[Kuntryboy816]

....did the use of force require temperance when your life is at stake? I tip my hat to Mr. Torez for defending the life of his family and friends with what he had, his MMA skills. Are we screaming, "Justice for Trayvon!" again? C'mon America! These made a choice to prey on this family. They made the choice and suffered the consequences! Simple as that... reap what you sow! [/end rant]

https://www.change.org/petitions/mark-d ... his-family

Edit** had the wrong guys name in my post...fixed it.

[Chizult]

You are legally allowed to take whatever means necessary to stop the threat. After the threat to your safety has been ended, your use of force must end. In the act of killing a man with your bare hands, there is usually a sufficient window between the threat ending and the perp dying to stop using said force.

I have no idea how it went down, and the "article" provides no details. It could have even been a scuffle among people he knew. Just throwing out an alternate view.

[Mr.Skellington]

+1 to what Chizult said.

While I agree with the right to self defense there are limitations. One story about a pharmacist comes to mind. He was being robbed by two men. He shot one in the store and chased after the other. When he returned to the store the man he shot was laying limp on the floor but still alive... so he shot him again, killing him. That is an execution not self defense.

I have no idea if the case bears any similarities, just putting a possible perspective out there.

[spillanej]

+1 to what Chizult said.

While I agree with the right to self defense there are limitations. One story about a pharmacist comes to mind. He was being robbed by two men. He shot one in the store and chased after the other. When he returned to the store the man he shot was laying limp on the floor but still alive... so he shot him again, killing him. That is an execution not self defense.

I have no idea if the case bears any similarities, just putting a possible perspective out there.

I agree with you but most confrontations of this manner last what... 4 seconds or less? No one measures for civilians but for LEOs I believe the official number is 3.4 seconds. In Delaware you never have to retreat from the fight in your home. But what I tell people is simple... if someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night, get to your kids and hide with a gun in one hand and a phone in the other. Try not to fight, but pull that trigger if you need to. Plan a defensive point... try to make it a kids bedroom so it's a lot faster. Barricade, call 911, aim for the door. Don't search your house... let the cops do that.

In broad daylight it's different if they KNOW you are there. You need to get out of dodge the second it starts. Get in the fight immediately, and use lethal force. No one breaks into occupied homes during the day time unless if they are serious, which is why we do not call it a burglary, we call it a home invasion robbery. These are the kind of people who will kill you, beat your spouse, and rape your daughter... not even joking here.

[mdak06]

FWIW ... In the first video from this article, a news reporter stated that the charges may be from "stabbing one of them to death." Apparently two of the assailants were injured (one fatally) and the other two got scared and ran off. The invasion was at 2 am. Reportedly the assaliants prior to the home invasion (before the home invasion) had said "I'll kill you and your family."

The second video from the first link also shows a picture of the home, and it doesn't appear to be a very big home.

IMO, if you're one person under attack by four people, and you are defending yourself without a firearm, then you'd better be damn sure that the first one who attacks you is not going to get up and attack you again after you fight him. That would mean doing enough damage to severely incapacitate that person (and perhaps kill that person) if you are able to.

If you're defending yourself from multiple people with a firearm, you can fend them off from at least a bit of a distance away and are in a much better position to be able to stop fighting off (because you may be able to maintain some distance and can pause to see if they will come after you again or not). That's not really the case if your method of defense is your close contact with fists and/or feet and/or a blade.

The only thing I can think of is that the police think the guy who ended up dead was already down on the floor and not moving, everyone else had run away, and then the guy on the floor was stabbed again by the resident. Even if the guy was on the floor, it's possible he could still have been logically seen as a threat (if he was crawling towards the residents of the home). But all of that is just speculation on my part - I suppose we'll see how it turns out in a trial if it gets to that.

One thing that potentially worries me is that the prosecutor will see this as a matter of someone who is "too well trainied" and therefore should have stopped fighting sooner. IMO if one still perceives a threat, they're still justified in fighting, regardless of how much training they have.

[spillanej]

FWIW ... In the first video from this article, a news reporter stated that the charges may be from "stabbing one of them to death." Apparently two of the assailants were injured (one fatally) and the other two got scared and ran off. The invasion was at 2 am. Reportedly the assaliants prior to the home invasion (before the home invasion) had said "I'll kill you and your family."

The second video from the first link also shows a picture of the home, and it doesn't appear to be a very big home.

IMO, if you're one person under attack by four people, and you are defending yourself without a firearm, then you'd better be damn sure that the first one who attacks you is not going to get up and attack you again after you fight him. That would mean doing enough damage to severely incapacitate that person (and perhaps kill that person) if you are able to.

If you're defending yourself from multiple people with a firearm, you can fend them off from at least a bit of a distance away and are in a much better position to be able to stop fighting off (because you may be able to maintain some distance and can pause to see if they will come after you again or not). That's not really the case if your method of defense is your close contact with fists and/or feet and/or a blade.

The only thing I can think of is that the police think the guy who ended up dead was already down on the floor and not moving, everyone else had run away, and then the guy on the floor was stabbed again by the resident. Even if the guy was on the floor, it's possible he could still have been logically seen as a threat (if he was crawling towards the residents of the home). But all of that is just speculation on my part - I suppose we'll see how it turns out in a trial if it gets to that.

One thing that potentially worries me is that the prosecutor will see this as a matter of someone who is "too well trainied" and therefore should have stopped fighting sooner. IMO if one still perceives a threat, they're still justified in fighting, regardless of how much training they have.

Allow me to simplify... this man and his family, friends, and fans are all lucky that fighting 4 vs. 1 without a gun is kind of his thing. It's actually on my official list of life rules:

1. If you're gonna get shot do it near a hospital.
2. If you're gonna get into a gun fight, bring a gun.
3. If 4 guys attack you and you get into a fight... be a successful MMA fighter.

[Amy Blackthorn]

What no "have Amy on speed dial just in case"?