Knife Vs Gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
Posted by Snyper: Evidence of the details of the event has nothing to do with what he "knows" as far as any training, and is merely a description of observations at a specific time, along with any forensic evidence
Click to expand...
What you do not seem to understand is that evidence relating to other things can be crucial. Foremost among those things are the defendant's state of mind, and anything that could shed light on the reasons for his stated belief that he had been faced with an imminent threat requiring the immediate use of deadly force.

Training RE: attack and response distances would fall into the latter category.

Your continuing to insist otherwise does not change that.

I hate to put it quite this way, but it seems to me that there has been ample explanation of the subject in this thread already. Perhaps you should spend some time rereading the above posts carefully and reflecting upon the content. Pay particular attention to the links to the writings of Lisa Steele--study them very carefully. Watch the video linked in Post #111 a couple of times, too.

If after all of that you still do not understand it, take my advice and attend MAG-20. Better yet, do it anyway.
 
I've never said anything like that. It's not matter of certificates. It is a matter of demonstrating in some way that one's knows what he is talking about.
Click to expand...

Really?
That's your view?

This isn't the first time we've gotten caught up in this kind of circular discussion, and once again, you don't seem to be getting anywhere.
Click to expand...
LOL
Neither do you since you just keep denying what's been shown
It proves what I said about it being a pattern

It is a matter of demonstrating in some way that one's knows what he is talking about
Click to expand...
I haven't seen where anyone here has any monopoly on that
 
Last edited:
What you do not seem to understand is that evidence relating to other things can be crucial. Foremost among those things are the defendant's state of mind, and anything that could shed light on the reasons for his stated belief that he had been faced with an imminent threat requiring the immediate use of deadly force.
Click to expand...

More rambling that really has nothing to do with what the defendent has been taught

All that matters is the details of the specific event

I get that some of my views aren't popular, but rather than prove them incorrect, it's the same old "you don't know" or "you' don't understand".
 
Snyper, Frank Ettin, who is well qualified to do so, has provided a great deal of information on several aspects of how training, and proof of same pertain, to the application of use of force law.

If he is not "getting anywhere" with you, the problem resides in you.

You have repeatedly asserted a number of things that demonstrate a great lack of understanding about how things work in a defense of justification.

If you want to learn, make an attempt. But continued denial is not constructive. It does not change anything.

Fortunately, it does not seem that anyone else is being misled by you, and that is important.

What you do is up to you.
 
And it's time to end this. We're going around and around and have long since gotten away from the topic of this thread, and I apologize for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top