PlayboyPenguin
member
Then couldn't you avoid situations where you would need a firearm just as easily?
Sometimes you have no say in what or who seeks you out and I refuse to live my life in fear of who might approach me if I leave my house.
CCW shoot out in Tulsa
- Thread starter scottw
- Start date
- Status
Sometimes you have no say in what or who seeks you out and I refuse to live my life in fear of who might approach me if I leave my house.
Cosmoline
Member
I certainly try to, and I hope I will always be able to. It's much easier to walk away from someone wanting a punchup than it is to dodge their bullets, though.
I don't think anyone is asking you to live your life in fear. The key is to discard notions of "upholding honor" by meeting idiotic challenges or getting in punch-ups.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
PP, its gonna sound like I'm picking on you today. I swear I'm not, but you have stated some thoughts that aren't accurate, and frankly come across as kinda hot-headed. You can tell me to go to hell, also, but I suggest you might want to retink your position. . . .
The armed person in the room has moral imperative to be the MOST self-controlled, polite person present. Why? Because he has the means and ability to take the life others.
You don't have to take a beating. But - we don't engage in fights under the auspices of "pounding some sense into them." I know you used it as an expression, just be clear about how that sounds to others.
The next time you two go out, ask him about the concept of "mutual combat". Ask him about its ramifications on the claim to self defense.
Well, the law sets guidelines about such things, but in reality, the prosecutor in your area will determine if the initial evidence supports a charge, and those whose duty it is of finding facts and deciding guilt in any subsequent trial will. It certainly is not your, nor my, opinion. You roll those dice, you take the gamble that you might loose.
The claim of self defense is an affirmative defense. You are not disputing your actions, but rather stated you have reason under the law (either statute or common) that you had met criteria that permitted you to justifiably commit the act of harming or killing another. There are circumstances that preclude you from using the claim of self defense. Again, that conversation with your attorney might be a little more enlightning if you ask about what those are.
I suggest you take, or re-take, a class that addresses the legal aspect of carrying a weapon by a reptutable instructor. Most all cover AOJP now in some fashion. The concept of Preclusion addresses your specific attitudes and statements about what you feel is right or not. I assure you that those who have the duty of evaluating your actions will be looking to the evidence and asking you questions towards establishing whether you could have safely avoided shooting someone. The newly passed laws in several states suggest to remove the burden of satisfying that concern, under limited and defined circumstances, but I do not believe Oregon to be one of them.
Specific to this article:
We have no evidence here this man left the resturaunt either to engage in a fight outside, or not. So I won't say he has to go to prison, or that he's free and clear. The media reported it in such a fashion to remain vague, but did use words designed to impress that the shooter may have contributed to the escalation. I'm going to bet they have NO clue, but put such a spin on the story. Otherwise, they'd have been less ambiguous.
The armed person in the room has moral imperative to be the MOST self-controlled, polite person present. Why? Because he has the means and ability to take the life others.
You don't have to take a beating. But - we don't engage in fights under the auspices of "pounding some sense into them." I know you used it as an expression, just be clear about how that sounds to others.
The next time you two go out, ask him about the concept of "mutual combat". Ask him about its ramifications on the claim to self defense.
Well, the law sets guidelines about such things, but in reality, the prosecutor in your area will determine if the initial evidence supports a charge, and those whose duty it is of finding facts and deciding guilt in any subsequent trial will. It certainly is not your, nor my, opinion. You roll those dice, you take the gamble that you might loose.
The claim of self defense is an affirmative defense. You are not disputing your actions, but rather stated you have reason under the law (either statute or common) that you had met criteria that permitted you to justifiably commit the act of harming or killing another. There are circumstances that preclude you from using the claim of self defense. Again, that conversation with your attorney might be a little more enlightning if you ask about what those are.
I suggest you take, or re-take, a class that addresses the legal aspect of carrying a weapon by a reptutable instructor. Most all cover AOJP now in some fashion. The concept of Preclusion addresses your specific attitudes and statements about what you feel is right or not. I assure you that those who have the duty of evaluating your actions will be looking to the evidence and asking you questions towards establishing whether you could have safely avoided shooting someone. The newly passed laws in several states suggest to remove the burden of satisfying that concern, under limited and defined circumstances, but I do not believe Oregon to be one of them.
Specific to this article:
We have no evidence here this man left the resturaunt either to engage in a fight outside, or not. So I won't say he has to go to prison, or that he's free and clear. The media reported it in such a fashion to remain vague, but did use words designed to impress that the shooter may have contributed to the escalation. I'm going to bet they have NO clue, but put such a spin on the story. Otherwise, they'd have been less ambiguous.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
Hey, you said it. I agree, maybe you should reconsider it.
Do you advocate the concept of fighting someone man to man?
What I did as a child and teenager on the playground is a part of growing up, and used to be acceptable. It is not condoned as the behavior of mature adults. Certainly, the attitude that suggests we can solve the disputes of insults to manhood with violence is completely and utterly incompatable with men who decide to walk about society armed. Hell, even martial arts disciplines forbid that attitude and behavior from its students.
ID_shooting
Member
I showed up to formation one Monday moring with a nice big ole shiner over my left eye. The 1ST Sergeant asked me who won the fight. I replied that well, I am here and he is in jail. Top asked if I hit him back and I said no. Top looked at me, gave a sly smile and said, "You won."
Letting somone be a jerk is not a challenge to your "manhood." Honestly, do you think your wife, girlfriend, or other is goin to dump you based on if you are macho or not? My wife would rather me come home at night than go around being Mr tough guy.
Letting somone be a jerk is not a challenge to your "manhood." Honestly, do you think your wife, girlfriend, or other is goin to dump you based on if you are macho or not? My wife would rather me come home at night than go around being Mr tough guy.
Manedwolf
member
I think the best advice here is to never eat at an Awful House. If the food doesn't kill you, the fights that ALWAYS start at those will.
waffle house
It would be interesting to do some research on how many shooting are done at Waffle House. I know that when I was in KC there was a shooting at a Waffle House on Front St. and I am not sure but seem to recall a shooting at a Waffle House in Liberty MO. Think I might start eating pan cakes.
It would be interesting to do some research on how many shooting are done at Waffle House. I know that when I was in KC there was a shooting at a Waffle House on Front St. and I am not sure but seem to recall a shooting at a Waffle House in Liberty MO. Think I might start eating pan cakes.
Zundfolge
Member
Waffle House restaurants are "victim disarmament zones" by corporate policy (and many are "cash only" operations as well).
Most aren't in the best neighborhoods.
It doesn't surprise me that there's lots of shootings at them.
Aside from that, if the shootings don't get you the food will
Most aren't in the best neighborhoods.
It doesn't surprise me that there's lots of shootings at them.
Aside from that, if the shootings don't get you the food will
Let me clarify my earlier post...I'm not saying the guy was a sissy, nor should one have to be a "coward."
But we're missing something from this story. I read the article. (not the post, the article) and it said they went outside to settle their argument.
Okay, for all of you talking about, "Lighter boy" pulled his lighter and therefore HE escalated the situation...
Here's what a prosecuter is going to look at...
If "lighter boy" suggested to take it outside, and "gunboy" followed...NO CLAIM TO SELF DEFENSE. Why? Because "gunboy" had the opportunity to de-escalate the situation. By going outside with lighterboy, gunboy created an entirely NEW situation. (ie: the fight had a chance to end, and he didn't take it. As PP suggests - he might've been going to "pound some sense into him."
Now, what about if gunboy suggested they "take it outside?" STILL NO CLAIM TO SELF DEFENSE. Why? Same reason.
Without knowing that states laws and case law, the only lawful claim to self defense would've occured like this... lighterboy picks the fight. gunboy says, "forget this. I'm leaving." Walks away. As he gets outside, out comes lighterboy flashing his bad ass lighter toy.
Now the situation is changed, and self defense is in order.
Penguin - I hear what you're saying. I wouldn't want to see my family, or wife getting "dogged" "picked on" etc by someone else. And I appreciate your desire to stand up against the criminal element.
But you have to be sure all of YOUR bases are covered before you pull that weapon.
That's all I'm saying here. Did the guy who pulled the real gun screw himself or do the right thing?
I don't know. That's for the courts to decide, which undoubtedly will happen given that an innocent 3rd party was hit.
You can bet that the only way gunboy gets off is if he can proove that he was attempting to LEAVE the scene (and the fight) behind.
Call it "cowardly" behavior all you want. But that's how it'll go down.
Robert
But we're missing something from this story. I read the article. (not the post, the article) and it said they went outside to settle their argument.
Okay, for all of you talking about, "Lighter boy" pulled his lighter and therefore HE escalated the situation...
Here's what a prosecuter is going to look at...
If "lighter boy" suggested to take it outside, and "gunboy" followed...NO CLAIM TO SELF DEFENSE. Why? Because "gunboy" had the opportunity to de-escalate the situation. By going outside with lighterboy, gunboy created an entirely NEW situation. (ie: the fight had a chance to end, and he didn't take it. As PP suggests - he might've been going to "pound some sense into him."
Now, what about if gunboy suggested they "take it outside?" STILL NO CLAIM TO SELF DEFENSE. Why? Same reason.
Without knowing that states laws and case law, the only lawful claim to self defense would've occured like this... lighterboy picks the fight. gunboy says, "forget this. I'm leaving." Walks away. As he gets outside, out comes lighterboy flashing his bad ass lighter toy.
Now the situation is changed, and self defense is in order.
Penguin - I hear what you're saying. I wouldn't want to see my family, or wife getting "dogged" "picked on" etc by someone else. And I appreciate your desire to stand up against the criminal element.
But you have to be sure all of YOUR bases are covered before you pull that weapon.
That's all I'm saying here. Did the guy who pulled the real gun screw himself or do the right thing?
I don't know. That's for the courts to decide, which undoubtedly will happen given that an innocent 3rd party was hit.
You can bet that the only way gunboy gets off is if he can proove that he was attempting to LEAVE the scene (and the fight) behind.
Call it "cowardly" behavior all you want. But that's how it'll go down.
Robert
Eleven Mike
Member
Where did it say that? Are you talking about the article linked in post #3? That's not what it said.
From the article:
These sentences would fit any of the three scenarios you mentioned, but the implication is that the shooter left and was followed by the smoker. If the shooter agreed to this ahead of time, the article doesn't mention it.
Last edited:
GungHo
Member
Please note, however, that you don't have to take the beating. If all he's doing is being a drunk jerk, that's one thing. But if someone's attacking you, you do not need to wait until he's beating you to death before deciding that, "hey, maybe this guy's serious."
Otherwise, I agree with your sentiment.
PlayboyPenguin
member
ID Shooting,
That is a nice sentiment and I bet it made you feel better at the time but it is a load of crap. To take verbal abuse from someone is fine but to allow someone to do you physical harm or to do physical harm to a loved one is being a coward and a sheep. Many religions have taught people to be sheep for centuries so that they would roll over without a fight everytime the monarche decided to do something unfair and unjust. I will not be a part of that. If a person puts their hands on me or a loved one in a violent manner I am taking them down. That doesn't mean I am pulling a gun or the knife I always have in my pocket... it means I am going to meet them with equal aggression and force.
That is a nice sentiment and I bet it made you feel better at the time but it is a load of crap. To take verbal abuse from someone is fine but to allow someone to do you physical harm or to do physical harm to a loved one is being a coward and a sheep. Many religions have taught people to be sheep for centuries so that they would roll over without a fight everytime the monarche decided to do something unfair and unjust. I will not be a part of that. If a person puts their hands on me or a loved one in a violent manner I am taking them down. That doesn't mean I am pulling a gun or the knife I always have in my pocket... it means I am going to meet them with equal aggression and force.
Harley Quinn
Member
PlayboyPenquin
I have been in quite a few altercations myself are you LEO if not why are you in all these fights.
I was in plenty when a youth, many in the USMC. Many in LEO, hardly any in my life since retired. Carry yes, push it because I have a gun, Never.
Try to make it go away. I am not a bully, I am a bad dude, but do I want to fight no, if I have to for protection of myself and others. Yep
HQ
I have been in quite a few altercations myself are you LEO if not why are you in all these fights.
I was in plenty when a youth, many in the USMC. Many in LEO, hardly any in my life since retired. Carry yes, push it because I have a gun, Never.
Try to make it go away. I am not a bully, I am a bad dude, but do I want to fight no, if I have to for protection of myself and others. Yep
HQ
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
ID Shooting came away with more than a nice sentiment; he did win that fight. As a young Marine, I'd say he acted with uncommon maturity. It appears he didn't need to engage in a fistfight to solve that problem. Good decision, Leatherneck.
PP, I mean this with all sincerity and goodwill. Take some time to reconsider your attitude. No one is advocating pacifism; I have no idea why you decided to introduce religion into this, so let us leave it out of the discussion. You are suggesting that de-escalation is cowardice, and that exercising restraint doesn't suit honorable men.
Both I and others stated earlier you are not required to take a beating. Perhaps you decided to ignore where we are all in agreement on that matter. However, when the situation is such that a fight is not necessary for self-preservation and protection, but rather to keep your ego intact, it is unnecessary and an unwise attitude to harbor.
I would ask you the question you asked us earlier. At what point do you decide its ok to fight back? You suggest by your statements it is for matters that include more than self-preservation. Don't you think, even as a practical matter, that's an expensive choice?
PP, I mean this with all sincerity and goodwill. Take some time to reconsider your attitude. No one is advocating pacifism; I have no idea why you decided to introduce religion into this, so let us leave it out of the discussion. You are suggesting that de-escalation is cowardice, and that exercising restraint doesn't suit honorable men.
Both I and others stated earlier you are not required to take a beating. Perhaps you decided to ignore where we are all in agreement on that matter. However, when the situation is such that a fight is not necessary for self-preservation and protection, but rather to keep your ego intact, it is unnecessary and an unwise attitude to harbor.
I would ask you the question you asked us earlier. At what point do you decide its ok to fight back? You suggest by your statements it is for matters that include more than self-preservation. Don't you think, even as a practical matter, that's an expensive choice?
PlayboyPenguin
member
Harley,
I used to be an LEO for a short period but most of my fights have come from being raised in a very poor part of WV where you fought to keep what you had. Fighting was not an option. You either fought back or you got beat regularly and had things like your bike, shoes, anything you had, taken from you.
Bullfrog.
Since pacifism by definition regards the acts of war and not violence it is not true pacifism but it is an act of allowing yourself to be abused. I have never started a fight in my life. I hate fighting. It tears my stomach up so badly I cannot stand it. But I would never stand by and let someone put their hands on a loved one and say "I cannot get involved unless they threaten your life because I have a gun or a knife on me which might escelate the situation". That is just absurd and I will not do it.
I would love to have someone on here show me legal cases where someone was charged for getting in a fight and having a weapon on them that was not used in the altercation or where someone was chrarged for drawing a weapon after someone that had started a fight with them escelated the situation to the point were they had to draw their weapon.
I used to be an LEO for a short period but most of my fights have come from being raised in a very poor part of WV where you fought to keep what you had. Fighting was not an option. You either fought back or you got beat regularly and had things like your bike, shoes, anything you had, taken from you.
Bullfrog.
Since pacifism by definition regards the acts of war and not violence it is not true pacifism but it is an act of allowing yourself to be abused. I have never started a fight in my life. I hate fighting. It tears my stomach up so badly I cannot stand it. But I would never stand by and let someone put their hands on a loved one and say "I cannot get involved unless they threaten your life because I have a gun or a knife on me which might escelate the situation". That is just absurd and I will not do it.
I would love to have someone on here show me legal cases where someone was charged for getting in a fight and having a weapon on them that was not used in the altercation or where someone was chrarged for drawing a weapon after someone that had started a fight with them escelated the situation to the point were they had to draw their weapon.
neoncowboy
Member
Yeah, but then it wouldn't have made the press.
Can't have the people thinking that anything good can come out of firearms ownership now, can we?
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
The news broadcast showed a black man as the CCW holder. So, that woulda been quite a feat to portray him as a white hillbilly.
PP - To clarify the issue of pacifism, Encarta's definition:
a belief that violence, war, and the taking of lives are unacceptable ways of resolving disputes
the refusal to take up arms or participate in war because of moral or religious beliefs
politics a belief that international conflicts should be settled by negotiation rather than war
A case for what? Where mutual combat precluded the affirmative claim to self-defense? Be more clear, and I'll find you one.
PlayboyPenguin
member
Okay, I would think specifics would not be needed to find such an instance but here goes...
Guy 1 is sitting in a diner. Guy 2 starts bad mouthing him. Guy 1 ignores him and starts eating his meal. Guy 2 walks over and picks up guy 1's hamburger and shoves it into his face. Guy 1 stands up and forcefully shoves guy 2. Guy 2 stumbles and falls then pulls out a switchblade knife. Guy 1 then pulls out his snubbie revolver and ends the situation one way or the other.
Show me a case where guy 1 is charged with a crime. Surely he must be in the wrong because he did not leave when guy 2 first started bad mouthing him and then even failed to crawl under the table and then flee once guy 2 shoved the burger in his face.
Eleven Mike
Member
Completely wrong. You should meet them with utterly superior force. Or at least whatever you have on you at the time.
I don't know if Playboy is entirely correct, but I agree with his sentiment. While lethal force isn't for protecting your pride, part of the reason for our current crime rate is that we allow violent people to have too much leeway. Every time we let the violent man have his way, every time we avoid the bad part of town, even when we're armed and prepared for trouble, it sends the wrong message.
romma
Member
If It Is
determined that the shooter was justified drawing and firing on the lighter guy, then I thing the lighter guy should be the one liable for damages. I think if the ccw/shooter escalated the conflict by arguing, then he should burden some blame but not all. However, people do disagree and argue over such things as parking places or whatever. You have to take The High Road and walk away from these scenerios if at all possible.
determined that the shooter was justified drawing and firing on the lighter guy, then I thing the lighter guy should be the one liable for damages. I think if the ccw/shooter escalated the conflict by arguing, then he should burden some blame but not all. However, people do disagree and argue over such things as parking places or whatever. You have to take The High Road and walk away from these scenerios if at all possible.
Eleven Mike
Member
The lighter guy? Yo, why this gotta be a racial thing?
A few years ago, a Hartford Police Officer shot a black kid dead after a foot persuit. The kid pulled one of those gun shaped lighters on him, and the cop fired believing it was a real weapon. IIRC he was either acquitted or not charged in the end (it was really drawn out, and the officer ended up in the clear). Little Punk's family, and most of the minority community in Hartford was pretty TO'd that the officer didn't end up in the clink.
stiletto raggio
Member
I have not been in a fist fight since high school, and I don't really intend to get involved in any in the immediate future. That said, I am ready to throw down if necessary. When is it necessary? If someone gets physical with me. Will I try to avoid that happening? Yes. Will I back down from all comers? No.
As an LEO and a military officer, I can certainly see myself needing to get physical with someone, but usually I can give the impression that violence will be met with violence, and that keeps most people in line.
I never leave the house without a weapon of some sort. Be prepared, right? Still, the use of that weapon, be it a knife or a firearm or a collapsible baton, is not the first resort. Nor does it require me to run away form everyone hwo looks at me cross-eyed. It comes down to assessing a situation and trusting yourself to act appropriately in the face of whatever is brought your way.
As an LEO and a military officer, I can certainly see myself needing to get physical with someone, but usually I can give the impression that violence will be met with violence, and that keeps most people in line.
I never leave the house without a weapon of some sort. Be prepared, right? Still, the use of that weapon, be it a knife or a firearm or a collapsible baton, is not the first resort. Nor does it require me to run away form everyone hwo looks at me cross-eyed. It comes down to assessing a situation and trusting yourself to act appropriately in the face of whatever is brought your way.
It seems a lot of people only read the first post and didn't read the article. I'll restate it in bold.
The first post is wrong. The CCW did not suggest or agree to "taking it outside" to fight it out. He was followed, presumably against his will.
The first post is wrong. The CCW did not suggest or agree to "taking it outside" to fight it out. He was followed, presumably against his will.
- Status