This is a discussion on This really irritates me... within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by AgentX Glock, if my question sounded confrontational or accusatory, I apologize...I'm honestly interested to learn the nuances of LE that I'm not ...
We are not bound word for word not to back down, but to protect and uphold. It is in the context of our oath that we can't back down. If I back down, I see it as a defeat. (That doesn't include moving to cover, waiting on backup, etc.) I had an older officer tell me not to ever get in a scuffle or a foot chase over a misdemeanor charge... just let them go, it's not worth the trouble. To me, doing that is just laying down and saying "I give up, it's not worth fighting for". When I see a situation that needs intervention, I'm going to intervene. When I tell someone they are under arrest, then within the limits set by law and dept policy, they are going to jail, the easy way or otherwise.
It may sound hokey to some, and I am not taking anything away from our troops overseas fighting, but alot of LEO's (myself included) see ourselves as warriors of sorts. We are not doing what our soldiers are doing exactly, but we are fighting to defend a line: the line between them (the criminals) and us (the law abiding). If one of us backs down off of that line, it weakens the whole line. (If this sounds corny to some, then too bad. We all have a perceived image of ourselves, and that is one that is common to many in LE.)
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
A lot of times the police are there after the crime and you are just another statistic. The cops can't be every where. Theres times you need to fend for yourself. As only glock said "If this sounds corny to some, then to bad."
As a LEO you have no requirement to back down, but you also have a department lawyer to help you if needed.
We are not so fortunate. You as a LEO should know, that if a citizen doesn't back down, they catch hell so to speak. If a physical confrontation happens we are facing, at least the rest of the afternoon being "questioned" about the incident and it could easily turn into, assault charges/court/lost time at work/missed house payments etc. If the laws did not work against us we may stand up a little more often. MI. just passed the don't have to retreat deal, but the few LEO's in my family still say it is better to walk away if possible (Less Hassle).
I don't think that anyone here has suggested "to just give them what they want and don't fight back and they won't hurt you." If attacked and you are in reasonable fear of your life or that of a family member, or of sustaining serious physical injury, of course you should defend yourself and family, including using deadly force, if necessary.
But, I, at least, am suggesting, that as non LEO civilians with carry permits, we are foolish not to avoid what we can readily see can ultimately turn into a deadly confrontation.
And, I don't see that as giving in to the predators, but simply using common sense to avoid losing our freedom or bankrupting our family.
Once again -- how often is it that you have to stop what you're doing because someone is threatening you? Are you threatened by the mere presence of these thugs or are you constantly being antagonized?I am sorry, but even if I were not LEO, I cannot see myself retreating from somewhere I have a legitimate right to be at the time, and it irritates me to think that law abiding citizens are expected to do so. "Just give them what they want and don't fight back and they won't hurt you." "Just drop what you are doing and go to the trouble of finding another place to [fill in the blank] to avoid trouble." "Just give in to the predators in one way or another and let them come out on top."Nothing about choosing a nonviolent way out of a situation implies fear. If presented with a situation you can't back out of, I can't imagine any court faulting you for defending yourself instead of retreating. I guess it is up to you to determine where your retreat/fight threshold is.This is not the way things are supposed to be! The criminals should be afraid of the lawabiding people, not the other way around.
It sounds like you're saying that you are often fearful and you wonder why you can't be just a s violent as the criminals.
Fear by iteself is not a reason to use force, deadly or otherwise. It must be reasonable fear based on the actions of the other party and the totality of the specific situation. A reasoable person must be in fear of immediate harm. Almost always this means a weapon has been shown or there is a disparity of force, a threat must have been made that is credible, and the BG must be capable of acting it out.
Fear can be a life saver, but it can also cause any of us to do, say, act, in ways that are unwise.
When someone is excessively fearful, typically of two or more things over a long time period, they are often said to be suffering from
We all need to keep in mind that the things usually discussed here, the random act of violence, police misconduct, are relatively rare events.
I'm 64 and lived for 24 years in a huge city, riding the subway night and day for about 5 of those years. I live in a mid sized community now. And I've lived in rural communities.
So far, knock on wood, the only crime I have been a victim of has been the taking of bicycles from within my open garage while I was eating lunch.
I urge everyone who packs, to continue to pack, but put your fear into perspective, considering the specifics of your individual life style. Don't look for trouble, either.
If you are excessively fearful, and sometimes let your imagination carry your fear too far, consider either not carrying or getting some help with controlling that emotion.
Please do not let the seemingly "anti-gun" who try to pshyco-analyze your post, take your statements and turn/twist them around to mislead others as to your point/intent, or maybe just try to convey thier own mis-direction, get you down.
I get your point, and am behind you 100%.
Anyone who reads your initial and follow up posts and tries to twirl your ideal around and implies you are somehow "excessively fearful"
simply don't get it!!
Only one sensible, but not complete,thing I will agree on, to seek a non violent end does not show fear, however it should have included, to stand your ground and not back away when confronted, to defend yourself and your rights, also does not show fear.
And to ask how often you run into a situation where you feel threatened or have to limit your activities show exactly how little they got from your post, and how greatly they missed the big picture.
You never once said you felt threatened or limited activities or anything close! What they should have picked up on is the ideal-- IF I felt threatened or had to limit my activities because of criminal confrontation I SHOULD be allowed to stand my ground.
Come on people, Only Glock, or myself for that matter, is not saying he would get in a gunfight becuase someone took a parking spot he saw first. FOCUS!!!
To twist things around and say by standing your ground in some type of confrontation, as there must be one for us to need to stand our ground, implies we want to be as violent as the criminals is beyond rationalization. We didn't start it, that alone is notable, we just don't give in.
If I am confronted in a hostile manner by someone with a stick, I will defend myself with a knife as needed. If I am confronted in a hostile manner by someone with a knife, I will defend myself with a gun as needed.
If you want to say in doing so I was being as violent (maybe more in your eyes) as the attacker(criminal), which now that I think about it, is exactly what the anti-gun lawyer would do, go ahead. Because I will defend me and mine by whatever means needed, regardless of what anyone things I should do.
Now, lets see how my words are twisted around, or taken in small sections of quote and surrouned by thier own words to mean something else.
But thats ok, I know what I mean and stand for, and I agree completely with the "Big Picture" you tried to point out Only Glock. And if you read back through the posts, so does the majority of others!
Edit- I am not "at arms" with anyone and probally shoudn't have been as harsh as I seemingly was concerning a few prior posts. But it bothers me for anyone to imply that anybody is fearful (excessively) or being violent(relating us to a criminal) by simply defending ourself and our rights...........
Last edited by Devone6; January 6th, 2007 at 12:37 PM.
You make some excellent points that we all should consider, and I agree with not giving in to predators, but using common sense.
It didn't seem like a stand your ground/duty to retreat issue. I think in most cases, even without stand your ground laws, you can defend yourself if you feel your life is threatened. So it is unclear to me if he said "stand your ground" to mean the law or if he meant standing up to bad guys who bother him.
SO, maybe I misread it. He did say:See? It is unclear is he's talking about standing his ground in a life-or-death situation or if he's talking about packing up his picnic basket and leaving because there are "thugs" around.In general, to see/read/hear the unwritten rule that it is better to leave a place that you have every right to be, whether it is in a park at a picnic, or at a shopping mall, etc, than to stand up to some thug/troublemaker/scumbag, to avoid any type of confrontation.Again -- that doesn't sound he's talking about duty to retreat/stand your ground issue. When defending your life or a victim of a crime, you're not going to be concerned with finding another place to avoid trouble."Just drop what you are doing and go to the trouble of finding another place to [fill in the blank] to avoid trouble."
Maybe this is a case where we should word our posts more carefully or just be honest about what we mean.I tried my best but your words proved to be impervious to my anti-gun word twisting.Now, lets see how my words are twisted around, or taken in small sections of quote and surrouned by thier own words to mean something else.
Thanks for clearing things up for me. I'm open to the idea that I misinterpreted his post. Really -- I'm not criticizing him for his post and I'm sorry for ruffling feathers.
I find that carring a gun makes me a lot more relaxed. If some one cuts me off in traffic or gets my parking space I don't get mad. Its the way things happen. why let something like that ruin your day. If your a hot head you don't need to be carrying a gun. I've been at our county fair and seen gangs out to start trouble by punching people comming out of the fair. Unless they have a weapon or I'm greatly out numbered I would not resort to a gun. Once the gun is drawn its a different ball game.
No ruffled feathers, and as I edited it to my post after reading it, I came across kinda harsh. My apologies for the "seemingly anti-gun" thing, as I know that is not your stance. Even though we might have different views, or interpretations, hopefully we are all on the same side when it comes to our right to carry and protect ourselves, and I believe we are.
Even though it might be a public place and it is IMO a shame for a law abiding person to have to think about---- I do not frequent parks to picnic where it is know thugs hang out, that is common sense and I agree with that ideal. But if I go to a "nice" park and I'm expected to pack up my picnic and leave because thugs come around, I have a problem with this, and should trouble start, I should have the right to stand my ground. Of course if it's a picnic, then family is along and that will most likely cause me to leave (again common sense to not get into a confrontation if possible with family there) but isn't that awful that we would have to leave because some thugs invaded our picnic area? Isn't it just as awful to think that if we stand our ground to protect a simple freedom such as having a picnic there might be negative repercussions? To say we must leave or we are guilty of some type of premeditation (which some would say)because we wish to finish a picnic is just plain wrong.
Maybe if we CCW's frequented the area and did stand our ground the thugs would be the ones to start avoiding the area! To me thats the take a stand issue, when we give an inch they try to take a mile (sorry for the cliche'). Be it related to our gun rights, defense rights, or parks or most other things.
Please don't pound on me, I'm not encouraging anyone to go to bad areas and hang out to get into a confrontation, nor trying to start a vigilante uproar. We should all do our very best to stay out of hostile confrontations, but we have to make a stand at some point, and to me thats better sooner than later. Once you start backing up, it's hard to get forward momentum again. In the end the decision is left up to ourselves, as we must do what we think is right.
As for the "hot head" reference Tom G, I agree, and hope I did not present that way, but I definitetly didn't get that from the thread's initial post or any other.
As Only Glock related for himself, I will also agree that maybe having a LEO background causes a different view point (IMO, not right or wrong, good or bad, just different).
And hey, no worries, I'm the King of misinterpretations!!
You know, though, there are a few different reasons for this being said.
When liberal sissies say it, it's because they actually believe that an evil is done when ANY life is taken, even when it's that of a worthless, evil criminal scumbag. They see all life as absolute, and won't grant that some lives are actually pernicious and we are better off without them.
On the other hand, sometimes people like US suggest that avoiding the taking of a life is the best course when possible, because of the legal $#!&storm that will follow you for having done so. (I suppose that if we ever managed to clear that up, so that legitimate defensive killing were well protected against malicious prosecution and civil penalty, people would change their tune and say, "Have at 'em!" though.)
Any society that says it's better to retreat from evil than to stand up to it is a crumbling society, and is in a serious state of decay.
One of the problems as I see it is that things esculate very fast. The best thing to do would be to use your cell phone and request help. Usually you will not be one on one as the BGs like better odds 2/3 to 1.Very few will go one on one. And they will pick a park or what ever that they know will have a family/ unarmed people for the most part. You may not have time to retreat,especally if you had a picnic table set up and ect.Takes time to pick up same as time to set up. So retreat is not necessarily an option. Hopefully the LEO's are not far away.They always have the advantage; as they know what use of force/scare tactics they possess and you don't ,so your somewhat at their mercy on how far it's going to go. Even then they get/take what they want and use froce[maybe deadly] against you before leaving.