I’m afraid my manners will be my downfall

Bangswitch said:

While I appreciate the satire. It’s the combination of light emitted, the concentration and focus of the light and where it’s aimed. Flash photography among other sources are known to damage the retina. Shining wildlife is already a crime in many states. It’s admittedly being used a weapon to stop a potential attack. If the would be attacker wasn’t actually going to attack you then you wouldn’t be defending yourself, you would be ‘attacking him with weaponized light’ (new demon for the left to attack as soon as the get all those pesky guns ).

And to some degree I’m playing the white devils advocate here (miss you Mr. Walton), because I surely wouldn’t try to charge anyone for that, but if my feeble mind can make the connection surely some scumbag who thinks defending yourself should be a crime and happens to be better at arguing than me surely could.

Click to expand...

MOTOR51 said:

You are seriously blowing this way out of proportion. You have had LEO tell you that you wouldn’t be charged but you are still going on about it. You have a choice to either shine the dang light or not, only you can make that monumental(apparently) decision. Can we please move on now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Click to expand...

jhal23 said:

OP needs to realize that violent people don't care about manners.

Click to expand...

Bangswitch said:

While I appreciate the satire. It’s the combination of light emitted, the concentration and focus of the light and where it’s aimed. Flash photography among other sources are known to damage the retina. Shining wildlife is already a crime in many states. It’s admittedly being used a weapon to stop a potential attack. If the would be attacker wasn’t actually going to attack you then you wouldn’t be defending yourself, you would be ‘attacking him with weaponized light’ (new demon for the left to attack as soon as the get all those pesky guns ).

And to some degree I’m playing the white devils advocate here (miss you Mr. Walton), because I surely wouldn’t try to charge anyone for that, but if my feeble mind can make the connection surely some scumbag who thinks defending yourself should be a crime and happens to be better at arguing than me surely could.

Click to expand...

Bangswitch said:

It’s not about understanding about violet people. It’s finding a balance between being assertive enough and being an A-hole.

Click to expand...

thperez1972 said:

I wasn't being satirical. You get lights shined into your eyes all the time. The oncoming car with their brights on is a common example. On a 2 lane road, the concentration and the focus of the light is comparable to a flashlight. It's a traffic violation but it's not a criminal charge because it's an inconvenience and a safety issue while driving but there's no physical harm, despite you attempts to stretch it into one. And in your combination of things that could cause damage to your retina, you left out the duration of the exposure to the light. That's a very important omission.

It's illegal to hunt deer during certain hours in Louisiana, typically from 30 minutes after sunset to 30 minutes before sunset. I don't believe it's the spotlighting itself that's illegal. It's the hunting during the times when a spotlight would be effective. I've seen where people caught spotlighting have been charged with hunting during illegal hours and/or hunting from a roadway but I've never seen a charge for the spotlighting itself. Perhaps you can provide the statute to back up your claim.

You're more than welcome to play devil's advocate. The stuff your feeble mind is coming up with is amateur at best. You're not making connections because there are no connections to be made.

Click to expand...

jhal23 said:

Beware the violet people.

Yea... uh... if someone is approaching me and I have no desire to be approached, I'm gonna do whatever I want to ensure they understand I don't want to be approached.

Click to expand...

jhal23 said:

Yea... uh... if someone is approaching me and I have no desire to be approached, I'm gonna do whatever I want to ensure they understand I don't want to be approached.

Click to expand...

Bangswitch said:

It definitely should be a balance. Its pretty evident in a lot of my posts I’m not very concerned with offending people with my opinions, but it’s not ok to mistreat people. I obviously don’t have it down pat; that was the point of the post. Additionally I don’t know about you but I have kids who watch and mimic some of the good stuff they see me do, but almost all the bad. I would hate to see my kid treat a little friend with such distain.

Click to expand...

Bangswitch said:

There are a couple sections about use of light in both the MS Code and MDWFP regs. That refer to ‘head-lighting’ or shining as unlawful harassment of wildlife not just hunting. It’s in Title 49. It’s also mentioned in relation to right of ways and public roads in title 40.

Click to expand...

Bangswitch said:

Automotive headlights focus on a wide area and are generally no pointed directly into ones eyes additionally auto glass contains UV filters that provide protection to your eyes.

Click to expand...

Bangswitch said:

Look I’m keenly aware how silly the argument sounds that shining someone would be considered assault but we live in a silly world.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.re...on-man-arrested-killing-burglar-self-defense/

Click to expand...

Bangswitch said:

Look at the states that have ‘duty of retreat’ laws.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/terminology/self-defense-terms/duty-to-retreat/

Let’s not forget hate crime and speech laws are on the rise globally.

And if anyone was wondering the best defense to a ‘weaponized light’ (#lights of war) is to close your eyes and look away.

Click to expand...

thperez1972 said:

I don't live in Mississippi so their laws do not affect me and my actions for 99.9% of the time I would be in a situation where I might have occasion to use a flashlight.

Click to expand...

thperez1972 said:

The amount and intensity of light received by the eye does not diminish to zero because the light is not directly aimed at the eye. If that were the case, you can simply aim the flashlight at the person's chest and any possible "physical harm" goes away.

Click to expand...

thperez1972 said:

It doesn't appear he used a flashlight to kill the burglar.

Click to expand...

thperez1972 said:

While I cannot speak for everyone, I'm pretty sure I can say most people weren't wondering anything about a "weaponized light." The phrase has so far been ignored. I would be surprised if your repeating the term causes others to decides to use it.

Click to expand...

jhal23 said:

Who is being mistreated?

If I'm minding my business and someone feels the need to get in my business, I can do as I please. If I want to be left alone, it will be known. Whether that is through verbal commands or melting someone's face with the power of the sun, I will use whatever means necessary to ensure that person understands I want nothing to do with them.

Click to expand...

Bangswitch said:

The guy you assaulted with you dangerous ‘weaponized light’. #panhandler lives matter

Click to expand...

Paintball said:

Weaponized Light.... I got your Weaponized Light. Take this Mr. Short Change Charlie!

Click to expand...

Bangswitch said:

Click to expand...

AustinBR said:

This.

Another thing that helps is to forcefully tell them to back up. These people are used to people trying to tell them no, or giving a sad story back about why they can't give them cash. If they keep coming, after being told to backup, 1,000 lumens to the face is a decent deterrent. Anyone who keeps approaching after that is just stupid.

Click to expand...