El Tejon
Member
buzz, you mean there has been no talk of heroics or not being a wimp as a basis to start a gunfight? Must be seeing things.
Would you Intervene?
- Thread starter Hypnogator
- Start date
- Status
You're seeing what you want to see, to justify your own choice. You then insult the other person's choice by stating its based on some misguided principle. For example, describing your choice to remain uninvolved as being motivated by a hatred of women and thus a deep seated desire to see a woman in bondage, raped, or murdered. That's the functional equivalent of calling someone else's decision of getting involved as being motivated by a Batman complex or a need to assert one's existence as a man.
For the record, I'm not suggesting that this is the motivation for your decision, but only showing the comparison.
For the record, I'm not suggesting that this is the motivation for your decision, but only showing the comparison.
Edward429451
member
Aw were gettin goofy now. Bottom line is some recognize the moral obligation to help and some do not.
Diesle, thats THIS scenario. Shots have already been fired. El-Tejon made the valid point that if you challenge them they may start shooting indiscriminitly. I'd already considered this and maybe the head shot would be the best option (at least for the girl) at this point. I'm not trained to handle multiple BG's in a crises situation. Practicing your butt off in pistol drills is not the same as real training and I have no armchair warrior illusions that it does. Something still needs to happen to help the girl though, I cant just stand there and take a plate number, that'd be...not right, to put it mildly.
El-Tejon says "what about the bystanders?" over and over. Well, what about the GIRL? What do we tell her family? I saw them take her, it was two __________guys? Sheesh.
El-Tejon, you feign concern for the bystanders and yet have no duty for the girl. I think this is self- contradictory and discredits your line of reasoning. Sounds like something the Government would say. Just my opinion.
I think I would rather sit in jail for a stranger than have to go home to the warm cozy safe nook and live with the fact that I couldve helped and did not so she died for it. I'll act as my conscience directs me too.
Diesle, thats THIS scenario. Shots have already been fired. El-Tejon made the valid point that if you challenge them they may start shooting indiscriminitly. I'd already considered this and maybe the head shot would be the best option (at least for the girl) at this point. I'm not trained to handle multiple BG's in a crises situation. Practicing your butt off in pistol drills is not the same as real training and I have no armchair warrior illusions that it does. Something still needs to happen to help the girl though, I cant just stand there and take a plate number, that'd be...not right, to put it mildly.
El-Tejon says "what about the bystanders?" over and over. Well, what about the GIRL? What do we tell her family? I saw them take her, it was two __________guys? Sheesh.
El-Tejon, you feign concern for the bystanders and yet have no duty for the girl. I think this is self- contradictory and discredits your line of reasoning. Sounds like something the Government would say. Just my opinion.
I think I would rather sit in jail for a stranger than have to go home to the warm cozy safe nook and live with the fact that I couldve helped and did not so she died for it. I'll act as my conscience directs me too.
Intune
Member
El Tejon, it's not a matter of proving one's "manhood." No potential shooting scenario is going to be risk-free. NONE.
These are all your words:
"Go for cover, be a good witness.
And, even if you do know what is going, does not mean you should get involved just because you are carrying a pistol. Real life is not gun rag fiction.
…they can still come after you. Something to take in mind in the cost/benefit analysis.
Why put yourself and many others in danger?
Why subject oneself to danger with lots of unknown variables in Problem #1 or #2?
I think you and ahenry have made solid points to justify a shooting that may or may not save the day; however, I prefer avoidance to defense.
Maybe you can live with the costs associated with intrevening, but everyone should be aware of what may come.
I am in no danger, I would not. If they look around to kill witnesses, then it changes a lot.
I avoid as wise man in Tejas sez, "you just let an unarmed man be killed--he should have armed himself." I have no duty to intrevene, I will not, I avoid. You cannot save the world, but you may be able to save yourself (also wise man in Tejas).
