One for DickG: Man beats crap out armed robber.

[Jon_in_london]

A man wrestled a gun away from his would-be armed robber and kicks the sh-t out of him.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article_lc.asp?storyid=50851


The robber showed a gun and demanded money.

But the robbery victim fought off his attacker and wrestled away his gun.

The gun fired but the shot didn't hit anyone.

With the gun away, the robbery victim beat up his alleged attacker, who ended up going to the hospital with unknown injuries.



This is definitive proof that all guns must be banned.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

A man wrestled a gun away from his would-be armed robber and kicks the sh-t out of him.


The gun fired but didn't hit anyone.

The only thing this shows is that guns don't hurt people, people hurt people.

Nice try though :D

Graham

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Graham
The only thing this shows is that guns don't hurt people, people hurt people.


But y'know, I think that guns help!
:D

[Cain]

Originally posted by Graham




The only thing this shows is that guns don't hurt people, people hurt people.

Nice try though :D



Oh, bah.

No, it shows an inconsistency. Gun advocates often claim that attackers will find easy alternatives to firearms nearly just as effective for murder. You know, if somebody "really wants to kill" somebody else, they will. "Then what will you do?" they crow. "Outlaw knives, rope and fists?" (Interestingly, guns are apparently the only sane way to protect one's own self.) This turns the conventional reasoning on its head: if a person "really wants to" subdue her attacker, she could do so with or without a gun. Again, they just "really" have to "want to". If people hurt people, and the gun is irrelevant, then nobody should bother posting all these silly defensive uses.

[Yahweh]

What is the legalities of hospitalizing a person who attempt the rob you (i.e. can I get away with it)?

I know the smart thing to do is to just throw US$5 or US$10 at the attacker (especially one who is armed) and let him leave with it, but I'm just curious...

[geni]

Originally posted by Yahweh
What is the legalities of hospitalizing a person who attempt the rob you (i.e. can I get away with it)?

I know the smart thing to do is to just throw US$5 or US$10 at the attacker (especially one who is armed) and let him leave with it, but I'm just curious...

Depends where you are. The normal test is wether you used the minium amout of force required. In South Africa lethal force is allowed is property is in danger.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Yahweh
What is the legalities of hospitalizing a person who attempt the rob you (i.e. can I get away with it)?


In the UK, your ability to inflict damage on somebody is determined by whether the court thinks that the force you used was reasonable. If, for example, you managed to disarm the robber with minimum force, but then spent the next half hour tapdancing on his/her head then you're going to be in trouble for assault.

Of course if you are a person of impeccable good character and the robber is a known scumbag then you are more likely to get the benefit of the doubt.

Of course if you look hard enough you'll find cases of where people are presecuted for defending themselves in the most benign ways. These tend to be very skewed articles and when you look into them you often find that the wronged party is not as innocent as they claim

[Mr Manifesto]

I think Cain's sigline is worth preserving:

This week's "You're a Goddamn F*cking Moron" award indirectly honors d*ckless Charles Bronson wannabes from Louisiana to Lebanon. RichardG, you unhinged mother-f**ker -- who knows, in a parallel universe maybe a bright red Corvette serves as your doppleganger's surrogate penis. No matter; in an effort to demonstrate that most any muttonhead can amass a respectable bodycount given the right weapon, Bloodbath and Beyond, Springfield's finest gun shop, has generously donated a handsome fingerprint-resistant Tek-9 to our recent winner. This useful tool has consistently proven itself -- against police officers and Korean store owners alike -- and in fact boasts five confirmed kills (all in self-defense, of course). Richard- Congratulations, you're one dangerous Goddamn F**king Moron. So brandish your favorite firearm, take a bow, and keep on flamin' you crazy idiot! (Proud past winners of the GDFM award include: Cleopatra, Shanek, Tony, Rikzilla, and JamesM. Let's hear a round of applause.)


:clap: :clap: :clap:

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by The Don


In the UK, your ability to inflict damage on somebody is determined by whether the court thinks that the force you used was reasonable. If, for example, you managed to disarm the robber with minimum force, but then spent the next half hour tapdancing on his/her head then you're going to be in trouble for assault.

Of course if you are a person of impeccable good character and the robber is a known scumbag then you are more likely to get the benefit of the doubt.

Of course if you look hard enough you'll find cases of where people are presecuted for defending themselves in the most benign ways. These tend to be very skewed articles and when you look into them you often find that the wronged party is not as innocent as they claim

There was this security training company, and one of its trainers (obviously a part-time bush lawyer) said that you can respond with the same amount of force and, to quote him 'plus one'. That is, if someone attacks you with fists, you can use fists 'plus one', like a bat. If he uses a bat, you can use a knife.

He had this wierd hierachy of weapons so you always knew what to use when you went 'plus one'.

Turns out he was wrong. But he only found out after training dozens -maybe hundreds- of bouncers. Uh-oh.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


There was this security training company, and one of its trainers (obviously a part-time bush lawyer) said that you can respond with the same amount of force and, to quote him 'plus one'.

Which means that to stop a lot of shilly-shallying around, you should always attack them with a thermo-nuclear (nucular ?) warhead and wait for him to invent somehting more potent

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by Yahweh
What is the legalities of hospitalizing a person who attempt the rob you (i.e. can I get away with it)?

I know the smart thing to do is to just throw US$5 or US$10 at the attacker (especially one who is armed) and let him leave with it, but I'm just curious... In my Judo and Taekwondo training (in the U.S.A., so your mileage may vary) I've been told that unless someone is threatening my life, anything past basic disarming is probably going to be considered excessive force. So if it's a robbery, on the street, and you get the weapon away from the robber, it's time to stop. Of course, I've also been told by gun-wielding friends of mine that in Kentucky (where I am) if you're going to shoot an intruder, make sure they don't fall out of your door or window, which I guess means they can be safely interpreted as a threat to you if they're still in your house.

Judging from that, and other books I've read on the topic, it seems to be best not to pretend you're in a movie out there. At the same time, I would rather spend some time explaning my assailant's broken limbs in court than be dead.

People's hysteria about crime is really kind of funny though -- I take martial arts classes for fun. In the back of my mind there is the extremely remote possibility that I may have to defend myself against someone but I don't expect that it will ever really happen. I grew up in Denver, CO, a large and very typical city and never once was I mugged or robbed. The closest I ever came was when I worked the graveyard shift at a gas station, and someone came to the bulletproof glass to inform me that a man had been stabbed a couple of blocks down. For all I know I spoke to the stabber. I called the police but never even saw the event.

Just two weeks ago, a co-worker of mine was arrested at the airport carrying a gun in his backpack. Now this was a full-grown man who, if you squinted your eyes, could have been the stand-in for Vin Diesel. Only an idiot would have attacked this guy, yet for some reason he desperately needed to have a gun with him at all times. Though he was deemed too dumb to prosecute by the FBI, he still lost his job, spent the night in the clink, and got a nice mark on his record.

I know several other people who carry guns, and frankly I don't get it. Even if you are attacked, your chances of having the thing right there, correctly loaded, and having the presence of mind to actually use it effectively seem to be kind of small. Almost every place of business frowns on armed employees, so you won't save yourself from an office shooter unless you are the office shooter. I have kids, so the risk (for me) of having one of those around far outweighs any protection it might give me. The kind of situation where my martial arts training won't help (for example, a distant sniper) are also the kinds of situation where a gun would be equally useless. So really, I just keep my eyes open, and I don't linger in dangerous areas with my wallet hanging open.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


There was this security training company, and one of its trainers (obviously a part-time bush lawyer) said that you can respond with the same amount of force and, to quote him 'plus one'. That is, if someone attacks you with fists, you can use fists 'plus one', like a bat. If he uses a bat, you can use a knife.

He had this wierd hierachy of weapons so you always knew what to use when you went 'plus one'.

Turns out he was wrong. But he only found out after training dozens -maybe hundreds- of bouncers. Uh-oh.

Given that many bouncers are just thugs who want an excuse to legally beat and maim peope, any piece of logic that gives them an excuse to beat someone up some more must appeal to them.