Leaderboard

Magz uses logical thought and agrees with others...it's a Christmas miracle!!!

I never saw a headline about the NYPD officers who were shot that said anything along the lines of "Black Man Shoots Cops". Just saying.

bad journalism is good business. Therein lies one of the largest problems in the United States today. It doesn't matter if this cop was completely justified. Angry people will distort the situation into whatever injustice they want it to be, and stupid people (of all races) will believe the distortion and react inappropriately, perpetuating stereotypes and ultimately making the whole situation worse.

Global Inequality? Dude stop, you're killing me. This guy is too funny. When we find out who you really are there will be a beer on me.

Bubba, I'm not on here much, but since you sent me a specific question re: this, I felt I should pop in and offer my thoughts. I had composed a fairly long post, but after re-reading it I opted to not post it. It didn't directly address your post / questions. I trimmed it down substantially: I suppose you have to assess what is important to you and how far you are willing to go to protect what is important. Even if you opt to not carry a gun, you need to have a plan in place for a critical event that might require you to surrender your wallet, run, fight, hide, usher others to safety, observe and recall details, etc. For some people, lawfully carrying a gun is a component of that plan, but under no circmstances is it the only plan. Note that 'critical event' in my mind includes civil emergencies like a fire, crash, etc., not only criminal acts. In addition to a plan, you need a goal that the plan is helping you move toward. The goal in a situation such as this should always be survival of yourself and your loved ones at any cost. So the plan; to that end, you should always be aware of your surroundings, be scoping out people who look unsavory or who are alpha dogging you, who are walking right at you, who are brandishing a weapon, talking boorishly, acting disorderly, obviously drunk or drugged, etc. You should have a basic plan in place for most contingencies anyway, but you can start to tailor it to situationally specific events as they begin to unfold and as you take note of a threat. If the threat doesn't materialize, great. If it does, you should already have a good grasp on what you are going to do and be well on your way to implementation. In this situation, with the caveat that of course every situation and every person are going to be different, as this particular scenario was presented through media accounts, what would your 'plan' have been? My plan would be to act totally compliant and subservient, begin to surrender the merchandise, and at a moment of distraction, shoot the kid with the gun at least 3-4 times chest moving to head; then assess the other two and immediately shoot them in order of proximity to me 3-4 times each chest moving to head if they make no attempt to flee or don't immediately raise their arms and display their unarmed intent to surrender. If they flee, I'd get as good a description as I could for police. If they surrender, I'd prone them out at gunpoint and issue them clear orders to lie on the pavement with hands outstretched and secure the obvious gun from the downed criminal but would make no attempt to close in on them or search them or secure them. We'd then wait for police. Could you / I surrender the shoes and go buy a new pair? Sure, assuming we don't get shot for sport anyway. Could you / I turn tail and run? Sure, assuming we don't get a bullet in the back or get run down by someone 1/3 our age and beaten severely, or get hit by a car, or have a heart attack. Could you / I do one of 100 other things, each with a presumably different and unknown reaction? Absolutely, but I would prefer to take the offensive and stop the problem in what I see as the most efficient, safest manner possible; which would involve deploying my gun ("suprise, motherfucker!") and defending myself. You also ask about the ethical implications of killing someone over a pair of shoes. In theory this guy could have pulled a gun and demanded one 41 cent (or whatever a stamp is now) stamp. Would it be 'right' to kill him over 41 cents? Maybe the better question is would it be 'right' for you to be killed over 41 cents? Even having posed that quetion, I would say that ethical considerations like that have no place in an action plan. That's a small part of the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that you are being threatened with death if you fail to comply with this person's demands. The underlying issue of value of sneakers, stamps, etc., is immaterial. In every situation like this, you are responding to the aggressive actions of someone else; they put both themselves and you in the situation, ergo, they should be prepared to reap the ramifications of that situation, including death if that ends up being the unfortunate outcome. In regards to your second post, about "difficulty in assessing a situation in a split second", and referencing the police shootings in MO, CLE, etc., I would say this: none of those officers made a poor decision, none failed the "split second" test. I believe most people, when put in that situation, and with some training, self confidence, and an action plan; would do the same thing in the same time allotted. Those officers are getting the media and race crucifixtion but they also have the advantage of still being here to suffer through it. And that - as noted above - is the ultimate goal. Wilson lost his job, ultimately (his choice, but a wise one) but he is alive. The Cleveland officer will be in the hotseat for a while and probably get sued and have Holder up his ass for a while, but he is alive.

Nothing says you have to shoot your gun just because you are carrying. You can always choose not to shoot. Just because you give a bad guy what they want does not garauntee they won't shot you anyways. Your most likely the best person to ID them later. If you point a gun at someone you take upon the risk that their reaction could be deadly for you. But the basic idea is there are three things needed to justify using deadly force, means/ability, opportunity and intent. Is the person presenting the threat to you able to cause serious physical harm or death using their abilities or weapons they have? Are they in a position where they can carry out a threat of serious physical harm or death? Do they in your (the person about to respond in defense) opinion intend to cause death to whomever they are threatening? If the three answers are not yes than the use of deadly force is not justified.

Figured that much when I posted it. Then was going to argue how right I am until we hate each others grandchildren. But that is way to much energy to waste.

Why the fuck does the media do stupid shit! Is it nessasary to say black man? I never see "shot a white man" or Irish or German or Japanese.. Officer had every right to shoot the man, if you point a gun at a cop guess what happens next? Just like the wild west its first to pull the trigger that wins.

do they ever?

You spelled 06 VFR wrong

My wife surprised me with this last night after work. Holy crap! It's 2014 Super Tenere ES. Best. Wife. Ever. **EDIT** Added a proper picture now that the rain stopped and there's at least a little sun