guess who lost

[Flopsweat]

OK, I have a question;

I would not even THINK of shooting UNLESS my life or someone I KNEW's life was in danger.

Of course, that is to be taken at face value, as I WOULD shoot if in a mall, movie theater, etc., and others were being attacked.

I have always been aware of the "Law Suit" scenario, and have felt in almost any situation, whether you are right or wrong, it's going to cost you thousands in ATTY. fees.

Would it not be better to eliminate the threat once and for all, as MOST "attackers" are NOT upstanding citizens, and eliminate the possibility of a lawsuit by a "wounded perp."

Then your "lawsuit concerns" would be narrowed down to family (which in the case of a "bad" perp would be lower), or the DA, which probably would not charge you if it was a "good" shooting.

I understand there are variables to this, but I'm talking "generally".

Congratulations. You've just handed the prosecutor pure gold. If you ever find yourself in a courtroom over a shooting, you'll probably hear your post quoted to the jury. Protection from lawsuits is neither a moral nor a legal defense for taking a life. Ever.

 

[NoFlinch]

Congrat......

How many years experience in Law do you have?

 

[Gunguy45]

How many years experience in Law do you have?

He's repeating the advice of many very experienced criminal defense lawyers and professional witnesses on armed defense.

Your internet postings are in fact, fair game in discovery in a civil lawsuit if they pertain to the subject.

If you've said that you (hypothetical) "can't wait for one of these jackwads to break into my house, they'll carry him out in a bag." on a post on one of the better known gun forums in the region, yep, you can count on that post being read to the jury in a wrongful death suit unless your lucky enough to be able to hide behind anonymity.

I don't think Joe Link is going to defy a court order to produce your username, which is entirely conceivable.

You have very little protection when it comes to civil suits. as bad as it would be to be facing prosecution, criminal courts give you all kinds of protections which civil courts do not. Any lawyer will tell you the same thing. I know, I've had this conversation with several, including serving DAs.

 

[Stomper]

In the case of State vs Stomper... Good luck getting me to confirm my real name to my screen name.

 

[Gunguy45]

In the case of State vs Stomper... Good luck getting me to confirm my real name to my screen name.

You don't have to confirm a thing.

A court order to Joe Link =username, email address and real name.
Another to the email provider gets you a confirmation on the name.
the IP address logged gets you to your internet provider and the physical address from which the postings were made.

You are anonymous on the internet only if you lie to absolutely everyone about your real name and location AND use a very good proxy. Any competent forensic investigator can locate you personally from your posts unless you are being extremely cautious.

 

[Stomper]

My sons said it, it wasn't me... prove otherwise!

 

[Riot]

Never just try and wound a threat!!! You do not have a threat wounder in your holster...

He didn't try to wound him, he didn't try to kill him- he tried to stop him...a shot to the pelvic girdle should stop someone from advancing towards you and is not an unrealistic area to shoot someone (especially in a public setting where it's better to have your shot placement low to prevent harming unintential individuals).

Although you should always have the mindset of killing someone before they kill you or or loved ones, we don't carry a gun or even draw a gun with the intent on killing anyone...we want the threat to be extinguished- even if the act of drawing the firearm nuetralizes the threat, we have accomplished our intended goal.

It's all about verbage, really. We are not murderers, we are protectors- we are sheepdogs protecting the sheep from the wolves. If the wolf dies attacking a lamb, so be it...but we do not venture outside the herd to seek out the wolf.

 

[NoFlinch]

I think my post was mi-interpreted, or I didn't express it well.

I was always under the impression that if you HAD to shoot someone, if the situation escalated to the point of firing your gun at someone, you should shoot to kill, not to wound.

ONE of the reasons being, a lawsuit would be LESS likely.

Am I wrong?

Also, I do everything in life knowing that someone, somewhere, at any time, can track my actions.

Some actions one must just put in the hands of God, or Buddha, or The Great White Buffalo, and just hope there is no Karma to pay............

 

[oknow]

Double post​

 

[oknow]

​

Once again you shoot to stop. As far as lawsuits go if the DAs looking for a promotion or bumping up his conviction numbers or if there's family you can just bet there will be a lawsuit regardless of the outcome of the shoot.
In other words if you squeeze the trigger plan on a lawsuit.

 

[Riot]

I think my post was mi-interpreted, or I didn't express it well.
I was always under the impression that if you HAD to shoot someone, if the situation escalated to the point of firing your gun at someone, you should shoot to kill, not to wound.
ONE of the reasons being, a lawsuit would be LESS likely.
Am I wrong?
Also, I do everything in life knowing that someone, somewhere, at any time, can track my actions.
Some actions one must just put in the hands of God, or Buddha, or The Great White Buffalo, and just hope there is no Karma to pay............

Where people get the "shoot to kill" is from a few points...

#1) A firearm shoots projectiles designed to cause the maximum amount of energy displaced in a target. Its intent is not to make someone say "hey that hurts, I better stop that!" Its intent is to cause internal injury and blood loss to the point of incapacitation. Therefore, a bullet fired from a gun is designed to kill, not wound or injure. Intentionally aiming a firearm at non-critical areas of a target is taking away the intended effect of the firearm and the projectile...therefore, you should only intend to shoot a target you wish to destroy or kill.

#2) Carrying a firearm is agreeing to the mindset of protecting oneself or others at all costs. Hesitation or deliberate attempts to maim or wound someone can not only delay neutralization of the threat you intend to incapacitate, but it also can show malice to cause harm instead of attempting to stop the act that made you draw the gun in the first place.

#3) There are many other tools and self-defense techniques that can be used to stop someone from doing something. For example, TASERs and OC spray being deployed at deadly threats have sometimes been effective enough to stop the aggressor's act enough to subdue and detain them. These tools, however, are not nearly as effective at stopping someone from doing something as a bullet applied directly to the brain stem.

Death and serious injury is a byproduct of firearms. We must get it into the mindset that they will kill people and that we may have to take another person's life to protect ourselves or others...therefore, if you do choose to carry, you must adopt this mental state to remove hesitation and possible incorrectly applied application of force (i.e. shooting someone in the leg to stop them from stabbing you, but they still manage to stab you since shooting them in the leg had little effect on them). Therefore, we aim at most effective areas and the biggest target areas available at the time to maximize effectiveness of the firearm.

Hope this ramble answers your query.

 

[Flopsweat]

I think my post was mi-interpreted, or I didn't express it well.

I was always under the impression that if you HAD to shoot someone, if the situation escalated to the point of firing your gun at someone, you should shoot to kill, not to wound.

ONE of the reasons being, a lawsuit would be LESS likely.

Am I wrong?

Also, I do everything in life knowing that someone, somewhere, at any time, can track my actions.

Some actions one must just put in the hands of God, or Buddha, or The Great White Buffalo, and just hope there is no Karma to pay............

I think Riot covered things remarkably well in his reply to you above. I have nothing to add other than that if you found my earlier words a bit harsh, I apologize. Not for the message itself, but for the way that I expressed it. I still stand by my reasoning.

 

[NoFlinch]

.......if you found my earlier words a bit harsh, .......

HARSH?
You think your words were HARSH?

You call me a stupid friggin' idiotic Wacko, and you think it was too HARSH?

WELL, let me tell you sompun'..............

OK, I'm just kidding.

I agree with all postings.

Everything in life should be handled in a "case by case" basis...............EVERYTHING

 

[Doc In UPlace]

In the case of State vs Stomper... Good luck getting me to confirm my real name to my screen name.

Well for that matter, a subpoena served on the site hosting company will give the originating IP and the ISP for your computer will provide that last bit regarding who had the DNS address at a certain time, I believe.

My point here is, three words about internet privacy, there is none. Don't post it unless you are willing to own it.

 

[Stomper]

Three word rebuttal... I like corn.

 

[revjen45]

I like fried chicken...

 

[NoFlinch]

HELP!

I have no idea what these replys referencing food mean.......

 

[U201491]

Look at it this way. If you are carrying, you need to be in the mindset of "I shoot to kill, not to wound". Just my 2 cents though!

If that mindset is relayed to an LE in a shooting incident, you would most likely either end up in a nice portrait with a number on it, or one bad lawsuit by a perps family member... or worse....
You shoot to stop the threat and the end result may vary.

 

[U201491]

HELP!

I have no idea what these replys referencing food mean.......

Neither does that author LOL