I like how you segue right back to the popo instead of answering the question.

Have YOU been in a physical fight before and lost? Did you die?

No they are not here in NZ, and I think our police force is incompetent, you dont have to be an alpha male to be a black belt.

I have taken no such MMA training, I have taken no striking training of any kind, I dont think I am a badass, but I certainly could defend myself easily against somebody with no training no matter what the size, simply due to the training I have received on how to defend myself.

No he wasnt. Period...

lol, i hope you never have to find out how wrong you are Iscode

no i didnt. but why do you keep making this about me or comparing it to a bar fight? we are talking about whether or not the officer was justified in shooting the criminal that was attacking him. me getting into a fight and not dying is 100% irrelevant to this discussion.

We're talking about using lethal force to stop someone. Was the cop justified? We're still finding out the facts, but from what I've seen so far, the policeman could have done things differently that wouldn't have resulted in a death. Maybe at the time of the struggle lethal force was the only way out. We'll see.

But you and ford brought up a different point - using a firearm to avoid a fight. You think it's okay. I don't (depending on the severity of the situation). It's just different moral perspectives, so we can stop arguing now since neither will budge on our positions. Fair enough?

Avoid a fight, I think you are picturing a boxing ring and everyone putting on gloves, there is the ref there that breaks it up if one guy is getting the better of the other.

Too bad that isn't the real world.

Iscode and TAN, our fearsome forum warriors, let's put them in the ring and we can all eat popcorn.

Anyways cop was justified from evidence I have seen so far.

Bombay I've been in fights before. Stop being so patronizing.

i guess it got a little off topic but i was always resonding in regards to the cops situation. obviously my threshold for what i would consider justified to use a gun is slightly higher on a normal basis as im not going to be approaching criminals trying to apprehend them like a cop would which means im not going to be putting myself in that type of situation with that type of person. i avoid conflict where ever possible, so the only place li would likely need to use lethal force is if someone came in my home. of course there are other possible scenarios but we could argue about what those would be for days im sure.

Fair enough. I guess I just assumed you'd have the same position of mrford, who would in fact use a firearm to avoid a fight. Different stripes for different...whatever. I forget how that idiom goes.

did i say i would use a firearm to avoid a fight? i have been in plenty of fights, even arrested for one. i have been carrying for years and have never shot someone.

in the instance this thread is about, the perp had already gone for the cops gun. that cop knew that if he lost that fight he was going to die. period. he was justified in this shooting. i dont understand why you keep taking this to a massive hypothetical situation, and then saying i will shoot anyone what tries to fight me.... i assumed you wernt that stupid. maybe i was wrong.

well the difference between us is he could legally use a gun to avoid a fight in his state (stand your ground law), where as the state i live in i have a chance to go to jail even if i do it in my own house because its a "retreat" state.

Alright mr. Internet tough guy, I am going to share a story with you. This happened on liberty street in long branch New Jersey, in 1983 or 1984, I am sure you can find the news stories on google if you want to fact check me.

I was very young at the time, as I was born in 1980. My parents were divorced. My older brother and I lived with my mom. One night, my mother (awake at weird times due to weird nursing hours) heard someone coming into the house. She hollered "James, get the gun!" (James is my brother) and the guy bolted.

From our house, he went to our neighbors house. He tied up a the mother and daughter, made them watch him kill the father, then raped and killed the mother in front of the daughter, then raped and killed the daughter. Firearms saved my whole family's life that night. There was no practical chance of my mother fighting off a thug intent on harm. There was no chance of my 7-8 year old brother doing it. There was no chance of 3-4 year old me doing it.

The cops were *at our house* while our neighbors were being tortured raped and slain. This is a neighborhood, not a rural area like I live in now.

Now tell me again why that family shouldn't have had guns to defend themselves from that sick fluff. Tell me how they didn't deserve to live.

*eats more popcorn*

*drinks more beer*

Well, you've said as much. So yes. Here you go:





If you don't want me to think that's what you said, then don't say it.



Why all the personal attacks? In every single one of your replies?

