Horse cakes, it is you injecting the word stupid, no one else. Attacks can occur anywhere, and this successful defense against an Armed Attacker proves that your statistics of 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, times more likely to get killed you killed if you are Armed is just not true, personal accounts from all over the U.S. prove you wrong. I will give you a free one Dadoalex, as a LEO, Police Officer, I coined the phrase "Contributory Neglect" while writing Crime reports, this is anything a potential victim may have done that contributed or encouraged or facilitated a criminal act or activity, leaving ones doors open, leaving valuables in plain sight, flashing large amounts of cash in public, getting staggering drunk etc..
"Personal accounts" are just that, "personal" there is no evidentiary value in "personal accounts" from a math or science point of view but...let's talk "personal account"... Uhm...Let's see... I got blind drunk last night and drove home arriving alive. This proves that drunk driving is perfectly safe and all those laws are just BS. Yeah, that's the logic you're using. and you "coined" that term? "Butterfield v. Forrester, 11 East. 60, 103 Eng. Rep. 926 (K.B. 1809), was an English case before the King's Bench that was the first appearance of contributory negligence as a common law defence against negligence." I'm thinking you have a great lawsuit against every attorney, law firm, and law school active in the last 200+ years over stealing your "catch phrase." Yeah, that's 1809. So... But, but, but, how could you "coin" a phrase like that? Isn't that blaming the victim? Go on now. Have 8 or 10 drinks then drive down to your local PD and tell them how effed up their DUI laws are.
Just as there is no evidentiary value in census questions being paraded around in the guise of a scientific study.
So let us recount. According to your expert opinion, a smart person is one who lives in mortal fear of the world that lays just beyond their door. A smart person is afraid to go anywhere out in public by themselves, is overcome by such all-encompassing paranoia of a violent attack that they will do absolutely nothing to hinder their situation awareness, such as listening to music when out in public, and will not go anywhere deemed as being out of the way despite it being a public venue because they may be subjected to an attack. Is this what you believe to be a smart person? Someone who is utterly paralyzed with fear? If that is not what you are saying, then explain precisely why such is not the case.
Apparently according to you, she was stupid, then yes, her gun saved her from stupid. Messed up your narrative again. That must really bum you out. Successful defensive gun uses happen every day.
So, how does your drinking and driving and getting a DUI have anything to do with Me ??? I do not drink and drive.
************************************ This was NOT a defense for negligence, it's objective was to place perspective on the context of a crime, what were the exact circumstances, ie, the actual motive behind the crime, the criminal claims that the victim was falling down drunk, and that he only attempted to steal the mans wallet, resulting in a bad fall and severe injuries on the part of the victim. That otherwise, the thief claims he would not have attempted a theft on a sober person. This indicates contributory neglect on the part of the drunk victim. Leaving ones keys on the visor and the door unlocked on a car was another example of contributory neglect in relation to stolen cars. The D.A.s office heard my suggestion to distinguish these circumstances on crime reports, in order to test the efficasy of crime prevention programs
So you see, you are wrong on all counts, my idea was original in term and usage, not as a defense of anything, but as a statement of actual circumstances leading to a crime or criminal activity, this never entered into the defense, ( post it note ) as an addendum or notes to the D.A..
Look up analogy and get back to me. AND..."contributory neglect" "contributory negligence" a distinction without a difference. You "coined" nothing but you did blame the victim.
Perhaps the member Dadolex can explain the stupidity of these individuals that led to them being assaulted. Perhaps he can point out where they had the opportunity to simply leave the area, and go somewhere else, rather than face being assaulted for no reason. https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/0...ives-matter-before-beating-up-7-white-people/
How stupid of these people to be in their own home.... The Coshocton County Sheriff's Office is investigating a home invasion that resulted in a shooting incident that left one of the suspects injured. Sheriff Tim Rogers said last Thursday, shortly after midnight, deputies responded to a home at 648 Elm Street in Coshocton after receiving reports of gun shots being heard in that area. Upon arrival, deputies discovered that two individuals kicked in the door of that residence and one suspect was attempting to strike residents with a baseball bat. The sheriff says a male that resides at the home fired several shots at the intruders. At the time, it was believed no one had been shot. After further investigation, Rogers says they learned a suspect ,Richard Kafel, had been shot two times. He was taken to Coshocton Memorial Hospital where he was treated for non life threatening injuries and was then taken into custody. Two other suspects, Jeremiah Brock and Kylie Biss Brown, were also taken into custody and later charged with aggravated burglary. A fourth suspect, Alexander Nelson, was unable to be located. https://www.whiznews.com/content/news/local/2016/08/22/suspect-shot-in-coshocton-home-invasion DEFENSIVE GUN USES HAPPEN EVERYDAY
And you are wrong again, there is a distinction, you merely refuse to acknowledge it. There is no blame, just as you tie your shoe laces to not trip on them, you lock your doors at night, if you do not take precautions, stuff happens, ie. contributory neglect.
