Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Hobbies & Interests
Movies, TV Shows, Video Games
Active Self Protection: Tulsa - Unarmed Robbery
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ricco" data-source="post: 3748772" data-attributes="member: 46005"><p>And that is the point to this conversation.</p><p></p><p>In the video the victims showed nothing in the way of preparation. They didn't over-think it, they didn't think about it at all. The incident didn't turn violent until they made it violent and the criminals responded with more violence. The victims showed no indication of any self defense skills, they temporarily bought into the right makes might fallacy. Once the <em>unarmed</em> criminals had made their intentions clear the victims could have reasonably and proportionality responded with empty hand skills or OC and been legally justified. The right to protect property exists but not with deadly force.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong><em>"Assuming ANYTHING other than the worst during a violent encounter is a huge mistake"</em></strong></p><p></p><p>The criminal dictates the level of violence, your response has to be proportional to be legal. Simply assuming the criminal will use deadly force is dangerous legally, your deadly force response to what may be a non deadly force attack may not be legally justified. If you initiate deadly force prior to the attack you could put yourself in legal jeopardy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ricco, post: 3748772, member: 46005"] And that is the point to this conversation. In the video the victims showed nothing in the way of preparation. They didn't over-think it, they didn't think about it at all. The incident didn't turn violent until they made it violent and the criminals responded with more violence. The victims showed no indication of any self defense skills, they temporarily bought into the right makes might fallacy. Once the [I]unarmed[/I] criminals had made their intentions clear the victims could have reasonably and proportionality responded with empty hand skills or OC and been legally justified. The right to protect property exists but not with deadly force. [B][I]"Assuming ANYTHING other than the worst during a violent encounter is a huge mistake"[/I][/B] The criminal dictates the level of violence, your response has to be proportional to be legal. Simply assuming the criminal will use deadly force is dangerous legally, your deadly force response to what may be a non deadly force attack may not be legally justified. If you initiate deadly force prior to the attack you could put yourself in legal jeopardy. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Hobbies & Interests
Movies, TV Shows, Video Games
Active Self Protection: Tulsa - Unarmed Robbery
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom