Do you have to fight? - Page 12

Do you have to fight?

This is a discussion on Do you have to fight? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by TravisABQ The problem with "fighting" because someone else, out of the blue wants to "fight" you, is that you are arguably not ...

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112
Results 166 to 168 of 168
Like Tree10Likes

Thread: Do you have to fight?

  1. #166
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by TravisABQ View Post
    The problem with "fighting" because someone else, out of the blue wants to "fight" you, is that you are arguably
    not acting in self defense, but you are engaging in voluntary mutual combat. Every act of force, every punch,
    every kick, every bite you make is your own willful act to perpetuate the combat.

    How long exactly do you figure you can trade violence tit-for-tat and then, SUDDENLY, employ deadly force and
    still be morally and legally justified?

    "Well, officer, these two guys of exactly the same weight and age were punching each other for a few minutes,
    then that guy reached for a gun we never knew he had, and shot the other guy, twice in the chest, and twice in the head."

    In CCW classes I've taken, it was impressed upon me that you CANNOT instigate a conflict
    and then decide to shoot your opponent because you are losing.

    Who ARE these guys who have people who "want to fight" them so ferociously, and yet
    announce themselves ever so politely? It seems I have never gotten THOSE attackers!
    I took the original post to mean if you are attacked by someone who was unarmed. That is what I was replying to in my post earlier. In that case you are not given a choice. Are you restricted to less than lethal force in defending yourself? If so then you are indeed being forced to fight if you choose to defend yourself. The attacker has limited your response by his choice of unarmed attack.

    Michael


  2. #167
    Member Array billstaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    203
    Sorry, but I'm a 62 year old guy. If I'm assaulted by some tweaker or crackhead, I'm just going to shoot him. I'm too old to be trading punches with anybody. If I go down, I could lose my weapon and at that point anything might happen.

    If I can't find a way to walk away from the issue, then the other guy is going to get himself shot. I don't like that choice and will try anything to avoid it, but if left with no other option, I'll shoot. It is also easier to defend yourself and your actions in a courtroom if you are the only one left who can still talk about the incident.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  3. #168
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    SNIP:
    I just don't see juries giving people a free pass for routinely shooting unarmed people. Trust me, if they did give everyone a pass, you'd see a lot less people getting beat up. JMHO
    Agreed!
    First, the OP was not talking about mutual aggression. Some even here seem to confuse the two. We are talking about someone who gives you no option but to fight or take a beating.
    The trouble with our system now is that a person has to be aware of the laws and nuances of the particular locality they are in when attacked.

    Then after hopefully meeting all the requirements needed to defend himself we tell him he must follow certain rules to maintain an fair fight. It is not considered fair for the person being attacked to use weapons or force not available to the aggressor.
    If after all if your attacker is poor and cannot afford a firearm it wouldn't be fair for you to use one. Society wants a fair fight.

    Personally I believe a jury should only look at whether or not self-defense is a legitimate defense in the case at hand. If they decide it is then the case should be over. The tool you use to defend yourself should not matter.

    We seem to look at self-defense as a sport and that all participants should be evenly matched. I do not understand the logic of demanding that a person being attacked must worry about being better armed than his attacker.

    Michael

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Ready for a fight? Or looking for a fight?
    By bigmacque in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: November 25th, 2010, 12:57 PM
  2. Who wants to FIGHT?!?!?
    By Rayman in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 17th, 2009, 06:53 AM
  3. Big Fight
    By PNUT in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2009, 08:48 AM
  4. How not to fight...
    By Sheldon J in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: August 20th, 2008, 06:44 PM
  5. Priorities of the Gun Fight and “The Fight Continuum”
    By Sweatnbullets in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 7th, 2008, 04:05 AM

Search tags for this page

buffalo wild wings and josh rinken
,
cadmio antonio lopez
,

josh rinken

,
josh rinken facebook
,
josh rinken trial
,

josh rinkin

,
joshua b rinken
,
joshua b. rinken
,

joshua rinken

,
joshua rinken facebook
,
joshua rinken steroids
,
joshua rinkin
Click on a term to search for related topics.