And he further insists that anyone who would rob him MUST be threatening his life,and therefore justifies him shooting that person as a threat. Many times here we have read similar comments from other readers, on the topic of rape and assault.
This Bureau of Justice Statistical study contradicts those claims about the threat of armed violent crime.
Therefore it is worth noting that in point of fact, no weapon is used in committing crimes more often than a weapon is used, and specifically far more often than a firearm is used to commit a crime.
Our gun loonz hate to be confronted and confused by the facts, because they counter their arguments for why they need so many guns, and need them everywhere, all the time.
I would argue to our readers that these numbers suggest that they would be equally safe, in terms of their statistically measured risk, defending themselves with something like a taser which is not lethal force, and that they themselves would also be safer carrying and using less lethal force.
Summary Findings
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) measures the nonfatal violent crimes of rape/sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault. Victims who experience violent crimes are asked if the offender(s) used weapons.
In 2009 —
- An offender was armed with a gun, knife, or other object used as a weapon in an estimated 22% of all incidents of violent crime.
- Offenders used firearms to commit 8% of violent crime incidents in 2009.
- Robberies (47%) were the most likely crime to involve an armed offender.
- Firearms (28%) were the most common weapons used in robberies.
- Most rapes and assaults did not involve the use of a weapon.
- From 1993-1997, of serious nonfatal violent victimizations, 28% were committed with a firearm, 4% were committed with a firearm and resulted in injury, and less than 1% resulted in gunshot wounds.
| Presence of offender's weapon | Violent crime | Rape/ sexual assault | Robbery | Simple/ aggravated assault | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 100 | % | 100 | % | 100 | % | 100 | % | |
| No weapon | 73 | % | 85 | % | 48 | % | 76 | % | |
| Weapon | 22 | % | 10 | %* | 47 | % | 19 | % | |
| Firearm | 8 | -- | * | 28 | 5 | ||||
| Knife | 6 | 8 | * | 9 | 5 | ||||
| Other | 7 | 2 | * | 8 | 7 | ||||
| Type not ascertained | 2 | -- | * | 2 | * | 1 | |||
| Don't know | 6 | % | 5 | %* | 6 | %* | 6 | % | |
| Note: Percentage may not total to 100% because of rounding. If the offender was armed with more than one weapon, the crime is classified based on the most serious weapon present. *Based up 10 or fewer sample cases. --Less than 0.5%. | |||||||||
"Our gun loonz hate to be confronted and confused by the facts"
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. I am confused by your "facts". Are you saying that since, according to these statistics, women are raped by men without guns that they should not defend themselves with one?
What you didn't give is your explanation of how a crime can be committed without a weapon. I have an answer: disparity of force. The robber, rapist, or murderer can have no weapon--knife, club, gun, etc.--but still be armed. His body may be his weapon, especially if strengthened by drugs. As I've said before, someone confronts you on the sidewalk and demands your money. How does he get it without the threat of force? The legal standard doesn't require that your attacker have a gun. It requires a threat of death or serious injury to be offered. As Massad Ayoob tells us (he's a police officer, by the way), there must be ability, opportunity, and jeopardy. When those conditions are met, lethal force is justified.
ReplyDeleteAnd since you mentioned it, I have no objection to carrying a stun gun or pepper spray. There is only so much room, though.
I am saying that they should use something less lethal like a taser, not that they should skip defending themselves.
ReplyDeleteYou DO know, don't you, fWM, that you are not allowed, legally, to shoot an unarmed person, unless you can prove they are a sufficient threat -- and being unarmed that would argue against that use of lethal force?
You're much safer with pepper spray, or a taser, or - my personal preference - good self defense training, and a large dog, which tends to be a deterrent to that kind of thing happening at all.
But it is not just rapes - and I'm assuming that neither you nor Greg or Jim or any of the anonomi are really too worried about yourselves being raped? I think we can agree that while same sex rape does occur, it is typically more a crime of men against women, as is the case with domestic violence.
Most gun crimes occur between men, with far fewer women involved as either victims or aggressors.
What has been surprising to me is the number of bank robberies where there is no gun shown to the bank personnel, and sometimes even the notes passed to bank personnel do not mention specifically any kind of weapon or threat. They are simply a demand for money.
I'm waiting for Laci to be available from his weekend's activities, but this presents an interesting situation for the justification of lethal force.
Some force, yes. Lethal force, particularly by someone other than the police? It is not so clear that in those circumstances a weapon, much less a deadly weapon, can be assumed - legally speaking.
Actually, in rape cases, a lack of consent is a greater concern - such as in date rape drugs,or underage girls who are unable to make an informed consent. It is why I am so deeply and profoundly angry that the conservatives have tried, in the course of their culture war on women, to define rape as only forcible rape - not threat of rape, not rape with incapacitation, not rape with coercion or threat, not underage statutory rape.
You are focusing only on forcible rape cases here apparently FWM. Those are clearly a small fraction of the real scope of rape cases that concern me.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteRape is a terrible crime, and a woman who has been drugged is not in a position to defend herself. But a woman who faces a rapist on the street or in her home has the right to defend herself--with lethal force, in my judgement and, I imagine, in the judgement of a good portion of the population. I'd hate to be the prosecutor who tried to bring murder or assault charges on a woman who defended herself against rape. (Both on moral and on practical grounds.)
Now, are bank employees required by their bosses to avoid resisting? As someone once said to me, everything stupid in this world has insurance at its root. The bank's insurer probably would rather pay for a robbery than for a stand, and that's a symptom of the failing of our society. If a man hands me a piece of paper, I'm going to move my hand toward my weapon and have a good laugh.
I don't go about worrying about being raped myself. On the other hand, at the lake trail near where I live, there was a rapist attacking women, and if I came upon such a scene, I'd want to be able to help the person being assaulted. (I'd ask what was going on first before producing my gun.)
"You DO know, don't you, fWM, that you are not allowed, legally, to shoot an unarmed person, unless you can prove they are a sufficient threat -- and being unarmed that would argue against that use of lethal force?"
ReplyDeleteThere are too many variables in, not only the situation, but in the state laws as well. Depending upon geography, you can defend yourself with lethal force, even if the goblin has no weapon, in many situations, rape being one of those. Others could include a disparage of force or the belief at the time that there was a weapon.
"You're much safer with pepper spray, or a taser, or - my personal preference - good self defense training, and a large dog, which tends to be a deterrent to that kind of thing happening at all."
Absolutely. The best way to prevail in a fight is to avoid it in the first place. Situational awareness is the greatest tool you can have if you learn to use it. However, there is nothing wrong with adding firearms and knives to the list of your defensive options above. Everyone should have some skills in non-lethal options as, more often than not, an attack is non-lethal in nature. However, you should also be prepared that you may need to take a life to defend yourself or your loved ones. It is a sick and dangerous world.
or the belief at the time that there was a weapon.
ReplyDeleteYour belief better be pretty convincing. If you're some bumbling rotund Mr.Magoo what you think you know and what the reality is will be a problem for you if you succeed the person you intended to target at all, and not someone else.
One more reason that an eye exam makes sense as a prerequisite to own firearms.
What you assume is not good enough.
That is why banks tell their tellers to give up the cash and not engage in a shootout with the bank robber.
You better be sure there IS - not MIGHT BE - a weapon before you use deadly force.
When Greg writes :How does he get it without the threat of force?
Apparently Greg, criminals get money all the time without overt threat of force. And it REQUIRES over threat of force, or you had damn well better not be shooting unless you are willing to face criminal and civil challenges. Plenty of people have wrongly presumed a threat of force and ended up behind bars and broke for wrongful shootings.
Same goes for the police, as Laci so clearly outlined for you. It was a core part of the curriculum in my combat pistol class that I took for my permit.
And that is as it should be for you frightened gun loons who are far too likely to perceive a greater threat than is actually present.
Or do you not know that sometimes aggressors try to rob people, and are told NO forcefully, and that is sufficient for them to give up?
We see the videos of it happening at mom and pop stores, gas stations and convenience stores, or did you miss all the videos?
You damn well better KNOW if someone has a weapon before you shoot them.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you insist on being deliberately dense? Let's say that someone comes up to me on a sidewalk and asks for my money. It's likely that I'll have seen him coming, and if so, I'll have been looking for a weapon. I'll tell him no. If he walks away, the situation is over. If he presses the matter, I'll be ready to draw, so that if he makes a direct threat against my life, I'll shoot.
You keep saying that I'll just shoot someone who comes near me. I keep telling you that I know the rules better than that. You just can't imagine that I'd act responsibly. So I ask you again, why did you ever take a carry class? Why did you feel the need to carry a handgun? If no one can use them in an appropriate manner, why did you?
If, on the other hand, you were able to carry responsibly, from where do you get the temerity to say that none of us is capable of doing the same?
Massad Ayoob, as far as I know, Greg, is not a lawyer and cannot offer legal advice. You will need an attorney to help you with legal questions, not the opinion of some dickhead on the internet.
ReplyDeleteCase in point, is YOU, Greg.
How does a criminal get something from you is he is unarmed. Let's say he's behind you, Greg, how do you know if he's armed or not?
Take this story as an example.
And as someone who worked in bank security, I can tell you that no weapon needs to be presented, and often is not, during a robbery.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't surprise me that you don't know who Ayoob is. He's a police officer with the rank of captain in New Hampshire and a widely recognized teacher of firearms use both to the police and to ordinary citizens. He also is often called as an expert witness on shootings.
But since he supports legal concealed carry, he must not know what he's talking about.
reg, it doesn't surprise me that you are a fuckwit who doesn't understand simple English:
ReplyDeleteMassad Ayoob, as far as I know, Greg, is not a lawyer and cannot offer legal advice. You will need an attorney to help you with legal questions, not the opinion of some dickhead on the internet.
You had already said he was a police captain, but that does not make him a lawyer.
You are too stupid, Greg, to realise that only those with legal qualifications should give legal advise.
Ever hear of the unauthorised practise of law?
Or does talking to me go beyong the level of your ignorance, Greg?
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteSo someone who is a recognized expert on justified homicide can't discuss the rules? Also, as a justice of the peace in New Hampshire, Ayoob has many of the same powers of a judge in other jurisdictions.
Feeling defensive about someone else who can speak about the law?
Making someone an expert in law only means that they claim more knowledge than the average person. Cross examining expert witnesses and destroying their testiminy is one of the many tricks of the trial lawyer.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, being a justice of the peace does not make him a lawyer or knowlegable of the law. Some jurisdictions allow for non-lawyers to do this.
You fail to admit that he is not a lawyer, and as such, is not able to give legal advice--he can only offer his opinion.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteShow me where I ever called him a lawyer. One thing that I do know--I'd never call on you for legal advice, since it's obvious what side you're on.
Legal advice is just one lawyers opinion.
ReplyDeleteGreg, you never did, but you misunderstood my comment and have further misunderstood my comment.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't speak well for your expertise as an English Teacher.
Greg, which side am I on?
ReplyDeleteI am on the side which has a basis in proper legal method, which probably contradicts your ignorant opinion.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteI understood what you wrote. Your point? I wasn't impressed. The side that you're on? You're against private citizens having any power. You're on the side of authority, no matter how it's exercised. You can't stand it that there are people who disagree with you. You become irrationally furious when someone opposes your position. You are insulting and obnoxious. That's your side.
Greg, I could give a fuck whether you were impressed or not.
ReplyDeleteYou have obviously not understood my point.
And you have no understanding of the law.
I am not the lawyer you would want because I would be honest with you and give you a factual analysis of your situation based upon the law and the case law interpretation of that law. I would also assess your possible defences.
That is not what you want--you want someone who will tell you what you want to hear.
You want someone who will tell you that you are right.
Damn right I am insulting and obnoxious to you, Greg, because you want me to tell you that you are right when you are so obviously wrong, but fail to realise that fact.
That really grates you doesn't it, Greg, you like to feel that you know it all and are so smart, but you don't know shit.
And it's really obvious that you don't know shit about history, the law, English language, and probably everything else under the sun.
DFurthermore, Greg, you haven't given me a reason to want to be polite to you.
ReplyDeleteYou are ignorant.
Worse, you are arrogant since you fail to recognise your ignorance. Instead, you are more than willing to demonstrate your ignorance.
Then you act hurt when you have been called on it.
Sorry, Greg, your deserve contempt, not respect.
And a gun won't get you respect.
Or anything else your false attributions give it.
You are a fuck up with a gun.
no more, no less.
Masaad Ayoob is not listed as an officer of the Grantham, NH PD. The department lists a total of 4 personnel. There are a Chief, a deputy/assistant Chief and two patrolmen. Nobody holds the rank of captain.
ReplyDeleteThese guys:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/
seem to think that Ayoob is a whanker. I would tend to agree.
Greg Camp is really going off at the deep end, methinks.
Demokitty,
ReplyDeleteAyoob is a highly sought after expert witness in criminal trials involving use of deadly force. You're a bit out of your element here.
Well, let's take a look at what Wiki has to say.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massad_Ayoob
Greg writes:
ReplyDeleteLet's say that someone comes up to me on a sidewalk and asks for my money. It's likely that I'll have seen him coming, and if so, I'll have been looking for a weapon.
So you're telling all of us that you just know, by looking at people, who to be afraid of, who is going to be a mugger, or a robber, or a rapist?
Wow, you could sure save the police a lot of time by pointing those people out to them. Please DO describe this kind of criminal to us all here. The one you are going to reach for a gun so you're ready BEFORE they start the process of robbing you.
I'll tell him no. If he walks away, the situation is over. If he presses the matter, I'll be ready to draw, so that if he makes a direct threat against my life, I'll shoot.
So, you think he's going to give you time to draw? You think he's going to 'press the matter' before he has a gun out, that he will be alone, that you will never be ambushed by a person approaching you from both in front AND behind who are armed?
