A Few Comments About Monday Morning Quarterbacking

[MadMac]

There is a common theme that runs through many of the threads that cite a newspaper article or a scenario where a gun was used or misused. That theme is expressed by the following sentiments:

- if you weren't there, you can't judge
- we don't have all the facts
- no one can know for sure what happened
- "Monday morning quarterbacks" are worthless
- since we don't know everything that happened, we shouldn't comment
- no one should second-guess the individual in question
- &c.

Personally, I use these scenarios and anecdotes to help refine my thinking on defensive carry. I believe Monday morning quarterbacking is EXACTLY what we should be doing on this forum. We aren't a jury, and nothing will come of our discussions. We are here to disucuss these critical issues, and taking on the school-marm's let's-not-judge attitude with fellow posters is fatuous.

This isn't a courtroom, and we are ALL just speculating most of the time. It's good for everyone to have a rollicking discussion. Hopefully, the time will never come when we need to use our ccw. But with all the nuances of state and federal laws, the monstrous consequences of a SD shooting, and the weighty responsibilities of carrying a concealed weapon, I appreciate the opportunity to throw around ideas, opinions, and experiences with other posters.

So let's not continue to post those hackneyed phases like the ones enumerated above. Let's assume we are always speculating, and will never know all the facts. Let's discuss and put our ideas forward. Stating the obvious is - well - obvious.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[gasmitty]

If the post-incident discussion is kept in the context of how the situation might have played out better, I agree - i.e., let it be a vehicle for learning.

What happens all too often, unfortunately, is that "discussion" degrades into soap-box pontification about "I never would have [done] this or that..." replete with judgements based solely on speculation pronounced on the actual participants. When discussion turns into absolutes, bombastic rhetoric and diatribe, it benefits no one.

[dylistn]

[MadMac]

If the post-incident discussion is kept in the context of how the situation might have played out better, I agree - i.e., let it be a vehicle for learning.

What happens all too often, unfortunately, is that "discussion" degrades into saop-box pontification about "I never would have [done] this or that..." replete with judgements based solely on speculation pronounced on the actual participants. When discussion turns into absolutes, bombastic rhetoric and diatribe, it benefits no one.

What's the problem if someone posts his/her opinon on speculation? I have read posts (and have posted myself) where I state that I would not have done something. It's called an opinion. There is a long historical record of human beings demonizing people with whom the disagree. If you don't share someone's opinion, feel free to state yours.

Absolutes benefit no one? Remember this guy:



Many laws are absolutes, and require our absolute compliance. In this state (and most others) I cannot carry into a school. It's an absolute law. I will not carry into a school. If another poster says he uses a SmartCarry, and just keeps it hidden when he is in a school, that's his choice. My personal compliance is absolute.

I hope that wasn't too bombastic for you.

[rigel42]

If it was my post that inspired this thread

Again we don’t have enough detail to even form an opinion. Call me a conspiracy nut, but the media does this on purpose.

That was a direct critique on the MSM sub-par reporting. I had zero intentions of stopping a conversation on the subject, but I can see how it could be mis-read.

[MadMac]

If it was my post that inspired this thread


That was a direct critique on the MSM sub-par reporting. I had zero intentions of stopping a conversation on the subject, but I can see how it could be mis-read.

Not you specifically, my friend. ...and I actually agree with you. There was very little factual information in the story. As you alluded, he who reports the news also gets to color the news.

My issue is with people who consistently throw out the "don't judge", "you weren't there" and "we just don't know exactly what happened" lines to everyone who posts an opinion. Of course we don't know, but I feel we should judge. In so doing, we help form our own ideas, and we may influence some others for the better.

[glockman10mm]

With so many people of varying life experiences, exposures and value systems, it is a small wonder we can discuss anything at length without disention. Sometimes someone will attack another persons opinion in such a way that it inflames me, which leads me to attack that person, and invariably it gets me infraction points. I do my best to be civil, but sometimes my buttons get pushed and WHAM! 10 points by the moderators. I try now not to engage to much in these conversations since they are basically an exercise in futility. This is really the only forum site I participate in, and to tell the truth, the only reason I try not to get kicked off is because of several people I really like talking to that are on a certain level of experience and maturity. Other than that, it would be no loss.

[gasmitty]

Absolutes benefit no one? Remember this guy:

I remember that guy, but as I recall, getting the Ten Commandments didn't involve a "discussion" or speculation. The "absolutes" I referred to were also clearly not of Divine inspiration.

I repeat - post-incident discussions can be valuable for the sake of learning. Realistically, however, they often degrade into something far less valuable. And far be it for me to deny anyone here the opportunity to offer an opinion, especially when I was offering my own observation and opinion.

[shockwave]

Mm-hm. You raise some good points.

Personally, I think my record will show that I often add qualifications to my comments along the lines of, "since I wasn't there, I can't be sure," or, "absent video tape, this is all conjecture."

We can all profit from discussion of hypothetical situations, and we can benefit from the experiences of others. But some members of this board are not very bright (that's a euphemism, folks), and they often make truth-claims that are simply laughable. These are the guys who always make the shot that takes out the hostage-holding gunman at 25 feet.

Exactly so - if you weren't there, you have to give the actual participants some leeway.

The Loughlin - Giffords shooting gives us lots of things to discuss. Joe Zamudio, in particular, is the fellow of primary interest, because he was carrying, approached the scene with his gun in his pocket, hand on grip, safety off, and came very close to drawing and shooting.

So in discussions, it's OK to talk about the parameters of this kind of activity, but it is also probably unfair to criticize Zamudio for what he did or did not do because unless you were in his shoes, seeing exactly what he was seeing, it's hard to second-guess him. We can evaluate his actions to the extent we understand them.

[SIGguy229]

My only objection to some of these "scenarios" is when someone is trying to coach the scenario to a pre-determined result--sometimes to help the OP justify their position. Also, the use of words "always" or "never" when discussing what someone would or would not do.....because you just can't know what you will do unless you are confronted with a similar situation.

Also, few events happen "in an instant"...there is usually a continuum of events that leads to an event. My caveat when discussing scenarios is knowing the "totality of circumstances" before responding...

[Guantes]

There are many difficulties to overcome when discussing various actions in a given situation.
The amount of factual details available relative to a particular situation
The various laws in different areas effecting what actions fall within the realm of legal.
The various levels of training and experience in any large body of individual of diverse backgrounds.
The political views of different individuals.
Numerous other factors.

Any time a course of action is posted that is different than that taken in an incident or of a previous poster, there is a judgement of the previously taken or posted action. That judgement determined the previous action/posted action to be less than ideal, hence the decision to pursue a different action. I don't see a problem with that as long as the judgement is of the action and not the person. Posting reasons for the choice of a different action allows for discussion of the action and the reasons it was chosen.

The difference of opinion on one action vs another is not a bad thing as long as decorum can be maintained in the discussion.

As long as the goal is to help each person determine what action best serves their needs based on their particular circumstances, there should be minimum negative results.

[varob]

- if you weren't there, you can't judge
- we don't have all the facts
- no one can know for sure what happened
- "Monday morning quarterbacks" are worthless
- since we don't know everything that happened, we shouldn't comment
- no one should second-guess the individual in question
- &c.

I think we add the phrases you listed so as not to sound self-righteous when we give our options.

[MadMac]

I think we add the phrases you listed so as not to sound self-righteous when we give our options.

Point taken. I simply like thrashing around variables.

[21bubba]

The problem seems to come from speculation about the unknown details. Someone always wants to "what if" things to apparently fit their opinion.

[EvilMonk]

But...

...being "right" is the most importantist thing evers!!!!!11!!11!

There's a saying that involves opinions and a certain excrementary orifice that never made sense to me. Most people love showing off their opinions, but I have yet to see many people showing of their...um...yeah.

Most times I get out the mental popcorn and watch the fur fly at least until the mods get involved, at which point it REALLY gets interesting. In reality though, I have seen many a great point made most often in the guise of a joke.

Debates are fun and educational. Will wonders never cease?