The value of just walking away

The thing is, I don't think the OP is talking about Stand Your Ground in this case, although SYG laws do kind of come into play when you talk about the right to be in a public place. He's talking about a situation where someone does something to offend or startle you, either with or without knowing it, and you have the options to either 1) say something, 2) ignore it, or 3) leave. (Or, 4, be a jerk about it).

Since 4 is obviously a bad idea with a stranger, the question is whether to do 1 or 2/3. I'm pretty sure that in most circumstances, when you use the option to say something, your response is either going to be "yes" or "no", not "let me cut you for insulting me."

Skribs, my feeling is the OP comes across as - if you say anything - you are starting something. Which I consider to be a false premise.

According to the OP, unless you ignore it or leave, you are in the wrong...

"Aggressor" could be applied to the person asking the other to turn down the music. CHL has made me far more polite and far less likely to confront.

"Aggressor" could be applied to the person asking the other to turn down the music. CHL has made me far more polite and far less likely to confront.

Click to expand...

This really depends on how the request is made. If someone asks another person politely to turn down the music, then he may have initiated to the confrontation, but he is hardly the aggressor or instigator. If he makes rude comments about the music he's the instigator, and if he makes threats if the music isn't stopped then he is the aggressor.

Just because you confront someone doesn't mean you're confrontational. You can be polite and still be assertive.

Jez..., no wonder this country is in such bad shape. To many people are willing to just shut up and let others impose their will on them. Stand up for what you feel is right.
If you are at a gas station and someone is blasting music so loud your fillings are rattling lose, you have every right to be there and to tell them to turn it down.
If they tell you to stuff it and get aggressive it's on them.

To paraphrase Frank (who I'm sure is quoting somebody)
'there are no winners in a SD shooting, just survivors'

Walking away is almost always an option
it's the avoid part of ADEE

According to the OP, unless you ignore it or leave, you are in the wrong...

Click to expand...

Dunno about calling it 'wrong', but unless you're willing to ignore it or leave it you certainly will bear some responsibility for whatever comes after. I think that's the real take-away.

In most of the examples alluded within the OP, a common theme seemed to be universal surprise and unhappiness with the end result by all involved parties. Yet the end result was knowable (not guaranteed, but foreseeable as a possibility) in advance - if only the protagonists has thought it through.

I'm pretty much a walk away type of guy, but it's kind of a sad commentary on the state of society when all manner of obnoxious behavior must be silently tolerated for fear of igniting a violent encounter.

Dunno about calling it 'wrong', but unless you're willing to ignore it or leave it you certainly will bear some responsibility for whatever comes after. I think that's the real take-away.

Click to expand...

One could argue that the person who is blasting loud music on purpose could be the person who instigates the confrontation by taunting people to tell them to turn it down, thereby giving them an excuse (in their mind) to assert their right to blast music via threat of force.

If nobody ever spoke up because of something that bothered them, but was legally acceptable, then we'd still have a lot of problems in this country that we got rid of decades before I was born.

ETA: Posted while I was typing:

Don't forget, you DO NOT have the right not to be offended. When you leave your property and enter the public, you become equal to every other citizen out there. Your desires, feelings, likes and dislikes, sense of honor, etc all are exactly equal to someone else's. If they make you uncomfortable...so what. They have the right to do so. If some stranger is doing something completely legal, non-threatening, and non-destructive; I'm sorry but you just don't really have the right to approach them and try to push your standard of behavior on them. You feel music should be listened to at one volume, they feel it should be at another. Who's right? In public, you both are. As long as it's legal.

He has the the right to do what he wants in public. You may not like it, but he still does. Part of being an adult in public means learning to accept that there are times when other people enjoying their rights might make you feel uncomfortable. Just as your rights might make them uncomfortable. Your standard of behavior, your idea of "this is how people should act" can NOT be enforced on others.

Click to expand...

One's persons rights end where the other's begins. Yes, that person has the right to blast loud music, and I don't have the authority to demand he turn it down. However, I have the right to be offended by that loud music, and I have the right to ask him to turn it down. He then has the right to choose whether he will accomodate my request or just do what he wants. In this case, we are both well within our rights. However, if I harass him when he says no or threaten him about the music, I've stepped over the line and have started to infringe on his rights. So yes, if I ask him politely to turn it down, and he gets offended and assaults me, then that's on him. I disagree with the OP's premise that just because the other person has rights, that mine somehow cease to exist.

How about tolerating it because others have the same rights as you?

Click to expand...

I have rights too. There's a lady I work with who does not like swearing, for example. She asks us not to swear, and we stop. We have the right to swear, she has the right to be offended, and she confronted us politely about the issue and we stopped.

Granted, this is a different setting than being out in public, but the same concept applies. If I'm spouting my mouth off, like I have the right to do, and someone asks me to keep it down or stop using certain language, I'm not going to say "well, I have the right to talk however I want to, first ammendment brah!" I'm going to respect his wish and stop, because I recognize that he has the right to be offended. That said, I would be well within my rights to ignore his request.

So the same applies to me. I don't feel that I should have to suffer in silence just for fear that the other person might overreact.

RD –
Sorry but I do have the right to be offended by the “completely legal, non-threatening, and non-destructive” actions of another person.
I don't have the right disregard their rights by asserting my standards of behavior on them.
I do have the right to ask them for consideration of my standards.
If I ask, they have a right to disregard the request.

At that point I have a choice to make and it’ll depend on the actions/response I receive. Prior to this point, I don't have an instant responsibility to walk away. I do have a responsibility to choose the most conservative action that will gain me the greatest results for the given situation. Today, that action may be to just walk away from the loud music or the line I was in first. Tomorrow, it may be to ask you to stop sucking face with your girlfriend in front of my grandkids.

Generally what we have are two different considerations. One is for individual rights and the other is for self-respect/respect for others. If people were truly considerate of the second one, the first wouldn’t ever be an issue.

The main problem is there are too many members of our society that are self-centered on their individual rights and weren’t raised to understand, or couldn’t care less about, the respect for others.

Ultimately, I think that how to best deal with situations without feeling like one is constantly giving in will be based on what each individual values most in terms of cost to self.

Fred......could you give us a demonstration of the "Monkey Dance" please.

Like I said, KB, that was a workplace scenario and didn't exactly apply, but it was a good analogy for the situation I was describing. Apache said it better than I did.

Here in the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ state of NJ, we have the duty to retreat....no stand your ground and no Castle Doctrine......they believe here if an intruder is entering your home through the front you and yours should be going out the back.
Walking away is one thing.....abandoning your home.....well now....that's a real issue.

I'm still with Skribs on this.

Kleanbore said:

Actually, the law established that most workplaces, your "right" to swear is subordinate to the legal rights of others to be protected from what is defined as a hostile work environment.

Click to expand...

Actually the law established that there are certain noise standards that must be adhered to - I know, I received a ticket for exceeding a noise ordinance in my youth...

So the same applies to me. I don't feel that I should have to suffer in silence just for fear that the other person might overreact.

Click to expand...

This brings us quite nicely back to a point we've tripped over more times than I can count.

You have the RIGHT to do a great many things which may be very unwise, or which may simply prove to have consequences you were not prepared for.

You have the RIGHT to walk down Gratiot St. in Detroit at 11:30 pm in nothing but a pink tu-tu, wearing 12 Rolexes on each arm and singing Klan rally songs. But nothing on earth makes you immune from the consequences of those choices.

Similarly, you have the right to approach unknown folks in public with all sorts of requests that they alter their actions to suit your preferences. They do not have the RIGHT to harm you ... but they just may do so anyway. The fact that you have a gun and think you can maybe take care of yourself should not give you one more ounce of courage than you'd otherwise have without any weapons at all.

If you end up killing someone, you MAY (or may not) be found justified by the jury which will look at the totality of what happened and will ask what you could have done to have avoided that problem. (And "Stand Your Ground" has much less to do with this than most folks seem to think!)

As I've mentioned before:

Tom Givens' "Lessons From the Street" DVD had a very pertinent story of one of his former students who shot two men in self-defense.

The man was alone in a convenience store parking lot and felt that a group of men present were possibly getting ready to do him harm. He spoke to them, telling them basically to go away. That ticked them off and they then did approach him. He fled and they took chase. He ran some distance away, being actively pursued by six or more men. He turned and fired, hitting two of them.

