August 18, 2013, 01:23 PM | #101 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
But again, this is not new. This has nothing to do with political correctness. People form impressions of us, our character, beliefs and values, based on the words we use (among other things, including our manner of dress and the way we act). This is a fundamental reality, and it has always been this way. And explanations really don't help. For example, if you talk (or dress) like a gang banger, people will immediately take you for a gang banger. Now you could explain that you're not a gang banger. But now folks will ask themselves what it is about you that causes you to want people to think you're a gang banger. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"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 |
|||
August 18, 2013, 01:23 PM | #102 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 5, 2013
Posts: 112
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
August 18, 2013, 01:28 PM | #103 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
Quote:
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member |
|
August 18, 2013, 02:16 PM | #104 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 5, 2013
Posts: 112
|
Quote:
Now what I have suggested which has been ignored is that as we discuss how to properly speak to LE and online, so that we don't look predisposed to violence, we are basically premeditatedly thinking about how to avoid looking guilty. This could be mistaken for an intent to decieve. Purposely cloaking your actions in pre approved words so that under the microscope of the arm chair DA, you appear to be something you are not. After all if you aren't hiding your true disposition why the need for defensive minded words? |
|
August 18, 2013, 02:20 PM | #105 | |||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
The problem is, self defense stops when the threat dissipates. The cornered cat and the cornered rat do likewise. Most vicious animals do not. Note that the cornered cat and the tomcat fighting for dominance are two different things. Quote:
The "obvious victim" may lawfully do what is needed for self preservation, but should he attempt to punish or to exact revenge, yes, he will be blamed, and rightfully so. If you study legal opinions, laws and interpretations of same, trials and appellate court cases over the years, the decades, and the centuries, I do not think that you will detect very many really significant changes. |
|||
August 18, 2013, 02:30 PM | #106 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Old Marksman is quite right. I went and read legal texts and there is a long, long history and discussion of such.
I might put on my other hat and opine that the use of cautious language is offensive to the self-image of some who want to portray a sense of dangerousness and violence about themselves. Be restrained is contrary to this posturing. Now you might think this comes from some soft social science or political correct viewpoint - in fact - I got the idea from a well know trainer who mocked folks in his analysis of them wanting to be 'steely eyed dealers of death'. In class, he tried to dissuade folks of having such an attitude. The idea that your self-presentation as an animal, warrior, etc. might not be praised in court - generates much psychological tension.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
August 18, 2013, 02:32 PM | #107 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Much is beyond our control, so it's best to control what we can. Quote:
__________________
"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 |
||
August 18, 2013, 02:33 PM | #108 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
His words didn't work, but his actions were what cooked his goose. Quote:
|
||
August 18, 2013, 02:34 PM | #109 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 5, 2013
Posts: 112
|
Quote:
When I said "go animal" it was in a self defense context which will also be part of any trial. With this mindset it won't be long before going to firearm training and tactics will be used against us by those triers. |
|
August 18, 2013, 02:52 PM | #110 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Larry Hickey claimed self defense, but the as pax has pointed out, the prosecution used his training slogans with great effect. Quote:
The question is whether the risk of that is greater or less than the risk of not having taken the training. There are two aspects of the latter. The first is the risk of not successfully defending oneself due to not having developed the skills. The second has to do with problems that might arise due to not having an adequate knowledge of the basics of use of force law. Which risk do you prefer? I opt for having the training. I can think of no good reason in the world for using the phrase "go animal", unless one is striving for cuteness. If one is trying to emphasize the importance of acting decisively and effectively, those words should do quite nicely. Of course, the instructor should hasted to add warnings about continuing to shoot when the threat has been stopped and shooting someone who had decided to depart. I suggest attending MAG-20. |
||
August 18, 2013, 02:53 PM | #111 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Quote:
The reason your words matter, and the reason that the way you frame your acts matters, is because your mindset prior to the act really matters! It is not some semantic game. It is a measure of who you are and what you believe. The mindset you carry into the act has a strong effect on what you do during the most frightening and chaotic moments of your life. In the center of whirlwind chaos, you may not have time to reason anything through. You will act, or not act, based on who you are and how you think. The things you do in those circumstances flow out of the type of person you are. They flow out of the beliefs you carry with you all the time and out of the things you've considered before the activity. In a very real sense, those beliefs can make you or break you. Physically, your beliefs can help you survive and prevail during the actual encounter. They determine whether you'll fight and for what reasons. They determine how much force you're willing to use and how soon. They determine what "winning" looks like for you: what your goal is, what you'll be satisfied with, where (or if) you'll stop. The physical actions you take during your encounter lead directly into the legal justifiability of what you've done. If your goal, your definition of 'winning,' includes the death of the bad guy, you may not stop when the threat stops. You may survive the encounter only to fail the legal aftermath. Even if erroneous beliefs do not trip you up during the physical encounter, they can easily ruin you in the aftermath. If you acted with any intent other than to save innocent life, you may not pass the mens rea test, because the intent behind your actions really does matter in court. Do you know the difference between murder and a lesser degree of homicide? -- It's the presence of malice, which is nothing more than the mindset someone carries into the situation with them. Mindset matters. It's not just a words game. It flows clear down to what you believe and why you do the things you do. pax |
|
August 18, 2013, 03:15 PM | #112 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Quote:
His first incident on the job as a new Oklahoma City policeman, he was arrested for murder. He had come upon a guy who was hot wiring a car (this was in 1926) and challenged him; guy asked who he was, and Bryce said he was a cop. The thief then drew a gun on Bryce, who used his to-become-legendary quick draw to kill the thief. First cops on scene did not know Bryce; neither did the precinct captain, as Bryce was brand new. Bryce was arrested and charged with murder. Note that the thief had tools, a cracked open car ignition, and a gun in vicinity of his corpse... Next evening, the night chief (who had hired Bryce) came in, and ordered his officer released. Charges were dropped. But what if Bryce had been a car owner, or the owner's neighbor, and not a cop? Again, this was 1926... |
|
August 18, 2013, 03:24 PM | #113 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
Who I am is a person who wishes to survive and will do whateven I can within my power to do so.
A person who does not like being encumbered with endless layers of socio-babble used to camoflage the true nature of self defense. The truth is that violence befalls many and those prepared to repond with violence in kind are most likely to survive. It's extreme violence people, pure and simple. I belive most of what I've read here, well thought out and measured. People talking about how they want to live a peaceful life and all. Who doesn'? But I'm afraid I'm a person who'll say I'll do whatever it takes to survive, including extreme violence if that's what's required. Y'all put money in my canteen for me, won't you?
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member |
August 18, 2013, 03:28 PM | #114 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Extreme violence is not necessarily the same as "animalistic" violence.
Generally, self-defense requires that the defender reasonably, consciously acted due to circumstances under which a reasonable person, given the same circumstances and knowledge, would have acted in similar manner. This means that talk of "going animal" is counter productive, since that implies the actions taken were not reasoned nor reasonable. Deadly force (I would not use "extreme violence," personally), deliberately applied to the extent necessary to stop the threat, is not a problem for any of us. Language that implies a lack of deliberate action, but rather a giving in to animal nature, is the problem. Edit: The issue with "extreme violence" vs "deadly force" is that of the internationally accepted doctrine of "necessity and proportionality." |
August 18, 2013, 03:33 PM | #115 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
One cannot easily answer the training issue. Sometimes folks want dichotomous answers and no such beast exists.
Factors that interact are the critical incident itself, the content of the training, what the defendant took away from it (why Mas tells you to keep your notes), what the jury thinks about firearms (so does training imply responsibility or a blood lust mindset), gender expectations, race, etc. If one decries the current 'mindset' and 'true disposition' as not allowing folks to express a propensity to use lethal force as compared to using it as a last resort, then you won't understand what Pax, Frank and Old Marksman are saying. It's part of the debate about the SYG laws - which we have discussed before - do they give folks a push for not avoiding the use of lethal force when they can as compared to mandating a retreat. Using lethal force, even if it is a 'good shoot' is not a good thing. It is to be regretted.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
August 18, 2013, 03:37 PM | #116 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
I think that possibly a sticking point is exactly when the defender goes animal.
The way I read it is that the defender should exercise caution, awareness and reason but if a conflict is imminent then the time to be timid has passed and the rightous defender sould "go animal". A swift and decisive reaction without hesitation and fear. Your best chance for survival. At least that's the way I interpreted it.
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member |
August 18, 2013, 03:38 PM | #117 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
|
|
August 18, 2013, 04:01 PM | #118 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
It is the latter that makes the phrase "go animal" so inappropriate for the discussion of what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances, knowing what the defender knew at the time. |
|
August 18, 2013, 04:13 PM | #119 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
|
As usual Pax has more eloquently made my point:
Quote:
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin |
|
August 18, 2013, 07:55 PM | #120 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 5, 2007
Location: Monroeville, Alabama
Posts: 1,683
|
Not original from me, but I like the philosophy" Be polite to everyone you meet, but also have a plan to kill them."
|
August 18, 2013, 08:07 PM | #121 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 5, 2010
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 6,429
|
Quote:
Ssshh....Some things should just stay in the mind. "I have learned silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet, strange, I am ungrateful to those teachers." - Khalil Gibran |
|
August 18, 2013, 10:07 PM | #122 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 5, 2013
Posts: 112
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My course suggests that once justified a defender should apply as much force as possible until the threat is no longer a threat. Like a light switch the defender should be prepared to use as much force as possible when the switch is flipped on (imminent threat of DOGBI) and stop when the threat has ended (switch off). Quote:
Note Pax that I am not questioning your honesty. I am simply debating the issue and using this angle to raise some questions that seem hypocritical. Quote:
|
|||||||
August 18, 2013, 10:26 PM | #123 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Quote:
pax |
|
August 18, 2013, 10:44 PM | #124 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
What PAX said in post #111 should be read and re-read by many!!!
I been on this forum for quite awhile.... My start involved many back and forths in threads PAX (Kathy from here on out) was involved or included in... Many to this day would refer to me as a chest thumping APE in my self defense approach... Armed or unarmed be it armed with a gun, a knife or just my wits... my mental actions steer me to a head on instant and unexpected forward approach/assault on my threat... If i had a gun I might learn to rethink that to learn to duck and cover behind a trash can... But i do not carry a firearm day to day... But part of my learning was that many if not most threats (predators) have never thought about the prospects of a bantam weight redneck coming at them with everything available fully intending to stop that threat like a .40 cal can... I have no idea what to say to investigators, lawyers or jurors to explain my actions other than... "I have no idea... fight or flight and all and flight didn't take place..."... How you are able to articulate your side can mean everything... the words you choose need planned out to fit YOU... not the situation... that will already bear out in investigation... Brent |
August 18, 2013, 10:56 PM | #125 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
And how do we know that you're not predisposed to bestial behavior. On one hand, you tell us you're not, but on the other hand you write things that seem to promote such behavior.
__________________
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|