Neighborhood argument turns deadly

[liberal4truth]

Neighborhood argument turns deadly

Sunday, March 2, 2008

THONOTOSASSA (Bay News 9) -- What started as a car speeding through an east Hillsborough County neighborhood ended with a fatal shooting this weekend.

<snip>

Neighborhood resident Charles Podany, 57, confronted the driver of the truck but Landes ended up arguing with Podany, deputies said. Casey Landes, 24, died at the scene after being shot Friday night.

Podany, who was armed, shot and killed Landes, deputies said. Podany, who does possess a concealed weapons permit, was arrested and charged with manslaughter.


More at:

http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2008/3/2/329234.html

[beevul]

1. Some details emerge...

Speeding Clash Leads To Killing, Manslaughter Charge
ADVERTISEMENT


By MIKE WELLS of The Tampa Tribune

Published: March 1, 2008

Updated: 03/01/2008 06:51 pm

THONOTOSASSA Charles C. Podany just wanted the men in the truck to slow down, officials said.

That's why at 11:40 p.m. Friday the Thonotosassa resident rode his bicycle over to a white pickup to talk to the driver after seeing truck speed in and out of his neighborhood, Hillsborough County sheriff's spokeswoman Debbie Carter said.

The passenger in the truck grew angry. He jumped out, took off his shirt and punched Podany, knocking him to the ground, the sheriff's office said.

With his attacker on top of him and about to strike again, Podany was in fear of his life and felt trapped, according to an arrest report written by Deputy Dale Bunten.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/mar/01/speeding-clash-leads-killing-manslaughter-charge/?news-breaking&imw=Y

His photo appears to corroborate the police report. Somehow, I doubt this will ending up being the kind of story the OP had hoped.


If things are as they appear thus far, this guy walks, and justifiably so.

[liberal4truth]

2. so the gunner was too cowarly to use his fists?

my how brave of him. also defense attorneys always advise their clients to claim they feared for their lives. truth is that this coward went up to the pickup KNOWING that he had a gun in case he needed to blow someone out of their shoes.

[virginia mountainman]

3. Looks like the feller in the truck..

..Made a big time miss calculation...It was not HIS fault, that the asshole in the truck went on a vicious attack.

The passenger in the truck grew angry. He jumped out, took off his shirt and punched Podany, knocking him to the ground, the sheriff's office said.

With his attacker on top of him and about to strike again, Podany was in fear of his life and felt trapped, according to an arrest report written by Deputy Dale Bunten.

Yep, He will walk, clear-cut self defence, a 24 year old man, standing on top of a nearly 50 year old man, beating his brains out....

Has nothing to do with carrying a gun, has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that some people think a "beat down" is a way to settle a dispute.

Amazed they even filed charges..

[liberal4truth]

7. Not at all. He would be doing prison time where I live. No self-defense since he took the law into

his own hands, instead of getting the license plate and calling the police.

A camcorder would have resulted in a non-violent outcome, but no, this killer had to prove that he was a big man by shooting his self-appointed opponent to death, like the coward he is.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. Where do you live?

Why don't we wait until we have all the facts before we decide the mans guilt? I've seen people beaten severely on a camcorder. I don't know whether this shooting was justified or not. My experience though is that fist fights turn deadly a lot more than you would think and if you are on the wrong side of one of these beatdowns it is easy to think that you might not live through it. It will be for a jury to decide, and that's the way it should be.

David

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrCory]

26. Joking about rape...

Is not a very liberal trait.

[L1A1Rocker]

28. No he did what people in a "civilized" society should.

He went to have a conversation with the driver about his driving being out of order. (about like what happened to me when I was hot rodding my Trans-AM when I was around 17) This was a civilized thing to do and we should be able to discuss our problems in a civilized society. But for some reason the passenger decided to act in a most uncivilized manor. The man living in the neighborhood was placed into a situation by the attack and IMO acted correctly. We will see how this plays out.

[zanne]

36. We're going to be seeing alot more of this.

Especially in Florida and Texas. It won't be self defense as much as macho posturing that will get people killed.

[DonP]

38. And that's based on ... what?

Since all the reports from the state police in Texas and Florida continue to prove that concealed carry permit holders are far more law abiding than people like you, that don't have a permit, why should we expect a new wave of irresponsible shootings all of a sudden? Do you have a crystal ball or Tarot cards you work with that we should know about? Or is that just wishful thinking on your part to support your point?

We played that game where everyone predicted "blood running in the streets", "shootings over parking spaces" etc. and none of it happened ... anywhere in 48 states. Now even the Police Chiefs that were originally against concealed carry have changed their mind and realize it's not an issue.

By the way, I find your references to "Macho Posturing" to be sexist and I resent them.

[L1A1Rocker]

60. A wild guess maybe?

[HALO141]

100. Undoubtedly.

But even so... One might wonder where zane's been for the past decade. "we're going to see..." Huh? If it hasn't happened yet in over 10 years I doubt it's going to.

[liberal4truth]

112. Exactly so. This is nothing more then gun madness. If the dead guy had been armed it would have been

a shoot-out at the OK Corral! Whats next ? Dodge City, Kansas with Marshall Dillion keeping the peace again ?

[krispos42]

124. Right. Gun madness.

If you chose to not defend yourself from a violent attack because you're afraid of hitting an innocent person, then that's your decision. If you wour rather die than defence yourself with a firearm, that's you're choice as well.

Doesn't make it a smart one.

But it's sad that you would rather have the attacker alive and the victim dead or disfigured.

[iverglas]

134. once again

But it's sad that you would rather have the attacker alive and the victim dead or disfigured.

I do just expect better of some people. Not many, but some.

[krispos42]

123. If Reply #1 is accurate...

Then this is not a bad thing.

The "macho posturing" was done by the dead guy, not the guy with the pistol.

[benEzra]

4. Middle-aged man on his back, on the ground, with a 24-year-old on top of him

trying to beat his face in?

Google "disparity of force." I suspect this one will be ruled justifiable self-defense (it would be in most states), given that the deceased was clearly the aggressor here if the reports are correct.

[liberal4truth]

5. Guy looks like a tough hombre, but he certainly had time to pull a handgun out

and shoot someone for such a person "weak old man" who was "down and out". I'd be willing to bet that he had the gun ready to go when he came to the fight knowing he had a gun to "protect" him.

BTW, where I live he would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law :-)

[slackmaster]

10. That's at least the second "where I live" reference you've posted here

You certainly don't live where I do.

[krispos42]

129. Notice how in his mind there is never ever a need to use a gun?

How, if you have time to draw it, you have more than enough time to run away instead?

How using a gun is somehow unfair and unneccessary?

[sergeiAK]

12. So where do you live? -nt

[liberal4truth]

23. A very liberal county where we dont tolerate gunplay. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. You keep assuring us "It's better where I am" without any objective evidence for your statements

one way or another

[sergeiAK]

29. Self-defence laws are generally statewide

So what state do you live in?

[liberal4truth]

113. A state that has a short fuse on who can use gun violence to settle a problem & proud of it too

I hope this low-life gun-owning creep gets life in the joint for this!

There is NO excuse for using a gun to kill a speeder or any other such idiot.

If this crazy piece of trash gets a lift out of jail, its all over for all the angry
road-ragers' out on America's streets, looking for those who choose to break the motor
vehicle laws, with all the gun-owners out there ready to shoot and kill them on the spot
for nothing more then speeding.

Q: Is that what America has become ?

[DonP]

117. That's just silly bordering on inane

He wasn't shot for speeding, he wasn't even the driver of the vehicle in question.

He was a third party that criminally assaulted another person who defended a threat to his life.

But keep twisting that reality till it looks like a twist tie on a well used bread bag.

In the meantime come on over to Chicago, it's your kind of town, where you can walk the streets safely, knowing that none of the folks around you has a gun on them. Well at least law abiding folks don't. Of course I can't speak for the criminals and the gang members, but it's a (relatively) gun free utopia and you'r safe from being caught in a OK Corral style shoot out.

I can't really promise you won't be shot in the back of the head execution style while shopping at a mall with 6 women, eating at a fast food place with 8 employees and customers, or while attending a class with 5 students, but thank heavens at least there won't be any shoot outs to disturb you with any citizens defending themselves or you huh?

[solinvictus]

119. Simple question....

If gun ownership is a truly moral issue; which scenario is best:
A) A woman who is raped and murdered while trying to call for police assistance or..
B) A woman talking to the police while holding a warm firearm standing over her would-be attacker's corpse?

Which scenario would you choose?
Is the woman somehow morally superior if she were martyred in the name of gun control?


In my own experience (Birmingham, AL), the time from dialing 911 to the arrival of a police car was 45 minutes. Now, what could an attacker accomplish during that 45 minute hang-time between call and arrival?

[iverglas]

142. you obviously missed it

A) A woman who is raped and murdered while trying to call for police assistance or..
B) A woman talking to the police while holding a warm firearm standing over her would-be attacker's corpse?

The gun-snogger's fantasy has already been laid out in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=165346&mesg_id=165424

Surely once per thread is enough ...

But hey, sure does illustrate my point, doesn't it?

Of all the "self-defence" scenarios, and all the violent crimes, that someone might come up with, the sexual assault of women / dead guy with bullet hole in head one sure seems to be the fave.

[bossy22]

131. are you seriously blind

LANDES PHYSICALLY ATTACKED THE BIKER....the biker didnt shoot landes because he was speeding- and btw landes wasnt the one who was driving.

you could be anti-gun all you want but to ignore the whole situation is just silly and ignorant. You only see what you want to see- and you don't try to hide it in this statement- you don't care that the other guy started the fight

"if you don't start nuttin, there won't be nuttin" Landes started a fight

btw, i love your compassion- The gun owner obviously never went to the discussion with the idea of committing murder, whether he was right or wrong in his decision will be determined by a court.

people have a right to defend there lives and there family

[L1A1Rocker]

30. So what state is that?

[DonP]

37. Must be here in Illinois or maybe Wisconsin

Otherwise liberal4truth is surrounded by gun toting citizens and must walk around terrified all the time.

Must be horrible to be afraid to cross state lines and enter a state with concealed carry laws, huh?

Of course, it's better and far more civilized where he lives and bad guys are allowed to beat women, children and smaller people without any fear of being interuppted for extended periods until the police show up. Must be one of those places where a 911 call is always answered in .05 seconds huh?

[virginia mountainman]

42. THAT'S RIGHT...

It's nice to know, their are places that consider a woman, being found dead, raped and strangled, is morally superior, to being found alive with a gun in hand, and a rapist shot dead at her feet..

Please tell us where this wonderful bastion of "enlightenment" is....

[iverglas]

44. ooooh, it's the gun-lover's fantasy

A woman beaten, strangled and raped, AND a bad guy with a bullet hole in him.

What more could anyone want?

Especially in a thread that had NOTHING to do with women being beaten, stranged and raped.

In fact, it didn't have anything to do with women.

It seems to have to do with a guy with a neck like the proverbial bull initiating a confrontation with another guy (who had already rather amply demonstrated his lack of concern for the niceties of social life) while carrying a firearm (gosh, I thought what was exactly what PEOPLE WITH PERMITS TO CARRY CONCEALED WEAPONS DO NOT DO), failing to leave the scene when the outcome became obvious, if he had an opportunity to do so, which it kind of seems he did, and claiming -- possibly truthfully, who knows -- to then have feared for his life ... and killing someone.

Funny thing is, I do this sort of thing all the time -- confront assholes about their driving, and about various other things -- and I almost never get punched out. Guess we women just aren't as much in need of firepower as some people would like to portray us.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[L1A1Rocker]

57. Ha Ha Ha, loved that last line.

[iverglas]

61. you got it right

you may be a woman but don't let anyone accuse you of being a lady.

I am a woman, and I haven't tolerated anyone accusing me of being a lady for several decades.

And your statement says all we need to know about you, and nothing at all about me.

"Classy" is not what I call the drooling about women being beaten, strangled and raped that goes on with dreary and despicable regularity in this form.

Speaking as a woman who has been beaten, stranged and raped, I generally strongly recommend that people tempted to exploit my experience for their own pig-ignorant selfish ends think twice.


omitted verb inserted

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. I have previously extended my condolences for your attack.

Who is it that you are accusing of drooling about women being beaten, strangled and raped? I have never in anyway exploited your experiences. I was simply responding to the DISGUSTING title of your post and what it insinuates. Then you went and insinuated again in this post. Just for your knowledge, 2 women very dear to me have been raped, so before anyone attempts to exploit my experience, they should probably think twice also. Again I'm sorry for your experience and am glad to see you are a strong survivor, I wish you well.

David

[iverglas]

71. listen

I have previously extended my condolences for your attack.

That's fine, but I didn't ask for condolences. My experiences are not hugely different from those of most women, except that there's pretty solid grounds for believing that if I had not had a bit of luck and a lot of wit, I would be dead. A very very low rate of women who are sexually assaulted in fact die.

Who is it that you are accusing of drooling about women being beaten, strangled and raped? I have never in anyway exploited your experiences.

Well, you read the post you responded to, so I guess you can see what my post was talking about.

I was simply responding to the DISGUSTING title of your post and what it insinuates.

That's your opinion.

Maybe you'll decide to express an opinion the next time someone decides to write some lurid and ludicrous scenario involving a helpless little female being overpowered by a big bad man and needing a big shiny gun to defend her honour.

This thread IS NOT about violence against women, and to exploit women's experiences in the service of justifying what plainly appears to be something quite different from the tale told by the killer in this particular case -- that's what is DISGUSTING.

If women want to bring their experiences into the discussion as fodder for the "gun rights" crusade, women are perfectly free to do so. The interesting thing is that this has virtually never happened in the history of this forum.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. I responded to your post.

The original post about the rape had apparently been removed by the moderator, so I can't comment. The sarcasm in mountainman's post is blatantly obvious if that's what you are referring too.
So you'll have to cut and paste the post that I was supposed to have read.

You wrote, "Maybe you'll decide to express an opinion the next time someone decides to write some lurid and ludicrous scenario involving a helpless little female being overpowered by a big bad man and needing a big shiny gun to defend her honour."

You actually think that we believe that women need a big shiny gun to defend their honor. I can only say that I wish the women, that I know that have been raped, had a gun to stop the attack. Maybe you feel different, that's your opinion. They aren't any less honorable for being raped, I don't know what would give you that idea. They are the victims of a savage, violent attack who didn't deserve it. I do believe that if a woman chooses to obtain training and a concealed carry permit they are well within their rights to use said weapon to stop a sexual assault, I personally hope the women who do so are successful and that they save the taxpayers the cost of a trial.

I never accused you of asking for my condolences. I simply offered them you are free to accept or reject them. Realize though that despite our sometimes heated arguments, my condolences are in fact sincere.

David

[iverglas]

83. *I* responded to virginiamountainman's post

I have no idea what was in the deleted post, and nothing I said had anything to do with it.

I responded to what I have quoted and am not going to waste my time quoting again.

The sarcasm was directed at someone who said something THAT DID NOT PROVIDE ANY BASIS for the sarcasm.

Only by someone COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTING what the sarcasm was supposedly directed at, could sarcasm be directed at it.

NOTHING in what the original poster said could POSSIBLY be construed as meaning what the "sarcastic" response purported to find in it. NOTHING.

There is NOTHING about not tolerating gunplay in the streets that implies tolerating violence against women. NOTHING.


They aren't any less honorable for being raped, I don't know what would give you that idea.

And I don't know why you would have the idea, or pretend to have the idea, that I have that idea. Jesus bleeding christ on the cross. YOU don't appear to recognize sarcasm when you see it, is all I can say.

"Rape" is an assault, often an act of violence. Why IT, among all the forms of assault in this world, needs to be dragged out every time someone wants to portray himself as the white knight who is concerned only about the helpless victims of the world, I just wouldn't know. I might guess that it is because HE -- the collective HE of all the HEs who constantly play this little game -- is the one who is concerned about the "honour" of the little ladies.


I do believe that if a woman chooses to obtain training and a concealed carry permit they are well within their rights to use said weapon to stop a sexual assault

And I DO NOT believe that a person in that position is entitled to KILL anyone, unless there is no alternative in order to escape serious injury or death. And since I'm the one who's been there, I get a say in this.


I personally hope the women who do so are successful and that they save the taxpayers the cost of a trial.

And I find it eternally amusing that all the good liberals / progressives / d/Democratics in this place such a high price on a human being's life.

Not.

I mean, the price isn't high. I do find it amusing.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

88. I guess, I'm just not fond of rapist.

I'll blame it on my history with their victims. I believe that a woman does have the right to kill someone who is sexually assaulting them. That is consistent with what courts in the United States have found, I would find it hard to believe that Canadians feel much differently, you do though and that's ok. In Canada, you do get a say, you don't get THE SAY. You are correct, despite my political persuasions I don't value the rapist life very much at least not in comparison to a law abiding citizens. Maybe one day I'll be more enlightened but I doubt it. My point about the original post is that's the context to what mountainman was responding too.

David

[HALO141]

102. Well, actually...

We must be clear in what we say, here. Courts have not found that "a woman does have the right to kill someone who is sexually assaulting them." What they have found is that the use of force, including deadly force, is justified in the case of self-defense. The use of deadly force does not always result in death. i.e. People get shot a lot but they don't usually die. In fact, the last statistics I've seen for the United States show that people who are shot with handguns survive their injuries 96% of the time and in the majority of THOSE cases they do so with no permanent disability. But I digress.

I support the spirit of your argument but I do think it's important to be as precise and correct as possible. Deadly force is defined as force which the actor knows or should know to result in severe injury or death. At least that's the way Texas statute defines it. I'll use Texas as an example because can't speak authoritatively on the statues for other states. So... Many courts have found that it's OK for a woman to use deadly force to defend herself. If the VCA does, in fact, die from his resultant injuries, well, that's just a shame.

(Texas law is, in fact, somewhat more convoluted than that but I doubt anyone really wants to read all about it.)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

106. Semantics but I see your point.

They have the right to use deadly force and if that deadly force results in death then so be it. If that deadly force eliminates the threat but doesn't kill the assailant then the victim doesn't have the right then to kill the assailant. Not that a jury would find them guilty if they did, but if they did it might actually go to a jury.

David

[L1A1Rocker]

68. So in keeping with the spirit you started

regarding the gentleman's daughter earlier.


I'm very sorry to hear about your alleged attack.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. It is ridiculous that my response to her was deleted.

It was in no way offensive, actually it was much less insulting than most of her posts. See on down the page where she insults a posters daughter, you gonna delete that one also.

David

[krispos42]

127. It had to do with a person being attacked violently

Last time I checked, a woman is a person, and rape is a violent physical attack. So there is similarity, more than enough to be mentioned.

"initiating a confrontation"... because asking somebody to slow down is such an intimidating and threatening thing?

I guess if the guy had "initiated a confrontation" at the local McDonald's because his QPC had pickle on it and he SPECIFICALLY asked for no pickle and the man behind counter got violent, it's the guy's fault for complaining about his food while carrying a gun?

"Funny thing is, I do this sort of thing all the time -- confront assholes about their driving, and about various other things -- and I almost never get punched out. Guess we women just aren't as much in need of firepower as some people would like to portray us."

The societal prohibition againt hitting woman is strong. I know that you have dealt extensively with woman in abusive relationships so you see a lot more violence towards them than the average joe, but men are less likely to get violent with strange women than strange men.

This of course switches in relationships, where men all to often become violent pigs. But in a random screaming confrontation an angry man is less likely to get physical with a woman than with a man.

[Retired AF Dem]

It's a shame you were banned from one site

and had to come back here. Out of the millions of sites out there cant you think of another to join and leave us again?

[iverglas]

156. awww, and I missed you too

Funny thing is, I'm actually capable of posting at more than one site at once ... aren't you? If so, maybe you'd like to consider it! In your own interests, of course.

[Retired AF Dem]

155. It's a shame you were banned from one site

and had to come back here. Out of the millions of sites out there cant you think of another to join and leave us again?

[iverglas]

157. aww, and I missed you too

Funny thing is, I'm actually capable of posting at more than one site at once ... aren't you? If so, maybe you'd like to consider it! In your own interests, of course.



Oh look! I can post the same thing twice just like you, too!

[iverglas]

75. let's just LOOK AT THIS

Poster A says that s/he lives in A very liberal county where we dont tolerate gunplay.

Poster B responds with:

It's nice to know, their are places that consider a woman, being found dead, raped and strangled, is morally superior, to being found alive with a gun in hand, and a rapist shot dead at her feet..

Please tell us where this wonderful bastion of "enlightenment" is....


And the assembled torch-bearing villagers accuse ME of being "disgusting" for objecting to this utterly appalling display?

An utterly appalling display. Of disregard for the truth, of disregard for civil discourse, of disregard for people who did not volunteer to be exploited as objects to be used as means to some strangers' ends, of disregard for anything decent and honourable.

Disgusting. Indeed.

[krispos42]

128. How's your crime rate?

I'm going to make an assumption here: I'm going to assume that you and people like you draw no difference between aggressive violence and defensive violence.

I'm going to assume that rather than work out the rightness and wrongness of aggressive and defensive violence, you and people like you in your county instead advocate for "zero tolerence" and "abstinance only" policies towards violence.

[iverglas]

136. no, that isn't an assumption

I'm going to make an assumption here: I'm going to assume that you and people like you draw no difference between aggressive violence and defensive violence.

That's a purported inference from the facts at hand, and since it cannot be inferred from the facts at hand, it's just ... oh, an ad locutorem attack.

Someone who expresses approval of gunplay not being tolerated where s/he lives MUST be an amoral/immoral moron. Per you.

[krispos42]

146. Ah, so I'm just pulling it out of thin air, then?

Of course I am. See, when I thought the poster was more angry about the violent aggressorbeing shot than the violent aggressor's victim being beaten into a pulp, it's because I overdosed on illegal pharmicuticals again and am tripping my brains out. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds! I can see smells! I can taste colors!

Obviously the pink elephants giving my pet crocodile a manicure made me assume that such a person that can't say "I'm glad he defended himself" simply because he used a gun instead of a handy-dandy pet rock might have problems differentating between aggressive violence and defensive violence.

Someone who expresses disapproval of gunplay even when it is in justified self-defense is a person that sees things in a rigid, black-and-white frame of mind. Such thinking has given rise to "zero-tolerence" policies and "abstinence-only" eduction, which has worked so well in Florida that teens down there think that smoking pot keeps you from getting preggers.

Now I'm off to go play 5-dimensional soccer with the cast of "Soap". Then I'm going to pack up for my trip to go see my family in Connecticut, so if you respond I probably won't get back to you until Wednesday.

[iverglas]

152. evidently

Someone who expresses disapproval of gunplay even when it is in justified self-defense ...

Someone who uses his/her OWN UNSUPPORTED ALLEGATIONS to make an allegation of moral turpitude against someone else ...

YOU DO NOT KNOW who did what in this case, and YOU DO NOT KNOW whether what anyone did in this case was justified. But you are accusing someone else of moral turpitude anyway, based on absolutely nothing. Nice. Not.

What we know is that someone took a firearm along to initiate a confrontation on someone else's property.

Just exactly the sort of thing that, we are told constantly in this place, people with permits to carry concealed firearms do not do.

I have to assume there's a reason why so many people tell us so often that people with permits to carry concealed firearms are careful not to initiate confrontations.


... made me assume that such a person that can't say "I'm glad he defended himself" ...

Well, unlike you, I can't speak for anyone else.

I know that *I* didn't say anything like that because I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

I know that someone with a criminal record involving violence somehow got a permit to carry a concealed firearm, and toted that firearm along with him when he went onto someone else's property to confront an anti-social yob about his anti-social behaviour, and possibly got more than he bargained for, and shot someone. If you know something more, you should tell the rest of us.


Such thinking has given rise to "zero-tolerence" policies and "abstinence-only" eduction, which has worked so well in Florida that teens down there think that smoking pot keeps you from getting preggers.

And I'm sure your belief that there are faeries at the bottom of your garden has caused your neighbours untold grief because of the weeds you allow to run wild there.

See? Start from moronicly false premises, and you can get just about anywhere.

[benEzra]

19. So he had, what, 1 second? 2 seconds? While being battered?

Your point is?

It is entirely possible that this guy was in the wrong, BTW (and there was some info posted downthread from Glocktalk that may or may not be relevant). But the facts presented so far (as far as they go) are consistent with justifiability. I could cite some cases, if you'd like.

[L1A1Rocker]

31. Yep, just enough time to do what needed to be done.

I don't understand the time element with regard to the response. Doesn't seem relevant to me.

[bossy22]

20. he didnt come to the fight

the fight came to him- they person got angry and jumped out of the car- the driver was the aggressor

[HALO141]

101. Sounds like an excellent reason...

NOT to live where you do.

An unjust system is not something to brag about.

[liberal4truth]

107. I live in one of the most progressive, liberal parts of the country, so I don't' know

why some of you seem to be so surprised that most of us out here hate guns and we
make sure that people go to jail when they misuse them or break our gun control laws.

Then again, I know that a few of you, at the least, are shills for the NRA
and/or *, so there is that sub-culture of moronic malcontent fear factor
that goes hand in hand with being a Rethuglycan, wearing Democrat clothing here.

[krispos42]

130. Except that using a gun for self defense is "misuse"

Or at least that's what I gather from your opinions here.

Your viewpoints are in line with many countries that heavily regulate gun ownership, where "self defense" is not considred a valid reason for owning guns.

Most likely, in your county, the person would not have been able to get a a pistol permit in the first place, so he would have instead been beaten to a pulp and possibly killed.

[bossy22]

132. ohh don't worry

the police would have arrived eventually arrested the guy for murder- so everything would be "okie dokie"

[iverglas]

137. is there something about Friday afternoons?

Except that using a gun for self defense is "misuse"
Or at least that's what I gather from your opinions here.

Where do you go a-gathering when you go a-gathering? That parallel universe where things fall up?


Most likely, in your county, the person would not have been able to get a a pistol permit in the first place, so he would have instead been beaten to a pulp and possibly killed.

Can I play too??

Most likely, in the actual case at hand, the person would not have gone onto someone else's property and confronted two obvious anti-social yobs about their anti-social behaviour had he not been toting a pistol at the time.

Can anyone tell us why he WAS toting a pistol? Obviously, no one can, since we have no telepaths among us. But maybe someone can hazard a guess or float a hypothesis.

I know I can.

And to me, there's something just not quite quite about a person who pockets a pistol before going out to initiate a confrontation with some anti-social yobs and then produces it and kills one of them when the confrontation doesn't go as he might have hoped. Or, who knows, when it goes exactly as he hoped. I wouldn't know. Must be some reason he packed that pistol along though, I'd think ...

[bossy22]

143. ill venture a guess

"Can anyone tell us why he WAS toting a pistol? Obviously, no one can, since we have no telepaths among us. But maybe someone can hazard a guess or float a hypothesis."

my hypothesis is that since he had a CCW permit he probably carried a pistol regularly

[krispos42]

147. But you must be telepathic...

...there's something just not quite quite about a person who pockets a pistol before going out to initiate a confrontation with some anti-social yobs and then produces it and kills one of them when the confrontation doesn't go as he might have hoped.

When the pistol holstered is unknown, per the story. I was operating under the assumption that the man carried the pistol routinely, and that he was carrying it when the incident occured. Nothing in either story indicates he buckled on a piece before hopping on his bicycle.


Regardless, here are the facts:

liberal4truth is very upset that Podany shot his attacker instead of using martial arts to defend himself. So the issue isn't Podany defending himself, it's Podany defending himself with a gun. And apparantly the mere presence of which made his testosterone bubble and fizz in his bloodstream to the point he had an uncontrollable desire to whip out his big shiny metal penis and do some street justice on the nearest evildoer.

liberal4truth also made the point several times that if this had occured in his country, Podany would be in jail because "we make sure that people go to jail when they misuse them or break our gun control laws". Since no gun control law was broken (gun owned and carried legally), then obviously liberal4truth wants Podany in jail for misuse.

And since Podany used the gun for legitimate (presumebly, so far) self-defense, then using a gun in self-defence is a misuse punishable by jail.

Most likely, in the actual case at hand, the person would not have gone onto someone else's property and confronted two obvious anti-social yobs about their anti-social behaviour had he not been toting a pistol at the time.

Right.

[iverglas]

153. ya think?

liberal4truth also made the point several times that if this had occured in his country, ...

You also can't read, or just can't type? Why is it so easy for me to see that someone typed COUNTY, and so many other people seem to think s/he typed COUNTRY?


Since no gun control law was broken (gun owned and carried legally) ...

Is it actually legal for someone with a conviction for aggravated assault less than 10 years ago to carry a concealed firearm? Even if he somehow -- presumably dishonestly -- got a permit to do so?

I don't know. Maybe, in Florida, people with convictions like that are permitted to acquire and possess firearms, and get permits to carry them concealed in public. I wonder whether they are also permitted to vote ...

Nothing to do with what liberal4truth said, quite possibly, since I don't know what liberal4truth knew about the individual with the gun at the time that was written. But something I'd sure like to know.

If I somehow manage to get my driver's licence renewed even though I've got five convictions for drunk driving, I just don't think I'd bother telling the next cop who I met at a random roadside check that I was not breaking any laws.


And since Podany used the gun for legitimate (presumebly, so far) self-defense, then using a gun in self-defence is a misuse punishable by jail.

Like I wuz saying. When you get to make up the premises, you can produce pretty much whatever conclusion you're aiming for.

You can presume he used his firearm to slay the dragon, if you like. Myself, I don't presume any facts not in evidence, and I don't recognize the legitimacy of the conclusions drawn by anyone who does.

I also just have serious questions about the legitimacy of a self-defence claim for a homicide by someone who intentionally initated a confrontation with anyone whom he should reasonably have expected might respond in something other than a calm and friendly manner.

And yup, I still have very serious doubts that he would have done any such thing had he not been packing that pistol. There's gotta be some reason why people carry those things around, eh? And it looks too fucking obvious, in this one's case, that one of the reasons is that it enables him to initiate confrontations with yobs without having to worry too much about what might happen.

[liberal4truth]

159. You need to read more carefully. I did not say my country, I said my *county*, one of the most

...progressive, liberal areas in the entire nation (the USA, where I live).

You seem to discount the facts of the matter that both of these men had been in trouble with the law before, but Podany was still able to obtain a concealed carry permit, despite the fact that he was a past jailbird.

No, I don't live in Florida and I will never go somewhere where the authorities allows thugs like this to carry guns on the streets with no oversight, it would seem.

Yes, in my *county*, Podany would never have obtained a concealed carry permit, but then most people here never apply for one, and I am told that they are extremely difficult to obtain, which is just fine with most of us who live here.

The less guns there are on the streets, the safer it is for all of us.

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krispos42]

125. And justfied self-defence is "the law"

And if your prosecutor somehow got a criminal conviction on this guy, how the hell would this be making where you live safer???

[liberal4truth]

6. And had plenty of time to draw his weapon and kill a man, yes.

Sounds like a coward to me. I have seen these types of "men" before.

Cowards to the core, everyone

[slackmaster]

11. I'd rather be thought of as a live coward than a dead victim

:hi:

[liberal4truth]

116. Then you have no reason to complain when someone shoots someone you care about, right?

After all, both these victims of gun violence most likely had someone who knew and cared about them.

Now one of them is dead and the other is headed to prison for many years, sans his handguns, due to the fact that he was _NOT_ "standing his ground", even under the onerous FL shoot-to-kill law allowing the killing of trespassers and so forth, by anyone who bothers to obtain a concealed carry permit, like this criminal.

[bossy22]

120. you don't even know the law that you are talking about

the castle doctrine law was actually misnamed the "castle Doctrine"- it really has nothing to do with trespassing- every state in the union says the duty to retreat does not apply in the home- which means YES you can shoot to kill in your own home without retreating first- even in places like NYC.

What florida's law says is you have no duty to retreat if you are in a place you have a right to be in (sort of like a city block, your work, your car)...what becomes iffy is the fact that it took place on someone elses property...so i don't know if the law actually applies here. The other thing is, is that it applies in restaurants which are also private property as long as you weren't told to leave by the owner- so its a big grey area

btw you say you are from the most liberal part of the country that prosecutes gun law breakers- i guess that rules out NY- NY authorities due shit when it comes to straw purchasing- actually told us to stop reporting them because "it didnt matter anyway, we aren't actually investigating them"

BTW i am also from a very liberal place- Nassau County, Long Island, NY.....20 min drive from Manhattan

and what is a rethuGLYCAN???? couldnt find it in my biology books :)

[DonP]

14. I'll second that Live Coward vote

I'm another Live Coward.

How abysmally ignorant of any of the details represented so far. It seems the guy approached the truck and tried to talk to them about speeding, pretty much what anyone would do as a first step to de-escalate a potentially dangerous situation. The passenger started the physical confrontation and the shooter did what he was supposed to do, protected his life.

I guess he should have let himself be beaten into a coma, then when the violent idiot took his gun and shot him, he'd be another "careless gun owner that allowed his gun to fall into a criminal's hands".

What does the Brave Manly, Man suggest for my "Cowardly" 95 pound daughter, should she be attacked, put her keys between her fingers and "Duke it Out" with her attacker?

Unless more details come to light, based on what is known now this was a righteous shoot.

Find another example for your next anti-gun post and try to be a little more circumspect for the next one.

[L1A1Rocker]

18. This is Heinlein personified.

They guy approached the driver of the truck to let him know that his speed was inappropriate for the neighborhood. I don't think that is inappropriate, give the guy a chance before calling the cops and escalating things needlessly - happened to me once when I was around 17 in my Trans-Am. The two parties involved are the guy that lives in the neighborhood and the driver of the truck.

Now we have Mr. Third Party decide he is going to put the neighborhood guy in his place and teach him a lesson. Who the Hell is this guy for busting into our fun?! Gonna bust the muther up and teach him to mess with us - don't ya know. Well, Mr. Neighborhood guy has now been attacked by Mr. Third Party and is on his back faced with 1) no avenue for escape and 2) an aggressive attacker that may be intent on doing serious bodily injury to him. Bang, Bang. He gets a walk if I'm on the jury.

Now if these guys could have been able to discuss things in a calm reasonable manor all would have been well. As Heinlein said. . . .

[liberal4truth]

25. What a load. This isnt the wild west anymore. Thats what we have the police for.

what is it with gun nuts and that kook Heinlien anyway ?

[L1A1Rocker]

27. So would you rather the strong just beat a person to death? No this is not

the wild west anymore. It was safer for a person to walk the streets then than it is now. The OP is a perfect example of it.


And if you don't understand "that kook Heinlein" try reading some of his books.

[bossy22]

39. police catch the guy

after he beats the crap out of the other guy- or worse kills him. As stated in the Castle Rock decision the police have no duty to protect you- and with the best police response times for priority calls at about 3-5 min id rather put my trust in a gun- then the police

[liberal4truth]

115. First the gun, then the police, then a trial. When you get convicted of shooting a man to death...

please make sure you remember that everyday when you wake up in prison!

[bossy22]

121. are you sure you posted in the right place

because your response made no sense based on my last post

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. You say This isn't the Wild West but you don't live in the US.

Quite curious. The main role of the police is to investigate crimes after the fact. Maybe in your country they have another function.

David

[iverglas]

47. sad, sad, sad

But not unexpected.

Your interlocutor says:

A very liberal county where we dont tolerate gunplay

and you say:

You say This isn't the Wild West but you don't live in the US.

And you're basing that statement on ... the fact that your interlocutor lives in a very liberal county?

COUNTY? See it? Not COUNTRY?

The only place in the world where someone would talk about living in "a very liberal county" is the US. Trust me. In Canada, we wouldn't know what a county was, unless we're rather old. And we really don't talk about where we live in terms of what degree of "liberal" it is. In the UK, ditto; nobody would talk about the county they live in, or how "liberal" it is, in that manner.

Nobody else but a resident of the US would talk about "the streets of America" either, I can pretty much assure you.

I just swan, I do.

But -- do you see your problem now? You just don't grasp what you read, even in as simple an instance as this.



typo fixed

[L1A1Rocker]

53. Sad to see you continue the personal attacks. Please stop the hate.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. The poster can correct me if he/she wants.

They can tell us where they live. According to you this person couldn't possibly live in the US, because we all know that every place in the states tolerates gun play. Actually every county encourages all men, women and children be armed and brandish their weapons on a daily basis. Maybe you are right though and the US doesn't have a gun problem. Ok I'll agree with you on that point.

David

[iverglas]

62. yes, that's how it's played

Person A makes false statements about Person B for which Person A has no basis whatsoever, and in the face of all the available evidence.

Person B can correct Person A if s/he wants.

Reminds me of how elections are played in the US. There are words for the game, I think.


According to you this person couldn't possibly live in the US, because we all know that every place in the states tolerates gun play.

See? There's another fine example!

You make an allegation against me that YOU CANNOT HELP BUT KNOW IS FALSE, and I get to object.

Sorry. I'm just going to let you play your game. About the only thing you seem capable of doing is making false statements about other people involved in the discussion, so if it keeps you busy and makes you happy, why should I mind?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. If you can't see blatant sarcasm when you see it, then I can't help you.

[L1A1Rocker]

70. You do that well.

[iverglas]

99. didn't I just?

Hee hee.

[liberal4truth]

108. I don't live in the US? Tell that to the IRS. I am doing my income taxes right now !

You know that little thing that comes up every April 15th ?:sarcasm:

Hell, I guess now that I "don't live in the US", I can tell them to go **** themselves, right?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

110. Iverglas wants to know the Utopia you live in without gunplay.

The rest of us are curious also. The only places without occasional gunplay are extremely remote. Please forgive my misreading of your post.

David

[iverglas]

118. nope, sorry, not a factual statement

I don't want to know anything. I'm not the one making any kind of an issue out of anything that was said, or not said, in this regard.

If I did want to know something, it definitely wouldn't be "the Utopia you live in without gunplay" -- since no one has claimed to live anywhere without gunplay.

A statement was made that someone lives somewhere where we don't tolerate gunplay.

Not where we don't have gunplay.

See the difference? I don't tolerate misogyny. Sure doesn't mean that misogyny doesn't exist.

How is it that you manage to get virtually every single thing you read completely wrong?

[solinvictus]

122. What is it with people like you...

...who in all appearances look to the state to do everything for you? Courts have determined that law enforcement doesn't exist to protect you and is not responsible for your well being. How about this: take responsibility for yourself and the physical safety of your family. If you don't choose to do so, then leave the rest of us the hell alone.

[iverglas]

126. What is it with people like you,

Oliver Brown, who to all appearances look to the state to do everything for you? Courts have determined that the schools attended by white children are not for you. How about this: take responsibility for yourself and your children's education. If you don't choose to do so, then leave the rest of us who don't want African-American children in our schools the hell alone.


Some people see what a court has said and think it's gospel ... even if it isn't remotely relevant to any issue at hand, as the ruling of a court about the duty of the executive is not relevant to the question of the wisdom of how any individual chooses to behave, or what behaviour a society should tolerate.

Some people think that the world can usually be improved and don't spend their time spouting the rulings of courts as if they were anything other than opinions which, while they may be authoritative in respect of the situations to which they apply in a particular time and place, are really just not statements of eternal truth.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

141. and that would make people like you

control freaks and often the cowards they proclaim others to be

?? Lordy. Lot of proclaiming going on.

Me, I'm just askin' ...

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[L1A1Rocker]

54. It is completely out of line to take that kind of jab at a members daughter!

You write: whom you should probably get psychiatric attention for her obvious eating disorder


That is disgusting! You have absolutely NO information about this person other than she weighs very little. You jump to the conclusion that she is emaciated and in need of psychiatric attention when there is NO evidence to draw such a conclusion. Completely uncalled for and DISGUSTING!

[iverglas]

63. ooooh, I am embarrassed beyond belief

Not.

I mean, if I believed the person existed (and was an adult), I might be.


... Nah.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DonP]

133. She's in Medical School

With a residency starting in June.

She is 5' 4", 95 to 100 pounds, very lightly built and has a perfectly healthy eating pattern, thank you. And, light as she is, is perfectly capable of doing CPR when called on in her ICU rotations.

If you have doubts about her reality I'd be more than happy to accept contributions, even in Canadian dollars, for any part of the last 4 years worth of medical school bills or her undergrad tab at Northwestern in Pre Med with you so you can make a contribution?

I don't expect any embarrassment or apology though.

Infact I don't expect much from your replies for the past year or so and that's why I, and it seems a growing group of other posters, just ignore comments and baiting. But you still geta rise out of the new kids, at least for a while.

But that post was about the kind of pointless and bitter ad hominem and wildly off topic comment I do expect from what, to all appearances, is a self described "stroppy", underemployed, terminally verbose, Canadian lawyer that picks fights with bicycle messengers on the streets of Toronto and has lots of obtuse guidance for a party and country she has no vote in.

But thanks so very much for worrying about her. She's doing fine and was just inducted into the Medical School Honor Society last month.

[iverglas]

135. speaking of false statements

a self described "stroppy", underemployed, terminally verbose, Canadian lawyer

Stroppy, indeed.

Underemployed, not. Haven't been employed since 1977, actually, so I could hardly be "underemployed". Self-employed, and not "under-" anything. When you net in the vicinity of $200 an hour or more for the work you do, because you happen to be the best in your field and you do it really really fast, you don't have to actually work 8 hours a day, and in fact putting in 8 solid hours of work at that rate for a day leaves you exhausted for two. You don't know what work I do, and I'm not planning to tell you any time this millennium -- because you'd pretty easily be able to figure out who I am if I told you what I do and you had minimal googling skills. And I have no desire for you to know who I am, ta. And I give precisely not a toss about whether you believe anything I say, or what you might have to say about it.

I simply suggest that you stop making false statements.

Although hmm. I guess I'd be "underemployed" pretty much no matter what I was doing ...

Terminally verbose? Well, I'm not dying of anything at the moment. If you are, you should maybe avoid the environmental triggers. I find it terminally amusing how some people like to talk so much about ignoring the person they're plainly not ignoring. Yes, I about die laughing.

Lawyer? You people do have some weird and wonderful legends and do just love recounting 'em. False tales, but there ya go.

Your daughter? As may be. I could easily tell you I'm a one-legged acrobat from Romania as you can tell me about your daughter -- or I can tell you anything I might have told you. We're all free to believe anything we like about anything and anyone we like.

Whoever or whatever your daughter, if you have one, may be, she continues to be of the utmost irrelevance to the subject of this thread. As are sexual assaults against women.

You were the one who chose to bring her into the conversation and exploit her for some purpose that appeared to serve your interests, unrelated to the subject as it was, not me.


http://www.docshop.com/2007/12/15/height-and-weight-chart-for-men-women-and-teens/

The following height and weight charts display the recommended weight ranges for men and women based on height and frame size. ...

Height and Weight Chart for Women

Height: 5'4"

Small Frame 114-127
Medium Frame 124-138
Large Frame 134-151

[iverglas]

167. Donny, old pal, old chum

I don't think you're living in the right kind of house to be casting stones in this regard.

As for Iverglas, she seems to be a frustrated cat lady "of a certain age" that lives in Toronto, claims to be a canadian lawyer and, as one of my old friends used to describe people like that, is a self described "world's foremost authority" on pretty much everything. When caught in a blatant lie she quickly changes the subject, the issue, or just attacks the author, his family and the country as a whole.

How many times do I have to tell you???!?

I am NOT a lady!!!

I do have cats, I admit, but the man of the house is their keeper. You know, the 6'4" girlyman who would be banned if he replied to any of the gun-nuttery hereabouts. Whew, you think I'm ... whatever you think I am. He's ten times.

I do NOT claim to be a Canadian lawyer. You've been reading my press for too long.

I'm a middling kind of authority on several things. As you obviously realize.

Could you cite one of those lies for us? You don't have to say "that's a lie!!" Just copy and paste something, and I'll get your drift.

But oh dear, I see I must have cut you to the quick. Aw.

[liberal4truth]

109. Yes, I think that many gun owners ARE cowards. Why do I say that? Well, since I DO live in the USA..

I have seen, read, and heard many tales about guns, hunting, shooting and all the other assortment
of gobbledygook that one might hear from paranoid idiots who send in their checks to the church of the NRA and pray that we "gun-grabbers" don't come knocking on your doors looking for your guns, like the boogieman or something. Thats what I mean about the cowardice of the gun-nuts; they live in a constant state of fear, so they hold their guns as though they are a security blanket that will ward away evil.

I have also seen, read, talked to and have known plenty of victims of gun-violence, some of them were FORMER gun owners who wished that we could put all firearms into a few vessels and sink them down as far as it would go, and banish them from the face of the Earth forever. Needless to say that isn't possible, but neither is any law perfect and that certainly does not stop us from continuing to keep them in place.

To wit: my conclusion over the years is that, on the whole, humans can become very nasty when they are given a little too much power, and too often that power is the gun they are pointing at someones head.

You know, the ones that we let slip by our so-called system to weed out unstable people, if even such a simple thing exists, which it really does not, since many people "crack-up" or "go mad" and the next thing you know we have a dead human body full of bullet holes with blood all over the place.

No, I and many others like me, KNOW that guns can instill a false sense of "bravery" in otherwise fearful, cowardly people, and that is what lead to the death of this fool at the hands of yet another cowardly gun-owner, on yet another blood-soaked street in America.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

111. This from someone who won't say where they live.

Then has the nerve to call someone else a coward. So you have a lot of examples obviously of most of the millions of law abiding gun owners committing cowardly acts with their legally owned firearms? I like the way you rely on anecdote and emotion to try to persuade people, does it work better than the facts? I have seen, treated and talked to lots of victims of gun violence. Not one of them was shot with a legally owned firearm. A lot of them wish they had a gun to defend themselves. A lot of things led to the man's death in this story, speeding, the violent history of both parties, the passenger deciding he could beat the man on the bike up, the passenger getting out of the truck, the man on the bicycles decision to confront the speeders. We'll see what a jury decides on this one. Just to clarify, do you believe that someone who lives in a high crime area where the cops have an average response time of 15 minutes is a coward for wanting to protect his or her home? Do you believe that someone who is professionally trained to carry a firearm and decides to carry a concealed weapon after obtaining the proper licenses is a coward? I just want to know who the cowards are, in your opinion? Is it the disabled veterans coming back from Iraq that don't physically have the means to protect their families without a firearm? Go ahead and enlighten us.

David

[DrCory]

140. Oh Please...

At least have the dignity to be honest. Do you expect us to believe that you would not behave as a JBT if given the power to rid the world of firearms?

Your tone and rhetoric certainly suggests to me that you would, and gleefully, become very nasty indeed.

[solinvictus]

144. Cowardly?

Because gun owners made a conscious decision to prepare to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property? I think it's more cowardly to rely upon others to protect yourself. It's certainly more cowardly to demand stringent gun control ( to the point of sweeping bans ), cry for them in a shrill and whining voice, and then rely upon uniformed thugs to enforce your will. If you want to ban guns, join the law enforcement services yourself.

[L1A1Rocker]

32. You are the one that said use a camera and call the cops right?

Just making sure.

[gorfle]

8. Right, the victim was too cowardly.

so the gunner was too cowarly to use his fists? my how brave of him.

Next you will be claiming rape victims didn't squeeze their thighs tightly enough together.

CCW permit holders carry firearms so they don't have to resort to their fists for self defense in a life-threatening situation.

You know what they say - don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Doubly so for fists.

truth is that this coward went up to the pickup KNOWING that he had a gun in case he needed to blow someone out of their shoes.

We don't know what he truth is in this situation. He went to confront a speeder in his neighborhood. Not knowing what the response of the driver would be, he wisely and legally armed himself.

Ever notice how when police approach the window of a pulled-over vehicle their hand is usually on the butt of their pistol? Same thing.

[slackmaster]

9. Behold the brave Keyboard Kommando!

I'm sure you would have had no trouble getting back up on your feet and duking it out, had you been the one who got punched and knocked to the ground.

:rofl:

[liberal4truth]

114. No, I would not. I would call the police. That's what we do in a polite, sane society these days.

Why don't you get on board with the rest of us?

[DrCory]

138. This is hardly a polite or sane society...

And the root of that is far more complex than the existance of firearms themselves. You go right on ahead a rely on the police to reach you it time, and I hope they do if the need should arise. They didn't for me. As for me, I'll rely on my own adult judgment and self-control. That's the mature thing to do, not surrender the ability for effective self-protection to the state which, by the way, is not bound to protect my person unless in custody at any rate.

As for your "us", there are just as many who believe as I, so don't delude yourself that gun owners are some kind of peripheral, mentally ill minority.

[liberal4truth]

148. Oh I don't presume to believe that any one with a gun is a mental defective or a criminal, but its

my believe that many of you don't understand the legal ramifications, if and when you use a gun to commit a gun-crime, where you live.

A prime example of that is the gun-owners who take the offensive position when they need to understand our system of governance and the ability to protect one OWN property, not that of someone else:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story

As you can plainly see, the gun-owner was _WAY_ out of bounds by shooting at these criminals. Out
here where I live ,there would be no issue: The jury would send this man away to prison for a very long time.

Out in Texas, who knows what those gun-loving idiots might do to this cowardly killer of men who posed NO threat?

[DrCory]

151. "If and When"???

liberal4truth (249 posts) Sat Apr-05-08 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #138
148. Oh I don't presume to believe that any one with a gun is a mental defective or a criminal, but its
Edited on Sat Apr-05-08 03:32 AM by liberal4truth
my believe that many of you don't understand the legal ramifications, if and when you use a gun to commit a gun-crime, where you live.

A prime example of that is the gun-owners who take the offensive position when they need to understand our system of governance and the ability to protect one OWN property, not that of someone else:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main...

As you can plainly see, the gun-owner was _WAY_ out of bounds by shooting at these criminals. Out
here where I live ,there would be no issue: The jury would send this man away to prison for a very long time.

Out in Texas, who knows what those gun-loving idiots might do to this cowardly killer of men who posed NO threat?


It seems to me you believe that gun owners exist in a state of pre-crime. Just because you have little trust in your fellow human doesn't mean the rest of us need to be penalized. I'm an adult, thank you, and know the law very well.

[bossy22]

17. there is a fine line between bravery and stupidity

and stupidity in this case is putting your life at more risk then it already was. His best chance for survival was to draw his firearm- fist fighting- especially when someone has you pinned down- is extremely hard and you already start at a disadvantage.

[Sanctified]

150. A 57 year old man vs a 24 year old man, you do the math. n/t

[iverglas]

162. why do math

whey you can look at pictures??

http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2008/3/2/329234.html






That Podany sure looks like a decrepit old man, eh?

My co-vivant is two years younger, and would look just like him ... if he gained about 75 pounds.

[bossy22]

163. looks can be decieving

may look tough- but could actually be quite weak- at 54 there is a good chance that the man had skeletal structure problems and the younger man didnt- thats just life- parts work better at 24 than they do at 54

[Turbo Teg]

160. Sure.

Either way, that's cool. Don't get out of the truck and hit someone and you won't get shot. Someone punches me there's a good chance you may get shot. HAHA, to cowardly to use his fists, your funny. Ever hear that there's no such thing as a fair fight? Lets all defend the person who wanted to start the violence. I'm gonna go with "he was misunderstood, and the asshole who was getting beat up shot him unfairly!" HAHA, man you guys are great.

[gorfle]

13. More details emerge...

This guy is no angel, that's for sure:

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=835424&page=2

* 1994/10/10 -- Not Guilty (Deny) First Degree Misdemeanor -- Statute: 784.03 -- FELONY BATTERY (ETA: Acquitted)
* 1997/01/16 -- Nolo First Degree Misdemeanor (Adjudication Withheld) -- Statute: 790.10 -- Improper Exhibition of a Weapon
* 1999/04/27 -- Nolo Third Degree Felony (Adjudication Withheld) -- Statute: 784.021 -- Aggravated Assault

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. Somethings not making sense here.

If he pleaded to a felony how does he have a concealed carry permit? Things don't seem to be adding up.

David

[iverglas]

49. excellent question

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/mar/02/me-clash-over-speeding-turns-fatal/

Both men have been prosecuted previously for violent offenses, state records show.

Landes was released from a Florida prison in June after serving about eight months of a one-year sentence for battery, according to the Florida Department of Corrections. He was convicted of the charges in Pasco County in 2006.

Podany pleaded no contest to a charge of aggravated assault in 1999 in Hillsborough County, court records show. He was ordered to complete 12 months of probation.

So, what, does that not count as a felony conviction and he can just go along his merry way? I can assure you that where I'm at, that circumstance would have been taken into account in the exercise of discretion involved in deciding whether to issue a firearms licence, and I think I can confidently say he wouldn't have got it.

I wonder whether the dead guy had a permit too, and just left his gun at home that day. Think what fun could have been had with *both* of them firing away.

Looks like a wee problem with Florida's permit issuance system here. Maybe it was one of those thingies where if they haven't finished processing the applicatin within 7.2 minutes after it is made, they just gotta go ahead and issue it. "Shall issue", and all.

But cereally, eh? A guy with a record like that, and a permit to carry a concealed firearm, when in point of fact he was disqualified from laying hands on a firearm.

Some would say that if the system is that flawed, the whole idea oughta be scrapped until they can come up with a better one.

Meanwhile, I won't be visiting Florida again in this century.

[gorfle]

50. More like 259,200 minutes...

Looks like a wee problem with Florida's permit issuance system here. Maybe it was one of those thingies where if they haven't finished processing the applicatin within 7.2 minutes after it is made, they just gotta go ahead and issue it. "Shall issue", and all.

I'm not sure what the particulars are in Florida, but from the federal NICS page:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm

If it is determined that prohibitive criteria exists, the FBI NICS Examiner will advise the FFL to DENY the firearm transaction. If potentially prohibitive criteria exists and more information is required in order to make the determination, the NICS Examiner will advise the FFL to DELAY the firearm transaction and the call is concluded. The FFL must record the NTN on the ATF Form 4473 and retain the form for auditing purposes.

When a transaction is DELAYED, the FBI NICS Examiner begins extensive research on the potential prohibitor. When the research is complete, the FBI NICS Examiner calls the FFL and gives a PROCEED or DENY decision on the firearm transaction.

On the third business day of a DELAYED transaction, the NICS Examiner is required to call the FFL and advise him/her of their rights under the Brady Act to transfer the firearm after the third business day. If the delayed transaction cannot be resolved within the allowed three business days, it is at the discretion of the FFL whether to allow the firearm transfer. However, the NICS Section continues to research the case in an effort to obtain complete disposition information. Business days do not include the day the check was initiated Saturdays, Sundays, and any day state offices in the state of purchase are closed.

It appears the NICS system can delay firearm purchases up to 3 days.

[iverglas]

64. I think we're talking about permits to carry concealed weapons

As I understand it, there is a time limit for processing those applications, in at least some states where such permits "shall" be issued to people who are not disqualified.

But hey, that one looks just as unfathomably stupid as the one I was talking about!

[gorfle]

98. Even longer for those...

As I understand it, there is a time limit for processing those applications, in at least some states where such permits "shall" be issued to people who are not disqualified.

My state is a "may issue" state, and there is no time limit set for when a permit must be issued.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. I believe that people who plead no contest to felonies shouldn't have concealed carry permits.

Maybe the state legislature will look at the law. Seriously though, we are talking about very rare incidents considering Florida has issued about 2.5 million concealed carry permits. Probably shouldn't make laws based on emotions but facts and statistics. At least that's how I hope my legislature would respond. Do you have a reference on him being disqualified from possessing firearms?

David

[L1A1Rocker]

59. Pleading nolo contendre (no contest) is often used for dealing

with issues where the guy did it but whoever he "did it" to deserved it and the prosecution doesn't want to really take it to trial for a couple of reasons. 1) the jury may acquit because they sympathize or 2) the prosecute doesn't think that a lifetime conviction record would be justice for the offense.

They come to the agreement that if you plead no contest you get a slap on the wrist and don't have a conviction haunting you the rest of you life. I think it's a fair deal all the way around - usually. Just my opinion don't ya know.

[HALO141]

103. Nolo is still a conviction. n/t

.

[liberal4truth]

149. Visiting Florida? Not a chance! What with issuing concealed carry permits to former jail inmates..

I cannot fathom why anyone would want to visit such a horrible place. No wonder FL is on all the TV shows, what with the crimes rates going through the roof there.

I cant understand why the legislature there would allow convicted criminals to obtain concealed carry permits in the first place.

[iverglas]

48. snork

That's not getting a whole lot of attention, is it then? Good of you to post it, though, sincerely.

It's no more advisable to falsely claim self-defence, or unquestioningly support an unsubstantiated claim of self-defence, than it is to falsely claim sexual assault or unquestioningly support an unsubstantiated claim of sexual assault -- for various reasons, one similarity being how it makes it more difficult for genuine victims to have their accounts believed.

Frankly, if you've ever looked through a mug book, you kinda knew already. A few years ago a neighbour and I spent a couple of hours poring over the photos at the local cop shop, trying to identify the two guys we'd almost apprehended stealing another neighbour's VCR.

To digress a moment -- we probably could have caught them, but before we realized what they were up to, thinking they were just visitors leaving the house, I shouted across the street at them to pick up the fucking wine bottle they'd dropped on another neighbour's porch, and the three of us clued in to what was going on as they started to run. Sadly, taking the wine bottle ... and the finger prints ... with them.

Anyhow. We were looking for someone I could only describe as looking like Kato Kaelin's little brother (and I hadn't had my glasses on anyhow), and all we could see for pages was people who, as my friend put it, really just didn't have any other career choice. Ugly. You ain't seen such a collection of ugly. Ugg-lee. And Mr. Self-Defender fits right in.

Funny. I'll bet the cops knew about his record when they decided to charge him. I'll bet they knew about a fair bit more than shows up on that rap sheet, in fact. I'll bet they had really good reasons to be skeptical about his whole damned story. But hey, I ain't saying he did or he diddunt. Just saying.

[Irreverend IX]

93. Oh, this is good.

Thanks for letting us know that we can gauge a person's potential criminality by their attractiveness. How very open-minded and progressive of you.

[iverglas]

95. youse guys is such cards

Vile objectification of women's lives and experiences in the service of gun-nuttery is "sarcasm".

But a little light-hearted tittering about the hideous visages of the subjects of the hundreds of mug shots I got to spend a couple of hours perusing (hmm, did you see them? didn't think so), well that calls for puffing up and putting on a proper show of righteous indignation.

Funny, though, how if what I'd been looking at were bodies in the morgue, the tune being played wouldn't have been on a violin, it would have been on a fiddle, with many jigs being danced on the graves. Them, they would all have deserved everything that happened to them. And it would have been champagne all round, and a lot of hail fellow well met back-slapping about how a bunch of waste of space subhumans got what they deserved, their lives being worth less than what it would have cost the taxpayers to put them on trial.

Yup, exactly the same people. People who break into houses. Me, I thought their uniform ugliness was kinda funny. Some people, they think they should all be shot dead.

Hmm. I wonder whose cheeks should be red here.


But hey, just so we're clear.

Nobody was gauging anybody's criminality by anyone's attractiveness.

Two people were looking at mug shots -- pictures of people who ARE CRIMINALS, and remarking on how uniformly unattractive THEY REALLY WERE.

At least try to get it right way around when you puff yourself up with phoney self-righteousness, will ya?



out out damned typo

[Irreverend IX]

145. Light-hearted tittering?

I didn't get that from your post. You said the mugshots were uniformly ugly, "and Mr. Self-Defender fits right in." You questioned his claim of legitimate self-defense on the basis of his appearance. It's no different from dismissing a suspect's alibi on the basis of their ethnicity. If you saw a police station full of wanted posters for black guys, would that lead you to suspect guilt more strongly on the part of black crime suspects?

[iverglas]

154. Prove it

You questioned his claim of legitimate self-defense on the basis of his appearance.

Your statement is false. You have nothing to back it up. Prove it or retract it. Or look like what you are.

In case you need any help, try rereading what you replied to:

But hey, just so we're clear.

Nobody was gauging anybody's criminality by anyone's attractiveness.

Two people were looking at mug shots -- pictures of people who ARE CRIMINALS, and remarking on how uniformly unattractive THEY REALLY WERE.

At least try to get it right way around when you puff yourself up with phoney self-righteousness, will ya?

The individual we're talking about here ALREADY WAS A CRIMINAL. That was the subject at hand. And that was the subject of my statement:

Frankly, if you've ever looked through a mug book, you kinda knew already.

-- you kinda already knew that HE WAS A CRIMINAL, which HE IS, completely apart from anything that happened in the year 2008.

So no, I DID NOT question his claim of legitimate self-defense on the basis of his appearance. I said that his appearance matched his known criminality. And your statement is just the stinking bullshit that is to be expected around here.


Nobody ever remembers, sniff.

*I* am the one who is always asking someone to explain to me why being convicted of a felony should bar anyone in the US from possessing firearms ... since people who have been convicted of felonies SURELY have the same INALIENABLE GOD-GIVEN NATURAL INHERENT RIGHT TO DEFEND SELF WITH THE BEST TOOLS FOR THE JOB that any other human being has.

So why would I question someone's claim to self-defence on the basis that s/he was a criminal??

Beats me. But I know perfectly well why someone else would say I did when I didn't.


If you saw a police station full of wanted posters for black guys, would that lead you to suspect guilt more strongly on the part of black crime suspects?

If you ever want to speak an honest word and/or make sense and/or engage in discussion rather than attempt character assassination by insinuation, will you let me know?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

158. You can recognize criminals by appearance?

You wrote, "Frankly, if you've ever looked through a mug book, you kinda knew already." The police in Canada should hire you to identify criminals to search and question.

David

[iverglas]

161. can you??

Maybe you can give me lessons.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

164. No, I'm pretty good at knowing people to avoid but,

as far as their criminal history I wouldn't be very good at that. I see way to many different people to have any stereotypes.

David

[Scout]

165. how long until he figures it out, do you think? n/t

[Redneck Socialist]

21. Wait, I thought you could shoot anybody you wanted in Florida

if you were scared or they just looked at you funny? Guess that ain't so.

:sarcasm: (unfortunately I probably need to throw that in here)

The Glocktalk thread is interesting. The guy's no saint and the details surrounding the case are a bit murky. I suspect a jury will be sorting things out.

[zanne]

35. You mean like the horrible plastic garbage lid assault?

Remember the yahoo who shot the guy because he was afraid he'd get killed by a a plastic garbage can cover? They didn't charge him, because he plead "self defense". These people are absolute tools.

[L1A1Rocker]

33. More information: Looks more and more like this was justifiable.

From the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office press release:


Circle) several times and traveling at a high rate of speed. Podany, which lives in the neighborhood got upset at the individuals and rode his bicycle up to the residence where Landes and the driver of the vehicle were visiting (10622 Bayhills Circle). Podany engaged the driver (witness) in conversation, asking him to slow down because of children in the neighborhood. Landes was a passenger in the vehicle and became enraged at Podany and began to threaten him. Landes exited the vehicle and attacked Podany beating him to the ground and while on top of Podany he continued to beat him. Podany pulled out a .40 caliber Glock from his waistband and fired two shots striking Landes in the face. Landes died at the scene.



Podany has a concealed weapon permit. Podany ran home and called the Sheriff’s Office.



After consulting with the State Attorney’s Office, Podany was charged with Manslaughter.

[L1A1Rocker]

34. And even more information

By MIKE WELLS, The Tampa Tribune

Published: March 2, 2008



Investigators do not think Podany had intent to harm Landes. However, he confronted the men on someone else's property and shot Landes, and that's why he was charged, Carter said. The arrest report does not indicate whether the shooting happened on the street or in the yard of the residence.

It's unclear whether Podany could avoid prosecution under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. The law was adopted by the Legislature in 2005 as a defense that states that a person does not have to exhaust all avenues of retreat before using deadly force to confront a threatening individual.

[liberal4truth]

45. What part about the Manslaughter charge did you miss?

the gun owner went looking for trouble on someone elses' property, therby bypassing any kind of defence which requires retreat in most states. Well at least we have one more gun-owning lunatic off the streets of America.

[L1A1Rocker]

51. Apparently you did not read that last post because you contradict it so much

You write: What part about the Manslaughter charge did you miss?

Uh, it's a charge not a conviction, he STILL has presumption of innocence does he not?


You write: the gun owner went looking for trouble

Uh, no, he went to discuss things like civilized men do. (like what happened to me when I was 17 and hot rodding my Trans-Am) Not sneak around making videos and calling the cops when it shouldn't be necessary in a "civilized" society.


You continue: on someone elses' property, therby bypassing any kind of defence which requires retreat in most states.


Um maybe you missed this part of the article: "It's unclear whether Podany could avoid prosecution under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. The law was adopted by the Legislature in 2005 as a defense that states that a person does not have to exhaust all avenues of retreat before using deadly force to confront a threatening individual." And THAT is why he is charged, because the state attorneys office is "unclear" on the letter of the law in this case.
On a side note: Are you aware that in almost EVERY self defense shooting (no matter how obviously self defense it is) the shooter goes before the grand jury? Do you know why?



You write: Well at least we have one more gun-owning lunatic off the streets of America.


Um, I disagree completely. The uncivilized peace of trash that attacked the civilized neighborhood guy is the one the is the lunatic off the streets.

[iverglas]

69. yer funny

The uncivilized peace of trash that attacked the civilized neighborhood guy

By "civilized neighbourhood guy", maybe you mean "guy living in a civilized neighbourhood".

'Cause I'm pretty sure you didn't mean "civilized guy living in the neighbourhood".

I mean, really. You really didn't mean that, did you?

Maybe that's the problem we all have when I talk about "civilized societies". If a guy with a criminal history like this one is a "civilized guy", we just aren't speaking the same language.

What does "truth" mean on your planet?

[L1A1Rocker]

72. Laughing, LOL, Ha Ha Ha, oh wat a funny post

not very coherent but funny.







and um,



























I had it,

































right,




































you got it wrong.




































ps. you ARE one to talk about truth aren't you. Accusing someone of not even having a daughter! Shame. Wonder how you'd react if someone said the same about your alleged attack? Hum, I wonder. . .

[iverglas]

74. You need to stop making false statements about me

and about anything and anyone else that crosses your path, while you're at it. Have a look at the rules of the game, would you?

I did not accuse anyone of anything. I stated my belief. I am entirely and completely and absolutely entitled to hold whatever beliefs I choose to hold, and to express them in public. That'll be your first amendment, right? Aren't you one of those lovers of your Bill of Rights -- ALL OF IT? If so, you might want to stop embarrassing yourself by demonstrating your complete contempt for that first bit of it.

[L1A1Rocker]

77. The false statement is yours and here's my proof.

63. ooooh, I am embarrassed beyond belief


Not.

I mean, if I believed the person existed (and was an adult), I might be.


... Nah.





Now the DU rules say that even hints, suggestions, inferences that a member is lying is a no no. I did NOT call you a lier although you have accused me of a "false statement" which Webster's does use as a definition of a lie. Shame Shame.

Now you may full well believe that the person does not have a daughter but to infer it on this board is against DU rules.

[iverglas]

81. and now

look up "infer". In a proper dictionary that doesn't accept improper uses as meanings.

You might also try to remember that syllogisms don't work in reverse.

Aristotle is a man.
All men are mortal.
And yet, not all men are Aristotle.

A lie is a false statement.
All false statements are untrue.
And yet, not all false statements are lies.

Just in case you want to keep your loony accusations down to a dull roar.

I am an atheist, and also an agnostic. I do not believe in sky faeries. I do not say that sky faeries do not exist (because I don't know).

A statement of belief is not an assertion of fact. You can probably look that up somewhere, too.

[L1A1Rocker]

52. Since when does "charged" equal convicted?

[HALO141]

104. Maybe it does...

in SOME "civilized" corners of the world.

</sarcasm>

I guess we still haven't heard exactly where that is yet, huh?

[bossy22]

40. stupidity

even if you are anti-gun you have to see the stupidity in turning arguments violent. To be honest i don't feel much for the guy who was killed- in my book he is a complete idiot. He started a fight and ended up getting himself killed. If he didn't start a fight he would have been alive. People need to have more self control

[L1A1Rocker]

41. Couldn't agree more.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. How many of you have been punched in the face?

Just curious, how many people commenting on this have actually been punched in the face after the age of 12? Might give us some more perspective.

David

[iverglas]

76. I'll go first

By a bicycle courier who cut me off in traffic, scaring the shit out of me when I had to brake hard to avoid hitting him, at whom I yelled, who responded with the most vile stream of misogynist abuse I had heard that day, and who, when I got out of my vehicle and confronted him verbally -- with his bicycle in between us, and him being maybe 20 years younger than me -- sucker punched me on the cheekbone.

Oddly enough, I didn't shoot him.

How's that one?

[L1A1Rocker]

79. You got out of your vehicle looking for trouble huh?

Well, well. How uncivilized of you.

[iverglas]

85. and like I said

I didn't use what anyone did in the situation as AN EXCUSE TO KILL SOMEONE.

Getting it yet?

[bossy22]

86. it was a stupid decision

to go out and confront him- VERY stupid- the people who get angry like you do are the ones that make the roads dangerous....but thats a different story....onto the subject on hand

its one thing to be sucker punched, then to have to have the shit kicked out of you. If this guy had been sucker punched and than shot him- id say the guy should be charged- but this was no sucker punch incident- the passanger was ontop of the man pounding his face in- there is good chance that the man could easily be punched into a coma through massive head trauma.

[iverglas]

90. yada yada blah blah blah

the people who get angry like you do are the ones that make the roads dangerous

I'm really interested in your opinion of my reaction to an arrogant post-adolesent male pig who endangered me by the way he used the road I was driving on and then spewed his putrid misogynist filth at me.

Not.


its one thing to be sucker punched, then to have to have the shit kicked out of you.

And if the question had been "who here has had the shit kicked out of them", then I guess I would have told the story now told in my next post.


the passanger was ontop of the man pounding his face in

And I assume there were eyewitnesses ... and then I'll direct you to the other part of that post.

[bossy22]

91. i dont care if you are interested

"I'm really interested in your opinion of my reaction to an arrogant post-adolesent male pig who endangered me by the way he used the road I was driving on and then spewed his putrid misogynist filth at me.

Not."

You were still an idiot in most people's minds- ive had that sort of thing happen to me, i just shut my window and turn away- but its funny you call the guy a post adolosent male pig when you in that situation acted like one yourself. By getting out of the car you went looking for a fight- the guy was idiot, he was wrong in his actions but the only thing you getting out of your car would accomplish is escalating the situation.

"And I assume there were eyewitnesses ... and then I'll direct you to the other part of that post."

and your point is.....that all eyewitnesses lie?

[iverglas]

92. some people see things the way they are

and, horrible and dangerous as they are, think "not my job".

Some people see putrid, arrogant, dangerous misogyny and think that it needs dealing with.

Of course, some people see the connection between the actions of the pig in question and the actions of men who sexually assault women.

Someone like me would have no doubt that the pig in question would as soon rape one woman as he would punch another woman in the face, and that his initial behaviour in the situation made his nature extremely clear. Someone like me would prefer to demonstrate to the pig in question that he might not get away with his behaviour, before he takes it all the way to ... how'd that go? ... assaulting and strangling and raping the next woman.

By the way, you'll find that my "over-reaction" to incidents like these is common among people who suffer from a post-traumatic stress disorder. I was in fact scared shitless by what he did when he cut me off in traffic, because a person who lives with free-floating fear as a result of a horrifyingly violent and life-threatening experience is very easily scared shitless -- it's called hypervigilance; and a person who has experienced the end result of putrid misogyny like his tends to sit up and take notice when it is encountered the next time.

It's also a good reason why a lot of people should not carry firearms -- and in fact, they tend to be the very same people who often want to carry firearms, and who a lot of other people think should be carrying firearms.

Ever seen the Twilight Zone about the woman who was raped, and her husband who wants to protect her? They drive down the street, and she goes into a state of terror -- there he is! there's the man who raped her! The husband leaps from the car and does something to the guy; beats him up or kills him or something. He gets back in the car and they drive down the street, and suddenly the woman goes into a state of terror -- there he is! there's the man who raped me!

A symbolic but not too inaccurate depiction of PTSD. About which you presumably know nothing, so you might want to avoid opening your mouth when it comes up.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

94. I thought this thread wasn't about that.

As I was admonished for so severely about 2 hours ago, by you.


David

[iverglas]

96. listen, chum

We've established that you don't understand what you read, so that's really all we need to know.

This thread is not about exploiting women's experiences in the service of gun-nuttery and fantasies about shooting the bad guys dead.

My experience is no more up for grabs for that purpose than anyone else's.

That includes my experience with confronting assholes.

I'm merely fascinated that the bozo who confronted the asshole in the tale that is the subject of this thread is a hero for standing up to an asshole, while I'm a dangerous pest for standing up to an asshole.

I actually never said that the bozo who killed the asshole in the pickup truck should not have confronted him. I think that assholes should be confronted. I just don't think one should take a gun along when one does it. I think that if one anticipates that one will be needing to defend one's self from violence, one should not initiate the process, and certainly should not arm one's self so that one can put the definitive end to the process one initiated. I had no intention of initiating any sequence of violent events, and I had no expectation that I would need to defend myself. And I didn't carry a weapon along just in case.

The difference between me and the bozo with the gun here seems to be that I didn't kill the asshole I stood up to. I have to assume that if I'd killed him, I'd be a hero too.

That's the only logical conclusion I can see.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. I haven't heard anyone call him a hero.

I have stated my opinion, I don't believe given his history that he should have a ccp. As far as the legal matters in play I'll withhold judgement until the courts figure it out. I don't believe that your situation and the man in this story are similar enough to compare. You were punched once, the man in the story was being held to the ground and beaten. I would say that anyone who shoots someone after a single punch when that person is no longer posing a threat would be arrested and probably convicted of manslaughter at a minimum. I would have preferred it if someone had beaten the crap out of the man who assaulted you, to discourage such future behavior, but that didn't happen.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

82. I hope you had him charged or that someone beat the crap out of him.

Of course you didn't shoot him you don't believe in it and you didn't have the means. I appreciate your input. I was just curious, a lot of people are expressing opinions about punches not being deadly or dangerous, I just wondered how many of them have actually been punched in the face.

David

[iverglas]

89. it got complicated

There were two supposed eyewitnesses. They claimed to have seen me assault him. What I did was grab hold of his bicycle, and while I had both hands on the frame, he punched me in the face.

The "eyewitnesses" were viewing the scene from a second-storey window and I was standing with my back to the window, at a slight angle, facing the cretin, across the street. My head and body would have blocked their view of pretty much anything happening in between us.

The "eyewitnesses" were employees of a small business whose customers and employees and delivery people, almost every day, parked in the parking space reserved for me by the landlord of the commercial property where I had my office, in a location where there was no on-street parking for blocks.

So there could have been one or both of two things happening:

- the "eyewitnesses", obnoxious men who had had to deal with a very stroppy woman for a couple of years and who undoubtedly had the same reaction to being told what to do by a woman as a large number of men have, were simply lying because this was their chance to get their own back

- the eyewitnesses were as reliable as many eyewitnesses are, which is to say they simply did not see what they thought they'd seen

I've been an eyewitness more than once, and I know just how problematic human perception and memory is.

The time I looked at the mug shots -- I had a perfect impression in my mind that I had been looking at a younger version of Kato Kaelin, but I'm sure that if they had put the actual person in front of me, I would not have been able to say yay or nay. The picture in my mind just wouldn't translate to an identification/recognition, I'm sure.

I had an ongoing problem with a neighbour family for several years; there were three sons, ranging in age from about 12 to about 19, at the later point, and they were huge problems in the neighbourhood. There were also the two pit bulls and the doberman. The two elder sons looked much alike, although the eldest was considerably bigger. He was the one who assaulted me on the sidewalk one day. I was on the way from my house to the 7-11, and noticed a perfect pile of torn-up coffee cup deposited in my driveway ... and him just crossing the street. So I picked it up and deposited it on his porch as I passed. He ... okay, I know how ludicrous this sounds, and it's exactly as ludicrous as it seemed to me at the time ... threw his shoe at me. So of course I picked up his shoe and kept on going. At that point he ran up behind me and kicked me hard in the thigh. He then backed off. I was carrying a bag full of large returnable pop bottles (those were the days). I started throwing them, so that they landed in front of him and shattered, to keep him at bay, while shouting for my friend/tenant to come down to the street. He was ultimately convicted of assault, on a guilty plea. Turned out he was up on an assault charge at the time it happened.

Funny thing was, while on bail he was subject to the condition of staying x distance away from me, and I had a pleasant 6 months. The Crown neglected to put that condition in his sentence. The day he was sentenced to probation, he was back at his old tricks. So I lucked into an interested detective, who decided to charge him with -- I'd have to look it up -- intentional interference in the use of property or something, having to do with how I couldn't step out my back door without being harassed. So we go to court, and there are the two brothers, sitting side by side in the courtroom, both wearing blue striped shirts. I told the Crown out in the hall that I wasn't sure I could identify the one who'd been charged as the one who dunnit. He just told me not to worry. So yes, I'm sure they charged the right guy, and I'm sure I identified the right guy -- but not because I "knew" the one I was looking at was the one I was looking at when the offence occurred.

Eyewitness evidence is vastly overrated. I don't know what explanation there was for the two "eyewitnesses" in the bicycle courier situation claiming to have seen something that didn't happen, but either way, it sure illustrates the dangers of relying on eyewitnesses.

Thus endeth my tale.

[L1A1Rocker]

78. YO, right here.

And I know where your going with this, good point too.

[bossy22]

87. i was punched in the face

back in high school during a hockey game- aka a hockey fight- came out with a bloody nose and almost needed stitches on my lower lip- and the fight only lasted about 3 seconds.

actually it really wasnt a fight it was more like a gorilla vs a punching bag- me being a 5'10 150 lb little jewish boy and getting my ass kicked by some kid who was atleast had 5 inches on me and 75 pounds.

[Indy Lurker]

97. another CCW arrest for Brady

Since they only count arrests and not convictions, regardless of the outcome, Brady will record this as an arrest of a CCW.