quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

For those who have more reason than just Fox News paranoia to consider how they might plan for or act in a survival situation (Or one perceived to be), it's essential for your future welfare to be fully aware of the Current laws on the matter in Your state. This has dramatically changed recently in a number of states with 'Castle' and other reinterpretations of reasonable force. Texas used to be you couldn't use deadly force even within your home, if there was an accessible escape route. Now, several states are permitting deadly force Anywhere, if you have 'reasonable fear of attack'. Which it's hard to see surviving any but the most ridiculous SCOTUS appointments given the increasing number of gross abuses of the laws.
Staying alive but facing just years of legal trouble when you might have earlier (with considerable effort) avoided a confrontation is not a great outcome. Other places you may have wide options for self-defense, but need to consider internal peace of mind as an essential of any desireable outcome. Money counts, those who can afford quality legal representation do much better in the US, even if the case makes the headlines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

For those who have more reason than just Fox News paranoia to consider how they might plan for or act in a survival situation (Or one perceived to be), it's essential for your future welfare to be fully aware of the Current laws on the matter in Your state. This has dramatically changed recently in a number of states with 'Castle' and other reinterpretations of reasonable force. Texas used to be you couldn't use deadly force even within your home, if there was an accessible escape route. Now, several states are permitting deadly force Anywhere, if you have 'reasonable fear of attack'. Which it's hard to see surviving any but the most ridiculous SCOTUS appointments given the increasing number of gross abuses of the laws.
Staying alive but facing just years of legal trouble when you might have earlier (with considerable effort) avoided a confrontation is not a great outcome. Other places you may have wide options for self-defense, but need to consider internal peace of mind as an essential of any desireable outcome. Money counts, those who can afford quality legal representation do much better in the US, even if the case makes the headlines.

Alabama used to require retreat and a warning shot even in your own home, but they came to their senses and passed both stand your ground and castle laws.

A Better tried by 12 than carried by 6
B It is a fantasy that if you stand your ground it dooms you to years of legal problems. That doesn't happen unless there is proof that your version of events is false, like the guy who claimed stand your ground in Georgia after shooting unarmed people who hadn't threatened him while they were driving away and didn't report it to the police till the next day when he found out they were looking for him. Or when the President makes a bogus claim that a man needs to be tried when all the evidence shows self defence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
It depends on the circumstance LadyPact... If fighting for your life then by all means shoot to kill... But... if circumstances allow it will be very difficult to stalk you in the future without kneecaps.

You are a good woman and human being... killing someone could weigh heavily of your conscience... you don't need him stalking your mind for the rest of your life.

Butch

Butch,

This is my life.

I don't know. I read this thread and while some folks debate the value of target practice, it's not the same thing. That "target" doesn't follow you around to three different states.

While people are bitching about how they could shoot a quarter at 25 paces or anything else, it's not about marksmanship. It's about peace.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

For those who have more reason than just Fox News paranoia to consider how they might plan for or act in a survival situation (Or one perceived to be), it's essential for your future welfare to be fully aware of the Current laws on the matter in Your state. This has dramatically changed recently in a number of states with 'Castle' and other reinterpretations of reasonable force. Texas used to be you couldn't use deadly force even within your home, if there was an accessible escape route. Now, several states are permitting deadly force Anywhere, if you have 'reasonable fear of attack'. Which it's hard to see surviving any but the most ridiculous SCOTUS appointments given the increasing number of gross abuses of the laws.
Staying alive but facing just years of legal trouble when you might have earlier (with considerable effort) avoided a confrontation is not a great outcome. Other places you may have wide options for self-defense, but need to consider internal peace of mind as an essential of any desireable outcome. Money counts, those who can afford quality legal representation do much better in the US, even if the case makes the headlines.

Alabama used to require retreat and a warning shot even in your own home, but they came to their senses and passed both stand your ground and castle laws.

A Better tried by 12 than carried by 6
B It is a fantasy that if you stand your ground it dooms you to years of legal problems. That doesn't happen unless there is proof that your version of events is false, like the guy who claimed stand your ground in Georgia after shooting unarmed people who hadn't threatened him while they were driving away and didn't report it to the police till the next day when he found out they were looking for him. Or when the President makes a bogus claim that a man needs to be tried when all the evidence shows self defence.

Bama, in California, you're going to have years of legal trouble. Expect to lose your house and savings account.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

For those who have more reason than just Fox News paranoia to consider how they might plan for or act in a survival situation (Or one perceived to be), it's essential for your future welfare to be fully aware of the Current laws on the matter in Your state. This has dramatically changed recently in a number of states with 'Castle' and other reinterpretations of reasonable force. Texas used to be you couldn't use deadly force even within your home, if there was an accessible escape route. Now, several states are permitting deadly force Anywhere, if you have 'reasonable fear of attack'. Which it's hard to see surviving any but the most ridiculous SCOTUS appointments given the increasing number of gross abuses of the laws.
Staying alive but facing just years of legal trouble when you might have earlier (with considerable effort) avoided a confrontation is not a great outcome. Other places you may have wide options for self-defense, but need to consider internal peace of mind as an essential of any desireable outcome. Money counts, those who can afford quality legal representation do much better in the US, even if the case makes the headlines.

Alabama used to require retreat and a warning shot even in your own home, but they came to their senses and passed both stand your ground and castle laws.

A Better tried by 12 than carried by 6
B It is a fantasy that if you stand your ground it dooms you to years of legal problems. That doesn't happen unless there is proof that your version of events is false, like the guy who claimed stand your ground in Georgia after shooting unarmed people who hadn't threatened him while they were driving away and didn't report it to the police till the next day when he found out they were looking for him. Or when the President makes a bogus claim that a man needs to be tried when all the evidence shows self defence.

Bama, in California, you're going to have years of legal trouble. Expect to lose your house and savings account.

And what makes you think I would move to California?
Spent a year there and didn't like it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Frankly, that sucks. You shouldn't have to live like that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Frankly, that sucks. You shouldn't have to live like that.

It's still here.

Right here, right on these forums, it's evident.

I do live like that, all of the time.

There really are worse things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

For those who have more reason than just Fox News paranoia to consider how they might plan for or act in a survival situation (Or one perceived to be), it's essential for your future welfare to be fully aware of the Current laws on the matter in Your state. This has dramatically changed recently in a number of states with 'Castle' and other reinterpretations of reasonable force. Texas used to be you couldn't use deadly force even within your home, if there was an accessible escape route. Now, several states are permitting deadly force Anywhere, if you have 'reasonable fear of attack'. Which it's hard to see surviving any but the most ridiculous SCOTUS appointments given the increasing number of gross abuses of the laws.
Staying alive but facing just years of legal trouble when you might have earlier (with considerable effort) avoided a confrontation is not a great outcome. Other places you may have wide options for self-defense, but need to consider internal peace of mind as an essential of any desireable outcome. Money counts, those who can afford quality legal representation do much better in the US, even if the case makes the headlines.

Alabama used to require retreat and a warning shot even in your own home, but they came to their senses and passed both stand your ground and castle laws.

A Better tried by 12 than carried by 6
B It is a fantasy that if you stand your ground it dooms you to years of legal problems. That doesn't happen unless there is proof that your version of events is false, like the guy who claimed stand your ground in Georgia after shooting unarmed people who hadn't threatened him while they were driving away and didn't report it to the police till the next day when he found out they were looking for him. Or when the President makes a bogus claim that a man needs to be tried when all the evidence shows self defence.

Bama, in California, you're going to have years of legal trouble. Expect to lose your house and savings account.

And what makes you think I would move to California?
Spent a year there and didn't like it.

I'll be leaving as soon as I finish retiring.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
So you're saying that this forum has been what followed you to three states and is causing you distress in a stalker like manner?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

If you aren't fighting for your life (or serious injury which is pretty much the same because once you are seriouly injured it is up to them if you live or die) you shouldn't be shooting in the first place.


Jesus you are phoquing stupid.



Maybe just this once you could splain exactly why that is stupid.

All of his gun post seem to echo rambo...and that is just so phoquing stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: BamaD
ORIGINAL: kdsub

Yea right this from the guy that told me he had a right to shoot to kill after giving a warning to stop... remember the conversation about the man with dementia that was banging on the door? Will if you have time to give a warning you have time to decide where to shoot... don't you think?

Don't get me wrong... you and the person in the article SHOULD have done what you said... not shot... and retreated... but you seem to want it both ways just to argue.

Butch

Come on now, at 3am a person with a metal cylinder keeps coming after you warn them repeatedly you have every reason to believe that he isn't there from Publishers Clearinghouse, that he does, in fact mean to take you apart.


But that is not what happened is it rambo?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: BamaD
ORIGINAL: thompsonx


If you aren't fighting for your life (or serious injury which is pretty much the same because once you are seriouly injured it is up to them if you live or die) you shouldn't be shooting in the first place.


Jesus you are phoquing stupid.


All of his gun post seem to echo rambo...and that is just so phoquing stupid.


So you should go ahead and shoot if you are not in serious danger?

Why do you make shit up. I never said that you said that. You are of the mistaken belief that killing a person is the only way to remove a threat. That is just soooo phoquing stupid.


And I sound like Rambo?

Yup