View Single Post
Old June 2, 2016, 02:33 PM   #99
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,056
Quote:
You very clearly stated that when you are presented with an aggressive and threatening person, you will not engage in less than lethal force, that you will attack center mass and yet God decide.

You very clearly stated that you don't have a backup plan. Reading what you said, I guess that you w would feel justified to draw and kill any man woman, child, or even dog that you felt was threatening you. Deciding on a plan, at its all sizes one trick pony plan isn't a good idea.

So it is clear that your plan, and only plan laid out in the first post was to jump straight to deadly force in a situation in which you felt threatened. According to that post, you had no plans for lesser levels of threat

The nuclear superpowers have yet to draw their guns and fire. My sincere belief is that using excessive unnecessarily is a great sin, and I believe that everyone should train just as hard at not killing people. It's good that you came here and sought advice.

Probably every harmful situation could best be handled by preventing escalation. A while back I watched a police shooting, taken with body cam.. man was being escorted from a restaurant, and the lead cop reached over to a table and pushed the silverware away, so the guy couldn't use it as a weapon. Only seconds later, this cop killed the suspect, despite those products caution.

No details is too small, no step too small, if it keeps a conflict from escalating. The good guys don't always win, and there's an easy way to increase your chances of survivAl. Stay cool
I read what I wrote again and I see where I was not clear. I bolded part of what you wrote because this is the area I was not clear in and caused that misunderstanding.

My intent is and was avoidance, retreat, and pacification. I have no problem getting up and leaving a situation that "doesn't feel right". If things start to go badly and I can safely and reasonably retreat, preferably unnoticed, (I am not turning my back and fleeing) I am going to. If handing over the small amount of money I keep in my front pocket is going to pacify my attacker chances are I am handing it over and being thankful we both walk away. Frankly if my attacker is going to hit me once and walk away I will do what I am capable of to mitigate that attack and damage but I really don't wish to pursue a physical confrontation even at that point.

My argument was (I feel the need to add incorrectly repeatedly) that being physically attacked in a way that prevented retreat by a competent adult was so far outside of the ordinary that the attack itself was proof the attacker intended great bodily harm. Based on this premise I argued that there was no intermediate level of force to be considered. I am not, for instance, going to perform the function of a police officer and detain someone who does not pose an imminent threat if I can retreat.

It was not my intent to ever pose an argument that deadly force was the proper response to being threatened. My argument was limited (again, incorrectly it appears) to the idea that deadly force was an appropriate response to an ongoing (even unarmed) physical assault that prevented one's ability to retreat.

Ironically, considering how I posed my initial post, my question now becomes at what point is it appropriate to deploy pepper spray. I'm of the opinion that, assuming no massive disparity of force and an unarmed attacker, you still have to wait until an active and ongoing attack that you cannot retreat from before you should use any force (other people's ideas will vary) and questioning if pepper spray is, under those terms, a reasonable consideration.

Last edited by Lohman446; June 2, 2016 at 02:38 PM.
Lohman446 is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03222 seconds with 8 queries