Really TAN? Hey pot, I have kettle on line 3 for you! He says you're black.

the insults are because you are being an idealistic prick and keep trying to take this to an ideological debate, and ignore the facts of the case. you keep trying to say we arnt as good as you because you dont think we value human life. just because your inrults are indirect, doesnt mean you arent being insulting as well.

di you honestly think i go around prepared to shoot everyone who looks at me funny? what is your point here? was the cop supposed to let the perp beat him down then take his gun and shoot him?

you keep changing your focus in order to keep your point alive, it is pathetic.

Hey Vic why don't you go through all my posts in this thread and see how many personal attacks I made on ford instead of just speaking randomly.

Nice mrford. Keep making personal attacks.

you keep changing your focus in order to keep your point alive, it is pathetic.

there were no personal attacks in my last post. actions arnt character traits unless they are a pattern. you assume the insult,

I don't assume any insult, because you make it plain.

I've already conceded we don't know all the facts yet so we should just agree to disagree. Cut it out.

TAN, I'm having a hard time with your 'avoiding a bar fight' argument.

Bare fists are legally defined as deadly weapons for a reason. It's not at all a stretch of the imagination to think that someone could kill you without anything but their hands.

If you're in a bar, this person is likely a stranger and so you have very little ability to know what they're thinking. The only thing you know about this person is that they're probably drunk. Therefore you can't know whether this person wants to kill you or merely wants to have a friendly scuffle like you seem to be implying.

For a second, I think we should take a step back from this one specific situation and look at the larger picture here.

One easy way around inconveniences such as Posse Comitatus would be to simply militarize police forces. For years, police forces across the nation have been militarizing. Why is everybody shocked when one such force that has been preparing to operate in a war zone now has to operate in a war zone?

Of course, this is all extremely ironic when juxtaposed against our current military climate where the focus has been more on instilling a sense of order and justice as we try to grow nations by winning over their hearts and minds (but not their poppies) and less on such trivialities as, say, waging war.


John Oliver, For The Win: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdHIatS36A

Also, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum

that story has absoultely nothing to do with this situation, you are worse than the media in situations like this.

+1

Scode, I responded directly to your statement with an example that shows why your statement is horse puck. You didn't specify "situations like this" in your statement about needing a gun to defend your family. You just said if you need one you don't deserve to live. You are worse than nancy grace at this.

(Since you are not American, Nancy grace is a woman on cnn whose show is entirely comprised of hysterical fear mongering of the worst kind mingled with exploitation of every tragedy, always accompanied by huge screaming banners that yell breaking news even if the story is 3 years old)

+1?

(this is not about the St. Louis case, but about the general debate occurring about use of force heh).

999 out of 1000 bar fights (if not more) will be broken up by other people there within a few seconds of it starting. Zorp's entire point about not being sure of the aggressor's intent or of the risk involved in the situation is completely bunk. He must either be trolling, completely disregard other peoples lives for the sake of his own convenience (in this case, willing to kill someone to avoid the inconvenience of recovering from a beating, which really isn't all that bad), or completely ignorant to how social discourse works in a bar/club/pub type setting.

Also generally a fight isn't going to break out for no reason, there is escalation, there was conflict before one of the individuals decided it needed to be settled via a fight.

But generally this is what scares me about American society, so many of you seem to think that other people's lives are not worth you being inconvenienced (not put in danger or risk, merely inconvenienced). It isn't the wild west anymore and that mentality has no place in a modern society.

As for Vic's scenario where his neighbours were butchered due to lack of ability to defend themselves:

Yes these things occur and they are horrific. I don't think anyone would argue that the use of a gun would be inappropriate here. People like me aren't against use of force in any/all circumstance, we simply recognize that there are situations that warrant it and situations that do not. Seems to me this is a distinction that a lot more Americans need to learn.

Sorry, I have no interest in getting into a fight and the potential life long injuries that I could sustain, or even death. I would avoid a fight at all costs. And in the end if I draw a gun, it is only to shoot if my life feels threatened. I would avoid a fight at all costs and avoid drawing at all costs. Again, I am not into macho BS. I don't need to get into a fight to feel like a man.

the mentality that you should be forced to take a beating because the person beating you has rights is just as bad if not worse than what you all are arguing against.

