Anonymous #1 7w

Don't forget a friend carrying enough IFAKs for everyone

0

Anonymous #3 7w

Yeah yeah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the firearm 😂

-7

Anonymous OP 7w

buddy what? my point was made assuming that victims had guns in both cases you'll take your chances in idaho because your assailant is a braindead tweaker too fucking high to aim, with a 50/50 chance of having a broken or fake gun try reaching for a gun while being robbed in minneapolis and you'll likely be executed on the spot; probably with an illegal automatic by somebody who's been shooting and getting shot at for years

26

Anonymous #3 7w

My friend you are giving these wannabe gangsters too much credit. They cannot aim an AR with an FRT, if they try to shoot me with a glock switch they are just going to hit an infant in the nearby project housing like always.

-7

Anonymous #4 7w

Robbery, not theft. If you threaten somebody else's life over anything you had better be prepared for them to react accordingly.

-5

Anonymous OP 7w

They’re still saying it’s better to get involved in a physical altercation/shootout with the intent to harm/kill than it is to give up your property then subsequently file a police report. Not that either option is “good”, but point stands idahos guidelines favor personal property over life

14

Anonymous #4 7w

Well it is better to defend your own life than do absolutely nothing besides accept your attackers demands

0

Anonymous #4 7w

Police won't always retrieve stolen property and they can do absolutely nothing to prevent you from being harmed without actually being there.

1

Anonymous #4 7w

The framing as if the only thing at stake in a robbery is the stuff being robbed is ludicrous, again, you cannot threaten somebody else's life and then expect them to think that you only want their stuff.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

No, not always. In some cases sure, other cases not. I’d wager that if you take a look at injury numbers comparing those who gave into demands vs those who fought back, that the ones who fought back got injured at a significantly higher rate.

9

Anonymous #4 7w

Yes, thats why you prepare vigorously. Have a nice day, I'm off to the range.

-1

Anonymous OP 7w

Yeah? The only cases I can imagine the robber actually harms the victim AFTER being given what they’re demanding is when the robber has some kind of mental issue. People doing it out of desperation would want to minimize legal implications. Murder is much more significant than armed robbery

9

Anonymous OP 7w

Glad we agree that it’s less conducive to human safety to follow idahos guidelines at least

6

Anonymous #4 7w

Too bad for the robber that murder only applies when its not legally justified

-1

Anonymous #4 7w

Yes, you lose my respect for your human safety when you try to rob someone. God bless.

0

Anonymous OP 7w

I’m talking about the victims safety here. Not the robbers.

2

Anonymous OP 7w

lol the irony of the god bless after, top tier

6

Anonymous #4 7w

The victim is not choosing to put themselves in a robbery

0

Anonymous OP 7w

Correct

4

Anonymous #4 7w

Therefore this is a direct result of the robbers action and we should not victim blame

0

Anonymous #4 7w

Psalm 28:3-4

0

Anonymous OP 7w

Literally a verse about asking god to deliver punishment instead of men lmao

6

Anonymous OP 7w

Blame? The robber is to blame. I’m merely pointing out what’s in the best interest for the victims safety, not the victims property’s safety

6

Anonymous OP 7w

go test that theory bud

20

Anonymous #4 7w

Well if there's even a chance that the victim is killed after giving up their stuff, but no chance that they are after the robber is shot dead, then wouldn't drawing and firing immediately be the best choice?

0

Anonymous #4 7w

Matthew 12:50

0

Anonymous OP 7w

You’re taking this from the perspective that the person being robbed will have the chance to arm themselves and accurately discharge the weapon before getting slimed themselves. If they’re being robbed, they’re under immediate threat of harm already. Maybe a highly trained person could do it. I think it’s unwise to advocate for the average person with average abilities to do this.

3

Anonymous OP 7w

And is it gods will to kill?

6

Anonymous #4 7w

After about 10 minutes of practice I could draw and dry fire in under a second. Miles may vary but its not a very hard thing to accomplish.

0

Anonymous OP 7w

How accurate were those shots? Average human reaction time is what, .3 seconds? Gotta be under .5 seconds at least if a gun is already drawn on u.

4

Anonymous #4 7w

In defense of life or justly owned property? Yes

0

Anonymous #4 7w

If a gun is already drawn I would throw my wallet somewhere that the robber has to turn around to retrieve it and then shoot

0

Anonymous OP 7w

Are you sure ab that? I’d argue no, at least based on the teachings of Jesus. Sure the Old Testament is a bit more aggressive with their laws, but like Deuteronomy says that a man who rapes a virgin is entitled to marry that virgin, if he’s caught. I find it hard to believe god would reward “stealing property” (which is what a woman’s virginity was considered as at the time) with literally owning the thing you stole.

6

Anonymous OP 7w

Brother you’d almost certainly go to jail then. Shots in the back almost never work out in self defense cases

3

Anonymous #4 7w

It's not that he is entitled to, he is actually required to. This was not intended as a gift of a rape victim to their rapist, rather that someone who rapes a woman would have to care for them for the rest of their life.

1

Anonymous #4 7w

Nope, thats 80s logic. They would look at the totality of the circumstances and see that because I was in reasonable fear for my life I was justified in defending it.

0

Anonymous OP 7w

My brother in Christ women were considered property. That’s why the husbands paid their betrothed’s fathers for them. What kind of cruel god would force a rape victim to live with their rapist for life? That’s like the robber getting to own your house after robbing it.

6

Anonymous OP 7w

You feared for your life once the weapon was off of you, the assaulter distracted and back turned? You’d still have a very difficult case.

3

Anonymous #4 7w

I don't think its as cruel to say that a rapist should pay for their victims food and housing for the rest of their life as it is to say that they should just be rid of them without consequence

1

Anonymous OP 7w

But it’s cruel for a rape victim to be legally married, unable to divorce, and forced to live with their assaulter. If it were a case the man couldn’t get married but the woman could while the man supports her, that’d be one thing. But the reason it’s not that is bc, again, women were considered property by the people at the time. Not by god.

7

Anonymous #4 7w

Regardless of the merits of the hypothetical case, I would much rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Still, this is a half baked understanding of self defense law, and utilizes outdated logic. No reasonable person is going to say that because somebody turns around that my fear for my life must instantly evaporate, this only works under the "instant of force used" rule.

0

Anonymous #4 7w

The victim actually could refuse the marriage, it was the rapist who could not.

0

Anonymous #4 7w

Again, this was not intended to give rape victims as a gift to their rapists, rather to force the rapist into taking accountability and caring for their victim for the rest of their life.

0

Anonymous OP 7w

I mean the way I’m seeing this hypothetical is that by complying you maybe have a 10% chance of being killed after, by not complying maybe a 30% chance, by engaging in an altercation maybe 40%. With the latter, you’ll have maybe a 65% chance of winning the case (depending on jurisdiction). In no possible combination of the probabilities does it make sense to risk the latter. If my assumed risk odds are wrong I could be convinced of ur side tho. Again, this side of the argument is all…

4

Anonymous #4 7w

… risk assessment

4

Anonymous OP 7w

I don’t think so. It doesn’t specify such in Deuteronomy. And again, bc of the whole property thing the “accountability” is to the woman’s father for the lost value of a non virgin daughter, not to the daughter for the trauma caused.

6

Anonymous #4 7w

Inherently we are not going to be able to precisely gauge a risk that we do not have a full understanding of, I would rather have physical tools that CAN help if used right than a mental plan that MIGHT if the odds are in my favor.

0

Anonymous OP 7w

Precisely no we can’t ur right, but within a margin of error of 10% maybe. I get wanting to have a sense of control and authority over the situation, in that aspect I see where you’re coming from. But in my eyes tho having control of a situation means understanding the risks and having the ability to choose the safest option. I’m sure there’s many cases where fighting back is that safest option, just as there’s many where complying is

5

Anonymous #4 7w

The marriage is literally for the daughter, and in our day we can talk about the trauma caused by the act, but in the day of the Old Testament the suffering that came afterwards was often much greater. These women would be homeless, poor, and legally oppressed as a result of their rapist abandoning them. Marriage gave them a house, food on the table, and legal protection. Not to mention that rape in this age can be defined as widely as getting with a Non Hebrew

0

Anonymous OP 7w

“ 28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” (For context)

4

Anonymous OP 7w

Why would those women be homeless, poor, and legally oppressed? Because society at the time treated women as a commodity to be traded.

1

Anonymous #4 7w

It sounds to me more like a description of premarital sex than rape

1

Anonymous #4 7w

So your argument is that because the Old Testament did not treat women well, the New Testament's ideals on self defense are not right?

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Both inclusive yeah. Which again, illustrates the lack of autonomy society gave women at the time. If consensual premarital sex and rape hold the same consequences, then society didn’t care for the woman’s experiences, only her value.

4

Anonymous #4 7w

There's a well agreed upon argument that verse 28 was meant to apply to premarital sex and the passages prior were the ones referring to rape

0

Anonymous OP 7w

No I’m saying the differences/contradictions between NT and OT teachings are so different that it’s illogical to conclude that both wholly come from the same godly proclamation. And when considering the cultural influences on the words of the OT, how they’re antithetical to what Jesus, the actual son of God taught, the only logical conclusion is that the OT was influenced by sinful people/customs and as such cannot be interpreted as literal divine commands.

2

Anonymous OP 7w

The earlier verses refer to a betrothed woman as opposed to an unbetrothed. The man gets killed if the woman was betrothed. He marries the victim if she wasn’t.

1

Anonymous #4 7w

I don't necessarily agree with your risk assessment either, there are a number of important factors not being controlled for.

0

Anonymous #6 7w

4) the minneapolis police know if they encourage you to carry a firearm they’re gonna have to clean up your mess after because again it’s very hard to actually fend off a robbery with a gun on a city street without hurting yourself or some innocent person 5) all of this considered, guns can be an effective form of self defense when used properly which is why certification programs and training programs should be required especially in populated areas where your dumbass actions affect other ppl

1

Anonymous OP 7w

and if he’s already pointing the gun at you he can shoot you and much more accurately in under a second

1

Anonymous #6 7w

Thats why if the gun was already drawn on me I would throw the wallet in such a way to force them to look in a different direction, giving me the time to draw, get sight picture, and fire.

0

Anonymous #6 7w

Or honestly it'd probably be a "point shoot" type deal if I'm that strapped for time

0

Anonymous OP 7w

you’re sitting behind a keyboard going “i would so totally do xyz” like he’s not gonna make you go pick that wallet up or like a jury in minneapolis isnt gonna rule you shouldn’t have just run from the homeless guy with a knife or used less lethal force in a state without stand your ground laws. you have a warped perception of the world based off social media and action movies. so you think you’re some badass when you’re really just sheltered

1

Anonymous #6 7w

Yeah I typically just avoid states that have no self defense protections in their entirety anyways. Also, even if he makes me go pick it up, he still has to turn to know that was my wallet. This gives me a different idea though, maybe I'll just throw a CS gas bomb.

1