Telescopic club

**cafezinho** · Posted On: 5/25/2006 9:19am

Don't just tell me how different peoples experiences are and that I assume everyone is the same. If you want to bring that up in ana rgument, tell me how different experiences require different means and point out how I'm over-generalizing.

In my experience people who carried around weapons were the same thugs the weapons were "meant" to protect against. They go searching for a reason to use them and tend to use the stuff on people just like them.

You're walking alone at night in a part of NYC with a high incidence of nighttime violent crimes and you have absolutely no choice but to be there walking around, hey protection is great. You're some kid fresh out of grade school going off to college, you need protection from what? Afraid the football players are going to stick you in a gym locker? You have to beat the sorority girls off with a stick?

Drunken idiots and bad drug deals are the two most common causes of fights in college. If you are a woman, you have the risk of being attacked by a sex predator, but I don't know that the statistics go up for college women, beyond date rape for which weapons are rather ineffective.

And let's say you used the club on an attacker. You're trained in how to use the weapon most effectively? There isn't a fine line between beating someone off of you, putting them in a coma, and killing them. If it can be proven that you used extreme force, then you are fucked. Is an 18 year old going off to college prepared to accpet those consequences?

**GIJoe6186** · Posted On: 5/25/2006 11:32am

It hink she better off then as you put it "getting fucked" Dude youre not understanding, criminals don't follow the law. Someone intent on mugging me is gonna have a weapon. Banning pepper spray and folding knives won't do ****. The guy will just get a kitchen knife or something else.

**WunHungLo** · Posted On: 5/25/2006 11:48am

Cafezinho, why the **** are you posting here if you're afraid of weapons? Is "The Armory" too vague a description for your feeble mind to comprehend?

Sorry, we can't all count on our deadly capoeira to instantly destroy dozens of attackers.

**daGorilla** · Posted On: 5/25/2006 2:22pm

Originally Posted by FatMgrDad

Hey Ryno,

You know anything about these:

http://www.self-defense.info/umbrella1.html

There is a Dog Bros. endorsement at the bottom. Looks kind of cool for our rainy city.

As a Seattle-ite and former FMA practitioner, I just gotta say -- that umbrella looks totally frickin' cool.... I'll be adding it to my wish list. :)

-daGorilla

**daGorilla** · Posted On: 5/25/2006 2:26pm

Originally Posted by JohnnyCache

Well I guess if you're canadian at least your government has rendered you immune to groin strikes...

Hmm. I wonder how canadians inflict groin kicks? Perhaps this video covers it?

http://www.devilducky.com/media/31508/

Or not. Guess they missed Canadians for legal reasons.

-daGorilla

**CNagy** · Posted On: 5/25/2006 2:26pm

Originally Posted by cafezinho

And let's say you used the club on an attacker. You're trained in how to use the weapon most effectively? There isn't a fine line between beating someone off of you, putting them in a coma, and killing them. If it can be proven that you used extreme force, then you are fucked. Is an 18 year old going off to college prepared to accpet those consequences?

Ah, the swiss cheese argument-- in that it is completely full of holes. First off, any time you pull a weapon (non-firearm) against someone who is unarmed, you've escalated the conflict and you will face consequences even in self-defense (unless you know they are trained in unarmed combat, then the legality gets blurry.)

That said, everyone here is referring to using a weapon in defense against a guy with a weapon. Extreme force is not illegal. Lethal attacks are not illegal (for self defense, once weapons are involved.) Excessive force can be illegal, but excessive meaning that you continue the conflict even after being presented a chance to run away (i.e. you continue to attack a fallen combatant.)

That said, it has nothing to do with weapons and everything to do with the person. Even unarmed, you can beat a person to death if you just sit there and hit long enough and hard enough. What will get you in trouble, legally, is if you are the kind of guy that doesn't know when a target is neutralized, and you keep attacking.

All this needs to be read with the understanding that the biggest threat you face from self-defense is actually civil; you can be sued for initiating the use of lethal force first (which the law defines as any attack that can cause permanent damage) even if you do not actually face any criminal charges.

**Neildo** · Posted On: 5/25/2006 2:34pm

That's why you beat 'em fast, and GTFOutta there.

Who, me? Naww, I've never done that before. Honest.

**tellner** · Posted On: 5/25/2006 2:40pm

Close, CNagy, but not quite.

Self defense and the law has a few tricky bits. If you're interested in the subject, and anyone who is interested in self defense damned well should be, especially if it involves weapons you really need Mas Ayoob's LFI-I: Judicious Use of Deadly Force. It will lay it out for you clearly and unambiguously and give you a good idea of what is permissible and what isn't.

One of the principles he talks about is "disparity of force". Loosely, it's "How much did each of you bring to the party?" If the attacker is bigger or stronger, if you are smaller, sick or disabled, if there are lots of them to just one of you or you know that they are well trained or experienced in violence you have a much better claim of having used reasonable force even if you used a weapon and they were unarmed.

The example I like to give is Bubba and Grandma.

Bubba is 6'4", 300 pounds, used to play football and bucks hay bales for a living. His only hobbies are getting into fights, drinking beer and trying out new steroids.

Grandma has taken eighty trips around that cruel old sun and weighs one pound for every one of those years.

If Grandma has a senior moment and tries to hit Bubba with her umbrella he might, I say might, be justified in holding her at arm's length until she quiets down.

If Bubba attacks Grandma and she shoots him so full of holes that small birds can nest in his chest cavity the police will take a look and say "Nice groups, ma'am. Do you need a ride home?"

**Ajamil** · Posted On: 5/25/2006 6:36pm

I like the idea of the mini-mag, but I have also favored the simple carrying of a stiff pen - nice sharp end, little to no escalation of force if you're holding it. A little iwara training comes in handy too. Granted you're not going to keep an attacker out of arm's reach, butb anyone else see this as a viable option?

And for the record, our temple isn't in the safest neigborhood, and one of our congregation walks here every morning (think pre-dawn morning). His solution? A nice slugger baseball bat in hand as he walks. Keeps the crazies away just fine, and I hadn't heard of any problems when he asked the cops about this.

**CNagy** · Posted On: 5/27/2006 3:51pm

Originally Posted by tellner

The example I like to give is Bubba and Grandma.

Bubba is 6'4", 300 pounds, used to play football and bucks hay bales for a living. His only hobbies are getting into fights, drinking beer and trying out new steroids.

Grandma has taken eighty trips around that cruel old sun and weighs one pound for every one of those years.

If Grandma has a senior moment and tries to hit Bubba with her umbrella he might, I say might, be justified in holding her at arm's length until she quiets down.

If Bubba attacks Grandma and she shoots him so full of holes that small birds can nest in his chest cavity the police will take a look and say "Nice groups, ma'am. Do you need a ride home?"

You missed alot of the point then.

All this needs to be read with the understanding that the biggest threat you face from self-defense is actually civil; you can be sued for initiating the use of lethal force first (which the law defines as any attack that can cause permanent damage) even if you do not actually face any criminal charges.

Grannie might not get arrested (even though, according to the self-defense class I took in college, she most certainly could be,) but Bubba (or his family if she kills him) are going to take her for everything she owns. Getting cleared of criminal charges during self-defense does not keep you from being brought to court on a civil suit. Using a firearm against an unarmed man, even if he is a linebacker and you are $.98 soaking wet, is a real quick way to end up dead broke.

Now I know, people are going to say that they'd rather be broke than dead. Obviously. I, however, would rather be both alive and with my wealth intact. That's why it pays to know both sides of the law, not just the details pertaining to criminal charges.