You think you are going to get the drop on a mugger, robber, rapist?
What about the classic film noir situation - he has his hands in his pockets, where he may or may not have a gun pointed at you?
If you do shoot an attacker, he warns, a typical legal defense will cost upwards of six figures. And the ordeal doesn't end with financial ruin. Kill someone, and your friends and neighbors will instinctively turn their backs on you.
and
there's the hard-core right-wing ultra-
gunnies, who consider me a crypto-commie because I tell them, 'No, as a matter of fact, you don't have a God-given right to carry a loaded gun in shopping malls where there are kids walking around. It's a privilege, and you need to be able show society that you know how to use it and when to use it. That you're not going to shoot at a perpetrator and hit a kid by mistake.' I think that's a reasonable request. (bold, my emphasis added)
the shooter must prove immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.
The question is, when is killing someone deemed justifiable by society?
Not often. Justifiable homicide is the only aspect of American justice where the burden of proof is on the defendant. The only certainty is this: "Expect to be arrested."
In the wrong hands, what we're learning at LFI -- crudely put, how to kill and get away with it -- is nothing less than a public menace.
"Civilians chasing criminals are like dogs chasing cars: they have no idea what to do with them when they catch them." That is: if they run, let them go. If it's a robbery, give them the money. If you're armed and someone comes up and spits in your face, walk away. If you hear a noise in your house, hide yourself in a safe room and call the police -- never go looking for intruders.
When in doubt, don't shoot.
Statements made by Massad Ayoob, during one of his 'Lethal Force Institute' classes,
http://www.weeklywire.com/ww/11-29-99/boston_feature_1.html
Which tracks pretty closely with what I was taught, and would seem to be a bit different than what YOU have expressed here.
Therefore, I doubt your competence, in most things, but especially in this area.
Anonymutt@3:20AM and Mr. Ayoob do have at least one thing in common. We know next to nothing about either one of them, outside of Wiki (never a primary source) or a slew of self-referential sources.
ReplyDeleteA genuine bio seems not to be out there. Interesting.
Greg, You're a big one for percentages, so let me point this out to you. Most rapes happen between acquaintances. A gun does not help those women becasue by the time the problem is apparent, it's too late to grab the gun. The guy's too close.
ReplyDeleteAbout the others, the stranger rapes, guns do more harm than good. It's like concealed carry in general but worse. The women who get a gun for fear of rape are generally less trained and less naturally-competent with guns than your typical gun owner. The resultant problems far outweigh the rare instance of a gun saving the day.
Or is your argument that even if one rape is prevented the 15 negligent discharges and 22 stolen guns and 4 or 5 wrongful shootings of innocent men would all be worth it?
Mikeb302000:
ReplyDeleteIn Greg Camp's "perfect world" of everbody haz teh gunz, allatime, he would be approached by a young woman, who needed directions. He would assume that she was intent on robbing him and draw his 1911--whereupon she, thinking that he was a rapist would whip out her lady glock and they'd shoot each other at point-blank range.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteIf you were promoting training, you and I would have no disagreement. Training is a good idea. But you're arguing for disarming civilians. That I'll never go along with.
Dog Gone,
Again, you haven't told us why you got concealed carry training in the first place. Why were you qualified, when the rest of us aren't? Were you afraid?
gC wrote:
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp said...
Laci the Dog,
It doesn't surprise me that you don't know who Ayoob is.
Greg, at no point does Laci indicate he is unfamiliar with who Ayoob is; I suspect he knows more about Ayoob's credentials, pro and con, than you do.
Clearly YOU, Greg, don't know what Ayoob has to say about the situations where you would use your firearm-- he disapproves of what you advocate, pretty decisively.
(I just love busting the gun loons with their own sources; it is such fun, like getting a triple word score in Scrabble.)
As a very successful lawyer, on both sides of the Atlantic, Laci is I think rather better equipped than you are to know who and how a person can be refuted as an expert witness by a good defense lawyer.
Although given those quotes from one of his gun classes, I don't know that Laci would actually NEED to discredit him as an expert (largely self-styled, he's a master at self-promotion) for the purpose of this argument.
Greg, I'm still waiting for you to explain to all of us here how it is that you KNOW who is a threat that justifies you reaching for your firearm when you see them at a distance begin to approach you.
I'm sure you already know I will be repeating that comment every single damn time you try to post a comment here,until you answer it, and that the odds of you having a really GOOD answer are pretty much slim to none. That means that you are reaching for a firearm on your person, with at least some degree of intent to use it, on a very questionable basis.
And THAT proves why I particularly would NOT trust YOUR judgment with firearms, or the judgment of more than a few other people I've known who carried.
We're waiting Greg for your insightful description of how you just know who the bad guys are.
