 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / February 2005OT: Shooting language :"Shoot to kill"
In a previous string about self defense with a weapon some made the statement that if threatened they would shoot to kill. In our personal defense courses we stress that one should aim to "stop" the assailant which is a defensive effort where shooting to "kill" could be construed as premeditation. It is all a matter of language but could be very important after the fact. In the society we live in today the victim can become the defendant quite easily. George > In a previous string about self defense with a weapon some made the > statement that if threatened they would shoot to kill. In our personal [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > quite easily. > George If you decide to shoot at all, you'd better be prepared to kill. Stopping an assailant to live another day to assault you again, is ignorant. And if it assaulted once, it will assault again. I'd not be alive today if I aimed to just stop an assailant temporarily. And perhaps sit next to him as he bleeds and sing "Feelings.. o/~ o/~." Harsh language gets you nothing. Except killed. Best Regards, Steve Tout est per·du fors l'hon·neur  SignaturePeter http://users.thelink.net/marengo | | > In a previous string about self defense with a weapon some made the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] | | Tout est per?du fors l'hon?neur Perhaps you should change your sig to "Tout est perdu, aussi l'honneur!" Peter Sorry. I don't speak French. Best Regards, Steve Tout est per·du fors l'hon·neur > Sorry. I don't speak French. Um, then why do you use a .sig that's *in* French. Martha > Best Regards, > > Steve > > Tout est per7du fors l'hon7neur SignatureSig pending > Sorry. I don't speak French. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Tout est per·du fors l'hon·neur I took french 20 years ago. I'll give it a shot - I think it says "you have lost your honor". brigid SignatureA1c 10.5/4.5/<6 Weight 95/78/72Kg 1g Metformin, 87.5ug Thyroxine T2 DX 05/2004 > >> Sorry. I don't speak French. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I took french 20 years ago. I'll give it a shot - I think it says "you > have lost your honor". Everything is lost in favour of honor. How about Honor is the most important thing? Nicky. SignatureA1c 10.5/4.5/<6 Weight 95/78/72Kg 1g Metformin, 87.5ug Thyroxine T2 DX 05/2004 >> Sorry. I don't speak French. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > brigid It is a sixteenth century quote from Francois I, and means "All is lost save (except) honor." It should be written: "Tout est perdu, fors l'honneur." Regards David SignatureTo email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line. All other mail is automatically deleted. >>> Sorry. I don't speak French. >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > David Oh, that makes more sense. Thankyou. brigid > Sorry. I don't speak French. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Tout est per?du fors l'hon?neur so fake it ... http://babelfish.altavista.com _____________________________ This be Tia's SIG!!! YAY! >> In a previous string about self defense with a weapon some made the >>statement that if threatened they would shoot to kill. In our personal [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > an assailant to live another day to assault you again, is ignorant. And if > it assaulted once, it will assault again. No, what is ignorant is your attitude. Your concern should not be "preventing" someone from performing future assaults by killing them, it should be to use sufficient force to protect yourself or your family from immediate harm. You are not a judge, jury and executioner. If you make a decision to kill someone based on your presumption that they will be a future threat, then you are a common murderer and should be treated as such. > I'd not be alive today if I aimed to just stop an assailant temporarily. That is another idiotic statement. David SignatureTo email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line. All other mail is automatically deleted. \ >> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 13:10:23 -0700, George Parton <gparton1@cox.net> >> Cried [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> if >> it assaulted once, it will assault again. prepared? yes. that means, you'd better be realize that you just might kill someone, but that doesnt mean your intent should be killing him. even the police have to exercize caution in using too much force. if a badguy has a knife, a cop can't just shoot him unless they have exhausted other measures (in this state, anyway). something to do with excessive force. either way, a shot to the gut is fairly effective in putting a man down until the cops/paramedics get there. i agree with brigid tho, id rather not make that decision and id prefer running away myself. _____________________________ This be Tia's SIG!!! YAY! > \ > prepared? yes. that means, you'd better be realize that you just might [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > _____________________________ > This be Tia's SIG!!! YAY! hah.. sorry for grammar. ......at least i caught it afterwards. -t > In a previous string about self defense with a weapon some made the > statement that if threatened they would shoot to kill. In our personal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In the society we live in today the victim can become the defendant > quite easily. Thank you for making this excellent point again. This language is not only important after the fact, it is also important to know what the boudaries are during confrontation. Shooting is only justifiable as long as it is done to stop the threat. It is not justifiable to shoot someone who is no longer a threat. If you make 10 shots at someone, 3 of which were when your opponent was on the ground, and 10th that was done in the base of the neck from behind, you would find yourself in legal hot water. Contrast this at making 10 shots, all of which were made at a [still standing] opponent, so quickly that he did not have time to fall yet. Both situations would make a perfectly dead opponent, but one is illegal and another may not be illegal if other conditions for justifiable self defense are met. What this means is that it helps to have a fast shooting weapon. Signature223/173.0/180 > In a previous string about self defense with a weapon some made the > statement that if threatened they would shoot to kill. In our personal [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > quite easily. > George Yeah, escalation of force. I left that out of my last long winded post. My bil was pulled from his car and beaten a few years ago. He was very upset, and felt that if he'd had a gun then he could have defended himself. He didn't like hearing that if he'd shot them he would have spent at least one night in jail. Stories like this contribute to my belief that the best thing to do is run away. brigid "Under the Texas rule , an individual, who is not a trespasser, need not retreat from an assailant if he/she truly fears death or serious bodily harm. It is assumed that the assailant is the person who initiated the attack without any provocation on the part of the defender. " So, deadly force may be used in Texas. But you should aim carefully. A dead body tells no lies. dk > In a previous string about self defense with a weapon some made the >statement that if threatened they would shoot to kill. In our personal [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >quite easily. > George |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.