So how hard is it to steal a Wrangler? - Page 3 - Jeep Wrangler Forum
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > General Discussion Forums > Off-Topic

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools

Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them on WranglerForum.com
Old 11-08-2012, 11:53 AM   #61
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 256
You know, this is pretty interesting, I've never had the pleasure of speaking about this topic with an attorney before. I've always found the laws surrounding this topic to be a little screwy. For instance, the law seems to believe that if you have training you also have complete control of the situation and judges you very harshly if something doesn't go as planned (i.e. they slip and fall). Our instructor has always said that training puts you at an effective disadvantage in court because regardless of how it goes down, your assailant can claim that you used excessive force. But my opinion on dangerous situations has always been that there are too many variables to take them lightly. The whole "tit for tat" idea of self defense that many states have is utter nonsense and nothing in the world works that way. I feel there are too many unknowns about attackers and if you want to walk away alive you need to bring everything you have to the table at once. I don't know what diseases, weapons, training, or intent they have so whenever I've been attacked my goal is to do as much damage as quickly as possible so they don't get the opportunity to do the same to me. I've found that rapid escalation is effective because it doesn't provide your attacker the ability to get one up on you and to be honest, most people just bail when you skip right to the violence step.

lordmike is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 12:10 PM   #62
Jeeper
 
fan of fanboys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 1,983
This thread has gotten pretty off topic but to add, in a much shorter manner ha, to the poster prior (with whom I agree 100% with) I hope to never be in such a situation but it seems like killing the person would be better than hurting. If the situation is as such you're using heavy force you risk being sued and liable. If you kill and it's within a reasonable situation then at least minimize being liable for injuries when only protecting yourself. Unless you're white and it's a minority.

__________________
not
/nät/
adverb
1. used with an auxiliary verb or “be” to form the negative
2. used as a short substitute for a negative clause
"Not actually a backer of this thought"
fan of fanboys is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 12:25 PM   #63
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordmike View Post
You know, this is pretty interesting, I've never had the pleasure of speaking about this topic with an attorney before. I've always found the laws surrounding this topic to be a little screwy. For instance, the law seems to believe that if you have training you also have complete control of the situation and judges you very harshly if something doesn't go as planned (i.e. they slip and fall). Our instructor has always said that training puts you at an effective disadvantage in court because regardless of how it goes down, your assailant can claim that you used excessive force. But my opinion on dangerous situations has always been that there are too many variables to take them lightly. The whole "tit for tat" idea of self defense that many states have is utter nonsense and nothing in the world works that way. I feel there are too many unknowns about attackers and if you want to walk away alive you need to bring everything you have to the table at once. I don't know what diseases, weapons, training, or intent they have so whenever I've been attacked my goal is to do as much damage as quickly as possible so they don't get the opportunity to do the same to me. I've found that rapid escalation is effective because it doesn't provide your attacker the ability to get one up on you and to be honest, most people just bail when you skip right to the violence step.
And I'm not sure I've ever heard anybody say it was a "pleasure" to speak with an attorney!

Both views are correct IMO. Training provides an advantage in the real world where it can give you an upperhand over an assailant, but a disadvantage in the courtroom where lawyers, judges, and juries who may have never trained or been in a fight assume your training provided you with complete control over the outcome.

Personally, I think on balance it's worth it to have the training. Just be aware if you ever need to use it that you must respond REASONABLY. That means with the proper amout of force to STOP the attack or PREVENT the theft. You don't get to respond in a LETHAL or near lethal way to some kid who tries to pick your pocket or some guy you walk upon trying to fish through your jeep's glove box.

(Caveat - Many states have the "Castle doctrine," which does allow much more flexibility if someone attacks you in your home, car, or sometimes office. That's different. I'm assuming here we're talking about "street" situations, in a parking garage, a bar, etc.)

In the unlikely event you must defend yourself or your property, respond reasonably, and yet severely injure the attacker, you may unfortunately also need to defend yourself legally afterwards. In doing so, the best approach will generally be to retain a lawyer and thereafter proceed with honesty--present evidence that you were responding reasonably, and it was happenstance that the attacker was injured much more severely than you had intended.
__________________
Mike
2010 JKU "Mountain" Edition
TeraFlex 2.5" Coil Lift : Old Man Emu Nitrocharger Shocks : 33x12.5R15 Goodyear DuraTracs : 15x8 Black Rock 909s : Other Stuff . . .
MTH is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 12:31 PM   #64
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by fan of fanboys View Post
This thread has gotten pretty off topic but to add, in a much shorter manner ha, to the poster prior (with whom I agree 100% with) I hope to never be in such a situation but it seems like killing the person would be better than hurting. If the situation is as such you're using heavy force you risk being sued and liable. If you kill and it's within a reasonable situation then at least minimize being liable for injuries when only protecting yourself. Unless you're white and it's a minority.
I would definitely say "no" to this one.

It has a certain appeal, but the reality is that it's much tougher to justify the use of intentionally lethal force, and if you fail to justify it you've just committed murder--which means you're going away for a very long time.

The opposite position is actually much safer. Use whatever training you have in whatever manner is most effective for you to safeguard yourself, others, and your property, but if the situation allows you to exercise some control, then try to do as little damage as possible.
__________________
Mike
2010 JKU "Mountain" Edition
TeraFlex 2.5" Coil Lift : Old Man Emu Nitrocharger Shocks : 33x12.5R15 Goodyear DuraTracs : 15x8 Black Rock 909s : Other Stuff . . .
MTH is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 12:46 PM   #65
Jeeper
 
fan of fanboys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 1,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH

I would definitely say "no" to this one.

It has a certain appeal, but the reality is that it's much tougher to justify the use of intentionally lethal force, and if you fail to justify it you've just committed murder--which means you're going away for a very long time.

The opposite position is actually much safer. Use whatever training you have in whatever manner is most effective for you to safeguard yourself, others, and your property, but if the situation allows you to exercise some control, then try to do as little damage as possible.
Depends on state and of course situation.
The woman in Florida was was victim of domestic violence shot a gun in air to scare him. Can get 20 years. Had she killed him max woulda been 15 years. And there is a chance she coulda had cause and got off free if good enough lawyer.

I totally get what you're saying. I wouldn't attempt to kill bc an issue after say dinner out. But if I'm being robbed and offering my material possessions isn't enough, the criminal is attempting physical violence I would hope I wouldn't hesitate ensure I walked away and he didn't.

I wrestled in college but no combat experience. I have a 9mm I carry when I can but don't have on my person just walking down the street though.
__________________
not
/nät/
adverb
1. used with an auxiliary verb or “be” to form the negative
2. used as a short substitute for a negative clause
"Not actually a backer of this thought"
fan of fanboys is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 01:35 PM   #66
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 256
There is an interesting thing that happens when you've trained a long time. You become acclimated to those you train with, people who are at a similar skill level and are much better equipped to handle the things that you throw at them. I used to be a bouncer and luckily never got into that many altercations... which is a very lucky thing because I would immediately respond to the level of one of my training partners, a level that a regular Joe is usually unprepared for. There were a couple of instances where I took it too far, but it really had more to do with me misjudging my opponent than being an overzealous brute.
lordmike is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 06:50 PM   #67
Jeeper
 
BlueRidgeYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,917
Interesting conversation.

It is all about that one guy, Mr Reasonable. You have to respond how he would, but Mr Reasonable doesn't have combat or defense training, so you have to properly adjust accordingly. That, in simple terms, is why you can't hit someone in a fight with a baseball bat. Or stab that guy stealing your change in the parking deck. It is a force multiplier, and that's cheating.

I didn't think 5th was as applicable to civil as it is to criminal, tort vs crime and all?

And then there is their right to a trial - so your actions can only stop and deter aggression, not punish. Like beating those neighborhood kids that rolled ya last week.

My shillings.
__________________
“Coming of age in a fascist police state will not be a barrel of fun for anybody, much less for people like me, who are not inclined to suffer Nazis gladly and feel only contempt for the cowardly flag-suckers who would gladly give up their outdated freedom to live for the mess of pottage they have been conned into believing will be freedom from fear.”
BlueRidgeYJ is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 07:50 PM   #68
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ
It is all about that one guy, Mr Reasonable. You have to respond how he would, but Mr Reasonable doesn't have combat or defense training, so you have to properly adjust accordingly. That, in simple terms, is why you can't hit someone in a fight with a baseball bat. Or stab that guy stealing your change in the parking deck. It is a force multiplier, and that's cheating.
The reasonable man. He's a heck of a guy.

To be honest, I don't recall whether the majority view applies the generic reasonable man, or whether it uses a reasonable man with your particular skill set. I do know that the reasonable man appears in both formats throughout the law in various spots.

My GUT is that the law would generally ask whether YOU responded reasonably and commensurately to the attack presented, and not necessarily critique your particular moves. Was it reasonable to sweep the guy? If yes, it's okay, you were defending yourself. If no, then you own the consequences.

Been awhile though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ
I didn't think 5th was as applicable to civil as it is to criminal, tort vs crime and all?
My recollection is that this is correct. However, you should still be able to refuse to answer on the grounds that you'll provide ammo for a criminal prosecution. Of course, depending on the circumstances, you may end up defaulting in the lawsuit as a result.
__________________
Mike
2010 JKU "Mountain" Edition
TeraFlex 2.5" Coil Lift : Old Man Emu Nitrocharger Shocks : 33x12.5R15 Goodyear DuraTracs : 15x8 Black Rock 909s : Other Stuff . . .
MTH is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 11-08-2012, 08:47 PM   #69
Jeeper
 
BlueRidgeYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,917
I was always under the impression generic was, well, genericly applied. I'm not the lawyer though

Makes sense in reference to evidence for prosecution, didn't think of it that way.

Thanks for the clarity.

__________________
“Coming of age in a fascist police state will not be a barrel of fun for anybody, much less for people like me, who are not inclined to suffer Nazis gladly and feel only contempt for the cowardly flag-suckers who would gladly give up their outdated freedom to live for the mess of pottage they have been conned into believing will be freedom from fear.”
BlueRidgeYJ is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




» Network Links
»Jeep Parts
» Featured Product

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:56 PM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC