Target Stabbing

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:12 am

Shucks, we don't have another murderer, only a guy who'll be charged with something less? This is worrisome. Not one person at this particular Target, neither the stabber nor any other shoppers or employees chose to exercise their sacred constitutional right to bear arms. Just terrible. We're becoming socialists. What's America coming to?

At least six people have been injured by a man with a long knife who allegedly stabbed at least four of his victims at a Target in East Liberty, Pa

East Liberty Target Stabbing Spree Leaves 6 Injured; Suspect In Custody (VIDEO)

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:47 am

lol. Nice sarcasm!

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:01 am

Sounds as if there were some real heros here.

Knife-wielding man stabs teenager, 2 others inside East Liberty Target | Allegheny Co. News - WTAE Home

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:26 am

Great.

Now they'll be wanting to take our knives away.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:25 am

LarsMac;1423240 wrote: Great.

Now they'll be wanting to take our knives away.

They already have, Switch blades have been illegal for years. Which boggles the mind that we can own all the guns we want but no switch blade.:-5:-2

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:57 pm

LarsMac;1423240 wrote: Great.

Now they'll be wanting to take our knives away.

You'd love scotland - carrying an offensive weapon is a criminal offence so they wouldn't just take away the knife you would be lifted. As an american they would probably make allowances and let you go after a telling off. I can just hear them "this isnae the wild west pal dinnae be carrying that with you"

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:51 pm

Ahso!;1423227 wrote: Shucks, we don't have another murderer, only a guy who'll be charged with something less? This is worrisome. Not one person at this particular Target, neither the stabber nor any other shoppers or employees chose to exercise their sacred constitutional right to bear arms.

Worrisome?

I don't see that all. It is not like Pennsylvania isn't very accommodating to the lawful carry of firearms for self defense.

Handgunlaw.us

OpenCarry.org

Ahso!;1423227 wrote: Just terrible. We're becoming socialists. What's America coming to?

Naw, nothing about socialists. Just about personable responsibility.

It is de rigueur that businesses such as Target do not allow employees to carry a firearm, much less any other weapon. Never in my life did I work for an employer who allowed a defensive weapon, much less a gun.

Now consider if a passerby, armed, licensed or whatever were to witness the events of that knife welding SOB, then what?

He/She has no more responsibility to get involved than the local police.

Welcome to American gun laws.

East Liberty Target Stabbing Spree Leaves 6 Injured; Suspect In Custody (VIDEO)[/QUOTE]

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:02 pm

Lucky it wasn't an assault knife..............he could have taken a whole queue out

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:36 am

tude dog;1423253 wrote: Naw, nothing about socialists. Just about personable responsibility.You appear to assume that everyone is capable, at some stage of their life, of the same degree of responsibility. Is that an accurate reading?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:34 pm

Ahso!;1423288 wrote: You appear to assume that everyone is capable, at some stage of their life, of the same degree of responsibility. Is that an accurate reading?

You leave me at a loss.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that people exercise prudent judgement in all aspects of life.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:26 am

I'm surprised Ahso hasn't popped in to make a snide remark in Oscar's thread about the arson that killed 6 kids.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:54 am

He's afraid of Oscar. We're ALL afraid of Oscar.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:53 am

Accountable;1423629 wrote: I'm surprised Ahso hasn't popped in to make a snide remark in Oscar's thread about the arson that killed 6 kids.

A case could be made that shooting them would have been more humane.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:22 pm

It is de rigueur that businesses such as Target do not allow employees to carry a firearm, much less any other weapon. Never in my life did I work for an employer who allowed a defensive weapon, much less a gun.

Now consider if a passerby, armed, licensed or whatever were to witness the events of that knife welding SOB, then what?

Well if he shot him would that not be excessive force and therefore manslaughter?

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:22 am

It depends, gmc. The same would be true if someone with a martial arts black belt took him out-it would have to be classified as a danger to the martial artist's life for no charges to be file-defense of others is usually not enough for charges to be filed against the black belt. (though it could vary from state to state)

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:33 am

gmc;1423643 wrote: Well if he shot him would that not be excessive force and therefore manslaughter?

As a weapon knives can cause "serious injury or death", the exact justification for use of a gun, or any other lethal weapon for defense of self or others.

This is the law in Kansas. Having a hard time finding Pennsylvania law.

21-5222. Use of force in defense of a person. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. Â§ 21-3211]

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it

appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to

defend such person or a third person against such otherâ€™s imminent use of unlawful force.

(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in

subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to

prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person

http://ag.ks.gov/docs/documents/self-de ... f?sfvrsn=4

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:12 pm

As a weapon knives can cause "serious injury or death", the exact justification for use of a gun, or any other lethal weapon for defense of self or others.

This is the law in Kansas. Having a hard time finding Pennsylvania law.

21-5222. Use of force in defense of a person. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. Â§ 21-3211]

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it

appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to

defend such person or a third person against such otherâ€™s imminent use of unlawful force.

(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in

subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to

prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person

Error

I'll refrain from bringing scots law in to it.

It's one of the reasons for the jury trial system though. A jury of ones peers to decide if an action was reasonable or excessive in the circumstances.

t depends, gmc. The same would be true if someone with a martial arts black belt took him out-it would have to be classified as a danger to the martial artist's life for no charges to be file-defense of others is usually not enough for charges to be filed against the black belt. (though it could vary from state to state)

It's the same here it would very much depend on the circumstances as to whether charges would even be brought.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:21 pm

Found Pennsylvania law.

Â§ 505. Use of force in self-protection.

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

Â§ 506. Use of force for the protection of other persons.

(a) General rule.--The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:

(1) the actor would be justified under section 505 (relating to use of force in self-protection) in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect;

(2) under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and

(3) the actor believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.

(b) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the actor is not obliged to retreat to any greater extent than the person whom he seeks to protect.

Chapter 5 - Title 18 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES