Well, it seems switching to Target won't save us from random violence.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
One is free to protect a third party from a violent assault with their gun. This guy is a thug on drugs punching a five year old in the head in a public place. "I feared for that child's life." Done, especially when the blood results come back and show drugs in the assailant's system.
Umm actually because you fear for somebody else`s life and happen to be carrying a weapon , does not make it OK or legal to shoot somebody!!
Had this guy had a visible gun and was punching this 5 year old , maybe.....
You gun nuts are all the same!!

also one is free to confront the person, but to shoot him?? I think not!! You are not judge or jury or executioner!! Nice try though......Vlad would be proud of you!!
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,567
126
One is free to protect a third party from a violent assault with their gun. This guy is a thug on drugs punching a five year old in the head in a public place. "I feared for that child's life." Done, especially when the blood results come back and show drugs in the assailant's system.
I have to agree with Slow here as a large man with those muscles under a drug fueled rage is perfectly capable of killing a small child with a single punch to the face. The two boys were fortunate they were not injured any worse then they were.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
Umm actually because you fear for somebody else`s life and happen to be carrying a weapon , does not make it OK or legal to shoot somebody!!
Had this guy had a visible gun and was punching this 5 year old , maybe.....
You gun nuts are all the same!!

also one is free to confront the person, but to shoot him?? I think not!! You are not judge or jury or executioner!! Nice try though......Vlad would be proud of you!!


It is absolutely legal to use your lawful concealed carry weapon to stop a violent assault on a third party if their life is in danger. There is no question about this.

Here is a video of a CCW holder saving the life of a cop. This is legal. (Warning: A man gets shot and dies, it isn't overly graphic, but you will see it if you watch this)

 
Last edited:

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
It is absolutely legal to use your lawful concealed carry weapon to stop a violent assault on a third party if their life is in danger. There is no question about this.

Here is a video of a CCW holder saving the life of a cop. This is legal. (warning, a man gets shot and dies, it isn't overly graphic, but you will see it if you watch this)

So far all we have is your word, which we know how that goes....but it goes without saying...….I seriously doubt that if you were to shoot somebody who was running around in a drug induced rage randomly attacking preople that you would mbe justified shooting that person unless they were using a weapon of some sort such as a baseball bat....etc......
As usual you posted a video thta is quite different than the subject we are talking about!!
The man attacking the Police officer was trying to kill the officer -- that is a huge difference from somebody randomly hitting children in the face...... Nice try though!! Again say Hi to Vlad,.......
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
I have to agree with Slow here as a large man with those muscles under a drug fueled rage is perfectly capable of killing a small child with a single punch to the face. The two boys were fortunate they were not injured any worse then they were.
Just because somebody is perfectly capable of killing somebody does not mean you shoot first and ask questions later........I don`t see why that is so hard to understand!! Sure if the guy was standing over the child just beating the snot out of the kid you could assume that he was trying to kill the kid...
But running around randomly punching children in the face....that`s quite a stretch to suggets that murdering the man would be appropriate.....
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,567
126
Just because somebody is perfectly capable of killing somebody does not mean you mshoot first and ask questions later........I don`t see why tyhat is so hard to understand!! Sure if the guy was standing over the child just beating the snot out of the kid you might be able to assume that he was trying to kill the child......
But running around randomly punching children in the face....thats quite a streth to suggets that murdering the man would be appropriate.....
Did you not see the size of the man and his arms? As I said he is more then capable of killing small children with his bare hands along. Or for matter adults.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Did you not see the size of the man and his arms? As I said he is more then capable of killing small children with his bare hands along. Or for matter adults.
No!! According the the original link posted it only showed a mug shot of the man!! But from looking at the man he appeared to be quite capable of doing a lot of damage!! I still stand by what I posted.....
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
So far all we have is your word, which we know how that goes....but it goes without saying...….I seriously doubt that if you were to shoot somebody who was running around in a drug induced rage randomly attacking preople that you would mbe justified shooting that person unless they were using a weapon of some sort such as a baseball bat....etc......
As usual you posted a video thta is quite different than the subject we are talking about!!
The man attacking the Police officer was trying to kill the officer -- that is a huge difference from somebody randomly hitting children in the face...... Nice try though!! Again say Hi to Vlad,.......
He's absolutely right. If a man punching a 5-year-old in the head isn't a deadly enough attack for you to use deadly force to stop the attacker, then how much more deadly must it be? How much damage must that poor child suffer before you will value his safety over that of his attackers?
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
He's absolutely right. If a man punching a 5-year-old in the head isn't a deadly enough attack for you to use deadly force to stop the attacker, then how much more deadly must it be? How much damage must that poor child suffer before you will value his safety over that of his attackers?
O give me a break.....kill the dude!! But I bet you won`t get off scott free!!
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
Just because somebody is perfectly capable of killing somebody does not mean you shoot first and ask questions later........I don`t see why that is so hard to understand!! Sure if the guy was standing over the child just beating the snot out of the kid you could assume that he was trying to kill the kid...
But running around randomly punching children in the face....that`s quite a stretch to suggets that murdering the man would be appropriate.....
If the attacker was running away then, no, you can't shoot him. If he was advancing towards or in the process of attacking then you absolutely can shoot him to end the attack. All that is required is that the fear of imminent attack or death of the victim be found reasonable in a court of law.

But you are trying to make it sound like this guy was running around handing out friendly high-fives. He was attacking children, and there is no legal requirement that anyone witnessing the attacks wait to see how deadly the results before trying to stop them, even when using deadly force to do so.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,222
136
Try online shopping with free shipping to your house.

Yeah, that works when you need toilet paper today....but don't worry, two day shipping is free!!!! Just order some new underwear and Glade spray with that, too.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ch33zw1z

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
O give me a break.....kill the dude!! But I bet you won`t get off scott free!!
Why the fuck do you feel more for the safety of someone attacking children than you do the safety of the children? Is this where your argument has devolved to in an effort to remain staunchly anti-gun?
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,567
126
Why the fuck do you feel more for the safety of someone attacking children than you do the safety of the children? Is this where your argument has devolved to in an effort to remain staunchly anti-gun?
He is probably one of the pacifists that have the strong delusional belief that violence is never justified even in self-defense even against threats against life and severe bodily harm, and yet always demands police protection when threaten. :rolleyes: o_O

I can't even figured these people out at all...o_O Those folks are the perfect prime candidates for the Darwin Awards you can find.:rolleyes: The meek will inherit the Earth all right, they will be buried in it!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
He is probably one of the pacifists that have the strong delusional belief that violence is never justified even in self-defense even against threats against life and severe bodily harm, and yet always demands police protection when threaten. :rolleyes: o_O

I can't even figured these people out at all...o_O Those folks are the perfect prime candidates for the Darwin Awards you can find.:rolleyes: The meek will inherit the Earth all right, they will be buried in it!
ctually your probably a gun nutter who just wants to kill anybody regardless if they have a weapon or not!!
I am sorry but the facts nare he did not kill anybody -- did he?? please correct me if I am wrong!
tHE ARTICLE SAYS --
Police say 51-year-old Jeff Hardcastle is being held on a $310,000 bond. This, after they say he punched two young boys in their faces in a random drug-fueled attack at a Target store.
The brutal and unprovoked attacks were caught on store security cameras, according to Lodi police.
I am sorry but to be honest does that mean somebody should have shot him? I don`t get it...reall6y, sure he was wrong and it was brutal but should he be dead? I know there are alot of you who will jump up and say -- YES!! Anybody who attacks children should be shot......
It`s okay whm1974......lets kill this guy instead of seekjing to hget him professional help........kill em all......
As far as being a pacifistb goes you have no clue as to who I am and you for sure have no idea the things I have done serving my country! I am a realist and the facts do not condone shooting this man!! Sorry!! The fact do condone a angry mob beat down or something else but yeah lets take a kill the man!!
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,567
126
ctually your probably a gun nutter who just wants to kill anybody regardless if they have a weapon or not!!
I am sorry but the facts nare he did not kill anybody -- did he?? please correct me if I am wrong!
tHE ARTICLE SAYS --
Police say 51-year-old Jeff Hardcastle is being held on a $310,000 bond. This, after they say he punched two young boys in their faces in a random drug-fueled attack at a Target store.
The brutal and unprovoked attacks were caught on store security cameras, according to Lodi police.
I am sorry but to be honest does that mean somebody should have shot him? I don`t get it...reall6y, sure he was wrong and it was brutal but should he be dead? I know there are alot of you who will jump up and say -- YES!! Anybody who attacks children should be shot......
It`s okay whm1974......lets kill this guy instead of seekjing to hget him professional help........kill em all......
As far as being a pacifistb goes you have no clue as to who I am and you for sure have no idea the things I have done serving my country! I am a realist and the facts do not condone shooting this man!! Sorry!! The fact do condone a angry mob beat down or something else but yeah lets take a kill the man!!
I have never said kill the man or wanted the man dead. What I am saying is that in this case the use of deadly force is justified by the attacker violent actions toward the two children. He could very likely have killed the boys and easly injured more people then he had. This whole of what I'm trying to explain here is that using deadly force is to prevent farther harm then what has already occurred. Not to kill the the mention attacker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paladin3

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,200
18,670
146
I have never said kill the man or wanted the man dead. What I am saying is that in this case the use of deadly force is justified by the attacker violent actions toward the two children. He could very likely have killed the boys and easly injured more people then he had. This whole of what I'm trying to explain here is that using deadly force is to prevent farther harm then what has already occurred. Not to kill the the mention attacker.