Any old time now would be just great...tick tock tick tock
Greg, all an expert witness means is that he claims more knowledge on a topic than the average person and can state a basis for why he makes that claim.
ReplyDeleteAnd saying that a Justice of the Peace has any legal knowledsge demonstrates that have you less knowledge of US government than I do.
That is a poor statement from someone who claims to teach since I will admit to very limited knowledge of the US system of government.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteUnlike you, I've answered those questions, but I'll do it again. As Ayoob informs us, there has to be the ability to cause harm, the opportunity to do so, and an imminent jeopardy of harm being done.
Random stranger on the street? That's not enough. Now, if that person shouts, "I'm gonna kill you," we have a different story. He's declared an intent. Can he act on it? Is he bigger than I am? Does he appear to be "enhanced" by drugs? Does he have a weapon?
Anyone who is trying to rob me will have made an obvious threat to my life. Otherwise, the guy's just pitiful.
As I've said many times, there must be a threat to my life or the life of another innocent for lethal force to be justified. What part of that don't you get?
Your turn: Why are or were either you or Laci qualified to carry? Why did you or do you do so? In what way were either of you better than the rest of us. (Don't say critical thinking; give specifics.)
I'm very confident that you are not competent to judge if someone is chemically enhanced in such a way as to constitute a threat that will hold up in court, Greg, from a casual viewing on a street or sidewalk, particularly if not at very close range.
ReplyDeleteSo that is one down from what you said earlier as a qualified basis for reaching for your weapon.
Secondly, in NONE of your scenarios has anyone yelled at you that they were going to kill you while at a distance from you, and the odds of that occurring in a robbery are infinitesimally small.
So we're back to you describing how it is you know you should be reaching for your firearm, and when and how that would precede someone drawing on you first, or otherwise SHOWING you a weapon.
I would also highlight again - Ayoob is pretty insistent that in a robbery you should NOT be shooting someone, you should hand over your money.
So why are you someone we should give credence, over Ayoob on this?
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI answered your question. You may not like my answer, but you don't have to. Now it's your turn. Answer my question. Could you possibly be afraid to tell us under what circumstances you were allowed to carry a concealed handgun and why you did so?
First of all Greg, NO, you did not answer my question. You said you would tell by looking at someone if they were a likely threat. There was no caveat of them yelling they were going to kill you as the means of identification in any of you other preceding comments.
ReplyDeleteIf you really think that is going to happen, you are going to die in your bed first of old age. It's bullshit and you know it.
And I have written about my concealed carry circumstances and qualifications a number of times. Have fun reading the archives, because until you answer here more fully, I'm going to keep on waiting. So it's like dodging anything. I would point out it is a big archive - hope you like to read.
You have not yet identified how you would tell someone was in any way enhanced by recreational pharmaceuticals or prescription drugs for that matter.
If you meant PCP, I'd love to hear what you know about the subject, since I have both classroom and clinical experience, as well as practical experience with the drug in vet med; ditto Ketamine. So I'd just love to hear what you think indicates that use, and I'm sure Laci would as well since he has had clients to defend who use.
And then, after you explain in better detail than the pathetic example of someone yelling they're going to kill you (thanks for that laugh) when you would decide to reach for your gun.
But most of all, I'd like you to explain why you claim you need to shoot someone who is robbing when you, whey Ayoob is so emphatic that you should not do so, but should turn over your money.
THEN, and only then, I'll repeat what I've provided here over and over, the details of my permit experience.
I by the way, unlike YOU, DO share the opinions of Ayoob about proper decisions on when to shoot or draw one's weapon.
dog gone:
ReplyDeleteI'm gonna have to guess that if Greg Camp owned the ball as a child, most of the ballgames were over rather quickly. Neener, neener!
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteOh, you can't even offer a link? That's your favorite tactic: bury us in text. Sorry, but you're not worth my time. I'm asking you right now. You don't have to give every detail. A summary will do.
I'm not asking hypothetical questions here, unlike you. I'm asking for your specific reasons for taking classes and carrying. You present yourself as superior to the rest of us. I want to know on what you base that claim.
But you don't have to answer. I'm satisfied with the laws of shall-issue states regarding concealed carry. I won't take away your license or your guns. I do wish that you'd explain yourself or stop being a hypocritical prig.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeletedog gone actually did explain this whole thing a while back. That she chooses not to re-hash it to save you the trouble of doin' teh googlefu is her prerogative.
A simple link would be helpful, since the search function here isn't yielding results.
ReplyDeleteGregory, Gregory, what have I ever done for you to treat me so disrespectfully?
ReplyDeleteThat's from the Godfather, did you recognize it?
