[WyldOne]

i couldn't decide whether to post this here, or in entertainment, or in hob knobbing....sorry if it's in the wrong place :)

does anyone watch this show?

on the season finale, which i just saw tonight, one of the teachers was being stalked by a former student. so she bought a gun. (mighty simply, actually, which is weird considering the laws here. but i digress...).

anyway she basically has to point it at the dude in order to tell him to back off. (this happened off school grounds i believe). when this is brought to the principal's attentention, he suspends her for 2 months.

well i suck at describing it, so i guess you kinda had to see it.

i'm wondering what your thoughts are on how that situation was handled

[Frenchy]

The show has had about 3 different stories about guns or gun control, and all have been biased, IMO. There was one about teaching gun safety in the school. A student was told he could invite local NRA reps to the school to discuss this possibility, and was later "Pearl Harbored" by the teacher. Typical handling by Hollywood!

[BadMedicine]

I watch it. I really liek it aside from the gun BS.
Some have been pro gun, liek senit (SP) carries, everything. But I dont know, the NRA rep one was bad, he was definately ramrodded!

[Gusgus]

Yes, I watch it on occasion. In that episode, she was in fear for her life, and used the gun for defense "without firing a shot". In real life, this happens far more than is ever reported. Most of the time that a gun is used for defense or to stop a crime, IT IS NOT FIRED. The anti self defense organizations completely ignore these legitimate defensive use of firearms.

I only saw bits and pieces of the NRA episode. IIRC, the entire "gun safety" class was made up of "middle class white boys". Yeap, guns are tools of oppression, used only by rich white folk. The only Blacks & Hispanics that would even touch a gun are gang members and criminals. Stereotyping at it's very worse. :mad:

BTW, isn't Jeri Ryan joining the show this year? :o

[WyldOne]

Originally posted by Gusgus:
<STRONG>Yes, I watch it on occasion. In that episode, she was in fear for her life, and used the gun for defense "without firing a shot". </STRONG>

the weird thing (for me) is, do you have any idea how good it felt to actually see someone effectively use a gun for self defense w/o them firing it. any idea.

you all have said a million times on here that you don't always have to fire a gun to save your life. but until i watched it unfold (if it's on tv it's real? what's that about?) with my own eyes i couldn't get it.

and then she got in trouble.

[Frenchy]

BTW, isn't Jeri Ryan joining the show this year?

Yes, the "Borg" is on the show!! :)

[HiPower]

WyldOne, I would caution you against the attitude of "if I just show them that I have a gun, they will stop or go away" is a very sure way to get yourself killed.

If you have not made the mental leap from "victim" to "non-victim", leave the gun at the store. You, and all around you will be safer.

[Masshole]

I agree with Highpower.If you aren't 100% mentally sure that you can pull that trigger and kill someone to protect yourself or a loved one then you should not own a gun.

[WyldOne]

fear not. i still have a long way to go before i'm anything close to "gun friendly" ;) :)

it was just a concrete way for me to see something that i have been told a lot on here, but have previously been unable to understand aiming a gun at someone and not shooting.

IF i do get a gun, it will be quite the investment. that's like, a month's rent. for a cheap one. not to mention training and practice, which i am sure costs $$.

but the wheels in my mind are turning, and last night something just kinda clicked into place. i'm still not there yet, you ALL will know when i am :D

[jim]

WyldOne

The gun isn't the protection, it's still just the tools. You're right that training is needed, but it doesn't have to cost a bunch. There is an organization called the NRA that has been trying to get gun safety taught for free.

The key thing in that episode wasn't that the person saw she had a gun and so left her alone. The big thing was that the person saw she had a gun and believed she would use it and so left her alone. Yes, she suffered and was punished, but did she suffer as much as she would have if raped or killed.

Another thing you will have heard here is "better to be tried by twelve than carried by six". Maybe know you will be able to understand that point of view. We don't take guns lightly (unfortunately so many that ran out yesterday and bought one do) and know how serious a responsibility it is.

Finally, PLEASE don't ever go out and buy a cheap gun. If you should ever decide to get a gun (and I'm certainly not suggesting that you should) let us help you find the right one for you. The members here can help you find one that you can afford and that will be safe to use. There's another old saying, "a workman is no better than his tools". That's surely the case in firearms. A cheap firearm can be more dangerous than no firearm. As POGO and Albert said, "Fore warned is fore armed, unless it's four worned out guns".

[WyldOne]

yes jim. i know.

