Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
imported post
Erps
I am going to assume thatI am not fully understanding what you are trying to say.
Erps
I am going to assume thatI am not fully understanding what you are trying to say.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Assaulted at B&I
- Thread starter sempercarry
- Start date
imported post
Sorry, I'll try and do better.
When I say that it takes two to escalate what I'm referring to is that in interactions, there are actions and reactions and that in a typical incident, the actions and reactions notch up and continue to notch up until one side no longer wants to or is not longer able to react further.
Sorry, I'll try and do better.
I'm not saying you have to take abuse. I'm saying you have the powerby your own conduct to make the situation better or worse.
When I say that it takes two to escalate what I'm referring to is that in interactions, there are actions and reactions and that in a typical incident, the actions and reactions notch up and continue to notch up until one side no longer wants to or is not longer able to react further.
Chris.R.Anderson
Regular Member
imported post
erps wrote:
While I think I understand where you are comming from erps, I disagree. Often times there is a series of small escalations from each side, one after another, but that is NOT required for escalation.
If a gangbanger comes up and starts taunting you and talking crap, even if you say nothing and disengage to leave he can choose to shove you in the back, he escalates alone. Then even if you still ignore him or even ask him politely to leave you alone, he may still draw a knife on you and attack.
Again you provided no help in escalating the situation to this level, yet at this point you have no choice but to draw your own weapon and defend yourself from the situation he created all by himself.
Just my 2 cents.
CRA
erps wrote:
While I think I understand where you are comming from erps, I disagree. Often times there is a series of small escalations from each side, one after another, but that is NOT required for escalation.
If a gangbanger comes up and starts taunting you and talking crap, even if you say nothing and disengage to leave he can choose to shove you in the back, he escalates alone. Then even if you still ignore him or even ask him politely to leave you alone, he may still draw a knife on you and attack.
Again you provided no help in escalating the situation to this level, yet at this point you have no choice but to draw your own weapon and defend yourself from the situation he created all by himself.
Just my 2 cents.
CRA
Stretch
Regular Member
imported post
I'll respectfully disagree with you. If the aggressor continues to pursue you, even if you are attempting to disengage the person at what point do you defend? One can escalate the situation without the other provoking.
Stretch
I'll respectfully disagree with you. If the aggressor continues to pursue you, even if you are attempting to disengage the person at what point do you defend? One can escalate the situation without the other provoking.
Stretch
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
imported post
erps wrote:
I think I see what you mean now, the problem is that most everyone goes into any given situation with preconcieved ideas about how it will go. In Sempercarrys case the SG had it in his mind that he was going to detainSempercarry befroe he ever made contact and when Sempercarry didnt follow along the SG escalated grabbing his arm, as soon as that happened the SGs preconcieved script went out the window. This happens every day all the time the difference here is that the SG thought he had the authority where a car salesman knows he can not make you buy that car. The SG escalates because in his mind he is being disrespected the car salesman simply goes on to the next customer. People like the SG are truely dangerious they think they can deprive other people of their liberty just because they are who they are.Most people go along withwith it because that is what they are taught in our schools.
erps wrote:
erps exchanging ideas on any forum are sometimes difficult and I was giving you the benifit of the doubt when I said I was not fully understanding not your fault or my fault sometimes it just does not work well.
I think I see what you mean now, the problem is that most everyone goes into any given situation with preconcieved ideas about how it will go. In Sempercarrys case the SG had it in his mind that he was going to detainSempercarry befroe he ever made contact and when Sempercarry didnt follow along the SG escalated grabbing his arm, as soon as that happened the SGs preconcieved script went out the window. This happens every day all the time the difference here is that the SG thought he had the authority where a car salesman knows he can not make you buy that car. The SG escalates because in his mind he is being disrespected the car salesman simply goes on to the next customer. People like the SG are truely dangerious they think they can deprive other people of their liberty just because they are who they are.Most people go along withwith it because that is what they are taught in our schools.
FMCDH
Regular Member
imported post
erps wrote:
The "reasonable man" doctrine supports that the victim doesn't have to show that he reasoned out all possible outcomes to a situation before acting/reacting, but only acted/reactedin a reasonable manner with what he knewat the time.
If it was a reasonable action/reaction, whether or not it "escalated" or "de-escalated" is neither here or there because you are judging a series of actions and reactions that are completely subjective to the observers point of view.
In example, I observe:
The OP stated that he perceived....
1. He was grabbed (perceived assaulted) without known cause.
2. OP disengaged himself from the perceived attack with minimal force necessary (pulled away) and demanded an explanation.
3. When anexplanation of theperceived attack was given, it was deemed unreasonable under the circumstances known.
4. When OP attempted to remove himself from the perceivedunreasonable situation, he was told that he wasn't going to be allowed to leave, implying physical restraint.
5. Facing a perceived illegal detainment and possible disarmament scenario by individuals lacking the authority to doeither, the OP placed his hand reflexively on his weapon for retention (and possibly quick access) purposes, then gave verbal warning.
6. Realizing they had overstepped their bounds, the security guards fell back to what they were suppose to do in the first place, observing and reporting a perceived non-threatening individual, and allowed the OP to leave, reporting it to authorities.
7. The OP left, removing himself from the situation.
Both sides COULD have done things better, but I don't personallyperceive anything totally unreasonable by the OP. In short, the OP acted within his own authority and did what he knew he had the right to do, the security guards did not.
And you are completely incorrect about control of escalationin a situation, as itrequires only one side to act in an unreasonable manner. In ironic contrast, both sides could be acting in a reasonable manner but the situation still escalates because reasonable action/reaction is subjective to perception. Since "reasonableness" is a matter of perception and escalation of a situation can be controlled by a single party upon another, escalation thenbecomes irrelevant infavor tothe overalloutcome and perceived action/reaction in a court of law becomes the more important focus.
The only two critiques I can give the OP for the future based upon my own (after the fact subjective) perception,is to choose his warning words more carefully in the future during a confrontation, and call police to report the situation afterward.
So how do you perceive the events? Because, like yourself, I consider myself a reasonable person too.
erps wrote:
The problem is that you areassuming full comprehension by the assaulted individualat the time of the incident that this was notmore than a simple mis-educated stop. Hindsight may be 20/20 for us, but it doesn't do a victim any good in the moment.
The "reasonable man" doctrine supports that the victim doesn't have to show that he reasoned out all possible outcomes to a situation before acting/reacting, but only acted/reactedin a reasonable manner with what he knewat the time.
If it was a reasonable action/reaction, whether or not it "escalated" or "de-escalated" is neither here or there because you are judging a series of actions and reactions that are completely subjective to the observers point of view.
In example, I observe:
The OP stated that he perceived....
1. He was grabbed (perceived assaulted) without known cause.
2. OP disengaged himself from the perceived attack with minimal force necessary (pulled away) and demanded an explanation.
3. When anexplanation of theperceived attack was given, it was deemed unreasonable under the circumstances known.
4. When OP attempted to remove himself from the perceivedunreasonable situation, he was told that he wasn't going to be allowed to leave, implying physical restraint.
5. Facing a perceived illegal detainment and possible disarmament scenario by individuals lacking the authority to doeither, the OP placed his hand reflexively on his weapon for retention (and possibly quick access) purposes, then gave verbal warning.
6. Realizing they had overstepped their bounds, the security guards fell back to what they were suppose to do in the first place, observing and reporting a perceived non-threatening individual, and allowed the OP to leave, reporting it to authorities.
7. The OP left, removing himself from the situation.
Both sides COULD have done things better, but I don't personallyperceive anything totally unreasonable by the OP. In short, the OP acted within his own authority and did what he knew he had the right to do, the security guards did not.
And you are completely incorrect about control of escalationin a situation, as itrequires only one side to act in an unreasonable manner. In ironic contrast, both sides could be acting in a reasonable manner but the situation still escalates because reasonable action/reaction is subjective to perception. Since "reasonableness" is a matter of perception and escalation of a situation can be controlled by a single party upon another, escalation thenbecomes irrelevant infavor tothe overalloutcome and perceived action/reaction in a court of law becomes the more important focus.
The only two critiques I can give the OP for the future based upon my own (after the fact subjective) perception,is to choose his warning words more carefully in the future during a confrontation, and call police to report the situation afterward.
So how do you perceive the events? Because, like yourself, I consider myself a reasonable person too.
imported post
A couple armed security guard follow a man carrying a gun out of their assigned store. They incorrectly believe it is unlawful. They verbally engage the man, confirm their suspicion and then attempt to verbally detain him for the police. Man makes choice to refuse, first escalation, and then attempts to walk away. S.G. goes hands on, second escalation, and attempts to physically restrain the man from leaving. Man makes second choice and overcomes S.G. grip, third escalation, and then places his hand on his firearm, fouth escalation,and verbalizes to the guards to try and stop him. Now at least three of you have indicated that when someone else starts going to the level of deadly force, that you have no choice but to go that level as well. At this point the guards had a choice of their own. They either escalate or de-escalate the situation. They wisely decide not to go for their guns but go into a non-threatening mode instead with hands up and assurances that they will not go for their guns. Had those guards decided otherwise, they would have drawn their weapons to try and detain the man again, fifth escalation. The O.P. would have had to decide at that time whether to draw his, sixth escalation or submit.
I see it as:
A couple armed security guard follow a man carrying a gun out of their assigned store. They incorrectly believe it is unlawful. They verbally engage the man, confirm their suspicion and then attempt to verbally detain him for the police. Man makes choice to refuse, first escalation, and then attempts to walk away. S.G. goes hands on, second escalation, and attempts to physically restrain the man from leaving. Man makes second choice and overcomes S.G. grip, third escalation, and then places his hand on his firearm, fouth escalation,and verbalizes to the guards to try and stop him. Now at least three of you have indicated that when someone else starts going to the level of deadly force, that you have no choice but to go that level as well. At this point the guards had a choice of their own. They either escalate or de-escalate the situation. They wisely decide not to go for their guns but go into a non-threatening mode instead with hands up and assurances that they will not go for their guns. Had those guards decided otherwise, they would have drawn their weapons to try and detain the man again, fifth escalation. The O.P. would have had to decide at that time whether to draw his, sixth escalation or submit.
sirpuma
Regular Member
imported post
erps wrote:
It is time for people to realize exactly what the 2nd Amendment is all about and it has nothing to do with hunting. It is applicable to the individual and not just the state or the "people" in general.
One should always strive to end encounters peacefully, ESPECIALLY the so-called peace officer. However should an officer, security guard or some other civilian escalate the taking of your freedom by force, knowingly violating the law and constitution, then you have the right (granted by GOD) to defend yourself. Remember, once you give up your rights, you don't get them back. Once they have you in their prison they can do with you whatever they want. What is to stop them from making you disappear or dragging your trial out for months, making up all kinds of charges, when you are innocent. If an officer illegally detains you, arrests you, takes you to jail and locks you up, you are now at their mercy, you are their slave.
We are free men and women not because we ask it of them and they grant it to us, but because we said "we are free" and made it stick. You are either a free man or you are a slave, take your pick. I for one choose am a free man and will fight to keep it. I get so tired of hearing people say "if a LEO tells you to do something illegal or violates your rights you need to roll over and obey your master".
Is this inflammatory, yes. Is it extreme, yes. But GOD gave us our rights, not the cops, not the politicians. They can either chose to honor that and not violate our rights, or they can answer to GOD.
I don't break the law, so I shouldn't be violated. But I will protect myself. Remember, trying to have a peaceful and polite encounter goes TWO WAYS.
erps wrote:
This question has a very simple answer. If you are not willing to do whatever it takes to defend yourself, your rights and your freedom, then you shouldn't be carrying a firearm in the first place. The purpose of the firearm isn't just to deter criminals from mugging you, but to defend yourself should your life or freedom be jeopardized. When you permit someone to take your freedom away, at the very least for several weeks, just so you can have a trial so a jury can say you were illegally detained, then what have you accomplished to protect your freedoms, nothing. Quite the opposite, in fact. You will have given the PTB permission to continue to violate your rights. They will know that you will not try and stop them, that you will in fact be more than happy to be a slave.
It is time for people to realize exactly what the 2nd Amendment is all about and it has nothing to do with hunting. It is applicable to the individual and not just the state or the "people" in general.
One should always strive to end encounters peacefully, ESPECIALLY the so-called peace officer. However should an officer, security guard or some other civilian escalate the taking of your freedom by force, knowingly violating the law and constitution, then you have the right (granted by GOD) to defend yourself. Remember, once you give up your rights, you don't get them back. Once they have you in their prison they can do with you whatever they want. What is to stop them from making you disappear or dragging your trial out for months, making up all kinds of charges, when you are innocent. If an officer illegally detains you, arrests you, takes you to jail and locks you up, you are now at their mercy, you are their slave.
We are free men and women not because we ask it of them and they grant it to us, but because we said "we are free" and made it stick. You are either a free man or you are a slave, take your pick. I for one choose am a free man and will fight to keep it. I get so tired of hearing people say "if a LEO tells you to do something illegal or violates your rights you need to roll over and obey your master".
Is this inflammatory, yes. Is it extreme, yes. But GOD gave us our rights, not the cops, not the politicians. They can either chose to honor that and not violate our rights, or they can answer to GOD.
I don't break the law, so I shouldn't be violated. But I will protect myself. Remember, trying to have a peaceful and polite encounter goes TWO WAYS.
imported post
sirpuma wrote:
I think that is a very thin line to walk, much less cross - if that is what you are saying.
Yata hey
sirpuma wrote:
You would seem to be excusing/permitting the use of deadly force against officers for perceived violations. How is that not taking on the role of judge and jury yourself?
I think that is a very thin line to walk, much less cross - if that is what you are saying.
Yata hey
imported post
so was it appropriate in your mind to shoot these security guards then? do you determine first whether they were knowingly violating the constitution or just shoot them and let God sort it out? Do you have a line in mind as far as how long you're willing to endure an unlawful detention before you start shooting? 5 minutes, 20 minutes, 15 seconds?
M
McX
Guest
imported post
the only plan i have is; no grabby me, no touchy the firearm, retreat-retreat-retreat.
the only plan i have is; no grabby me, no touchy the firearm, retreat-retreat-retreat.
imported post
The verbal command was the first action. The choice to ignore that unlawful command was the first reaction.
Another action with a subsequent reaction.
Resisting illegal physical restraint is a choice, whether it's a right or not. Each choice leads one down a different leg of the use of force flow chart so to speak. Can you acknowledge that?
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
imported post
Through out all the training I have obtained through the years and still subscribed to today, is that your firearm is a tool of last resort and that all your other preparations have failed to keep you safe.
There is other training as self defense, handgun retention to help with situations as this.
In my opinion if one was to place their hand on their weapon in a threatening manner in their self defense they need to call 911.
If this incident was serious enough to take such actions, then it is serious enough to report it.
If it is not serious enough to report then it was not serious enough to respond as described.
Be good ambassadors to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms make our firearm we carry a tool of last resort not one of the first.
Through out all the training I have obtained through the years and still subscribed to today, is that your firearm is a tool of last resort and that all your other preparations have failed to keep you safe.
There is other training as self defense, handgun retention to help with situations as this.
In my opinion if one was to place their hand on their weapon in a threatening manner in their self defense they need to call 911.
If this incident was serious enough to take such actions, then it is serious enough to report it.
If it is not serious enough to report then it was not serious enough to respond as described.
Be good ambassadors to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms make our firearm we carry a tool of last resort not one of the first.
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
imported post
erps, If you do not understand why myself andI suspect mostothers on this site would not allow anyone to restrict our freedom or batter us then maybe you are on the wrong site or you are trolling, what are you looking for here?
erps, If you do not understand why myself andI suspect mostothers on this site would not allow anyone to restrict our freedom or batter us then maybe you are on the wrong site or you are trolling, what are you looking for here?
Wheelgunner
Regular Member
imported post
erps wrote:
Erps, I don't think you understand, we are not going to submit to a hostile gun grab by SG's or a random person on the street even if force is necessary, if by Law Enforcement we will sue (Legal Force) even if LE's lose their jobs or go to jail (because of perjury) and have been winning cases regularly for exactly that, forcing behavior changes not in our ranks, but in the Police. The recorders are not to clear up misunderstandings, but to save one ass when the LE's or others commit Perjury and say you were "Twitching like an addict" or "verbally abusive" or when they go whole hog and say you "went for your firearm".
It is not a case of going along to get along, we REALLY believe we are Free Men with the power and responsibility to defend ourselves and our lives.
erps wrote:
Erps, I don't think you understand, we are not going to submit to a hostile gun grab by SG's or a random person on the street even if force is necessary, if by Law Enforcement we will sue (Legal Force) even if LE's lose their jobs or go to jail (because of perjury) and have been winning cases regularly for exactly that, forcing behavior changes not in our ranks, but in the Police. The recorders are not to clear up misunderstandings, but to save one ass when the LE's or others commit Perjury and say you were "Twitching like an addict" or "verbally abusive" or when they go whole hog and say you "went for your firearm".
It is not a case of going along to get along, we REALLY believe we are Free Men with the power and responsibility to defend ourselves and our lives.
GreatWhiteLlama
Regular Member
imported post
Orphan wrote:
The exchange between erps, NavyLT and others is exactly why a lot of us continue to visit this site. To simply "preach to the choir", or to agree with each other regardless of stance is self serving and pointless.
I've quite enjoyed the exchange gentlemen. Please continue
Orphan wrote:
I disagree.
The exchange between erps, NavyLT and others is exactly why a lot of us continue to visit this site. To simply "preach to the choir", or to agree with each other regardless of stance is self serving and pointless.
I've quite enjoyed the exchange gentlemen. Please continue
imported post
Orphan wrote:
At any rate, I look at the open carry movement as another civil rights movement. I also believe that the open carry movement attracts a few folks on the fringe and I'm somewhat taken aback by statements made by members willing to resort to violence against their fellow man as part of their politics. I don't see how that can be productive for the open carry movement.
I've made very few statements in this thread. If you look, you'll see that there are a lot of questions to clarify just how far some people are willing to go. If asking follow up questions to clarify one's position is considered trolling, so be it. In another thread, members criticized the Bradey site for not allowing opposing opinions. In my case, my opinion is only an opposing one if you believe that the purpose for open carry is to look for trouble and then threaten or commit violence when you find it, then yes, I am definitely against for your particular beliefs.
So Orphan, I don't expect you to be battered or have your freedom restricted. I also don't expect you to use violence the next time an officer stops you for speeding or a burned out tail light. After all, that's a restriction of your freedom, and it appears that some here decide for themselves whether it was justified. You don't have control how others behave, but you certainly have control over how you behave.
So does that make me a troll?
Orphan wrote:
I support the open carry idea to educate and desensitize the public to the sight of people exercising that right. I have an interest in the interaction between open carry folks and the folks they come in contact with. When I first came across this site around two years ago, I thought it was a great source of information for the law enforcement community because frankly, many I knew in law enforcement were not up to speed on open carry rights. The information was favorably received by all but one officer I forwarded it to. I was surprised by that particular officer's reaction.
At any rate, I look at the open carry movement as another civil rights movement. I also believe that the open carry movement attracts a few folks on the fringe and I'm somewhat taken aback by statements made by members willing to resort to violence against their fellow man as part of their politics. I don't see how that can be productive for the open carry movement.
I've made very few statements in this thread. If you look, you'll see that there are a lot of questions to clarify just how far some people are willing to go. If asking follow up questions to clarify one's position is considered trolling, so be it. In another thread, members criticized the Bradey site for not allowing opposing opinions. In my case, my opinion is only an opposing one if you believe that the purpose for open carry is to look for trouble and then threaten or commit violence when you find it, then yes, I am definitely against for your particular beliefs.
So Orphan, I don't expect you to be battered or have your freedom restricted. I also don't expect you to use violence the next time an officer stops you for speeding or a burned out tail light. After all, that's a restriction of your freedom, and it appears that some here decide for themselves whether it was justified. You don't have control how others behave, but you certainly have control over how you behave.
So does that make me a troll?
sempercarry
Regular Member
imported post
imported post
erps wrote:
To answer your question - No it does not. It makes you both responsible and open minded - willing to listen and discuss rationally.
Yata hey
erps wrote:
Agree with what you have said - you have my support.
To answer your question - No it does not. It makes you both responsible and open minded - willing to listen and discuss rationally.
Yata hey
amlevin
Regular Member
imported post
I'm still waiting for a clarification or answer to my earlier post. Were the Security Guards really armed or was the reference to them "not going for their guns" only an embellishment to the story?
I do not see many "Armed Security Guards" in malls most anywhere I travel unless they are off duty LEO's. That is, unless they are the security guards from an Armored Car Service or are the ones that fill the ATM's. Most malls don't want to pay for Armed Security or Off Duty LEO's when they can merelyminimum wage security "guards"as "phone carriers" that call the reall LEO's if a problem warrants.
Was this "fact" or "fiction"?
I'm still waiting for a clarification or answer to my earlier post. Were the Security Guards really armed or was the reference to them "not going for their guns" only an embellishment to the story?
I do not see many "Armed Security Guards" in malls most anywhere I travel unless they are off duty LEO's. That is, unless they are the security guards from an Armored Car Service or are the ones that fill the ATM's. Most malls don't want to pay for Armed Security or Off Duty LEO's when they can merelyminimum wage security "guards"as "phone carriers" that call the reall LEO's if a problem warrants.
Was this "fact" or "fiction"?