Your opinions: Where is it improper to carry?

[sudden valley gunner]

How about: 2 guys with their hands in their pockets walking up to me asking aggressively while intoxicated: "you got any money for us?"

Or "you think you can just cut me off in traffic and not get your *** kicked for it?"

Both happened to me, only words.

Only words.

Until they act they are only words....then use self defense when they act upon them.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

How about: 2 guys with their hands in their pockets walking up to me asking aggressively while intoxicated: "you got any money for us?"

Or "you think you can just cut me off in traffic and not get your *** kicked for it?"

Both happened to me, only words.

Only words.

So, if I understand correctly, basically, real threats. Words that indicate violent intentions, and especially when accompanied by actions corresponding to that indication. I figured that's what you meant and it seems to be what your examples are of. Makes sense to me.

Maybe I (we?) are missing the meaning of "fighting words." When I think of "fighting words" I think of words that are used to try indicate the speaker's intentions on starting violence or in some cases used to try to provoke violence from the person being spoken to. I wouldn't define fighting words as words that automatically justify physical use of force as retaliation.

In addition, I think that in some cases mere words may constitute use of force, such as when a police officer declares that you're being detained or when someone in an alley says give me your wallet. Right?

 

[J_dazzle23]

So, if I understand correctly, basically, real threats. Words that indicate violent intentions, and especially when accompanied by actions corresponding to that indication. I figured that's what you meant and it seems to be what your examples are of. Makes sense to me.

Maybe I (we?) are missing the meaning of "fighting words." When I think of "fighting words" I think of words that are used to try indicate the speaker's intentions on starting violence or in some cases used to try to provoke violence from the person being spoken to. I wouldn't define fighting words as words that automatically justify physical use of force as retaliation.

In addition, I think that in some cases mere words may constitute use of force, such as when a police officer declares that you're being detained or when someone in an alley says give me your wallet. Right?

Basically, yeah. And imo there is a moral/legal .....gap per se.

If I reasonably believe I could come to harm, the only legal requirements for use of force on my part to defend myself is if the other party has both thr "ability" and "intent" to do harm. Not actual action.

But I can see it being a bit of a difficult difference.

 

[solus]

Until they act they are only words....then use self defense when they act upon them.

well said & thank you SVG!! a true gentleman and scholar...and there are darn few of us left.

ipse

 

[solus]

So, if I understand correctly, basically, real threats. Words that indicate violent intentions, and especially when accompanied by actions corresponding to that indication. I figured that's what you meant and it seems to be what your examples are of. Makes sense to me.

Maybe I (we?) are missing the meaning of "fighting words." When I think of "fighting words" I think of words that are used to try indicate the speaker's intentions on starting violence or in some cases used to try to provoke violence from the person being spoken to. I wouldn't define fighting words as words that automatically justify physical use of force as retaliation.

In addition, I think that in some cases mere words may constitute use of force, such as when a police officer declares that you're being detained or when someone in an alley says give me your wallet. Right?

fortunately, in the Tarheel state, a citizen's use of deadly force against verbal abuse or simple assault is not a defensible position.

ipse

 

[solus]

How about: 2 guys with their hands in their pockets walking up to me asking aggressively while intoxicated: "you got any money for us?"

Or "you think you can just cut me off in traffic and not get your *** kicked for it?"

Both happened to me, only words.

Only words.

and your responce to these query(ies), hopefully your reaction was as Dionne sang...'walk on by'?

ipse

 

[J_dazzle23]

and your responce to these query(ies), hopefully your reaction was as Dionne sang...'walk on by'?

ipse

Weeeeeelllll. The first one I was between my car and a retaining wall. Got myself a good lesson on situational awareness that day. Looked down at my 3 o clock waist and back up and said "no man, sorry, I dont." I'll let you determine why they quickly backed off.

Second one, I told him to get back in his car before his poor choice turned into a very poor one, and that ended that.

But what if I was a 120 lb 5'4" young girl. Does that change what kind of "fighting words" those are?

 

[J_dazzle23]

fortunately, in the Tarheel state, a citizen's use of deadly force against verbal abuse or simple assault is not a defensible position.

ipse

Force=/= deadly force.

But I would challenge that if the assault caused the victim to (as a reasonable man/woman would) fear for his/her life imminently, deadly force would likely be legally justifiable.

Simple verbal abuse? Probably not. But that's where force parts ways with deadly force, imo.

 

[solus]

Weeeeeelllll. The first one I was between my car and a retaining wall. Got myself a good lesson on situational awareness that day. Looked down at my 3 o clock waist and back up and said "no man, sorry, I dont." I'll let you determine why they quickly backed off.

Second one, I told him to get back in his car before his poor choice turned into a very poor one, and that ended that.

But what if I was a 120 lb 5'4" young girl. Does that change what kind of "fighting words" those are?

thanks for sharing J, and in your instances, did you your shorts dry?

nope...doesn't make the slightest difference...they are words...

if they meant you ill the possibility exists you would be a statistic so chances are the individuals you encountered were just opportunistic not intent on violence.

ipse

 

[J_dazzle23]

thanks for sharing J, and in your instances, did you your shorts dry?

nope...doesn't make the slightest difference...they are words...

if they meant you ill the possibility exists you would be a statistic so chances are the individuals you encountered were just opportunistic not intent on violence.

ipse

Hahaha. Second one didn't have me worried. First one had me pretty concerned though, I will day that. Good thing that I didn't eat fiber that day

And your last paragraph....good point. That's the trouble I suppose. If you don't know if they mean you ill, and the only information available is their words and body language....when do you decide they are just jerks vs your chance of being a statistic?

 

[solus]

Force=/= deadly force.

But I would challenge that if the assault caused the victim to (as a reasonable man/woman would) fear for his/her life imminently, deadly force would likely be legally justifiable.

Simple verbal abuse? Probably not. But that's where force parts ways with deadly force, imo.

please understand i am not an attorney and only familiar w/NC +/- states deadly force constraints. i also am not commenting on SA tactics.

careful J, your opinion about use of deadly force against judicial concepts are vastly different. so to switch from verbal, to simple assault by NC statute does not meet criteria for use of deadly force! it is acknowledged the line is thin from simple assault to having a reasonable fear for your life, serious bodily injury, or sexual assault to justify the use of deadly force.

additionally, while there is one minor exception too long to explain, but you cannot be the instigator nor contributor to the verb altercation which escalates to use of deadly force and therefore the argument is a difficult defense to use within the judicial system.

ipse

 

[solus]

Hahaha. Second one didn't have me worried. First one had me pretty concerned though, I will day that. Good thing that I didn't eat fiber that day

And your last paragraph....good point. That's the trouble I suppose. If you don't know if they mean you ill, and the only information available is their words and body language....when do you decide they are just jerks vs your chance of being a statistic?

we are not discussing SA tactics J cuz, just cuz...but as social beings, we feel the need to respond to questions, no matter who asks...it is a difficult thing for most to overcome.

as nightmare, i believe stated, some things you worry about others you don't...it is like the flip of a coin...fifty percent of the time the BG is testing the waters to see if you will capitulate to their verbal threat and give them what they want. the other fifty percent of the time your in danger.

ipse

 

[Silvertongue]

Means, Opportunity, Intent.

Inside shooting range with direct line of sight = Opportunity

Intent = "Hey, I think I'll attack you." Or similar verbiage.

Means = Visible weapon.


Now, that's my continuum for shooting a person with a firearm. Giving them a face-full of chemical spray is another thing entirely.


Inside 21 feet with no major obstacles between us = Opportunity

Intent = "I'm going to stomp on your big toe." Or similar verbiage.

Means = A physically capable body.

After all, there are people who don't deserve shot but do deserve pepper-sprayed.

 

[OC for ME]

What about the mutual combat states? How many are there? Anyway, when does you realizing after you engage in mutual combat that you're getting your backside handed to you...

Or, get in a fist fight, realize the same thing, then you resort to da gat.

Or, don't get into fights. I think OC tends to mitigate many possible inconvenient scenarios..CC, not so much.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

What about the mutual combat states? How many are there? Anyway, when does you realizing after you engage in mutual combat that you're getting your backside handed to you...

Or, get in a fist fight, realize the same thing, then you resort to da gat.

Or, don't get into fights. I think OC tends to mitigate many possible inconvenient scenarios..CC, not so much.

Two mutual combatants both thinking they have CC tactical advantage.........

 

[solus]

Two mutual combatants both thinking they have CC tactical advantage.........

hate when those type of scenarios bubble to the surface...

thank goodness these two didn't have firearms available when their testosterone levels spiked, eh?

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/06/10/road-rage-fight-los-angeles-hollywood-new-day.cnn

ipse

 

[DrakeZ07]

Sky Diving!

Done it while OC. I told the instructor, who asked why I brought it with me, that in case my parachute failed, I wasn't going to spend thirty seconds screaming while the ground got closer, and closer. He nodded sagely and said 'good call'.

I do wish the days of dueling was still around, and still legal. Then I'd have cause to wear my fancy mink skin gloves~~~

 

[solus]

Done it while OC. I told the instructor, who asked why I brought it with me, that in case my parachute failed, I wasn't going to spend thirty seconds screaming while the ground got closer, and closer. He nodded sagely and said 'good call'.

I do wish the days of dueling was still around, and still legal. Then I'd have cause to wear my fancy mink skin gloves~~~

somehow, i needed that visual drake, color coordinated of course?

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

Until they act they are only words....then use self defense when they act upon them.

Not quite so simple, at least under Utah laws including URS 76-2-402 Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined. Under this law,

(1) (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawful force.

(b) A person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the person or a third person as a result of another person's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "

See that "reasonably believes" part? A person does not have to wait until he is staring down the barrel of gun or dodging a knife thrust before he uses force, or deadly force.

Reasonable belief is based on the totality of circumstances, INCLUDING what the other person says.

Interestingly, this same law also contains this tidbit:

(5) In determining imminence or reasonableness under Subsection (1), the trier of fact may consider, but is not limited to, any of the following factors:
(a) the nature of the danger;

(b) the immediacy of the danger;

(c) the probability that the unlawful force would result in death or serious bodily injury;

(d) the other's prior violent acts or violent propensities; and

(e) any patterns of abuse or violence in the parties' relationship.

Consider a person dressed and acting like a violent gang banger threatening an LAC. Let's say the threatening individual actually is a member of a violent gang with a criminal history. LAC doesn't know this last piece, but based on what he does observe, determines the threat is credible and uses force to prevent (not stop after it starts, but to prevent before it actually begins) what he reasonably believes to be an imminent use of unlawful force against him. If the prosecutor wants to try the LAC for using force without legal justification, the "trier of fact" gets to take into consideration the violent, criminal history of the threatening person.

Ignoring what I believe should be the law, the law in Utah does currently allow a person to use force/deadly-force to defend against an imminent threat or to prevent certain crimes BEFORE the violence/crime has physically commenced based on a "reasonable man" belief that the violence/crime is imminent. Words are a part of what any reasonable man will consider in determining whether there is credible, imminent threat of violence or other crimes.

Charles

 

[solus]

ya ya ya piper...sticks and stones, etc., ...with what ifs, what nots, and so forth thrown in!!!

tells this august membership, oh please, tell us what does the normal Utah citizen believe quote...a person dressed and acting like a violent gang banger....unquote truly looks like?? stereotypical bovine crap!!!

Especially since on a previous thread you flatly stated you stay with your own kind in your neighbourhood community/city, ad nauseam. oh wait piper, you've watched it on white TV shows...

if your SA is so diminished, judging by your previous postings i think it is, coupled with the fact you're that incompentent that you are actually in this situation within hearing range to hear the BS being thrown about by the quote violent gang banger unquote then you deserve to hang your fate to the judicial system to see what falls out at the end.

btw, as you pointed out in a previous response to me, personally, i don't care what utah laws say since NC and a few other state's citizens can't engage in that type of activity ~ it is against the law!!

ipse