[Col. Mustard]

Originally posted by WyldOne:
<STRONG>fear not. i still have a long way to go before i'm anything close to "gun friendly" ;) :)

it was just a concrete way for me to see something that i have been told a lot on here, but have previously been unable to understand aiming a gun at someone and not shooting.</STRONG>

I can promise, from personal experience, that having a gun pointed at you by someone you believe will shoot will very likely alter your behavior. Ergo, actually pulling the trigger becomes unnecessary and, perhaps counterproductive.

In North Carolina, at least, the use of deadly force (which includes simply pointing a gun at someone) requires at least two circumstances to be present: imminent threat of death or serious injury, and the impracticality of escape. (Escape is not required in one's home.) Pointing a gun at a stalker, as I understand the Boston Public storyline, probably violated the letter of both of those legal prerequisites. (No flames here, please. I'm not agreeing; I'm just stating my interpretation of the law.)

[mrsMTN]

I have watched the show, and like it a lot. The direction that episode took is unfortunate, but all too predictable. We need to assume that the teacher had gone to the trouble to obtain the necessary permitting required in MA and was therefore on solid legal ground. But, the school popped its nose in. Shouldn't ever happen.
But all that has been said here is right on. That tactic more often than not works, but it can't be carried off without the mental attitude to go with it: if it DIDN'T work, one must be prepared to take the next step. No small thing.

[WyldOne]

Originally posted by Clueless in Charlotte:
<STRONG>In North Carolina, at least, the use of deadly force (which includes simply pointing a gun at someone) requires at least two circumstances to be present: imminent threat of death or serious injury, and the impracticality of escape. (Escape is not required in one's home.) Pointing a gun at a stalker, as I understand the Boston Public storyline, probably violated the letter of both of those legal prerequisites. </STRONG>

how is just pointing a gun at someone considered "deadly force"? what's deadly about it?

a couple other questions...i know she had filed a complaint (or two?) with the police but...why didn't she get a restraining order? i'm not saying that i think a peice of paper will keep a creep away...but if there is a paper trail of your fear, i would think/hope the courts would be more lenient?

Originally posted by mrsMTN:
<STRONG>The direction that episode took is unfortunate, but all too predictable. We need to assume that the teacher had gone to the trouble to obtain the necessary permitting required in MA and was therefore on solid legal ground. </STRONG>

unfortunate, yes. but i imagine it's probably a pretty realistic reaction. i have no idea or experience or anything, just a guess, especially since it's set in boston. as far as when she bought the gun....if i'm remembering that episode correctly, she didn't have any waiting period or background check or anything. which confused me at the time, but i let i didn't really think that much of it. now, hmm.

[mrsMTN]

Poetic license strikes again.

[Col. Mustard]

Somebody oughta revoke their poetic license...

how is just pointing a gun at someone considered "deadly force"? what's deadly about it?

If someone dies of a heart attack while a felony is being committed, the felon can be charged with homicide. He didn't actually kill the person, but... I guess you can call it legal poetic license.

[Sir Knight]

Originally posted by WyldOne: <STRONG>... how is just pointing a gun at someone considered "deadly force"? what's deadly about it? ...</STRONG>I don't know about elsewhere but in my state, if I point an UNLOAD gun at you, that is considered aggravated assualt and carries a three year jail sentence ... no if's, and's or but's!

I don't even understand how it could even be assualt (never might AGGRAVATED assuat) since I haven't even touched you with a deadly weapon (an unloaded gun is LESS deadly than a knife or a hammer but waving a hammer at somebody isN'T considered aggravated assualt) -- but that's the law.

There was a famous case here in Florida not to long ago about a woman who got into a dispute with a car repair man because he was charhing her so much and she said that he quoted her a lower price and he refused to give her the keys to her car until the entire amount was paid in full and she pulled out a gun from her purse (which was later determined to be unloaded) and pointed the gun at him and demanded her keys.

He gave her the keys but also called the police and she was sentenced to 3 years in jail ... the fact that she was a single mother with three small children at home to take care of had no bearing on the case.

[WyldOne]

forgive me but i am just NOT following this at all....


Originally posted by Clueless in Charlotte:
<STRONG>In North Carolina, at least, the use of deadly force (which includes simply pointing a gun at someone) </STRONG>

are you saying that pointing a gun at someone IS considered deadly force? or...pointing a gun at someone who has a heart attack or something AND DIES is considered deadly force?

as far as pointing an unloaded gun at someone being aggravated assault...okay i know nothing about legal definitions. but if you scare the **** outta me, by pointing any weapon at me and making me think that you will use it to kill me....isn't that assault? or..something?

i apologize but i'm kinda WAY confused...

[Sir Knight]

WyldOne, I think that what you described is the reasoning behind the law.

[WyldOne]

:confused:

[mrsMTN]

See how convoluted some of the reasoning can be when it involves firearms?

[WyldOne]

Originally posted by mrsMTN:
<STRONG>See how convoluted some of the reasoning can be when it involves firearms?</STRONG>

huh? no...if you are trying to tell me that i am understanding this discussion correctly, then the laws make sense.

[Sir Knight]

Yes, because it is not only the threat but the POTENTIAL thread ... unless I tell you AND show you that a gun is not loaded, it is considered to be a deadly weapon.

[WyldOne]

Originally posted by Alan Fud:
<STRONG>Yes, because it is not only the threat but the POTENTIAL thread ... unless I tell you AND show you that a gun is not loaded, it is considered to be a deadly weapon.</STRONG>

see that's messed up. i can see how it would be assault/aggravated assault (as if i know the difference...). but if something is a "potential threat" then it clearly is not deadly. because "deadly" would indicate...more than just potential.....

[Col. Mustard]

If all the laws made sense, and could be understood (or even known about) by all of us, there'd be a lot of unemployed lawyers.

"Use of deadly force" is simply an acknowledgement of the danger in pointing a gun at someone (Basic Gun Safety Rule #2: Never point a gun at something you don't wish to destroy).

And before you ask, there are 4 Basic Gun Safety Rules:

1: Every gun is always loaded.
2: See above
3: Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot.
4: Be sure of your target and what's beyond it.

[ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: Clueless in Charlotte ]

[WyldOne]

Originally posted by Clueless in Charlotte:
"Use of deadly force" is simply an acknowledgement of the potential danger in pointing a gun at someone (Gun Safety Rule #2: Never point a gun at something you don't wish to destroy).

well then call the cops....because i WISH to destroy many things: ideas and concepts, places, people. will i? probably never. have i? not once.

but if it is against the law for something to be potentially dangerous, then ya better lock me up. i have a mind and i use it. i have a heart and i use it. these are dangerous challenges to the world as we know it.

i could understand if "use of deadly force" meant that someone actually died b/c of your actions; i think i could get that. because then there would be a "deadly" to talk about. but because of the potential? no. no, i cannot accept that.

man...i better hurry up and change the world :p i got a lotta work to do....

[Col. Mustard]

Originally posted by WyldOne:
<STRONG>

well then call the cops....because i WISH to destroy many things: ideas and concepts, places, people. will i? probably never. have i? not once.

but if it is against the law for something to be potentially dangerous, then ya better lock me up. i have a mind and i use it. i have a heart and i use it. these are dangerous challenges to the world as we know it.

i could understand if "use of deadly force" meant that someone actually died b/c of your actions; i think i could get that. because then there would be a "deadly" to talk about. but because of the potential? no. no, i cannot accept that.

man...i better hurry up and change the world :p i got a lotta work to do....</STRONG>

Actually, I made 2 mistakes in that post (it's late, and I had a bad day), both of which you picked up on. I should have said intend rather than wish, and I have since editted out potential danger. It's flat-out dangerous to point a loaded gun at someone.

At the same time, there are numerous laws on the books proscribing potentially dangerous behavior. Drunk driving, for instance. For that matter, any number of traffic laws which are enforced without anyone dying.

If the victim knows that a gun is capable of killing him/her, and that causes the victim to obey the assailant, hasn't the bad guy used "deadly force" to accomplish his goals?

[ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: Clueless in Charlotte ]

[WyldOne]

ok...well that would basically invalidate my whole reply up there then, huh :)

but...let's get down to basics. there are some things that i just plain do *not* know. i feel like an idiot for even asking this question (but that's never stopped me before :p): what is dangerous about just pointing a loaded gun at someone?


<STRONG>If the victim knows that a gun is capable of killing him/her, and that causes the victim to obey the assailant, hasn't the bad guy used "deadly force" to accomplish his goals?</STRONG>

no....that would just be using "force". maybe "malicious force" or something like that... what is deadly about it? maybe i'm misunderstanding terms here....but i don't consider something to be "deadly" until there's a corpse.

i'm sorry you had a bad day though. get some rest, this discussion can certainly wait another day. :)

[Col. Mustard]

I'll try one example before I pack it in. There was a guy, a cop I believe, who was on the 82nd floor of the WTC when it collapsed. He rode the wreckage down and survived. Surely an 82-story fall could be considered deadly force, but there was not (in this instance) a corpse. Just because the coroner isn't called, doesn't mean deadly force was not involved.

Okay, two examples.