It has nothing to do with feeling like a man.

The concern with "life long injuries or even death" is not rational since it is highly unlikely to occur. Once again you are saying that someone else's life is not worth more than a mild inconvenience for you (getting hurt and having to deal with a recovery that likely won't take any longer than a week, maybe 2). Especially in a situation where you are at a bar and presumably you and the aggressor have people with you who would break up the fight once it is clear someone is done (often they are broken up long before that).

I suppose this means you've never been in a fight? Because if you have you would realize how irrational your fear of a fight actually is. I've studied martial arts most of my life and I have been through more beat downs than I can count through my training, as well as a few real life situations that have come up. The human body is quite resilient and the odds of you suffering long term disability injury from a bar fight is very low.

This has nothing to do with "being a man" by fighting and everything to do with nobody deserving to die over something so petty as a squabble that has escalated to the physical realm. Is your ego really so important that you would rather kill someone than deal with the "shame" of being beaten up?

As an example of what I'm talking about with many Americans lacking any rationality when it comes to use of force:

Last year at the Calgary Stampede there was an American cop visiting with his wife. He later reported to a US paper that while at the Stampede he was walking with his wife when a couple "young drunk guys" approached them and had the gull to ask if they were enjoying the Stampede. This guy's response was to tell the drunk guys that he and his wife had no desire to speak with them and for them to please leave them be. The "aggressors" response was to laugh and mock the guy for being so paranoid.

The cop went on to say he wished he could carry in Canada for situations like that..... So yeah it sounds like this guy would have shot these young guys for having the nerve to ask if they were enjoying themselves, and to laugh at him when he behaved so paranoid about the simple question.

Mr. Ford, once again fights generally don't just start out of noware. there would have been escalation, you would have had a part in causing the fight.

This isn't really a rights issue, so I don't know why you are arguing on that basis.

Getting beat up really is no big deal, you will recover and you will be fine. People don't come back from being killed, thus being beat up is not a valid justification for killing someone, they are on two completely different plains of seriousness and it should clear that killing someone to avoid being beat up is a grossly disproportionate response.

you call him paranoid, but you assume the cop was going to shoot the kids if he was carrying? maybe he wanted the piece of mind that he is afforded while on duty?

you are being a bit contradictory here accusing people of making asumptions and then making them yourself to support your viewpoint.


i have been in plenty of fights, i have even been stabbed in a mugging. you better believe that if i had my gun those 2 jackasses would be dead and i wouldnt of had any holes in my body.

im sorry, but if someone wants to do physical harm to me unwarranted, he gives up his right to anything imo. He knows the risks of engaging someone he doesnt know, and he needs to deal with the consequences. this whole mentality of protect the attacker limit the defender is disgusting frankely, and it IS a rights thing. you are talking about someone's right to live, despite the fact that they dont care about the victim's right to not get injured

another point in this stupid hypothetical bar fight situation is you dont know if the attacker is armed either. in a fight, fighting fair means nothing. you strike hard, you strike fast, and you end it as soon as possible. I am going to avoid a fight at all costs. the other person is going to be the agressor, and there is no way i can know his intentions. however unlikely it is that you die in a fist fight, it is still possible. I would like that possibility to be as small as possible, and my weapon helps that.

As I mentioned before, I would avoid a fight at all costs. Apologize, leave etc... If someone takes a swing at me while I am at a bar, I am not really that concerned over that. It is close quarters, there are innocents around. It would be broken up and I would leave. There are many varying degrees to this, I wouldn't be the instigator and I would try to avoid the fight and situation. I wouldn't be "Stepping" outside to settle this, I would buy the guy a drink and tell him no hard feelings. In the end of the day, I'll never see that guy again and it doesn't matter if I could beat him in a fight or not.

