# The Picture Speaks for Itself



## Steve M1911A1




----------



## denner

If you break the law or disobey the law you should be treated equally.


----------



## Goldwing

My sign would read "what kind of a mother raises a son who robs stores. AS YOU SOW,SO SHALL YOU REAP!" :smt071
Goldwing


----------



## SailDesign

It's a photoshop job, folks..... That "S" is repeated above, and is identical. I'll finds the original for you after supper.

Talk about "gullible"


----------



## Goldwing

SailDesign said:


> It's a photoshop job, folks..... That "S" is repeated above, and is identical. I'll finds the original for you after supper.
> 
> Talk about "gullible"


In light of recent events I think it's quite plausible.
Goldwing


----------



## GCBHM

Yeah, I shared this on Facebook yesterday. You're right.


----------



## SouthernBoy

Whether photo shopped or real (I think Sail is correct), it does introduce an interesting topic, which is this.

*Is robbery a sufficiently serious enough crime to warrant the use of deadly force?*

In my state it is. There are five felonies for which the use of deadly force can be a legal response: robbery, burglary, rape, murder, and arson.

What say you folks?


----------



## denner

SailDesign said:


> It's a photoshop job, folks..... That "S" is repeated above, and is identical. I'll finds the original for you after supper.
> 
> Talk about "gullible"


Whether it's photo shopped or not it is directly on point and what a great number of people are trying to achieve through protest, misinformation, disregard for facts, violence and destruction. I'm always "gullible" for the truth whether photo shopped or not.


----------



## GCBHM

Yeah, Sail, I think we all know it was a PS, but the point was to call the issue to the forefront. The element rioting in Ferguson are demonstrating that they actually believe they should be able to rob a store and not get called to task for it. There are a number of stories where a thug's family goes off over the fact they preciou' little quindarrious was kilt by someone who din't have to kill him lak dat. Come on bruh...


----------



## SailDesign

This is the original un-edited pic.


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> Yeah, Sail, I think we all know it was a PS, but the point was to call the issue to the forefront. The element rioting in Ferguson are demonstrating that they actually believe they should be able to rob a store and not get called to task for it. There are a number of stories where a thug's family goes off over the fact they preciou' little quindarrious was kilt by someone who din't have to kill him lak dat. Come on bruh...


YOU find it "calls the issue to the forefront" I find it intentionally misleading and doesn't help anything but some teenage-minded basement-dweller who gets a chuckle from it. You owuld be amazed the number of people who think this is real. Because that's how they perceive black people to act. This is called "racial profiling" and whether you're a cop or a commentator, it's wrong.

Not helping.


----------



## SailDesign

SouthernBoy said:


> Whether photo shopped or real (I think Sail is correct), it does introduce an interesting topic, which is this.
> 
> *Is robbery a sufficiently serious enough crime to warrant the use of deadly force?*
> 
> In my state it is. There are five felonies for which the use of deadly force can be a legal response: robbery, burglary, rape, murder, and arson.
> 
> What say you folks?


In my not-so-f'ing-humble opinion (long, tiring day today)... I don't think robbery per se deserves *deadly* force. Unless your life is in danger as well. We all go to the range to practice accurately shooting a gun - hit him in the legs, FFS. THEN turn him over to the cops. It's how the rest of the civilised world does it, y'know.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

SouthernBoy said:


> ...Is robbery a sufficiently serious enough crime to warrant the use of deadly force?...What say you folks?


_Armed_ robbery is differentiated from "mere" robbery in most (if not all) states. And then there's "strong-arm" robbery, as well.
Most states rule that one may not protect "mere" goods with deadly force.

While I find it morally acceptable to respond to a show of potential deadly force with actual deadly force, I cannot find it in myself to respond to "mere" robbery with such an escalation.

Of course, a robber, by definition, has to use some sort of menace. Otherwise, one would merely laugh at him and walk away. And that brings us to "strong-arm" robbery. (Been there, had that attempted upon me-unsuccessfully.)
In that case, the "disparity of force" issue arises: Could the robber put you in jeopardy of your life (or of serious injury), either by himself or with an armament of some sort? Do you think that he would indeed use such force upon you? Are you weaker, slower, or less skilled at aggression than he? If you, as a "reasonable man," answer these questions with a "Yes," then you might use deadly force to stop him.

