How would you recommend that that someone "stand up", and to what end?
Things to Not Do
- Thread starter Kleanbore
- Start date
Scrapiron45
Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2018
- Messages
- 165
I live in a rural community in the Appalachians.
Sixty years ago we had three deputies and a sheriff. Now the sheriffs dept employee's 60 people.
Now we have two interstates with 46000 vehicles a day passing through and all of the problems that come with them.
Our schools have armed guards and our community college has its own police force.
We have a gang presence and nearly 23 percent of the population have drug issues.
My grandchildren wear tracking devices in their shoes and the CDC tells me that one in four of the people I see living under bridges and wandering the roads are considered to have untreated serious mental illness.
This is not the world I grew up in.
I have decided to educate and protect my family the best I can from these threats because I simply don't know what else to do.
Apologies to the mods for getting off topic.
Sixty years ago we had three deputies and a sheriff. Now the sheriffs dept employee's 60 people.
Now we have two interstates with 46000 vehicles a day passing through and all of the problems that come with them.
Our schools have armed guards and our community college has its own police force.
We have a gang presence and nearly 23 percent of the population have drug issues.
My grandchildren wear tracking devices in their shoes and the CDC tells me that one in four of the people I see living under bridges and wandering the roads are considered to have untreated serious mental illness.
This is not the world I grew up in.
I have decided to educate and protect my family the best I can from these threats because I simply don't know what else to do.
Apologies to the mods for getting off topic.
Gordon
Member
"They are sound, prudent recommendations, but we remember when people would not find themselves discussing such things."
Absolutely, and thank you Kleanbore , sir. That is exactly what I meant. It has nothing to do with my tactics, situational awareness, or interpersonal communication skills. Rather, it expresses my great sorrow for the conditions that we must avoid, such as normal American lifestyles that were safer in the past. After 77 years, I am not quite sure what the root causes are, but I strongly suspect a great perversion of the legal system for various agendas and greed is a great part. Human nature has not changed much, in my opinion. Still, the reactions to attempts to individual attempts to maintain those American values of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness." have RADICALLY changed and not for the individual or common good. The situation of the woman being discussed would not have been questioned in the past by a reasonable legal system that is actually fairly simple. The days of a bystander intervening in a dicey situation in a gentlemanly action are pretty much gone the way of the dodo, sadly.
Past performance? I remember the 70s , 80s, and 90s being more violent than today. And people weren't so scared. We're safer now, but for some reason more vigilant.
Being more vigilant and more careful is a choice. It's not a loss of freedom. No one is imposing this on anybody.
That is certainly true.
But the fact that it is now demonstrably too risky for many prudent people to venture into a major nearby city, and the fact restaurants, other businesses including medical centers, and residents are moving out in large numbers can, I think, be characterized as something of a loss of freedom.
ojibweindian
Member
That is situationally dependent. I know my line in the sand; willingly shall deal with the consequences. Others must make their own determinations.
plainsdrifter
Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2021
- Messages
- 606
Well yeah, them dang hippies were very violent.
ojibweindian
Member
Certain areas of Portland Oregon were seriously dangerous back in the 80s. From what I’ve heard from friends in Portland, it’s not any better.
This is what I'm hung up on. Alot of discretion is used when it comes to women and self defense. I imagine that it was obvious to everyone that this was a gross overstep.
Luckily no real harm was done so if it happened to me I'd be fine with not pressing charges, at least not felony.
Statistically, the violent crime rates have gone down since the 90s.
Everybody is on edge nowadays and I think because violence is being caught on camera more often and shown in the news more often.
Last edited:
The problem is that she could easily have been shot if she pointed her gun at an armed citizen or off duty officer. We don’t know what this incident actually looked like and I can easily envision the man thinking an emotionally disturbed woman was about to shoot him and respond accordingly.
The Night Rider
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2022
- Messages
- 2,146
In Colorado Springs that's not your decision. It's up to the DA.
Boom Vang
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 219
You absolutely DO have the right to be free from unwanted contact. That is well settled. The legal inquiry is what level of force you can use to secure that.
Situations such as these are so full of fact variations, perceptions and politics, that it's impossible to draw hard and fast conclusions from them. None of us were there. A slightly different set of facts - time, place, etc - or a different prosecutor, or a better defense attorney with a better presentation, or a different judge, or a different jury... could arrive at a different conclusion of reasonableness, and would have a different result.
Sticking your gun in someone's face because they politely asked for a light is - on its face - not justifiable. But add some other facts and circumstances to reasonably indicate that "asking for a light" is a prelude to an attack, then maybe it is.
Thats why I'm just going with what all the witnesses and law enforcement went with for a decision. It's really all one can do without having the whole picture.
"Unwanted contact' and mere proximity in a public venue are not the same thing.
Last edited:
I just sat through another long session of the Law of Self Defense advanced course. The Murfreesboro Walmart case was mentioned several times.
The woman did plead guilty, in a plea deal through which she avoided imprisonment. There was no trial verdict.
Andrew Bianca said that what the should have done, had she felt seriously threatened , was to scream loudly for him to get away. Then, had the man kept coming (which, in the event, he did not do), she might have been justified in drawing and pointing her handgun.
Her discussing the case with police was not a wise thing to do.
The course will be repeated one more time later this year. I strongly recommend it.
The woman did plead guilty, in a plea deal through which she avoided imprisonment. There was no trial verdict.
Andrew Bianca said that what the should have done, had she felt seriously threatened , was to scream loudly for him to get away. Then, had the man kept coming (which, in the event, he did not do), she might have been justified in drawing and pointing her handgun.
Her discussing the case with police was not a wise thing to do.
The course will be repeated one more time later this year. I strongly recommend it.
I hope the man involved learned some lessons too. Like not approaching people you don't know in parking lots. The world isn't 1950s Mayberry anymore.
Last edited:
The "asking for a light" excuse just seems fishy to me. Not all that many people smoke any more, and most people don't carry lighters if they don't smoke. Also, this happened in a store parking lot, he could have just gone in the store and bought a lighter for a dollar.
If she struck a deal, then nothing is really proved in this case. She took the deal to avoid the cost of defense and the possibility that she would get a jury that might have convicted her.
Interesting comment, but not relevant.
Proves that she admitted guilt.
She was obviously advised by counsel that the likelihood of conviction was significant, given the evidence.
Not sure that is obvious. Maybe she didn't want to spend the money to defend the case, and took an easy out. Admitting guilt and being guilty aren't the same thing. There are certainly reasons to admit guilt and accept a minimal punishment than fight for your innocence, lose, and get a harsher punishment.
Being approached by a stranger in a parking lot who is asking a distracting question should at least raise awareness. I was approached once in a parking lot by a guy asking if he could borrow a nickel. I thought that was a little strange to ask. I didnt feel particularly threatened, but I did pay closer attention to him.
Of course!!!
She is a convicted felon, and she lost her gun rights for her lifetime. Her guilty plea guaranteed a loss not eh civil side. Most people would not take that choice lightly.
