CCW & getting pranked. Along with real life recent occurrence.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aaron, you continue to miss the point.

You do not let someone close with you for a better shot. If that's what is the kernel of your argument - you are so wrong.

You are also ignoring that you are trying to deter someone who is deranged. If you don't think the zombie is deranged - then you will have no leg to stand on for your claim of 'assault' or 'reasonable man'. But the zombie might gnaw it off, if you miss.
 
Wow,,, that's semi-unbelievable,,,,,

The moment a hood went on the girls head she was under criminal assault,,,
I'm not even sure that it would be legal with parental consent.

Aarond

.
 
I's not the kernel of the argument,,,

It's an inevitable result of getting closer,,,
I have a better chance of good shot placement.

Call it a by-product result of closing in on someone.

The kernel of the argument is that if I perceive a threat of injury/harm,,,
I can ready the weapon I would use to defend myself.

When the assailant (even a prankster) sees that weapon and continues to advance on me I am justified in shooting them.

Or so I have been trained.

Aarond

.
 
When the assailant (even a prankster) sees that weapon and continues to advance on me I am justified in shooting them.
Click to expand...

I suggest that your training on the use of lethal force is lacking. Someone advancing on you, even yelling and screaming may not be enough in court.
 
But if your defense is, "I thought I was being attacked by a Zombie.", you'll be flunking the reasonable person test.
Click to expand...

My defense would be more along the lines of "high as a kite face eating assailant" instead of Zombie. At least that might be considered reasonable by a jury of my peers.
 
I am disabled myself and live in Texas. First I warn, then I draw. I will not wait till I am assaulted, disarmed and shot with my own gun before I draw.
If it came to trial I would have a jury. I think if he was a prankster, he would stop before it went that far, and if he did not, then he was no prankster.
:)
 
If the crazy looks a little too much like performance art and ketchup, there's no need to stay for the second act. Be advised many assaults come from the side opposite the diversion, so maintain your situational awareness. There is no question I'd have my strong hand on my piece. I wouldn't allow someone I didn't know in a position to assault me, or pick my pocket.
Assault in jest is still assault. They may be kidding. You're not. Stop it short with minimum force. I would rather explain to His Honor why I bent the trigger guard on some fool acting out. When it's battery, it may be too late. I think any reasonable person that get's rushed is going to respond as trained. Old guys might as well figure on starting from the ground.

Thanks for the eyes
 
Last edited:
For fools like that are the reason I either have a can of pepper spray or my blackjack with me at all times. If he were lucky he would have had one warning if he did not stop RIGHT THEN, I would have protected myself.

A FOOL like that deserves a face full of pepper spray or a rap to the collar bone with a hard object.
 
I've never seen anyone stay standing after a snap-kick to the knee(s)... High on something or not.

Brandishing is not the answer, and I've been told that shooting unarmed people is impolite... I don't know that for certain though...

One more reason for us to practice/train hand-to-hand defensive techniques and disabling strikes.

FYI, blackjacks and billy clubs are illegal to carry in most states....
 
aarondhgraham said:
...Is it rational to allow an assailant (or suspected assailant) to get within the established distance elaborated by the Tueller Drill,,,
Click to expand...
But first of all, a reasonable and prudent person would need to conclude that the person is an assailant, and not some kid with ketchup on his shirt making faces and jumping around like a drunken monkey with a neuro-muscular disorder.

aarondhgraham said:
...The kernel of the argument is that if I perceive a threat of injury/harm,,,
I can ready the weapon I would use to defend myself...
Click to expand...
Nope. The standard is that of a reasonable and prudent person.

aarondhgraham said:
...Surely we've hashed out that shooting someone at a distance is a chancy thing,,,

It is absolutely rational to wait until they are closer to shoot...
Click to expand...
The goal isn't to shoot him. Your legitimate goal is your safety. If you can get away, get away. You can defend yourself. You may not lay an ambush.
 
Aside from the Russian show, we've had shows like that here. Similar premise to Punk'd, where people are set up by their friends.

I've always figured my friends have more sense than that, and so far I seem to be correct.

But, on American shows of this nature, I've seen people ambushed by a guy dressed as Leatherface, complete with chainsaw; I've seen people threatened at (prop) knife point... and I've thought in each case, "Wow, I would have probably shot that guy...."

Sorry, but I'm not about to wait and see if the chainsaw or knife is serious.

In other, less severe cases, people have simulated unarmed attacks on third parties, or on the pranked individual. I probably would not draw in such cases, unless the prankster were physically huge, but again the odds would favor some sort of physical reaction. My physical reactions are reasonably likely to result in people hitting the ground fairly hard. Fifteen years of aikido training, with prior backgrounds in kenpo and wrestling, tend to create a certain set of reflexes and techniques that may result in pain and/or injury to the knuckleheaded.

Don't scare people with realistic seeming attacks; doing so is a very poor survival strategy.
 
... jumping around like a drunken monkey...
Click to expand...

just to add fuel … "drunken monkey" is a very effective fighting form.:p

Kung Fu Zombies egads !:eek: dunno about being justified to use deadly force, but would make a fun song …imo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top