Yeah ok. Q constantly degrades and attempts to bully other posters on the forum. In his post he degrades me, and hpd implying that everyone is an idiot compared to him. I respond to constant disrespect and my post get deleted. Haha. Censorship at its best. 

Amazing.

While I won't comment on your perception of this alleged bullying, mainly because I haven't had the opportunity to read all the posts from/between you two, I will say that I went back and read this post from the beginning. And it was you who started the roe by replying to a comment "Q" made, not to you, but others, with this remark:

You are the type of person I hope and pray never have the opportunity to carry concealed because you will fuck it up for others by power tripping.

Have fun in prison.

And while I don't think I'd be too offended by it (I have developed very thick skin...) I can see how one might. Additionally, this, and subsequent posts, seem to suggest to me (and hence I suspect other readers) that you believe only you have the correct answer to the question of "would a concealed weapon have been useful in this situation" and this attitude is quite apparent in your responses about preemptively striking someone. As I said, I think you made a valid point in suggesting you try to leave. I firmly believe the best gun fight is the one you're not in and that when you carry a gun you should try to avoid and deescalate situations such as this one. But, I also believe that others may interpret the situation differently and that may or may not result in a favorable court decision. It does no good to stand and say "I'm right, you're wrong" or to suggest that because a different opinion is presented that said person should "never have the opportunity to carry concealed..." 

Do you have case law or specific, identifiable cases or instances where you could demonstrate your advice/opinion are correct? Share them. They would be more instructional and useful to those of us constantly trying to do the right thing in terms of protecting ourselves and our loved ones. I constantly try to read up on Defensive Gun Uses, the latest court decisions, and outcomes of self defense and gun cases. I'm pretty sure I have seen different, but similar self defense cases decided in different ways, meaning one was a justified use of force, the other not. You learn what you can, validate and evaluate the information available to you, use the experiences of others to help guide you in similar circumstances, and then make the best decision you can. As one very smart lawyer once said to me, anytime you go to court you're gambling.

Yes HiCarry your right . (me) not knowing laws would of been wrong .  If he had a disability then that's on him . As for me I do what I do best ..... Scream and run like a little girl . It got me thru high school and this far

We all have to do what is right for us :-)

As soon as intent, opportunity, capability are met - I'm not about to wait for shit to go down.  I would have most likely tried to leave, if followed then I could pull the knife / spray.

You don't just get to run up on people and threaten them with harm.

"(2)  The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury."

Do I think it's necessary to use it? Well that depends.  He looks wired, agitated, younger, more threatening, more athletic, and more capable of putting up a sustained fight then the average person.    Serious bodily injury?  Felony could be considered serious injury, and this guy is capable of that.

I would not mess with you! 1.3 seconds.  You are pretty good.......

We all have to do what is right for us :-)

Come at me bro!

While I won't comment on your perception of this alleged bullying, mainly because I haven't had the opportunity to read all the posts from/between you two, I will say that I went back and read this post from the beginning. And it was you who started the roe by replying to a comment "Q" made, not to you, but others, with this remark:

And while I don't think I'd be too offended by it (I have developed very thick skin...) I can see how one might. Additionally, this, and subsequent posts, seem to suggest to me (and hence I suspect other readers) that you believe only you have the correct answer to the question of "would a concealed weapon have been useful in this situation" and this attitude is quite apparent in your responses about preemptively striking someone. As I said, I think you made a valid point in suggesting you try to leave. I firmly believe the best gun fight is the one you're not in and that when you carry a gun you should try to avoid and deescalate situations such as this one. But, I also believe that others may interpret the situation differently and that may or may not result in a favorable court decision. It does no good to stand and say "I'm right, you're wrong" or to suggest that because a different opinion is presented that said person should "never have the opportunity to carry concealed..." 

Do you have case law or specific, identifiable cases or instances where you could demonstrate your advice/opinion are correct? Share them. They would be more instructional and useful to those of us constantly trying to do the right thing in terms of protecting ourselves and our loved ones. I constantly try to read up on Defensive Gun Uses, the latest court decisions, and outcomes of self defense and gun cases. I'm pretty sure I have seen different, but similar self defense cases decided in different ways, meaning one was a justified use of force, the other not. You learn what you can, validate and evaluate the information available to you, use the experiences of others to help guide you in similar circumstances, and then make the best decision you can. As one very smart lawyer once said to me, anytime you go to court you're gambling.

 

and it made the news!
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/24771687/racially-charged-rant-could-result-in-serious-charges

Agreed, there are some bad vets, but that goes for anything.  Like I said earlier, there is no shortage of assholes.  But I'm not sure how that is relevant to what I commented on the post where Dblnaknak basically discredited Army credentials and laughed at his service (while I was unaware of his background).  With that said, I was unaware that I stepped into a pissing match between different services (which I think is lame) or between each other, so I will leave that alone because for all I know those two actually know each other.  BTW, no where in my post did I imply that shitting on HPD was ok either.

I didn't even know about this service vs service thing. 

And I too am trying to locate where I am shitting on HPD and Cops, given that I was at one time the guardian angel of all LEO on this forum. I'm pretty sure I said shitbag cops who gives out information that is going to get someone or their loved ones hurt or killed because they don't think individuals who threaten bodily injury and/or death is serious enough to escalate to presentation/application of deadly force.

I really don't care who you are; giving information that is going to get someone hurt makes you a Dbag

We all have to do what is right for us :-)

like I stated earlier some knowledge comes out of dispute

It is quite FASCINATING

 

I would not mess with you! 1.3 seconds.  You are pretty good.......

I'm happy with my shooting abilities.  Thanks for posting a video from nearly two years ago =)   Lots of people know me; lots of people have seen me shoot; many of them have held timers for me on it.  Not saying anything that I haven't put to paper in front of other individuals.

More importantly, you completely missed the point of the post.

ok, we have one vote for i am not mature enough, and i accept that answer
i am not trained nor secure enough with my knowledge of laws and weapons handling at this point to carry

and we have one vote for verbal, then pepper/oc spray, then weapon only if forcibly threatened

anyone else have a contribution?

I encourage you to think about what we discussed in class about deadly force.  There may be times when one is legally justified, but you still have a moral responsibility to try and avoid the conflict.   Problems here are that turning away from this individual may provoke him more, or allow him the opportunity to blind side you.  I, for one, would not turn away from this individual he's just too close for me not to give him full attention.

I encourage you to think about what we discussed in class about deadly force.  There may be times when one is legally justified, but you still have a moral responsibility to try and avoid the conflict.   Problems here are that turning away from this individual may provoke him more, or allow him the opportunity to blind side you.  I, for one, would not turn away from this individual he's just too close for me not to give him full attention.

Chris, unfortunately I never took your class. Sorry.
Thanks for your input.

I'm happy with my shooting abilities.  Thanks for posting a video from nearly two years ago =)   Lots of people know me; lots of people have seen me shoot; many of them have held timers for me on it.  Not saying anything that I haven't put to paper in front of other individuals.

More importantly, you completely missed the point of the post.

that's pretty cool . Not being an ass but when can I go to learn to better my hand gun techniques ?

This is my earlier post that got deleated by a moderator yet Q's post is still up bashing me. I cleaned it up a bit so he can use less vagisil.

You are right in that I was military police, but should note that my ASVAB was actually 121, with my lowest score being 105, and I volunteered to be an MP so I could have more credentials when I applied for the department you work at. Thank god I had common sense not to follow through with that, because then I'd have to work with bullshit cops like yourself who think that that just because they work for HPD, they actually have real time experience, talking about subjects they only learned about through some bullshit power point presentation.

To carry on, sorry; I didn't wash out of AIT. In fact, I was one of (6) individuals who were selected to be apart of the Accelerated Military Police Program (AMPs), which would mean that I was selected amongst ~170 soldiers, and had to maintain expert in every qualification and pass every exam with a minimum of 80%. Based on your limited knowledge of how to actually use a gun when it counts, I'd assume you'd be one of those guys that skated by with the basic marksman qual on all your weapon systems, am I right?

And Ding!Ding! You are right again in that I deployed to Afghanistan, only I volunteered to go because I wanted to earn my stripes as soldier, unlike you who were probably forced to go. And I don't know where you got this 'play cop' idea while deployed, but we conducted the same patrols that infantry units did, all while teaching Afghan National Police how to be cops. Would you like me to list my AOs as well?

And speaking on training and experience, rather than tell all my war stories, lets see what kind of training I actually had, shall we?

- MPI qualified
- Traffic department qualified
- PSD qualified
- Hostage Negotiation qualified, Level 1
- multiple joint operations with CID and MPI, to include multiple stings on instances of narcotics, child pornography, murder and rape *P.S. - I carried concealed for these  *
- Expert in EVERY weapon system I operated with, to include the M9, M4, 249, 240B, MK19, M2 and M203
- CIPs certified
- Army Combat Pistol certified, meaning that I was acting as JNCOIC or NCOIC when I was an E3/E4, instructing company and battalion sized elements in the use and operation of their pistol
- Army Combat Rifle certified, meaning that I was acting as JNCOIC or NCOIC when I was an E3/E4, instructing company and battalion sized elements in the use and operation of their rifle
- Combatives Level 3 certified

Would you like me to tell you how many tickets and people I pulled over as well? How about how many forced extractions my squad did in Afghanistan? Maybe how many actual QRF scenarios we were involved in? Would you like to total miles rucked by our squad in the 1 month we operated in an isolated AO with 10 Mountain and 3rd ID? Because I actually kept logs of almost everything I did. You know, like how real cops keep logs?


So now that I have divulged my training record, let the peanut gallery note that you STILL haven't provided any credentials other than the random whispers that you are HPD. And from your deep fascination with the fact that I was an MP and trying to discredit my legitimate experiences and training because you associate MP with a negative outlook, I'd assume that you were in some shit bag MOS, most definitely a POG of some sort. I think I'll go with something in intelligence; maybe a cook. Yes, I think I'll stick with cook.

If you were somehow apart of a combat arms unit, you were probably some shit bag soldier that couldn't take it, quit, and is now working in HPD because you were desperate for a job, due to your lack of legitimate training and/or experience. Oh, and I forgot to mention that the only reason you probably got your job has nothing to do with experience, but rather they are just looking to boost their numbers and prefer prior service members to save on training costs. 

As a cop, you have probably never drawn your service weapon other than to qual, and you probably have never really been in a situation that required you to even use lower levels of force, such as OC or baton, because someone who has had to utilize their entire EOF table would probably know that the feature video is grounds for escalation to presentation of deadly force if the individual would choose to continue to be aggressive after multiple requests to stop, given that most people who CCW don't carry a OC or a baton, resulting in their EOF table being shorter than an LEO. The only experience you probably have is the same experience most other shitbag cops have, in that they assist other officers in taking down or booking a suspect, and claim that they actually did the work to win the heart of a girl who is dumb enough to believe your story. Any legitimate experience was probably had on the coattails of another officer, in which you will try to portray yourself as the officer who actually responded and handled the situation.

So  I'm pretty sure that I have far more legitimate experience than you with regards to CCW and EOF, even though I'm just some fat has been who wants nothing to do with LEO anymore. Still, I'm sure my training and experience record will continue to walk circles around your training record for years to come, so please feel free to continue playing to the masses of how much more knowledgeable you are on the subject, even though you have yet to provide any legitimate evidence demonstrating you have experience on the subject 

Haha. I hit the nail on the head.

You was an ARMY MP stop acting like you was a real cop.

You turned in you gun at then end of your shift.

That explains a lot.

Let me break it down for you:

Strike 1, I'm not HPD as you assume, nor have I ever been HPD.

Strike 2, I'm not in the army as you assume. Nor, have I ever wanted to be in the army.

Strike 3, your army experience does not equate to civilian law enforcement. Stop imagining that it does. You are not the defining authority on use of force because it differs from civilian law enforcement and military. I know because I've attended some of your training that you claim.

Damn I cut a lot out of that. So if it gets deleted by the biased moderator PM me and I'll send it to you.

But what if the guy in the video wasn't skilled in striking? Or had a hidden disability, like heart disease, asthma, or back problems that precluded him from engaging in such physical endeavors?

IMHO I think there are valid points (generally speaking)on both sides of this discussion and that each one trying to persuade the others (and hence the readers of this forum) should try to do so with facts and case law instead of vague references to super secret training or unstated "professional" experiences. There may be differing opinions on what may, or may not, constitute legitimate use of deadly force against an unarmed individual and the goal should be to educate yourself on different circumstances so that you are prepared in the event you have to make those decisions in the heat of a very stressful situation. The trier of facts, aided by the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, be it a jury or a judge, will view each circumstance differently and use a reasonable man standard to weigh the evidence and determine whether or not the use of deadly force was appropriate.  That being said, based on the training I have had and the research I have done, I would say that in this particular case there wasn't a need to pull out a gun on the obnoxious punk...yet. But I can also see how it could have escalated to that point or that another individual,especially someone unfamiliar with the "local culture," or who was smaller or less capable of some hand-to-hand defense, might have evaluated the situation differently and legitimately felt compelled to use a firearm. 

I agree that if you can leave, do so. Ego and machismo will not look good in retrospect while trying to defend your actions in court. I can also see the possibility that as you tried to leave, precisely because you wanted to avoid further confrontation and escalation, that Mr. We Hit Women and Dogs All The Time, may have become even more infuriated and tried to stop you. Recall that he told the guy to sit down. He could have interpreted trying to leave as a blatant disregard of his "command" and responded by escalating the situation.

I disagree that you cannot legally justify hitting someone preemptively based on your perceived risk of danger. As Justice Holms, in Brown v. United States said, "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." If you are cornered by someone like this, or can't leave because doing so would place others, such as your wife or girlfriend, in jeopardy, and he is increasingly encroaching on your "space" and you feel his attack may escalate soon, there is nothing that says you cannot strike first. Continuing your attack after the threat was eliminated would probably be deemed unwarranted, but I doubt several quick and continuous blows to disable the attacker would be seen as unjustified. The same principle can be applied to the use of a firearm. You need not wait until your attacker has pulled his gun, or his knife, or even hit you, depending on the circumstances, before you present your firearm. You also don't have to actually shoot once your gun "clears leather" either. If producing your firearm causes the assailant to stop his attack and backs away, shooting him would probably be seen as unjustified.

If you had other options, like pepper spray, and tried to use it but ultimately had to use your gun, it would probably be viewed in a positive light.

The bottom line is, IMHO, is that these discussions become more of a "I'm right and you're not" rather than an opportunity to learn from others. Even in the clarity of hindsight most self defense cases are shades of grey, not a clear cut, black and white case. To claim that it is always wrong to strike preemptively or that is never appropriate to shoot an unarmed person clearly shows either how little you know about the realities of self defense, or that your ego demands you always be correct. Regardless, it sheds little light on what is a complex, often nuanced situations.

It would be nice, as I said earlier, if positions and arguments could be based more on fact and case law, and that if one chooses to invoke the "in my experience" argument rather than in the aforementioned manner, that at the very least that experience was clearly stated so that the reader could evaluate the validity of said opinion themselves.

By no means an exhaustive or complete treatise on self defense, but an interesting read.....Oh, and the standard disclaimer: IANAL, this is not legal advice and represents my opinions only....
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/Self-Defense-Cases.htm

wow, well said HiCarry. Alot of alternatives discussed and some great points brought up. IMHO, i think the cause of the majority of the heartburn in this thread stems from the perception that the tendancy by some is to gain CCW to neutralize all threats.  We are all individuals, we all have good days and bad days, and sometimes emotions do get heated.  Its bothersome to me how easily and " ready " some ppl are to proceed to "use DEADLY force" without attempting to explore alternatives.  Id also like to apologize for my behavior in the Roosevelt thread.

To others...
You guys are killing me (no pun intended) with the what if scenarios.  Since there are so many " ifs " being brought up, ... let me have a little fun...
what if the aggressive local was defending his elderly father with a heart condition that got scared of the loose dog and hit the dog cuz it was unleashed in a public park and it almost bit him, and his 21 year old son, was reacting to being told not to hit the dog by the caucasian. The angry local was also suffering from a mental disability linked to PTSD he picked up in Afghanistan and he was frustrated about losing his job due to the poor economy the land that he used to own was taken in a foreclosure by the mortgage company that the caucasian guy coinsidentally owned. 

Or

The Angry local was also a CCW advocate and believed in use of deadly force and when caucasian approached him about throwing something at the dog, the local considered it, intent, opportunity, and capability are met and popped a couple caps in the caucasian?

wow, well said HiCarry. Alot of alternatives discussed and some great points brought up. IMHO, i think the cause of the majority of the heartburn in this thread stems from the perception that the tendancy by some is to gain CCW to neutralize all threats.  We are all individuals, we all have good days and bad days, and sometimes emotions do get heated.  Its bothersome to me how easily and " ready " some ppl are to proceed to "use DEADLY force" without attempting to explore alternatives.

To others...
You guys are killing me (no pun intended) with the what if scenarios.  Since there are so many " ifs " being brought up, ... let me have a little fun...
what if the aggressive local was defending his elderly father with a heart condition that got scared of the loose dog and hit the dog cuz it was unleashed in a public park and it almost bit him, and his 21 year old son, was reacting to being told not to hit the dog by the caucasian. The angry local was also suffering from a mental disability linked to PTSD he picked up in Afghanistan and he was frustrated about losing his job due to the poor economy the land that he used to own was taken in a foreclosure by the mortgage company that the caucasian guy coinsidentally owned. 

Or

The Angry local was also a CCW advocate and believed in use of deadly force and when caucasian approached him about throwing something at the dog, the local considered it, intent, opportunity, and capability are met and popped a couple caps in the caucasian?

Now that's funny. A different side of the coin.

This is the reason why some of you don't have the maturity to carry concealed. You have no idea what the law requires to justify deadly force. You going to shoot an unarmed guy because he terrorizes you verbally? Really. You are so afraid of words that you feel compelled to take a life? Your ego is so big that you can't be the better man and walk away? I pray that you are never allowed to carry concealed.

The law doesn't cover reasonable fear. It states "fear of imminent death or serious injury. "

Initially I wasn't going to respond to this but it is so stupid I have to address it.

You think you can interpret the law for us?  It's black and white:

§703-304  Use of force in self-protection.  (1)  Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-308,
the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately
necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.

     (2)  The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to
protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy.

There is no other standard applied, only the subject's BELIEF that force (deadly or not) is needed.  What you call "afraid of words" the law calls verbal assault and terroristic threatening.  Yeah, he might go away, or he might try to pull a Trayvon Martin.  The dude was acting irrationally, and you are trying to play Monday morning quarterback!  We already know the outcome, which makes it so easy for you to rationalize anything you want.  In the same situation, 10 people will handle it 10 different ways.  The one constant is the out-of-control ranter.  Try and tell me if this happened to you, you would not have had any adrenaline flowing!  That's a fear reaction.  I doubt you are super-human!  You would have been afraid ... I guarantee it!

If the person under assault BELIEVES he or his family are in immediate danger of serious injury, use of deadly force is justified. 

The "reasonable person" test is the standard for courts to determine whether or not a reasonable person would have felt threatened to the extent deadly force would be a reasonable decision.  This test is to prevent someone from justifying an overreaction by stating they were in fear for their lives. 

It's very subjective, which is why there is such a test.  I wonder how you pretend to know so much of the law and don't understand something so basic about this topic?

Please note:  The word "IMMINENT" is nowhere there.  Can you post a link to the reference you QUOTED above?

This is my earlier post that got deleated by a moderator yet Q's post is still up bashing me. I cleaned it up a bit so he can use less vagisil.

Haha. I hit the nail on the head.

You was an ARMY MP stop acting like you was a real cop.

You turned in you gun at then end of your shift.

That explains a lot.

Let me break it down for you:

Strike 1, I'm not HPD as you assume, nor have I ever been HPD.

Strike 2, I'm not in the army as you assume. Nor, have I ever wanted to be in the army.

Strike 3, your army experience does not equate to civilian law enforcement. Stop imagining that it does. You are not the defining authority on use of force because it differs from civilian law enforcement and military. I know because I've attended some of your training that you claim.

Damn I cut a lot out of that. So if it gets deleted by the biased moderator PM me and I'll send it to you.

So...

You aren't HPD and won't address requests for your credentials, even though credentials were provided to you when you requested them. Let it also be mentioned that you STILL haven't acknowledge if you are even LEO, so how is anyone to take your statements seriously if you have no legitimate backing? BTW, why are you telling people you are HPD if you aren't or never were apart of HPD?

You attempt to discredit my LEO and CCW experience because I was an MP, yet you still refuse to acknowledge which branch of service you were in or what your MOS was, which continues to place doubt into if you really served or not, specifically with regards to you saying 'I've attended some of the training you claim'. NEWS FLASH: Most of the training I've received is Army specific, so how would you have had the same training if you weren't in the Army? Sounds like BS to me.

You then say my experience isn't valid because I had to turn in my gun after my shift? NEWS FLASH: I lived off post. What can we have in our off post homes? Firearms. What can individuals do with their firearms in certain states? CARRY CONCEALED. So your failed logic fails to realize that just because someone turns in their service weapon after their shift, it doesn't prevent them from carrying concealed on their own time.

Finally, you say that my LEO experience doesn't equate to civilian LEO because what, we have extremely different procedures and EOF policies? NEWS FLASH:  We enforced both Post AND state laws on base. What does that mean? All incidents were treated within the confines of not only post regulations, but state/county laws as well. What does this mean? It means we did the same damn thing that normal county cops and sheriffs did in the area, as we had to enforce the same laws and then some.

So being that you said you have '18 years of experience' in the military, that would make you at least 36-40 years old, meaning that your experience with active duty MP LEO is what, 1996-2003? Yeah, sorry to completely reconstruct the known world for you, but MPs aren't just gate guards and ID checkers like you might remember. They are a legitimate LEO force that, as stated, enforce post and state law, so you might want to update your fact base before you assume things that happened almost 20 years ago are still happening today.

1st there is no crime called verbal assault! Don't know where you got that one from. You might want to look up the elements required for TT.

2nd the threat had to be imminent. You can't justify deadly force because you think the guy might attack you with deadly force 10-20 minutes from now.