"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 Diegohttps://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 )) 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/09... ), and the current, very well maintained state jury instructions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In an article about an all too common crime in San Francisco, which seems to be motivated by pressured internal to that city, not mentioning that you live in an entirely different legal regime (Napoleonic Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code vs. English common law) was a grave omission.
In such a regime, with very different consent laws, we'd also expect different uses and probably even versions of Google Glass.
And JoeAltmaier was right; I presumed good faith and ended up feeding a troll. Which in this subthread I will end with this message.
I dont know why people are downvoting me stating a fact.
you have to remeber that in spain we value our privacy very much.
Silicon Valley is a long way from Barcelona.
Sure we are a tech hub but we are also more grounded and realistic.
This is the most pathetic internet toughman-ing I've ever seen. I can't believe you thought it was a good idea to post this, unless you are trying to make yourself look stupid.
No, I'm trying to explain to various people who live inside various bubbles exactly what might happen to them if they unjustly apply lethal force to one of the millions of Americans who, like me, legally carry concealed. If Peruta is upheld, that will soon cover 90% of the US population (subtract California and Hawaii to get what it is today).
What could be stupid about it? I carry a .45 ACP M1911 almost every time I walk out the door, and if someone is trying to unjustly kill me (and I never give anyone a reason for that to be just), it shouldn't be difficult to guess what my response might be. Less evident is how we'd each be treated by the legal system afterwords, so I included a bit on that.
I very much don't want to have to shoot or unintentionally kill anyone, so I don't think such educational efforts are pointless (well, in this direct case it was, seeing as the corespondent hails from Spain, and I strongly suspect I didn't increase his motivation to visit the US, but...).
i think he was just trying to make it like he knew something.
unfortunalty he didnt but that dosent stop people on the internet.
And i dont actually have any motivation to visit the us. Its too far from home.
Why are these people protesting Google? I fail to see how any of this gentrification is Google's fault. Should they just stop paying their employees a competitive wage, or should they move somewhere else and possibly gentrify that location?
These protesters seem misguided or I am missing something.
14 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 39.9 ms ] threadIf 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 will be upheld (it follows Heller's reasoning very closely (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/09... ), and the current, very well maintained state jury instructions.
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.
But there's no having a discussion about such things, especially not by text message. It just spirals out of control.
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.
You need consent for everything in my country. At any time you can withdraw previous consent.
There is no point linking to a wikipedia for the USA when its a completely different legal structure.
Edit: Guardia Civil . Not police.
In such a regime, with very different consent laws, we'd also expect different uses and probably even versions of Google Glass.
And JoeAltmaier was right; I presumed good faith and ended up feeding a troll. Which in this subthread I will end with this message.
What could be stupid about it? I carry a .45 ACP M1911 almost every time I walk out the door, and if someone is trying to unjustly kill me (and I never give anyone a reason for that to be just), it shouldn't be difficult to guess what my response might be. Less evident is how we'd each be treated by the legal system afterwords, so I included a bit on that.
I very much don't want to have to shoot or unintentionally kill anyone, so I don't think such educational efforts are pointless (well, in this direct case it was, seeing as the corespondent hails from Spain, and I strongly suspect I didn't increase his motivation to visit the US, but...).
These protesters seem misguided or I am missing something.