August 16, 2013, 02:42 PM | #76 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Quote:
Here's one example that came from an ACLDN article about the Larry Hickey case in AZ a few years back: Quote:
pax |
||
August 16, 2013, 02:49 PM | #77 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
August 16, 2013, 07:03 PM | #78 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
The words you use, as well as the way you dress, act and otherwise present yourself to the world have social consequences everywhere. There is no place on earth in which your words, your manner of speech, your actions, etc., will not cause people to form opinions about your credibility, your motives, your character, your values, etc.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Frank Ettin; August 16, 2013 at 11:26 PM. Reason: correct typo |
||
August 18, 2013, 06:38 AM | #79 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 5, 2013
Posts: 112
|
Quote:
Just as a good defense attorney can explain the true intent behind "going animal", a good prosecutor can explain in the true meaning behind "cornered cat". After all a cornered cat is among the most vicious and violent animals alive. I just don't understand how I can teach and explain the issue of going animal or its more appropriate form "cornered cat" without exposing myself, being an instructor. Then it will be said that I've been trained on how to avoid saying the wrong things. Just like what happened to GZ. He was trained on what to say and what not to say. etc. I believe that if you guys defend yourselves against the wrong person or under the list of possibilities provided earlier, that these posts here, where you guys are saying to avoid buzz words that make you look violent, make you look like liars. Perhaps the rest of your testimony shouldn't be believed because we know you say what makes you look less guilty. Tough situation all the way around. |
|
August 18, 2013, 07:07 AM | #80 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
|
daddyo I've read all of your posts on this thread and the responses. You insist that "going animal" or something similar is a proper way of describing the mindset that is required to stop a violent attack. You then suggest that not using this sort of language puts someone at risk of looking dishonest to a jury of peers. The problem, in my opinion with this premise is that as thinking humans we have the ability to reason, and respond accordingly. Yes, that response may require swift and decisive violence, but that is measured response to the threat. Using language that suggests a predisposition towards violence is provocative and unnecessary in my view.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin |
August 18, 2013, 09:57 AM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
Instinctual, extreme violence is an absolute fact of life, on virtually all levels.
Those lacking the extreme violent survival instinct are surely doomed to extinction if tested. The words used to describe this natural violence by humanity has become problematic. Political correctness has dictated we verbally deny the violent nature of self defense and candy coat it with softer words chosen to avoid the perception of our true nature. Pandering to this less than honest verbal mindset only reinforces the likelyhood that we will become targets of prosecution when our reactions no longer match the Fuzzy Wuzzy words that political correctness has forced upon us. I know there's little we can do about it but, it's a shame that a person has to navagate a minefield of words in the pursuit of lawful survival.
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member Last edited by Microgunner; August 18, 2013 at 10:24 AM. |
August 18, 2013, 10:18 AM | #82 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
I'm not at all sure what you have in mind when you you speak of a defense attorney being able to "explain" the "true intent behind 'going animal'." Are you suggesting that he or she might say, in closing argument, "my client did not mean for that to be interpreted as it may sound to many of you"? Think about it. Does the "animal" that a juror will have in mind employ only that force that is immediately required for self preservation, and no more? That's the key to justification in self defense. Quote:
The term "political correctness" speaks to a relatively recent concept. But the need for the triers of fact to weigh every indication of a possibly criminal state of mind after one person has injured or killed another is as old as human jurisprudence itself. Last edited by OldMarksman; August 18, 2013 at 10:36 AM. |
||
August 18, 2013, 10:42 AM | #83 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
Quote:
"political correctness " is indeed a recent term but can and is applied to events throughout recorded history due to the evolutionary nature of language. The "triers of fact" have, to a large extent, been conditioned by political correctness to denial of the extreme human survival instinct. Jurors in a shooting case, for the most part, will not be pro gun or anti gun as the defense and prosecution dismiss potential jurors biased againt their case. These jurors are sometimes easily swayed by words descibing the true nature of survival, but make no mistake, allow one of these triers of fact who are shocked by the discriptive words of survival be atacked with force and they will change, instantly. All of their civility will disappear and they will rip the jugular vien from their attacker with their teeth if necessary in order to survive. Politically correct words are only for those sitting comfortably in an air conditioned room discussing civility.
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member Last edited by Microgunner; August 18, 2013 at 10:52 AM. |
|
August 18, 2013, 10:50 AM | #84 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Microgunner said,
Quote:
Or are you sitting comfortably in an air conditioned room, using your input/output device of choice? My point being, daddyo's original choice of language was not an excited utterance, made while his adrenaline was still through the roof following an attack on him. The corollary point being, we have the luxury to think about what we will say, and the potential ramifications of what we say, while participating in the forum. I think a lot of folks here know that I don't care for PC language when discussing truly political issues, to the chagrin of certain mods. However, when discussing issues that could be raised in potential criminal trials, I use (and recommend the use of) more judicious wording. |
|
August 18, 2013, 10:53 AM | #85 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
On a different note, I have found that while physical conditioning and training matter, when it comes to martial endeavors attitude often means more.
Look up Aesop's fable of The Hound and the Hare. |
August 18, 2013, 10:59 AM | #86 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
Quote:
Candy coating the truth of the matter is indeed a necessity in today's world but, it isn't honest, just smart. What a shame. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member Last edited by Microgunner; August 18, 2013 at 11:06 AM. |
|||
August 18, 2013, 11:07 AM | #87 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
No, I'm not kidding you.
The hound was running for his dinner, while the hare was running for his life. Attitude vs athleticism. Meanwhile, you seem to think there must be some conflict between intelligence and honesty. Quite honestly, that is stupid. You use the force you need to achieve the effect you require, IE avoidance of bodily harm by stopping the threat. That may well be immediate, overwhelming force. That sounds quite a bit different in tone from "go animal, and kill." If you can only express yourself well through superlative, hyperbole, and charged language, that doesn't make you honest - it just implies that you have a limited vocabulary. |
August 18, 2013, 11:12 AM | #88 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member |
||
August 18, 2013, 11:20 AM | #89 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
When one human has harmed anther and the triers of fact must piece together how and why, and whether the act was excusable, one of the questions they must address is whether the one who is on trial was predisposed to violence. If there are indications that the answer to that question is yes, his claims of having acted only due to immediate necessity, and of having used no more force than had been reasonably required, will be suspect. That has everything to do with mens rea, and nothing whatsoever to do with "political correctness." Quote:
A reasonable person may draw inferences about the state of mind of the actor from many things. To say that is is imprudent for one to have been trained to "go animal" is by no means a function of political correctness. It simply speaks to the reality of how that person's actions and motives may well be assessed by reasonable men and women later. Avoiding the use of threatening phrases, stupid bravado, comments implying a desire to destroy, and anything else that could portray one as a person of violent disposition, predisposed to the use of force to harm others, is not "candy coating the truth." The truth is that the citizen is, and has for centuries been, required to avoid the use of force if at all possible, and if it is not possible, to use only the amount of force that is necessary to eliminate the immediate danger and to stop at that. The phrase "go animal" has entirely different connotations. |
||
August 18, 2013, 11:21 AM | #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
<Moderator hat on>
I'll probably jump back in as a participant later today, if I can find the time. Meanwhile, guys -- please don't take this conversation down to the personal level. I'd like it to still be here when I get back. thanks! pax |
August 18, 2013, 11:26 AM | #91 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 5, 2013
Posts: 112
|
Quote:
Thats why I feel like its to late for us. Make double dog sure that your shooting is justified because its not good either way IMO. And I didn't insist that its the proper way. Its an easy way to get the point across to those who don't understand just how important it is to suspend your normal nice guy disposition in exchange for one capable of getting the job of self defense done against a violent encounter. |
|
August 18, 2013, 11:37 AM | #92 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
Quote:
He grows weaker and weaker and dies a far more agonizing death than the hare. So the hound is running for his life too. I wouldn't place much faith in fables if I were you.
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member |
|
August 18, 2013, 11:43 AM | #93 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
You assume the hound can only eat if he catches hares.
The hound may get fed at home; he may beg for scraps; he may rummage through garbage. Pax likes "cornered cat." Cornered rats are also known to fight effectively. But like Pax's cat, the rat inflicts damage with an eye toward escape, not killing. Aesop's fables were written with adults in mind, not just kids. Allegories can be on point and effective without invoking imagery you may have to fight in court. A lioness defending her cub is an effective metaphor, yet it doesn't carry the baggage that a tiger rending his prey would. Words matter. |
August 18, 2013, 11:50 AM | #94 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
Quote:
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member |
|
August 18, 2013, 11:51 AM | #95 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
If you have used deadly force, and if it seems to others that you did have an "animalistic mindset" or an "animalistic disposition", you are in a world of trouble, regardless of how that impression is given. As a lawful defender, you are expected to avoid danger, and if you cannot, to use only that degree of force that is immediately necessary to defend against that danger. To most of us, the term "animalistic mindset" implies a predisposition to do harm--serious harm. It may prove necessary to harm someone in self defense--that is, to employ force that can reasonably be expected to cause death or grievous injury. But in a defense of justification, any indication that the actor willfully caused any more harm than was necessary could well lead to criminal conviction. It is important not only to watch what one says, posts, or otherwise communicates, but to train to act lawfully when and if it becomes necessary to employ physical force, whether deadly or not. That's true whether one is defending with hands, a blade, a bludgeon, or a firearm. |
|
August 18, 2013, 11:53 AM | #96 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Microgunner, if you would never use them yourself, then why attack cautionary voices for being PC?
|
August 18, 2013, 12:01 PM | #97 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
Quote:
Because I'd like to see the wind start blowing in the other direction. I think we've given in enough.
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member |
|
August 18, 2013, 12:19 PM | #98 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Yes, the realities of pursuit and capture and of the kinds of crimes classified as felonies have strongly limited the justification for shooting a fleeing felon. But on the other hand, the centuries-old duty to retreat has been somewhat relaxed. But when and where was it ever lawful for a citizen to use more force than was necessary for self defense? There's really not a lot of difference between the pertinent legal principles that were in effect in Colonial Williamsburg and those extant in twent-first century Virginia. The idea that we are now somehow constrained by having to avoid willfully causing excessive harm to someone else than were our ancestors is, I think, a figment of popular imagination. |
|
August 18, 2013, 12:39 PM | #99 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
Quote:
It's acceptable to use an animalistic explosion of lethal force in lawful defense of life but it's unacceptable to describe it as such. What hipocrites we've become. I know that's just the way it is, doesn't make it right though.
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member |
|
August 18, 2013, 12:56 PM | #100 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
If someone runs at you with a contact weapon, you may have to shoot --and you stop shooting as soon as you can, once your safety is ensured. Someone comes at you with a broken bottle, and you defend with a blade; it's one thing to have to slice key tendons to disable the attacker, but quite another to start stabbing the vitals, which would likely not prove effective. Does either describe an "animalistic mindset"? Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|