Why anyone would be intent on risking everything, including hurting innocents, when he is in no danger and has no duty to do so is beyond me. "Doing something right" is subjective and can lead to prison, bankruptcy, inter alia. If you decide not to intrevene, then there are no consequences. If you decide to intrevene and it turns out that you have shot innocents or police officers, there will be dire consequences.
I have no need and have no chip on my shoulder to act rashly to "prove something", "act like a man" or to be a hero. I fail to see how protecting myself by choosing not to intrevene renders me incapable of defending myself if I were to be attacked.
I'm not in danger regardless, don't shoot.
Spineless? No, just not foolhardy. I do not equate bravery with recklessness. What good would anyone be to their wife if in prison or broke? Why fight a battle you do not have to? Jumping into a Problem #1 that you do not have to be in is setting yourself up for all kinds of potential trouble after the fact.
Atticus, how is it heartless or spineless to recognize a tough situation and check your fire rather than risk the lives of innocents or you or your family?
Just because you are confident in your Warrior Princelyness, does not mean things will go as you imagine
I understand your zeal and frustration, I urge all to temper their physical prowess with the knowledge that study of these things will bring. Call it cowardice or whatever you like. Someday you will call it wisdom.
Why subject yourself to any risk if there is no need (other than the need to play Batman)?
I have never claimed that something will happen next, just that it may. I do not know what is going on in the described scenario and do not know what will happen if I start a fight. Only a foolhardy person refuses to weigh the consequences of his actions just as only the uneducated runs to a fight he can avoid as he as no idea of the bad things that await during and after a fight.
I carry to defend myself and myself alone. I have no obligation to others. I do not see myself as Batman or a saviour to the world and am too old to have anything to prove. There is a chance that one could pull this (sucessfully intrevene) off. However, the downside here is enormous which you now see.
Beer, pathetic? Maybe so, but I'll let the heros (and the mall ninjas) save the world. I ain't no hero/mall ninja.
Is not the course of action that causes the least harm is to become a good witness rather than a third party to a fight in which you do not know the players?
I'm saying that in this scenario to get involved is to risk it all to yourself and others with little benefit.
Delta, Kitty should have armed herself. No one had a duty to help her."
?????????????????????
El Tejon, I will give you the benefit of doubt and say that you may be a great warrior but you're gonna have to prove it in a foxhole down the line. I would not let you share mine. 'Nuff said.
These are all your words:
"Go for cover, be a good witness.
And, even if you do know what is going, does not mean you should get involved just because you are carrying a pistol. Real life is not gun rag fiction.
…they can still come after you. Something to take in mind in the cost/benefit analysis.
Why put yourself and many others in danger?
Why subject oneself to danger with lots of unknown variables in Problem #1 or #2?
I think you and ahenry have made solid points to justify a shooting that may or may not save the day; however, I prefer avoidance to defense.
Maybe you can live with the costs associated with intrevening, but everyone should be aware of what may come.
I am in no danger, I would not. If they look around to kill witnesses, then it changes a lot.
I avoid as wise man in Tejas sez, "you just let an unarmed man be killed--he should have armed himself." I have no duty to intrevene, I will not, I avoid. You cannot save the world, but you may be able to save yourself (also wise man in Tejas).
Why anyone would be intent on risking everything, including hurting innocents, when he is in no danger and has no duty to do so is beyond me. "Doing something right" is subjective and can lead to prison, bankruptcy, inter alia. If you decide not to intrevene, then there are no consequences. If you decide to intrevene and it turns out that you have shot innocents or police officers, there will be dire consequences.
I have no need and have no chip on my shoulder to act rashly to "prove something", "act like a man" or to be a hero. I fail to see how protecting myself by choosing not to intrevene renders me incapable of defending myself if I were to be attacked.
I'm not in danger regardless, don't shoot.
Spineless? No, just not foolhardy. I do not equate bravery with recklessness. What good would anyone be to their wife if in prison or broke? Why fight a battle you do not have to? Jumping into a Problem #1 that you do not have to be in is setting yourself up for all kinds of potential trouble after the fact.
Atticus, how is it heartless or spineless to recognize a tough situation and check your fire rather than risk the lives of innocents or you or your family?
Just because you are confident in your Warrior Princelyness, does not mean things will go as you imagine
I understand your zeal and frustration, I urge all to temper their physical prowess with the knowledge that study of these things will bring. Call it cowardice or whatever you like. Someday you will call it wisdom.
Why subject yourself to any risk if there is no need (other than the need to play Batman)?
I have never claimed that something will happen next, just that it may. I do not know what is going on in the described scenario and do not know what will happen if I start a fight. Only a foolhardy person refuses to weigh the consequences of his actions just as only the uneducated runs to a fight he can avoid as he as no idea of the bad things that await during and after a fight.
I carry to defend myself and myself alone. I have no obligation to others. I do not see myself as Batman or a saviour to the world and am too old to have anything to prove. There is a chance that one could pull this (sucessfully intrevene) off. However, the downside here is enormous which you now see.
Beer, pathetic? Maybe so, but I'll let the heros (and the mall ninjas) save the world. I ain't no hero/mall ninja.
Is not the course of action that causes the least harm is to become a good witness rather than a third party to a fight in which you do not know the players?
I'm saying that in this scenario to get involved is to risk it all to yourself and others with little benefit.
Delta, Kitty should have armed herself. No one had a duty to help her."
?????????????????????
El Tejon, I will give you the benefit of doubt and say that you may be a great warrior but you're gonna have to prove it in a foxhole down the line. I would not let you share mine. 'Nuff said.
Felonious Monk
Member
You guys who are incinerating El Tejon seem to think that what he's proposing is that we all stand around with our thumbs up various body cavities and spectate.
Edward said: "Aw were gettin goofy now. Bottom line is some recognize the moral obligation to help and some do not."
Major error. Bravo Sierra, Butch Cassidy!
El Tejon and I both recognize the moral obligation to help, and we fulfill that obligation without employing deadly force to the possible cult-buster/BG's.
Observe actions. Evaluate/mentally note details.
CALL OUT/Question Ski Mask boys.
Evaluate response...
FREEZE FRAME: Since the situation did not provide any further details, the rest is pure conjecture. A crap shoot.
Write the ending according to your own sense of Cowboy Wannabe, Sherriff Roscoe P, OR quivering poontang milk-toast waste of breath panty-waste...
...or, my preference (and my hope), a quick-thinking, responsible Armed Citizen who will shoot as a last resort, but will try to do lots of other things first to stop the situation if it turns out to be a bad scene going down.
I'd like to hear from some of our personal defense trainer folks on this. Gomez? You other guys who do this for a living...what's your take: Shoot/No Shoot?
Edward said: "Aw were gettin goofy now. Bottom line is some recognize the moral obligation to help and some do not."
Major error. Bravo Sierra, Butch Cassidy!
El Tejon and I both recognize the moral obligation to help, and we fulfill that obligation without employing deadly force to the possible cult-buster/BG's.
Observe actions. Evaluate/mentally note details.
CALL OUT/Question Ski Mask boys.
Evaluate response...
FREEZE FRAME: Since the situation did not provide any further details, the rest is pure conjecture. A crap shoot.
Write the ending according to your own sense of Cowboy Wannabe, Sherriff Roscoe P, OR quivering poontang milk-toast waste of breath panty-waste...
...or, my preference (and my hope), a quick-thinking, responsible Armed Citizen who will shoot as a last resort, but will try to do lots of other things first to stop the situation if it turns out to be a bad scene going down.
I'd like to hear from some of our personal defense trainer folks on this. Gomez? You other guys who do this for a living...what's your take: Shoot/No Shoot?
Last edited:
King
Member
Sorry Monk....If I get caught at the mercy of two BG's who are planning me great harm (per this scenario) and El Tejon is the only one there to help me, I'm in a world of hurt. He's not going to get involved. Neither are several others here. His reasons are clear. He his free to choose his actions. That's unfortunate in my view.
Question is, if it were El Tejon (or pick one of the others) being dragged out of the store by two masked gunmen, would he be grateful to those strangers who would step to the plate to help him? (I already know the answer).
Question is, if it were El Tejon (or pick one of the others) being dragged out of the store by two masked gunmen, would he be grateful to those strangers who would step to the plate to help him? (I already know the answer).
Intune
Member
Felonious Monk, (jazz crook?) 
Any incineration is self-inflicted. Please sir, could you perchance point me to the post in which El Tejon stated that he would do ANYTHING other than observe, to assist this hapless individual other than note details? In order for an "intervention" to take place, one must INTERVENE in some form whether verbal or physical. Otherwise, one is ALLOWING these individuals to proceed on their way unchallenged. Throw mean thoughts their way? I agree with your assessment of this situation and would, myself, issue a verbal challenge (thereby notably increasing my own peril) just to reassure my belief that these individuals did indeed have criminal intent. Depending on their reaction to that challenge another assessment would then be done before any deadly force would be employed on my part. I see none of this confrontation in El Tejon's posts. None.
Any incineration is self-inflicted. Please sir, could you perchance point me to the post in which El Tejon stated that he would do ANYTHING other than observe, to assist this hapless individual other than note details? In order for an "intervention" to take place, one must INTERVENE in some form whether verbal or physical. Otherwise, one is ALLOWING these individuals to proceed on their way unchallenged. Throw mean thoughts their way? I agree with your assessment of this situation and would, myself, issue a verbal challenge (thereby notably increasing my own peril) just to reassure my belief that these individuals did indeed have criminal intent. Depending on their reaction to that challenge another assessment would then be done before any deadly force would be employed on my part. I see none of this confrontation in El Tejon's posts. None.
Ummm, what about my moral obligation to my family?'
Then, what is the order of my moral obligations. In my world obligation #1 is to me and my loved ones. So, my immediate actions will likely be driven by that fact. Causing me to take cover AND THEN, if possible (subjective), be of service to my fellow man.
The reason you are getting resistance on this matter is that you (most of you) are indicating that a MAN is defined by his willingness to come to the aid of fellow man. Therefore, making any man who would not immediatly jump, a BAD man. Or, a bad example of a man.
That is not a reasonable assumption to make.
Diesle
The question isn't about whether it's unreasonable or wrong to immediately jump. The question is whether you'd jump at all. So far, we have people discuss taking cover and challenging the presumed bad guys (and people with guns and ski masks and hauling a screaming woman away rarely fall into the good guy category no matter how much you try to swing it that way) or taking cover and essentially doing nothing. And calling 911 in that situation is basically the same as doing nothing.
My obligation is to myself and my family first. But included in my obligation to my family is the need to help out others when I can. Why? Because I want others to do the same for my family when I'm not there, and if I'm not willing to do that, why should I expect anyone else to do it?
My obligation is to myself and my family first. But included in my obligation to my family is the need to help out others when I can. Why? Because I want others to do the same for my family when I'm not there, and if I'm not willing to do that, why should I expect anyone else to do it?
El Tejon
Member
King, you're right, of course, assuming I'm being dragged out of the store by masked terrorists from Bedsheetistan. However, what if it is John Law that finally caught up with me? Can't dodge the phone calls of the Indiana Department of Revenue forever.
Point being, we don't know here. Further, even if we did have a Godseye view, what would be the attitude of the innocent bystanders about who are moseying down the calle in the middle of the gunfight we are about to initiate?
buzz, understood, but what about the obligation to use your ability to help without making things worse. What about the obligation to the bystanders and your own family? Would not a gunfight in the middle of a busy street aggravate an already bad situation?
Ski masks and screaming women NOT good guys?!?! What, you never pitched a CLET case from DEA???
Intune, there's no reason to give me any benefit. I am no warrior and make no claims to have been at any time. I sat in an office typing and talking on the phone.
My training for Problem #1 has all been under the eyes of gunskul masters. Shooting cardboard and paint pellets is not the same as the real deal.
However, my experience with Problem #2 was all been the real deal. The best indicia of good training is avoidance. I would avoid that foxhole as best I could.
Point being, we don't know here. Further, even if we did have a Godseye view, what would be the attitude of the innocent bystanders about who are moseying down the calle in the middle of the gunfight we are about to initiate?
buzz, understood, but what about the obligation to use your ability to help without making things worse. What about the obligation to the bystanders and your own family? Would not a gunfight in the middle of a busy street aggravate an already bad situation?
Ski masks and screaming women NOT good guys?!?! What, you never pitched a CLET case from DEA???
Intune, there's no reason to give me any benefit. I am no warrior and make no claims to have been at any time. I sat in an office typing and talking on the phone.
My training for Problem #1 has all been under the eyes of gunskul masters. Shooting cardboard and paint pellets is not the same as the real deal.
However, my experience with Problem #2 was all been the real deal. The best indicia of good training is avoidance. I would avoid that foxhole as best I could.
Pheonix
Member
If in doubt, dont pull it out!
Jim March
Member
El Tejon: balance the "possible" threat to bystanders (and myself) to the near-certain threat to the girl. It ain't even close. IF they're bad guys, and they haul her away, she's prolly dead.
I'm with F-Monk on the verbal challenge first, just in case this is a low-budget movie shoot, or "street bondage sex game" or cops or whatever. Fine. But until I know what's up, they ain't haulin' her outta there. Not with their hides intact they ain't.
The good news is, I *know* what I'd do. Been there once before.
I'm with F-Monk on the verbal challenge first, just in case this is a low-budget movie shoot, or "street bondage sex game" or cops or whatever. Fine. But until I know what's up, they ain't haulin' her outta there. Not with their hides intact they ain't.
The good news is, I *know* what I'd do. Been there once before.
El Tejon
Member
Diesle, no speculation here. I know what to do as well.
Chris Rhines
Member
There is a huge difference in being grateful to someone who intervenes in your situation, and believing that that person is obligated to do so.
- Chris
- Chris
Chris Rhines
Member
No, it isn't.
If I'm being dragged off by some thug, and you shoot his lights out, I'll be properly grateful. But that places no obligation upon me to do the same if the situations were reversed. Nor would I expect you to intervene on my behalf. I understand that your life is more valuable to you than mine is, and I accept that (because I think the same way.)
For me to intervene in such a situation, the victim would have to be a person that I am willing to die (or go to prison, or be financially ruined, etc.) for. Sorry, but a stranger on the street doesn't qualify.
- Chris
If I'm being dragged off by some thug, and you shoot his lights out, I'll be properly grateful. But that places no obligation upon me to do the same if the situations were reversed. Nor would I expect you to intervene on my behalf. I understand that your life is more valuable to you than mine is, and I accept that (because I think the same way.)
For me to intervene in such a situation, the victim would have to be a person that I am willing to die (or go to prison, or be financially ruined, etc.) for. Sorry, but a stranger on the street doesn't qualify.
- Chris
I didn’t say it places an obligation on you (as I said before, read what I wrote), I said it was hypocritical. There is a difference.
I understand what you are saying though. Can’t agree with the value system you express, but thats ok, I’m sure you don’t agree with mine.
Intune
Member
Wow,
this has been very enlightening. We are all different creatures with different wants, needs & values. Some of these are shared by others, some aren't. That's okay. To each his own. I have been on the wrong end of firearms during two separate occasions. On the first I was unarmed and during the second I had a firm (sweaty?) grasp on a Colt .357 loaded with the old blue Glasers. My mouth proved to be the best weapon in both of these incidents. Yes, I know, it's big enough to be considered a deadly weapon! In the scenario that started this thread, I believe that I would intervene if given the opportunity and even if unarmed. Red, Yellow, Black or White. They wouldn't have to reach a certain "standard" for me to try IF I thought that I could help. Big emphatic IF. This is what I would do for a stranger. If it was my wife or one of my children at risk, I don't care if I was naked and unarmed I'm going after them. Stupid? Maybe. Anything less than 100% effort to save them would not be entertained. But that's what I would do. I am more in shock at some of the statements than judgmental. You guys gotta do what you feel comfortable with.
this has been very enlightening. We are all different creatures with different wants, needs & values. Some of these are shared by others, some aren't. That's okay. To each his own. I have been on the wrong end of firearms during two separate occasions. On the first I was unarmed and during the second I had a firm (sweaty?) grasp on a Colt .357 loaded with the old blue Glasers. My mouth proved to be the best weapon in both of these incidents. Yes, I know, it's big enough to be considered a deadly weapon! In the scenario that started this thread, I believe that I would intervene if given the opportunity and even if unarmed. Red, Yellow, Black or White. They wouldn't have to reach a certain "standard" for me to try IF I thought that I could help. Big emphatic IF. This is what I would do for a stranger. If it was my wife or one of my children at risk, I don't care if I was naked and unarmed I'm going after them. Stupid? Maybe. Anything less than 100% effort to save them would not be entertained. But that's what I would do. I am more in shock at some of the statements than judgmental. You guys gotta do what you feel comfortable with.
Edward429451
member
<Major Error. Bravo Sierra, Butch Cassidy! El-Tejon and I both recognize the moral obligation to help, and we fullfill that obligation without employing deadly force to the possible cult-busters/BG's.>
I fail to see any error in my thinking here. This is my perception / opinion based on the given set of circumstances of the thread. Shots have already been fired. Is it reasonable to assume that they will continue with their demonstrated propensity to violence if challenged? Of course. Hence no challenge first. If the scenario had no shots fired already, I'd challenge. So within the given set of circumstances, IMO, yall' fail to see a moral obligation to act.
Dont get me wrong on the moral obligation thing (I think Chris is right on that one), My moral obligation is not subjecated to me from without or 'other people', it is ingrained in my own conscience, so comes from within myself.
<...or, my preference (and my hope), a quick thinking, responsible armed citizen who will shoot as a last resort, but will try to do lots of other things first to stop it if it turns out to be a bad scene going down.>
Not very often, but sometimes the last resort is the first action.
<Ummm, what about my moral obligation to my family?>
Ummm, fulfill your moral obligations to your family as you see fit according to your own wisdom & judgement. No one's trying to force any obligation on you, just putting out food for thought friend. Subjective's correct, me too.
<There is a huge difference in being grateful to someone who intervenes in your situation, and beleiving that the person is obligated to do so.>
I agree with this. Chris & El-Tejon & others are free men and it could prolly be construed to be a violation of these individuals absolute rights, to press them into service where their conscience does not agree. You cant expect anyone to know something that they have never realized or learned etc..so it is not hyporcritical methinks. My moral obligations are self realized.
Not rescuing El-Tejon because we beleive he wouldnt help us would be hyporcritical. I'd help him just as fast as anyone else. To base your amount of willingness to help on another individuals core beliefs would be pretty low (to yourself!). Have we not our own standards & conscience? ("sorry mrs Freeman, I didnt like what he said so I didnt save him and now he's dead" )
Come to think of it the statement "She should've armed herself" does sound kind of self incinerating. Would you say this to the family & police after they took the girl?
Biggest danger I see here is the police. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE wear your jackets, guys. I most certainly dont want to inadvertantly shoot an officer. I can keep my shots away from bystanders but sure wish that nice officer wouldve worn his identifiing jacket. If it turns out to be a BG in a jacket he'll still get the challenge to be on the safe side.
I fail to see any error in my thinking here. This is my perception / opinion based on the given set of circumstances of the thread. Shots have already been fired. Is it reasonable to assume that they will continue with their demonstrated propensity to violence if challenged? Of course. Hence no challenge first. If the scenario had no shots fired already, I'd challenge. So within the given set of circumstances, IMO, yall' fail to see a moral obligation to act.
Dont get me wrong on the moral obligation thing (I think Chris is right on that one), My moral obligation is not subjecated to me from without or 'other people', it is ingrained in my own conscience, so comes from within myself.
<...or, my preference (and my hope), a quick thinking, responsible armed citizen who will shoot as a last resort, but will try to do lots of other things first to stop it if it turns out to be a bad scene going down.>
Not very often, but sometimes the last resort is the first action.
<Ummm, what about my moral obligation to my family?>
Ummm, fulfill your moral obligations to your family as you see fit according to your own wisdom & judgement. No one's trying to force any obligation on you, just putting out food for thought friend. Subjective's correct, me too.
<There is a huge difference in being grateful to someone who intervenes in your situation, and beleiving that the person is obligated to do so.>
I agree with this. Chris & El-Tejon & others are free men and it could prolly be construed to be a violation of these individuals absolute rights, to press them into service where their conscience does not agree. You cant expect anyone to know something that they have never realized or learned etc..so it is not hyporcritical methinks. My moral obligations are self realized.
Not rescuing El-Tejon because we beleive he wouldnt help us would be hyporcritical. I'd help him just as fast as anyone else. To base your amount of willingness to help on another individuals core beliefs would be pretty low (to yourself!). Have we not our own standards & conscience? ("sorry mrs Freeman, I didnt like what he said so I didnt save him and now he's dead"
)Come to think of it the statement "She should've armed herself" does sound kind of self incinerating. Would you say this to the family & police after they took the girl?
Biggest danger I see here is the police. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE wear your jackets, guys. I most certainly dont want to inadvertantly shoot an officer. I can keep my shots away from bystanders but sure wish that nice officer wouldve worn his identifiing jacket. If it turns out to be a BG in a jacket he'll still get the challenge to be on the safe side.
Turkey Creek
Member
El Tejon- you will hear no more from me- your comments continue to run the same old themes, are getting tiresome, and are totally contrary to my beliefs- fortunately you are in the minority- the world would be a very cruel place if most thought as you do- if you think you can go through life without help from time to time, you must be living some place other than this planet- there are givers and there are takers in life- I know where I sand and it's not difficult to see where you come from- if you are happy with your choices, then God Bless
Turkey Creek
Member
Chris- concerning your last post
"I understand that your life is more valuable to you than mine is, and I accept that (because I think the same way.)"
here lies the difference between you and me- I am willing to risk my life for yours so I'm at least putting your life on an equal footing with mine- and No, thank God, you and I do Not think alike!
"For me to intervene in such a situation, the victim would have to be a person that I am willing to die (or go to prison, or be financially ruined, etc.) for. Sorry, but a stranger on the street doesn't qualify."
See my last post to El Tejon re "givers and takers"
"I understand that your life is more valuable to you than mine is, and I accept that (because I think the same way.)"
here lies the difference between you and me- I am willing to risk my life for yours so I'm at least putting your life on an equal footing with mine- and No, thank God, you and I do Not think alike!
"For me to intervene in such a situation, the victim would have to be a person that I am willing to die (or go to prison, or be financially ruined, etc.) for. Sorry, but a stranger on the street doesn't qualify."
See my last post to El Tejon re "givers and takers"
Ya`all need to quit pickin on El Tejon.
He ain`t going to save anybody from anything, I doubt that he would try to save his own butt, unless while runing away the perp shot and wonded him, then he may draw.
And for the rest of ya`all, my self included, check out the first part of my Sig line.
Sometimes peoples minds can be changed, sometimes not.
I hope that when El comes on his visits to Kerrville, Texas, that maybe some of the Texan spirit rubs off on him.
He ain`t going to save anybody from anything, I doubt that he would try to save his own butt, unless while runing away the perp shot and wonded him, then he may draw.
And for the rest of ya`all, my self included, check out the first part of my Sig line.
Sometimes peoples minds can be changed, sometimes not.
I hope that when El comes on his visits to Kerrville, Texas, that maybe some of the Texan spirit rubs off on him.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked