politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So these dudes antagonize her, approach her, and push her down.
She pulls a gun and doesn't even shoot.
Alright I'm with it so far...
They run off...and call the cops?
And the cops arrest...her?
Drawing the weapon was clearly defensive. There's no "malicious intent" if you're in a marginalized group and carrying a legal weapon.
Had she not drawn her weapon she probably would been raped, or worse.
Can't speak for other states, but in Connecticut you'd have more legal protection if you actually shot the aggressor. Here a gun should only leave it's holster if deadly force is the only way to protect yourself. If you can eliminate the threat by simply brandishing, you weren't in a position where self defense applies.
I've taken a concealed carry course and the way it was explained to me was that if you do draw your gun you have to fire. Not firing is taken as indication that you don't actually find the threat serious enough to have drawn it. At least that's how it can be argued in court. Basically it's illegal to draw your gun if you don't feel you have to fire.
I said it below and I'll say it again...
I've taken a nuclear weapons course and the way it was explained to me was that if you build nuclear weapons and place them in silos you have to fire. Not firing is taken as indication that you don't actually find the threat serious enough to have built them. At least that's how it can be argued in court. Basically it's illegal to build nuclear weapons if you don't feel you have to fire.
That's bullshit, it completely ignores escalation of force. If drawing the weapon causes your attackers to back down and run away, it worked as intended and no further escalation is needed.
Any laws intended to compel one to fire is stupid beyond measure.
The thought behind "always shoot to kill if you draw" comes from 2 main places. One is a misunderstanding, and the other is sociopathic bullshit.
The first is that you should only draw on someone if you have already made the decision to use lethal force to defend yourself, which is absolutely correct. Drawing without intent to shoot the assailant is aggravated assault, not self-defense. And if you don't intend to kill someone you shouldn't be shooting them.
But that logic skips the part where situations can change rapidly. You can decide to use lethal force and change your mind before pulling the trigger.
The second place the mindset comes from is a legal liability standpoint. If you draw on them and don't kill them, you may be prosecuted for aggravated assault. If you kill them you can claim you feared for your life, and they won't be able to testify against you. That's the sociopath version.
Right, I understand the technicalities. I'm saying the technicalities are bullshit.
You are absolutely right. But you forgot a tiny detail, we are talking about the US of A. Which law there is not stupid beyond measure?
I've heard that a million times and it's wrong.
Yes, you are only supposed to draw when you've already made the determination that you have to use lethal force to protect yourself, but things can change.
I drew my gun one time. I was hiking in New Mexico by myself when I was attacked by a homeless Native American. I shoved him away and drew my pistol, and as soon as the gun came out he started running away.
I had drawn intending to fire, but when he instantly retreated, I decided not to shoot.
If there ceases to be a threat, no. Yes, you should only draw your weapon if you intend to use it. But if the attacker runs away once you draw, you don't shoot them in the back. That would just be murder.
Just because you initially felt threatened enough to draw your weapon doesn't mean you have to shoot.
Draw because you are willing to use it. Let the other party reevaluate whether they feel it is necessary to continue.
Thank you, yes that is better phrasing.
Ah, heck, I was just looking to expand on what you were saying.
No worries, it's all good lol
I was once told in a self-defense class that when using force to defend yourself, you were on legally better ground if you killed the other person than just injured them, because if they survived they could try to sue you for medical bills. I do not know if this is advice that an actual lawyer would back up, but either way, everything about it saddens me greatly.
I once (and perhaps more) heard the absolutely insane argument that in some US states if someone injured themselves on your property, it's better to shoot them dead and claim trespass, because then they can't sue you and you automatically win.
I don't know who told you this, but holy shit no... that's asking for a murder charge.
Told by who
One of the instructors.
Most "self defense" trainers are conservative and implicitly have no idea how the law actually works and just expect it to be out to get them, specifically.
Part of the problem with the world is all the conservatives talking confidently and authoritatively out their ass.
Entirely possible. I hope it is not legally the case, but it very saddens me that people even have and promote that mindset. If I can stop someone without killing them, then of course I'm going to do that, holy shit.
That is different state to state.
Sounds like you found the copaganda juice and took a big sip, friend.