Your remark: "If you were promoting training, you and I would have no disagreement. Training is a good idea. But you're arguing for disarming civilians. That I'll never go along with."
is wrong.
I don't argue for disarmament. I argue for common sense. I can't accept that women would be better off carrying guns. Yet, I'm perfectly willing to accept certain ones carrying guns if they are properly trained and screened.
Same with the guys. I think you're nuts to want to carry a gun and I think you're wrong to believe you're better off with it. But, I don't preach total civilian disarmament as the solution. I preach strict gun control laws, which we do not have now.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteTo quote another mob leader, You get more with a kind word and a gun than you get with just a kind word. Or so said il Signore Capone.
You tell us that you're not for total disarmament of private citizens. You have openly stated that you want half of us disarmed. You additionally support proposals that would make gun ownership exceedingly difficult. What I'm saying is that the practical effect of your proposals would be a lot like total disarmament. Additionally, I note your extreme dislike of guns and the uses of guns. Your attitude toward them is grudging and resistant tolerance. That's too close to wanting total disarmament for me.
Greg, I will be happy to supply the answer in full detail - when you answer my question, and provide Laci a citation that actually backs up your claim.
ReplyDeleteDog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI gave the citation from the source that I have. I don't have access to the trial transcript. Besides which, the case that I named is on the question of appropriate behavior with a handgun. The question that I'm asking you goes to your credibility.
Kerrrisssttt, Greg, you want me to give a legal opinion on that.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, every time you open your mouth you demonstrate your ignorance.
There are proper legal citations for a case which would demonstrate that you actually read it.
Using Ayoob's article is hearsay--not legally valid.
Democommie's answer to you is one opinion.
I've given my other opinion from what I read in a book.
So, Greg, unless you can fork out several grand--think in the region of $20k.
And probably far more than that.
You probably shouldn't run around carrying a gun.
As I said, win or lose, you are gonna spend a very small fortune to save your sorry arse.
There was a poem that we read when I took my advanced motorcycle course:
"He was right.
He was dead right"
The point was that the person was going to be obstinate against better odds. He was willing to die to prove his point.
You can blather all you want about "freedom of the individual", Greg and how I don't believe in it, but that only goes to further demonstrate your ignorance.
Bumper sticker slogans do not demonstrate comprehension, Greg.
Here is just a little bit of the nonsense that Greg promotes:
ReplyDelete"His body may be his weapon, especially if strengthened by drugs. As I've said before, someone confronts you on the sidewalk and demands your money. How does he get it without the threat of force? "
From a legal standpoint,simply trying to rob you is NOT a threat of force in and of itself.
The legal standard doesn't require that your attacker have a gun.
No, but it does require some actual threat other than 'give me your money'.
It requires a threat of death or serious injury to be offered.
But it has to be made clear, there has to be something OVERT, a threat or a weapon. Force of some kind has to be employed, not just a demand for your money.
Theft IS different from robbery - but I'll defer to Laci to clarify that for you. YOU, Greg, need to understand that difference - especially before you get all stupid macho with your damn unholstered gun.
GC then wrote- stupidly Now, are bank employees required by their bosses to avoid resisting?
ReplyDeleteYES, Greg. Banks demand that their employees NOT resist. The reason has fuck all to do with insurance.
It has everything to do with valuing the life and limb of the employees.
How do I know? Because as a side line, intended to be a sort of retirement activity, my father along with two of his friends started a small bank, which then went on to become a chain of banks that was subsequently bought up by a larger chain of banks - Associated Banks out of WI.
He sat on the board of directors for years, and I know quite a bit about commercial banking - as distinct from investment baning, my father's primary area of expertise - from that informal education.
You are an idiot. You don't have the understanding I would expect of an AVERAGE, never mind bright, 10 year old.
Tyhe Commoon Law defintion of Robbery:
ReplyDeleteA person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
The victim must be placed in apprehension or fear that force would be used immediately before or at the time of the taking of the property.
Robbery occurs if an aggressor forcibly snatched a mobile phone or if he used a knife to make an implied threat of violence to the holder and then took the phone. The person being threatened does not need to be the owner of the property. It is not necessary that the victim was actually frightened, but the defendant must have put or sought to put the victim or some other person in fear of immediate force.
Of course, if the person merely yanks your cell phone form your hand, which counts as force under the definition, does that rise to the level where the use of deadly force is justified?
Personally, I believe that response would be excessive, especially if it endangered others.
On the other hand, less than lethal force would be more than justified in such a situation.
FWM wrote: However, you should also be prepared that you may need to take a life to defend yourself or your loved ones. It is a sick and dangerous world.
ReplyDeleteFWM, I have been told by a surprising array of police officers that a 300+ pair of passive defender hounds made me safer than all their weapons and gear.
