I have discovered most people would not fight back.


the dark said:
If you think this just started in the last four years, then you have simply not been paying attention.
Click to expand...

He was pretty accurate as far as I am concerned. I also fail to see any reference as to this being something that started in the last four years. One thing is certain, if YOU think the current administration has been on "America's" side for the last four years, YOU are the one who isn't paying attention.
 

It's irrelevant if the police intend to protect and serve. The cops I know personally very much want to help people. But how on earth are they supposed to be able to predict when a crime is going to occur? Even if their response time is less than a minute, the worst crimes are already over.
 
Wow! I find it very scary to think educated people, those who may be teaching our children, think that the police will keep them from becoming a crime statistic! I am glad I do not share there philosophy. I must not get out enough, as I don't quite see things that way. I do understand that bad things happen to good people everyday, but that does'nt mean they went looking for trouble or lacked the ability to talk the thug out of whatever crime he was about to commit! I think they need a dose of REAL reality TV. I find it truely amazing how some people think crime can never happen to them. Vigilance and preparedness are the best defense.
 
We are teachers and coaches of a high school in Illinois, Not Chicago. some of the teachers like the older lady live in wis.
most live near the border of IL and Wis. Its a good school. nice kids nice city its just I was taken back by the mind set of these smart people well ok not so smart. they blame the victim more than the badguy. I guess the throw the victim to the wolfs mindset and that can not happen here.
sad world.
 
For those of us that actually had a draft card, remember all the plane hi-jacking's of the 70's and 80's?. Stockholm syndrome etc. Don't resist the nice hi-jackers. Do what they say, Be friendly.The Goberment will save you from any harm.Meanwhile the same unwashed crew that was protesting the government at that time is now running it.
Point is, we were indoctrinated by "experts" not to fight back. Goberment is the answer. Now we have 2 or maybe 3 generations lost.
Sept 11 changed all that for many of us. Most of us have replace Sept 11 with more peaceful and happy thoughts.
I will protect my family without hesitation.
I may protect you if I can,
If I am on an airplane and some clown screams out smagma snackbar and tries to hijack the plane. I will go on the attack.
 
As I see it, there are several factors that, together, help to create this "don't get involved" mindset in people.

Conditioning.
We are conditioned from our early years to play by the rules, go along with the program, and always be polite. Nice people don't fight. If you have a problem,take it to the authority figure (teacher, parent, cop, etc.) and they will handle it for you. Most people (in my experience) are not taught that there are times when it is good and proper to fight. Because of this most do not learn how to physically defend themselves effectively (although this has changed somewhat since the eighties with movies like Karate Kid popularizing the martial arts). So, this conditioning leads to

Lack of Training, which results in

Fear.
This factor is one I become aware of as I got into more advanced training. I believe people do not get involved mostly out of fear; fear that they cannot handle it (lack of training), fear of getting hurt, fear of getting in trouble with The Law (especially given the political nature of prosecutors), and fear of lawsuits. I would add, in some cases fear of extra-legal retribution. The thing about this level of fear is some of it is unconscious. We rationalize that we aren't getting involved because "good" people don't fight, and "it's a job for the authorities who are trained for it". A corollary to this is that you don't really know if your motivation for not getting involved is as pure as you think it is because you don't really have a choice. If you don't have the option to fight due to lack of training or tools, it becomes very easy to rsee your lack of involvement as taking the moral high ground. In other words, there is no virtue in not hurting someone if you lack the ability to do so anyway! So, if you have no other choice than not to get involved, it becomes the default action even when it is the wrong action.

Lack of Commitment

Lastly, is the lack of commitment to really hurt someone. A real fight, the way I learned to do it, is not pretty. It's not about fancy moves or trading blows with someone like a boxing match. It's definitely not about being fair. It's about doing what you must to survive. It's about taking the attacker out in the quickest, most efficient, and brutal way you can. That means making their fingers, knees, or elbows go backwards until they break. It means gouging eyes, chokes and blows to the throat, and slamming them down on the pavement or into a wall. A normal person has a natural aversion to this purposeful kind of violence. That is good. That's why we try to walk away, but when the time comes to fight, we need to commit.
 
I'm definitely with the right company. I'll be damned if I let my loved ones walk into harms way. Just because I'm polite and courteous doesn't mean I'm a coward. One way to test a person's limit is to infringe on him and his family. Stay vigilant, stay informed, stay alive.

Y'all be safe out there, y'hear?
 
The original point made by the OP is important here. Most people would not actually fight back and they will say so in court. The "Litmus Test" in case law for justification in defending a stranger by using your weapon is that you have to be sure they would have used a weapon to defend themself. Reasonable assumption doesn't work here as when you get into court (Criminal or Torte) the opposing lawyer is going to try to show that you just didn't know whether the person defended would have used a weapon. If the would have been victim suddenly says that they would not have defended themselves, you go from "Super Crusader" to " Mad Dog Killer" in one easy phrase (You weren't in immediate danger yourself and the other person did not consider deadly force as an option.) State law does not obligate you to defend the other person, it just says that if everything else is kosher you can do it. "Kosher" will be the Litmus Test above. Just as the LEO have no obligation to defend others, civilians (i.e. us) do not have that obligation either. I think if it was a child or if the adult victim was screaming "stop" or "shoot him" I would without a doubt react using my weapon. But other than that it is really a bad situation. It can be a crime to defend another person. It can be a crime to stop a rapist by shooting him. Right or wrong is not the test in court, Legal or Not Legal is the test. The definition of "self Defense" needs to be seriously addressed by the courts, giving us a good guide to follow.
 
wjh2657 said:
The original point made by the OP is important here. Most people would not actually fight back and they will say so in court. The "Litmus Test" in case law for justification in defending a stranger by using your weapon is that you have to be sure they would have used a weapon to defend themself.
Click to expand...
Not in Ohio.

Here, the standard is, would you, if you were in the place of the person being defended, have the legal RIGHT to defend yourself.

According to your formulation, if you saw someone knock somebody unconscious with a ballpeen hammer, and shot the assailant as he raised the hammer to strike again, you would be committing a crime, because you could not be SURE that the victim would use deadly force. This is ESPECIALLY so, if the victim were reduced to a persistent vegetative state, or died without ever making a statement that HE would have shot his assailant, had he had the opportunity.

Your argument is akin to that of people who I've seen declare ALL deadly force illegitimate, since you can never KNOW that your assailant meant to murder you unless he does.
 
Before being so sure that Ohio law gives you a blanket “License to Kill”, read the article at the link posted below.

Also I am not the “bleeding heart” you seem to portray. If you read the rest of the post, I do carry with a HCP and I would probably use my weapon to defend others in most cases. Under Tennessee law btw, I would have more protection than you do under Ohio law but even Tennessee law gets hazy when the shooting occurs outside of the "Castle".Neither Ohio law nor Tennessee law have the firm "stand your ground" provisions that the Florida law does.

If the victim has already been assaulted and body damage has occurred, it is highly likely I would have a extremely good case for a SD defense. A coma case by the way isn’t able to testify that they “wouldn’t fire” so your word is going to prevail. The danger is where an adult is threatened and you fire before they are actually injured. Then their testimony that they did not perceive the threat the same as you could destroy your case.

Ohio Law doesn’t actually spell out clearly where the burden of proof lies when the shooting occurs outside of your own home or vehicle, which is the only environment where self defense is cut and dried. Read the article and you will find that everything else is determined by case law and not clearly delineated in the state code. I am not trying to tear down the Ohio law (I was born and raised in Toledo btw) but simply to again point out that SD is not as cut and dried as we are led to believe it is.

Link:
Link Removed
 
Who said anything about a blanket “License to Kill”? You are mis-characterizing the discussion. I know of no law that requires the defense of another to be predicated upon their willingness or desire to defend themselves. To construe it as such yields logical absurdities. Consider a person unknowingly about to be knifed from behind, or a person who is incapable of properly assessing the threat or even recognizing it as a threat, such as a child or mentally incompetent person. Such a law (or ruling) would be far from what a "reasonable person " would consider justified. If you do know of one such, please let me know where I can see it.

Defense of others is a long established concept in Common Law, the general requirement being that the person being defended actually has the right of self defense and has not forfeited that right in any way, such as would be the case during mutual combat, or under any duty to retreat if applicable.

I did read the article you cited and I also looked up the actual law in the ORC. You are correct that the only place you have a statutory right to self defense is in your home or vehicle (in Ohio) and that other locations would be governed by case law. However, it does state that the burden of proof for any other place is upon the accused to produce a defense. The article itself does not address applicable case law that would cover defense of others. However, since defense of others is an established concept, the burden of proof would typically result in having to convince at least a Grand Jury that lethal force was indeed justified beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Last edited:
I have found a map that depicts by county where you are more likely and less likely to find people to defend themselves and others:

Link Removed

The redder, the safer.

Here are the 2008 election results:

Link Removed

The "cowardice of America" is by design.
 
Sir. the Litmus TEST is what a reasonable person would do! deadly force in defense of myself would fall under what a reasonable person with my training ( cause that training would become a factor) A trained police officer would be better prepare to know when and how to use deadly force, that person would have a higher standard then would be used if a old women who had been beat and robbed with no training and physical disadvantages. Still using a reasonable person with the understanding or training of that person in that incident. Rape is a forceable felony and I think is everywhere, If there is no other way to stop a rape you can shoot a rapist. And what the other person did or did not think would not matter.
If that person wants me to shoot the rapist after he stop and surrender I would not" he gave up its not self defense then. you turn the badguy over to the police. Same thing if she would not defend herself by using deadly force. If I thought I was saving someone life from a bear, shark or killer, rapist by shooting that threat, are you saying I have to stop and ask OH LADY IS IT OK WITH YOU IF I SHOOT THAT SOB" BALLS OFF OR DO YOU WANT ME TO HOLD YOUR HAIR OUT OF THE DIRT WHEN YOU THROWUP. Ok LOL your not thinking right we can not read other peoples mind we can only see their action and hear their words. so in that if I precive a threat a deadly threat to someone and I act on that perception the test is was it reasonable to a reasonable person with my training to do the same under the law. We the people decide what is reasonable. thats why we have jurys decide right or wrong. 50 people decide not to help a women being raped in a alley. One man charges in and attacks the guy doing it and in a fist fight kills the badguy. The women is a nun she is against the death sentence. I am not bound by her will under the law. She may say thank you but I think you should have not killed him I would have wanted to be raped than kill him. Well ok sorry about that but I did what a reasonable MAN (person) Note man is also in the meaning of what reasonable person is just like woman is too if the gender is a part of the matter. would do. Cowards are not a part of that law.
Note I am not calling wjh that just the 50 people who walked by and did not help the nun. the law lets them be cowards but it protects the brave man who trys to help. some times it called the good samarten( spelling?) law.
ok with all that being said I have saw in the paper a big great white shark has attacked a person and others people jump in the water and swim to that person and pulls them to safety. OMG that would not be me I am scared to **** of them, I sat in a small boat one time a a great white swam by and that was it for me he was bigger than my boat. beached the boat not been in the water from that day to this one. so if a man drags you down a dark alley I will come help you you swim in the water with those devils FORGET ABOUT IT! I will call the clean up crew and send flowers. I swear I heard the Shark gigging as he swam by as I peed my shorts. I think he said to his friends later at the bar MAN WHEN THAT GUY SPOTTED ME SWIMMING BY HE SAT UP AND PEED A RIVER. HAHAHA his boat looked like a jetski zooming back to the beach!!! So we all are people but when the time comes to stand up and be counted what do you do. UNless its sharks.
Then count me as a no show. I hate shark week!!!!!! I need depends!!! I love pools nice safe and no sharks. and the little drinks that have colored levels in them red to yellow, pizza and beer Single moms looking around and pretending not to look around. yea! ok out of the pool. shark check!!!! HI MAM CAN I HELP WITH THAT LOTION IN THE HARD TO REACH SPOTS. yea LOVE POOLS!
 
Hogenbeg

I think we are on the same page. I would fire to defend another, but I am well aware that I have placed myself in harm's way to do such. It is not the act of defending others that I question, it is the attitude that others (not you) have in these forums that they can just whip out their piece and blaze away if they "feel" there is a threat. You will still have to convince a jury that there really was "Reasonable belief" in most states (not Florida obviously.) Obvious indicators that would over-ride that are: actual injury has been incurred, attacker has vocally stated he will kill them, others have have already been injured or killed. My main objection to how this is presented in these forums and to some degree, in civilian self defense courses, is that you have the power of GOD to determine when to fire and that nobody can question it. We fire because you believe it is neccessary but whether we walk free in a court still depends on whether a jury believes it was neccessary. To tell others differently in classes or forums is to do them a disservice and possibly put them in jeopardy.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a nice cliche but I don't really believe that it is working law in this country.
 
wjh2657 said:
Hogenbeg

I think we are on the same page. I would fire to defend another, but I am well aware that I have placed myself in harm's way to do such.
Click to expand...
I would do it, but I have to be 100% certain, like somebody shooting kids at Santa's Village at the mall.

I don't EVER become personally involved in domestic disputes, gun or no gun. They're almost always so thoroughly saturated in fail on everybody's part that I leave them to people allegedly paid to deal with such things. I'll call the cops, but no more. There was a big dispute over this on another forum, with people impugning the character of those who wouldn't get physically involved. My reply was that such people could ABSOLUTELY be counted upon not to lift a finger in support of somebody who got into the middle of a domestic situation and had the VICTIM lie and say that her "defender" had in fact attacked the person beating her brains out for no reason at all, and without warning. Sorry, I don't get paid to do that (I barely get paid for what I do for a living), and don't have a union lawyer and the automatic presumption of justification to back me up.
 
Confederado... Its gotta be right Its on all the Cars ( to Protect and serve ). White tiger... to bad you have never met my wife. I would pitty the bad guy that messes with her. She and I are not sheep!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 379 (members: 0, guests: 379)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,543
Messages
611,260
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1

Share this page

Back
Top