The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 19, 2008, 09:17 AM   #76
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,950
From Scrap5000:
Quote:
I think ya made a mistake saying "excuse me" but ONLY because of this P.C. bullcrap world we live in now adays where in most places you are expected to run away from all insults and let idiots rule the land. In olden times, a gentleman was fully expected to not have to take any crap from any morons & to try to put them in their place if he chose to do so, and the world was a much better, more agreeable & civil place.
(Emphasis added)

History lesson: The requirement to retreat, which is specifically called out in Pennsylvania law, goes back to English Common Law, from which the laws of most of our states trace their origins. You would have faced that requirement in Philadelphia in 1777.

Nothing new about it--except as it has evolved to relax the requirement in some circumstances.

And the purpose had nothing at all to do with "political correctness". It was a fundamental precept of law and order.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old November 19, 2008, 09:27 AM   #77
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Scrap5000 wrote;

Quote:
In olden times, a gentleman was fully expected to not have to take any crap from any morons & to try to put them in their place if he chose to do so, and the world was a much better, more agreeable & civil place.
When and where specifically was that? 19th Century Europe and America?

There has always been violence and brutality then as much as now. There were criminals, brigands and professional scofflaws galore. It was as dangerous a time where even the governements of Europe sent impressement ("press gangs") out to snatch up by brutal force any able-bodied men they could find to serve in the military when the recruiting numbers came up a bit short...

The genteel social class wasnt above giving or getting a good bloody nose either. Gentleman regularly beat each other with their walking canes and worse...dueling became almost a sport. It became such a common problem, both socially and economically, that dueling was outlawed on both sides of the "pond".

If you really believe that it was better times then, you would be very wrong.

Last edited by Creature; November 19, 2008 at 09:55 AM. Reason: spelling miztake
Creature is offline  
Old November 19, 2008, 09:53 AM   #78
KLRANGL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 958
While I agree with both OldMarksman and Creature, can you say that extreme political correctness has influenced society for the worse?

Like I said, I agree with both of you, but Scrap might have scratched the surface of a good point...
__________________
And it's Killer Angel... as in the book
KLRANGL is offline  
Old November 19, 2008, 09:56 AM   #79
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Quote:
but Scrap might have scratched the surface of a good point...
Which was? That we as common everyday people should stamp out the human prediliction to be aggressive toward our fellow man when ever we see it?
Creature is offline  
Old November 19, 2008, 09:58 AM   #80
scottycoyote
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2005
Location: southwestern va
Posts: 654
i got on this post last night and ended up on that site where the lawyer gives a 30 minute speach on why you never ever ever ever give a statement to a policeman, ever. In light of that i wonder about the several posts where people suggested you call the police and tell them what happened, first guy who calls in wins, etc.....

is that really the thing to do in this scenario? call in? Im not playing devils advocate, im asking for real. Also im in virginia.
scottycoyote is offline  
Old November 19, 2008, 10:08 AM   #81
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Being the first to call 911 has a lot to do with how the police investigate the call and to establish who is first on record to report the situation. Being the first to call it in also goes a long way towards establishing your intent and frame of mind when the investigation makes it way to court...if and when it gets that far.

You should also read this thread: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...st+to+call+911
Creature is offline  
Old November 19, 2008, 10:09 AM   #82
KLRANGL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 958
Quote:
Which was? That we as common everyday people should stamp out the human prediliction to be aggressive toward our fellow man when ever we see it?
no, not at all...

Quote:
is that really the thing to do in this scenario? call in?
If you were legally in the right, can you think of a reason not to call in? I just see more potential problems if you dont than if you do... Granted you might face a legal battle, but if you're the one in the legal right (as you should be) then that legal battle would theoretically be easier to win than say one where you didnt call in and got fingered by a witness
__________________
And it's Killer Angel... as in the book
KLRANGL is offline  
Old November 19, 2008, 10:15 AM   #83
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Calling in a situation on 911 is one thing....making a statement to the police is a far more serious matter which requires time and legal protection and should not be done without a lawyer present.

But this is thread-veer.
Creature is offline  
Old November 19, 2008, 10:17 AM   #84
scottycoyote
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2005
Location: southwestern va
Posts: 654
can i think of a reason to not call it in if i was totally in the right? well yeah normally i would agree with you 100%......then i watched this and really all im doing it seems is confessing and giving the police everything they need to go after me if they choose to...http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/28...d-cop-agr.html

if you havent seen this take the time, its entertaining and pretty informative
scottycoyote is offline  
Old November 19, 2008, 10:43 AM   #85
Ricky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2008
Location: N.California
Posts: 408
I agree with Scrap

Things have changed a lot for the worse since we were kids (I was born in 1960) It used to be the sign of a gentleman and good citizen to stand up for yourself, women and people less able to defend themselves against bullies.
It used to be that if you got into a fist fight somebody got beat up and that was that. If a little guy was being picked on by a big guy then somebody would step up and defend the little guy.
Then we started hearing about people shooting people over petty arguments and road rage. Kids started binging guns to school either to intimidate other kids or defend against an intimidater. It got to be that we didn't dare make eye contact with other people for fear that they would shoot us.
On this forum several people have written that if you see someone else in a bad situation that you should move along, it's none your concern.
I guess that social responsibilty and chivalry is dead or at least very sick. What if we all looked out for each other, you know "did the right thing" put bullies quickly in there place and didn't put up with crap. I'm not saying that we should run around pulling guns on people. I think that if as a society we stopped looking away and more of us stepped up then the world would be a better place. I'm sure some of you will flame me, tell me that you are just a realist and I'm stupid for even thinking this way.
I think that after 9-11 people felt this way for a short while but as a society we have a short memory.

Ricky
Ricky is offline  
Old November 19, 2008, 11:14 AM   #86
KLRANGL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 958
Yeah, that is sorta what I was going for Ricky... Not a mandate to "put people in their place" but just stand up for yourself... For example, in HS, defending yourself in a fight will get you expelled. There is just something wrong there...
__________________
And it's Killer Angel... as in the book
KLRANGL is offline  
Old November 19, 2008, 11:52 AM   #87
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,950
From Ricky:

Quote:
I'm not saying that we should run around pulling guns on people.
Good. Let's all avoid committing crimes that can result in felony conviction, permanent loss of gun rights for ourselves, and potentially, severe civil penalties, not to mention possible additional restrictions on the rights of the populace.

Quote:
I think that if as a society we stopped looking away and more of us stepped up then the world would be a better place.
Yes, too many people have failed to act when trouble occurs. But what's the thing to do? Yell for help? Cell phone call? Honk your horn? It's going to depend on the situation.

Where I live, it is legal to use deadly force to defend a third person (when necessary as last resort, etc.), but attorneys strongly advise against it. The citizen does not have the immunities that the community grants to the law enforcement officer, nor does he have the training. Finally, to one happening along at the scene, what he perceives to be happening may not match reality, and his intervention could be very wrong indeed.

What any of that has to do with the case at hand (one person encountering two others) I fail to see.

The comment was that today's political correctness has allegedly somehow altered the constructs of the legal use of deadly force, when history tells us that that is not the case.

From KLRANGL:
Quote:
For example, in HS, defending yourself in a fight will get you expelled. There is just something wrong there...
Yeah, things have gone way too far, but suppose there's no evidence of "defending yourself?" Your word against theirs? I think that's probably where the duty to retreat came in centuries ago.

Here's something from a legal publication on what a defense attorney has to navigate in a case involving self defense; I think it's worth bookmarking:

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1...ocument&Click=

These excerpts in particular would seem to apply in the locale in question:
Quote:
Duty to Retreat
“The law is well settled that, while a man may kill another in self-defense, he may not do so if he has other probable means of escape. When his back is to the wall, and the question is whether he shall die or his assailant, he may slay his assailant to preserve his own life; but, if he has probable means of escape without doing so, he must resort to such means before he is justified in killing his adversary. Human life is too sacred to be taken unnecessarily.”
– Comm. v. Ware,
137 Pa. 465, 479, 20 A. 806 (1890).

A stubborn unwillingness to walk away, even in the face of a perceived affront to the defendant’s manhood, does not equate with an inability to retreat.”
– Com. v. Toon,
55 Mass. App. Ct. 642, 654 (2002).
Emphasis added. Note that the first case took place 118 years ago.

Do not take this as legal advice.

I have provided the excerpts because I think they may add constructively to the discussion of the OPs post. I do think the entire article is worth reading and saving for anyone who chooses to carry a weapon.

Last edited by OldMarksman; November 19, 2008 at 11:53 AM. Reason: typo
OldMarksman is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09959 seconds with 7 queries