Sheep, Sheepdogs....

[sdprof]

I've seen many discussions on the forums about the Sheep and Sheepdogs analogy. But many who CC don't see themselves so much as sheepdogs - leave the job of the cops to the cops. We protect ourselves and our family.

But this story explores how the sheep with fangs extend protection to all, simply by leaving the wolves unsure of where easy prey is found.

Of course, the sheeple still are afraid of their armed brethren. Scoom.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Old School]

Thanks ! Good analogy.

[BugDude]

<---------------- Considers himself a GOAT.





<--------too bad I don't have a Goat avatar. Perhaps a goat riding in a VW.

[livewire]

I've been told I'm a donkey, but that's not the point :)

I'm going to have to keep this link around , it's a good read.

[Pkupmn98]

Love the story, i'm gonna keep this link around too, great one for those nay-sayers to read.

[oneshot]

Thanks ! Good analogy.

^^^^^^^^^^Definitely^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I am not always too keen on the debate of Sheepdog/sheep., but this is most definitely a different perspective.

The sheepdog being the police/authoritative figure and whatnot.


"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress."
Mark Twain

[gottabkiddin]

I used to play along with the whole sheep/SheepDog thing by adding a twist to it.... I would say I'm neither sheep nor sheepdog; I'm a werewolf. Jokingly of course.

Now, I still pop in on the conversation, but with a more down to earth and honest outlook. I'm just an armed citizen with a strong dislike, or even a hatred for anyone who preys on their fellow man. If it happens in front of me or to me, I will most likely unload a lifetimes worth pent-up anger on the unlucky foe and do my level best to reverse what ever the predator started. I consider myself a very friendly guy, but due to my upbringing can become very violent when violence presents itself. Years ago, a couple of my x girlfriends called me a dog, but I think it wasn't meant in a positive way.

[patrol]

Truth be known even many of us Cops who carry off duty only do so to protect our families as well. I never get involved in anything while off and wouldn't unless life was at risk. But I will always carry, Cop or not.

[MadMac]

[TX expat]

^^^ what he said ^^^

[paaiyan]

^^^ what he said ^^^

++1

[EvilMonk]

Dang it MadMac, I was getting popcorn too!

[wjh2657]

Truth be known even many of us Cops who carry off duty only do so to protect our families as well. I never get involved in anything while off and wouldn't unless life was at risk. But I will always carry, Cop or not.

I lost my "hero complex" after serving on a civil jury (several times) and watching the plaintiff's attorney's tactics. First off, I would always defend a child, and I really believe that any jury would back me. With an adult you have an additional problem. If not written into state law ,it is written into case law that you can only use deadly force to defend another if they are willing to use deadly force to protect themselves.
If the plaintiff's attorney can trick them into saying that they (the person you defended) could not kill (the word the attorney will use) somebody else, even in self defense, then you are guilty of excessive use of deadly force in the minds of many of the jury. Even though you were not indicted or found guilty of manslaughter by a criminal jury and even if you were tried and found innocent by a criminal jury, you are going to lose the house and the retirement/ kids' college fund. The tort defense in some states will only work for Self Defense (You or yours) and does not automatically extend to civil action when you kill/injure for another. That neat little clause (tort defense) is one of those political tricks to make the "pro-gunners" happy, knowing that the clause is very ineffective. The truth is that the laws of the land say that the "injured parties" have the right to redress (lawsuit), regardless.

Why would somebody make a statement that they wouldn't have used deadly force , even if you were saving their life? Take a close look at the American mindset.

Many Americans think that "bad people" are that way because we didn't treat them right. Our fault.
Many of the public are not too sure of the mental state and motives of a private citizen carrying a gun.
Many people are, in truth, not capable of killing.
Many people do not want a whole room of strangers to know that they could kill someone.

Above could describe your key witness. If will, for, sure, describe many members of the jury.

Would I watch and do nothing while somebody died? Not if I can somehow make it look like the BG was after me too, then I have SD. Otherwise, I have a good chance of losing all of my family's future. Sometimes morality can suck as bad as legality.

[satori59]

I lost my "hero complex" after serving on a civil jury (several times) and watching the plaintiff's attorney's tactics. First off, I would always defend a child, and I really believe that any jury would back me. With an adult you have an additional problem. If not written into state law ,it is written into case law that you can only use deadly force to defend another if they are willing to use deadly force to protect themselves.
If the plaintiff's attorney can trick them into saying that they (the person you defended) could not kill (the word the attorney will use) somebody else, even in self defense, then you are guilty of excessive use of deadly force in the minds of many of the jury. Even though you were not indicted or found guilty of manslaughter by a criminal jury and even if you were tried and found innocent by a criminal jury, you are going to lose the house and the retirement/ kids' college fund. The tort defense in some states will only work for Self Defense (You or yours) and does not automatically extend to civil action when you kill/injure for another. That neat little clause (tort defense) is one of those political tricks to make the "pro-gunners" happy, knowing that the clause is very ineffective. The truth is that the laws of the land say that the "injured parties" have the right to redress (lawsuit), regardless.

Why would somebody make a statement that they wouldn't have used deadly force , even if you were saving their life? Take a close look at the American mindset.

Many Americans think that "bad people" are that way because we didn't treat them right. Our fault.
Many of the public are not too sure of the mental state and motives of a private citizen carrying a gun.
Many people are, in truth, not capable of killing.
Many people do not want a whole room of strangers to know that they could kill someone.

Above could describe your key witness. If will, for, sure, describe many members of the jury.

Would I watch and do nothing while somebody died? Not if I can somehow make it look like the BG was after me too, then I have SD. Otherwise, I have a good chance of losing all of my family's future. Sometimes morality can suck as bad as legality.

This is a very good post with a valuable perspective. The legal, ethical, psychological, and financial aspects of a SD shooting make me think hard about the overall value of carrying.

[CenterOfMass]

This is a very good post with a valuable perspective. The legal, ethical, psychological, and financial aspects of a SD shooting make me think hard about the overall value of carrying.

The overall value of carrying should be directly proportional to the value one places on their loved ones lives.