THE MORALITY OF DEFENDING OTHERS ?

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Yeah, I guess that 's the philosophy
that liberals and other authoritarians choose to take.
As a LIBERTARIAN, fully conscious of my freedom

. You swallow the bait nicely. This is not an issue of political leaning, but of firearm training and "rules of engagement". Whipping out a piece after causing a situation to go bad is just stupid. My training taught me to, (IF I WERE EVEN CONSIDERING USING DEADLY FORCE), to get out of the way of bystanders and , with my shot line chosen carefully for the situation at hand, we let the perp continue with the robbery. If he doesnt threaten and only takes money, we note features and height , body features etc. We dont engage. Cops are taught that they dont discharge weapons in crowds unless the situation deteriorates , then there is no choice.
The customer seemed to actually provoke the situation beyond any resolution that didnt endanger anyone. AS Edgar said, you seem to care not for the other people in the restaurant, you assume that deadly force will be used and you will dispatch a guy for a crime that involves property.

Police training has the major concern that, as a situation in a closed space escalates, the perp begins to consider taking hostages or worse. If you allow him a clear escape, he wont be a major threat. (Thats borne by lots of studies). Most of the jacker type criminals are keyed up and the danger is to trip their wires by stupid confrontational moves (like the customer acting out a John Rambo Mitty character). This has nothing to do with the title of your thread. You just wanna be the lone arm of justice on the spot.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

As to "ALLOWING THE COWBOY MENTALITY TO PREVAIL"
I wonder how u intend to interfere in that, Ed.
During the Korean War, American troops found many pocket diaries
in the possession of communist thought police (their commisars).
We were informed that if a commisar believed that a soldier
was being less than candid, he was in a lot of trouble.
Did u have something like that in mind?

always going for the quick gag eh? Think rules of enagement in a fast food restaurant and forget about all the Chinese Communists. Youre getting fevered up again. HAve a nice glass of Puligny Montrachet and a cannoli . We are debating a case in New Jersey not on tne "parallel"

1 Reply

I believe you have so many phobias and phantom enemies that owning a gun makes you dangerous, david. I hope you never have opportunity to put your philosophy into action.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I believe you have so many phobias and phantom enemies that owning a gun makes you dangerous, david. I hope you never have opportunity to put your philosophy into action.

Amen

0 Replies

@farmerman,

You use too much common sense and intelligence and, therefore, seem to confuse those who are arguing against you.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

You use too much common sense and intelligence and,
therefore, seem to confuse those who are arguing against you.

Yeah; there 's not enuf mud slinging going on here.
Will u bring us some MORE please, Richard ?

David

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
As to "ALLOWING THE COWBOY MENTALITY TO PREVAIL"
I wonder how u intend to interfere in that, Ed.
During the Korean War, American troops found many pocket diaries
in the possession of communist thought police (their commisars).
We were informed that if a commisar believed that a soldier
was being less than candid, he was in a lot of trouble.
Did u have something like that in mind?

always going for the quick gag eh? Think rules of enagement in a fast food restaurant and forget about all the Chinese Communists. Youre getting fevered up again. HAve a nice glass of Puligny Montrachet and a cannoli . We are debating a case in New Jersey not on tne "parallel"

Well, that 's my ONLY point of reference qua thought control, Farmer.
That 's the point that he brought up.
I apologize for not having handy examples relating to NJ.
Is Corzine into that ?

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

You use too much common sense and intelligence and,
therefore, seem to confuse those who are arguing against you.

Yeah; there 's not enuf mud slinging going on here.
Will u bring us some MORE please, Richard ?

David

How you consider the truth as mudslinging is anybody's guess. Do you disagree that Farmerman is using intelligence in this thread?

Is it immoral for me to agree with him and defend his position? Hmmm, interesting.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I believe you have so many phobias and phantom enemies that owning a gun makes you dangerous, david.
I hope you never have opportunity to put your philosophy into action.

It sounds like u know me better than I do, Ed
(or is it "Charles"? I 'll stay with Ed, because its shorter).
Until u just TOLD me, I was not aware that I had any phobias.
(Well, truth be told, when I was 8, I was somewhat apprehensive
about burglars [with no justification] until I began my gun collection,
but its been well over half a century since then with no phobias.)
How many of those phobias is it that u believe that I have?
U say that there r "so many".
Phobias of WHAT? I am not aware of being afraid of anything.

As to "enemies" in all candor: I am fairly confident
that I have no enemies -- including any phantoms.

I am at a loss to understand the reason
that u believe that any phantoms have any ill will against ME.
I have never been rude to a phantom, nor
have I ever dealt with one in a less than honorable manner;
the fact is that I do not remember ever encountering a phantom --
not even a post card. Therefore, I deem it very unlikely
that any phantoms bear me enmity.

Do u have anti-phantom guns, Ed?
R u ready in a worst case scenario for defense from the phantoms?

David

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

You use too much common sense and intelligence and,
therefore, seem to confuse those who are arguing against you.

Yeah; there 's not enuf mud slinging going on here.
Will u bring us some MORE please, Richard ?

David

Quote:
How you consider the truth as mudslinging is anybody's guess.

I guess its always best to begin with a self-serving remark.
A good compliment for yourself.

Quote:
Do you disagree that Farmerman is using intelligence in this thread?

I agree that PART of what he has said was intelligent,
and therefore I cannot deny that he has used intelligence to some degree.
If u read the thread u will see where we agree and where we don 't
and while we are reasoning everything out,
u can bring us some more mud to throw.

Quote:

Is it immoral for me to agree with him and defend his position? Hmmm, interesting.

It is not immoral for u to agree with him.
It is not immoral for u to defend his position.

It is very poor form to use the underhanded innuendo
that those of us who argue against him are confused
by too much common sense and intelligence,
thereby turning attention to examination of the messenger
and away from the substance of the message
or,
to put it MORE plainly for ease of comprehension,
its another way of saying "everyone is stupid, UNLESS
he agrees with me or with my friends who agree with me."

By attacking the mentalities of the people with whom u converse,
in preference to examining n discussing the subject matter:
u r mud slinging. I hope that I have been sufficiently clear on that point.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I am not attacking your mentality. I am "attacking" (your word)...addressing (my word) your weak position.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

(Well, truth be told, when I was 8, I was somewhat apprehensive
about burglars [with no justification] until I began my gun collection,

Revealing, this. See, most of us get over our apprehensions without turning to an arsenal of deadly weapons.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

i hope omsig gets the chance to shoot somebody soon, maybe then he'll get this **** out of his system

2 Replies

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

i hope omsig gets the chance to shoot somebody soon, maybe then he'll get this **** out of his system

Unfortunately, I would probably be his target of choice Smile

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Robert, look up the statistics if you please, but they are utterly without relevance. Do you mean to suggest that someone in a life threatening situation should base his or her actions on statistical probabilities?

No, I am suggesting that the statistics are relevant for observers in accessing the probability of the notion that this shooting was justified based on the threat posed.

Quote:

I simply do not believe that such a brief account of a highly complex incident is enough to reach the conclusion which have been expressed in this thread.

That's your prerogative, but I'm not just using this one article. There have been others and though nothing establishes whether or not the shooting was justified in them they paint enough of a picture for me to come to speculate about it.

Other articles indicate that the restaurant was full, and that as the shooting commenced people started "pouring" out of the place and running for their lives. This does not indicate whether or not the threat legitimately merited the response but it does at least indicate that others were present and felt that the shooting put them in danger.

The articles also say that this man began to argue with the robber, and this suggests very strongly to me that even if the intervention was justified he set about doing it in a way that put himself and others in additional danger (if he needed to intervene, he should have sought cover and a quick position of tactical advantage instead of an argument, maybe he wouldn't have been shot).

Yes, based on the information at hand I can't know this. But that's what it strongly suggests to me.

Quote:

I have no idea what your opinion is on gun control, but I do know edgars, and I do know david's.

It seems to me, at least in their cases, that their bias on the issue has strongly influenced their assessment of the case in point.

I don't think gun control has a snowball's chance in hell of working in America, and do not advocate gun control for America. But at the same time, the arguments that American gun nuts use are extra stupid so I like to argue against them.

Yesterday I saw this story about 4 times on different forums as a supporting argument against gun control. I think it's a pretty idiotic supporting argument regardless of how you feel about guns and am pointing out here that it's possible (and I argue that it's even probable) that this person didn't "defend" anyone, and as such was more of a threat to the public than a hero.

3 Replies

EVERYONE:
I am of the vu that it 'd have made no difference
if the good guy were on a police payroll or not.

Does anyone disagree with me on that point?

David

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Robert, look up the statistics if you please, but they are utterly without relevance. Do you mean to suggest that someone in a life threatening situation should base his or her actions on statistical probabilities?

No, I am suggesting that the statistics are relevant for observers in accessing the probability of the notion that this shooting was justified based on the threat posed.

Quote:
I simply do not believe that such a brief account of a highly complex incident is enough to reach the conclusion which have been expressed in this thread.

That's your prerogative, but I'm not just using this one article. There have been others and though nothing establishes whether or not the shooting was justified in them they paint enough of a picture for me to come to speculate about it.

Other articles indicate that the restaurant was full, and that as the shooting commenced people started "pouring" out of the place and running for their lives. This does not indicate whether or not the threat legitimately merited the response but it does at least indicate that others were present and felt that the shooting put them in danger.

The articles also say that this man began to argue with the robber, and this suggests very strongly to me that even if the intervention was justified he set about doing it in a way that put himself and others in additional danger (if he needed to intervene, he should have sought cover and a quick position of tactical advantage instead of an argument, maybe he wouldn't have been shot).

Yes, I based on the information at hand I can't know this. But that's what it strongly suggests to me.

Quote:
I have no idea what your opinion is on gun control, but I do know edgars, and I do know david's.

It seems to me, at least in their cases, that their bias on the issue has strongly influenced their assessment of the case in point.

I don't think gun control has a snowball's chance in hell of working in America, and do not advocate gun control for America. But at the same time, the arguments that American gun nuts use are extra stupid so I like to argue against him.

Yesterday I saw this story about 4 times on different forums as a supporting argument against gun control. I think it's a pretty idiotic supporting argument regardless of how you feel about guns and am pointing out here that it's possible (and I argue that it's even probable) that this person didn't "defend" anyone, and as such was more of a threat to the public than a hero.

Mr. Gentel:
I understand your reasoning; (to the extent that u have expressed it, anyway).

In all truth, I don 't know what I 'd have done in that circumstance.
However, I AM JUBILANT over the misfortune that befell the bad guy.
In the future, if it happens more frequently, I will receive it
with a great sense of satisfaction and contentment.
Hopefully, no one will be injured when the bad guy is killed.

For the fun of it:
let 's take it a step further than it actually went, to wit:
if having reaped and raped the bounty of the cash register,
the robber turned his attention to the customers individually
and began to rob each of them: I 'd then have actively defended my property with violence.
Will u reveal your opinion of that,
against the background of no evidence qua whether
the bad guy 'd allow the victims to survive or not ?

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

big difference, police are paid to carry guns and protect people (it's their jobs), average citizens are not

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

djjd62 wrote:

i hope omsig gets the chance to shoot somebody soon, maybe then he'll get this **** out of his system

Unfortunately, I would probably be his target of choice

I am not angry at u, Richard; only slightly annoyed.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I 'd then have actively defended my property with violence.

i so hope this happens to you some day, you seem to want this type of confrontation

1 Reply

THE MORALITY OF DEFENDING OTHERS ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know