paul1968mcr

I hope, really hope I never have to, but if I do..... I'll have me kit with me!

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Thank you.

One comment in response to the knife fight scenario -- you may recall an incident from the Palestinian territories in 1996 or so -- the most famous photo was an Israeli reservist sitting on his ass firing an M-16 into a market place. However, the news camera which took the photo was in automatic shoot -- and when the guy started shooting, an IDF lieutenant ran up unarmed from behind and tackled the guy! Now I thought that LT was real hero because my reaction to that situation would be to drop to ground as flat as I could get, preferably behind a wall.

I used to engage in debates on the Middle East [I don't anymore, bad for the blood pressure]. When I commented on the heroism of an IDF soldier saving Palestinian lives, I got back the reaction that the IDF should have shot the weapon out of the guys hands! When I mentioned that just doesn't happen, but even if they had shot the guy -- there is TIME involved in target recognition, bringing weapon up, aiming and discharging a round -- it may have been quicker for that LT to run and up and tackle the guy.

Manc

unless in New York I reckon

paul1968mcr

apparently so, bugger! and I wanna go Niagra this year....I'll have to pack me slingshot

Manc

you can't take guns to Canada either.........

and to be frank, if you go to Niagara and only view from the American side, it's like going to an FA Cup final and only watching the first 20 minutes.

paul1968mcr

Yeah I'd heard that, wonder if they'll let me take my pump action??

crg

Hunters from both sides take their long guns over and back to Canada. There is paperwork involved. I think you can survive for one trip without the shotty.

exvj

You could save him the trouble...

chartreuse

Only in Tort? ISTR that in English law there are strict liability offences in criminal law, the common example being certain driving offences.

Agreed. I have vague memories of a similar story involving the USMC, where a Sgt went apeshit and the unarmed recruits charged him down, thereby taking fewer casualties than they would have if they had fled.

It's also often said that over a short distance, from a standing start, a man is quicker than a racehorse.

exvj

Yes absolute offences like driving with a light out require no intent
- and other criminal offences need no intent if the recklessness is of sufficient degree that a reasonable person could have forseen the outcome.

If you are on the top floor of a building and advance towards a person with a knife say, and they fall out of a window and die, then the charge will be murder even though you never touched them

I particular like the stated case on provocation. A man picked up a woman in a bar and was necking with her for long enough. He escorted her home through the park, they ended up on the grass, and he went for it and ended up with the old meat and 2 veg - it was a geezer ! At the point he strangled him - verdict - provocation.

I am sure all the law in the US has evolved away from the English/Welsh law I am quoting - but it's roots were the same and many of the original concepts are intact. Innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt etc etc etc

Steerpike

I don't doubt the validity and 'value' of this story. But I wonder - for every 'good outcome' like this one, how many accidental shootings are there, and - more relevant I believe - how many people are killed by a criminal because their possession of a weapon 'caused' the criminal to shoot them? What I mean by that is - let's say a criminal breaks into my house to steal goods. They are armed, but they are petty criminals and aren't looking for a life sentence ... I encounter them in my house. If I'm unarmed, there is a good chance (in my opinion) that they will beat me/tie me up/whatever, then rob the house and leave. If, on the other hand, I'm armed, and pose a direct threat to them, then they will have no choice to but shoot me. So instead of being beaten/tied up, I'm dead.

I can't find the article off hand, but this was the outcome in my neck of the woods a few years back; the robbers were looking for jewelery and cash that they knew was there; they tied up the lady of the house and another house guest while they grabbed the goods. But the 'man of the house' slipped away, got his gun from the bedroom, and confronted the robbers; a shootout ensued leaving two robbers and two of the three 'residents' dead.

I think owning a gun for personal protection makes sense only on a very simplistic level.

paul1968mcr

Sorry Dude, I got a young family, and the prospect of leaving them and myself at the mercy of a burgler, hoping we'll just get "bricked battered and bumed" aint happening.

The Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

anotherlimey

Or they could just shoot you all anyway... it's your gamble, but don't make your neighbor take the same one.

Incidentally, this happened a few days ago: http://www.miamiherald.com/884/story/966133.html

elfman

not sure I'd want to end up in hospital with gunshot wounds just to save Burger King a few hundred dollars

Ray

Nor would I ...

but then you have to remember the days before
Concealed weapon permits ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hennard