Training other than firearms?

[DougO83]

////

Wow, you sure are quick to take it as an insult, huh? And to attack me when I said nothing against you at all!

Nah, I don't really put much weight on the words on keyboard kommandos.

No wonder you get swung on so much!

Actually, alot of it is related to my job. I am a bouncer and a security contractor. It has been the case that if I piss someone off at work, I have to deal with it when I get off. It has happened to me on a few occassions after tossing a drunk that they wait around when we get off. It's a public area, we can't make them leave the street. The first thing on me when I get off is my pistol that I lock up when I get to work. Doesn't mean I'm gonna use it on some punk who is mad because he couldn't play nice in my bar.

Again, what if he gets it away from me. Of course you've made it clear here and other posts too that nobody can ever win a fight against you, so I guess you don't have need to worry, right?

Hmm...nope. Never said that, but nice try. I have stated that, until I meet someone who can drop me with one punch, I will doubt their existence.

 

[kcshooter]

Nah, I don't really put much weight on the words on keyboard kommandos.

Oh yeah, that's me.

Actually, alot of it is related to my job. I am a bouncer and a security contractor. It has been the case that if I piss someone off at work, I have to deal with it when I get off. It has happened to me on a few occassions after tossing a drunk that they wait around when we get off. It's a public area, we can't make them leave the street. The first thing on me when I get off is my pistol that I lock up when I get to work. Doesn't mean I'm gonna use it on some punk who is mad because he couldn't play nice in my bar.

OK, well I don't work as a bouncer. I carry my gun all the time. For me to get into a situation where I am getting "swung on", it would be an attack, not a job hazard. So if I get attacked I am prepared to shoot.

I have stated that, until I meet someone who can drop me with one punch, I will doubt their existence.

Again, hope you aren't carrying a gun when you do meet him, and hope he decides to quit at just that one punch, tough guy.

 

[DougO83]

wow

Again, hope you aren't carrying a gun when you do meet him, and hope he decides to quit at just that one punch, tough guy.

Wow, I didn't know that not believing that someone could take me out with one punch until I saw it made me a "tough guy." That was easy. I figured it could have been earned by quickly dispatching rowdy drunks at little or no expense to property or injury to bystanders.

Or...maybe it could've been riding bulls that made me a tough guy.

Or...maybe even being a firefighter for a while.

No, it had to be saying that I wouldn't believe someone could knock me out with one punch until I saw it, that's right.

 

[HardKnox]

before this thread gets locked for immaturity i thought you could only meet a threat equal to what level you are being threatened and fists (unless you a cripple) dont equal deadly force.

id hate to see a midget punch you in the shin, youd probably shoot him...

ps please dont shoot me for starting a "verbal assault"

 

[kcshooter]

NO your ridiculous attacks against my post on this thread are what makes you a tough guy.
Your claims that if I resort to pulling my gun when attacked that "I'm a coward", and that without a gun "I can't hold my own" make you a "tough guy".
I won't continue this discussion as it is off topic and I am not going to let you push me into further hijacking another thread with the same discussion we have had before.
We get it, you can fight, you're a big guy, you're a bouncer, you beat up drunk kids at clubs, you're a bodyguard, you're a bullrider, you're a firefighter, you've had extensive training, etc., etc.
I'll continue avoiding situations that may lead to a conflict, walk away when there is one, and shoot when attacked.

And before you say you didn't say those things, either...

I would much rather take a few punches than shoot someone ... because I couldn't hold my own without a gun.

If someone hits me, I am not going to be a coward and pull a gun on them.

Better yet, why don't you just stop jumping on my posts? I got it, you and I disagree, but making it personal is getting old.

 

[kcshooter]

i thought you could only meet a threat equal to what level you are being threatened and fists (unless you a cripple) dont equal deadly force.

No, that is incorrect, the most important thing is to know your laws. In my state, if I am attacked and have a reasonable fear that I am in danger or injury, I have a right to defend myself.
If I am punched, I don't know if that person will stop punching until I start bleeding or stop breathing. A single well-placed punch can incapacitate you. I will first walk away and if I am unable to then I will defend myself with my gun before my fists. Maybe the midget is a ninja? But then, I don't get in a lot of fights, I find it much to easy to avoid them completely.
You are incorrect in two points here. One is the assumption that fists don't equal a threat of deadly force. The other is that you are forced to get into a fistfight with an unarmed person. When attacked and in fear of injury (not just death), you are legal in defending yourself with deadly force, in my state.
Again, avoid the sitution, then walk away from the situation, then defend yourself.

 

[The Immortal]

There are many times you may not be justified in using your handgun
Hate to bust this thread's bubble, but I don't see much point in any of it for actual SD. If you are in a situation that justifies using fists, you are justified using a gun. I won't give someone a chance to incapacitate me. I carry a gun to defend myself from attacks, armed or unarmed.
If you are carrying a gun and get into a fistfight, you are giving someone the chance to knock you out and take your gun and shoot you or someone else.
And before you say, "well I woudn't get into a fight I though I could lose", NOBODY gets into fights thinking they are going to lose. No matter how bad you are, there is always somebody badder.
Physical fitness and the mental aspects of training will help, but if you are under the impression that you will be able to fight yourself out of a situation, you need to think again.

Step one is to walk away. If I am prevented from being able to do so, I will defend myself with the limits of the laws without putting myself at risk for any physical harm. Meaning step 2 is to draw my gun, and if needed, step 3 is to fire.

Agree 100%. I will walk away from all altercations. Having the CCW means I don't have to roll around in the gutter.

 

[Richmond]

physical training

I'm not coming over to this forum from THR to jump into flame wars but:

Hate to bust this thread's bubble, but I don't see much point in any of it for actual SD. If you are in a situation that justifies using fists, you are justified using a gun. I won't give someone a chance to incapacitate me. I carry a gun to defend myself from attacks, armed or unarmed.

This is not only wrong, it is irresponsible. There is nothing personal in that opinion, merely professional. My opinion is based on:

1. having been lead counsel on dozens of homicide cases
2. having handled homicide cases, including cases tried to conclusion before a jury, that involved weapon on weapon, weapon on unarmed and unarmed on unarmed self defense
3. having been a professor of criminal and constitutional law for close to 20 years
4. having lectured in a number of states on self defense topics including the law and self defense - Kansas and Missouri are included in that list, BTW
5. having written a number of articles on various aspects of self defense, including legal aspects

If you want to check credentials, start here:

http://www.the-trial-lawyers.com/299187.html

What you are saying about self defense on this and other threads is incorrect, misleading and, on this thread, OT. What possible background or authority gives you the basis to start telling people things like:

You are incorrect in two points here. One is the assumption that fists don't equal a threat of deadly force. The other is that you are forced to get into a fistfight with an unarmed person. When attacked and in fear of injury (not just death), you are legal in defending yourself with deadly force, in my state.

Here is another tip for everyone who participates in forums like this. If you are ever involved in a SD shooting and you are prosecuted by a savvy prosecutor, he/she will look for things like these postings - and, since SD cases are hard to win without the defendant taking the stand, get to read each of them back to you in cross examination. It is not that hard to jerk your computer on a warrant, get your forum name/s and then find hundreds of ridiculous statements you have posted. Relevant at trial - of course they are. They go to intent and your mental state. I recently saw this used by a prosecutor in an assault case. The defendant was a "martial artist" who had posted some really stupid remarks on various forums. Not my case, fortunately. For your own sake, stop posting these remarks.

 

[kcshooter]

I'm not coming over to this forum from THR to jump into flame wars but:


Quote:
Hate to bust this thread's bubble, but I don't see much point in any of it for actual SD. If you are in a situation that justifies using fists, you are justified using a gun. I won't give someone a chance to incapacitate me. I carry a gun to defend myself from attacks, armed or unarmed.

This is not only wrong, it is irresponsible. There is nothing personal in that opinion, merely professional. My opinion is based on:
having been lead counsel on dozens of homicide cases
having handled homicide cases, including cases tried to conclusion before a jury, that involved weapon on weapon, weapon on unarmed and unarmed on unarmed self defense
having been a professor of criminal and constitutional law for close to 20 years
having lectured in a number of states on self defense topics including the law and self defense - Kansas and Missouri are included in that list, BTW
having written a number of articles on various aspects of self defense, including legal aspects


If you want to check credentials, start here:

http://www.the-trial-lawyers.com/299187.html

What you are saying about self defense on this and other threads is incorrect, misleading and, on this thread, OT. What possible background or authority gives you the basis to start telling people things like:


Quote:
You are incorrect in two points here. One is the assumption that fists don't equal a threat of deadly force. The other is that you are forced to get into a fistfight with an unarmed person. When attacked and in fear of injury (not just death), you are legal in defending yourself with deadly force, in my state.

Here is another tip for everyone who participates in forums like this. If you are ever involved in a SD shooting and you are prosecuted by a savvy prosecutor, he/she will look for things like these postings - and, since SD cases are hard to win without the defendant taking the stand, get to read each of them back to you in cross examination. It is not that hard to jerk your computer on a warrant, get your forum name/s and then find hundreds of ridiculous statements you have posted. Relevant at trial - of course they are. They go to intent and your mental state. I recently saw this used by a prosecutor in an assault case. The defendant was a "martial artist" who had posted some really stupid remarks on various forums. Not my case, fortunately. For your own sake, stop posting these remarks.

Odd, since as an attorney you'd figure you'd be more familiar with the law, wouldn't you?


MO state law reads: A felony or murder is justifiable and not criminal when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor.


If I try to walk away and am unable to disentangle myself from a confrontation that I did not start or provoke, and I am in fear of injury (not only death), then I am justified in taking a life.

As an attorney, how do you NOT know that???

 

[Richmond]

we re-join our program

Oh, I'm sorry - this thread was about training!

Folks who know me on various boards know that I never seem to do anything but train and try cases - actually, like everyone else, I spend a lot of time on paperwork.

I have been training in and teaching traditional Japanese karate for 34 years, am co-owner of a full-time dojo that teaches Japanese and Okinawan martial arts. I also began training in classical Japanese martial arts, centering on sword, about 17 years ago. I teach a small group of students in a program that is built around sword but includes cross training in jujitsu, escrima stick and knife (I have a qualified instructor who comes in 2X week to teach these), intense physical training and firearms. Entry into this group generally requires having reached dan/black belt grade in another art - karate, TKD, aikido, etc.

So, I train every day. Last night, we did an upper body dumbell/bodyweight routine, hiked/climbed in weight vests for 60 minutes, did carry pistol. Tonight, we are hiking in weight vests, then a general karate class at the main dojo. Tomorrow, weights and sword.

Basically, to think of self defense in a comprehensive manner, you have a wide range of skills that cover avoidance/situational awareness, verbal de-escalation, an increasing range of physical/non-deadly force techniques, responses using improvised weapons and deadly force responses using your primary weapons.

Oh, and what I do for training is not "work", but my idea of fun. My students tonight may differ on that in about an hour, as we are jogging up a 500 foot hill carry weight vests (hey, they are at about 35#, I am carrying 70#!).

 

[MrBorland]

Richmond - Thanks for the heads-up. Very informative. I've long thought that we all ought to be very careful about what is posted on any forum, as it becomes part of the public record. Too bad there's lots of "ammo" out there already, and too bad this thread took the direction it did.

Regarding the MO law KC quotes - surely there's more to it than this simple quote. As written, it says (to this layman) I'm justified in killing someone to prevent me or someone else from getting punched in the nose if I or they weren't provoking it. At any rate, my nose, or anyone else's isn't worth anyone's life.

 

[kcshooter]

Regarding the MO law KC quotes - surely there's more to it than this simple quote. As written, it says (to this layman) I'm justified in killing someone to prevent me or someone else from getting punched in the nose if I or they weren't provoking it. At any rate, my nose, or anyone else's isn't worth anyone's life.

Look it up, thats the whole paragraph as it applies to that part of this discussion. And I do agree, although you may be justified, there is a moral point to be made too. As I stated earlier, I find that if you have gotten me to a point where I am in a fight, you have gone waaaay out of your way and it is an attack at that point, plain and simple. My point was more aimed at those who were stating the have fought or have trained to fight multiple attackers. If you have 2 or more attackers coming at you, you cannot escape, and are armed, you are a fool not to shoot to protect yourself.

 

[MrBorland]

Look it up, thats the whole paragraph as it applies to that part of this discussion. And I do agree, although you may be justified, there is a moral point to be made too. As I stated earlier, I find that if you have gotten me to a point where I am in a fight, you have gone waaaay out of your way and it is an attack at that point, plain and simple.

Understood, and thanks for the clarification. Keep in mind, though, that the U.S. Constitution, for example, is relatively concise, yet consitutional lawers and judges have been struggling to interpret it for over 200 years. "Short and concise" doesn't necessarily mean "plain and simple". Morality is likely the hidden, unwritten trump card in the end.

 

[The Immortal]

While I consider myself better informed having read the excellent and informative posts made on this thread, I am reminded of the 90-year-old Detroit man that was badly beaten by a 22-year-old car jacker.