I fully support self-protection and protection of one's family and property. I'm all good with "the Chicago way" in regards to legitimate self-defense.

But this conversation is exactly why I abhor ALL political violence. Eventually all roads lead to the justification of revenge and retaliation.

That's not the America (or the Western civilization) I believe in, but me just saying that feels very naive these days.

Quote from: SHARK;1088882In such circumstances, how do you know such an attacker *isn't* armed?

How do you know anyone isn't armed in any circumstance? The best solution is to shoot everyone you encounter in case they're packing. They can't shoot you if you shoot them first.

Quote from: kythri;1088878Stop defending pieces of shit like Loter.

There is a difference between defending his shitty actions and defending his life. I've put my own safety in jeopardy more than once to stop one asshole from seriously hurting another asshole.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1088887I fully support self-protection and protection of one's family and property. I'm all good with "the Chicago way" in regards to legitimate self-defense.

But this conversation is exactly why I abhor ALL political violence. Eventually all roads lead to the justification of revenge and retaliation.

That's not the America (or the Western civilization) I believe in, but me just saying that feels very naive these days.

Greetings!

I agree, my friend. It is sad. I have on more than one occasion intervened in violent situations where I was unarmed. Fortunately, the other men involved were I don't know, either sufficiently intimidated by me or inspired by my conviction and demands made upon them, that they quickly complied with my demands. In such circumstances, the police soon arrived and took over. A police Sergeant thanked me for my dedication and courage in intervening in such a circumstance, and calibrating my own use of force to secure the situation. At the time, though, my wife reminded me that I was stubbornly old fashioned and heroic--and that if either such men in these situations where I subdued them and intervened had been armed with firearms, I would be fucked.

I know, I know. On one hand, my interventions were risky and perhaps even foolish--but as I explained to my wife, I was raised to stand up for what is right. I was not raised to stand idlely by, "waiting for the authorities". If a man is being robbed near me, I rush to their side to help them. If a neighbor woman is screaming and crying for help, yeah, I'm at the door, demanding answers. I cannot be any other way.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: kythri;1088878The world would be better off if more thugs were ended, such that tales of their demise serve as a deterrent to further thuggery.

Since it's a gaming forum...

Quote from: The Lord of the RingsMany that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.

But I'm sure that author was some damned progressive.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1088892There is a difference between defending his shitty actions and defending his life. I've put my own safety in jeopardy more than once to stop one asshole from seriously hurting another asshole.

If somebody comes up behind me and starts punching me, am o supposed to know when he stops? When am I allowed to defend myself. I don't fetishise violence. Nobody should commit violence towards anybody. But, I believe in self defense. In 2016, we had hoodlums jumping on cars and breaking windows of Trump supporters. If I go to a Trump rally on 2020, and some thug takes a bat and starts attacking my family, what sort of defense am I allowed to do?

I will never proactively harm anybody with violence. If you try to hurt me or hurt my family, I will kill that person.

We have the left turning people to punch people, out of nowhere, into heroes. We have billion dollar corporations supporting political violence (Burger King, major media and entertainment companies, etc).

Here are the facts: the Left wants political violence. They think they are Harry Potter or in a Marvel movie. They all do their clapter bit about fighting Nazis, and they define anybody that disagrees with them as a Nazi, so all forms of resistance is valid
 Violence is cheered.

If somebody commits violence against me or my family I will kill them. I don't care that it makes you uncomfortable. You need to tell your side to stop punching people, hitting people with bike locks, or taking clubs to cars holding people trying to excercise their first amendment rights

And this goes for the Right. If I saw a proud boy thug harming somebody I'll use force to protect them as well.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1088872Who does that kind if idiocy really benefit? I get that you don't like the other side, but advocating for escalating violence is wrong.

Escalating violence? Are you joking?    You have a right to defend yourself.  So you should take a beating and just hope its just a beating. Hope you aren't killed or permanently injured?   What total idiocy.

Blame the victim.
How about if you don't want to possibly get shot & die- then don't attack someone.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1088892There is a difference between defending his shitty actions and defending his life. I've put my own safety in jeopardy more than once to stop one asshole from seriously hurting another asshole.

Loter forfeit his own safety when he decided to violently assault someone else.  He's lucky he didn't attack someone ready to deescalate the situation.