People are involved in auto accidents all the time (btw, sorry about that reference in the adoption thread; I couldn't resist :rolleyes: ); sometimes people are killed in accidents other people walk away from. Who's to say who was exposed to deadly force and who wasn't?

Okay, I give up.

[WyldOne]

i think i see your point....i gotta think about it now though....

but my gun question goes unanswered. it's such a dumb question that i'm not gonna repeat it, you gotta go back up to my previous post and read it.

so, is pointing a knife at someone deadly force too?


oh, and don't worry....


<STRONG>(btw, sorry about that reference in the adoption thread; I couldn't resist :rolleyes: ) </STRONG>

you'll get yours :p somehow, in some way, when you're least expecting it..... :D

[jim]

Originally posted by WyldOne:
<STRONG>i think i see your point....i gotta think about it now though....

but my gun question goes unanswered. it's such a dumb question that i'm not gonna repeat it, you gotta go back up to my previous post and read it.

so, is pointing a knife at someone deadly force too?


:D</STRONG>

Yes. If the person 'believes' you intend to use the knife, then it's deadly force.

[ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: jim ]

[Col. Mustard]

Okay, it's a new day. A day off, even.

no....that would just be using "force". maybe "malicious force" or something like that... what is deadly about it? maybe i'm misunderstanding terms here....but i don't consider something to be "deadly" until there's a corpse.

By your logic, simply pointing a gun at someone involves no "force" whatsoever; no pressure is actually applied to the victim, the victim is not harmed in any way. A bullet, however, is incapable of simply beating somebody up a little bit. If that force is actually applied, it will be deadly force.

One additional argument, then I'll quit. According to my Instant English Handbook an adverb (in this case, "deadly") answers the questions when, where, how, in what manner, and to what extent or degree. A gun (or a knife) is capable of inflicting deadly force. Displaying a capability is a way of "using" it.

[Col. Mustard]

BTW -

you'll get yours somehow, in some way, when you're least expecting it.....

I ain't skeered. :eek:

[WyldOne]

aargh i'm just not getting it :(


Originally posted by Clueless in Charlotte:
<STRONG>By your logic, simply pointing a gun at someone involves no "force" whatsoever</STRONG>

right. i don't see how POINTING anything at anyone is "force". a threat? yes. punching someone? that's force. holding a knife or gun on someone? yeah, i think i could see that. but i'm just not understanding what is "forceful" about JUST POINTING something at someone


<STRONG> A bullet, however, is incapable of simply beating somebody up a little bit. If that force is actually applied, it will be deadly force.</STRONG>

what does a bullet have to do with anything? when you point a gun at someone, that's all you are doing: pointing it at them. right? so there is no consideration about bullets....unless you're pointing bullets at people?

:( i'm about ready to just give up on this whole concept....

[Col. Mustard]

Okay, one more try, then we can agree to not unerstand each other. Let's suppose I'm standing in the middle of the street, and a large vehicle (say, a city bus) is coming at me. Now, being a college (say, Syracuse University) graduate, I recognize that this bus could kill me. So, I endeavor to get the hell out of the way.

Whether or not I succeed in getting out of the way, I have recognized the threat of deadly force posed by the bus, and I have acted to negate its effects. Ergo, the bus has used the threat of deadly force to affect my behavior.

QED.

[WyldOne]

Originally posted by Clueless in Charlotte:
<STRONG>Whether or not I succeed in getting out of the way, I have recognized the threat of deadly force posed by the bus, and I have acted to negate its effects. Ergo, the bus has used the threat of deadly force to affect my behavior.</STRONG>


using a threat of something is not the same as actually doing it. i could say "i'm going to kill you" (in a manner that you actually took me seriously. no, it could happen. really.), but i have not used force. i have used a THREAT of force. threatening to do something and actually doing it are not the same thing.

and btw: nice cheap shot, ya meanie! :p

[Col. Mustard]

Originally posted by WyldOne:
<STRONG>


using a threat of something is not the same as actually doing it. i could say "i'm going to kill you" (in a manner that you actually took me seriously. no, it could happen. really.), but i have not used force. i have used a THREAT of force. threatening to do something and actually doing it are not the same thing.

and btw: nice cheap shot, ya meanie! :p</STRONG>

No, they are not the same thing. That is why one person might be charged with the use of deadly force, and another with murder.

But if someone uses the threat of deadly force... Oh, never mind. I promised I'd stop...

As far as the cheap shot goes, I was trying to relate your experience with the bus to mine with having a gun pointed at me. Sorry.

[WyldOne]

you do realize that we could go back and forth forever and i still wouldn't get it, right? :)

and no apologies for the bus thing. i just misinterpreted, it's all good. :p