Test tube full of blood

This is a discussion on Test tube full of blood within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by semperfi.45 So if BG just says I'm going to shoot you then you can shoot him? That seems a little irresponsible. Mere ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 56

Thread: test tube full of blood

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,536
    Quote Originally Posted by semperfi.45 View Post
    So if BG just says I'm going to shoot you then you can shoot him? That seems a little irresponsible.
    Mere speech isn't sufficient, no. But someone making an offhand claim like that isn't likely simply blowing smoke. He's likely got a gun, possibly in hand, or there are other indicators to show he's very likely to execute on that threat.

    Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy. Someone with a gun in hand must be presumed to have a loaded gun in hand, out of sheer common sense. Someone who has voiced specific intent to kill me has put the threat into sharp focus and ratcheted up the immediacy of the threat. Someone who is within yards and looks perfectly capable of acting on that threat must be seen as the impending threat he actually is. Or, with all these pieces in place, if you hesitate then you're likely to get killed.

    Gun (loaded), capable and apparently willing/intending to kill by his own admission ... Irrresponsible?

    We each have a responsibility to survive, to our families, to society to be decent about our actions, and every right to defend our lives and well-being. Nobody's forced to take a bullet, first, given the lethality of this situation.

    Others have said it better:
    Quote Originally Posted by Oliver Wendell Holmes
    Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.
    -- Brown v United States, 256 US 335, 343 (1921)
    Quote Originally Posted by U.S. Supreme Court, in Beard v. U.S., 158 US 550, 343
    1. The right of a man to stand his ground and defend himself when attacked with a deadly weapon, even to the extent of taking his assailant's life, depends upon whether he reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, and not upon the detached test whether a man of reasonable prudence, so situated, might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant, rather than kill him.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Senior Member Array kahrcarrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    607
    No. I'm not going to shoot a guy threatening me with a test tube.

    I can't see that coming out as a "win" situation for me. Not at all..............

  4. #33
    VIP Member Array friesepferd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    east TN
    Posts
    2,341
    personally i would NOT shoot.
    legally its kinda iffy. i would just get out of there. if he does get you with the blood it doensnt mean your going to get the HIV. just scrub yourself off with alcohol.
    if there were protesters, i wouldnt have gone out there in the first place.

  5. #34
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    if he does get you with the blood it doensnt mean your going to get the HIV.
    Bear in mind... getting shot with a gun, or stabbed with a knife doesn't mean you're going to die either.

    Call me crazy, but I think lethal force is lethal force. If we have to start evaluating the probability of death; things are going to be a mess. Now I've got to respond to a shooter with a .22 revolver with my own .22 revolver, because my .45 is too much force in response. Ugh.
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  6. #35
    Member Array Schwebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    438
    Well it is very difficult to contract AIDS/HIV from just having blood splashed on you, believe it or not. It cannot live outside the body very long and unless you have a gaping open wound for it to get into, your risk of getting it is about 0%. It must get into your blood stream to work, and even if you do have a gaping wound, your chances are still pretty good of not getting it. Also there are medicines to treat those who think they may have been exposed and they are quite effective. Hepatits B/C is much more to worry about

    I work in an ER and have had patients threaten to spit/bleed/throw other bodily fluids on me, and they have said they were infected with HIV/Hep B/C,...etc. I really wish I could shoot some of them...just kdding. Honestly, if something like that happens, and you cannot retreat, just close your mouth and cover your eyes. But honestly if you pulled out a weapon, I'm pretty sure the person trying to throw something on you might think twice. A bullet flies much better than a test tube. Would you be justified in shooting them?,...I guess that depends on your perception of bodily harm at that point. I would think a jury would have a hard time convicting you, but I wouldn't want to go through all that if I didn't absolutley have to.

    One Hep C positive patient came at me with a full urinal, and had the intention of throwing it on me. Luckily one of our local LEO's was just hanging out chewing the fat. The laser dot on his chest from his tazer convinced him not to throw any pee. He was charged for that, and it ended up being such a headache, I hate having to go to court on my days off. Always nice to see subpoena hanging on my locker. Plus the wackos and the jerks always get off anyway, they always just end up having to go inside a another hospital and torture more hard working people.

  7. #36
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,536
    The witnessed stated intent to kill and the aggressiveness of the attack makes all the difference, IMO. I fully agree that a known tube with known liquid and no actual violence or assault itself does not constitute nearly enough, nor dire enough, threat. Granted. But, combine stated intent to cause me death with claim of a deadly (known to kill) pathogen or acid or whatever, and an attack ... then we're speaking of something on a different level.

    Let's turn the tables a bit. Take someone with a high level of agitation and aggression. That someone is verbally threatening you. It gets to the point where that person swears he's going to kill you. His hand is in his pocket with an unknown weapon sitting there. Hard to know what it is. Could be the horrible test tube, sure; though it could be a severe acid (HCL, HN03, H2SO4), a knife or gun. He decides to rush you and digs his hand deeper into the pocket, all the while wild-eyed and screaming he's going to kill you.

    Now, is the situation any different? Seems to me, said assailant believes he can kill, has stated he will kill, is acting every bit the part of doing so, appears to be armed and believe it'll work. At what point does one have every right to assume he knows more than you do, and when it's kosher to defend against the actual threat rushing you? ONLY when it's a traditional visible knife or gun, and only if visible at 21ft or nearer distance? If victims everywhere would ignore the range of signals to that degree, there would be a far greater number of violently victimized people in the world. Everything depends on the circumstances, the violence of the attack, the belief in the lethality of the "weapon" (or stated weapon combined with the belief that the unseen weapon is lethal in nature). Everything.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  8. #37
    Member Array phaed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Fort Huachuca, AZ
    Posts
    453
    Quote Originally Posted by exactlymypoint View Post
    I think this actually happened a while back.

    Let's say you are a well known and respected pastor or church leader. You have taken a stance against something because of your religious beliefs. A group comes to protest your views at work (the church). They are carrying signs and make loud noises. You go out with a few of your fellow workers and politely ask them to leave. They become hostile and one person pulls out a test tube full of blood. He says this is blood from a person dieing of AIDS and threatens to throw it at you.

    Question: Can you draw your weapon on that person? Is he threatening your life?
    yep to both questions, imo. *i'm not a lawyer
    War is not the ugliest of things. Worse is the decayed state of moral feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which he cares for more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free. -J.S. Mill

  9. #38
    Member Array phaed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Fort Huachuca, AZ
    Posts
    453
    Quote Originally Posted by Ragin Cajun View Post
    It is your responsibility to walk away if possibile. Some people have a problem putting pride aside but it is your responsibilty if you have a CCP. If you had that opertunity, your pride got the best of you and you used deadly force, you are more then likely going to jail and won't be the first.
    wrong. castle doctrine. differs from state to state as to where it applies. but, the idea is that you no longer are required to retreat. it's irresponsible for you to tell someone else it's their responsibility to walk away if you have a CCP. now, it might be a good idea...but don't tell someone that may not know that it's the law somehow. it's their choice, not yours. if you disagree, show me that in writing.
    War is not the ugliest of things. Worse is the decayed state of moral feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which he cares for more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free. -J.S. Mill

  10. #39
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,264
    If somebody tells you they have the Avian Bird Flu and they threaten to cough in your face - you had best quickly step way back and plug them immediately.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  11. #40
    Member Array phaed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Fort Huachuca, AZ
    Posts
    453
    CODE OF IOWA 2002

    TITLE XVI. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
    SUBTITLE 1. CRIME CONTROL AND CRIMINAL ACTS
    CHAPTER 709C. CRIMINAL TRANSMISSION OF HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS


    709C.1 Criminal transmission of human immunodeficiency virus.

    1. A person commits criminal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus if the person, knowing that the person's human immunodeficiency virus status is positive, does any of the following:

    a. Engages in intimate contact with another person.
    b. Transfers, donates, or provides the person's blood, tissue, semen, organs, or other potentially infectious bodily fluids for transfusion, transplantation, insemination, or other administration to another person.
    c. Dispenses, delivers, exchanges, sells, or in any other way transfers to another person any nonsterile intravenous or intramuscular drug paraphernalia previously used by the person infected with the human immunodeficiency virus.

    2. For the purposes of this section:

    a. "Human immunodeficiency virus" means the human immunodeficiency virus identified as the causative agent of acquired immune deficiency syndrome.
    b. "Intimate contact" means the intentional exposure of the body of one person to a bodily fluid of another person in a manner that could result in the transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus.
    c. "Intravenous or intramuscular drug paraphernalia" means any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is peculiar to and marketed for use in injecting a substance into or withdrawing a bodily fluid from the human body.

    3. Criminal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus is a class "B" felony.
    4. This section shall not be construed to require that an infection with the human immunodeficiency virus has occurred for a person to have committed criminal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus.
    5. It is an affirmative defense that the person exposed to the human immunodeficiency virus knew that the infected person had a positive human immunodeficiency virus status at the time of the action of exposure, knew that the action of exposure could result in transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus, and consented to the action of exposure with that knowledge.
    War is not the ugliest of things. Worse is the decayed state of moral feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which he cares for more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free. -J.S. Mill

  12. #41
    Senior Member Array Ragin Cajun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    809
    Quote Originally Posted by phaed View Post
    wrong. castle doctrine. differs from state to state as to where it applies. but, the idea is that you no longer are required to retreat. it's irresponsible for you to tell someone else it's their responsibility to walk away if you have a CCP. now, it might be a good idea...but don't tell someone that may not know that it's the law somehow. it's their choice, not yours. if you disagree, show me that in writing.
    What do you mean it is Irresponsible? If you can walk away from a situtation without shooting someone, you should. Reread the original post. It leads me to believe that the opertunity is there. How is that irresponsibile? Let the law deal with it, it not an imediate threat if you can safely walk away from it. You are not the law. If you feel that you shouldn't walk away just because you are carrying a gun, then perhaps you shouldn't be carrying one. Deadly force is a last resort and after you pull the trigger, you can't call that bullet back. Just because you have a CCP doesn't give you any special rights over anyone else other then the fact you can conceal a weapon. Someone throws blood on you, chances are they can be charged with asult and that is it. Shoot someone and if it is iffy in the eyes of the law, you face the possibilty of murder charges. Personally I'd put pride and stupidty aside, walk off if the possibilty is there and call the police.

  13. #42
    Senior Member Array Ragin Cajun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    809
    Quote Originally Posted by phaed View Post
    CODE OF IOWA 2002

    TITLE XVI. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
    SUBTITLE 1. CRIME CONTROL AND CRIMINAL ACTS
    CHAPTER 709C. CRIMINAL TRANSMISSION OF HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS


    709C.1 Criminal transmission of human immunodeficiency virus.

    1. A person commits criminal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus if the person, knowing that the person's human immunodeficiency virus status is positive, does any of the following:

    a. Engages in intimate contact with another person.
    b. Transfers, donates, or provides the person's blood, tissue, semen, organs, or other potentially infectious bodily fluids for transfusion, transplantation, insemination, or other administration to another person.
    c. Dispenses, delivers, exchanges, sells, or in any other way transfers to another person any nonsterile intravenous or intramuscular drug paraphernalia previously used by the person infected with the human immunodeficiency virus.

    2. For the purposes of this section:

    a. "Human immunodeficiency virus" means the human immunodeficiency virus identified as the causative agent of acquired immune deficiency syndrome.
    b. "Intimate contact" means the intentional exposure of the body of one person to a bodily fluid of another person in a manner that could result in the transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus.
    c. "Intravenous or intramuscular drug paraphernalia" means any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is peculiar to and marketed for use in injecting a substance into or withdrawing a bodily fluid from the human body.

    3. Criminal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus is a class "B" felony.
    4. This section shall not be construed to require that an infection with the human immunodeficiency virus has occurred for a person to have committed criminal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus.
    5. It is an affirmative defense that the person exposed to the human immunodeficiency virus knew that the infected person had a positive human immunodeficiency virus status at the time of the action of exposure, knew that the action of exposure could result in transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus, and consented to the action of exposure with that knowledge.
    If that is your denfense for shooting someone in that situtation when you could have walk away, GOOD LUCK!!!

  14. #43
    Lead Moderator
    Array rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    15,900
    Responsibility and legal obligation are not the same. I believe Ragin Cajun is referring to a moral obligation over legal aspects. If so, I totally agree. If a situation can be diffused without violence so much the better. I doubt any of us want to have to shoot someone , but we do wish to go home each night safe.
    "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Thomas Jefferson


    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  15. #44
    Senior Member Array Ragin Cajun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    809
    Quote Originally Posted by rocky View Post
    Responsibility and legal obligation are not the same. I believe Ragin Cajun is referring to a moral obligation over legal aspects. If so, I totally agree. If a situation can be diffused without violence so much the better. I doubt any of us want to have to shoot someone , but we do wish to go home each night safe.

    That is correct! If I can walk away without someone getting hurt, then that is what I would do and hope that anyone else would do the same. I wouldn't shoot someone "just because" the law says I could. The laws are different in every state and that is why it is important to know the laws of where you are, if you do have to.
    Last edited by Ragin Cajun; January 6th, 2008 at 08:02 PM. Reason: Added text

  16. #45
    Member Array ebk637's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    318
    absolutely without doubt,I would walk away and call the local PD.
    their must be something he/they could be charged with.
    call the police and press charges.maybe even go as far as to get a restraining order on this individual or group of people.
    even though the risk of being infected is so low it is or at least should be considered a serious offense.

    This is the type of situation that prosecuting scumbags dream of!
    The right one can easily make life extremely difficult for you.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

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. How many of you get a blood test every year?
    By Bunny in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2009, 03:22 PM
  2. Extended mag tube on Rem 870 - or not?
    By 10thmtn in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 12th, 2009, 11:05 AM
  3. Bullet test Tube
    By LongRider in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: January 11th, 2008, 03:25 AM
  4. UCComfort On You Tube
    By abeaux in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: August 27th, 2007, 09:45 PM
  5. You-Tube Review of the H&K45
    By ExSoldier in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 28th, 2007, 01:39 PM