He was arrested and charged, and ended up sweating out a long court process which ended in, IIRC, probation, and he was quite lucky to get that.

What is pertinent about this to the story in this thread? The "victim" spoke to these men, giving them an instruction or command, which he had a legal right to do (though no authority to enforce), but that was seen as instigation of the events which followed. He had no legal right to fire on those men when he first made contact, yet his actions lead to him shooting two of them. He therefore shared culpability for their deaths.

So remember, if you approach someone in a way that is at all likely to instigate a negative response, you very well may be seen to share the blame for whatever shakes out. Approach someone to tell them to turn down their stereo, or not to loiter, or curb their dog, or to keep down their speed in your neighborhood -- or pretty much anything that might be confrontational, and you are absolutely putting your life, freedom, and fortune on the line.

Just because you are "right" doesn't mean your life won't be ruined...or ended.

Click to expand...

Sure...it is reasonable to speak to other people about things that you'd like them to do. But not everyone else is a reasonable person, so do so with your very best social skills in play, feeling for every signal of their intents and reactions, and be prepared to de-escalate with great haste if need be.

Remember, many types of creature -- especially humans -- make displays of action, posture, and countenance to show other members of their society that they are powerful, dangerous, and/or "in charge here." For some individuals, playing loud music in public is clearly part of that ritual display of strength and dominance. They are sending a message, and it isn't that "golly gee I like this band a whole lot, you betcha!"

As Fred has mentioned the "Monkey Dance," I'll suggest that mildly obnoxious and provoking behavior is certainly one facet of that. By blaring aggressive, deliberately non-universal types of music many actors are making a dominance display, and by confronting them you will be making a (perhaps) unintended challenge to their standing. It always pays to understand what's REALLY going on before you decide to do something "reasonable."

The fact that you have a gun and think you can maybe take care of yourself should not give you one more ounce of courage than you'd otherwise have without any weapons at all.

Click to expand...

The fact that I have a gun I don't think has played into this at all, except that some believe I need to be more timid because I have one. This is how I felt before I carried a gun.

I should qualify this whole argument by saying that in person, especially with strangers, I'm very easygoing. However, if someone cuts me in line, I'm going to say something. If someone is damaging my hearing, I'm going to say something. It's not out of being macho or defensive, it's about speaking up when I am wronged and my desire to first take up the issue with the person who has upset me. I'm lucky in that I have quiet neighbors, but if my neighbor was blasting music at 3:00 in the morning, my first response would be to ask him/her to keep it down, and THEN call the cops if they refused, rather than just call the cops without trying to sort the issue out at the lowest level first.

I see two things repeatedly cropping up as I reread this thread:

1) That we have "the right to be offended" is obvious but entirely beside the point. Offense is in your mind, and you can think anything you wish, so of course you have "the right to be offended." It's how you respond to that feeling of offense that matters and where people often get into trouble. It's perfectly acceptable to feel offended, smile, say nothing, go on about your business, and get over it in your own mind. In fact, I'd say it's more than acceptable--it's a sign of maturity, responsibility, and wisdom.

2) Having the right to do something, even being legally protected in doing it, never has and will never, in and of itself, make it the right thing to do. The mentality that seeks to justify one's actions by saying, "I'm within my rights" or "What I'm doing is not illegal" is one of immaturity and insecurity. It's essentially saying, "I don't have my own concept of right and wrong or any ability to discern proper from improper action, so I rely on government officials to tell me, and I go with whatever they say."

I'm not advocating breaking laws because your own sense of right and wrong is different. I'm saying that being within the law and within one's rights doesn't necessarily justify his actions.

We've all done things that were legal and rightful but which we now know to be patently unwise. Some of us can admit it, and we've learned from it. If that doesn't apply to you, beware; it will someday.

I enthusiastically agree with the OP. I strongly believe that we must choose our battles wisely. There are some things worth fighting for, but I doubt I can find it at Wal-Mart or the Kwik-ee Mart.

In fact, I'd say it's more than acceptable--it's a sign of maturity, responsibility, and wisdom.

Click to expand...

I'd say knowing when to turn the other cheek, and when AND HOW to speak up for yourself is a sign of maturity. Civil rights were built on people refusing to turn the other cheek. So I should speak up if I feel I should, I just need to be tactful in my approach.