3 ms·

I think if i saw anyone wearing glass around my children i would detain them with extreme force until the police can arrive.

hga 13y ago
"I think if i saw anyone wearing glass around my children i would detain them with extreme force until the police can arrive." If that "extreme force" met the threshold of lethal force, I'd very possibly put N .45 ACP bullets into you until you were stopped, and yes, there's an all too high probability that this would result in my killing you right in front of your kids (only the courts are allowed to kill per se, but using a gun to stop an assailant obviously often results in their death). While in this incident the victim would not have been justified in using lethal force, I'm sure it's no accident he living in a county (which in this case equals the city) where only a handful of concealed carry permits have been issued (there might be as few as 2 outstanding at this time). It is likely that Peruta v. San Diego https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruta_v._San_Diego https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruta_v._San_Diego will be upheld (it follows Heller's reasoning very closely (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller )) and San Francisco will be forced to freely issue concealed carry permits in due course to citizens with clean records and all that, like Illinois right now. If so, it'll be interesting to see how that effects the slow motion pogrom that includes this incident.... Ignoring all that, if you were successful, you'd be in for quite a surprise when the police arrested you instead of the innocent you assaulted, and it sure sounds like "extreme force" would result in your being convicted of felony battery or whatever that crime is named in your jurisdiction. Hmmm, after such a display, once you got out of prison, you might find yourself barred from any contact from your kids; you would certainly not be setting a good example for them. Side note: California case law (!!!) has the strongest "Stand Your Ground" provision I've ever heard of, extending to allowing you to, "if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of bodily injure has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieve by retreating." (!!!) That's per the 2nd edition of Self Defense Laws of All 50 States (http://www.amazon.com/Self-Defense-Laws-States-Edition/dp/0984505873/ http://www.amazon.com/Self-Defense-Laws-States-Edition/dp/09... ), and the current, very well maintained state jury instructions.
- hga 13y ago
  Heh. Down vote me all you want for pointing out these Inconvenient Truths about the allowed responses to unprovoked assaults, that doesn't change reality one bit. I merely think people like Soytheyshould deserve fair warning.
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    Actually, you were just feeding a troll. That's what the downvoting is about, not your ego.
    - hga 13y ago
      He may be a troll, but he's expressing a sentiment that seems to be widespread in San Francisco; how many people to date have been assaulted for wearing Google Glass? At least a handful by my count, and I'm not even vaguely wired into what's happening there. ADDED: And none to my knowledge involving a parent's children. I don't think a lot of people realize the potential consequences of such beloved direct action. ADDED: see down thread, you were right, and I didn't recognize it.
      - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
        I get it; we defend our children unconditionally. Plus, its hard to tell WHAT's going on behind those glasses; an invasion of privacy is a pretty good bet. But there's no having a discussion about such things, especially not by text message. It just spirals out of control.
        hga 13y ago
        Well, some parents do, even when they should stop ("my son would never kill...."). I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about proportionality. You do you kids no good if you get yourself killed or imprisoned, with a record as a violent felon that will follow you for the rest of your life, for at best "an invasion of privacy" in a context were you presumably have no expectation of that.

hga 13y ago

"I think if i saw anyone wearing glass around my children i would detain them with extreme force until the police can arrive." If that "extreme force" met the threshold of lethal force, I'd very possibly put N .45 ACP bullets into you until you were stopped, and yes, there's an all too high probability that this would result in my killing you right in front of your kids (only the courts are allowed to kill per se, but using a gun to stop an assailant obviously often results in their death). While in this incident the victim would not have been justified in using lethal force, I'm sure it's no accident he living in a county (which in this case equals the city) where only a handful of concealed carry permits have been issued (there might be as few as 2 outstanding at this time). It is likely that Peruta v. San Diego https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruta_v._San_Diego https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruta_v._San_Diego will be upheld (it follows Heller's reasoning very closely (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller )) and San Francisco will be forced to freely issue concealed carry permits in due course to citizens with clean records and all that, like Illinois right now. If so, it'll be interesting to see how that effects the slow motion pogrom that includes this incident.... Ignoring all that, if you were successful, you'd be in for quite a surprise when the police arrested you instead of the innocent you assaulted, and it sure sounds like "extreme force" would result in your being convicted of felony battery or whatever that crime is named in your jurisdiction. Hmmm, after such a display, once you got out of prison, you might find yourself barred from any contact from your kids; you would certainly not be setting a good example for them. Side note: California case law (!!!) has the strongest "Stand Your Ground" provision I've ever heard of, extending to allowing you to, "if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of bodily injure has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieve by retreating." (!!!) That's per the 2nd edition of Self Defense Laws of All 50 States (http://www.amazon.com/Self-Defense-Laws-States-Edition/dp/0984505873/ http://www.amazon.com/Self-Defense-Laws-States-Edition/dp/09... ), and the current, very well maintained state jury instructions.

hga 13y ago
Heh. Down vote me all you want for pointing out these Inconvenient Truths about the allowed responses to unprovoked assaults, that doesn't change reality one bit. I merely think people like Soytheyshould deserve fair warning.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  Actually, you were just feeding a troll. That's what the downvoting is about, not your ego.
  - hga 13y ago
    He may be a troll, but he's expressing a sentiment that seems to be widespread in San Francisco; how many people to date have been assaulted for wearing Google Glass? At least a handful by my count, and I'm not even vaguely wired into what's happening there. ADDED: And none to my knowledge involving a parent's children. I don't think a lot of people realize the potential consequences of such beloved direct action. ADDED: see down thread, you were right, and I didn't recognize it.
    - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
      I get it; we defend our children unconditionally. Plus, its hard to tell WHAT's going on behind those glasses; an invasion of privacy is a pretty good bet. But there's no having a discussion about such things, especially not by text message. It just spirals out of control.
      - hga 13y ago
        Well, some parents do, even when they should stop ("my son would never kill...."). I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about proportionality. You do you kids no good if you get yourself killed or imprisoned, with a record as a violent felon that will follow you for the rest of your life, for at best "an invasion of privacy" in a context were you presumably have no expectation of that.