Pu$$y, Armed Attackers...

[choylifutrocks]

I just had my lil' bro, tell me some three foot little wanna-b-vato kid, who he didn't know, pulled a knife on him, and was like, "Are you talking $hit?" Honestly, if it were up to me, and I made the laws, people like that would be legally murdered.

IF someone pulls a knife on you or anyone you know, intending to do harm or not, which you will not know, do you think you should have the right to outright kill them? I DO. Those are the kind of scum bag peices of $hit who we don't need in society. I think of it as a modified version of natural selection.

I think the gov. should formulate a task force designed to hunt down and KILL anyone who attempts to relate their pu$$y asses with gangs, and gang violence. Regardless of age.

[arsen]

last time i checked, if someone was about to attack while armed with a deadly weapon, and you were in fear of your life, it is ok to ice them, right?

[choylifutrocks]

Originally posted by arsen
last time i checked, if someone was about to attack while armed with a deadly weapon, and you were in fear of your life, it is ok to ice them, right?

Hell yeah...what about in premeditated retaliation, in fear that escape would only prolong the issue? I still say kill 'em.

[papa]

well...

well the law states (United States) is that you are only allow to defend yourself with enough force to end the attack.

yes there are many what if this what if thats involved but the way it is usually percieved is if you kill some1 who attacks you with a deadly weapon, then you are usually let off very easily.

[IPON]

Choy I have always felt that people who, generally, speaking use weapons offensivly are punks. weapons should be used defensivly.

Now what you are talking vatos locos is an unfortunatelte reality of looking over your back everyday after you won a fight. the courts will never understand this nor, I think can people that grow up in that environment. someone beefs with you (you did notthing) attacks you with a knife, you defend yourself, beat his ass, now you are a mark his boys or him waiting to take you out. Now while you beat his ass you know this can happen and you say "i have to kill him or he will kill me later" It will never hold in court mostly becuase we don't have the gift of the psychics premenitions.

[choylifutrocks]

Originally posted by IPON
Choy I have always felt that people who, generally, speaking use weapons offensivly are punks. weapons should be used defensivly.

Yeah, I'm talking about my UTOPIA, not reality (unfortunately). Those stupid asses need to be beaten w/ bare hands one by one. The part that sux is exactly like you said, even if you win, you don't win. You might end up shot or dead.

[Cain]

you use time learning that cool low kick.. they spend time earning money to buy a new gun and at the shooting range.. a matter of priority..

[choylifutrocks]

LOL

Originally posted by Cain
you use time learning that cool low kick.. they spend time earning money to buy a new gun and at the shooting range.. a matter of priority..

LOL, yeah...a matter of priority, or pu$$y. Hehe.

I like your signature too, when r u and Rickson gonna bust each other up? LOL, just remember, when you win, you'll have to fight 'em all like sakuraba. Ha, ha.

[gracilva]

i agree as i am one for zero tolerance, but it would be too easy for idiots to randomly kill people, then just claim it was self defense, too many scenarios for my liking.

[Sean Dempsey]

I'd be too scared that this thread counts as premeditation....

[choylifutrocks]

Gracilva, yeah...it would open those opportunities.

Sean, I can also see why the premeditation thing sucks. But I'd feel more comfortable knowing that I can legally take someone out who might be gunning for me. Not having to report them to the cops, then have the cops go talk to them and then just think you're a spaz. Then the dude get's pissed and wants to knock you off even more.

Yeah, if I knew someone was gunning for me, I'd really like to be able to take them out for good.

[huey]

tuff post to say the least.

california law changed a little a few years back:

if you are in fear of losing your life or great bodily harm you must defend yourself. this also applies for the same feeling of anyone around you.

all someone has to do is take an offensive posture toward you and you can beat him. flinching, raising his hands, moving toward you at a fast pace, whatever.

police will try to get you to say something to incriminate yourself so be careful. especially if they find out that you are trained.
the police asked someone i know why he felt fear since he was an eigth degree. he said because he trains all the time he knows what could happen if he didn't defend himself.

the other side to this change says that if a citizen has the skills and the training to stop an attack but chooses not to, can be subject to prosecution.

on the knife issue, dan inosanto did a demonstraion once with police officers. he was standing about fifteen feet away with a marker. he told the officer to pull his gun when he saw dan move. the officer agreed. dan sprang and ran at the police officer drawing a mark on his shirt with the marker before the officer could draw. this proved to me that people playing with knives should be dealt with severly whenever possible because they are ready to end you.

[jubaji]

Pu$$y, Armed Attackers...


Does this mean they are armed with Pu$$y?

[osopardo]

Re: well...

Originally posted by papa
well the law states (United States) is that you are only allow to defend yourself with enough force to end the attack.

yes there are many what if this what if thats involved but the way it is usually percieved is if you kill some1 who attacks you with a deadly weapon, then you are usually let off very easily.

The common wisdom used to be that all you had to do was stick to this one particular arguement, "I feared for my life". There was apparently a legal precedent set which made that an ironclad legal defense.

The sticky part is when a lawyer is able to successfully argue that as a "martial artist" (read that as "anybody who has ever had any training in any type of martial arts") you should be able to control the level of force so that you can end the attack without actually killing the attacker. Never mind the fear, the adrenaline dump, etc. You will be perceived as a trained fighter who intentionally chose to kill.

[gregimotis]

I was once at the scene of a stabbing where-in the owner of a house had cut up a guy who was breaking into the house. The prowler bitched and bitched about being stabbed - and he may have been right according to 'continuum of force' laws - but the cops weren't having any of it. It was clear that they felt the guy got what he deserved and weren't even going to consider haselling the homeowner.

I'm curious - how strictly do the 'continuum of force' laws actually get enforced? Does anyone out there work around law enforcement (Thai Bri) and know? Is The Man just waiting to arrest everyone- or does he kinda let it slide in reasonably clear-cut self defense cases?