or developed. Would the appropriate respond for us citizens is to call 911 first then try to deescalate the situation? Attempt to talk to the choker to stop or he'll be shot? Will response after that latter question would give your a good gauge of the situation?

Having an input from a LEO is really good but, have you seen this situation in court? Marty Hayes, JD prolly did and I'd rather go on the safe side in taking his advice for now until further info is chimed in.

Chapter 5 of what? How does a pamphlet quoting Washington state law matter in Indiana?

The rest I've already addressed.

 

[jbombelli]

Chapter 5 of what? How does a pamphlet quoting Washington state law matter in Indiana?

The rest I've already addressed.

Give up. Certain people around here are intent on wallowing in pools of their own ignorance. There's nothing you can do about it. No matter what you say, no matter how you present it, they'll argue with you. They'll probably also single you out and call you names, when many others have said the exact same thing.

By the way, as I said I would do the other day, I spoke with my attorney about this. He agreed that it's highly unlikely I would be arrested, let alone prosecuted, let alone convicted for murder, if I were to shoot someone who was strangling a third person with a garrote.



Good thing for Rhino that pamphlet didn't quote TEXAS law... he'd be owing Kirk F. another case of .45 ACP.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Give up. Certain people around here are intent on wallowing in pools of their own ignorance. There's nothing you can do about it. No matter what you say, no matter how you present it, they'll argue with you. They'll probably also single you out and call you names, when many others have said the exact same thing.

By the way, as I said I would do the other day, I spoke with my attorney about this. He agreed that it's highly unlikely I would be arrested, let alone prosecuted, let alone convicted for murder, if I were to shoot someone who was strangling a third person with a garrote.



Good thing for Rhino that pamphlet didn't quote TEXAS law... he'd be owing Kirk F. another case of .45 ACP.

That's no joke. Well, I can tell you that if I was investigating it, you wouldn't be arrested onscene if the surveillance video showed what was going on in the elevator like that. I'd cut you loose onscene, write up a PC, take it over to the prosecutor for the turn down, and that'd be it.

 

[JetGirl]

One of these days some "reality pranking" bull**** show is going to get someone killed.

Probably.

Sad that the lady with the flowers seemed to try the hardest

She had something to say...she just said it with the wrong kind of flowers...

 

[Jack Burton]

This isnt Hollywood... strangling does NOT equal death.

Proportionate response... Kick the guy in the head as hard as you can. You will end the confrontation.

I love how you think rendering a man unconscious, after fighting him from trying to do the same to you, is ridiculous, but you think its totally cool to execute him.

And this isn't Hollywood...not all of us are Chuck Norris. Some of us can barely hobble the length of a hallway to find the elevator.

You're going to have a tough time trying to persuade a jury of reasonable people that another reasonable person in the heat of the moment doesn't think that " strangling does NOT equal death." Remember, the reasonable man standard only requires what a reasonable person would reasonably know... it does not require that he be a martial arts or medical expert on the effects of strangulation on another person.

But anyone such as you who confuses defense of others with "execution" can be forgiven for hyperbole. It seems to be your stock in trade.