Stop defending pieces of shit like Loter.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1088897But I'm sure that author was some damned progressive.

I didn't say I was eager to do any such thing.  I just have a lower threshold of tolerance for thuggish assholes who want to violently assault others - or, more specifically, me.

I'm not eager to be put in a situation where such action is needed.  I truly hope it never happens, but I'm not going to allow someone to violate me like that.

Quote from: kythri;1088903Loter forfeit his own safety when he decided to violently assault someone else.  He's lucky he didn't attack someone ready to deescalate the situation.

Stop defending pieces of shit like Loter.

Greetings!

Good points, Kythri. Over here in Idaho, our Governor and the powers that be are strong supporters of citizens being armed. The Governor just signed into law and the state constitution allowing every lawful citizen to carry firearms *concealed* without permits or other BS hoops to jump through. Citizens can already freely be armed in their home, in their vehicles, or on their person in the open, as they desire. Gun ownership is high in this state, for both men and women. People here are very nice and polite to each other.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Blood Axe;1088900Escalating violence? Are you joking?    You have a right to defend yourself.  So you should take a beating and just hope its just a beating. Hope you aren't killed or permanently injured?   What total idiocy.

Blame the victim.
How about if you don't want to possibly get shot & die- then don't attack someone.

We have a situation that was resolved without anyone dying. I'm responding to someone that said a better resolution would have involved a death. I'm not saying that self-defense is wrong; I'm saying that the belief that an outcome that ends in someone's death is better than one that does not is wrong.

Quote from: Lurtch;1088898You need to tell your side

I have a side? OK...
My side is that a situation of one asshole punching another guy that results in both of them living on without any permanent injuries is a better outcome than one where one (or both) of them are killed.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1088909We have a situation that was resolved without anyone dying. I'm responding to someone that said a better resolution would have involved a death. I'm not saying that self-defense is wrong; I'm saying that the belief that an outcome that ends in someone's death is better than one that does not.

Sure that's the best outcome. But who is most responsible if it doesnt work out that way? The attacker.  If he doesn't commit a crime, a violent assault, then he probably wont be shot & killed by someone defending themselves from that assault.  Do I want someone to die? NO. But if its a choice between a violent thug like Matt Loter and someone he attacked without any reason- then let it be Matt and people like him.
 If violent criminals stop a second and think "Hey, my victim might be armed and I could be seriously injured or die. I better not do that. "  Is much better than them thinking they can attack, permanently injure or possibly kill someone with impunity.  No one has to take a beating and "just hope for the best".  If you think you will be badly injured or possibly killed you have every right to defend yourself with deadly force. I live in a state that is "stand your ground/castle doctrine" and conceal carry- if I was suddenly attacked unprovoked from behind by an unseen assailant(like it appears in the Mat Loter case) I would respond with deadly force.

Quote from: kythri;1088903Loter forfeit his own safety when he decided to violently assault someone else.  He's lucky he didn't attack someone ready to deescalate the situation.

Stop defending pieces of shit like Loter.

Exactly!

Quote from: Blood Axe;1088915Sure that's the best outcome. But who is most responsible if it doesnt work out that way? The attacker.  If he doesn't commit a crime, a violent assault, then he probably wont be shot & killed by someone defending themselves from that assault.  Do I want someone to die? NO. But if its a choice between a violent thug like Matt Loter and someone he attacked without any reason- then let it be Matt and people like him.
 If violent criminals stop a second and think "Hey, my victim might be armed and I could be seriously injured or die. I better not do that. "  Is much better than them thinking they can attack, permanently injure or possibly kill someone with impunity.  No one has to take a beating and "just hope for the best".  If you think you will be badly injured or possibly killed you have every right to defend yourself with deadly force. I live in a state that is "stand your ground/castle doctrine" and conceal carry- if I was suddenly attacked unprovoked from behind by an unseen assailant(like it appears in the Mat Loter case) I would respond with deadly force.

I'm not arguing against you on any of that, and I'm glad to see that you prefer a "nobody has to die" resolution. In this case, the attacked moved to evade the attacker and was successful so there was no need for deadly force. That's not to say that the attacked was obligated to retreat, but it did lead to the best outcome here.