Eugene Terre'blanche murdered

[lexity]

Have to pick your battles, otherwise you'll end up a....... mental case.

You're already there if you go to war with your allies.....

 

[Brian_G]

Hmm... allies... is there such a thing among the more serious secession types, have to wonder

 

[ForceFate]

If it were me, who was threatened, I would be able to put that into words before it happened i.e. I should be able to distinguish between a threat that can imminently lead to my death, and a threat that is trespass..

You haven't mentioned much detail, in terms of what precisely makes you feel you have to potentially take his life.

Trespassers seldom issue threats.

In the US you would be in big trouble because you didn't even inform the guy he's on private property and you intend to shoot him unless he leaves immediately.

I'm guessing that only happens in he movies.

Is it because you think all criminals don't respond to credible, imminent physical threats, themselves?

Many criminals carry out their deeds under influence of drugs. Unless they have have sadistic tendencies, they want to finish as quickly as possible before they escape. I dare you to reason wih this:

The truth, speaking for myself, is that as long as he is a few meters away and is only holding shovel, I'm not in any immediate danger... ESPECIALLY if I'm pointing a loaded glock at him and can easily drop him in a second by disabling him if tries to come any closer/fails to heed my warning.

Ever faced robbers?

The response should be in proportion to the threat. There is too much information that you do not know in that first few seconds.

If he could be a threat to you, that's not far enough. You have to take action in proportion to the actual threat. Not one that might occur 30 seconds from now.

So, pointing a loaded weapon is a very effect way to de-escalate that particular situation. If he fails to drop the shovel and leave immediately, you then have evidence of a threat escalation. Only then can you do the same.... to match the threat/the amount of defensive force you will need to disable/nullify the threat.

If you kill someone, by mistake, by prematurely attributing motive where there is none it will change you as a person.... for the rest of your life, and if you believe you live many lives, you will probably look for reasons not to believe that any more.

My post was about imminent threat.

 

[lexity]

Hmm... allies... is there such a thing among the more serious secession types, have to wonder

Let me guess which slogan has you by the short and curlies....

'Better Together,' 'Stronger Together', "He aint' heavy, he's my brother," 'No child left behind,' 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.'

All of the above?

 

[Brian_G]

(see, I let him have the last word, again )

 

[OutlawJoseyWales]

A threat has to be defined objectively.

It can't be subjectively based i.e. on your feelings at the time, how threatened you felt, on your level of fear at the time.

If it was, we'd all be totally dependent on arbitrary decision-makers, as though we were overgrown children standing in court before adults.

As we can see some people are petrified when they are called a name, and will have you jailed, today.... it's called 'hate-speech' law.

HS law is completely based on feelings.

You clearly aren't familiar with just how dangerous a knife can be.

I've seen a policeman killed with a knife while pointing his gun at the person holding it.

A couple steps and that distance between them and you is closed and they are stabbing you to death even if you have shot them.

This is not the movies where you shoot someone and they fall to the ground immediately, unless you hit the heart or head in the right place.

 

[FiestaST]

Thread needs more people from the back of the class with:

Eugene Terre'blanche was murdered??

 

[lexity]

You clearly aren't familiar with just how dangerous a knife can be.

I've seen a policeman killed with a knife while pointing his gun at the person holding it.

A couple steps and that distance between them and you is closed and they are stabbing you to death even if you have shot them.

This is not the movies where you shoot someone and they fall to the ground immediately, unless you hit the heart or head in the right place.

I honed in on the shovel.

Partly because I see people relinquishing responsibility for working out their morals. If you aren't very clear on your morals, you will simply try to off-load as much responsibility as you can to others dressed in uniform and wigs/gowns.

THAT is the bigger problem.

See how, gradually, 'shovel' turned to 'knife,' and 'a few meters' turned to 'imminent threat,' and now knife 'at a few meters' has become a knife 'lunged so quickly that bullets can't stop him'.

Also notice that what I advocated from the start i.e. proportionate use of force, still applies in your fast-lunging example.

It's subjective in that each person has to should have to make the judgement, and bear full responsibility for his actions, but objective in that the same standard should apply to all.

And there's a check there in that you would want to be judged accurately by someone who was too hasty in opening fire on you under some mistaken, flakey 'threatening' circumstance. It's a cultural skill that requires cultivating.

When one side of the political isle wants to deprive you of this responsibility, you had better be prepared to exercise economic boycott and social ostracism... before its too late.

You can already be arrested for name-calling. That's someone considering you a mortal threat, and acting violently against your person and property because of their irrational insecurities.

 

[NoStepOnSnek88]

If it were me, who was threatened, I would be able to put that into words before it happened i.e. I should be able to distinguish between a threat that can imminently lead to my death, and a threat that is trespass..

You haven't mentioned much detail, in terms of what precisely makes you feel you have to potentially take his life.

In the US you would be in big trouble because you didn't even inform the guy he's on private property and you intend to shoot him unless he leaves immediately.

No, read his post again the criteria has been met, doesn't matter if he was on your property or in the parking lot of your local shop, your life was in imminent danger.

Is it because you think all criminals don't respond to credible, imminent physical threats, themselves?

With all due respect, you haven't seen or experienced real violence, nor have you truly researched any of it.

You are probably of the believe that if you rack your pump action shotgun the criminal kant will run for the hills after hearing that sound.

The truth, speaking for myself, is that as long as he is a few meters away and is only holding shovel, I'm not in any immediate danger...

I posted a few questions you never answered, but here they are again.



what do you think happens when he leaps / lunges forward and stabs you or connects the shovel or pickaxe to your head ?



Secondly, I assume your family is inside the house, can you now 100% guarantee that after he has either killed you or severely injured you by stabbing you multiple times or has beaten you with the shovel or pickaxe he will not enter your home and do the same to your family?

Do you practice often with your firearm, what is the average time for the average Joe or Jane to draw a firearm from concealment and fire the 1st round accurately on target center mass ?

Now, calculate how long it takes to leap / lunge forward to either stab or to swing a shovel or pickaxe?

ESPECIALLY if I'm pointing a loaded glock at him and can easily drop him in a second by disabling him if tries to come any closer/fails to heed my warning.

Bullets do weird things, and handgun calibres aren't the best man stopper so when you make the claim that he can easily be dropped or disabled, I say again you truly haven't researched this at all.

Besides how are you going through your daily routine whilst holding a Glock in your hand the entire day ?

The response should be in proportion to the threat. There is too much information that you do not know in that first few seconds.

If he could be a threat to you, that's not far enough. You have to take action in proportion to the actual threat. Not one that might occur 30 seconds from now.

@ForceFate scenario was clear, actual gun fights usually only last a few seconds, in @ForceFate scenario you'll be dead or severely hurt if it were a determined hardened criminal.

If the attacker has a knife, shovel or pickaxe etc and your life is in imminent danger the proportion force would be as many shots centre mass until the threat is no longer a threat.

But somehow you think one would be able to take out a clipboard and do a box ticking exercise.

So, pointing a loaded weapon is a very effect way to de-escalate that particular situation.

Again I ask, how are you going through your daily routine with a Glock in your hand the entire day ?

If he fails to drop the shovel and leave immediately, you then have evidence of a threat escalation. Only then can you do the same.... to match the threat/the amount of defensive force you will need to disable/nullify the threat.

There's no such thing, in @ForceFate example scenario you would shoot until the attacker is no longer a threat, whether that is one shot or ten shots no person would be able to tell you.

Warning shots, shooting for the legs etc are stupid and a bunch of braai stories, good way of ending up dead or maimed for life.

If you kill someone, by mistake, by prematurely attributing motive where there is none it will change you as a person.... for the rest of your life, and if you believe you live many lives, you will probably look for reasons not to believe that any more.

Also, the sad real world reality is, in a scenario as @ForceFate example at the end of the day it's either your life or the life of the attacker, there's no happy Disney ending.

 

[capd]

So what is your mission by necro-ing a thread as old as my son?
Mis djy dalk vir ou Eugene?

Forum etiquette

 

[capd]

 

[lexity]

No, read his post again the criteria has been met, doesn't matter if he was on your property or in the parking lot of your local shop, your life was in imminent danger.

I can give you my answer, which is not really going to help you I don't think...

I would look to use sufficient force to disable my attacker.

With all due respect, you haven't seen or experienced real violence, nor have you truly researched any of it.

Now, now.

You don't know me very well, partly because an online forum is not the appropriate place to get to know someone personally.

You are probably of the believe that if you rack your pump action shotgun the criminal kant will run for the hills after hearing that sound.

My guy, I am an agnostic.

In the moment, human beings - of which I am one(as far as I know) - can and do tend to surprise themselves in their reactions to immediate threats.

I've had a fair few of those in my time so far. Some of them I considered life-threatening.

I posted a few questions you never answered, but here they are again.

Been a busy morning .. forgive me

what do you think happens when he leaps / lunges forward and stabs you or connects the shovel or pickaxe to your head ?

Apart from an massive instant head-ache?

Hard to say until all the details you're omitting unfold in that moment, tbh.

But I would like to think I have my priorities worked out ahead of time, to give myself the best chance of good judgement in the moment.

Secondly, I assume your family is inside the house, can you now 100% guarantee that after he has either killed you or severely injured you by stabbing you multiple times or has beaten you with the shovel or pickaxe he will not enter your home and do the same to your family?

I have been confront with some very dodgy characters, dude.

The best lesson so far for me is probably along the lines of Aikido..... learn to avoid in the first place, or get out of a dicey situation without actually indulging in any life-changing exchanges.

Do you practice often with your firearm, what is the average time for the average Joe or Jane to draw a firearm from concealment and fire the 1st round accurately on target center mass ?

Now, calculate how long it takes to leap / lunge forward to either stab or to swing a shovel or pickaxe?

Suffice to say.... the advice - to practice - is, in my book, the best advice to any Joe or Jane.

Bullets do weird things, and handgun calibres aren't the best man stopper so when you make the claim that he can easily be dropped or disabled, I say again you truly haven't researched this at all.

Practice is again what should give you the best chance.

Besides how are you going through your daily routine whilst holding a Glock in your hand the entire day ?



@ForceFate scenario was clear, actual gun fights usually only last a few seconds, in @ForceFate scenario you'll be dead or severely hurt if it were a determined hardened criminal.

If the attacker has a knife, shovel or pickaxe etc and your life is in imminent danger the proportion force would be as many shots centre mass until the threat is no longer a threat.

But somehow you think one would be able to take out a clipboard and do a box ticking exercise.


Again I ask, how are you going through your daily routine with a Glock in your hand the entire day ?

My only point is that believe it or not you can prepare to some extent... i.e. be better prepared, by clarifying what the moral consequences of self-defense and the lack thereof, are.

I encourage that process, generally speaking, because I see a lot of people relinquishing responsibility for decision-making to the State. People who tend to conflate 'moral' and 'legal'.

There's no such thing, in @ForceFate example scenario you would shoot until the attacker is no longer a threat, whether that is one shot or ten shots no person would be able to tell you.

There is too much information that is lacking n both your and ForceFate's scenarios for me to give you a definitive answer. All I can do is tell you what would hope I would be my focus/priority in that moment.

A lot of that is due to how people act under conditions of a sudden rush of addrenaline and a 1000 other variables.

Warning shots, shooting for the legs etc are stupid and a bunch of braai stories, good way of ending up dead or maimed for life.

Also, the sad real world reality is, in a scenario as @ForceFate example at the end of the day it's either your life or the life of the attacker, there's no happy Disney ending.

More detail is needed, I think. And still it would be difficult because the moment is the moment. It's instinctual.

If you want to, give more details on this hypothetical situation. Otherwise, it's not going to be a very useful answer I don't think, dude.

 

[lexity]

Trespassers seldom issue threats.

I'm guessing that only happens in he movies.

Many criminals carry out their deeds under influence of drugs. Unless they have have sadistic tendencies, they want to finish as quickly as possible before they escape. I dare you to reason wih this:

Ever faced robbers?

My post was about imminent threat.

What constitutes a serious threat is an interesting line of pursuit.

Yours are one-liners, so I'm not sure how up for a conversation you are. I have just answered Snek, above.... and he was speaking on your behalf a little bit. Maybe check my answers to him in that post and come back if you want to get into a more in-depth conversation.

p.s. I've watched that exact video before, in fact. The one you linked to. I've been confronted and robbed by more or less the same level of criminal. The gang-violent type, in the Cape, though. Managed to get my stuff back in that instance.

 

[thestaggy]

If it were me, who was threatened, I would be able to put that into words before it happened i.e. I should be able to distinguish between a threat that can imminently lead to my death, and a threat that is trespass..

You haven't mentioned much detail, in terms of what precisely makes you feel you have to potentially take his life.

In the US you would be in big trouble because you didn't even inform the guy he's on private property and you intend to shoot him unless he leaves immediately.

Is it because you think all criminals don't respond to credible, imminent physical threats, themselves?

The truth, speaking for myself, is that as long as he is a few meters away and is only holding shovel, I'm not in any immediate danger... ESPECIALLY if I'm pointing a loaded glock at him and can easily drop him in a second by disabling him if tries to come any closer/fails to heed my warning.

The response should be in proportion to the threat. There is too much information that you do not know in that first few seconds.

If he could be a threat to you, that's not far enough. You have to take action in proportion to the actual threat. Not one that might occur 30 seconds from now.

So, pointing a loaded weapon is a very effect way to de-escalate that particular situation. If he fails to drop the shovel and leave immediately, you then have evidence of a threat escalation. Only then can you do the same.... to match the threat/the amount of defensive force you will need to disable/nullify the threat.

If you kill someone, by mistake, by prematurely attributing motive where there is none it will change you as a person.... for the rest of your life, and if you believe you live many lives, you will probably look for reasons not to believe that any more.

21 feet is considered the ''danger zone'' when dealing with an attacker armed with a melee weapon. And at that distance it only takes them 1.5 seconds to reach you. So an attacker doesn't even need to be in your personal space to be an immediate threat.

If you have have not got a firearm drawn within this window, you are already in serious trouble.

Tueller Drill

The Tueller Drill is a situational awareness and reaction-time exercise designed to illustrate the danger posed by an attacker armed with a melee weapon at close range, that underscores how quickly a close-range threat can escalate. Tueller did his tests and studies at 21 feet (6.4 metres, 7 yards) because it was already common for officers to train to shoot from this distance. Tueller found that a person would be in danger if an attacker came at him from this distance.

Sergeant Dennis Tueller of the Salt Lake City Police Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife, or other melee weapon, could cover 21 feet (6.4 m), so he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. These results were first published as an article in SWAT magazine in 1983 and in a police training video by the same title, "How Close Is Too Close?"

MythBusters covered the drill in the 2012 episode "Duel Dilemmas". At 20 ft (6.1 m), the gun-wielder was able to shoot the charging knife attacker just as he reached the shooter. At shorter distances the knife wielder was always able to stab prior to being shot

 

[lexity]

21 feet is considered the ''danger zone'' when dealing with an attacker armed with a melee weapon. And at that distance it only takes them 1.5 seconds to reach you. So an attacker doesn't even need to be in your personal space to be an immediate threat.

If you have have not got a firearm drawn within this window, you are already in serious trouble.

Tueller Drill

'[Standing in the driveway, a few meters away, with a glock pointed at him.]'

That was the scenario. Which began to morph when I provided push-back.

 

[thestaggy]

'[Standing in the driveway, a few meters away, with a glock pointed at him.]'

That was the scenario. Which began to morph when I provided push-back.

What's a ''few meters"?

As pointed out, the person need not be in your personal space and even with your weapon drawn, you have a 1.5 seconds to get a shot off, and you best hope that shot stops the attacker. Throw in other variables such as the attacker being under the fluence of drugs (which is common, especially in SA) and adrenaline, and there is a good chance that a single non-fatal shot won't stop them.

 

[lexity]

What's a ''few meters"?

As pointed out, the person need not be in your personal space and even with your weapon drawn, you have a 1.5 seconds to get a shot off, and you best hope that shot stops the attacker. Throw in other variables such as the attacker being under the fluence of drugs (which is common, especially in SA) and adrenaline, and there is a good chance that a single non-fatal shot won't stop them.

Armchair scenarios lack real world detail.... that's why they have such a poor reputation/track-record, in debates.

 

[MirageF1]

I've been following this thread since it was resuscitated, and there's 1 individual who clearly enjoys mental masturbation...because anyone who thinks that 1.5 secs gives them sufficient time to absorb, process and then make a very possible life changing decision in the spur of moment is either delusional at best or more likely read too much "love thine brother sh*t".

Kinda like most of the world telling the Israelis after Oct 7th to act proportionally! Imagine the Yanks being told to act proportionally if a few 1000 Mexicans crossed the border and slaughtered, maimed , raped and held hostage 60,000 of their citizens! Easy to preach when the ball isn't in your court!!

Ivory towers....

 

[thestaggy]

Armchair scenarios lack real world detail.... that's why they have such a poor reputation/track-record, in debates.

Read the article I linked to.

Actual tests and studies conducted by police in the US arrived at what is a minimum engagement range when dealing with someone armed with a knife or other melee weapon. The outcome of which has driven the training of officers.

Your average citizen, who has never been in a life of death situation and who has never used their firearm in anger, will probably have even worse reaction times.

 

[lexity]

Read the article I linked to.

Actual tests and studies conducted by police in the US arrived at what is a minimum engagement range when dealing with someone armed with a knife or other melee weapon. The outcome of which has driven the training of officers.

Your average citizen, who has never been in a life of death situation and who has never used their firearm in anger, will probably have even worse reaction times.

This to me seems like an argument for better training and greater individual responsibility for judgement calls.

Rather than abandoning these in favor of killing someone to make sure there is 100% chance it doesn't develop into a more threatening situation.

I will read your link. Please read a bit more of this thread for context.