This really irritates me... - Page 2

This really irritates me...

This is a discussion on This really irritates me... within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; are you so proud that the possible loss of life is better than leaving and coming back later. #1 rule avoid confrontation why become involved ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 52

Thread: This really irritates me...

  1. #16
    Member Array gotammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    443
    are you so proud that the possible loss of life is better than leaving and coming back later. #1 rule avoid confrontation why become involved in a life altering situation if you don't have to, also some states require retreat before defense. After all isn't that what seperates us from them.


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,413
    Quote Originally Posted by denverd0n View Post
    The operative word here is "should." What should be, and what is, are all too often very different things. I am not willing to risk going to jail just so I can put a thug in his place, even if that is something I "should" be able to do.
    Yup. As it stands, the road to getting a group of others to see the legitimacy of self defense is a rocky, dangerous road. So long as self defense is not largely acknowledged as a virtue, it will remain this way.

    Quote Originally Posted by rocky View Post
    I agree, now just get the law / lawyers/ judges/ jury to agree and we will be all set. Unfortunately, if we have a gun and don't back down, we can be painted as the trouble maker.
    That's about it.

    Here's a start ...

    • Citizens are acknowledged to have the right to self-defense of themselves and other citizens, at any time and place deemed necessary by the citizen, given what is known at the time by the citizen.
    • Citizens may use the degree of force necessary up to and including lethal force to stop a violent crime in progress. The "reasonable person" standard applies, in terms of judging if:
      • (a) there was a violent crime in progress;
      • (b) the person was at risk of being victimized; and
      • (c) that force was necessary to stop the crime and protect the innocent.
    • A Grand Jury of citizens shall convene to determine if charges are warranted.
      • If a Grand Jury determines that charges are warranted, then the prosecution must prove that all of the following are true:
        • (a) an attack was not in progress;
        • (b) the citizen was not being attacked;
        • (c) the citizen was not at risk of serious injury or death; and
        • (d) the citizen had no legitimate cause to use the degree of force employed.
      • Citizens not criminally convicted of their actions are specifically shielded from all legal and financial recourse from the attacker, his/her estate or legal representation, and from any and all other sources.
    • Other laws prohibiting criminal attack on the innocent or their property shall form the "teeth" that dissuades criminals from the commission of such acts.
    • All existing laws inhibiting the possession, purchase, ownership, transportation, carry or usage of any weapon are specifically struck down, except insofar as they are "multipliers" or contributing factors during the commission of another crime.
      • Any new law that inhibits any of the above and is attempted to be passed is immediately null and void.
      • All persons engaging in the act of attempting to pass or enforce such a law are guilty of a felony and subject to a maximum of 90 days incarceration, a $50000 fine (adjustable by inflation at 2006 $ levels), or both.
    • The specific intent of this law is to acknowledge the right of each citizen to engage in the defense of himself/herself, other citizens and property from criminal attack. It is intended that this law never be repealed, revoked, or "watered down" in any manner, for all time.


    Get some group of legal stiffs to whip that into shape, and then we might have something that could be effective.

    The likelihood of all this, or even a portion, coming to pass? Not likely.
    Last edited by ccw9mm; December 26th, 2006 at 06:24 PM. Reason: shpeling ers
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array raevan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    washington
    Posts
    4,849
    I make it a point to avoid trouble whenever I can, If I am trapped or someone forces a confrentation such as maybe attacking myself or Family I will defend even to death.

    If possible to avoid I avoid, I lose no 'Macho' points by walking away.

  4. #19
    Senior Member Array mech1369dlw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    610
    From KS Senate Bill #366

    New Section1. (a) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in a place where such person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand such person's ground and meet force with force.

    That being said, if there is a chance of leaving, I will do so. But, if cornered, and NO WAY OUT, there WILL be fireworks.

  5. #20
    Member Array Only Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    248
    I think my point was missed. It is so socially frowned on now days to defend one's self in any situation. Thus the old B.S. statement "Just give them what they want. Do what they say and they won't hurt you." I guess maybe I am looking at things the wrong way. I am not out to prove anything, I just think it is wrong that a person should be expected and sometimes required to retreat when they are in the right, minding their own business, doing what they are supposed to be doing at the time... it seems to me to be giving another automatic advantage/protection for the criminal element, to the detriment of the law abiding. Also, I am not talking just about deadly force situations. Say you are going to the mall to do shopping. You see a group of thugs hanging out, obviously looking for trouble. "Well, we had better leave and go somewhere else to avoid anything happening." That type of situation in general.
    When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
    From the essay "TRIBES" by Bill Whittle

  6. #21
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Only Glock View Post
    I just think it is wrong that a person should be expected and sometimes required to retreat when they are in the right, minding their own business, doing what they are supposed to be doing at the time...
    Point understood 100%. However, reality can be different. It can be an absolutely crushing experience to defend oneself. By all accounts, killing another can financially devastate a family ... even if you "win" all legal proceedings (criminal and/or civil). In short, it's a gamble and a risk even if you're in the right.

    As some have said: You can be right; dead right. (Financially and emotionally speaking.)

    A simple change of timing and/or direction can simply avoid a situation that's likely. Depending on one's ability to "win" and shrug off such impacts, that might well be the best course. YMMV, as always.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  7. #22
    Member Array AgentX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by Only Glock View Post
    As a LEO, I have no requirement to back down, in fact, I have an obligation under oath NOT to back down/retreat
    Just curious...what is your oath and obligation? I'm a LEO and have no such requirement, but I'm not a peace officer, just a fed investigator, and I'm always interested to learn.

    In training, they spend a lot of time reminding us that we always have the option to remove ourselves from a situation and come back to it on our own terms...we love to plan...but we're obviously not dealing with the same laws/situations a peace officer deals with. (And, of course, we're taught to apply force swiftly when it can/should be applied to control a dangerous situation...just that we're not obligated to stick around if we judge it's not tactically smart.)

    AX

  8. #23
    Senior Member Array razorblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Va
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Only Glock View Post
    Razor, I just noticed where you are from. I used to live in Fairfax and my best friend was an Alexandria cop until he went to MPDC. Small world.
    It is a small world :) You know, I just wanted to comment on your previous statement about how you are bound by oath "not to back down" in the face of danger. I wanted to give my thanks to you and your brother LEO's that are out there and "run towards trouble."
    Keep up the good work and stay safe.

  9. #24
    Member
    Array saltysquid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    San Martin Toltepec, Mexico
    Posts
    360
    It looks like we could possible have a 'Castle Doctrine' bill if it goes through.

    http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/173243/

    It was a Democrat that filed it, just shows you the difference in democrat politicians here and many other places.

    "Sen. Jerry Taylor (D-Pine Bluff) has filed Senate Bill 2A that would remove a personís duty to retreat under certain circumstances before using deadly force in self-defense. Taylor, a retired land surveyor and real estate broker, said about 15 states have adopted so-called "castle doctrine" laws."

    http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=8489

  10. #25
    Member Array Only Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by AgentX View Post
    Just curious...what is your oath and obligation? I'm a LEO and have no such requirement, but I'm not a peace officer, just a fed investigator, and I'm always interested to learn.

    In training, they spend a lot of time reminding us that we always have the option to remove ourselves from a situation and come back to it on our own terms...we love to plan...but we're obviously not dealing with the same laws/situations a peace officer deals with. (And, of course, we're taught to apply force swiftly when it can/should be applied to control a dangerous situation...just that we're not obligated to stick around if we judge it's not tactically smart.)

    AX
    It is the part where I raised my hand and swore in part to "faithfully uphold the laws and protect the citizens of the State of Tennessee" and the county that I work for, that says I can't just go away in order to avoid trouble. I don't mean necessarily charging into a situation blindly, but we don't have the option of looking the other way and just going away to avoid a situation because it may escalate. As one of our training instructors said, "We don't back down!". I liken it to the firemen running into a burning building when everyone else is running out. It is in our general orders where it says we can be disciplined/terminated for failing to act. It is the duty I feel in my heart to do everything in my power to do the right thing even when it is difficult or inconvenient or potentially dangerous.

    I know what you mean about coming into a situation on our terms, but we don't have some of the options that some others have. If a non-LEO citizen, going to the grocery store for example, sees something that could be trouble, he/she can just go to another store without even being under obligation to pick up the cellphone. We don't have that, we have to intervene.

    I apologize for sounding like I am up on my soapbox. Re-reading the thread it even sounds it to me.
    When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
    From the essay "TRIBES" by Bill Whittle

  11. #26
    Member Array Only Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by razorblade View Post
    It is a small world :) You know, I just wanted to comment on your previous statement about how you are bound by oath "not to back down" in the face of danger. I wanted to give my thanks to you and your brother LEO's that are out there and "run towards trouble."
    Keep up the good work and stay safe.
    Thank you.
    When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
    From the essay "TRIBES" by Bill Whittle

  12. #27
    Member Array AgentX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    476
    Glock, if my question sounded confrontational or accusatory, I apologize...I'm honestly interested to learn the nuances of LE that I'm not familiar with. Just wanted to know what your specific requirements were for not backing down. I mean, I'm required to investigate crimes, not protect the public, so it's a different ballgame. My oath is to the Constitution.

    My job actually involves performing personal protection as well as investigation, but protecting an individual means getting him/her out of a bad or potentially bad situation, not fighting with, confronting, or apprehending an attacker...that's something they need to drill into a lot of us, esp. those with LE and military backgrounds.

    Lots of Marines in my line of work, and we all want to get on line and assault a threat, and all the ex-cops want to get into the old polyester pile-up on a threat. However, only the agents nearest the threat should be dealing with it...the rest of us should be getting the principal the heck out of dodge and looking for other attackers. And we often have the luxury of having uniformed officers around who can and will take care of any apprehensions while we run away.

    Guess that answers my question...

    AX

  13. #28
    Member Array denverd0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    388
    Sadly, the world has changed. I am old enough to remember reports of a story from back in the mid, or maybe late, sixties. A woman was robbed and beaten in broad daylight, on a crowded street, in New York City. People were aghast. Virtually the entire nation was up in arms. How could all of those people stand by and do nothing? Why didn't anyone come to her rescue?

    But that was 40+ years ago. Today, the reaction would be (indeed, HAS been!), it is best not to get involved. Let the police handle it. Only some sort of psycho, Rambo wannabe would jump into the middle of something like that.

    When did it change? Why? I don't know. All I know is that it has changed, and not for the better.

  14. #29
    Member
    Array saltysquid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    San Martin Toltepec, Mexico
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by Only Glock View Post
    It is the part where I raised my hand and swore in part to "faithfully uphold the laws and protect the citizens of the State of Tennessee" and the county that I work for, that says I can't just go away in order to avoid trouble. I don't mean necessarily charging into a situation blindly, but we don't have the option of looking the other way and just going away to avoid a situation because it may escalate. As one of our training instructors said, "We don't back down!". I liken it to the firemen running into a burning building when everyone else is running out. It is in our general orders where it says we can be disciplined/terminated for failing to act. It is the duty I feel in my heart to do everything in my power to do the right thing even when it is difficult or inconvenient or potentially dangerous.

    I know what you mean about coming into a situation on our terms, but we don't have some of the options that some others have. If a non-LEO citizen, going to the grocery store for example, sees something that could be trouble, he/she can just go to another store without even being under obligation to pick up the cellphone. We don't have that, we have to intervene.

    I apologize for sounding like I am up on my soapbox. Re-reading the thread it even sounds it to me.
    We do appreciate it when you guys (and gals) take the oath seriously. I know the ones that don't are in the minority, but nevertheless we do support and respect you for it. The majority of us do anyway.

  15. #30
    Member Array Only Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by saltysquid View Post
    We do appreciate it when you guys (and gals) take the oath seriously. I know the ones that don't are in the minority, but nevertheless we do support and respect you for it. The majority of us do anyway.
    Thank you.
    When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
    From the essay "TRIBES" by Bill Whittle

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •