I joined and guess what....

This is a discussion on I joined and guess what.... within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; ...but I do believe she got out of the car....

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 178

Thread: I joined and guess what....

  1. #106
    Member Array grnzbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    294

    I don't have my copy of the mag handy,...

    ...but I do believe she got out of the car.
    There's a reason The Sopranos is set in New Jersey.
    Basic Pistol

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #107
    VIP Member
    Array Betty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Nashville-ish
    Posts
    3,183
    ...but I do believe she got out of the car.
    Good grief. Smart she is not. Tactical liability she is.
    "Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power." - Yoshimi Ishikawa

  4. #108
    VIP Member
    Array Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    5,050

    For those who have not read the article

    Since I don't know about what copyright issues there are I'll give you the facts (versus a direct transcript).

    Husband is an IPSC shooter and they were returning from a match.

    Husband, wife and child in a mini-van at an ice cream shop.

    3 Youths exit a fast food place and direct profanity towards the family in the van.

    Wife exits the van to chastize the youths.

    Youths advance on the wife making threats.

    Husband exits van with gun in waistband telling youths he doesn't want trouble, but to please leave them alone. Hands did not touch the gun.

    Lead youth yells that the husband has a gun and they all run.

    Husband cannot believe wife's stupidity at exiting the van, leaving him in a bad situation.

    Police officer acquaintances advise the husband that he was guilty of brandishing and had it escalated because his wife interjected, it could have been worse.

    Near as I can tell from the article this occurred in Florida. In Virginia it would not be brandishing, but that is up to the Commonwealth's Atty where it happened. In Florida I do not know the statute for brandishing.

    So lessons learned...

    Train your SO/spouse to some degree. At least enough to know what to do in street situations or to defer to your training.

    -Scott-

  5. #109
    Member Array Hoosier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21

    Florida Statute

    Section 790.10 of the Florida statutes makes is a misdemeanor to exhibit a weapon “…in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense…”

    More later.

  6. #110
    Member Array grnzbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott
    Husband exits van with gun in waistband...
    -Scott-
    Just to elaborate, he put the gun in the waistband and exited the car. He wasn't carrying it in the waistband prior to the start of the incident. I wonder if the placement of the gun in the waistband, as compared ot having it there originally would have any influence in the determination of "brandishing".

    Now, let's throw another monkey into the wrench.
    Suppose they attacked his wife and he had to shoot one or more of them. Since he wasn't the one who escelated it, would he still have the mantel of innocence (he was coming to the aid of a third party - does anyone ever know the degree of innocence of the third party ie. the recent carjacking?)
    Last edited by grnzbra; September 19th, 2005 at 11:03 AM. Reason: afterthought
    There's a reason The Sopranos is set in New Jersey.
    Basic Pistol

  7. #111
    Lead Moderator
    Array rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    15,816
    bottom line is the wiffe needs to :

    1. learn about tactical sense
    2. pick your fights reasonably and decide how far ya wanna push a situation before hand
    3. decide if foul language is worth shooting someone over

    Here in MI we had a case go to court over a person swearing near women and children. It got tossed out. (I don't condone swearing around kids btw)

  8. #112
    Senior Member Array A1C Lickey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,044
    Hey P95

    I do realize that you've got me by one or two years sir, but I do believe that I am the original Mr. Fugly, and I do take it quite seriously when people use my title. However, since I am such a nice guy, and I kinda like you, and it seems that you too are rather deserving of the title; I'll let it slide.

    A1C Lickey

  9. #113
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,482
    Lickey - your graciousness is only exceeded by your magnanimity!
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  10. #114
    Member Array Hoosier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21

    Florida Law

    It seems appalling when a minor incident results in a death. Above it was suggested that the wife needs to “decide if foul language is worth shooting someone over.” The answer to that is clearly “no.”

    However, also clear is that the State of Florida does not view the situation that way any more as of October 1st–and the incident apparently took place in Florida.

    When you receive a CCW permit in Florida, they send you a helpful pamphlet concerning the use of deadly force. You can find it at: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/law_deadly_force.html

    This pamphlet will be replaced October 1, because a new law has changed the situation in a major way. Over the years, judges had made rulings that made it a requirement that you flee from criminal action-–sometimes even in your own home. (Florida was not unique in this regard.)

    The pamphlet gives 5 specific cases where gun carriers were convicted, and 1 when who was not. The one example of authorized defense involved a man who was “relentlessly stalked by his attacker. He kept retreating from his attacker, begging him to leave him alone, and finally he fired a shot into the ground. When the attacker kept coming at him, he fired a second fatal shot.”

    Reading some of the examples of law abiding citizens being convicted of homicide made me angry, and apparently it made a lot of other people angry as well: because the new law is an amazing example of common sense (in my view).

    The new law is at the same URL. In part it reads:

    A person who is not engaged in an unlawfull
    activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or
    she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right
    to stand his or her ground and meet force with force,
    including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is
    necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to
    himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of
    a forcible felony.
    So, under the new law, the question is not whether you should shoot a person over foul language. The question is whether or not a person has a reasonable belief that force is necessary to prevent great podily harm, a forcible felony, or death while doing something legal--like admonishing somebody for inappropriate language.

    Earlier, I mentioned the Texas case: Gordon Hale killed Kenny Tavai after a minor traffic accident, and was cleared by the grand jury. Mr. Hale “interjected” himself, if “interjecting” is responding to a statement made directly to him. (It is not.) Clearly, the deceased perceived that Mr. Hale was “escalating” the situation by calling the police and writing down the courtesy number on the business truck the deceased was driving. And clearly, Mr. Hale did not do all he could have to prevent the shooting: the deceased was quite clear that he did not want the police called, but Mr. Hale still insisted on doing so. He could have not called the police, or even lied and then called later. Apparently, the grand jury decided that Mr. Hale had a right to sit in the vehicle he was driving, and he had a right to call the police–even if the deceased did not want him to. And so the deceased was not authorized to try to cause Mr. Hale serious bodily harm or death, and Mr. Hale was therefore not required to let him do so...he could defend himself. Interjecting, escalating, avoiding: these were not the issues the case turned upon.

    It is certainly the case that many states require you to retreat. (Mr. Hale couldn't retreat.) And in the example we have been discussing, the husband could have gotten in trouble if he had needed to shoot in many states...indeed, even in Florida until October 1st.

  11. #115
    Senior Member Array tanksoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,133
    I still don't get it. There's nothing illegal about getting out of your car to talk to someone. There's nothing illegal about asking people to quite swearing in front of your kids. The wife did not threaten anybody with harm, and she didn't break the law.

    Is asking someone to quit painting graffiti on your wall "escalating" the situation? Is asking an apartment neighbor to turn down his radio at 2am "escalating"? Is asking someone who double parked, blocking you in, to move so you can get out "escalating"? Is asking 3 passersby to quit swearing in front of your kids "escalating"?

    The three took exception to Mom's perfectly legal acivity and threatened her... THEY were the ones who escalated the situation by offering threats. Note that offering threats of bodilly harm, with the apparent ability to fulfil those threats, is assault... a crime. Who cares if she got out of the car to do it, she has every right to get out of her car whenever she wants.

    The husbad did not "brandish" the weapon (ie handle it “…in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense…”) he simply had it in the front of his pants.

    Also, I'm not sure about Colorado or Florida, but in California it is illegal to curse in front of minors.

    As a CCW holder you have to be aware of the possible results of your actions, but that can be taken too far. With due respect to more senior members of this board, I think that some may have slipped into timidness... just because you hold a CCW doesn't mean you lose your right to walk down the street, express your opinion, or do anthing else that a private citizen might legally do.

    Maybe I'm not paranoid enough, but I see two crimes that the kids swearing could be charged with, and none for the couple in the car.

    EDIT: Here's the relevant ruling from Colorado case law:

    Right of self-defense is not lost if danger develops from mild argument. The mere fact that one has interjected himself into a crowd or into a mild situation, does not deprive him of the right of self-defense if the situation beginning with only an argument, develops to a point where he is being subjected to or threatened with such physical violence that he might have to resort to justifiable homicide to protect his person. Vigil v. People, 143 Colo. 328, 353 P.2d 82 (1960).
    Last edited by tanksoldier; September 20th, 2005 at 02:39 AM.
    "I am a Soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

  12. #116
    Senior Member Array tanksoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,133
    I went thru basic training with a guy who took advantage of the fact that nobody wanted to raise a fuss for fear of getting in trouble. He pushed people around, stole things and generally resembled the south end of a north bound donkey.

    When we got to our first duty station together, second night in Germany, he came into my room drunk, demanding money. He eventually ended up burning me with his cigarette... an which point I beat the crap out of him.

    I had to go in and face the detachment NCOIC. By Army rules both people in a fight are equally guilty (except in extreme cases of self-defense). I told the NCOIC that I knew what the rules were, and that if he wanted to punish me that was fine, but I wasn't going to let anyone burst in my room a 0200, demand money, and burn me with a cigarette. If it happened again I would do the exact same thing.

    I got off... but even if I hadn't it wouldn't have changed my perspective. The BG can't be allowed to run roughshod over society just because he doesn't care about getting in trouble.

    If a cop arrests you without probable cause, what keeps you from sueing for false arrest? If a DA prosecutes without basis of law, why aren't they sued for malicious prosecution?

    What keeps you from suing both in Federal court for violation of your civil rights?

    The reason these things happen is because people let them get away with it.

    I've fought, killed and bled for the rights that everybody seems afraid to exercise.

    Why would you?
    Last edited by QKShooter; September 20th, 2005 at 11:23 AM. Reason: remove one sentence ~ ethnic slur
    "I am a Soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

  13. #117
    Member Array grnzbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier
    If this possibility is true, then people are often stupid.
    What's with this "If" and "often" nonsense. Most people are stupid most of the time. (And it's getting worse). Most people go around in condition white (actually, they're beyond condx white and well into condx brown) and when they either come across, or are selectively fed, a tidbit of information they jump to all sorts of totally unwarrented and eroneous conclusions that they then believe with every fiber of their being.
    There's a reason The Sopranos is set in New Jersey.
    Basic Pistol

  14. #118
    VIP Member
    Array Betty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Nashville-ish
    Posts
    3,183
    Other things to consider:
    Are you still covered by the castle doctrine (whether the castle is your house or your vehicle) when you exit your castle as the wife did to confront persons throwing profanities at you? Are you still considered "standing your ground" when you exit your vehicle and approach them?

    "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words may never hurt me."

    I'm not sure why that phrase was replaced by "well, I'll show you," and turned into adults exiting their vehicles to continue a verbal confrontation that nearly results in shooting.

    I'm not supporting the thugs here. Cursing at total strangers was wrong. But that's all they were doing - cursing. They weren't vandalizing their car, they weren't stealing their property. They were guilty of bad language. Turning a cursing offense into a physical confrontation by exiting the vehicle to give them two cents' worth was escalating the problem. And the wife put her husband in a very bad situation where he almost had to defend her.

    I guess this is where people part ways on how they would handle the situation.

    Some would let the bad words slide right off us like water off a duck's back, knowing that if these thugs were crude enough to approach total strangers and curse at them, confronting them would likely possibly lead to something far worse.

    Others believe exiting their vehicle and crossing ground to confront them is proper force escalation, and know they have the tools to back up their opinion should the situation go completely haywire and in the end, believe they have clean hands.
    Last edited by Betty; September 20th, 2005 at 11:19 AM. Reason: reword for clarity
    "Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power." - Yoshimi Ishikawa

  15. #119
    Member Array Hoosier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21

    Time Out

    I hope I’m very wrong, but from the beginning (and until now), there often seemed to me to be a incomprehension about something very human and basic: a mother with her child, and a father and husband with his family. I don’t say this because there was disagreement with the wife (and to a lessor extent the husband), but rather because of the nature of the disagreement.

    We can certainly understand basic human relationships, and still propose that the wife was unwise to leave the car because it decreased both her safety and her legal defense.

    And, one person can say:

    How am I going to make the world a better place? By raising my family with the same solid morals and values that my parents raised me with.
    While another could reasonably believe that our families are not an island, and as things did not get this way through families acting in isolation, and so cannot be cured that way.

    I emphasize, I have no quarrel with those who believe that the wife/mother made a mistake, or that the husband/father did for that matter. But that does not explain to me what was said about the wife. Let’s review what we know about what happened:

    - Husband, wife and child in a mini-van at an ice cream shop.

    - 3 Youths exit a fast food place and direct profanity towards the family in the van.

    - Wife exits the van to chastize the youths.

    - Youths advance on the wife making threats.

    - Husband exits van with gun in waistband telling youths he doesn't want trouble, but to please leave them alone. Hands did not touch the gun.

    Now I grant that that formulation did not come until late in the discussion, but neither was there much that contradicted it before. More to the point: once the clarifications came, it did not change the discussion much! Often the discussion still continued as though the issue was whether it was right to shoot somebody for swearing in public!

    Look at these quotes from the discussion: they simply do not show any understanding a mother’s protectiveness of her child--neither the ones before or after the clarification.

    Well, his wife just had to give them a piece of her mind. They, of course, reacted... [H]e seems to have forgotten what Mas said about the mantle of innocence, which his wife so willingly threw away...Personally, I think the correct course of action would have been to shut the doors and drive away (without the wife - she had gotten out of the car to confront these guys)...If the final outcome of "egging on" a B.G. to attack...If a "carry person" really wants to be on the receiving end of a homicide investigation then go ahead and provoke an attack...That guy's wife was way outa line behaving as she did...Yep you cant escalate the whole issue other wise your the bad guy ... your right i would have drove off without the wife...The fact of the matter is that she initiated a situation...I would leave her behind if this was the last in a string of such behaviors after I had repeatedly talked to her about it...she could've, and should've, kept her mouth shut...Another problem is busy-bodies who can't help but butt in and get their point across. These thugs were minding their own business and would've just walked on...The kid can't live his entire life locked inside a closet...And here we have a situation that was not our own - a couple guys walking by cursing. Whooptie-do...Was she expecting these guys to hang their heads low and say, "sorry, ma'am?"...If she did flap her gums because she knew she had backup, she's no better than the thug who struts around showing off his pitbulls. The wife is not only the life-partner of the husband, but the tactical partner...We have the common sense to not hang out with people we consider tactical liabilities - the hotheaded cousin, the drunk friend, etc. We do that because we know they're magnets for disaster, and we don't want to end up shooting someone because of something aggravated by their stupidity. [This is his wife we’re talking about.]...Being a carry permit holder doesn't mean you're the Mighty Avenging Social Taboo Upholder...And yes, that means sucking in righteous pride...Making the world a rosy-red better place is something all sensible people would like to do...We've made cursing into a shooting offense...We can continue to associate with those who insist on giving their two cents worth to total strangers and be party to the results of their actions, or stay away from them and advise those we love. [Again, we are talking about the guy’s wife.]...Good grief. Smart she is not. Tactical liability she is...Husband cannot believe wife's stupidity at exiting the van, leaving him in a bad situation. [Good Lord, even her husband doesn’t understand the connection between mother and child!]...bottom line is the wife needs to learn about tactical sense [and] decide if foul language is worth shooting someone over..."Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words may never hurt me." I'm not sure why that phrase was replaced by "well, I'll show you," and turned into adults exiting their vehicles to continue a verbal confrontation that nearly results in shooting...Turning a cursing offense into a physical confrontation by exiting the vehicle to give them two cents' worth....Others believe exiting their vehicle and crossing ground to confront them is proper force escalation, and know they have the tools to back up their opinion should the situation go completely haywire and in the end, believe they have clean hands.
    Good heavens, youths directed obscenities at a family and a mother reacted. How did that simple human act–-no matter how much you disagree with it, and no matter how ill advised it might have been–-becomes such an abomination before the Lord? How did she come such a terrible person–-one whom her husband should leave at the scene in the first place, and then stop hanging around with? And how did so much terrible and malicious intent get read into a simple human act? To disagree with the actions doesn't require all of this, and the facts don't even begin to support it.

    (Although the husband faired better in the discussion, there was little understanding of a husband when 3 thugs are advancing on his wife making threats: whatever the right course may be, this is no longer about profanity–-and each one of us know that.)

    Ok, let’s have a show of hands: how many of you had mothers? I see.

    Well, there is only one solution: I earnestly urge you to cease and desist all tactical classes and reading until such time as you once again recall what mothers are like, and exhibit understanding of basic human relationships: which are not just about the castle doctrine, force escalation, and such. :chairshot

    And learn some charity for your fellow law abiding citizens!

    I hate to be so strict, but there it is...

  16. #120
    VIP Member
    Array Betty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Nashville-ish
    Posts
    3,183
    Hoosier,

    Please stop treating human mothers as if they're the same as wild animal mothers mauling the heads off humans that stray too close to their young.

    What seems to be going on here is: "he said a few bad words, so it is all his fault, and therefore any reaction anyone else has can be dismissed and no degree of responsibility can be placed on it."

    And dismissing with a wave of your hand what the mom did as "just a mom thing" and in general "was a mistake but dismissive as irrelevant to the situation" and pretend her hands are clean is simply appalling. Why? Why do I have such a problem with it? Why do I think what she did was so wrong?

    The Summary
    The husband was armed. The wife is the life partner and tactical partner (whether she likes it or not). What she decides to do can directly affect how her armed husband reacts. They have a child, and together they are responsible for the safety of that child. Armed parents who are looking out for the safety of their family unit must carefully decide what actions they take in any given scenario. Results of their actions can lead in jailtime, bankruptcy or death. What is worth escalating? Do you leave the vehicle to give your two cents worth to a couple thugs standing outside your vehicle telling you your mama wears combat boots? Do you shove your hand in a beehive?

    If you want to dismiss common sense and the law to protect mom's actions, you've degraded mothers everywhere to the level of unintelligent animals who are unable to think rationally, and should automatically not be held responsible for any of their actions.

    As a female, a human with a womb, I'm angry at her. What she did was not only wrong, it was unmotherly. The thugs were classless and stupid, but the mother was reckless. Mom did not look out for her family's best interests. She did not protect her child. She allowed Pride and Ego to steer her, forcing a situation to escalate, and forcing her husband to take over an exploding situation and almost have to defend her. And that's what I mean about turning profanities into a shooting offense: the mother, the tactical partner, did not think things through from the moment she decided to step out of the vehicle.

    And that folks, is beating a dead horse.

    Also, please don't type paragraphs of Florida law and then dismiss it all with "recall what mothers are like, and exhibit understanding of basic human relationships: which are not just about the castle doctrine, force escalation, and such" when given questions regarding Florida law. You can't have it both ways.

    I'll quote myself:
    Are you still covered by the castle doctrine (whether the castle is your house or your vehicle) when you exit your castle as the wife did to confront persons throwing profanities at you? Are you still considered "standing your ground" when you exit your vehicle and approach them?
    Last edited by Betty; September 20th, 2005 at 11:37 PM.
    "Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power." - Yoshimi Ishikawa

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast

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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Just joined
    By roninroshi in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: August 1st, 2009, 06:48 PM
  2. I just joined the NRA, what else can we do?
    By 40S&WMAN in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: November 14th, 2008, 01:13 PM
  3. Just joined the NRA
    By Ryan81986 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: October 23rd, 2008, 10:20 AM
  4. Just Joined
    By SCfromNY in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: June 11th, 2006, 10:08 AM
  5. I just joined
    By Sweetness in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: April 8th, 2006, 12:13 AM

Search tags for this page

when will the november -december issue of american handgunner be on the newsstand

Click on a term to search for related topics.