This should give Greg nightmares:
2010 Arkansas Code
5-13-204. Aggravated assault.
Title 5 - Criminal Offenses
Subtitle 2 - Offenses Against The Person
Chapter 13 - Assault And Battery
Subchapter 2 - Offenses Generally
§ 5-13-204 - Aggravated assault.
(a) A person commits aggravated assault if, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he or she purposely:
(1) Engages in conduct that creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person;
(2) Displays a firearm in such a manner that creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person; or
(3) Impedes or prevents the respiration of another person or the circulation of another person's blood by applying pressure on the throat or neck or by blocking the nose or mouth of the other person.
(b) Aggravated assault is a Class D felony.
(c) The provisions of this section do not apply to:
(1) A law enforcement officer acting within the scope of his or her duty; or
(2) A person acting in self-defense or the defense of a third party.
Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Arkansas may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.
Better be correct in your judgement when you pull out that gun, Greg, or you are in legal deep shit!
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteYou do have an obsession with me. Did you notice the second exception--a person acting in self defense or in the defense of a third party? You just don't think that I can make that judgement, do you. But that doesn't matter. You and I live a long way away from each other. Let it go.
Would you agree to a truce? I won't make comments about you as a person, and you won't make comments about me as a person. That way, we can discuss things that actually matter.
I'm reminded of Lott's "data" regarding the number of "defensive uses of guns" that he cites. When you drill down, he purports to include things like showing of a gun at people the gun owner *thinks* seem threatening in some paranoid way.
ReplyDeleteOne gun guy described one such interaction that he was a part of, where he was out in the middle of some forest and some guys in a truck came by. He didn't like the look of them (they didn't actually do anything threatening) and he pulled out his gun to display it, and they drove off hurriedly. That was proof to him that he had "defended" himself against dangerous people. I would drive off, too, if some crazy guy flashed his gun in the middle of nowhere! What this gun loon did was probably illegal! Who's the criminal, now?
Baldr is absolutely right. A bit of common sense whould tell you that many purported DGUs are nothing of the kind.
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp:
ReplyDelete"Would you agree to a truce? I won't make comments about you as a person, and you won't make comments about me as a person. That way, we can discuss things that actually matter."
The matter that actually is being discussed (not by you, you're a whiner) IS that people like you own and carry weapons without having enough training to properly assess and react to a potential threat. We don't have to do anything underhanded to determine this. Your reams of self-reporting indicate to anyone who is reasonable that you're an idiot.
I don't have an obsession with you Greg, you feel this need to open your must and show us what a fuckwit you are.
ReplyDeleteI just have to show you up for being a fuckwit who has no idea of what the law is.
As you say--ain't fereedom a bitch for authoritarians.
And Greg, you are the authoritarian who wants to have the last word and silence the truth with your idiocy.
No truce, Greg, you are an asshole and as long as you post here--you will have at least three people reminding you of that fact.
BTW, Greg, do you know what the case law says on this topic.
ReplyDeleteOr are just just a total fucking moron?
And that isn't a false dichotomy.
Greg, you know and understand the law better than I do.
ReplyDeleteYou should pull your gun if you think you are being threatened.
That's a brilliant idea.
You are such a dumbfuck, Greg.
Keep posting your comments since you only help prove our arguments.
You assholes are proof that the US needs strong gun control.
"You should pull your gun if you think you are being threatened.
ReplyDeleteThat's a brilliant idea.
You are such a dumbfuck, Greg."
Not exactly, Laci dog. You should pull your gun if you have a reasonable belief there is an imminent, grave threat to your life. "Reasonable belief" is a legal standard, not a literal description of how one feels. You should probably have known that. Stop being obtuse.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteA bit of common sense? Dog Gone, of course, won't chastise you for that, but she usually wants hard numbers. Not when the notion is on her side, though.
Laci the Dog,
Fine. No deals. Not now, not ever.
MAgunowner,
I've been saying that for a long time. I get the idea that "threat" means something different to Laci from what it means to me.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteAnd you've spent how much time in training for dealing with threats, in the military or in a police uniform? Other than on Halloween.
Greg, perhaps Dog Gone realizes that many of the things I say cannot be substantiated with hard numbers. Who could possibly expect a hard number of false DGUs. In many of the things we discuss you need to use some common sense and honesty.
ReplyDeleteIn other cases, when you make wild claims for example, she asks for hard numbers.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDelete"Greg, perhaps Dog Gone realizes that many of the things I say cannot be substantiated with hard numbers. Who could possibly expect a hard number of false DGUs. In many of the things we discuss you need to use some common sense and honesty.
In other cases, when you make wild claims for example, she asks for hard numbers."
You've just admitted that she demands from me what she does not from you. It's been my experience that when someone cites common sense, that's the first point to check thoroughly. But I'm always honest.
It's been my experience that when someone cites common sense, that's the first point to check thoroughly. But I'm always honest.
ReplyDeleteDecember 24, 2011 6:36 AM"
Really? Aren't you the guy who bases all of your self-defense ideas on apochrphal and anecdotal "data"? If not, please provide a list of primary references to support your ridiculous assertions.
Check the date, shithead, it's not 4/1/12.
Umm, does honesty, btw, cover not answering questions because the answers are not what you want to admit to. Yeah, I thought so.