Women do need to be careful where they go running, and are safest in groups rather than alone.
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteDemokitty,
Ayoob is a highly sought after expert witness in criminal trials involving use of deadly force. You're a bit out of your element here.
If you check, it appears that Ayoob has testified in several trials.
Not many. Many is more than you can count on the fingers of one hand.
He did supply an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Heller, but I couldn't find any indication that it was ever consulted by the SCOTUS.
Let's give the man his due that this is his area of expertise, where he is successful at self promotion; but let's also not hype his credentials out of proportion or accuracy.
Greg, you keep missing that an expert witness only means:
ReplyDeletethat by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially and legally rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of his expertise, referred to as the expert opinion, as an assistance to the fact-finder.
In practise, all this needs is to state a basis for the expert claiming expertise.
If I set up a proper foundation, my dog Laci could be an expert witness (I'm sure she could probably teach English in Arkansas as well).
Ayoob is a sought after expert witness since he has written on the topic of armed self-defence. He is sought after by the people who read his books.
I am sure that this is beyond your level of understanding, Greg, but I live in hope that you may actually have a functioning brain.
And Napoleon said that even though his kitchen mule had been on forty campaigns, it was still a mule.
ReplyDeleteLaci, your dog may teach English in the State of Arkansas if she has the required graduate courses in the subject. Somehow, I doubt that that is the case.
I'm going to try this one more time and then forget about it:
Someone confronts me on the street and demands my money. I say no. If that's it, then we both go on our separate ways.
If the aspiring mugger pulls out a weapon, now we have a different situation. Or if he makes an aggressive move toward me, say by balling his fist, raising his arm, and running at me.
The point here is that without an overt threat of force to cause harm, I'm not giving over my money, so no robbery will occur. With such a threat, I'm justified in defending myself. I do not believe that I would be justified in shooting someone or in pointing a gun at someone who merely said something unpleasant to me. There must be a direct threat to my life or the life of another. How many times do I have to say that for you to realize that I've said it? That is the legal standard in Arkansas and in many other states.
We also require a person to take reasonable steps to get away from the danger, if that's possible. If the wacko is blithering on the other side of the street, I'm going to move away as quickly and as quietly as I can. The standard doesn't mean that I have to try to outrun a bullet, nor does it mean that I have to take some punches before I can act.
Will you please address the specific standard that I have just stated here? It's a repetition of what I've said time and time again, but here it is. Deal with it.
Re: Expert Witnesses.
ReplyDeleteI used to work in Verizon's Regulatory Dept. We used "expert witnesses" both inside and outside the company for nearly all of the cases that were heard by various state telecom&energy commissions. Some of them were young turks and some were old fogeys. They all had narrow areas of specialization and they could argue those areas quite well. So well, in fact, that given the same set of circumstances and the same facts in evidence, they could provide testimony for whichever side was writing the check. I would not have trusted any of them to balance my checkbook or reconnect my out-of-service phones--but they WERE experts.
Greg, you just can't get it right, can you?
ReplyDelete"You have openly stated that you want half of us disarmed."
I want strict requirements for gun ownership, which I figure would result in about half of the present owners coming up unqualified.
That's not exactly the same as I want half of you disarmed. I want all of you qualified, that's all.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteBut the practical effect of your proposals would end up disarming a whole lot of people. So you don't want us disarmed, but you'll accept that as a result? Are you seriously telling me that your sympathies don't support the disarmament of private citizens?
Poor babies, they'll be disarmed and vulnerable.
ReplyDeleteI seriously feel for you.
Sorry, Greg, but the right to keep and bear arms is dependent upon service in an article I, Section 8, Clause 16 Militia. I am willing to support your being able to serve in such a unit.
But, other than state Constitutions, there is no right to keep and bear arms as a civilian.
Even if you accept that it was legal for the Justices to Judicially bypass the amendment process, the right granted under Heller-McDonald is very limited to law abiding citizens being able to own registered firearms for the protection of their homes.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5
So, Greg, even Heller-McDonald is against you and on the side of Mike B.
Tough shit.
Next time, use your brain to actually read and try to understand what you are quoting.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteYou do keep banging on about having me join the military, but that ain't gonna happen. The highest age for a new recruit is thirty-five, no? I'm past that. Besides, I don't have to join. The ruling stated that firearms ownership is not connected to military service. That part you just can't stand. It also does not require registration, nor does it prohibit concealed carry licensing. It simply establishes a general principle of the right to own firearms. It's the job of Congress and the state legislatures to expand on that right. Most have done so. Again, you just can't stand that fact, but that's reality.
Greg wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe highest age for a new recruit is thirty-five, no? I'm past that.
No,not any more:
Question: What is the maximum age to enlist in the Military?
Answer: The maximum age of non-prior service enlistment, under federal law used to be age 35. In 2006 the Army tried to convinced Congress to change this to age 44. Congress thought age 44 was too high, but raised the maximum enlistment age, under law, from 35 to age 42.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/f/faqenlage.htm
So, by age, I'm still eligible. My right to a gun still has nothing to do with the military. That right is logically prior to the Second Amendment (see the Ninth Amendment, if you're confused), but as the Supreme Court ruled, my right is also protected by the Second, since that ennumerates an individual right that is unconnected to service in the militia. Their ruling, not my interpretation. And five to four is still the law.
ReplyDeleteThat right is logically prior to the Second Amendment (see the Ninth Amendment, if you're confused)
ReplyDeleteReally, now you want to tell me all about how law is practised, Greg.
Where did you go to law school?
How long have you practised law?
OK, Greg, the Individual right interpretation gained currency prior to Heller-McDonald in 1960, prior to that it only existed in the minds of the ignorant.
As I pointed out in the Heller-McDonald quote, that right is not unlimited.
A right is delineated by society, not by the minds of the public (despite what the 9th Amendment States). Otherwise, I have the right to be a millionaire without working.
Sorry, Greg, but rights come with responsibilities. And your responsibility to be able to exercise the Second Amendment one is that you are enrolled in a militia.
As I said, Greg, you like to show the world that you are an ignorant fuck.
My idea is that there is no such thing as militia today. The attempt to portray the National Guard as such never worked for me. The 2nd Amendment has nothing at all for relevance, zero, in today's society.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how old you are, Greg Camp, but I'm guessing that a few years down the road you can be as smug as you intended to be in your previous comment about being too old.
ReplyDelete"So, by age, I'm still eligible."
but, luckily for you, you're ineligible for lack of will, courage and integrity to join up. Thanks for the clarification.
Poseur.
You want me to fall you Fuckwit, shif-for-brains, or would you prefer I call you Greg?
ReplyDeleteI'll call you fuckwit.
OK, can you provide the case law with proper legal citations to back up the assertion that "The right to own arms is an individual right, and that idea was expressed in judicial opinion early in this country's history"?
I've already posted Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840) that says:
To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark, that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides, "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive.
BTW, your case law also needs to squarely address the Second Amendment, not any of the state provisions.
Saying that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right. In fact, sayiing it is an individual right is a meaningless statement, fuckwit.
As I said, please present some case law relating specifically to the US Second Amendment, not a similar state provision, with proper legal citation to back up your assertion.
Otherwise, your comment is more meaningless babble from an ignorant person.
Likewise, you have yet to provide caselaw or anything else which refutes my posting of the Shepherds citation that says US v Miller is still good law, which was what the dissent followed in Heller.
Since US v. Miller was truly a unanimous decision, a split decision cannot overturn it.
Also, there needs to be a change in the constitution for Heller-McDonald to be a truly valid decision.
As I said, Fuckwit, you have to provide a proper legal basis for your statement, which you haven't.
Please do so, or you are just spouting bullshit without any factual basis.
Oh yeah, fuckwit, do me the favour of having actually read the case law and understood it when you claim supports your position.
ReplyDeleteTrust me, I'll know if you are just repeating crap you heard elsewhere.
And if you think I'm being tough on you now, fuckwit, I'll really ream you.
So, fuckwit, please show us your legal ignorance!
I should also add, fuckwit, that repeating a lie does not make it true--no matter how much you may want to believe it.
ReplyDeleteSo, please provide:
1) The case law with proper citation
2) proof that you read it and understood the case.
3) something other than repeating the same tired bullshit over and over.
When I say bullshit, I mean precisely that: something without a verifiable basis in fact.
You normally come up with shit that is precisely that when examined--shit.
Call it minutia, being picky, or whatever.
Providing facts is something that someone who claims to teach with any proficiency should be able to do.
But, you have yet to show any ability.
Which is why I say you can't teach for shit, fuckwit.
What logical fallacy did shot for brains use when he made this statement?
ReplyDeleteThat's the reading that the majority gave in Heller and McDonald. That's what many in Congress understand it to mean. And that's what many voters understand. You can call us wrong,
Fuckwit, are you really telling the truth when you claim to have an education?
For someone who claims to be educated, you do say a lot of really stupid shit.
And I back that statement up with facts.
I think it's been pretty much settled--Greg has lost this debate.
ReplyDeleteSeriously lost the debate.
He cannot provide the required case law since it does not exist.
The "individual right" claim that the Second Amendment right is not contingent upon militia service does not survive serious scrutiny.
Greg can't deal with that and he has now moved to using every other trick a poor debater uses when he has lost.
What a sorry, sorry example this person is.