An observation on Preacherman's post on gangbanger 'George'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow...there's quite a few ex-punks around here! Me, I was Goth when Goth wasn't cool! :cool:

QBG et al have very valid points. I've caught more than my share of grief from the cops myself, and I'm extremely wary of us sliding any more towards a police state than we already are. But I have to fall on the side of Checkman, Preacherman and Balog in this particular scenario. A simple check should be acceptable under these circumstances.

Now, being maced while in handcuffs, or being pulled over twice within 100 feet--well, that's different. But that'd get off topic...:fire:
 
I used to work with a fellow who got 5 tickets for not having a bumper on his truck..... all five written within about a half-hour. As he drove through a town for less than a mile. Some crappy little town in Washington.

So believe me when I say I'm no fan of police harrassment.
 
looked "gangsta?"

as in, he was dressing and acting in a manner popularized by violent criminals and performers pretending to be/idolizing violent criminals?
So the owner of said store decided to make sure he wasn't a real violent criminal before putting a repaired weapon back in his hands?


Somehow I find it hard to get too all wrapped up in sympathy for the guy. :scrutiny:


-K
 
Seems to me some folks here are used to dealing with lots of round pegs and think everyone can be treated like one.

I would not deal with such a gun shop. Unfortunately I bet if george is an honest guy with real money the gunshop won't tell him about what he did.

A gun shop provides a service, if he does not feel comfortable he should not step forward and take in the firearm since there may be repurcussions from george if he is a bad guy.

Overall, I am tired of the slippery slope and I am really sick and tired of people dealing with evil folks deciding they can run numbers on anyone.

I am not a round peg and don't like my rights being lost because people think it is better for the community to remove the rights of many.
 
How would you feel if it turned out the gun was stolen from your home?

We all value our privacy, but there are limits we tolerate for the protection of society. LEOs must operate under very stringent limits. Private citizens have considerably more leeway. It would be wrong for the LEO to ask to run the numbers, but perfectly legal for the smith to insure it wasn't contraband.

It's an intricate system that works pretty well. It's not newsworthy when it works. When it doesn't, we have celebrity circus trials, serial killings, and terrorism. Plain folks and the wisdom and experience we gather as we age are at the core of our system. If we can't be bothered, if we pretend we see nothing, if we won't work with LE to keep folks safe--we may be nearing the end of our run at the top of the food chain.

Whew, must be channeling for Joe Friday!
 
I am with rust on this. If it was my stolen gun, I would want the police trying to find it. And I would appreciate it if the gun store checked out guns they had come into the store that were used for that reason.
This is one of those cases where law enforcement can't win. If they don't find your stolen stuff, they arn't doing their job, but if they investigate the serial numbers on guns then they are violating someone's rights.

I have a question for those of you who decided to look and dress out of the mainstream. It is obvioius that you wanted to draw attention to yourself. Yet, when you get the attention you complain about it ? I dont' get it.
 
Everyone profiles.

Why doesn't the guy with the gangbanger look wear a suit or preppy clothes?

Cause he profiles folks who dress like that and doesn't want anyone to think he's like that profile.

When you pick your clothes and your "look" you pick (to some extent) how people are going to treat you. If you don't like how you're treated as a result, you can change your clothes and your look until you're happy.

Profiling due to attire and "look" is not discrimination. Discrimination is treating someone differently because of something THEY CAN'T HELP. Like a disability or their race or gender.
 
Sorry, but these days, if the guy dresses like a gangsta, then yes, he's going to raise eyebrows and suspicions. And, let's not forget the condition of the weapon. Exteremely "modified", by someone who obviously doesn't know what they're doing... and then to say it should be a warranty repair?
 
When people say its unfair to profile or judge by looks, I always ask when was the last time you saw a VP of a local bank with pierced lips or wearing gangbanger attire? I have no problem with people dressing out of the norm, and my gut insticts are usually a good indicator as to whether they are harmless or a threat.

A gunsmith asking the authorities to run the numbers of a gun brought in by a suspicious character is no different than asking the police to check out a suspicious vehicle that doesn't belong in your neighborhood.
 
I am STILL looking for a 1960's Gibson Hummingburd acoustic guitar serial # 335445 stolen from me back in 1976.

I bet it's changed hands several times since some scumbag stole it from me. You'd think somebody, somewhere in all of these years would have ran the serial number.
 
I am suprised the gun shop owner doesn't run serial number checks on every used gun he purchases, I would, its called CYA. In todays crazy world and with all the heat these dealers are under it would be crazy and foolish for them not to. That is all a legitimate dealer needs is a charge of trafficing in stolen arms.

As far as the particulars of this we as gun owners need to be friends and supportave of law enforcement. If I am any way suspious of a gun purchase I call in numbers, and I am not a dealer. I have had firearms stolen in the past which I have never recovered, and some were from my father when he passed away they had sentimental value on top of the normal firearms rules. I won't traffic stolen guns, and if I have any doubt, which means I either know the individual personally, or he is a FFL dealer I will run the numbers. I would rather be safe than sorry.

If you think I am profiling you when I do this, my reply is I don't care what you think, you won't be serving my jail time or paying my attorneys fees to fight stupidity on my part.
 
If one decides to dress/talk/act like a thug/punk/gangbanger, one should expect to be treated like a thug/punk/gangbanger.

I've seen several comments about the evils of "profiling". Hell, you do that every day. You make assumptions about everyone you meet or see based on how they look and act.

Say the same kid, who looked and acted like a gangbanger, maybe with a freind or two, similarly garbed, was following you down a dark street. Would your opinion still be the same? Could be some wannabe suburban kids playing the part. Could be real gangbangers intent on relieving you of your wallet, and possibly your life. Do you give him the benefit of a doubt in that situation? I didn't think so. You just "profiled". Sorry.

Dave
 
profiling

Actually good old George initiated the flag in the dealers mind, without any relation to his dress, or atttire. George walked in with severly modified gun and was trying to scam the owner into warranty work. If a guy walked in wearing a three piece suit and looking like Donald Trump and tried that stunt it would be a flag.
 
Profiling is nothing more than a series of subtle clues that trigger the feeling that something ain't right, and deserves a second look. Who do you think should receive extra scrutiny at airport security: A 70 year old grandma, a 45 year old guy in a cowboy hat and boots, or a Middle Eastern male between the ages of 17 and 40?

Here's a quiz for you to take:

In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
(a) Norwegians from Ballard;
(b) Elvis;
(c) A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
(a) A pizza delivery boy;
(b) Crazed feminists screeching that being able to throw a grenade
beyond its own burst radius was an unfair and sexist requirement
in basic training;
(c) Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
(a) Luca Brazzi, for not being given a part in "Godfather 2;"
(b) The Tooth Fairy;
(c) Butch and Sundance who had a few sticks of dynamite left over
from the train thing
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
(a) Mr. Rogers;
(b) Hillary, to distract attention from Wee Willie's women problems;
(c) the WWF, to promote its next villain: "Mustapha the Merciless;"
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

October 12, 2000, 17 US sailors lost their lives on the USS Cole and this was done by:
a) That Purple Teletubbie
b) Gary Condit
c) LA Crips street gang
d) Muslim extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

December 2001 a person tries to light a shoe bomb on a commercial jetliner and this was done by:
a) Mother Theresa
b) an Italian guy from New York City named "Giacomo"
c) hard working Hispanic farm workers
d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked and destroyed by:
(a) Bugs Bunny,
(b) the Supreme Court of Florida trying to outdo their attempted
hijacking of the 2000 Presidential election;
(c) Mr. Bean
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

My point is that sometimes people profile THEMSELVES. When that kid got up in the morning and picked out his clothes for the day, he could have chosen any attire to visit a gun shop. He chose gang-banger type clothes. He profiled himself.

If he IS a gang-banger, the TACTICAL thing to do would be to blend in with the ordinary folk. :D
 
444

You can't change clothes when you go to the gun store, then change clothes when you go to the music store, then change clothes when you go to McDonalds/Ruby Tuesdays, then change clothes when.... Maybe you get dressed for the club, then you have to pick up a couple things. On the way to Wal-Mart, you decide to swing by the gun shop before it closes and pick up a box of two of ammo. Most people dress in an appropriate manner for their most commonly encountered environment. Conversely, try wearing a three-piece suit when you live in a residential neighborhood that closely resembles a demilitarized zone.

Think of it as camoflage if need be-- maybe you wear your Realtree (or whatever) camos to Wal-Mart before you head toward the woods. They're not appropriate in Wal-Mart, but your actual destination is the woods and in the woods it is appropriate.

Some of us dress outside the mainstream because we don't necessarily live in the mainstream with regard to our homes, neighborhoods, etc.


cracked butt,

Actually, we have a couple professors at UAH who have piercings and tattoos. One of the CS professors actively shoots trap and brags (in class) when he does well in a match. So yes, I would say that you see plenty of "respectable" people who are possessed of "deviant" characteristics. Times are changing. Old profiles do not necessarily fit anymore.
 
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it gets treated like a duck.
If it isn't a duck and doesn't like the way ducks are treated maybe it shouldn't walk and talk like one.
 
Lordy! Everybody profiles. Every day. We all do it, as a hard-wired biological self-defense mechanism. In this case (and in many others), what's important is what we do after categorizing the object of the profiling.

How is that dog behaving? is as good a "for instance" as any.

If you've observed past human behavior associated with a certain appearance, you're gonna assume similar behavior in the present or future. Doesn't matter if the guy is in a three-piece suit or in outlaw biker garb. Doesn't matter if a woman is dressed quite conservatively, or skimpily and with garish makeup: You're going to make certain assumptions based on past experience, and that's called "profiling".

"Privacy"? You offer anything to me for repair or to sell to me, and I have an absolute right to find out whatever I can or want to. I am not bound by anything in any Constitution to give a rat's patoot about your "rights"; I have my own rights to be concerned about: My billfold, for one. "Self preservation" has many forms, and avoiding trouble with the law is one of them.

Ya wanna sell me a gun? I have the right to ask where you got it, and from whom, and paperwork and all that sort of thing. If you don't like my questions, walk away--it's your right.

Art
 
pwrtool45,

Dress "outside the mainstream" if you want. No problem here. But if your version of "outside" is intended to make the "mainstream" nervous (gangsta-style for instance), don't be surprised when it does. I'm not saying you do this, or are a "gangsta", just using it as an example.

When I was younger (not that I'm in any way old at 38) I was heavy into the biker scene. Long hair & beard, leather, tats, large silver rings on most fingers, loud motorcycles. It was definately designed the keep the "citizens" nervous when we were in their world. I looked like a pretty unsavory character and expected others to view me that way. Those who knew me knew a nice guy, though.

Piercings and tats are becoming fairly common. They don't get a second glance from me unless they're extreme. Saw some guy the other day that must have had five pounds of metal in his face. That's a little weird.

Heck, my son's got a couple of extra holes he wasn't born with and he keeps talking about getting inked. (he's 18) He doesn't take it to extremes and looks pretty respectable. I've got a pierced ear. That was extreme when I was 17. It's pretty normal now.

Enough rambling,

Dave
 
pwrtool45
My point has been made by several others. Whether you wear camo clothing into a Wal-Mart, a three piece suit in a bad neighborhood, or whatever, you are out of the mainstream and should expect to be noticed. If what you wear stirs negative feelings in other people and you choose to dress that way anyway, that is your choice. But don't complain when it happens. This is only common sense. If someone decides to wear an SS uniform to a synagogue they are going to get a negative reaction and it shouldn't come as a surprise.
It may not be the right thing to do to judge people on their appearence instead of their actions. It may be wrong to judge a book by it's cover. But if you choose to deal with reality instead of a fantasy world you go into the situation expecting it anyway.
People dress way out of the norm to attract attention. And, they will get it; right or wrong.
 
444

Reread my previous posts in this thread. Yes, I expect it and I posted as much. You can't dress in an appropriate manner for everywhere. Maybe we should stay in our own little groups and never deviate from them? I'd like to go to Target and get some Brand Y, but I can't. I have to go to Wal-Mart and get Brand X because I'm dressed to attract attention (or, more appropriate, maybe I'm dressed to *not* attract undue attention in Location Y where I spend most of my time) and thus it's socially acceptable for anybody to call Department of Homeland Secuirty / The local cops / The Drug Enforcement Agency and sic them on me.

Note that earlier I simply implied that one shouldn't necessarily *act* on a profile based on appearance (by itself). What happens and what should happen are two different things. Given the expectations I've explicitly noted in previous posts, I don't think it's accuracte to say I live in a "fantasy world." Yes it happens. Yes, I account for that when possible. No, it isn't right. It's petty and indicative of base behavior. Yes, someone wearing gangster clothes should get a second look if they're out of their environment. *Acting* *solely* (note the emphesis) on that is almost guaranteed to lead to poor decisions. If they're wearing gangster clothes, printing, and eyeing the store nervously, *then* action is probably be warranted, but then you're no longer profiling on their appearance. You're now profiling based on their actions.


Sutpor Dave (and 444)

If we bring intent into this, the dynamic of the argument changes. Some people may dress like gangsters because they want to look like hardasses. I'm sure not everyone does. Some people buy clothes because it's what they saw on MTV or it's what others are wearing. Maybe it's got nothing to do with posturing, and everything to do with just wearing what's in style (which, in this case, is completely devoid of the intent you mention). It's a style. Back in the early to mid 1990s I would have agreed with you. Now, it's just another style. It no longer actually *means* anything.


edited for tone
 
Now, it's just another style. It no longer actually *means* anything.

I'll accept that, to an extent. How do I, not being into that "style" or being into the "gangtsa" thing, tell the difference? Two kids, side by side. One is a gang member, the other dresses like one to look like the folks on MTV. How do I know which one is walking behind me down that dark street. Is it the innocent kid who just happens to be going in the same direction? Or is it the gangster planning on mugging me? I have no way to tell. I will assume, for my own safety, that he is a bad guy untill proven otherwise. Based solely on the way he looks.
If the "style" is to dress like violent criminals, I should look at them how?

Dave
 
JohnKSka

Changing it to what? What's going to make you feel better? You realize that the real gangsters are going to be in style, whatever the style is.


StuporDave

If you want to know the difference, you've got to pay attention to the world around you. I sometimes think that tactically-aware individuals would benefit more from spending time paying attention to their "foe" than spending another wad of cash at Thunder Ranch or a Farnam course. If Massad Ayoob and I ever had one thing in common, it'd be the focus on *when* to draw and fire. Not *how* to. Both are important, but the gunfighter mentality will land you in jail for a bad shoot. And rightly so. If you want to learn more, try things like actually watching MTV (and BET, and *shudder* reality TV, etc., yeah, I know, it hurts). Pay attention to youths in the mall, and focus not only on their dress but other clues as well. Eyes, carriage, general demeanor, etc. Going by clothes alone is simply asking for a questionable shooting. Real gangsters dress in this style, it's true, but even more innocent people do as well. Are you going to tell the court or a shooting review board what you've told us in this thread? I don't think that would be a very good idea.

If someone's following you down a dark street you should be in condition orange regardless of anything else. Too many (now) high-profile sadistic killers (.e.g, Ted Bundy) looked "normal." You increase your awareness because of the action of being followed, not because of the look of the person doing it. I dont' care if a nun is following me down an alley. If she makes three turns with me, condition orange is a bold understatement. If you focus on the so-called gangsters, you do yourself a disservice and possibly invite tactical error as the real threat has slipped under your awareness network.
 
It always strikes me as funny that the simple act of exercising judgement is denounced nowadays as "unfair." :rolleyes:
 
Pay attention to youths in the mall, and focus not only on their dress but other clues as well.
That might be a little interesting to explain to the police .:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top