Shoot to stop vs. Shoot to kill

[pax]

Originally Posted by Ryder

All this worry about shooting beyond justification is a preposterous idea to me. I think some of you guys have been watching too much TV

OldMarksman is right: watching TV can lead to some really bad thought processes, some of which spill over into real life.

And as for shooting beyond justification, I think this news story is instructive and provides a lot of food for thought: http://www.newsok.com/pharmacyshootings

Somewhere around here, there's a massively-long thread discussing this case, but we closed it when it began spiralling out of control with no new information to discuss. Great thread, though. Perhaps when the trial opens, I'll find that thread, re-open it, and bump it back up to the top. Lots and lots to learn from Ersland's actions there.

pax

[ClayInTx]

If you have a plan in mind for what you will do in a self-defense situation you have just found a good place to keep it.

Clay

[FSJeeper]

It depends on where you live.

There was a guy in NJ that had an ethnic intuder break into his house and fired 5 shots at him with a semi auto pistol. The home owner gaured the entrance of his hallway that led to the bedrooms. He had 3 girls and a wife scared to death hiding like they had been taught.

The bad guy shot again and the homeowner slide the buckshot he had in his tacticle shotgun and racked a slug in. He shot through the fridge and blew a BG up.

No charges were filed against him by the police. The family took it to civil court and won a large settlement against his homeowners policy.

This is so wrong.

It just depends on where you live.

I have been in robbery situations where I could have defended my self with lethal force in Colorado. My gut told me I was not in danger and I did not respond. Best decision.

Same here in Texas, if someone wants to just steal my property with no threat to myself or my family, I will not respond. I have insurance and I do not want anyones blood on my hands. If I feel in the least bit threatend, the only choice I have is which gun. Its either them or me.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by FSJeeper

...I do not want anyones blood on my hands. If I feel i... threatend, ... Its either them or me.

This highlights the great conundrum of the use of force in self defense. If one must use lethal force, he (or she) must be able to do so decisively and without hesitation. But if one can safely avoid using lethal force, that will be the better choice.

From all I've studied, using lethal force against another person can have a profound effect on your life. Many people who have thus used force have reported a variety of difficulties coping with the event. And even beyond the potential personal emotional issues, the person who has used force in self defense will be thrust into the criminal justice system. At the very least, even in a fairly clear cut case, he (hopefully with the help of qualified legal counsel) will usually be subject to police interrogation and generally through the wringer. It will cost our defender time, money and anxiety.

That is one reason why, IMHO, training and practice are so important. One needs to be confident of his physical and mechanical skill so that his focus can be on quickly assessing the situation and choosing what to do.

[zombieslayer]

I'd rather kill than die, anyday. People have no boundaries in our society, and I'm thankful to live in FL where I can legally be armed AND use lethal force to prevent death OR great bodily harm. I hope to never shoot anyone, but once my mom was attacked by thugs last Christmas, the whole family carries, shoots, and trains with several firearms. I've said it before, but, my moms "nightstand" gun was worthless to her when 17 year old punks were armed with it and waiting at her house. She now carries a S&W 642. It's in her hand EVERYTIME she enters the door. Its a screwed up world out there and if someones in a position where you're faced with severe violence or death- SHOOT TO KILL.


Dead men don't tell no lies

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by zombieslayer

....Its a screwed up world out there and if someones in a position where you're faced with severe violence or death- SHOOT TO KILL.

Dead men don't tell no lies

I wonder if that's what the pharmacist in Oklahoma thought. Of course, he'll be standing trial for murder.

And now you've shouted your point of view to the world. If you are ever involved in the use of lethal force in what you claim is self defense, and if there is any questions about justification, you may find yourself on trial. If you are on trial, there would be an excellent chance that the prosecutor has your post, has tied it to you and has had it admitted into evidence to show your attitude, disposition and state of mind. And so now the prosecutor argues to the jury that is going to decide whether or not you go to jail something like, "The defendant wants you to believe that he fired to defend his life. But you, members of the jury, should consider his post on The Firing Line to be evidence that he was really looking for a reason to kill. His claimed belief that he was in jeopardy was all in his mind, because what he really wanted to do was kill someone."

But I guess you haven't been paying much attention to this thread.

[Greg_TX]

Just to add a new twist re: the legal judgement of intent, here's a question: could the amount or type of ammo you have be prejudicial in court? Sort of an odd question, maybe, but let me explain what I'm asking. Let's say the worst happens and you find yourself in a defensive of use of deadly force. You shoot to stop, without malice, and the assailant is either dead or wounded.

During the course of the legal proceedings that will ensue, it is learned that you have 1,000 rounds of ammo in the closet. Maybe some or all of them are JHP rounds, designed to inflict maximum damage to the target. Now, in your mind, this is immaterial to intent; you aren't thinking of your ammo stash, you are focusing on the immediate threat to your life and your family. But how would a prosecutor or jury interpret this? After all, why in the world would you have so much ammo ... "How many people were you planning to shoot, sir?"

As we all know, in the past year or so there has been a tremendous increase in the demand for ammo, and a lot of people have stocked up; either as a hedge against future price increases, supply constraints, or maybe the fear that future legislation would somehow make ammo harder to obtain.

To sum up, would any of the above be admissible, and if so then could it be adverse to your case?

[OldMarksman]

I'd rather kill than die, anyday.

Probably true for most, should it come to that.

People have no boundaries in our society, and I'm thankful to live in FL where I can legally be armed AND use lethal force to prevent death OR great bodily harm.

Where you may be legally armed varies, but one may lawfully use deadly force when immediately necessary to protect against imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm anywhere in this country.

Its a screwed up world out there and if someones in a position where you're faced with severe violence or death- SHOOT TO KILL.

It just may be a screwed up world, but you have clearly missed the entire point of this discussion as it relates to the legal justification of the use of deadly force.

One more time, it is SHOOT TO STOP.

Also apparently lost on you is the serious, potentially irreversible problem one may create for himself in putting forth statements that may tend to indicate a state of mind that would not tend to support a defense of justification. Refer to Sarge at Post 57, Fiddletown at 77, Glenn E. Meyer at 94, and Fiddletown again at 181.

Once such statements have been put forth they are electronically indelible, discoverable, and potentially severely incriminating.

Dead men don't tell no lies

Well, actually, through forensic evidence they sure can tell the truth. Been doin' it for centuries.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Greg_TX

...could the amount or type of ammo you have be prejudicial in court?...

We're starting to get a little off topic here. And in any case, the short answer is, as usual, it depends.

Some things are fairly likely to be potential issues with a jury. Glenn Meyers has done some studies to suggest that the type of gun used can have an effect on juror attitudes. We know that the prosecution in the Harold Fish case effectively used Fish's use of 10mm JHP ammunition to help negatively color the thinking of at least some jurors. There are some good reasons to believe that the use of handloaded ammunition for self defense and the use of a gun with a safety device disabled (these topics have been discussed at length on this and other boards) could be effectively used by a prosecutor to negatively dispose jurors toward the defendant. But when we start talking about the ammunition in your closet, the connection starts to become more tenuous.

Most of these sorts of factors are cumulative with others. So whether having a bunch of ammunition can make you look bad to a jury will be influenced by how it pairs with other aspects of your lifestyle. For example, if you are generally a regular guy with a good job and having what most people would consider normal social associations and interactions, and if you go shooting on a regular basis (and especially in competition), thus explaining your keeping ammunition on hand, I doubt that a prosecutor would be able to get a jury very worked up about it. So it probably wouldn't even come up.

But then again, if you're in the habit of going around the mall wearing urban camo BDU, you drive an old beat up Bronco with militia stickers, off road light bars, and mounting racks for jerry cans of extra gas, belong to the local EOTWAWKI group, etc., your ammunition stockpile will be just one more personal characteristic that a jury might find hard to swallow.

[zombieslayer]

Actually, FIDDLETOWN, I didn't post ANYTHING that's not CLEARLY DEFINED in FLORIDA (not liberal California) Law. I have sec.790 right here- In Fl, if one is faced with the danger of death or great bodily harm, DEADLY FORCE IS ACCEPTABLE!!!!!!! "Dead men don't tell no lies" is a pretty common phrase I've heard for decades from NRA instructors, LEO's, It basically means, to me, that if you have to use a gun to protect your life and shoot someone in your home, you're less likely to be sued by the perp, or have him concoct a "story" about why he was in your 3 year old daughter's room. In Fl law, it says that even displaying a firearm is using deadly force. I just dont think "shooting to stop" is as legally justifiable as "Shoot to kill". I just gave my opinion. OH wait till the jury reads that! Just for the record- Aren't bullets designed to, eh, KILL? Let me know where I can buy some "non-lethal" .45ACP's ok?? Yall' prolly got all kinds a non-killin guns in cal-i-for-ni-a. Us hillbillies must have super-guns, cause even the lowly .22lr can kill here in the southeast.

[OldMarksman]

Actually, FIDDLETOWN, I didn't post ANYTHING that's not CLEARLY DEFINED in FLORIDA (not liberal California) Law. I have sec.790 right here- In Fl, if one is faced with the danger of death or great bodily harm, DEADLY FORCE IS ACCEPTABLE!!!!!!!

You have here summarized the gist here correctly--you may use deadly force if you have reason to believe that you are faced with imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and it is immediately necessary.

Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury, or force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm. It is likely that shot fired at any human being would constitute deadly force. However, some 75% to 80% of persons shot with firearms do survive. Some do not.

Where you get into trouble is when you shoot when it is not immediately necessary, and that includes shooting after the threat has dissipated--shooting to kill, now, rather than to stop--as in the case of the Oklahoma pharmacist referred to by Fiddletown. Thus, in saying "shoot to kill" you did post something not defined in the law.

Evidence pertaining to state of mind can become crucial to your fate if there is any question, whether the perp expires or survives.

"Dead men don't tell no lies" is a pretty common phrase I've heard for decades from NRA instructors, LEO's,

Over the years the phrase "drag 'em into you house if you shoot them in your yard" has also been oft repeated and attributed to LEOs, but don't do it and don't repeat it.

It basically means, to me, that if you have to use a gun to protect your life and shoot someone in your home, you're less likely to be sued by the perp, or have him concoct a "story" about why he was in your 3 year old daughter's room.

How's that? If you shoot someone in your home, there's a great chance that he will survive to give testimony personally at a later time. If after you shoot he still exhibits vital signs but is no longer presenting an imminent danger, don't shoot again.

In Fl law, it says that even displaying a firearm is using deadly force.

I do not think that's true, but do not rely on my thought. It does say that you may not display the firearm in a threatening manner unless deadly force is justified.

I just dont think "shooting to stop" is as legally justifiable as "Shoot to kill".

Refer back to the definition of deadly force. It is not force that is intended to kill--it is force that is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury, or force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm.

Let me know where I can buy some "non-lethal" .45ACP's ok?? Yall' prolly got all kinds a non-killin guns in cal-i-for-ni-a. Us hillbillies must have super-guns, cause even the lowly .22lr can kill here in the southeast.

You are off track here--the law says that deadly force is justified under specified conditions. You do not shoot to wound. You shoot to stop, and what happens to the perp afterwards will not impinge on the determination by others of whether your shots were justified.

That's the substance of many of the posts on this thread. Read through them. Here are a couple of sound bites from one in particular (JohnKSa post # 108).

If you're shooting because you want him dead then you are outside the law. The law does not allow a person to use deadly force to punish criminals or to avenge crimes.

If you're shooting because you reasonably believe that is the only way to prevent you (or someone you're defending) from being killed or seriously injured then you are within the law. The law allows a person to use deadly force to prevent certain carefully described crimes when there is no other option.

You aim to stop, the other consequences are immaterial.

The key is that if you are acting legally you act out of a reasonable belief that your application of deadly force is immediately and absolutely necessary to prevent the crime in question and to defend innocent life (yours or others) and you do not concern yourself with the attacker's prognosis.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...&postcount=108

Since you brought it up, deadly force against someone engaged in a forcible unlawful home invasion is just as lawful in California as it is in Florida, but with less coverage for a burglary per se; there's no duty to retreat inside the home; and murder is just as serious a crime in Florida as it is in California.

Just for fun, here's excerpt from "myths" section of The Cornered Cat":

If you shoot someone on the porch of your home, you should drag the body back inside.

I live in _______, and in this state we can ... (Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws).

Since I don't want to kill anyone, I could just shoot an attacker in the arm or leg instead of shooting him in the torso or head. That wouldn't be using deadly force since I wouldn't want to kill him.

I'm not talking about legal definitions. I mean, I don't want to kill him.
But I could just aim at his arm or leg anyway, couldn't I?
I think I could hit him in the arm or leg. I practice a lot.

Learning about the law will just slow me down if I need to defend myself.
I don't need to think about the law right now. If I ever need to use the gun, I'll just hire a lawyer afterwards. That's what lawyers are for.

I won't get arrested or be charged with a crime if I shoot someone, because there are a lot of gun owners where I live and the legal/political climate is very friendly to gun ownership and self-defense.

I cannot hep but wonder whether Kathy might add "dead men don't tell lies"some time down the road!
http://www.corneredcat.com/

[zombieslayer]

Marsksman, i think we may have had a miscommunication. I assume shoot to kill to mean that if I'm literally forced to defend myself by shooting another human being, I'm going for the vitals, not trying to "knick them". I would never ever suggest or imply shooting someone without justification or after the danger has been neutralized. I just hear a lot of people at shooting classes and SD seminars ask about shooting people in the leg, arm, etc. Under your definition of shoot to stop, I'm entirely in agreement with you

[BlueTrain]

While no doubt firearms enthusiasts, which includes me, pick up some bad ideas and unrealistic expectations from motion pictures, so do those on the other side of the aisle. I believe that some people, somehow, think that it is possible to shoot the gun out of the other person's hand or that there is something trivial called a "flesh wound."

[45Gunner]

I admit that I did not read all the previous posts on this thread so forgive me if this is a duplication.

I completely understand what the premise of the discussion is. As armed citizens, we must always keep in the forefront of our mind that when we utilize our guns for self defense, are intent is to stop the threat (attacker). We neither shoot to kill nor shoot to wound...we shoot to stop the attacker.

The reality of the real world is that we practice center mass. As one previous post said, "How many versions of the story do you want to hear? One or two?"
As realist we know if we shot someone in our kitchen that just broke in thru the skylight and that person was coming at us in a threatening manner with a kitchen knife in his hand, we are going to get sued. If he lives, he is going to sue us. If he dies, his family is going to sue us. Which testimony is a juror going to give the most credence to; you, the homeowner who defended his family or the family member of the BG who says the attacker was just misguided and was really a good person? I would rather face the family than the intruder. The intruder might say, if he were alive, something like, "Gee, I was really drunk and I fell thru this skylight. I was right next to the refrigerator and was hungry so I made myself a sandwich but needed a knife to cut it. This maniac came out of no where and just shot me saying he was going to kill me. He's insane and should be put away where he won't hurt anyone else ever again." The possibilities are endless. And think of the torment you and your family will be put through as you defend your actions.
Yup, you can surmise my idea of neutralizing the threat.

[OldMarksman]

Marksman, i think we may have had a miscommunication. I assume shoot to kill to mean that if I'm literally forced to defend myself by shooting another human being, I'm going for the vitals, not trying to "knick them". I would never ever suggest or imply shooting someone without justification or after the danger has been neutralized. I just hear a lot of people at shooting classes and SD seminars ask about shooting people in the leg, arm, etc. Under your definition of shoot to stop, I'm entirely in agreement with you

Great!

Shooting to wound is right in there with warning shots--but I know otherwise intelligent people who will suggest one or the other.

The problem is that miscommunication can lead others down the wrong path or create a misleading impression about one's own intentions.

Your clarification here may have some later value--perhaps. Let's hope the subject never comes up.

Shooting someone lawfully and having it judged as such is one of the last things I ever want to do, regardless of how smoothly the aftermath unfolds. The only things that would be worse are losing my family or getting killed or seriously injured, injuring or killing an innocent, or having my necessary action determined to have been unlawful.

[OldMarksman]

I believe that some people, somehow, think that it is possible to shoot the gun out of the other person's hand or that there is something trivial called a "flesh wound."

Do you mean that those things are not true? OH NO!

Heck, the Masked Man seemed to do that all the time, sometimes shooting from the hip and sometimes at a distance while on horseback! And if you look carefully, you'll notice that he didn't even have front sights--his 5 1/2 inch SAA revolvers had been cut down from 7 1/2 inch guns by the studio.

And how did the good guy always recover fully in less than half an hour from those "flesh wounds" right in the shoulder?

[OldMarksman]

The reality of the real world is that we practice center mass.

Yep!

As one previous post said, "How many versions of the story do you want to hear? One or two?"

Which testimony is a juror going to give the most credence to; you, the homeowner who defended his family or the family member of the BG who says the attacker was just misguided and was really a good person? I would rather face the family than the intruder. The intruder might say, if he were alive, something like...

OK, he's in your house. If he is not in there innocently, his live testimony won't help him. If he is deceased, the forensic evidence or possible earwitness testimony may or may not help you, and it could hurt big time.

As realist we know if we shot someone in our kitchen that just broke in thru the skylight and that person was coming at us in a threatening manner with a kitchen knife in his hand, we are going to get sued. If he lives, he is going to sue us. If he dies, his family is going to sue us.

Don't forget the criminal aspect.

And think of the torment you and your family will be put through as you defend your actions.

That will start the instant you pull the trigger, and the severity of the torment will depend a whole lot more on the evidence than on the statements of a surviving intruder.

Yup, you can surmise my idea of neutralizing the threat.

"Neutralizing the threat" is what the shot is about. It is not about elimination of a witness. You can stop his attack, and you may silence his mouth, but you cannot stop his "testimony", which may or may not be favorable to you.

And I think we're now back to the old issue of what one posts. What is it about Fiddletown's earlier comment (and similar advice appearing often in this forum, even several times in this thread alone) that invites people to elect to not heed it?

And now you've shouted your point of view to the world. If you are ever involved in the use of lethal force in what you claim is self defense, and if there is any questions about justification, you may find yourself on trial. If you are on trial, there would be an excellent chance that the prosecutor has your post, has tied it to you and has had it admitted into evidence to show your attitude, disposition and state of mind. And so now the prosecutor argues to the jury that is going to decide whether or not you go to jail something like, "The defendant wants you to believe that he fired to defend his life. But you, members of the jury, should consider his post on The Firing Line to be evidence that he was really looking for a reason to kill. His claimed belief that he was in jeopardy was all in his mind, because what he really wanted to do was kill someone."

[zombieslayer]

There was a case last year here in FL where a man who had a concealed permit was put on probation (suspending his permit). He was in a convenience store and witnessed a BG beating the clerk furiously with a bottle. The customer went to his truck, got his .40, and shot the BG twice- doubletap to the center mass. I'm 99% sure the guy who defended the clerk was never even put into handcuffs. My point is- he neutralized a violent threat using his right to bear arms. I don't claim to know what was going through his mind, but I'm sure his goal was to stop the attack. I know that there are people on forums and at gun shows who really can't wait to shoot someone, but for the most part, I think people are just tired of being victimized. I do believe people should THOROUGHLY read and learn the laws in their state of residence, as well as BATF laws. Owning (and especially carrying) a gun is a huge responsibility. But, as citizens we are responsible for how we defend ourselves, it's only a LEO's job to arrest the guy after he murders your family.

[pax]

Originally Posted by 45Gunner

I admit that I did not read all the previous posts on this thread so forgive me if this is a duplication.

45Gunner,

It's a good thread. You should read it.

pax

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by zombieslayer

Actually, FIDDLETOWN, I didn't post ANYTHING that's not CLEARLY DEFINED in FLORIDA (not liberal California) Law. I have sec.790 right here- In Fl, if one is faced with the danger of death or great bodily harm, DEADLY FORCE IS ACCEPTABLE!!!!!!!...

Actually, California law, as well as the laws of all the other states and commonwealths in our great country, recognize that one is justified, without criminal or civil liability, in self defense or defense of another to prevent the immediate death or grave bodily injury of an innocent. People have defended themselves with deadly force, even in California, and haven't gone to jail.

Originally Posted by zombieslayer

...I just dont think "shooting to stop" is as legally justifiable as "Shoot to kill"....

Which is why I wrote that you apparently haven't been paying attention to this thread. That misconception has been addressed repeatedly here.

Originally Posted by fiddletown, post 36

...You shoot to stop the threat. If he's still shooting, he's still threat; and you must keep shooting until he stops. When he stops, you stop.

If he's dead when he stops, so be it. But if he's alive, he's alive. You don't "finish him off." If you do, it's manslaughter.

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer, post 46

Fiddletown has it right as to the rational cognitive processes that guide your actions. Dannyl expresses it so well.

PBP has insight into the different processes going on in your noggin.

1. Fiddle's what actually to do. Take action to protect yourself and others you care about.

2. Your emotional response - driven by different neural systems that want the blood.

While we feel the pull of #2 - we should act in accord with 1.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa, post 52

...If you GOAL is to kill then you have gone beyond the law. The law acknowledges that death may very well be the result of legal use of deadly force in self-defense but the law is clear that the GOAL of legal self-defense is to prevent the defender from losing his life or being seriously injured. The GOAL of the legal use of deadly force in self-defense is NOT the death of the attacker. That may be a legal CONSEQUENCE but it is not the GOAL.

So, how does that affect your tactics and training?

You should realize that once the attack is clearly over that you have no legal justification for the continued use of deadly force REGARDLESS of whether the attacker is dead, seriously injured, slightly injured or even uninjured.

That's about it. You still aim at the same spot (center of mass) and you still shoot as many times as it takes to end the attack.

It's not that you aim differently when you shoot to stop vs. when you shoot to kill, it's that your GOAL is different. If you're shooting to kill then you are not operating within the INTENT of the law. If you're using a necessary application of deadly force to end an unlawful attack then you are operating within the INTENT of the law.

If you are trying to make sure that the attacker dies then you've gone beyond what the law allows. You should be concerned with self-defense (your own well-being), NOT the prognosis of the attacker.

Originally Posted by MLeake, post 55

NOBODY is saying...
... to shoot to wound, or to attempt to shoot to wound.

What Fiddletown, JohnKSa, and others are saying is that while you shoot to the exact same points of aim that you would use if you WERE trying to kill somebody, the goal isn't killing.

The goal is stopping.....

Originally Posted by OldMarksman, post 56

...you do not set out to "shoot to kill."

You are, on the other hand, permitted to use force, including deadly force, when it is immediately necessary (that essentially means "as a last resort") to do so to protect yourself or others from imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. In some jurisdictions that right extends to the prevention of a forcible felony, and in some, the fact of an unlawful invasion of one's habitat (or car or place of employment, perhaps) provides an assumption that such a threat exists. Deadly force is generally defined as force that creates a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Once the threat is no longer imminent--once the assailant has either elected to cease and desist or has been "stopped" in the sense implied in the OP--the right to use deadly force no longer exists--period.

Originally Posted by fiddletown, post 61

....no one is talking about shooting to wound or shooting to stop someone without the possibility of causing death.

The point is the goal to stop the threat. The assailant may or may not die. But what's important is that he is stopped and that you and any innocent is saved....

Originally Posted by JohnKSa, post 89

...One should never assume that using a handgun in self-defense is synonymous with killing the attacker. In reality they are rarely the same thing. I am NOT saying that people should EXPECT the attacker to survive or expect to use a handgun in self-defense with the intention of sparing the attacker's life nor am I saying that people should use handguns in self-defense if they are unwilling to accept the possibility of the attacker expiring, I am merely pointing out that in the vast majority of cases a person shot with a handgun will survive and that in the majority of self-defense situations involving a firearm the attacker doesn't die and often isn't even seriously injured.....

Originally Posted by zombieslayer

...I assume shoot to kill to mean that if I'm literally forced to defend myself by shooting another human being, I'm going for the vitals, not trying to "knick them". I would never ever suggest or imply shooting someone without justification or after the danger has been neutralized....

But I hope we're clear now about what "shooting to stop" means.

[zombieslayer]

It's all good, sir. I misunderstood ya. Everyone here has thick enough skin, though. i do have utter faith in johnKSa. he always words things just perfectly

[w_houle]

When it comes to shooting an attacker, our intent should always be "shoot to stop" and not "shoot to kill."

What's the difference? It's not my intent is to shoot anyone, and if left to my own devices; that will be the case for the rest of my life. However: If someone chooses do violence on me or on those around me, then I will give them more violence then they can stand (or maybe even live through). BUT... It's actually not my call.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by w_houle

What's the difference?....

Sigh....

Well we have here an 8 page thread describing the difference multiple times, in detail.

[Wagonman]

Sigh....

Well we have here an 8 page thread describing the difference multiple times, in detail.

I agree and I just don't get the misunderstanding. It is really a pretty simple concept.

[zombieslayer]

well, once again to all- I'm formally apologizing for my part of the misuderstanding of this thread. I think it was early in the morning, and I was waiting on my coffee Once I Re-read the entirety of the thread, I realized I was misunderstanding the terminology. I have been wrong AND misunderstood before... Peace and Love yall!! LOL