Once again, unarmed does not equate to harmless

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply
User avatar

Topic author
oljames3
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1311
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:21 pm
Location: Elgin, Texas
Contact:

Once again, unarmed does not equate to harmless

#1

Post by oljames3 » Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:41 am

John Daub (Hshoi) https://blog.hsoi.com/2018/01/06/once-a ... -harmless/
Just because someone is “unarmed” does not mean they are not dangerous. An unarmed person can certainly inflict fatal damage upon another.

I wish people would stop believing in the fallacy that an unarmed person is never and cannot be dangerous and inflict fatal harm.
Thought provoking articles that I have incorporated into my self defense plan.
O. Lee James, III Captain, US Army (Retired 2012), Honorable Order of St. Barbara
2/19FA, 1st Cavalry Division 73-78; 56FA BDE (Pershing) 78-81
NRA Distinguished Life Member (Disabled Vet), TSRA, NAR L1


chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3234
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: Once again, unarmed does not equate to harmless

#2

Post by chasfm11 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:19 am

Our legal system should recognize a disparity in age (like the one in the story) as a factor in the use of a deadly force response but I'm not sure that it always does. Another story that I read this morning talked about 4 youth car jacking an elderly man and then running him over with his own car. I cannot imagine it going well for that elderly man if he had been armed and used his gun against the teens, none of whom was apparently 18yo. Of course, some of it depends on where it happens. An incident like that happening in Baltimore versus Tyler, Tx would likely have a very different outcome.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dun Spiro Spero


MechAg94
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:28 pm

Re: Once again, unarmed does not equate to harmless

#3

Post by MechAg94 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:18 am

Age may not be recognized in print, but it is recognized in practice with prosecutors and jurors.

IMO, there are a thousand different things that can make a confrontation unequal. The law can't cover them all and probably shouldn't.


flechero
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1680
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: Once again, unarmed does not equate to harmless

#4

Post by flechero » Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:36 am

MechAg94 wrote:Age may not be recognized in print, but it is recognized in practice with prosecutors and jurors.

IMO, there are a thousand different things that can make a confrontation unequal. The law can't cover them all and probably shouldn't.
I totally agree...

I "look" like I'm in good shape (6'1"-215) but have 2 torn up shoulders (1 had a botched surgery and the other, I can't risk the same) and a bad back... I struggle to wrestle with my 9 year old and can't sleep through the night without Aleeve... Looks can be deceiving and I would certainly have to rely on a good attorney to convey the truth, that I just can't fight someone close to my own size.


Abraham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 7692
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:43 am

Re: Once again, unarmed does not equate to harmless

#5

Post by Abraham » Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:34 am

I've heard more than one argument regarding 'disparity of force' in favor of the the guy who appears a threat but isn't though he appears dangerous, as a big, strong, muscular, young guy.

No elderly, small, maybe frail guy going up against this young, muscular, apparently fit guy is going to find many in the jury (if it comes to that rather than a funeral director) is going to side with the young, muscular, fit appearing guy who claims various injuries make 'him' a the victim when he attacked the old guy and the old guy defended himself with a firearm because he the aggressor is really in terrible physical shape, just not in appearance, uh-huh...

Nuh-uh, that argument: the young, apparently fit, muscular young guy is the real victim simply isn't going to fly...most especially if said young guy was the aggressor in say a car jacking or strong arm robbery...


rotor
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2731
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:26 pm

Re: Once again, unarmed does not equate to harmless

#6

Post by rotor » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:29 pm

MechAg94 wrote:Age may not be recognized in print, but it is recognized in practice with prosecutors and jurors.

IMO, there are a thousand different things that can make a confrontation unequal. The law can't cover them all and probably shouldn't.
Texas law does give some exception to those over 65 in an aggravated robbery situation so there is precedent.

§ 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an
offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
(3) causes bodily injury to another person or
threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily
injury or death, if the other person is:
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first
degree.
(c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual
with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is
substantially unable to protect himself from harm.


kw5kw
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:18 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: Once again, unarmed does not equate to harmless

#7

Post by kw5kw » Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:46 pm

rotor wrote:
MechAg94 wrote:Age may not be recognized in print, but it is recognized in practice with prosecutors and jurors.

IMO, there are a thousand different things that can make a confrontation unequal. The law can't cover them all and probably shouldn't.
Texas law does give some exception to those over 65 in an aggravated robbery situation so there is precedent.

§ 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an
offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
(3) causes bodily injury to another person or
threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily
injury or death, if the other person is:
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first
degree.
(c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual
with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is
substantially unable to protect himself from harm.
I just turned 65 this past year. :anamatedbanana: never thought I'd make it! :clapping:
Russ
kw5kw

Retired DPS Communications Operator PCO III January 2014.

Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”