Defense

[wildross]

repeatedly here in the states when legal carry and or gun ownership is made easier, violent crime goes down. Many states you can carry openly without a permit, though you will be hassled, probably for causing a disturbance.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[aj_rock]

Live in Canada, so getting a gun for myself is a no-go.

At the same time, during a home invasion, well, maybe this is just where I live, but a gun is much less useful in closed quarters. I also happen to know where the kitchen is, and consequently the butcher knife set. I also know the layout of my house much better than any invader.

Either way, any person invading my home will quickly find themselves the recipient of multiple stab/slash wounds. Preferably to the face.

Not just that, but most home-robbers are pretty cowardly. Much more likely to carry out their plan quietly than try to confront you. In the street, how about you just make a point of not making people wish to shoot you?

[David Romano]

"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." - Jeff Cooper

I'm a defense attorney and this is one of the most annoying things my clients can ever say to me. Most people who say this have no idea what the law of self-defense is in their state. I would suggest people learn that before making this comment.

[chairohkey]

I'm a defense attorney and this is one of the most annoying things my clients can ever say to me. Most people who say this have no idea what the law of self-defense is in their state. I would suggest people learn that before making this comment.

I'm aware of my state's castle law.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/75th2009/Reports/history.cfm?ID=569

[Waldo]

I'm aware of my state's castle law.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/75th2009/Reports/history.cfm?ID=569

It matters not what you know, but what the jury does. Having been a juror on a murder trial that may or may not have been self defense, what the defendent knows about self defense law is pretty much irrelevant. Heck what the lawyers and judge tell you about self defense law is pretty much irrelevant. I fought hard for him and we had a hung jury on the murder, but in the end other (minor IMHO) crimes he was charged with that we agreed apon guilt on will have him in jail the rest of his life, largely because a gun was involved, whether or not he actually did anything illegal with the gun (whether or not it was perfectly legal self defense). And if guns going off and people dying didn't happen, the cops wouldn't have come and he wouldn't have been charged with the other crimes.

[chairohkey]

It matters not what you know, but what the jury does. Having been a juror on a murder trial that may or may not have been self defense, what the defendent knows about self defense law is pretty much irrelevant. Heck what the lawyers and judge tell you about self defense law is pretty much irrelevant. I fought hard for him and we had a hung jury on the murder, but in the end other (minor IMHO) crimes he was charged with that we agreed apon guilt on will have him in jail the rest of his life, largely because a gun was involved, whether or not he actually did anything illegal with the gun (whether or not it was perfectly legal self defense).

Once again I'm aware of this, hence the Jeff Cooper quote. I'm ready to accept the risk of prison and ass rape, if it means protecting my loved ones.

Edit: Ask yourself a quick question. Would you rather put your life in the hands of twelve of your peers in a court of law or the criminal threatening you?

[Artinum]

I have to disagree with you here. Whilst yes, waving a gun around in a high street it going to get you arrested, I imagine it's probably the same in America (feel free to correct me there). I believe that the prohibitive gun laws don't do very much to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, any more than the drug laws do anything to keep drugs out of the hands of criminals. I was mugged at gun-point in the leafy suburbs of Cheshire - these things aren't as rare as we'd like to think. Instead all the prohibitive laws really do is prevent proper education on the matter, and keep law abiding people away from them. Much as in the old adage - all a lock does is keep an honest man honest.

As to how effective they are as a form of defense in an attack I wouldn't like to say.

No guarantee it was a real gun - imitations are common and even the police can't tell them apart from looking at them. But still, why take the chance?

You're right that laws will not stop criminals from being criminals. But you're using the common fallacy that everyone is either a criminal or honest - humans are not that binary. How many shootings happened because the gun owner got drunk and decided to revenge himself with deadly force? No gun, and most likely the victim would survive (might be hurt, perhaps badly, but they'd have a good shot at fighting back or running). What about those school shootings we hear about where a kid goes nuts and shoots a few dozen of his classmates with a rifle?

There are very few career criminals out there, compared to the opportunists. This is a good thing. There are also very few fully honest citizens. If you've ever pinched something from work, or gone over the speed limit, or let your child see an adult film, or used an illegal substance... you're not entirely honest. But I don't think that really makes you a criminal in anything other than the technical sense. Serious criminals will obtain and use guns as they see fit. The more honest citizens may own and use guns where legal, and do so responsibly. There's a whole spectrum in the middle where the problem lies, and laws can help to reduce the opportunities they have to cause unintentional damage.

