Open Carry

[grannywils]

Doesn't anyone find it odd that in the clip of the girl getting beat ,its all about the security guards not doing anything ,yet there were dozens of people who just stood around and also did nothing ,really speaks to the level of empathy or regard that we as a species seemed to have sunk to.Suppose that's why when someone does decide to do something we call them brave or even heroes.

 

 

This is sort of off topic, but; yes, that is exactly why we call them "brave" or even "heroes".

[Surenas]

This is sort of off topic, but; yes, that is exactly why we call them "brave" or even "heroes".

Yes, it's no use saying that you don't know nothing

It's still gonna get you if don't do something

Sitting on a fence that's a dangerous course

Oh, you could even catch a bullet from the peace-keeping force

Even the hero gets a bullet in the chest

Oh yeah, once upon a time in the west

 

_ Dire Straits, Once Upon A Time In The West

 

Well, those who favour open carry remind me of my time in Uruzgan, a province in a land of open carry where nobody trusts in the police... one of the main reasons for the men to be armed. And we've shot those armed civilians that consiously or not crossed the lines in conflict situations cos there is absolutely no time left for a who's who quiz. Collateral damage is always the result when civilians apparently take sides.

I believe that there is no difference in the valuation of a single situation between the several stages of armed conflicts. It's always more a job than just a duty. So whenever civilians are unasked alarmed to do their emotional duty they will fail in general cos they are not trained in a job that is not theirs, a job that deals with conflict resolution, not with risk-free ducking or a mere practice shooting at cardboard characters. Join the police if you really want to fight armed crime. Don't play cop by the grace of your own. The moment you start playing, the devil's sitting in the corner, just laughing.

[DarkeWolf]

Ok, I'm the one person that voted that I approve of concealed carry, but not open carry.

 

So before I start up, just let me say that yes, I do support carry. I had my CCW permit for 3 years.

 

1) Proponents of gun control often throw that whole "wild west mentality" crap around. Having people with handguns strapped openly is only gonna fuel their fires, and recruit more people to their cause, who oppose handguns in general.

2) Seeing a gun on somebody that you don't know, makes people (in general) nervous. You can sometimes feel the tension levels rise when a gun is spotted. Even on a uniformed law enforcement officer. People (in general) dont know enough about guns, and after all the negative hype they've heard about them, are afraid of them. And of the people carrying them.

2a) Nervous people tend to sometimes call the cops. If I'm carrying legally, I dont wanna get harrassed by the police every time that I go out. And B) I dont want those officers having to be there dealing with a legal citizen, when they could be out doing what they are supposed to be doing, dealing with people breaking the law.

3) Open carry is by no means nearly as safe as concealed carry. A) With it out in the open, its easier for somebody to take it away from you. Concealed carry offers a layer of cloth in the way of somebody trying to do that. And despite what some people would think, unless the holster is designed to only allow certain types of draw.... in a scuffle its definitely possible to pull a gun off of somebody that has one holstered.

B) As was mentioned before, in a situation where somebody already HAS a gun drawn, and actually intends to use it, the person who has an undrawn, but visible weapon is going to be one of the first ones to get shot.

C) Refer to 2). A person that comes in to rob a place and sees an open gun, could be more intimidated to start shooting, than if the guns were concealed, and could be brought out unexpectedly.

[Syco21]

To think that anyone can act without regard to the safety of others or themselves is also naive.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But I agree! It is naive to rely on others for your protection, that is why I support open and concealed carry. You are responsible for your own safety, no one else.

 

The guards did not act because they were not trained or given permission to do so. Simple as that. They were not trained or given permission because the company which oversees them probably did not want to deal with all the legal paperwork and liability related to giving that permission or training.

Yes, that is my point. You are the one that stated that it is inappropriate to carry places where you are more heavily armed than the security guards. I am showing you that it is a naive belief do to the fact that most security guards are not authorized or even trained to help you if you are attacked. You are responsible for your own safety, so to not carry because the guards are not armed is naive at best.

 

Open carry would not help this situation because the guards still would not be allowed to act under the terms of their contract, and anyone who decided to involve themselves in the situation would become legally liable for any injuries which resulted. The reality is that if you shoot someone who is not on your property, and they die somewhere other than on your property, in most states, it counts as murder unless you can prove that your LIFE was in danger. Anyone who pulled a gun in that situation could be charged, even with an open carry law, because their life was not in danger. Or are you willing to try and convince a jury that a 200 pound man would feel mortally threatened by a 110 pound girl and found it NECESSARY to hold her at gunpoint?

There were 3 girls a couple boys, not everyone on that platform was a 200lbs man and the victim most certainly wasn't. I wasn't suggesting that the guards should have been carrying, see above. I was saying that it's foolish to rely on security guards, or anyone else for that matter. Had she been carrying a weapon, weather it be mace or a gun, she would have had the means to defend herself and not had to ask the guards for help. I also don't agree that anyone using a firearm to defend the victim would have been in trouble. Some states maybe, but most states allow you to defend not only yourself, but others as well. And even if they were in one of those states that do not, there is a good chance that they could take the appeal to the supreme court if needed and get the case thrown out.

 

Furthermore, one need not have been armed to stop that transgression. One of suitable stature could have simply spoken up and put forth a verbal resistance to the act which would encourage others to participate. But nobody did. Even if someone were armed, they probably wouldn't have done anything because it is human nature to avoid potentially dangerous situations which do not personally involve us.

Again, the point isn't that other people should be armed, it's that you shouldn't rely on other people to protect you. Because they wont. You are responsible for your own protection.

 

The reality is that civilization requires a decrease in armed individuals wandering around. This is universally true among all cultures past and present. In relinquishing our personal ability to protect ourselves we become reliant on the services of that civilization (police and military) to keep us safe. Just because the national systems of security may be flawed, primarily because of legal and criminal elements, does not mean that we should necessarily have to start arming ourselves. The problem isn't the system, it's the destructive elements within that system. Endorsing anything against that system would only work to further destabilize it. An armed population of individuals with no restrictions would only be a regression to earlier, uncivilized times, and neither solve those problems, nor encourage advancement of those systems.

I find that deliberately and unnecessarily relying on someone else to be both foolish and appallingly irresponsible. Even if the judicial system were absolutely perfect with no corruption, it would still be naive and irresponsible to rely on it for your protection. For the same reason that it would be foolish to rely on the fire department to protect you from fire and not bother to take reasonable steps to protect your home from fires, like buying a fire alarm. For one the police can't always be there to protect you and two the police have no obligation to protect you.

[Vagrant0]

So you're basically saying that every person should be armed, man, woman, child, at all times? Security is useless so we should all only care about ourselves and use our weapons any time we feel threatened without caring about the health and well being of those around us (they're armed too, let them protect themselves)? Why even have police and a military then... Militia all the way? Erm, not sure if you are aware, but that sort of thing usually ends up being bad to start, and VERY bad once some group of heavily armed persons decides to take them away from everyone else and kill anyone who opposes (see Africa). You see... in cases like that, either you're part of the heavily armed para-military force, or you're one of those who are subjugated and defenseless. You step out of line or voice some resistance, you're dead. And what do you think prevents gangs from being able to take absolute control of an area? Police, laws, and people who rely on others for what help they do get. No, the system isn't anywhere near perfect, and isn't necessarily good in many places, but is still far better than the absolute anarchy which you are prescribing. Go take a trip somewhere that is REALLY dangerous... You'll see that having armed militants on the street is NOT safety by any measure of the word, and is outright deadly if you happen to be armed. This grand notion you have just isn't progress, nor freedom.

 

Somehow I get the feeling that you're the sort who doesn't yield for pedestrians crossing the street either (Afterall, they're supposed to be responsible for their own safety and should learn to jump out of the way... To hell with traffic laws, every man for themselves).

Edited October 30, 2010 by Vagrant0

[Syco21]

Where did I say that we should care only about ourselves? I didn't. I said we're responsible for our own safety. Which is a far cry from running someone down because they got in your way. I've shown you an instance where others can not be relied on for your safety. Are you going to tell me that video is fake? I've pointed out that police are neither obligated to protect you nor have the ability to do so always. Do you not believe me that they are not obligated to protect you? Well it's true. If the police have no duty to protect you, why would you expect anyone else to? Do you not believe me that the police can not always protect you? I do not know what to say if so.

 

I'm not really sure how you get 'there should be no laws, no police, no military, no government' from 'you're responsible for your own personal safety.' I mean you said it yourself. Local, state and federal law enforcement are needed to combat organized crime and bring criminals to justice. To help deter crime(note, I did not say 'help prevent'). Without them, criminals would be free to run wild, doing as they please.

 

Ok, I can almost see where you are coming from with the anti-police bit, it is an extreme perversion of what I said, but it somewhat follows, even if illogically. However, the bit about the military is so far into left field, I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. The military has absolutely nothing to do with the safety of the individual. The obligation of the military is to protect the interests of the nation as a whole, in the US the military isn't really even allowed to perform law enforcement duties. And the only time they are allowed to be deployed within the boarders outside of military installations is during times of emergency. And even then it is typically only the national guard sent in for humanitarian reasons, under the command of local law enforcement.

[ginnyfizz]

I believe that Vagrant's opinion as to when and where arming yourself might be appropriate is an excellent guideline to use. It's always interesting to see how differently guns are viewed in the USA, than they are in the UK where I am from. And where, I might add, some of the most stringent gun laws in the world have not reduced the rate of gun crime one iota. The various assorted gangsters just make rude gestures at the law and carry on regardless, and woe betide you if you defend yourself with a firearm. I only wish that we could carry on the basis Vagrant says.

 

Syco21 - good point.

 

I would speculate a large increase of gun crime to follow. If you are worried about increase of gun crime, I don't see the logic in wanting there to be an increase of them. If at all possible the example of the US is not one I would recommend any country to emulate interms of gun proliferation and use. their gun crime is at such a level compared to the UK its a case of exactly what not to do.

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

 

You will notice that places like switzerland have 5 times higher gun homicides than UK, and any place on that list, simply fact is if you increase the circulation of guns, crime and death as a result will increase to.

 

anyway, I don't have a need for a gun anymore. In fact i never needed a gun when I had one. But each to their own. Next year I'll probably have to have one around again :down:

 

You miss my point. I first broadly agreed with Vagrant's views as a starting point on the appropriateness of when it might be necessary to carry a gun. I have not yet voted, but as I am a hunter and shooter myself, I guess I would be in the same camp as Kendo and Aurelius and I will go for the licensed open carry option. Because the licensing we have here in the UK places unreasonable restrictions on sporting guns (I have previously mentioned in other threads that our national shooting team are world class but have to train in France because of it.) It doesn't help licensed slaughtermen and hunt servants either, these being the only category of person aside of police officers and military personnel who would ever get a licence to carry sidearms (whereas most livestock are slaughtered with a captive bolt gun, horses are usually shot with a pistol or rifle. Well they are here) You might well be able to get that pistol in your pocket (the pockets on hunting coats are pretty big after all, I've done it)....but just try it with a bolt gun or a rifle.

 

Crime and death have increased due to a combination of the gangsters ignoring any licensing requirements, and the police being inert and leaving them to it and turning places like Nottingham, a city fairly near me, into Dodge City. It is, after all, far easier to harass responsible gun owners with over regulation, as despite the fact that they might have a veritable arsenal, say shotguns for feathered game, deer rifles for stalking and so on, they have to have them locked up so they aren't physically going to be able to pull them on you. And even if they were allowed open carry, they wouldn't as they tend to be law abiding individuals. (yeees, there are always exceptions...)

 

It is not the proliferation of licensed guns you need to fear, but the proliferation of illegal ones.

 

Of course this topic is about handguns, I do realize that.

[Vagrant0]

Where did I say that we should care only about ourselves? I didn't. I said we're responsible for our own safety. Which is a far cry from running someone down because they got in your way. I've shown you an instance where others can not be relied on for your safety. Are you going to tell me that video is fake? I've pointed out that police are neither obligated to protect you nor have the ability to do so always. Do you not believe me that they are not obligated to protect you? Well it's true. If the police have no duty to protect you, why would you expect anyone else to? Do you not believe me that the police can not always protect you? I do not know what to say if so.

This is where I think you are mistaken. Police ARE there to serve and protect... That's their friggin motto. The problem is that often the threat of lawsuits prevents them from taking action, just like those security guards. The problem is also that the dispatcher system is abused by some, and is rife with internal problems... But it's STILL one of the best police forces in the world. Arming civilians without regulation won't make their job easier, and won't make anyone safer since people will not be as restricted by what they can and cannot do when their emotions get the better of them. The bit of concerning language here is really near the bottom

unable to successfully sue over situations such as

On one hand, yes, people should be held accountable, but not in civil cases seeking money. One person even left a comment about this.

What in your mind would be the effect of having a police force where all individual members can be sued for criminal neglect or damages when things go sour? Including that and bad pay, nobody would join.

 

Incompetence should be dealt with harshly, but as in the army this can only work if it is a closed system i.e. internal police. Otherwise, every time you bring a criminal to justice you can get slapped with a counter suit.

 

Although this was replied to by the author, the response was just filled with more anti-police, pro-gun spin. The problem is indeed not the reasons on which the system was founded, but rather how this system has gone to be abused by both citizens and those who run it. The article in question also ignores certain legal aspects which would weaken the argument (a common issue when the author is clearly biased). Such as police not being able to hold or prosecute a person until after a crime has been committed. Such as persons being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Such as police officers not being able to read minds, know the future, or get information other than what the dispatcher relays to them. Sure, the article digs up a few cases where the police fail to protect people, but this speaks more of local inabilities, and a system which is over-stressed than anything...

 

The addition of armed individuals in all those cases wouldn't have necessarily done anything either.

 

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services - Gonna arm a child now? Great, so instead of having severe head brain damage, the kid has minor brain damage and is screwed up for the rest of his life for shooting his father. There is no easy solution since child services sucks on the whole and is either too aggressive because of assholes like this, or not aggressive enough because of false alarms and lawyers.

 

Riss v. New York - Armed at a wedding? Oh yeah, that'll make it a day to remember; the day when Uncle Bill had a bit too much to drink, overheard someone commenting about how his niece shouldn't be wearing white, and decided to make someone wear red. Or are you trying to suggest that if someone is being stalked, they should go and hunt down the stalker to nip the issue in the bud? Also, happened back in the 60's, people really didn't take crazy seriously back then.

 

Warren v. District of Columbia - And what exactly would keep the trespassers from being armed themselves? Unregulated carry means that anyone can be armed for any reason. This was also DC in the 1980's, I'm pretty sure that many people WERE armed, just not legally. Now, not going to say that coming out of it alive is any better than 14 hours of torture and sexual abuse, but even if one of the women had a gun, they probably wouldn't have carried it since they believed it to be all clear. Or are you suggesting that you should be armed at all times? And, if they had reacted instead by shooting the trespassers instead of reporting the crime, they would have gone to jail for killing someone as the laws at that time, or currently, do not include trespassing as a mortal threat.

 

Hartzler v. City of San Jose - So let's start arming paranoid individuals? She called police 20 times in the past year... That's more often than once a month. All of which were responded to. And erm, 1975... and even still, the police showed up every time called and even arrested the guy. Her complaint was that the police weren't just sitting on her lawn waiting. I will admit, giving her a gun might have helped prevent her being beaten, but only provided that she knew how to use it, had it on her at all times, and was gifted with enough clairvoyance to see it coming. She would also likely have gone to jail for shooting her ex in a civil dispute.

 

Also, if you notice, all cases were from the 1980s and before... Anyone who was alive in the 80's was well aware of how poorly managed everything was. To compare isolated, freak incidents that are over 20 years old with things as they stand now is just plain faulty. Of course, most of this is whitewashed in the article because the person who wrote it was specifically biased towards people arming themselves. What better way to do that than play on people's fears without regard to context or time frame.

 

it is an extreme perversion of what I said

It was extreme for a reason. The notion of "being responsible for your own safety" and "not relying on anyone else" is just plain faulty. Are you going to stop going to doctors entirely because of the handful people have been victims of malpractice or negligence? Then why stop trusting in police to maintain order and protect the citizens because of the handful of instances where they have failed to keep someone from being harmed or killed? You're all for everyone carrying a gun, what about everyone being trained with medical knowledge and armed with being able to write their own prescriptions? Sure, both could save some lives, but both could also be abused to severity.

 

Sorry, but the idea of arming civilians thoughtlessly can only lead to a further breakdown of society since there is nothing preventing petty criminals, unstable persons from owning AND carrying weapons, and few limitations to prevent them from being used whenever the passion arises. Obviously you cannot see this. A broken system does not mean you should take matters into your own hand, but rather work and facilitate solutions toward fixing that system. You also cannot see that having open carry laws means adding several more laws toward when that weapon can be used without legal incident, and that all of these laws only gives those who know them a better line toward abuse, like everything else.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Vagrant0

[Aurielius]

Ok, I'm the one person that voted that I approve of concealed carry, but not open carry.

So before I start up, just let me say that yes, I do support carry. I had my CCW permit for 3 years.

 

I favor both and have had a CWP for over thirty years, largely due to the fact that my state allows concealed carry as the only option.

 

1) Proponents of gun control often throw that whole "wild west mentality" crap around. Having people with handguns strapped openly is only gonna fuel their fires, and recruit more people to their cause, who oppose handguns in general.

 

There will always be the 'I don't care for guns of any sort' crowd so basing an option designed to not illicit a negative response from them will be a waste of time. Having been raised with weapons since early childhood the real criterion should be the training of the owner to recognize what it's capacity is and when it is appropriate to utilize it's function.

 

2) Seeing a gun on somebody that you don't know, makes people (in general) nervous. You can sometimes feel the tension levels rise when a gun is spotted. Even on a uniformed law enforcement officer. People (in general) dont know enough about guns, and after all the negative hype they've heard about them, are afraid of them. And of the people carrying them.

2a) Nervous people tend to sometimes call the cops. If I'm carrying legally, I dont wanna get harrassed by the police every time that I go out. And B) I dont want those officers having to be there dealing with a legal citizen, when they could be out doing what they are supposed to be doing, dealing with people breaking the law.

 

Again your thesis is dependent on the reactions of people who are not inclined to accept an armed individual as a peaceful law abiding citizen, like all novel experience the uniqueness of it will wear off with the commonality of the experience.Since you hold a CWP you also know that not all circumstances require it's use, and that most of us that carry reserve that privilege for what we deem special conditions. The use of Open Carry would logically follow the same dictates.

 

3) Open carry is by no means nearly as safe as concealed carry. A) With it out in the open, its easier for somebody to take it away from you. Concealed carry offers a layer of cloth in the way of somebody trying to do that. And despite what some people would think, unless the holster is designed to only allow certain types of draw.... in a scuffle its definitely possible to pull a gun off of somebody that has one holstered.

 

This is simply a discussion of tactics, and like all tactical choices must be reflective of the type of engagement one favors. I can see the viability of both Open and Concealed Carry use based upon the circumstances that I expect to encounter, and do not rule one more efficacious than the other.

 

B) As was mentioned before, in a situation where somebody already HAS a gun drawn, and actually intends to use it, the person who has an undrawn, but visible weapon is going to be one of the first ones to get shot.

 

I find this argument is based simply on the reactions of aggressor and respondent like all combat situations training is the key. No activity that requires extreme coolness and accuracy can be attained without consistent practice, so that it is learned reflex when the occasion warrants.

 

C) Refer to 2). A person that comes in to rob a place and sees an open gun, could be more intimidated to start shooting, than if the guns were concealed, and could be brought out unexpectedly.

 

The opposite could also be said that, in that if a felon was contemplating a crime the sight of armed possible opposition might incline him to pick a softer target of opportunity rather than risking an equivalent armed response from bystanders. It is a mistake to assume that by disarming oneself that this will in turn disarm criminals. The old adage 'I would rather be judged by twelve men than carried by six' applies to the legality of use, it's what we have a judicial system for , to adjudicate the use of deadly force.

 

[Syco21]

This is where I think you are mistaken. Police ARE there to serve and protect... That's their friggin motto. The problem is that often the threat of lawsuits prevents them from taking action, just like those security guards. The problem is also that the dispatcher system is abused by some, and is rife with internal problems... But it's STILL one of the best police forces in the world. Arming civilians without regulation won't make their job easier, and won't make anyone safer since people will not be as restricted by what they can and cannot do when their emotions get the better of them.

Whether or not the police are required to protect you is of little importance when even you admit that they can not always be there. Which is the main the point, even if they are bound by law to always protect you, they can not always be there to do so. There are response times, cases where they are so overworked that they forget about your call. These are not really the fault of the police, they are simply a fact of life.

 

The bit of concerning language here is really near the bottom "unable to successfully sue over situations such as" On one hand, yes, people should be held accountable, but not in civil cases seeking money. One person even left a comment about this.

What in your mind would be the effect of having a police force where all individual members can be sued for criminal neglect or damages when things go sour? Including that and bad pay, nobody would join.

 

Incompetence should be dealt with harshly, but as in the army this can only work if it is a closed system i.e. internal police. Otherwise, every time you bring a criminal to justice you can get slapped with a counter suit.

 

Although this was replied to by the author, the response was just filled with more anti-police, pro-gun spin. The problem is indeed not the reasons on which the system was founded, but rather how this system has gone to be abused by both citizens and those who run it. The article in question also ignores certain legal aspects which would weaken the argument (a common issue when the author is clearly biased). Such as police not being able to hold or prosecute a person until after a crime has been committed. Such as persons being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Such as police officers not being able to read minds, know the future, or get information other than what the dispatcher relays to them. Sure, the article digs up a few cases where the police fail to protect people, but this speaks more of local inabilities, and a system which is over-stressed than anything...

I'm not saying that the police should be held civilly responsible for failing to protect someone. I'm pointing that there is no laws which says they must and that even if there were, they aren't omnipresent. That you have to take responsibility for your own safety, because if you are ever attacked, the police are only a phone call and 30 minutes away.

 

The addition of armed individuals in all those cases wouldn't have necessarily done anything either.

 

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services - Gonna arm a child now? Great, so instead of having severe head brain damage, the kid has minor brain damage and is screwed up for the rest of his life for shooting his father. There is no easy solution since child services sucks on the whole and is either too aggressive because of assholes like this, or not aggressive enough because of false alarms and lawyers.

Not at all. I never said that I was advocating a perfect solution. Not everyone is capable of defending themselves, it is highly unfortunate but true. But just like we wont say that Child Services is completely ineffective and needs to be done away with, we shouldn't say the same about guns and personal responsibility.

 

Riss v. New York - Armed at a wedding? Oh yeah, that'll make it a day to remember; the day when Uncle Bill had a bit too much to drink, overheard someone commenting about how his niece shouldn't be wearing white, and decided to make someone wear red. Or are you trying to suggest that if someone is being stalked, they should go and hunt down the stalker to nip the issue in the bud? Also, happened back in the 60's, people really didn't take crazy seriously back then.

What wedding? She was maimed two days after getting engaged. I'm not even sure she had time to even start planning a wedding, though with women you never know. :tongue:

 

But I digress. Being armed might not have helped her, being surrounded by police officers similarly would not have helped her. But being armed would not have hurt either and constantly being escorted by officers is not practical. And yes, I do advocate being armed always. Because as this woman found out, you never know when you will get attacked. Again, I refer you to Suzanna Hupp. If you do not know, she was a victim of the Luby's massacre. No she wasn't shot or killed, only both of her parents. Whom probably wouldn't have died had Texas not passed an anti-carry law the day before. She normally went armed everywhere, except that day, which was the first in years because of the new law. Police were unable to protect her and her parents. That's not the fault of the police, they can not be everywhere at all times. But it is an unfortunate truth. As for someone getting drunk while carrying and shooting someone for passing a rude comment: it's illegal in most, if not all, states to carry while intoxicated. You're not going to tell people they can no longer drive to weddings because there is a possibility they will get drunk then get behind the wheel, are you?

 

Warren v. District of Columbia - And what exactly would keep the trespassers from being armed themselves? Unregulated carry means that anyone can be armed for any reason. This was also DC in the 1980's, I'm pretty sure that many people WERE armed, just not legally. Now, not going to say that coming out of it alive is any better than 14 hours of torture and sexual abuse, but even if one of the women had a gun, they probably wouldn't have carried it since they believed it to be all clear. Or are you suggesting that you should be armed at all times? And, if they had reacted instead by shooting the trespassers instead of reporting the crime, they would have gone to jail for killing someone as the laws at that time, or currently, do not include trespassing as a mortal threat.

You are telling me that someone breaking into your home is simple trespass and that it's not an instance where your life is put in danger? Are you telling me that the women, hearing the screams of their roommate and then witnessing her being abused before being captured themselves is not adequate threat to their life to warrant deadly self defense? I don't know what to say to that. :mellow: Is it better that they were abused, raped and tortured than being armed and fending off their attackers?