Was this a BG or a dunce ?

[Jamie C.]

ClickClick... Joab... Y'all are arguing with a 15-16 year-old kid.

And it's a medical fact that people that age don't have a whole brain yet.

( The pre-frontal cortex, the part that controls judgment and decision-making, isn't fully developed until the early to mid 20s. And that's probably why all of us adults look back at some of the things we said or did as teenagers and wonder how we managed to survive. )

The bottom line is that you're wasting your time arguing with him, especially if he has no interest in learning.

Give him a few years and he'll hopefully catch on.



J.C.

 

[GRB]

The guy is walking towards you from a car with out of state plates, and is looking for a road in the next town over... Ever stop to think that he might not be a bad guy or a dunce, but is simply lost?

I have to wholly agree with this. I am quite surprised by the reaction of pulling out a knife and ordering this guy to stop based upon what we have been told in the starting post of this thread. To me it sounds as if the person who asked about the road could legitimately post a thread asking the question:

"Was this a bad guy or a dunce who pulled a knife on me?"

Had a police officer been there and witnessed this from a close distance, and been able to have heard what transpired between you, if all of it was as was written in your initial account, the officer may drawn down on you, and would have been fully justified in doing so, and in arresting you. I see it as an amazingly brazen over reaction.

All the best,
Glenn B

 

[Jamie C.]

Glen, if an officer had been there and witnessed it from a close distance, there wouldn't have been any need in drawing a weapon, would there?

And speaking as an ex-cop, I'll say again that I don't find anything wrong with what jh9x18ky did.

He prepared for trouble, under what he felt was suspicious circumstances. That's it. He didn't knife anybody nor even threaten to. There was no "brandishment" of a weapon.

Had I been an officer walking up on the situation, I'd have certainly been asking what was going on, and probably questioned the fellow who was supposedly a 120 miles off course pretty intensely and run his tag, but that's about it. If everything had checked out, both parties would have been sent on about their business.



J.C.

 

[joab]

The bottom line is that you're wasting your time arguing with him, especially if he has no interest in learning.

Actually, no we're not
Slowly, sometimes painfully slow, they learn to think before they speak and to do a little research before proclaiming themselves experts on a subject.
And ultimately these types of arguments are not done for the benefit of those that stubbornly adhere to a mistaken notion, but for the bystanders and fence sitters who may accept that notion as viable if not challenged.

"Was this a bad guy or a dunce who pulled a knife on me?"

I am quite surprised by the reaction of pulling out a knife and ordering this guy to stop based upon what we have been told in the starting post of this thread. To me it sounds as if the person who asked about the road could legitimately post a thread asking the question

:But first we would have to accept the notion that having a knife hidden but ready equates to pulling a knife on someone
Then we would have to ask ourselves under what circumstances is it ever a good idea to let someone you are unfamiliar with and who has unclear intention to get close to us in a situation like this.
I can't think of one.

I also can not think of one good reason that I would feel the need to get close to someone who has already answered my question
I can't think of a good reason to get close to someone with their family present to ask the question in the first place
It's just common courtesy

 

[LightningJoe]

Despite the existence of dangerous, angry lunatics, I still believe in the 2nd Amendment. Freedom creates some hazard. But it's worth it.


SM points out that women and the handicapped may have to use deadly force to protect themselves from unarmed men. This is true. Grown, able-bodied men shooting unarmed men because they are afraid is evidence of emotional pathology that should keep those people institutionalized (and will if they ever act out their fantasies).

 

[FLORIDA KEVIN]

Just for the record ! Scaring Kevin isn't a good idea! no matter where you are !

 

[AZ_Rebel]

Overall, caution in an unknown situation is good idea. Being prepared for an escalation is not only wise but necessary. Reacting to a change is always easier if one anticipated the change and prepared for it. As Jeff Cooper said often, "I thought that might happen and I know what to do".

The bottom line is that you're wasting your time arguing with him, especially if he has no interest in learning.

Correct! ClickClick and others have given logical explanations of their position backed up with facts and law. Put ihopewewin on your "ignore" list as it is obvious that he "knows it all" and has no capacity or interest in learning.

 

[joab]

Put ihopewewin on your "ignore" list as it is obvious that he "knows it all" and has no capacity or interest in learning.

No, no, no
Don't give up on him, this is the age where they are learning to think outside of the Simpsons
Look to another poster in this thread for an example of what he will be like if he doesn't learn now


He has already admitted defeat and that he does not know what he is talking about
You just have to be able to understand 15 year old Testosteronese

 

[OAKVILLE SHOOTER]

The guy is walking towards you from a car with out of state plates, and is looking for a road in the next town over... Ever stop to think that he might not be a bad guy or a dunce, but is simply lost?

I thought about this too, at first. Then I went back and re-read the OP.

He did stop, started walking toward the grocery store. I looked around, and the only vehicle in the direction he came from was at the far end of the parking lot with out of state tags

.


O.K., so the guy parks in the parking lot with intentions of going inside to ask for directions. Upon seeing jh9x18ky and wife at thier car, decides to ask them instead. After "confrontation" at car, he heads towards the store to ask for directions. So, the out-of-state tags, and the road he is looking for being 120 miles away, maybe it was legit.

I aint buying it. Who parks at the far end of an obviously empty

only vehicle in the direction he came from

parking lot to ask for directions? I would have parked as close to the store as I could, without being in a handicapped spot, or a fire lane. I mean, we don't like paking lots, so why park so far away.

This stinks something awful. jh9x18ky did the right thing, other than leaving his carry gun at home.

 

[RoadkingLarry]

If you can't handle one man bare-handed,

I've got to take exception to your position. I'm only 45, not a particularly big guy, and embarassingly not in top physical shape, I got a bum knee from playing high school football and while not disableing my back ain't the best thanks to a fall down a ladder on a submarine while in the Navy. I have not been in a fist fight since I was a junior in high school and have no desire to attempt to go toe to toe with anyone. If you want I can research it and find dozens of news stories where a person is killed or severly injured from a single blow from a determined assailant. If attacked unprovoked I will attempt to meet violence with superior violence and I am a tool user.

 

[kingpin008]

Once again, I have to agree with Roadking and some of the others here - I think that the few posters here (such as LightingJoe) don't fully understand how chaotic a fist-fight can be, especially when one combatant has the jump on the other one. It's one thing to have two individuals square-off and start swinging, but quite another when one second the guy is asking directions and the next his knuckles are getting intimate with your bridgework.

That's the reason many of us carry guns, or failing that, knives or pepper spray. Because if you're expecting a fight, you may have a pretty fair shot of coming through it in one piece - but once the other party gets the jump on you (which believe it or not can and DOES happen even when he's in plain sight and not otherwise acting strangely) the whole script is flipped.

The beauty of firearms, and to a lesser extent knives, is that they create distance. The kind of distance that keeps people from reaching you with their fists and making you go sleepy-time in a parking lot.

For example - have a look at this video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PkhW90LcA4w

That officer had no reason to suspect that the man she had pulled over would react like that. Yet, he did. He hit her so hard that she was out before she even hit the ground, where he continued to beat her. In the end, she came away with a shattered jaw and a fractured skull, both of which required surgery to repair.

Now, you tell me that going toe-to-toe with ANYONE is more moral, or correct than having a weapon of any type ready. Seriously - nobody on this thread is a bloodthirsty, murderous psychopath. We just realize that the fact that you're a big strong man (or woman) doesn't mean that you can't get whooped by another person, should they be willing and able to try their hand at whooping ya.

 

[LightningJoe]

The beauty of firearms, and to a lesser extent knives, is that they create distance.

Firearms don't create distance; they create holes. If you don't see a weapon, putting a hole through a guy is a bad idea.


Anything else is in the same league with people who say they'll shoot the cops in a no-knock or start a revolution if an AWB is passed. Amusing theory; don't try it.


Even if I were 16, I think I could see the toxic psychology of airily prescribing shooting unarmed people.

 

[Liko81]

Though I would probably agree with the idea of "lethal force when attacked", many martial artists (of any discipline, commanding any number of weapons) are taught "the continuum of force". You use enough force to subdue your attacker, and not more. Yes, a 3rd dan karateka can break a man's neck with a single blow; he however does not if a foot in the stomach puts his opponent on the ground, unlikely to rise. An accomplished aikidoka can do the same thing, but that is actually against the entire philosophy of aikido; to defeat your foe without killing or even seriously injuring him. The same principle applies with weapons; if you can defeat your opponent with jiu-jitsu or pepper spray, that's a better outcome than needing a baton, which is better than using a knife, which is better than a pistol. A dose of pepper spray or a drawn, arcing stungun is usually enough to send a BG running the other way, and both of you get to go home (or in the BG's case the local lock-up) without needing an ambulance. If however you NEED a pistol, by all means draw it and use it, but if you have command of lesser weapons, the outcome will generally be far better.

Most uniformed officers carry a variety of weapons of varying ranges and lethalities. Standard loadout for a Dallas officer (and probably countless other jurisdictions) is pepper spray, a yawara stick (pressure-point control), a knife, a baton, a taser and of course their duty pistol, with a hidden backup. In addition, their cruiser has a shotgun for each officer in the trunk, and the radio on their lapel can bring the rest of the precinct in riot gear if they get into a total SHTF scenario. It's a full continuum of force, and the officer who fires his duty weapon has (hopefully) exhausted all other options.

Now, practically none of us have access to those weapons 24/7, but I would advocate having at least one lesser weapon such as pepper spray (they put them on keychains for Crissakes), to offer yourself a continuum between bare-handed and lethal force.

 

[thebaldguy]

For those of us who live in the big cities, parking lots are a problem. People get robbed, raped, and carjacked and worse. Criminals look for unlocked doors or valuables to steal. Homeless people cruse the lots looking for handouts. I have had people ask for gas money so they can "make it home". I always try to anticipate getting asked for cash or something worse.

Last summer had an interesting one. I saw a guy going from person to person asking for cash. I quickly got into my car, locked the doors, and started the engine before he could make it over to me. As he approached, I waved him away. He kept coming. I kept waving him away. When I started to pull out, he moved closer to my car, almost putting himself in front of my car. I kept a close eye on him; I kept watching his hands. He stepped back, and asked where he could get a flat tire fixed. There was a tire dealer a few blocks away and I gave him quick directions. He really didn't take note of my directions; he was looking away as I talked. He didn't even thank me.

I pulled away, then parked and watched the guy for a bit. He went back to asking people for money. I don't think he needed a flat fixed. Harmless? Probably. But I get nervous when you start to get too close to me and my car when I think you're up to no good. I tell my girlfriend to be careful as well.

Better safe than sorry. Stay alert.

 

[Halo is for Kids]

The same principle applies with weapons; if you can defeat your opponent with jiu-jitsu or pepper spray, that's a better outcome than needing a baton, which is better than using a knife, which is better than a pistol.

In alot of places those in bold are all considered lethal weapons and their use would be lethal force.

 

[Funderb]

I vote lost.

 

[Liko81]

^^^ "Less than lethal" then. Another basic tenet of self defense is that ANYTHING can be used as a weapon, and most can be lethal if you know what you're doing. If you want to get into this, there are continuums of force for any weapon just as there are for bare hands: with a baton, you aim elsewhere than the head, neck or spine, and with sufficient force to stun but not break bones. Knives can be used away from major arteries and organs. And yes, you can shoot a guy in the leg rather than the center of mass. However, the more destructive and injurious the weapon, the harder it is to use it non-lethally.

 

[Halo is for Kids]

^^^ "Less than lethal" then.

Less lethal is the term.

In all the places I have lived:

Using a baton is the use of lethal force and would only be justified if lethal force is justified.
Using a knife is the use of lethal force and would only be justified if lethal force is justified.
Using a gun is the use of lethal force and would only be justified if lethal force is justified.

 

[Jamie C.]

Firearms don't create distance; they create holes. If you don't see a weapon, putting a hole through a guy is a bad idea.


Anything else is in the same league with people who say they'll shoot the cops in a no-knock or start a revolution if an AWB is passed. Amusing theory; don't try it.


Even if I were 16, I think I could see the toxic psychology of airily prescribing shooting unarmed people.

LightningJoe, I don't know where you got your psychology/psychiatric degree, but your diagnosis, at least concerning myself, flies in the face of what I've been told by at least a few real professionals in that field. And basically that is that I am sane, rational, and level-headed. ( Got a psych evaluation when I signed up with the S.O., and have spoken with my step daughter's psychologist and psychiatrist at least monthly for the past 8 years. )

Your theories concerning shooting an unarmed assailant also, thankfully, conflicts with what state law here where I live says. And that is basically, as ClickClick pointed out with the statutes he posted, that an attacker is not required to have a weapon to justify the use of lethal force by the victim.

Now, if you honestly think you can go toe-to-toe with someone who blind-sides you or catches you off guard, more power to ya. But personally, I'd bet good money that you'll end up in the emergency room in short order. And yeah, I've seen enough badasses and dojo ballerinas get their head handed to 'em to know what I'm betting on.



J.C.

 

[LightningJoe]

Now, if you honestly think you can go toe-to-toe with someone who blind-sides you or catches you off guard, more power to ya.

I wouldn't be able to shoot him either if he blindsided me or caught me off guard. Duh. But if you can testify that the unarmed guy your size had you so scared you had to shoot him, more power to ya. David vs Goliath is one thing, but in my experience Goliath-sized guys don't cause problems. It's always the regular-size guys with the Goliath-size attitudes.

 

[RoadkingLarry]

So LightningJoe in your world a fellow has to take a beatdown if he can't bare knuckle it with some dope crazed scumbag and come out on top. Is that your point? I don't have that level of testosterone poisoning so I guess I'm just SOL. I'll take my chances in front of a jury thank you very much.

In my world this is the reality

Oklahoma Self Defense Act:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

[TCB in TN]

It is becoming quite apparent that some folks around here have NO idea what a real fight is like. Maybe they have watched a few to many episodes of Walker Texas Ranger, and think that its reality. As for the psychology of fighting, with my limited knowledge (a couple of psych classes in college) and experience I would imagine that LJ probably has this backwards. It would be the guy WANTING to fight that would be considered to have a psychological problem.

 

[kingpin008]

Firearms don't create distance; they create holes.

*sigh*

So, all those police officers who carry guns on a daily basis don't ever use them to create a safe distance between themselves and the individual that they have at the other end? I guess the whole point of them unholstering their guns and announcing "STOP, GET ON THE GROUND AND FACE AWAY FROM ME" is just a formality, right?

Of course firearms create distance between you and a possible treat. That's one of the fundamental reasons that firearms have evolved to where they are today - they're a better tool for the various jobs than previous tools (knives, swords, arrows, etc) were.

The simple fact is, if I'm being approached by a man who has already recieved an answer from me and has no earthly business whatsoever coming even closer to me than he is now, he's gonna get warned to not come so close. If he backs off, that's dandy. But if he doesn't, he will be warned quite clearly to stop approaching. If he does not stop, and I had a gun with me, I would make it clear that I was willing to use it.

And if he still doesn't stop? Guess what? He gets a gun pointed at his chest and an order to turn around and go. After that, if it is still in his agenda to whisper secrets in my ear, he gets shot.

See how that works? First you have a friendly warning, then a stern one, then a warning + gun, and then and ONLY then, does the firearm "create holes".

Bottom line - as has been said numerous times (and which you seem to be glossing over) nobody is advocating randomly firing on an "unarmed" man. What we are advocating, is having more than our fists and an iron jaw to rely on in a violent encounter. When you say things like "firearms don't create distance, they create holes" you really show how blind you're allowing yourself to be to the discussion at hand, and it makes it very hard to go any farther with you in the thread.

 

[joab]

dojo ballerinas

I'm stealing that

testosterone poisoning

That to
At least I'm getting something constructive out of this

Joe with all due respect I don't think you have ever been in a real fight of desperation where the winner comes away with portions of his body bitten off (I actually beat that charge though)

Someone intent on hurting you is not going to bump chests and exchange witticisms before hand
He is going to probe for weaknesses and attack when he can exploit them

 

[JWarren]

JWarren wrote:

For the record, your statement:


LighteningJoe wrote:

"Could an unarmed guy kill you? Yes. 0.000001. Could you become a murderer and go to prison? Yes. 99.99999."

I'm still waiting for statistics from anything resembling a reputable source. I'd expect no less from someone that suggests OUR failure to grasp the concept of large numbers.


-- John