|
|
| Author |
Message |
myosim
White Belt
Joined: 31 Jan 2002
Posts: 6
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2002 6:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Again the problem with getting 3rd hand information from a cop. Which by the way does not qualify them to make legal assessments like this.
"My mom is a Georgia State Patrol officer and here we are allowed to defend ourselves to the full extent of our potential."
Yes chambering the arm does constitute assault(although not battery) which does then open the door for reasonable force. But "the full extent of our potential"? Deadly force or mailicious wounding are not reasonable responses for someone throwing a punch at you. For that matter an aggravated assault charge is a likely outcome. Ask the Boston hockey dad if you can defend yourself to the full extent of your potential. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
shotochem
Pre-Black Belt
Joined: 29 Dec 2001
Posts: 901
Location: New York
Styles: Shotokan, Kempo, BJJ, Baby-Do-Jitsu
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2002 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I ve always assumed the law was to use equal or reasonable force against an attacker???
IMHO I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. 
But thats just me......
_________________
Pain is only temporary, the memory of that pain lasts a lifetime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blade13
Purple Belt
Joined: 23 Aug 2001
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2002 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"To the full extent of our potential"...I dont mean killing them, I mean we are allowed to hurt them enough to stop the danger. If that consitutes killing them, then we can. If they have a gun, knife, or other weapon that puts you in fear of your life (and you are unarmed), you have the right to kill. Loopholes are fun arent they? I could find more....but I really dont care enough about this to do it, lol. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Gwinn
Orange Belt
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 231
Location: Virden, IL
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2002 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cops are expected to know more law than the average lawyer does, and they get strange ideas. Don't rely on them for legal advice. It's not their fault, it's just the nature of the job they do.
Phantasm, just because someone is in your house does not necessarily mean you can shoot him. The standard is whether you were reasonable in believing that he was a threat and your life or the life of someone else was in danger. If you confront a burglar with a gun, for instance, and he gives up and follows your commands, you'd better not fire. This is a pretty reasonable law. If he advances upon you, refuses to drop his weapon, etc, you are justified in stopping him.
NEVER think in terms of what justifies "killing" someone. NOTHING does, legally. You are to STOP him. This is also better from a self-defense standpoint; there are many things you can do that would kill the attacker but unless he is immediately incapacitated he can continue the attack and kill you before he goes. Not much of a victory.
In empty-hand terms, you might be able to open a cut that will eventually be lethal. However, that can't be your concern because in the meantime he can still fight and will kill you before he dies unless you STOP him. Make him incapable of attacking again or cause him to give up. And again, nothing in law justifies the attitude that you will set out to kill him, even if he tries to kill you. It only justifies using a level of force that could or likely will kill him. That's why we speak of "using lethal force" rather than "killing." The two really are different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
on the post.