The article said it was a hit a run. I havent seen the footage, but it doesnt sound like the use of deadly force would be justified unless he was continuously beating the children or other people. He was apprehended behind an electrical box. Maybe it's a good thing nobody followed him and shot at him, lol.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,567
126
The article said it was a hit a run. I havent seen the footage, but it doesnt sound like the use of deadly force would be justified unless he was continuously beating the children or other people. He was apprehended behind an electrical box. Maybe it's a good thing nobody followed him and shot at him, lol.
Those couple kids that he hit are lucky he didn't do any more damage then he did. The five year could have easily died from the single punch or been left with permanent injuries due to the violent attack.

I'm just glad that that what happen wasn't far worse then what it was.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,200
18,670
146
Those couple kids that he hit are lucky he didn't do any more damage then he did. The five year could have easily died from the single punch or been left with permanent injuries due to the violent attack.

I'm just glad that that what happen wasn't far worse then what it was.

Well, yea, I've never debated that.

Which really doesn't have anything to do with deadly force being justified in this situation. You said it was, but the only information I've seen doesn't seem to support that, based on the premise of justification laid out in this thread by you guys.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
I have never said kill the man or wanted the man dead. What I am saying is that in this case the use of deadly force is justified by the attacker violent actions toward the two children. He could very likely have killed the boys and easly injured more people then he had. This whole of what I'm trying to explain here is that using deadly force is to prevent farther harm then what has already occurred. Not to kill the the mention attacker.
No deadly force is NOT justified!! As I stated earlier, this person attacked the two boys and then he ran! now had he attacked the 2 boys and been standing over one of tyhe boys jusy wailing away on his head then you probably would have justification for the use of deadly force....but as it is...we can choose to disagree!!
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,567
126
Well, yea, I've never debated that.

Which really doesn't have anything to do with deadly force being justified in this situation. You said it was, but the only information I've seen doesn't seem to support that, based on the premise of justification laid out in this thread by you guys.
Well I wasn't there and only read what was in the article. I tend to avoid violence as a rule and I'm not exactly sure how I respond to anyone hitting children like that. I also have to mention that I can not hold my own in a fight and can't even throw a punch at all.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
ctually your probably a gun nutter who just wants to kill anybody regardless if they have a weapon or not!!
I am sorry but the facts nare he did not kill anybody -- did he?? please correct me if I am wrong!
tHE ARTICLE SAYS --
Police say 51-year-old Jeff Hardcastle is being held on a $310,000 bond. This, after they say he punched two young boys in their faces in a random drug-fueled attack at a Target store.
The brutal and unprovoked attacks were caught on store security cameras, according to Lodi police.
I am sorry but to be honest does that mean somebody should have shot him? I don`t get it...reall6y, sure he was wrong and it was brutal but should he be dead? I know there are alot of you who will jump up and say -- YES!! Anybody who attacks children should be shot......
It`s okay whm1974......lets kill this guy instead of seekjing to hget him professional help........kill em all......
As far as being a pacifistb goes you have no clue as to who I am and you for sure have no idea the things I have done serving my country! I am a realist and the facts do not condone shooting this man!! Sorry!! The fact do condone a angry mob beat down or something else but yeah lets take a kill the man!!
Well, if he ever gets out of prison again you can invite him to live in your neighborhood. I sure he will be an asset to the community.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whm1974

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Well I wasn't there and only read what was in the article. I tend to avoid violence as a rule and I'm not exactly sure how I respond to anyone hitting children like that. I also have to mention that I can not hold my own in a fight and can't even throw a punch at all.
You called me a pacifist but it looks like your the pacifist! It is easy to call names on line...that is OK!!--funny how yo say that and then say that you avoid violence....foot in mouth??

You posted --
He is probably one of the pacifists that have the strong delusional belief that violence is never justified even in self-defense even against threats against life and severe bodily harm, and yet always demands police protection when threaten. :rolleyes: o_O -- your probably one of those idiot gun nutters who just wants a reason to shoot em up -- see how stupid that sounded?? Just as stupid as what you just posted!!

I can't even figured these people out at all...o_O Those folks are the perfect prime candidates for the Darwin Awards you can find.:rolleyes: The meek will inherit the Earth all right, they will be buried in it! -- people who are wishy washy like yourself, just now admitting that you you wasn`t there? I think you are the poster child for the darwin Award!!
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,567
126
You called me a pacifist but it looks like your the pacifist! It is easy to call names on line...that is OK!!--funny how yo say that and then say that you avoid violence....foot in mouth??
Dude I am not a pacifist at all since I will respond if I faced serious threats I can not avoid. :rolleyes: