• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Non-lethal force--when justified?

Last I heard, you are allowed to use force to defend your property and yourself.

If someone grabs your wallet, you're perfectly right to grab it back.

If they resist by attacking you, you may defend yourself with reasonably appropriate force.
 
9M61 said:
In law enforcement we work on slightly different terms. Don't confuse your use of force options with that of law enforcement, they differ. Sometimes mildly, sometimes largly.
Click to expand...

Just Ask Oscar Grant:rofl:laughing:rofl:laughing:rofl:laughing
 
SV-Mark,

Your post is not appreciated in the LEO forum. If you have something to add feel free to do so. If you are trying to flame a fire this isn't the place for it.
 
SV-Mark said:
Just Ask Oscar Grant:rofl:laughing:rofl:laughing:rofl:laughing
Click to expand...

There is no humor in your post, no matter how many times you click the laughing avatar. I find it insulting to everyone, embarrassing to BARF, and especially embarrassing to you, that you made the feckless attempt.
 
No. The term "reasonable" doesn't mean what that person being threatened considers reasonable, but what an "objective" person (e.g. the jury) deems reasonable.

If it were only up to whether the person being threatened to make a judgement call as to what is reasonable under the circumstances, complete pandemonium would probably result.

IIRC, self-defense is judged both by what the defendant (the person being threatened) thought was acceptable under the circumstances AND what the jury considers reasonable under the circumstances.

mikhail said:
In that case wouldn't a private citizen have just as much authority to use what force he deemed reasonably necessary?
Click to expand...
 
Sort of. You cannot defend property with deadly force. However, you can defend yourself with deadly force. It gets fuzzy when someone breaks into your house to steal your stereo but ends up coming towards you.

IOW, if you shoot a guy breaking into your car while you're sitting in your home, you're going to have a hard time proving self-defense. It's a car and no human life, regardless of what you think of the guy or what he is doing, is worth a piece of property. On the other hand, if you tell the guy to leave but he comes towards you in a menacing manner and you blow him away, you stand a better chance of proving self-defense.

Aluisious said:
Last I heard, you are allowed to use force to defend your property and yourself.

If someone grabs your wallet, you're perfectly right to grab it back.

If they resist by attacking you, you may defend yourself with reasonably appropriate force.
Click to expand...
 
Um, did anyone else notice this thread is a YEAR OLD before someone decided to revive it? :wtf
 
JPM said:
Um, did anyone else notice this thread is a YEAR OLD before someone decided to revive it? :wtf
Click to expand...

Yes! That "someone" was SV-Mark just trying to stir up shit. This thread was started well before the Oscar Grant BART PD shooting incident. This "revival" is in bad form and does not accomplish anything. :twofinger
 
 
The sad thing about those threads that were posted is the attitude in them towards law enforcement is positive and the posters are seeking help and advice. Not so much anymore... It makes the folks who try to help less likely to do so.

Seriously. Most of the cops here were members before the LEO Forum started. I doubt it would be any skin off their back if it disappeared.
 
Sorry about the laughing avatar, I am outraged at Johanes's behavior, And I am completely stunned that he was able to bail out. Two sets of rules one for "us and one for "them" :rolleyes
 
SV-Mark said:
Sorry about the laughing avatar, I am outraged at Johanes's behavior, And I am completely stunned that he was able to bail out. Two sets of rules one for "us and one for "them" :rolleyes
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't he be allowed to bail out as it is his constitutional right? He had to post a $3 million bail! That is no small potatoes. He is not a danger to the general public. He is not a violent predator. He is a former police officer who made a mistake, likely connected to a human being's ability to carry out an interrupted action sequence under a stressful situation. I quoted a policeone.com article covering this in another thread. If you saw the videos, he was clearly suprised after he fired the shot, expecting it was going to be a TASER shock instead.

His mistake had serious consequences and he is paying dearly for them. He is no longer an LEO, so he will not be placed in a situation where he is responsible for controlling unruly people. Thus, there is no likelihood of Johanes posing a lethal danger to others. And somehow YOU have a problem with that??? :wtf
 
SV-Mark said:
And I am completely stunned that he was able to bail out. Two sets of rules one for "us and one for "them" :rolleyes
Click to expand...

His bail was $3,000,000, dude! He either had to put up the whole sum (to be returned later), or lose $300,000 forever. How many suspected murderers in Oakland do you think can put up that kind of skrill?
 
There is no double standard. For no bail: pose an immediate danger to society, made threats against others, or charged with a capital murder

The judge at least ruled he was a possible flight risk and set it at $3m. Usually never see bail granted above $1m.
 
bojangle said:
Why shouldn't he be allowed to bail out as it is his constitutional right? He had to post a $3 million bail! That is no small potatoes. He is not a danger to the general public. He is not a violent predator. He is a former police officer who made a mistake, likely connected to a human being's ability to carry out an interrupted action sequence under a stressful situation. I quoted a policeone.com article covering this in another thread. If you saw the videos, he was clearly suprised after he fired the shot, expecting it was going to be a TASER shock instead.

His mistake had serious consequences and he is paying dearly for them. He is no longer an LEO, so he will not be placed in a situation where he is responsible for controlling unruly people. Thus, there is no likelihood of Johanes posing a lethal danger to others. And somehow YOU have a problem with that??? :wtf
Click to expand...

+1
 
dragfire1 said:
Three letters can help in alot of situations...


CCW!
Click to expand...

:wtf

Your saying it would be appropriate to "pick a fight" in a road rage incident, simple because you have a CCW?
This is more then likely one of MANY compound reasons it's so got damn hard for a non-idiot to get a CCW.


The best answer was already given. Don't allow the confrontation to happen. There are too many outcomes, to 100% guarantee your survival. Such as Mangoat said, OC doesn't work on everyone. Thankfully I've already found that out while messing around with a group of friends. Doesn't harm me till about 20 minute AFTER exposure *(damn allergies, stuff makes my nose run sooo bad).. On top of that, as FrigginChi said, Don't bring OC to a gun fight. :|


In some cases, it may be a better choice to evade, and face another day. Then to confront and die like a man, and not see tomorrow.

Of course, your man card might get revoked by a fellow Neanderthal for that level of thinking... :|
 
Last edited:
Dopesick said:
:wtf

Your saying it would be appropriate to "pick a fight" in a road rage incident, simple because you have a CCW?
This is more then likely one of MANY compound reasons it's so got damn hard for a non-idiot to get a CCW.


The best answer was already given. Don't allow the confrontation to happen. There are too many outcomes, to 100% guarantee your survival. Such as Mangoat said, OC doesn't work on everyone. Thankfully I've already found that out while messing around with a group of friends. Doesn't harm me till about 20 minute AFTER exposure *(damn allergies, stuff makes my nose run sooo bad).. On top of that, as FrigginChi said, Don't bring OC to a gun fight. :|


In some cases, it may be a better choice to evade, and face another day. Then to confront and die like a man, and not see tomorrow.

Of course, your man card might get revoked by a fellow Neanderthal for that level of thinking... :|
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't check the thread for awhile....

As a gun owner, ccw holder as well as an approved instructor for ccw's, I would never, ever suggest that you should start anything just because you have a ccw. In fact I tell my students to run away from any confrontations if at all possible.

In time most people forget that you ran but very few forget that you are dead or in prison because you wouldn't run.

And the reasons it is hard for 'non-idiots' to get a ccw is not related to incidents gone bad by those who had them; it is caused by idiots continuing to elect other idiots that seek to control & oppress rather than enable & empower the very idiots that elected them.
Ccw's are not hard to get at all; the tough part is convincing 'non-idiots' to move away from where the idiots congregate and get to an area where the elected officials understand that they can be replaced at the next election cycle and that toying with ccw's is one way to ensure a change in the writing to their business cards.

I teach a class monthly and typically have about 15 students in each; I have yet to hear of anybody applying that didn't get the ccw; except the ones that actually lived in Contra Costa Co. and tried to claim residency up here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top