Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by Daleandee, Oct 1, 2021.
Just to clarify a little. Deadly force doesn't necessarily mean "guns."
The study addresses property crimes as well, which are down. So maybe we think things are more dysfunctional because the news media now has to make a profit so peddle sensation or outrage and you have social media doing the same.
Having a bit of a grasp of American history, I see no evidence that law is falling apart. Yes, we have people getting away with stuff because they are rich and powerful. So when did that start to happen? Probably around the time australopithecus afarensis was walking around. We have gotten past vigilantes lynching people. We don't have any class of people who are property of another. We have had periods of greater and lesser civil strife from the beginning. So what makes this era substantially different than at any time in the past.
I think in my case, the attitude of “take the stuff, but if you threaten my family I will use whatever means are necessary to stop you” is more about proficiency with deterrents. If I have to stop somebody, it’s probably going to take a full magazine, in which case the first few shots are just going to **** them off. If it’s property they’re after, that might escalate rather than deter.
Might want to start a separate thread on that. If you do I'll be the first to beat the lock.
Perhaps it’s how the law changes so often and the number of people who disregard the law, knowing they are unlikely tog get caught. Some areas aren’t even prosecuting certain crimes anymore. If it’s ok to disregard some laws, then how long before it’s ok to disregard all of the? Example, in San Francisco they won’t prosecute shoplifting if it’s below $1,000. Manhattan won’t prosecute prostitution. Baltimore won’t prosecute possession crimes. When did cops and DAs get to decide which laws should exist and which shouldn’t?
There’s a tie in to gun control in there, I’m just too tired tonight to pull it out.
Prosecutorial discretion goes back to the dawn of the Republic. Police discretion probably goes back further than that. The country has survived it.
No, of course we don't want to kill people over property. But if you think about it for a moment, the police do not carry guns to dispense justice. They carry them for self-defense while they are confronting criminals. I don't think there's anything wrong with the firearm owning civilian doing that either.
Where it gets murky is when the firearm owning civilian confronts a guy breaking into his garage at night, sees something that looks like a weapon being drawn, and fires. Now maybe it was a gun maybe it wasn't and there's where it gets messy in court. This is just a natural consequence of having a right to confront people who are stealing from you and having a right to defend yourself.
Now, if this scenario played out for me here on my remote rural homestead I'd confront them after calling the police or having my wife do so. If it was daylight, if I saw they weren't armed I'd just ask them to leave and maybe get a couple pictures for the authorities. However, if in the course of that confrontation they pull out a weapon or threaten my physically I now have to shoot because there's no way to guarantee I come out of the situation alive anymore.
The whole shoot 'em in the kneecaps concept is not something any firearms expert is going to recommend. If you want to see why go to a range and try to hit something the size of a kneecap, now imagine it's moving and the adrenaline is flowing and you're scared. You want to bet your life on making that shot?
Again, nobody should be put to death over property. However, there are consequences for one's actions and if someone chooses to go down that route that's what they're risking. I live in a secluded home in a low-crime area so the odds I'll ever run into this are slim. Still, if I ever do and I'm ever forced to shoot it will be because of the position someone else chose to put me in, not because it was something I wanted.
He makes a great point that you're either missing or denying. We don't prosecute nearly as much as we used to. When you make crime legal then it appears all is well as we become a more evil nation of people.
prosecutorial discretion has always been about which cases to pursue based on facts and evidence, not which laws to ignore.
further example, Arizona has declared that federal gun control laws are void in Arizona. Whether or not a federal judge agrees is a different matter, but that’s revolution. What laws are the next ones to ignored?
Dear God. This whole thread is a bunch of suburban wanna-be Dirty Harry’s wishing some thug would break into their boring garage to steal their lawnmower. Here’s a hint: nobody really wants your lawnmower.
We don't have that problem in Georgia. If they're inside your house, there is no problem with their body being hauled out of your house.
That's just low, you don't insult a man's lawn mower.
I lived in a very bad area of DC for a decade. We had four homicides within a block of our house, and ultimately the crime was a factor in moving out. I won’t begrudge anyone the right to self-defense. But I have no respect for rural/suburban dwellers who make up imaginary threats to justify their weapons fixations. At least just admit you like firing off guns, and it’s not really about protecting your families from the dangerous mule deer & squirrels?
Can’t it be both?
Hey, I just got a battery powered SP mower this year and Ive noticed neighbors lusting over it. One is a Cop, so he better watch out! I don't recall Dirty Harry shooting first, maybe he pulled a Han Solo, IDR? But ya, some are so niggardly and impotent via society they would kill given half a chance.
Perhaps its a top down thing like from the original defund THEIR police, take money and enforcement from the IRS, FEC and SEC and scummy Canadians, their fathers and other ideological affiliates scheme for millions and power, disenfranchise the other and it leads to a feeling of inequitable treatment and resentment. Lack of trust signals a declining democracy so qui bono, who benefits from alternative facts and fear mongering.
It doesn't. But, that seems to be where the focus of the thread was. I was never trained in "de-escalation techniques". But, I do know a couple of basic rules
1) You can out-badass most people by remaining calm and using common sense.
2) If you can't out-badass your attacker, you'd better be able to out run him.
so, you recognize violent crime occurs, but you think it could never happen to anyone else because we’re in the “good” part of town? Every person who has been impacted believed it would never happen to them. Threats are unlikely but not unheard of especially if I go across town. That doesn’t mean you write the chance off as impossible.
a little bit of my own background. I was in the navy and ran small arms training for my boat (sub). We trained every month at the base police range and twice a year at the longer rifle range. As part of my duties, I was also a special weapons security guard and have had very direct scenario training regarding shooting someone. Shooting is something I take very seriously and not at all something I ever want to do. But at the same time, I long ago dealt with the question of pulling the trigger and the impact that will have.
so, if you try to characterize me as someone making up imaginary threats to support a firearm fixation, I do take a bit of offense at that. As noted above, threats are not at all imaginary, nor limited to inner city areas. I don’t fixate on guns any more than I fixate on a steak knife…it’s just another tool.
I like my boom sticks.
and when 1 and 2 don’t work….you’re down to the bad options.
I, too, watched the other thread and have a few thoughts of my own on all this. And, while I realize some may adamantly disagree (at first I was going to say “be triggered”), that’s not at all my intent with this post.
I did 24 years in the Air Force, was trained and qualified in Small Arms, and carried when in combat zones but have never owned a weapon - not because I’m morally opposed but because I’m “practically opposed”, in my situation. I don’t train enough to be proficient (even though I’ve gone to ranges on rare occasions) and I know the real and perceived stats: 60% of all firearms deaths in the US are suicides. A good number of the remaining deaths are domestic disputes and a smaller number are accidental deaths. The “beneficial” times of owning a gun, for someone like me who lives in an upper-middle-class neighborhood and who’s rarely out and about past midnight, is exceedingly rare, in my judgment - less rare than the bad outcomes of owning a gun. And while I respect others’ rights to defend themselves and carry, I also realize it would be a tough act for me to, in the moment, kill someone with my low level of training and personal values.
We lived in Germany and Norway while in the Air Force. What a contrast. In Norway, our 10-year-old daughter and her friends routinely rode the public bus on their own to go see movies downtown and she and her 7-year-old brother walked on their own to a shopping area a mile away, on a busy street. We never feared for them, either for crazies or traffic: the European culture is so different than ours. They look after each other to an incredible degree, especially in Norway. I once picked up a teen girl hitch hiking on a back country road; as a father, I was really concerned for her. I asked her if she was worried about anything happening and she, in all seriousness, asked “like what?” In hindsight it was wonderful living in countries where people didn’t think they needed to carry.
My point is the fascination with guns in this country is a symptom - not a cause. We’re so steeped in a “me first” culture that we don’t even recognize the cost that has.
In another vein, in my opinion the other thread was a symptom of another problem we have right now: it not-so-subtly was a way of vocalizing “who’s with me on this?” and a way of polarizing. Watching the reactions to people who expressed “unsupportive” comments about CC pretty much confirmed that. As with virtually any topic, including other very polarizing ones, there’s far more gray than we want to acknowledge but it’s so easy in this day and age to think exclusively of “either/or”. That’s just not true for most things.
“First seek to understand, then to be understood” is still good advice.
Seems your reading comprehension needs a bit of adjustment as I stated from the start, "I have no desire to ever harm another human and will always do all I can to prevent doing so even if it cost me material things."
I'm not a wanna be Dirty Harry and there are names I could give to folks like you that want to try and excoriate folks that have a sense of wanting to protect and be protected from evil. As a child I was taught that if I didn't have anything nice to say I should say nothing at all. You should try that.
I'm noticing how often violent criminals are able to be tracked down in urban areas because of security cameras. Every day you see and read (well, not @Kristin apparently) about an unprovoked murder in some big city and a week or two later you'll read about the suspect being arrested. So, if the perpetrators knew there was no way they could avoid being identified and tracked doing their crime, maybe they wouldn't do it at all, huh? What we need are more cameras! Somebody smarter than I am may be able to invent a personal 360° camera lens that could record the wearer's surroundings and transmit the data to a network when triggered by the victim, perhaps via smartphone? Then the network could ping other users in the area to upload their observations and alert law enforcement. Can it be done?
As one who used to be a good shot (in high school I was the first winner of the annual "Grand Aggregate Trophy" in our rifle club) and also qualified on the M-16 in basic training (USAF), I think carrying a concealed handgun is kind of naive. Unless you walk around with the thing in your hand ready to fire it, how are you gonna get it out and use it during a surprise mugging? Around the home, you probably ought to have a shotgun. Loaded and within easy reach. What could go wrong?
Nah, cameras are the answer. Just need to find someone to invent the system.
I know an officer who (between he and his partner) put 18 .45 rounds center-mass in a suspect, who then fought them for almost two minutes after losing his weapon…a motivated criminal, particularly with substances on board, can be a threat for a relatively long time post-shooting unless they are hit in the eye/nose “T” or the spine, causing brain shutdown or mechanical loss of function.
Reminds me of a quote from an ex ATF guy when we were training a few years ago. He said, "don't shoot an attacker until you think he's dead, shoot him until he thinks he's dead."
Not much crime around here. My dog likes me, she’s a barky thing too.
I agree that knowing how to safely handle a firearm is very very important.
But I don't believe that you actually know the real and perceived stats.
I'll just leave it at that because of POA ROC.
Interesting how that exact quote would fit precisely into many, many other threads on here about a virus that’s prevalent right now - and the “teams” would be pretty much flipped, I believe
I live in a rural area. I don’t think you understand the situation.
A few years ago some thugs murdered a convenience store clerk a few miles from here, fled through the groves, and hid out in a neighbor’s barn. Then escaped, despite a sheriff’s helicopter overhead. They could easily have come here to steal a car, money, whatever, and they were obviously willing to kill.
Then a jealous boyfriend kidnapped a woman and drove her out to our area to murder her and dump her body.
Not terribly long ago, cops found a human torso (just the torso) dumped in a neighboring cow pasture.
Remote areas are great places to commit crimes.
And it goes on and on.....
It can take 30 to 45 minutes for deputies to get here. If a murderous thug shows up at my place, it falls on me to keep my wife and me safe. You’d better believe we’re well armed.
You suggest a bright line that never actually existed. There has always been decisions about where to put limited resources. There have always been political and prosecutorial decisions based on the current conditions, political and on the ground. The War on Drugs is an example. My point is the more things change, the more they stay the same.
"I lived in a very bad area of DC for a decade. We had four homicides within a block of our house, and ultimately the crime was a factor in moving out. I won’t begrudge anyone the right to self-defense. But I have no respect for rural/suburban dwellers who make up imaginary threats to justify their weapons fixations. At least just admit you like firing off guns, and it’s not really about protecting your families from the dangerous mule deer & squirrels?"
I spent 40 years working for the electric company in Washington DC, in every neighborhood, at every hour safe or not.
Did you warn the buyer of the danger you were selling in abandoning your home to him?
Setting up an effective neighborhood watch program to make your immediate streets safe would have been more ethical. Such activities make relations with the uniformed officers much more amicable and effective. We had a spike in crime where I live, and such a program resulted in community awareness, and crime went mostly away.
First of all, thanks for the love @Daleandee. This is a great thread and brings up the greatest "x factor" in the entire discussion: where do you draw the line? And if I might add a couple addenda to that x factor: is the line the same in every situation? Should the line be the same for every person? And the short answer to those two is a resounding: NO!
We can sit here and have these discussions till the cows come home and you'll find some on the "Let God sort 'em out" side and some on the "never use deadly force side." In my profession, we have what's called the escalated use of force model. (When I'm out of my deer stand and back at my computer, I'll try to post the visual for you guys.) Basically, it is general guidance on what type of force we are lawfully allowed to use. There are times when I am lawfully allowed to take the life of another and, while I will have to answer for that, as long as I have followed my use of force policy (a 114-page document) I am covered. The phraseology that we use on any of our "use of force" documentation is "I [contained the situation, placed the individual on the ground, etc.] using the least amount of force necessary."
If I need to place a criminal on the ground, and I bear hug him from behind and use my wrestling background to throw him to the ground, that might be justified given the context. However, if that's a 75 year old man who weighs 140 lbs soaking wet, I'm probably going to face some pretty serious repercussions.
I agree, that we shouldn't encourage lawless behavior. However, by resisting that gun wielding thug, you could end up making the situation worse. On the other hand, you could be calling his bluff and he'll run away. That's why there is no cut and dried answer for us, nor should there be for you.
If you carry, don't let your firearm become your number one option, let it be the last resort. That doesn't mean that it can't ever be the first option you choose, if the situation demands it. If I'm in q grocery store and hear shots fired, it just became my last resort and number one option (after making sure my family is safe.l
But back on topic, whether you carry a firearm or not, to borrow an aviation colloqialism, you need to be "ahead of the airplane." "Chair fly" different scenarios and think, how could I get out of this safely? The answers to that are going to vary person to person and situation to situation, but thinking ahead gives you a better chance to survive.
PLEASE, continue this thread, and continue the discussion offline as well, with other PoA members, with your families etc. My wife and I both carry, but we have discussions on how to handle different situations (side note, she's a full time paramedic, so part of her decision making process is "What kind of mess am I going to have to clean up?")
At the end of the day, this is like an "engine out," or "instrument failure in actual IMC." You can talk about it all you want, and you can and should prepare for it to the best of your ability, but when it comes right down to it, you won't actually know how you'll perform until it's over. Even then, you'll get Monday morning quarterbacked by people that weren't in your shoes in that moment. A "successful" landing is the one you walk away from. A "Good" landing is the one where the plane also comes out unscathed. But a perfect landing is the one we are always chasing. Even your greasers have something you could have done better. Never stop preparing in aviation and never stop preparing in life.
Don't be paranoid either, just ready for the potential that blue skies could turn into inadvertent IMC real quick!
While I agree that this is a non aviation topic, first, this is "Hangar Talk" which by definition is for non-aviation related topics. But secondly, I think the critical thinking skills related to this are also invaluable to us as pilots. We constantly plan for those unfortunate possibilities in the air, why not plan the same way on the ground?
I'm glad you jumped in though, because it means that you are at least aware of the discussion. I hope that you never encounter any of these situations in the air or down here. If you do, I hope somebody with a badge is there to handle it for you. But if not, at least think through some of the (non-lethal) options being discussed in this thread that could let you and yours walk away safely. The aviation community is small enough. You are an important part of that and I don't want to see a thread stating that we lost you over something preventable.
Blue skies my friend!
My airplane is hangared in a really good neighborhood so the statistical likelihood I will have an engine out is extremely low. Therefore I do not worry about practicing engine out procedures. People who prepare for an unlikely engine failure have small penises.
First of all, thank you for your service. Both my father and his father were USAF.
You raise some really good points here. I'd love to live in a society that as a whole looked out for one another. I've lived in some rural areas where that was the case, but more highly populated areas here in the US tend to have less of that propensity.
I wish we also had more of a balanced approach to a lot of things instead of the "who's with me" polarized approach. We've made enemies of each other which is directly indicative of point #1.
Having seen your response in other now-locked threads about wearing certain “attire”, I’m trying to figure out when you apply analogies and when you don’t
in my defense, I had a small penis long before I practiced engine outs.
After suicides comes gang/drug traffic gun deaths. Those two comprise the vast majority of gun deaths in the US.
You should still be concerned for her, even if she isn't. Back when I was in college they said that one needed to be careful at the European youth hostels. My youngest has said the same, saying going in groups is far safer, and she prefers "women only" youth hostels as well.
At the same time she went to Barcelona alone for a short semester just before she turned 19 and we were not concerned. She was in an apartment by campus with other students, so not really different than at her university here in the US.
My next door neighbor talks about growing up in NYC; he's 64 years old. He rode the subway to school. In HS it was more than one train and maybe a bus; he went to a specialty high school, Aviation HS. He talks about riding busses and trains in NYC at a young age, by himself.
I used to bike all over place when I was a kid. We moved several times, so it wasn't a place that I or my family had always been.
Even as an adult I don't have issues going to events in downtown Atlanta at night. Yes, there are areas I don't go to, but that's in any city. We often walk when we travel to other cities, if it's a walkable area, even at night. Most of the violence is in a small "bad parts of town". I'm not armed, nor have I ever been trained in any form of martial arts/hand-to-hand training. I am male and slightly bigger than average size, but that's it.
What's changed is people are now more fearful. Some of that is more aware of the risks. Those risks are often hyped by our lovely 24x7 news channels. We are far more safe now than 70 years ago, we're just more aware of the risks. Back then you'd have to live in the neighborhood or know the family of someone impacted. Now you see in on TV/the internet right away, even when it happens on the other side of the country.
Someone very close to me was murdered during the murderers' 3rd robbery of the night. While complying. The murderers were apprehended while committing another robbery later that same night.
Y'all are welcome to attempt whatever de-escalation techniques you desire. But as far as I'm concerned, anyone who threatens my life has forfeited any right to continue his own and certainly abandoned any expectation of empathy.