It suprises me that some people believe in a fair fight

[GunshineST]

Originally Posted by James&thegiant1911

So, what it seems to me you all are saying is that if you smart off to some one, the altercation turns physical in some sort of way? You were equally as responsible for being in the situation as the other individual and that person was committing no crime. He shoves you, you shove back it escalates and then he punches one of you all in the face. While he punched you in your face you fall to the ground pull your weapon and shoot him.

That is a lot like it seems to me to what you all are saying? Just want to make sure.

Uh, no, that's not at all what 'all' of us are saying. I think to sum it up for you, we are saying that if our life is in danger, if someone has the ability to end our life, the intent on ending our life, and the opportunity to end our life, we are going to do whatever is necessary in that situation to protect our life.

The entire notion of a "fair fight" and self defense is completely unrelated. A fair fight suggests sport, such as boxing, martial arts sparring, or some situation where there are rules about to keep the fight "fair." Self defense is a result of being attacked. I'm not sure if your world is different, but there are some things about my world that come in to play here. First, I follow Red Dirt Dave's "Stupid Rules"

1. Don't Do Stupid Things.
2. Don't Go To Stupid Places.
3. Don't Have Stupid Friends.

Second, people don't fight me on a daily basis, I don't mouth off to people, I don't put myself or my wife into bad situations. We avoid getting ourselves into any kind of situation where a fight may happen. It's not that hard, really...we have our professional lives, do our shopping, sometimes go out to dinner, have friends over, go to the beach, take walks, etc.

That being said, since we go about our lives not picking fights or making ourselves targets, IF someone attacked us, it would be unprovoked, and unwarranted. The moment I get attacked and feel that my or my wife's life is in danger, you had better believe that I'm drawing with the intent of stopping the attack.

The scenario you are describing is childish. Why are you smarting off to people in the first place? After being shoved, why didn't you walk away? Do you regularly find yourself in fistfights? If so, I would suggest examining your life and work on changing it. Civilized people, existing peacefully in society, is the norm...getting attacked is not.

If this warrants further clarification, please try to use the same language in your questions. I ask because I tried to make it very clear that there is a difference between the words "fight" and "attack."

Hope this clears things up.

[James&thegiant1911]

Originally Posted by GunshineST

Uh, no, that's not at all what 'all' of us are saying. I think to sum it up for you, we are saying that if our life is in danger, if someone has the ability to end our life, the intent on ending our life, and the opportunity to end our life, we are going to do whatever is necessary in that situation to protect our life.

The entire notion of a "fair fight" and self defense is completely unrelated. A fair fight suggests sport, such as boxing, martial arts sparring, or some situation where there are rules about to keep the fight "fair." Self defense is a result of being attacked. I'm not sure if your world is different, but there are some things about my world that come in to play here. First, I follow Red Dirt Dave's "Stupid Rules"

1. Don't Do Stupid Things.
2. Don't Go To Stupid Places.
3. Don't Have Stupid Friends.

Second, people don't fight me on a daily basis, I don't mouth off to people, I don't put myself or my wife into bad situations. We avoid getting ourselves into any kind of situation where a fight may happen. It's not that hard, really...we have our professional lives, do our shopping, sometimes go out to dinner, have friends over, go to the beach, take walks, etc.

That being said, since we go about our lives not picking fights or making ourselves targets, IF someone attacked us, it would be unprovoked, and unwarranted. The moment I get attacked and feel that my or my wife's life is in danger, you had better believe that I'm drawing with the intent of stopping the attack.

The scenario you are describing is childish. Why are you smarting off to people in the first place? After being shoved, why didn't you walk away? Do you regularly find yourself in fistfights? If so, I would suggest examining your life and work on changing it. Civilized people, existing peacefully in society, is the norm...getting attacked is not.

If this warrants further clarification, please try to use the same language in your questions. I ask because I tried to make it very clear that there is a difference between the words "fight" and "attack."

Hope this clears things up.

wow, way to answer a question with a question without answering it. You have answered it but you have to read between the lines. I do not even carry a gun with me on most occasions sometimes in my car but most of the time not. I have been hunting and shooting since I was 15 years old, have 3 NRA certifications and competitively shoot. You can call me a fudd if you want too but I am a lot better than your average shot but it seems to me that the average CCW person on this board regardless of confrontation would use excessive force when the time came and then realize that there are laws backing them up in most states which say they were right because someone was attacking them. When in actuality you do not know who started the fight because the aggressor is dead. I mean take the media basis out of the Zimmerman case and you still have someone that may have abused the system, taken things into their own hands and crossed the line. Which is why they are being charged as they should be and additionally law makers are making changes to those laws.

If you read the laws which it sounds like a lot of you all need to do then the statutes state that lethal force may be used when the use of a deadly weapon or as someone said a disparage of force as in a professionally trained athlete and you the victim are in fear of your life. Looks to me like a lot of Zimmermans here that would make questionable judgements and then be in front of a court of law trying to figure out how to get a plea. Then wanting to complain when law makers want to take their guns away. Regardless of media basis, Zimmerman still would have been charged.

[master gunner]

Originally Posted by James&thegiant1911

So, what it seems to me you all are saying is that if you smart off to some one, the altercation turns physical in some sort of way? You were equally as responsible for being in the situation as the other individual and that person was committing no crime. He shoves you, you shove back it escalates and then he punches one of you all in the face. While he punched you in your face you fall to the ground pull your weapon and shoot him.

That is a lot like it seems to me to what you all are saying? Just want to make sure.

I don't smart off and yes if you assault me or mine you have a better than average chance of getting shot.

Are you sure now?



ps: people start fights because they think they can win seems like a cowards way to me

[James&thegiant1911]

Originally Posted by master gunner

I don't smart off and yes if you assault me or mine you have a better than average chance of getting shot.

Are you sure now?



ps: people start fights because they think they can win seems like a cowards way to me

see that is just it and proved the point I was making. You just can not shoot someone unless they are attacking you and in fear of your life the line is not just he was attacking me and I felt in fear of my life. You better have injuries which meet the classification of assault with a deadly weapon/ aggravated assault before you pull out your gun and shoot someone. I realize what you all are saying but a few scratches and a bloody nose is not going to cut it as long as the individual wasn't breaking any laws when the confrontation occurred.

[NonHyphenAmerican]

Originally Posted by GunshineST

Uh, no, that's not at all what 'all' of us are saying. I think to sum it up for you, we are saying that if our life is in danger, if someone has the ability to end our life, the intent on ending our life, and the opportunity to end our life, we are going to do whatever is necessary in that situation to protect our life.

The entire notion of a "fair fight" and self defense is completely unrelated. A fair fight suggests sport, such as boxing, martial arts sparring, or some situation where there are rules about to keep the fight "fair." Self defense is a result of being attacked. I'm not sure if your world is different, but there are some things about my world that come in to play here. First, I follow Red Dirt Dave's "Stupid Rules"

1. Don't Do Stupid Things.
2. Don't Go To Stupid Places.
3. Don't Have Stupid Friends.

Second, people don't fight me on a daily basis, I don't mouth off to people, I don't put myself or my wife into bad situations. We avoid getting ourselves into any kind of situation where a fight may happen. It's not that hard, really...we have our professional lives, do our shopping, sometimes go out to dinner, have friends over, go to the beach, take walks, etc.

That being said, since we go about our lives not picking fights or making ourselves targets, IF someone attacked us, it would be unprovoked, and unwarranted. The moment I get attacked and feel that my or my wife's life is in danger, you had better believe that I'm drawing with the intent of stopping the attack.

The scenario you are describing is childish. Why are you smarting off to people in the first place? After being shoved, why didn't you walk away? Do you regularly find yourself in fistfights? If so, I would suggest examining your life and work on changing it. Civilized people, existing peacefully in society, is the norm...getting attacked is not.

If this warrants further clarification, please try to use the same language in your questions. I ask because I tried to make it very clear that there is a difference between the words "fight" and "attack."

Hope this clears things up.

I give this a +1.

When I played football, wrestled and did Judo as a youngster, I was "Fighting Fair" as there were rules, ref's and it was done as fun in a competition.

Whenever anyone attacked me cause we were both young and stupid, "Fair" took 2nd place to Winning. I never pulled a knife nor a gun, even though I had a knife pulled on me twice. I never got cut cause I didn't respond "Fair".

When I grew up, I realized that what my Dad taught was spot on.

Never pick on someone.
Never pick a fight.
Walk Away Whenever You Can.
When you can't, fight to win because in a fight, someone, usually both people gets hurt.
Winning means living.

So I honed my situational awareness and started staying out of places where fights happened. Bad part of town, don't go there if you don't have to. Bars are where there are many instant hineyholes. You just have to add alchohol. So stay out of bars where you don't know the lay of the land or the clientele.

But if you threaten me or mine with harmful intent, "Fair" will not enter into my response. I will use only such force as is necessary to get you to stop.

I will however use as much force as is necessary to get you to stop, however much force that is.

Your actions dictates how much force that is.

And "Threaten" is a key word here. I don't have to wait until you've raped or maimed my wife or myself, nor until you've harmed me or my neighbors to stop you.

What it takes to stop you is up to you as your actions will determine my reactions.


"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them." (John Wayne, The Shootist) I think this quote is dead on and goes nicely with the Commandment of Jesus "Love Your Neighbor As Thyself."

I'm the best neighbor I can be to anyone that wants to be neighborly.

But......If you THREATEN to harm me or mine, I Will Stop You, no matter who You are.


For those who understand and abide by that thinking, I'd take you as neighbors.

[Ringolevio]

NonHyphenAmerican wrote:

"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them." (John Wayne, The Shootist) I think this quote is dead on and goes nicely with the Commandment of Jesus "Love Your Neighbor As Thyself."

I agree with most everything else you've said, and even with this, except that I hope it doesn't mean that an "insult" is worth fighting over. So many people seem to be shooting one another these days over being "disrespected", and that "disrespect" amounts to something as stupid as "He called my bitch a ho!"
[Richard Pryor used this line to show just how stupid it was.]

And, frankly, I used to be ready to fight anybody who hurled "fightin' words" at me. In my old neighborhood, when I was a kid, if you gave somebody the finger and they caught you, they'd break that finger (That's why I think it's particularly cowardly to give someone the finger from the safety of a car).

But nowadays I will laugh off fingers, fightin' words, strings of profanity about my race, my religion or my mother and just about anything intended to get a rise out of me. And even though I'm capable of demolishing someone with words (in The King's English, no less!), I bite my tongue, and let them think they've insulted me and gotten the best of me. Packing heavy iron has certainly rearranged my priorities.

[Jaird]

I think that there is only one respondent to this thread that "dosen't get it". To all others, I would be pleased to have you as neighbors.

[QHhorseman]

Originally Posted by Red Dirt Dave

Do you do a lot of this type of questionable stuff when you are carrying?
If so, I am surprised that you aren't in the hospital or in jail.

When I carry, I am completely unoffendable - and do nothing to offend.
If someone attacks me, I know it is their problem - not mine

By far the best response on this thread. If you are thin skinned and offend easily, you should rethink CCW, IMHO.

[BDA45]

Originally Posted by Red Dirt Dave

The only "fair" fight that one should ever be in is one that has written rules, timed rounds and a referee.

Even then there are no guarantees.

[Mr. T]

Originally Posted by James&thegiant1911

So, what it seems to me you all are saying is that if you smart off to some one, the altercation turns physical in some sort of way? You were equally as responsible for being in the situation as the other individual and that person was committing no crime. He shoves you, you shove back it escalates and then he punches one of you all in the face. While he punched you in your face you fall to the ground pull your weapon and shoot him.

That is a lot like it seems to me to what you all are saying? Just want to make sure.

I don't go around "smarting off" as you put it. I don't go around trying to provoke a physical or verbal confrontation either. Therefore, if someone attacks me I will respond with enough force to immediately stop their attack. If someone is attacking me they have bad intentions. People who go around provoking things as you described are idiots. The keys to self-defense are avoidance and awareness not provocation. Responsible law abiding citizens don't go around provoking fights.

[master gunner]

Originally Posted by James&thegiant1911

see that is just it and proved the point I was making. You just can not shoot someone unless they are attacking you and in fear of your life the line is not just he was attacking me and I felt in fear of my life. You better have injuries which meet the classification of assault with a deadly weapon/ aggravated assault before you pull out your gun and shoot someone. I realize what you all are saying but a few scratches and a bloody nose is not going to cut it as long as the individual wasn't breaking any laws when the confrontation occurred.

I am 65, had a triple bypass, both shoulders operated on a total of three times, don't breath well (could not run around the house once), knees give me trouble, wear glasses, am slow, fat and not so coordinated any more.

But I don't look so bad on the outside.

The individual is breaking the law when he assaults me or mine.

What do you think gives jerks the right to beat me up?

Again these pos start fights because they are sure they are going to win.

I have drawn down on a number of idiots, their sense of self preservation cut in and saved them.

[QHhorseman]

Originally Posted by James&thegiant1911

see that is just it and proved the point I was making. You just can not shoot someone unless they are attacking you and in fear of your life the line is not just he was attacking me and I felt in fear of my life. You better have injuries which meet the classification of assault with a deadly weapon/ aggravated assault before you pull out your gun and shoot someone. I realize what you all are saying but a few scratches and a bloody nose is not going to cut it as long as the individual wasn't breaking any laws when the confrontation occurred.

I don't understand how you think your point has been proved.

First, I don't think I have read a single post that indicates anybody who has responded would shoot anyone in a fight. To me, a fight is between two (or more) people who are participating willingly in the physical altercation. If only one party is willingly participating in a physical altercation, then the second party is not in a fight, they are being attacked. And therefore can legally defend themselves.

Second, the law does not apply differently to individuals based on thier height, weight, age, etc. A women 4'11" tall and 100 lbs being attacked by an individual is not supposed to have any greater legal protection than a 6'6" 250 lb man being attacked by that same individual. (notice I said is not supposed to have)

Third, you do not have to be in the process of being assaulted before you defend yourself. All self defense laws will refer to "in fear on your life and/or the lives of others" and words like "imminent" and all that other legal speak. I must admit though I am referring mostly to the laws in my own state. Other states may be, and propably are, a little different.

This is in no way an attack on you. I hope you do not take it as one. I know I have not changed your mind with my little rant about what you believe, so for now how about we just agree to disagree.

Be safe.

[James&thegiant1911]

Originally Posted by QHhorseman

I don't understand how you think your point has been proved.

First, I don't think I have read a single post that indicates anybody who has responded would shoot anyone in a fight. To me, a fight is between two (or more) people who are participating willingly in the physical altercation. If only one party is willingly participating in a physical altercation, then the second party is not in a fight, they are being attacked. And therefore can legally defend themselves.

Second, the law does not apply differently to individuals based on thier height, weight, age, etc. A women 4'11" tall and 100 lbs being attacked by an individual is not supposed to have any greater legal protection than a 6'6" 250 lb man being attacked by that same individual. (notice I said is not supposed to have)

Third, you do not have to be in the process of being assaulted before you defend yourself. All self defense laws will refer to "in fear on your life and/or the lives of others" and words like "imminent" and all that other legal speak. I must admit though I am referring mostly to the laws in my own state. Other states may be, and propably are, a little different.

This is in no way an attack on you. I hope you do not take it as one. I know I have not changed your mind with my little rant about what you believe, so for now how about we just agree to disagree.

Be safe.

I do not disagree with what all you are saying which is why this is a debate? I am strictly talking about an attack which warrants deadly force or not. Zimmerman is a perfect example of this, it was dark and he was scared probably in fear for his life since he did not know if the prep was armed or not. However, his injuries did not warrant the use of deadly force in his prosecutors opinion so now he faces a ruined life and trial by jury. Even if he is not convicted then he will still face this the rest of his life.

Like the gentlemen stated before you he has to use deadly force such to warrant any attack on him due to his condition. That holds water but what the government and law enforcement fear is a lot of vigilantes running around shooting any one for anything. Basically I see a lot of people getting CCWs, heck mine was in the low 2 millions in a state with 3 million people in it, getting these does not give you the right to just shoot someone. It should be every-ones responsibility to make sure a violent situation comes to an end peacefully. all I was saying and if some on here think I am advocating gun restrictions then I apologize.

[QHhorseman]

Originally Posted by James&thegiant1911

I do not disagree with what all you are saying which is why this is a debate? I am strictly talking about an attack which warrants deadly force or not. Zimmerman is a perfect example of this, it was dark and he was scared probably in fear for his life since he did not know if the prep was armed or not. However, his injuries did not warrant the use of deadly force in his prosecutors opinion so now he faces a ruined life and trial by jury. Even if he is not convicted then he will still face this the rest of his life.

Like the gentlemen stated before you he has to use deadly force such to warrant any attack on him due to his condition. That holds water but what the government and law enforcement fear is a lot of vigilantes running around shooting any one for anything. Basically I see a lot of people getting CCWs, heck mine was in the low 2 millions in a state with 3 million people in it, getting these does not give you the right to just shoot someone. It should be every-ones responsibility to make sure a violent situation comes to an end peacefully. all I was saying and if some on here think I am advocating gun restrictions then I apologize.

I agree with you on this point. Zimmerman was/is an idiot for what he did (IMHO) before he pulled his weapon. Confronting or even approaching an individual on the street (if you are not a LEO) because they "look suspicious" is beyond stupid. But... According to Florida's Stand Your Ground law.....(I'm quitting here). And I don't think anyone wants vigilantes running around shooting people.

[nicky_pitts]

So I know a lot of you are way more experienced than myself when it comes to CCW and what surrounds it. However, my 2 cents anyways. Carrying a gun is a major responsibility. So much that it should and must influence the way you think/act. All I know is when I am armed, I will always back down if I can. No pride or toughness is worth the hassle. I will never let anyone's words get me pissed off or riled up. I will never be the aggressor, regardless of what insults have been hurled my way. If a situation arises where things are going south, get out of it. I'd much rather be looked at as a wimp who backs down from fights than have to use my weapon. I will save that for when a physical altercation will take place. Be it a knife weilding scumbag, 4 thugs intent on hurting me or my friends, or a single attacker. I will always keep myself aware and whenever I can out of bad places, and away from bad people but that won't always be enough. I think it boils down to good choices and smart thinking. Not just during an altercation but before as well. Know where you are going, what the area is like, and just try to always be on your toes. But if someone decides they are coming at me, where I can't retreat safely, well then it is their unlucky day.

[CountryUgly]

Originally Posted by James&thegiant1911

You guys on this thread here kill me you really do. If someone bum rushes you and is beating the crap out of you then you all are going to be on point pull out a gun and kill someone. You all do realize that 80 percent of all shots in the heat of the battle miss there intended targets. That includes police officers who train with their weapons every day.

Unless someone trained in combat or a professional athlete attacks you then that would be assault with a deadly weapon warranting the use of deadly force. That is about the only scenario in which you could legally bring deadly force into the equation. Again if it is an equal fight and you are punching/ fighting with another person and then you up the situation by pulling a gun on an unarmed individual then expect to be in court on the stand telling a jury that you felt in fear of your life.

Go back and read my post ...... enough said.....

[CountryUgly]

Originally Posted by nicky_pitts

So I know a lot of you are way more experienced than myself when it comes to CCW and what surrounds it. However, my 2 cents anyways. Carrying a gun is a major responsibility. So much that it should and must influence the way you think/act. All I know is when I am armed, I will always back down if I can. No pride or toughness is worth the hassle. I will never let anyone's words get me pissed off or riled up. I will never be the aggressor, regardless of what insults have been hurled my way. If a situation arises where things are going south, get out of it. I'd much rather be looked at as a wimp who backs down from fights than have to use my weapon. I will save that for when a physical altercation will take place. Be it a knife weilding scumbag, 4 thugs intent on hurting me or my friends, or a single attacker. I will always keep myself aware and whenever I can out of bad places, and away from bad people but that won't always be enough. I think it boils down to good choices and smart thinking. Not just during an altercation but before as well. Know where you are going, what the area is like, and just try to always be on your toes. But if someone decides they are coming at me, where I can't retreat safely, well then it is their unlucky day.

Retreat Hell..... If someone is coming at you with the intent of doing you harm you better be ready to meet force with force. Trying to retreat at this point would only get you hurt or killed....just sayin....

[CountryUgly]

Originally Posted by master gunner

I am 65, had a triple bypass, both shoulders operated on a total of three times, don't breath well (could not run around the house once), knees give me trouble, wear glasses, am slow, fat and not so coordinated any more.

But I don't look so bad on the outside.

The individual is breaking the law when he assaults me or mine.

What do you think gives jerks the right to beat me up?

Again these pos start fights because they are sure they are going to win.

I have drawn down on a number of idiots, their sense of self preservation cut in and saved them.

Well said sir..... If more people took their own safety this seriously we would have a lot less people being beaten, robbed, mugged, car jacked and raped.

[nicky_pitts]

Originally Posted by CountryUgly

[/COLOR]

Retreat Hell..... If someone is coming at you with the intent of doing you harm you better be ready to meet force with force. Trying to retreat at this point would only get you hurt or killed....just sayin....

If you do that sorta thing in CT your gonna be looking at some trouble. Our law says we have to retreat if we can in a safe manner. The gun comes out last here in New England. Even drawing your weapon can get you in some deep water. Not the way I'd like to have it, just how it is. Believe me, I'd much rather be ready w/ weapon drawn at the first sight of danger, but not an option where I live. Therefore you adapt to your state's laws and act accordingly.

[1911FiX]

Sorry if this discussion has gotten slightly heated - it wasn't my intent.

And btw, when I first started this discussion, it wasn't about Zimmerman at all.

What prompted my original post was when I recounted a past event, when I was stabbed, to some folks at a business meeting. I mention this in mid-thread here and I had also mentioned it in a much older post on this board, pre-dating Zimmerman.

In my discussion with these folks, there was NO QUESTION THAT I WAS BEING ATTACKED without provocation and while outnumbered.

But even then, some folks felt that it wouldn't have been right had I drawn and shot someone - seeing that my attackers themselves didn't have guns. They felt that I should have run away or "shot to wound" or something. And incredulously this was even after they knew that running away, which was what I did (incorrectly in personal retrospect), did end up getting me stabbed - though luckily not fatally.

[JT1911]

Originally Posted by James&thegiant1911

see that is just it and proved the point I was making. You just can not shoot someone unless they are attacking you and in fear of your life the line is not just he was attacking me and I felt in fear of my life. You better have injuries which meet the classification of assault with a deadly weapon/ aggravated assault before you pull out your gun and shoot someone. I realize what you all are saying but a few scratches and a bloody nose is not going to cut it as long as the individual wasn't breaking any laws when the confrontation occurred.

So by your reasoning an individual should just let an attacker stab them until they "appear" injured enough to justify a shooting?

Sure a strong fella may have the ability to fend off an attacker without the use of a firearm, but for you to say that the use of a firearm is not justified until someone is grievously injured - you are essentially telling me my 5'4" 110lb girlfriend should be knocking on death's door before effecting her own defense via the one means which her size and strength allows- a firearm.

Before you say "well in her case that might be alright but..." but nothing you cannot know the condition of every person. There are those who look very intimidating but whom are of frail health. My father is such a man. Should he refrain from defending himself, because his injuries will most likely be internal and not gaping cuts the media can see?!

If you truly desire, that you and yours should be required to have visible injuries which would indicate they were assaulted with a deadly weapon prior to defending your/themselves- All I can say is I disagree with you in the worst way.

There is ONLY one rule to a fight.

THERE ARE NO RULES, SO CHOOSE LIFE.

[NonHyphenAmerican]

Originally Posted by Ringolevio

NonHyphenAmerican wrote:


I agree with most everything else you've said, and even with this, except that I hope it doesn't mean that an "insult" is worth fighting over. So many people seem to be shooting one another these days over being "disrespected", and that "disrespect" amounts to something as stupid as "He called my bitch a ho!"
[Richard Pryor used this line to show just how stupid it was.]

And, frankly, I used to be ready to fight anybody who hurled "fightin' words" at me. In my old neighborhood, when I was a kid, if you gave somebody the finger and they caught you, they'd break that finger (That's why I think it's particularly cowardly to give someone the finger from the safety of a car).

But nowadays I will laugh off fingers, fightin' words, strings of profanity about my race, my religion or my mother and just about anything intended to get a rise out of me. And even though I'm capable of demolishing someone with words (in The King's English, no less!), I bite my tongue, and let them think they've insulted me and gotten the best of me. Packing heavy iron has certainly rearranged my priorities.

I'll agree with you. I laugh at fingers and always wave 5 back at them.

My Conservative Eagle is 5 times more powerful than their Liberal "Bird"!

As for the insults?

Like the guy a few months ago who called my business wanting to sell me what was almost certainly stolen property, then threatened to kick my hiney for refusing to even discuss it. That kind of 'insult' resulted in the statement that if he so much as called my phone number again, I"d call my contact in the States Attorney Generals Office, another at FMCSA and yet another at KCC and file official complaints with all three as all have jurisdiction.

Amazingly the last thing I heard was a click as that N. End of a Southbound Donkey hung up.

And no, he never showed up to carry through with his threat. Too bad as I'd already made the phone calls and faxed all information on what he told me, leading me to believe the material was stolen. Especially since my customers in those areas have reported thefts of that type of material.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by James&thegiant1911

Zimmerman is a perfect example of this, it was dark and he was scared probably in fear for his life since he did not know if the prep was armed or not. However, his injuries did not warrant the use of deadly force in his prosecutors opinion

I disagree entirely. Someone's bouncing the back of my skull off a pavement, I'm putting an end to that nonsense right bloody quick; I'm not giving him the chance to shatter my cranium totally with his next blow - you seriously expect any human being to wait until he's gotten to that point? Too damn late then, don't you think?

NonHyphenAmerican said the magic words: "I will however use as much force as is necessary to get you to stop, however much force that is. Your actions dictates how much force that is."

[ColtRG100]

well going back to the original point of this thread... the only unfair fight is the one you lose. even if its in a ring with rules and a ref. obviously someone has an advantage which would then make the fight unfair to someone. otherwise there would be no winner.

and if you do carry a good quote to live by is "speak softly and carry a big stick". basically dont give anyone a reason to attack you, but have the ability to defend yourself if the situation ever occurs.

and since it was brought up. zimmerman should never be convicted of the murder 2 charge. he did not show malicious intent therefore a murder was not commited. the prosecutor knew this when they charged him with murder 2 instead of manslaughter. if they really wanted a conviction they would have charged him with manslaughter. they do not want him to go to jail but had to at least do something because the media blew the whole thing out of proportion.

[NonHyphenAmerican]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I disagree entirely. Someone's bouncing the back of my skull off a pavement, I'm putting an end to that nonsense right bloody quick; I'm not giving him the chance to shatter my cranium totally with his next blow - you seriously expect any human being to wait until he's gotten to that point? Too damn late then, don't you think?

NonHyphenAmerican said the magic words: "I will however use as much force as is necessary to get you to stop, however much force that is. Your actions dictates how much force that is."

Andy,

One of the things that taught me this was working as a CO about 35 years ago in a cell block where there were 2 of us and 440 of them.

Talk about 'outnumbered'!

And if you had an altercation with an inmate, you had 439 of them to witness against you if you did it wrong. And if you did it REALLY wrong, you had really cruddy odds of coming out of it in one piece. I once had to strike an inmate who was trying to shank a fellow inmate. I used a 5 Dcell maglight to strike his wrist, breaking 7 bones while disabling and disarming him. I had to do this in full view of at least 200 inmates. I used ONLY the force required to stop him from stabbing the other inmate. The safety of ALL inmates was my sworn responsibility. One strike did the job. Whaling the tar out of him wasn't required, and probably would have resulted in my having to take on a couple of hundred inmates. Instead, when I had to go to the inevitable trial, three inmates testified that I did my job and stopped him from shanking his target.

And yet, we also had to march into that cellblock with 5 12 ga. shotguns and racking them open and shut in unison shut down a cellblock riot.

Escalating violence/threat met with escalating force until the violence/threat is ended.

Nothing "Fair" about it, simply doing what's required as the original poster inferred. That someone thought he should refrain from neutralizing the threat to him in whatever way necessary is just plain ignorant, stupid or insane.

The other thing that taught me this was my Dad and Grandpa.

If you pull a firearm and point it at someone or thing, you plan on shooting that person or thing.

If you have to shoot someone or thing, then you need to kill that person or thing.

If it's a thing you're shooting that's not a threat, then in killing it, you eat it. I don't hunt things I don't eat for just that reason.

If it's a person or thing that threatens your safety or life, or the safety or life of those around you, and you need a firearm, then that person or thing needs killing.

Their actions truly are what dictates the level of my response.