But in the case where someone is intent on trying to do bodily harm to me, negotiating is out the window and they are Irrational, I for sure would avoid a fight with that person and draw to protect myself. Nothing is black/white.

I have been in several brawls in College(Started by friends, you know you are obligated to jump in if the numbers are not even), it was stupid. Luckily I never got seriously hurt or seriously hurt anyone else.

this outburst of unrest and violence just reinforces the point that we need robocop back on our streets

this one, the badass one

http://matthewkadish.com/...4/05/robocop_2282286b.jpg

and not the stupid emo new one.

I'm not making assumptions, you just missed my point, which was there was no reason for the cop to feel the need to have a gun on him to feel "secure" in that situation. It is an example of the paranoia I'm referring to.

As a said ford, it is very rare for someone to just start crap for no reason. If someone is trying to fight with you, then you very likely did something to provoke the situation, thus is is hard to argue it is "unwarranted" or that you are a "victim".

and someone wanting to hurt you doesn't give you the "right to do anything". This is a disproportional response that is highly egocentric, as it places very high value on your convenience and very little in the lives of others.

"you are talking about someone's right to live, despite the fact that they dont care about the victim's right to not get injured" -- you speak as though all rights are equal. they are not. The right to live greatly supercedes ones right to not sustain temporary injury.

As for your situation where you were stabbed. A knife isn't a fist fight, there is far more justification to draw a gun in that situation as I agree a knife is life threatening. That is an apples to oranges comparison.

However, I was always taught in Martial Arts that your first and best option should always be to flee. Get out of the situation and avoid the escalation. It is ridiculous that so many people's first "go to" is use of lethal force and then will argue "stand your ground, I had the right to draw and fire". It isn't about what you had the right to do, it is about what is the right thing to do.

I have the right to protest it doesn't' mean I'm going to exercise it every possible moment I could.

Reasonable.

i suppose we just have different mentalities and experiences

im not going to shoot someone for looking at me funny or challenging me to a fight in a bar. I will however shoot someone who is determined to cause me bodily harm and i have no way out of the situation. I will not accept an ass kicking if i have a means to avoid it. I will not put myself at the mercy of someone i do not know. You have a duty to protect your life just as much as you have the duty to do what is right. I have a wife, kids, and a job. my ultimate responsibility is to them, and i cant do that from a hospital bed or the grave.

mrford... the mentality that everything needs to (or has the potential to) escalate to deadly force is a ridiculous problem many second amendment proponents bring forward to validate exacerbating that exact problem.

I think one major problem is that people tend to forget is the right to bear arms was NOT created so citizens could walk the streets with their personal semi-automatic guns and shoot other citizens who they get into disagreements/squabbles with. It was essentially created to allow citizens to own firearms to protect themselves against oppression from a foreign power (i.e., 1700's Britain...), the rise of a tyrannical government, or to hunt animals.

Also, keep in mind that back then guns were large, required much effort and time to load and were very slow to go from "fluff I need to use my gun" to firing. And I most certainly agree that Americans should be allowed to own as many muzzle loaded muskets as they want. I doubt the founding fathers wanted a nation of armed citizens walking around with a hair trigger ready to unload a clip into a guy reaching for his cell phone.

fists can be deadly force. the attacker could have a weapon

if i am in a situation to use my weapon, trust me i have exhausted all other options except letting the attacker have his way with me.

i refuse to take the chance that i could be severely injured or killed just so the person breaking the law can have a better chance of survival. the attacker made a decision to put his life in danger by instigating a fight and putting the defender in a situation where violence is the only way out.

not every gun owner is trigger happy and looks to draw every opportunity, just like every protestor in Ferguson isnt throwing Molotov flufftails at the police.


you people keep taking this to a hypothetical escalation of violence situation. i dont understand why

in this instance, it appears like brown went for the cop's gun, they dissengaed, brown turned around and reingaged. the cop had every right to defend himself, beause if the cop had lost that fight there is every likelyhood he would not of survived. unless you think brown just wanted to play with the cops gun. this wasnt a bar fight. it was a criminal engaging a cop

WE NEED ROBOCOP

thanks for rehashing your same flawed arguments again. my point is merely that the laws on the books in many US states -- and the attitude you bring forward -- do not align with your constitution.

law enforcement has different training & responsibilities with respect to firearms and my comments are not related to the Michael Brown situation or law enforcement/military in general. it's private citizens who want to exercise their second amendment rights.

WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST ROBOCOP?!?!

so i shouldnt be able to carry my gun because it can fire more than 3 rounds a minute?

or i shouldnt be able to carry my gun because others abuse the right?

or i shouldnt be allowed to carry my bun because im willing to use it if i have to?


i dont really see your point here. i understand there are irresponsible gun owners out there, there are irresponsible people in every aspect of life. You are arguing the constitution in a debate on use or escalation of force. not once in this thread have i mentioned the constitution or my right to carry a gun. This is about my right to use any means necessarily to protect myself from bodily harm from an aggressive attacker.

i also find it fairly disrespectful when you lump me in with the 2nd ammendment nuts. some canadian you are.

I can't understand a) how bar fights became the issue and b) why said fights are written off as "no big deal." I am a physically large person, big enough to intimidate off most morons, not big enough to get "picked out" by randoms with something to prove. I have had plenty of drunken fisticuffs, but never at a bar. Reason being, I know quite a few people who have been hospitalized with serious injuries following bar fights. When the Buffalo Wild Wings opened in my town, they had a guy die in a fight the first 6 months they were open. Funny thing about beer bottles, they are pretty fluffing dangerous. Alcohol leads to violence and poor choices, so you have picked pretty much the worst possible scenario to argue your "fights aren't that bad" point.

Another point - you don't have to shoot someone for the gun to do its job. See my story above. Just the thought that someone would be pointing a gun at the perp was enough to make said perp try elsewhere. Same deal with folks "feeling froggy." Nobody picks on the guy open carrying.

Correct, any laws restricting a citizens access to weapons is against the constitution. Thanks for recognizing that.

if we really need to make this about the 2nd ammendment, my opinion is that the document is outdated as well.

i think owning a gun is a privilege first, but that everyone deserves a right to that privilege initially. This is actually pretty close to what it is now, but it could be expanded a bit.

if you are a felon, you can not have a gun
if you get a DUI you lose your Concealed Carry for 3+ years in some states
if you have been declared mentally unstable by a medical profesional you can not have a gun for x years, if ever in some states.


the problem with guns is there is no nation wide system or database of these revocation of privileges. I agree that something like that probably should exist. Right now gun laws are vastly state controlled, and that is good in the instance that different reigons of the country have different cultures regarding guns and the recreational use of them.

The problem here is if you give an inch, you dont want a mile taken. Gun proponents have the "if it starts here where does it end" mentality and honestly government has had a past of encroaching pass their due. This is where the constitution is brought up, as an end all be all. just like religious nuts and their bible.


Bottom line i think everyone should have the opportunity to be a gun owner, with certain rules and standards with revocation of those privileges. The trick is to convince people that the revocation system will never be abused by the 1982 esque government. It is such a catch 22 situation on such a hot button topic a resolution will never easily come, and my opinion doesnt really matter, but i am an extremely responsible gun owner. all my guns are in safes that are bolted down. My kids cant access them, i usually never carry in public even though i have the right to, and i hunt all the time. I do usually keep a weapon in my car, but even that is generally in the trunk or in a lock holster in the passenger cabin. There is no reason i should be bared from owning a gun. Someone with 3 DUIs and a couple assaults on their record on the otherhand, they have abused their rights and infringed upon the rights of others, and should lose the privilege.


but this thread isnt about that. you are the only one bringing this up. this thread is about escalation of force once a conflict has been initiated.

mrford needs more fluff

I don't much like this being serious on the Internet business

What happens if "We" the people have to defend ourselves vs someone who has machine guns, assault rifles etc... ? That is where your argument about having Musket loaders falls short. The People/Citizens should have access to the same fire arms that any army would have in the event that the citizens have to defend themselves vs an army.