You were mugged at gunpoint in *Cheshire*? Jings. One assumes you handed over your shinies forthwith, cursed the gods, and cancelled your cards rightaway...

... which is, to my mind, less unpleasant than escalating to a deadly-force fight.

Definitely the correct way to go. If you had a gun in your pocket at the time, it would do nothing for you but get you killed if it was spotted or you tried to draw it. And if the other guy's gun is a dud, you've just gone from self-defence to a messy situation that could be interpreted as homicide. Giving up your wallet would be cheaper than the legal bills to counter that one.

[gerbilOFdoom]

You're right that laws will not stop criminals from being criminals. But you're using the common fallacy that everyone is either a criminal or honest - humans are not that binary. How many shootings happened because the gun owner got drunk and decided to revenge himself with deadly force? No gun, and most likely the victim would survive (might be hurt, perhaps badly, but they'd have a good shot at fighting back or running). What about those school shootings we hear about where a kid goes nuts and shoots a few dozen of his classmates with a rifle?

There are very few career criminals out there, compared to the opportunists. This is a good thing. There are also very few fully honest citizens. If you've ever pinched something from work, or gone over the speed limit, or let your child see an adult film, or used an illegal substance... you're not entirely honest. But I don't think that really makes you a criminal in anything other than the technical sense. Serious criminals will obtain and use guns as they see fit. The more honest citizens may own and use guns where legal, and do so responsibly. There's a whole spectrum in the middle where the problem lies, and laws can help to reduce the opportunities they have to cause unintentional damage.

You've based your argument on the idea that not having a gun will make a person less likely to kill another when angered. You're using two common fallacies: 1. Guns are more dangerous than melee weapons. 2. An angered person with a gun will shoot somebody in anger.

Explained:

1. Knife wounds are far more dangerous than bullet wounds. A bullet usually exits cleanly and, unless it hits something important, odds are the victim will live. Knives tend to hit more on their way in and out and they can be used to stab repeatedly. http://mainemartialarts.com/self-defense/why-a-knife-is-more-dangerous-than-a-gun/

2. If everyone has a gun, an angry guy will know that everyone else has a gun and that, if he shoots, he's going to be shot right back by way more firepower than he has. I don't know about you, but when I'm mad I don't get suicidal at the same time. Proof: Vermont allows anyone to carry a firearm unless otherwise prohibited (criminals are prohibited, for example). They are ranked 49th for most crimes and 47th for murders in the US.

And if the other guy's gun is a dud, you've just gone from self-defence to a messy situation that could be interpreted as homicide. Giving up your wallet would be cheaper than the legal bills to counter that one.

At least in the US, not so. If you threaten somebody with a fake gun and they believe it is a real gun, it's treated the same. That's why they have orange caps on toy guns for kids, and why it's illegal to remove those orange caps.

[msuroo]

2. If everyone has a gun, an angry guy will know that everyone else has a gun and that, if he shoots, he's going to be shot right back by way more firepower than he has. I don't know about you, but when I'm mad I don't get suicidal at the same time. Proof: Vermont allows anyone to carry a firearm unless otherwise prohibited (criminals are prohibited, for example). They are ranked 49th for most crimes and 47th for murders in the US.

Yeah...you didn't sell me with this one. So the Cold War arms race was a great idea because we both had nukes? Come on. Also, you pick your crime statistics very conveniently. It's Vermont - the 2nd least populous state in the nation. There would be comparatively little crime no matter what the gun laws were.

[Artinum]

While I agree with everything you've said about the difference between knife and gun wounds, the key factor here is the range. If you're going to stab someone, you have to get in close. Gun shots can be from a distance. While the victim may not enjoy the experience either way, the range of the knife is a limiting factor.

As for your second point, you've misunderstood me a little. An angry person won't always go for their gun. Many won't - they can stay on top of their anger enough to still behave at least partially rationally - but not all. It's the ones that can't restrain themselves that shouldn't have guns in the first place, but how do you enforce that? More, these people won't be thinking rationally at the time. They aren't going to stop shooting someone for anything - including half a dozen other guns pointing at them.

I doubt gun ownership is the only factor at play in Vermont. I have a vague idea that they make chocolate chips for McVities cookies, and large quantities of chocolate would have a mollifying effect on anyone. But seriously, what about the employment rate? The demographic makeup of the state? Even the weather?

I'm actually not in favour of gun control laws, because I feel they would be pointless. Firearms are entrenched into the culture and widely available. It would basically be trying to get the genie back into the bottle. What is really needed is a way to treat the real problem - human stupidity. This may be intractable.

[msuroo]

While I agree with everything you've said about the difference between knife and gun wounds, the key factor here is the range. If you're going to stab someone, you have to get in close. Gun shots can be from a distance. While the victim may not enjoy the experience either way, the range of the knife is a limiting factor.

Not just the range, but also the mentality. You have to really want to kill a dude to stab him repeatedly - like, that's some gory shit. It's a lot easier (mentally) to threaten somebody with a gun. Unfortunately, something makes you jump, or somebody moves too fast - and whoops.

Don't get me wrong gerbil, I still don't have a problem with guns, and I think everyone should be able to own them as they please. But you seem to keep arguing that everyone would be safer if everyone everywhere was carrying, and I don't necessarily agree.

[KAllen]

Every city/state that has restrictive gun laws has higher crime rates. Laws ony stop the lawful from defending themselves. Anti-Gun = Anti-American as far as I'm concerned.

That being said. I'm a cop, so I'm hardly w/out a weapon on me, on or off duty...just in case.

Before I was a cop, I carried one almost all the time. I was 1911 packin' pizza delivery guy at one time. Our DT instructor in the Police Academy taught us some Jujitsu and I really saw the effectiveness of it. I wish I had the extra time and $ to take it regularly.

[Artinum]

Every city/state that has restrictive gun laws has higher crime rates. Laws only stop the lawful from defending themselves. Anti-Gun = Anti-American as far as I'm concerned.

That being said. I'm a cop, so I'm hardly w/out a weapon on me, on or off duty...just in case.

Now here's an interesting thought - which is the cause, and which is the effect? Do these cities have restrictive gun laws because the crime rates are high? Sure, it probably doesn't work - but nor does the war on terror, or the embarrassingly expensive war on drugs. Since when have governments known what the hell they're doing?

[mandy75]

I think a lot of it has to do how you're raised. I grew up in a house with guns. My parents never treated them like they were "forbiden fruit". I was taught that a gun was a tool, no different than a hammer. Growing up I was allowed to shoot them when I wanted and handle them if I was curious. By the time I was a dumb-ass teenager I never thought about messing around with a gun because there was no mystery left, fireworks on the other hand were a different story.

This is how I was raised as well, the guns hung on the wall in our house and I was taught shoot at a very young age. If i wanted to see a gun, or shoot or what ever, I just asked. All of the family gathering at my grandmothers on a Sunday after noon for dinner and target practice, was pretty common. I had my own bb gun at 10. If I lived an area where my kids could have them, they would.

[UncleTone]

Defense of my loved ones is something I take seriously so in that regard I have trained with and carry a firearm. My first line of defense is my brain, so if I can see a possible situation I do what I can to get away from it, but should that not be possible, and the situation becomes one where I must defend myself and my family against bodily harm or death, then my firearm is the best option I have at my disposal.

For personal defense and carry I carry a handgun, for home defense my go to is a shotgun with the hand gun as a backup.

I also do "drills" in my head when I am out and about to keep situational awareness high. I try to make mental notes of the people around me as I am out and about, and try to remember what they were wearing, how they looked etc. I know that seems silly, but you would be amazed at how much you can pick up just by mentally taking a few notes for a few seconds. This also makes sure that I am aware of myself and my body language. I believe that if you have body language that screams "victim" then a predator is more likely to pick you out, but if your body language is confident it says [channel your inner Obi-Wan here] "I am not the person you are looking for".

I also have BLS and first aid training.

[UncleTone]

You'd be surprised at what murderers/robbers and their families can get away with in court. I just don't want to get jail time for killing someone before they could kill me, you know? It's just a thing for me.

I still argue that no matter what weapon you choose, you need to be skilled in how to use it.

I like frying pans and screw drivers. My aim with a gun is horrible, so I don't even want to have one on hand to be used against me (worst case scenario)

You are definitely correct in saying that whatever you choose to defend yourself with it is prudent to know how to use that tool. Just as an FYI, and I did not take notice where you are located, but most states do not distinguish between deadly force with a gun and deadly force with a frying pan, or a fist, or a screw driver. If the mere act of killing the person with a gun in self defense would get you jail time, chances are killing them with anything in self defense would get you jail time.

repeatedly here in the states when legal carry and or gun ownership is made easier, violent crime goes down. Many states you can carry openly without a permit, though you will be hassled, probably for causing a disturbance.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

You are correct about gun ownership and crime and many years of statistics, from those that support guns and those that do not, support this fact.

About being hassled about open carry, I don't tend to get hassled here in Pennsylvania. There are groups here that have worked hard to make sure the police are aware of the laws and the State legislator and Courts have done well to ensure that we are protected from being hassled just because we open carry. There are definitely some States that are not as lucky and get hassled often.

Now here's an interesting thought - which is the cause, and which is the effect? Do these cities have restrictive gun laws because the crime rates are high? Sure, it probably doesn't work - but nor does the war on terror, or the embarrassingly expensive war on drugs. Since when have governments known what the hell they're doing?

Typically, according to both government and private statistics, when restrictive gun laws go into place, violent crime increases, and when gun laws are relaxed, violent crime rates decrease.

[Waldo]

Now here's an interesting thought - which is the cause, and which is the effect? Do these cities have restrictive gun laws because the crime rates are high? Sure, it probably doesn't work - but nor does the war on terror, or the embarrassingly expensive war on drugs. Since when have governments known what the hell they're doing?

Very true.

Trotting out Vermont's crime stats isn't really saying anything, I mean, its Vermont, not exactly a hotbed of poverty and gang violence.

If you eliminate all the criminal vs. criminal and crimes of passion (two forms of gun violence that laws would do absolutely nothing about, good or bad), you aren't left with a whole lot of gun violence.

People just don't go shootin' people for no reason. About the only main exception is robbery; the whole point of using a gun as a threat is that the person doesn't actually want to pull the trigger, hence in the cost:benefit analysis, defending whatever they want to take is less important than not giving a reason to pull the trigger.

[MMyers]

I'm getting a gun or two when I can. When a population is armed, breaking into a house is kind of like playing Russian Roulette: do it enough and you'll get your brains blown out. And as far as I'm concerned, you did it to yourself.

Besides, criminals don't follow laws, just because you can't have guns doesn't mean the criminals won't have them either... Cartels don't just profit from the illegal drug trade. If they're breaking into your house, I doubt they care about being armed with an illegal gun.

[Artinum]

Cartels, doing a little housebreaking? Seriously? That's like saying your six figure salary job isn't your only source of income because you busk for pennies in the evenings. Burglary is amateur crime for the most part - rich people have good security, so most burglars are breaking into the homes of the poor. You will seldom find large sums of cash around the place, so you'd have to go for the expensive items and, most importantly, the stuff you can carry. A 42" plasma TV is worth a fortune but two burglars between them would struggle to get it out of the house. And what do you do with it? You need to sell it. But stolen goods aren't easy to sell - especially the high value stuff; antiques are often quite distinctive and very specialist, electronics have serial numbers and are traceable. You won't get a good exchange from your fence. That $100 item will probably get you around $20. Of course, if you are set to rob some rich guy's house, this means (a) you know the security and how to get round it, ( you know you can shift the stuff afterwards and © you're actually going to this place deliberately, not just walking through the neighbourhood and seeing an open window. You've been tipped off.

Would having most if not all homes armed stop burglary? No. For one thing, it's usually the recourse of the desperate (drug addicts, for instance) who don't know anything else. Faced with the choice of risking getting shot or a night without their smack, they'll take the risk. That's addiction for you. Hey, if they do get shot, odds are they'll survive and be put through rehab! Win! For another thing, burglars don't usually want to be detected. Much easier to rob the house when the owners are out, at which point that gun in the house is useless for home defence and may well be their ticket to bigger crimes. If it all goes wrong and you find them rummaging in your drawers, their best bet is to run for it anyway. What's the point in fighting? It's putting themselves at physical risk, against unknown odds. They might fight back if cornered. They aren't likely to kill you, at least not deliberately, but they don't want you to remember their description either.

The only logical outcome of homes becoming armed is that the housebreakers do the same. They'll have cheap guns that may not work too well, but this really doesn't matter. If you walk in on them, the only question that matters is which of you gets the first shot.

[UncleTone]

Cartels, doing a little housebreaking? Seriously? That's like saying your six figure salary job isn't your only source of income because you busk for pennies in the evenings. Burglary is amateur crime for the most part - rich people have good security, so most burglars are breaking into the homes of the poor. You will seldom find large sums of cash around the place, so you'd have to go for the expensive items and, most importantly, the stuff you can carry. A 42" plasma TV is worth a fortune but two burglars between them would struggle to get it out of the house. And what do you do with it? You need to sell it. But stolen goods aren't easy to sell - especially the high value stuff; antiques are often quite distinctive and very specialist, electronics have serial numbers and are traceable. You won't get a good exchange from your fence. That $100 item will probably get you around $20. Of course, if you are set to rob some rich guy's house, this means (a) you know the security and how to get round it, ( you know you can shift the stuff afterwards and © you're actually going to this place deliberately, not just walking through the neighbourhood and seeing an open window. You've been tipped off.

Would having most if not all homes armed stop burglary? No. For one thing, it's usually the recourse of the desperate (drug addicts, for instance) who don't know anything else. Faced with the choice of risking getting shot or a night without their smack, they'll take the risk. That's addiction for you. Hey, if they do get shot, odds are they'll survive and be put through rehab! Win! For another thing, burglars don't usually want to be detected. Much easier to rob the house when the owners are out, at which point that gun in the house is useless for home defence and may well be their ticket to bigger crimes. If it all goes wrong and you find them rummaging in your drawers, their best bet is to run for it anyway. What's the point in fighting? It's putting themselves at physical risk, against unknown odds. They might fight back if cornered. They aren't likely to kill you, at least not deliberately, but they don't want you to remember their description either.

The only logical outcome of homes becoming armed is that the housebreakers do the same. They'll have cheap guns that may not work too well, but this really doesn't matter. If you walk in on them, the only question that matters is which of you gets the first shot.

I grew up in, and still frequent, a city with a very high crime rate. Speaking from experience, burglaries and home invasions are fairly high and many criminals do not care if they enter a home with people present. It is also not very hard to unload stolen goods even with serial numbers because they are typically not sold to pawn shops, despite what is shown on television. Those goods are often sold at a steep discount to other people in the community. It is pretty common knowledge in the city that I grew up that it will be only a matter of hours before a junkie shows up offering to sell you a television, and xbox, dvds etc etc and many people buy those items without giving it a second thought.

Because I lived in that area my whole life, I know people with criminal histories, and just from talking with them in passing, and because many of them know I carry a firearm, the consensus seems to be that they choose whom to victimize based on whether or not those individuals have the ability to fight back. They give citizens with firearms a wide berth because they do not want to risk their own lives when easier targets are available.

John Stossel did an in depth investigation where he interviewed violent criminals that were currently serving prison sentences. The response was overwhelming; criminals fear victims with firearms, will choose an easier target, and prefer restrictive gun laws. Criminals do not follow gun laws, so restrictive gun laws ensure that the chance is greater that only the criminal has the gun.

As for them often being armed with firearms, that is not necessarily true. A crime committed with a gun, at least in the State that I live in carries a mandatory 10 year sentence and $500,000 fine, whereas the same crime without a gun may only carry a sentence of a few months and probation. People that make it their profession to rob others may not be armed with guns for this very reason. If they are caught they get minimal prison time, but if they are caught and they have a firearm, they go to prison for a very long time. This is not to say that a lot of criminals do not have guns, but it is not logical to say that a small time criminal will arm themselves as well; they will simply look for an easier target so as not to risk their own lives and to not risk getting a much stiffer penalty.

Even criminals will choose the path of least resistance.

Either way, I would prefer a firearm even if the assailant is not armed. Even a punch to the head can cause serious injury or death and I would prefer to not be punched in the head by a desperate junkie.

One final thing. There is a minimal chance of a criminal entering my home and getting a gun if I am not present. My guns are kept in a large, heavy safe that is bolted to both the concrete floor and the support studs in the walls. The only gun not in the safe is the gun in my possession. I would hope this is the case for all people that choose to have firearms so as not to have their firearms stolen.

[MMyers]

Cartels, doing a little housebreaking? Seriously? That's like saying your six figure salary job isn't your only source of income because you busk for pennies in the evenings. Burglary is amateur crime for the most part - rich people have good security, so most burglars are breaking into the homes of the poor. You will seldom find large sums of cash around the place, so you'd have to go for the expensive items and, most importantly, the stuff you can carry. A 42" plasma TV is worth a fortune but two burglars between them would struggle to get it out of the house. And what do you do with it? You need to sell it. But stolen goods aren't easy to sell - especially the high value stuff; antiques are often quite distinctive and very specialist, electronics have serial numbers and are traceable. You won't get a good exchange from your fence. That $100 item will probably get you around $20. Of course, if you are set to rob some rich guy's house, this means (a) you know the security and how to get round it, ( you know you can shift the stuff afterwards and © you're actually going to this place deliberately, not just walking through the neighbourhood and seeing an open window. You've been tipped off.

Would having most if not all homes armed stop burglary? No. For one thing, it's usually the recourse of the desperate (drug addicts, for instance) who don't know anything else. Faced with the choice of risking getting shot or a night without their smack, they'll take the risk. That's addiction for you. Hey, if they do get shot, odds are they'll survive and be put through rehab! Win! For another thing, burglars don't usually want to be detected. Much easier to rob the house when the owners are out, at which point that gun in the house is useless for home defence and may well be their ticket to bigger crimes. If it all goes wrong and you find them rummaging in your drawers, their best bet is to run for it anyway. What's the point in fighting? It's putting themselves at physical risk, against unknown odds. They might fight back if cornered. They aren't likely to kill you, at least not deliberately, but they don't want you to remember their description either.

The only logical outcome of homes becoming armed is that the housebreakers do the same. They'll have cheap guns that may not work too well, but this really doesn't matter. If you walk in on them, the only question that matters is which of you gets the first shot.

Calm down, somebody not agreeing with you isn't the end of the world. No need for an essay. I was talking about the illegal gun trade and the flow of arms from Mexico into American streets, not gang members doing robbery (although it can get them a little money on the side).

Reading comprehension is good, yes?

Operation Too Fast Too Furious

And you're talking about druggies like they're a frightened deer not knowing any better. You just being there to witness is bad enough. You having the ability to give a description to the police is worse, because the last thing an addict wants to do is go through withdrawals in jail. I've talked to a crackhead or two walking around at night, and I wouldn't put it past them.

So, please, spare me the bullshit. I'm getting a gun, and a person looking to cause some ruckus (as the Wu-Tand Clan would say) is getting a fight, whether some random dude from England likes it or not.

[Artinum]

Who says I'm disagreeing? I find the whole mess fascinating.

And just so you know - I'd love to be able to get a gun and learn how to use it. If anything, I'm a little jealous.

[David Romano]

I'm aware of my state's castle law.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/75th2009/Reports/history.cfm?ID=569

No wonder you say what you say... Justifiable homicide for carjacking?!? Seriously, that's messed up.

[gerbilOFdoom]

No wonder you say what you say... Justifiable homicide for carjacking?!? Seriously, that's messed up.

Eh, they're attacking me and attempting to violate my rights. I believe that makes me justified to return the favor in whatever way keeps me and mine safest. If the safest way for me to stop someone from stealing my car is to kill that person, so be it. Sets an example to make people not want to steal my car. This belief is why the "wild west" was safer than most of modern America.

[David Romano]

Eh, they're attacking me and attempting to violate my rights. I believe that makes me justified to return the favor in whatever way keeps me and mine safest. If the safest way for me to stop someone from stealing my car is to kill that person, so be it. Sets an example to make people not want to steal my car. This belief is why the "wild west" was safer than most of modern America.

and why seven-year-olds get shot in the middle of the street, and yes, I've seen it happen. You want to blow someone away in your apartment or home for breaking in and threatening your family, great, we can mostly agree on that one. But gunfire over a CAR? In public? Ahhh... no, I cannot in any way see how that rises to a necessary legal protection. At least just have the courtesy to run him over instead. Messier but safer for those around you.