• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Stay off a Marine's lawn

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
eits said:
it's carl weathers!
Click to expand...

predator149.jpeg


And stay off my lawn, punk!
 
guyver01 said:
none of which would have killed him, which was my point
Click to expand...

Not true. Hit the femoral artery and there is a very good chance he will die

Andrew111 said:
And he better stop verbally harassing people over stupid stuff concerning his yard that nobody cares about but himself.
Click to expand...

Just because you think no one cares doesn't make it legal or right

FDF12389 said:
YAGTFAIATOT

Yet Another Guessing The Facts Argument In Anandtech Off Topic
Click to expand...

Why mess with tradition?
 
guyver01 said:
Justification does not make a criminal use of force lawful; if the use of force is justified, it cannot be criminal at all. ... The defense of justification affirmatively permits the use of force under certain circumstances. ... The defense does not operate to 'excuse' a criminal act, nor does it negate a particular element of a crime. Rather, by recognizing the use of force to be privileged under certain circumstances, it renders such conduct entirely lawful.

The defense of justification would fail, for example, if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not commit robbery and who did not appear to be a physical threat. However, the owner or lawful possessor of property has a privilege to use any degree of non-deadly force necessary to protect his possession or recover his property, regardless of no physical threat to his person.


However, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (e.g. by being tackled and restrained, surrendering, or fleeing), the defense of justification will fail if the defending party presses on to attack or to punish beyond imposing physical restraint.

A somewhat less obvious application of this rule is that admitting the use of deadly force in an attempt to disable rather than kill the assailant can be construed as evidence that the defendant wasn't yet in enough danger to justify lethal force in the first place.

In some countries and U.S. states, the concept of "pre-emptive" self defense is limited by a requirement that the threat be imminent. Thus, lawful "pre-emptive" self defense is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape.
Click to expand...

funny how the courts dont have your interpretation of the law.

they guy who was shot was still a threat, he was not tackled and restrained, surrendering, or fleeing.
 
Exterous said:
Not true. Hit the femoral artery and there is a very good chance he will die



Just because you think no one cares doesn't make it legal or right

Originally Posted by FDF12389
YAGTFAIATOT

Yet Another Guessing The Facts Argument In Anandtech Off Topic
Click to expand...

Why mess with tradition?
Click to expand...

Hey...if we didn't jump to conclusions, fly off the handle, run down other posters, or push our luck, we wouldn't get any exercise at all!! 😛
 
jlee said:
Originally Posted by guyver01 View Post
Hell.. he's a TRAINED MARINE. if he needed to shoot him... shoot him in the foot... the leg... the arm... ALL reasonable uses of force.

WHY did he need to shoot to kill. I haven't seen anything which indicated he was in mortal danger.
Click to expand...

you need to stfu and stop watching TJ hooker re-runs. nobody is taught to shoot to wound. where do you get this stupid shit?

dont you even read your own post? here ill highlight it for you.

application of this rule is that admitting the use of deadly force in an attempt to disable rather than kill the assailant can be construed as evidence that the defendant wasn't yet in enough danger to justify lethal force in the first place.
 
jlee said:
Deadly force is force capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. There is no legal distinction between "deadly force" and "less deadly but still deadly force."
Click to expand...

yes there is. legally police Dogs. tazers, riot batons... are all considered less than deadly force but can still kill you if not used properly.
 
OutHouse said:
nobody is taught to shoot to wound. where do you get this stupid shit?
Click to expand...

it's called USING YOUR BRAIN...

or are you saying everyone who uses a gun is an automaton who automatically shoots for the heart and noone knows how to aim for anything else? when you get your gun.. do they implant "heart trackers" that let you instantly know where to shoot to hit the heart?
 
guyver01 said:
it's called USING YOUR BRAIN...

or are you saying everyone who uses a gun is an automaton who automatically shoots for the heart and noone knows how to aim for anything else? when you get your gun.. do they implant "heart trackers" that let you instantly know where to shoot to hit the heart?
Click to expand...

No, you just have it drilled into your head in every type of firearm training in the world (I've been to concealed handgun classes, private handgun defense courses, law enforcement firearm courses, and military firearms courses) that if you shoot to wound you will go to jail.

Some people like to think you can shoot the gun out of someone's hand, but that's not reality. Reality is, if you're shooting to wound, it means you're not in a situation in which deadly force is authorized, and the use of a firearm, in any capacity, constitutes deadly force in all 50 states (and the military.) Deadly force is only permissible if you are in fear for your life (or the life of a third party.) If you shoot someone in the leg intentionally, you are by definition, automatically guilty of the illegal use of deadly force.

For what it's worth, even the military has done away with warning shots (that is, shots not meant to hit a person at all, but to deter through threat of deadly force.) The liability is just too great.
 
Turin39789 said:
So is the right to keep and bear flamethrowers, tanks, and RPGs.
Click to expand...

No, it says "arms", not "ordnance". Big difference. 18th century definition of arms = pistols, rifles, shotguns, and knives. Ordnance = artillery, bombs, etc. There is a reason why they used the word "arms". Although I do get a kick out of the knee-jerk anti-gun "argument", "OMG YOU WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE RPG'S??!?!?!". lol no, thats ordnance, not a right given in the Constitution. Thanks for playing.

I hope you see how foolish that argument is, and you will never use it again to further your anti-gun agenda.
 
nick1985 said:
No, it says "arms", not "ordnance". Big difference. 18th century definition of arms = pistols, rifles, shotguns, and knives. Ordnance = artillery, bombs, etc. There is a reason why they used the word "arms". Although I do get a kick out of the knee-jerk anti-gun "argument", "OMG YOU WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE RPG'S??!?!?!". lol no, thats ordnance, not a right given in the Constitution. Thanks for playing.

I hope you see how foolish that argument is, and you will never use it again to further your anti-gun agenda.
Click to expand...
Nick, you're wasting your time. But you already know that.

I would like some RPG's, though. Does this make me a bad person.:biggrin:
 
nick1985 said:
No, it says "arms", not "ordnance". Big difference. 18th century definition of arms = pistols, rifles, shotguns, and knives. Ordnance = artillery, bombs, etc. There is a reason why they used the word "arms". Although I do get a kick out of the knee-jerk anti-gun "argument", "OMG YOU WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE RPG'S??!?!?!". lol no, thats ordnance, not a right given in the Constitution. Thanks for playing.

I hope you see how foolish that argument is, and you will never use it again to further your anti-gun agenda.
Click to expand...

Well in reality there really wasn't a difference. Some manor owners did have cannons on their property.

However, I do agree that our forefathers didn't know the power you can pack in a hatch of a Civic Si with the advent of the AK-47, Mac 10 and Stinger missile.
 
nick1985 said:
No, it says "arms", not "ordnance". Big difference. 18th century definition of arms = pistols, rifles, shotguns, and knives. Ordnance = artillery, bombs, etc. There is a reason why they used the word "arms". Although I do get a kick out of the knee-jerk anti-gun "argument", "OMG YOU WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE RPG'S??!?!?!". lol no, thats ordnance, not a right given in the Constitution. Thanks for playing.

I hope you see how foolish that argument is, and you will never use it again to further your anti-gun agenda.
Click to expand...


Where do you get your sources on the nuance of the word "arms"? I'm looking at the OED entries and there is case to be made both ways.

What part of my desire to own an RPG makes you falsly assume I have an anti-gun agenda?
 
Nebor said:
No, you just have it drilled into your head in every type of firearm training in the world (I've been to concealed handgun classes, private handgun defense courses, law enforcement firearm courses, and military firearms courses) that if you shoot to wound you will go to jail.

Some people like to think you can shoot the gun out of someone's hand, but that's not reality. Reality is, if you're shooting to wound, it means you're not in a situation in which deadly force is authorized, and the use of a firearm, in any capacity, constitutes deadly force in all 50 states (and the military.) Deadly force is only permissible if you are in fear for your life (or the life of a third party.) If you shoot someone in the leg intentionally, you are by definition, automatically guilty of the illegal use of deadly force.

For what it's worth, even the military has done away with warning shots (that is, shots not meant to hit a person at all, but to deter through threat of deadly force.) The liability is just too great.
Click to expand...
What if I aim for the other guy's bullet with my bullet, thereby cancelling his deadly force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top