Michael Brown did nothing, in the convenience store that he robbed on-camera, that would have warranted response with deadly force. He did no permanent or serious injury to the store clerk, nor did he stick around to menace the clerk any further.
It was his response to being interviewed by a policeman which indeed did warrant the use of deadly force. (I accept, in its entirety and without hearing the evidence presented, the ruling of the relevant Grand Jury.)

Now, about that photo... I stated that it speaks for itself. Even if Photoshopped, the attitude it represents is accurately portrayed, and widely believed among certain groups of Americans.


----------



## GCBHM

SailDesign said:


> YOU find it "calls the issue to the forefront" I find it intentionally misleading and doesn't help anything but some teenage-minded basement-dweller who gets a chuckle from it. You owuld be amazed the number of people who think this is real. Because that's how they perceive black people to act. This is called "racial profiling" and whether you're a cop or a commentator, it's wrong.
> 
> Not helping.


The misleading part is when Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the Brown family attorney, get up on national TV and spew blatant lies (that they know are lies) all in the effort to stir up strife and further an agenda that is not in the best interests of the People of the United States. It is flat out BS, and everyone should know it. The fact is the element rioting in Ferguson thinks exactly as this PS sign portrays, and it is funny to finally see these bastards finally get what they have done so many times. When idiots like Sharpton stand up and claim Wilson murdered Brown in a state execution knowing full well he has not real clue what actually happened, and the media not only goes along with it, but promulgates their tony agenda, someone should be locked up. But not Wilson. It should be the fools spewing the lies that incite riots.

If it were me, I would order the National Guard and police to shoot to kill all rioters on sight, and send a clear message to liars like Sharpton and these thugs who scream "BURN THIS BITCH DOWN" that if you incite riots we will come after you. It is pure BS that this type of behavior is not only allowed, but stirred and coddled. Kill these bastards! If you attack a cop, you will die. If you riot, you will die. If you incite a riot, you will be arrested and tried accordingly. THAT is what needs to happen.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

SailDesign said:


> ...We all go to the range to practice accurately shooting a gun - *hit him in the legs*, FFS. THEN turn him over to the cops. It's how the rest of the civilised world does it, y'know. [emphasis added]


Um, no, it's not.

Nobody, when confronted by a real save-your-life emergency, has the mental capacity, or the small-motor skills, to "hit him in the legs."
You might like to try it, some time. There are ways for friends to simulate a real save-your-life emergency for you, and you try, in mid-emergency, to place one or more _extremely accurate_ shots into a target.
Besides, a hit to the legs is not necessarily incapacitating. Your opponent can still do you significant, maybe even terminal, damage.

Even the British police shoot to kill, when called upon to shoot someone.

Back in the days when the French police carried .32 ACP pistols, the reason for their shooting success was credited to the _attitude_ of European criminals, versus American crooks. The following quote is approximate, and I no longer remember where I read it:
"When a French _Flic_ shoots a French criminal, the criminal feels insulted and disrespected, so he sits down on a curbstone and begins to cry. When an American cop shoots an American criminal, the American criminal becomes angry and attacks the cop, trying to kill him."
Obviously, the attitude of European criminals has changed, since French police now carry full-strength 9mm pistols and ammunition.


----------



## GCBHM

SailDesign said:


> In my not-so-f'ing-humble opinion (long, tiring day today)... I don't think robbery per se deserves *deadly* force. Unless your life is in danger as well. We all go to the range to practice accurately shooting a gun - hit him in the legs, FFS. THEN turn him over to the cops. It's how the rest of the civilised world does it, y'know.


Robbery isn't what got him killed. It was the fact that he attacked a cop that got him shot.


----------



## SailDesign

Steve M1911A1 said:


> _Armed_ robbery is differentiated from "mere" robbery in most (if not all) states. And then there's "strong-arm" robbery, as well.
> Most states rule that one may not protect "mere" goods with deadly force.
> 
> While I find it morally acceptable to respond to a show of potential deadly force with actual deadly force, I cannot find it in myself to respond to "mere" robbery with such an escalation.
> 
> Of course, a robber, by definition, has to use some sort of menace. Otherwise, one would merely laugh at him and walk away. And that brings us to "strong-arm" robbery. (Been there, had that attempted upon me-unsuccessfully.)
> In that case, the "disparity of force" issue arises: Could the robber put you in jeopardy of your life (or of serious injury), either by himself or with an armament of some sort? Do you think that he would indeed use such force upon you? Are you weaker, slower, or less skilled at aggression than he? If you, as a "reasonable man," answer these questions with a "Yes," then you might use deadly force to stop him.
> 
> Michael Brown did nothing, in the convenience store that he robbed on-camera, that would have warranted response with deadly force. He did no permanent or serious injury to the store clerk, nor did he stick around to menace the clerk any further.
> It was his response to being interviewed by a policeman which indeed did warrant the use of deadly force. (I accept, in its entirety and without hearing the evidence presented, the ruling of the relevant Grand Jury.)


Agreed. totally.



Steve M1911A1 said:


> Now, about that photo... I stated that it speaks for itself. Even if Photoshopped, the attitude it represents is accurately portrayed, and widely believed among certain groups of Americans.


And that is exactly my issue with it. It IS believed, and circulated as fact. It's like those stupid "satirical" "new" sites. A waste of space, in my opinion, even though they can be funny.


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> Robbery isn't what got him killed. It was the fact that he attacked a cop that got him shot.


Wasn't aware that question was concerning Michael Brown... So I ignored that when answering.


----------



## GCBHM

SailDesign said:


> Wasn't aware that question was concerning Michael Brown... So I ignored that when answering.


I must have read that into it since that's what the original post was referencing. And btw, no one in their right mind, who has been trained to use a firearm for defense, shoots to hit the legs and turn them over to the police. No one does that. No one who knows what they're doing, that is.


----------



## SailDesign

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Um, no, it's not.
> 
> Nobody, when confronted by a real save-your-life emergency, has the mental capacity, or the small-motor skills, to "hit him in the legs."
> You might like to try it, some time. There are ways for friends to simulate a real save-your-life emergency for you, and you try, in mid-emergency, to place one or more _extremely accurate_ shots into a target.
> Besides, a hit to the legs is not necessarily incapacitating. Your opponent can still do you significant, maybe even terminal, damage.
> 
> Even the British police shoot to kill, when called upon to shoot someone.
> 
> Back in the days when the French police carried .32 ACP pistols, the reason for their shooting success was credited to the _attitude_ of European criminals, versus American crooks. The following quote is approximate, and I no longer remember where I read it:
> "When a French _Flic_ shoots a French criminal, the criminal feels insulted and disrespected, so he sits down on a curbstone and begins to cry. When an American cop shoots an American criminal, the American criminal becomes angry and attacks the cop, trying to kill him."
> Obviously, the attitude of European criminals has changed, since French police now carry full-strength 9mm pistols and ammunition.


Umm...

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bild.de%2Fnews%2Finland%2Fvollrausch%2Fbayern-polizei-schiesst-auf-betrunkenen-macheten-mann-36259026.bild.html&edit-text=&act=url

This Is How UK Police Stop Someone With A Knife | The Daily Banter

US soldier goes on drunken rampage until he's shot TWICE | Daily Mail Online

WA police shoot armed man in leg | Gold Coast Bulletin

I know that's not ALL the cases, but it's a representative sampling.


----------



## SailDesign

SailDesign said:


> Umm...
> 
> <snip links>
> 
> I know that's not ALL the cases, but it's a representative sampling.


I did notice the US soldier had to be shot TWICE in the legs - so maybe it's just Americans who need more force...


----------



## Steve M1911A1

Changing the Subject...

We have some news from New York City:
Last summer, a policeman placed an obese Black man in a choke hold because he was suspected of the heinous crime of illegally selling individual cigarettes from his own pack.
As a direct result of that choke hold, the obese Black man died.

Someone videoed the entire arrest, which included the Black man verbally, but unthreateningly, resisting arrest, a multi-cop pile-on that brought him-and his choke-holder also-down to the sidewalk, and the Black man stating with great difficulty that he couldn't breathe under the pile of cops.

Today, the New York Grand Jury brought a finding of No True Bill: That is, that the cops had done nothing wrong!

At last report, several protests had gathered. At last report, the protests were completely non-violent.

Knowing _only_ what I know from the news reports, I find myself angry that a man who may (or may not) have been guilty of a very minor offense was placed in a choke hold-which is illegal even for cops in New York, was then tackled by more than three cops, and remained restrained by that choke hold even as he kept saying that he couldn't breathe.
I find myself angry that this man died for no truly good and proper reason, not even a reason related to his arrest.
And I find myself angry that a Grand Jury would bring in No True Bill in this case.

Michael Brown was an antisocial thug who deserved to die for what he actually did, and the protests in his favor were, at best, misguided...and at worst opportunistic propaganda and social manipulation.
Meanwhile, the much-less-guilty (if guilty at all) obese Black man in New York died while being very improperly handled by probably-truly-racist New York City cops, and only a couple of small groups in New York City seem to have noticed the injustice. And they are protesting non-violently.

I am angry at this, but I am also bewildered!


----------



## Steve M1911A1

*SailDesign*, if you'd like to further discuss that "shoot in the legs" business, I suggest that we begin an entirely new thread.
The subject matter is as much one of shooting technique as it is of legal issues.

I suggest that it be discussed somewhere under the shooting-technique heading.


----------



## Cait43

Shoot 'um in the leg works great in the movies, not so much in real time......


----------



## SouthernBoy

SailDesign said:


> In my not-so-f'ing-humble opinion (long, tiring day today)... I don't think robbery per se deserves *deadly* force. Unless your life is in danger as well. We all go to the range to practice accurately shooting a gun - hit him in the legs, FFS. THEN turn him over to the cops. It's how the rest of the civilised world does it, y'know.


You have to understand the definition of robbery. It is theft with the implied or actual use of violent force. It is not "simple" theft.

As for "hit him in the legs, FFS", if you mean shoot him in the legs, this is something you most definitely do NOT want to do.

Firstly, legs are not large targets, tend to move a lot, and are difficult to hit in an extreme encounter.

Secondly, by doing this you are as much as saying to a prosecutor that you didn't believe you were in enough danger to use deadly force yet to him you most certainly did. You will be in a heap of trouble for trying something like this. I'm surprise you have not learned this in your training.

And lastly, is "It's how the rest of the civilised world does it, y'know" some sort of elitist dig or something. It's certainly a bit condescending. Here in this country we don't care about the rest of the "civilized word" when it comes to these matters since they're pretty anachronistic in their thinking when it comes to firearms and the use of deadly force. We believe we tend to have a better handle on that issue.


----------



## SouthernBoy

Steve M1911A1 said:


> *Armed robbery is differentiated from "mere" robbery in most (if not all) states. And then there's "strong-arm" robbery, as well.
> Most states rule that one may not protect "mere" goods with deadly force.*
> 
> While I find it morally acceptable to respond to a show of potential deadly force with actual deadly force, I cannot find it in myself to respond to "mere" robbery with such an escalation.
> 
> Of course, a robber, by definition, has to use some sort of menace. Otherwise, one would merely laugh at him and walk away. And that brings us to "strong-arm" robbery. (Been there, had that attempted upon me-unsuccessfully.)
> In that case, the "disparity of force" issue arises: Could the robber put you in jeopardy of your life (or of serious injury), either by himself or with an armament of some sort? Do you think that he would indeed use such force upon you? Are you weaker, slower, or less skilled at aggression than he? If you, as a "reasonable man," answer these questions with a "Yes," then you might use deadly force to stop him.
> 
> Michael Brown did nothing, in the convenience store that he robbed on-camera, that would have warranted response with deadly force. He did no permanent or serious injury to the store clerk, nor did he stick around to menace the clerk any further.
> It was his response to being interviewed by a policeman which indeed did warrant the use of deadly force. (I accept, in its entirety and without hearing the evidence presented, the ruling of the relevant Grand Jury.)
> 
> Now, about that photo... I stated that it speaks for itself. Even if Photoshopped, the attitude it represents is accurately portrayed, and widely believed among certain groups of Americans.


See my response above regarding robbery. As I said, in Virginia robbery is one of five felonies for which the of deadly force CAN be a response. Robbery is defined as a violent at since it includes the implied or actual thread of violence upon the victim. I am not making this stuff up. It comes for the teachings of an attorney in my state who has a lot of experience in defending cases like this.


----------



## SouthernBoy

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Changing the Subject...
> 
> We have some news from New York City:
> Last summer, a policeman placed an obese Black man in a choke hold because he was suspected of the heinous crime of illegally selling individual cigarettes from his own pack.
> As a direct result of that choke hold, the obese Black man died.
> 
> Someone videoed the entire arrest, which included the Black man verbally, but unthreateningly, resisting arrest, a multi-cop pile-on that brought him-and his choke-holder also-down to the sidewalk, and the Black man stating with great difficulty that he couldn't breathe under the pile of cops.
> 
> Today, the New York Grand Jury brought a finding of No True Bill: That is, that the cops had done nothing wrong!
> 
> At last report, several protests had gathered. At last report, the protests were completely non-violent.
> 
> Knowing _only_ what I know from the news reports, I find myself angry that a man who may (or may not) have been guilty of a very minor offense was placed in a choke hold-which is illegal even for cops in New York, was then tackled by more than three cops, and remained restrained by that choke hold even as he kept saying that he couldn't breathe.
> I find myself angry that this man died for no truly good and proper reason, not even a reason related to his arrest.
> And I find myself angry that a Grand Jury would bring in No True Bill in this case.
> 
> Michael Brown was an antisocial thug who deserved to die for what he actually did, and the protests in his favor were, at best, misguided...and at worst opportunistic propaganda and social manipulation.
> Meanwhile, the much-less-guilty (if guilty at all) obese Black man in New York died while being very improperly handled by probably-truly-racist New York City cops, and only a couple of small groups in New York City seem to have noticed the injustice. And they are protesting non-violently.
> 
> I am angry at this, but I am also bewildered!


I agree. My wife and I were talking about this incident last night at dinner. Neither of use could come up with any viable reason for the actions of the police against this man. It also came out that not only was he an overweight person but that he suffered from asthma.

From the information thus far given to the public about this incident and the death of this man, I can see no good and appropriate reasons for what the police did that brought about his death.


----------



## Sempervigilans

Steve, I wholeheartedly concur with you. And though I appreciate different points of view, I am becoming increasingly intolerant of this whole "shoot for the legs, shoot to wound" mentality that is constantly thrown around in arguments posed by people who have obviously never STOOD on their OWN two legs in a fight of any kind.


----------



## SouthernBoy

Sempervigilans said:


> Steve, I wholeheartedly concur with you. And though I appreciate different points of view, I am becoming increasingly intolerant of this whole "shoot for the legs, shoot to wound" mentality that is constantly thrown around in arguments posed by people who have obviously never STOOD on their OWN two legs in a fight of any kind.


There is no such thing as "shoot to wound" or "shoot to kill" in a defensive civilian shooting. The concept is "shoot to stop [or end] the threat". And while the BG may die from his wounds, that was not the intent of the victim. The intent must be to end the threat as quickly as possible so as not to suffer serious injury [or worse].


----------



## SailDesign

Steve M1911A1 said:


> *SailDesign*, if you'd like to further discuss that "shoot in the legs" business, I suggest that we begin an entirely new thread.
> The subject matter is as much one of shooting technique as it is of legal issues.
> 
> I suggest that it be discussed somewhere under the shooting-technique heading.


Deal. It didn't take long to find those ones, and since the UK cops never carried guns while I lived there I can only speak to what I read in the UK press. I can do more research, but am a bit pressed for time this week.


----------



## SailDesign

Sempervigilans said:


> Steve, I wholeheartedly concur with you. And though I appreciate different points of view, I am becoming increasingly intolerant of this whole "shoot for the legs, shoot to wound" mentality that is constantly thrown around in arguments posed by people who have obviously never STOOD on their OWN two legs in a fight of any kind.


And yet, it is practised in many places, apparently. It is not always successful, true, but neither are many "shot to kill" situations here.


----------



## BigCityChief

SouthernBoy said:


> There is no such thing as "shoot to wound" or "shoot to kill" in a defensive civilian shooting. The concept is "shoot to stop [or end] the threat". And while the BG may die from his wounds, that was not the intent of the victim. The intent must be to end the threat as quickly as possible so as not to suffer serious injury [or worse].


Exactly! Thank you, sir.


----------



## VAMarine

I know of one case where someone shot for legs to avoid lethality. Ended up hitting the femoral artery and dude died in seconds.


----------



## SouthernBoy

BigCityChief said:


> Exactly! Thank you, sir.


You're most welcome.

I'm not sure where the idea of "shoot to wound" and "shoot to kill" came from but I suspect it is a product of Hollywood. It sounds dramatic and final in its effect on audiences and they have probably come to believe these are real terms in the real world. But they are not where I live.

If you are placed in a situation where you believe you have to draw your sidearm, they the decision has already been taken by you that you are in serious or grave danger, warranting the use of deadly force. If you are not sure or do not believe you're in imminent danger of serious bodily harm, you leave your gun in its holster.

In the four classes/seminars I have taken on the laws of my state and the use of deadly force, it was made quite clear to us that if you hold the belief that you must use deadly force to stop an attack then you also hold the right to use that firearm in your defense... or the defense of another innocent party. That doesn't mean shooting to wound. That means firing until the threat has ended.


----------



## pic

IF you've reached the basic criteria according to MASSAD AYOOB .

Judicious Use Of Deadly Force: When Is It Appropriate?

for justifiable deadly force , it's in your best interest as a private party, to " SHOOT TO KILL " 
Dead men tell no lies.
Wounded men ( and Attorney ) will change the story every time.


----------



## SailDesign

pic said:


> IF you've reached the basic criteria according to MASSAD AYOOB .
> 
> Judicious Use Of Deadly Force: When Is It Appropriate?
> 
> for justifiable deadly force , it's in your best interest as a private party, to " SHOOT TO KILL "
> Dead men tell no lies.
> Wounded men ( and Attorney ) will change the story every time.


It's interesting that you look on it from the point of view of a CCW holder. I've been looking at it from the point of view of it being a LEO. The criteria SHOULD be different, in my opinion.


----------



## RK3369

SouthernBoy said:


> I agree. My wife and I were talking about this incident last night at dinner. Neither of use could come up with any viable reason for the actions of the police against this man. It also came out that not only was he an overweight person but that he suffered from asthma.
> 
> From the information thus far given to the public about this incident and the death of this man, I can see no good and appropriate reasons for what the police did that brought about his death.


Have to agree. Would they have reacted so strongly had the guy been walking down the sidewalk toking on a joint? I think not. The level of force used here to affect an arrest was in no way justified, imo. In fact, it is one of those crimes that are so petty (selling loose cigarettes), that the cops should have said, 'stop doing that", turned and walked away. This is kind of like the wolfpack mentality that smells an easy meal and everyone jumps in. They should have just walked away from this guy. Lots of bigger fish to fry out there.

This is truly the kind of policing mentality that is not justified. I am a strong supporter of law enforcement, but not when they do this kind of stuff. Sorry, this was just totally uncalled for, even if it was Arnold Schwarzenegger they were trying to take down. The level of the crime did not justify the level of response.


----------



## paratrooper

You never shoot to injure or kill. You shoot to stop.

Some years ago, I was involved in a trial where a cop (*NOT* me) was involved in a shooting.

Defense attorney was asking him questions, got him flustered, and the cop stated I shot to kill. He immediately corrected himself by saying shot to stop, but it was too late.

That was the tipping point when the trial began to go down hill.


----------



## RK3369

so was the question whether or not the use of deadly force was justified? I would think if the cop drew his service weapon, that bridge had already been crossed however a slick defense attorney may have been trying to show the use of excessive force. How did it end up?


----------



## SailDesign

Have to admit, with all this talk, I don't know how I'd react or how I'd want to react. As I don't carry, it is somewhat academic unless someone goes for at the range....


----------



## SouthernBoy

paratrooper said:


> *You never shoot to injure or kill. You shoot to stop.*
> 
> Some years ago, I was involved in a trial where a cop (*NOT* me) was involved in a shooting.
> 
> Defense attorney was asking him questions, got him flustered, and the cop stated I shot to kill. He immediately corrected himself by saying shot to stop, but it was too late.
> 
> That was the tipping point when the trial began to go down hill.


Exactly what I wrote above but some people just can't seem to understand this.


----------



## SouthernBoy

SailDesign said:


> Have to admit, with all this talk, I don't know how I'd react or how I'd want to react. As I don't carry, it is somewhat academic unless someone goes for at the range....


Truth be known no one can really say, with definitive certainty, how they will react in an extreme encounter... unless they have had a similar experience(s) in the past.

Us men are the worst at this. Some of us like to brag or come across as know-it-alls about what we would do to a perp if we had the chance. In reality, we might crap our pants and cry like a baby. You just cannot say with absolute certainty what you're going to do when you are suddenly and dramatically faced with the ultimate challenge LIKE RIGHT NOW; unless you have been faced with something like this before.


----------



## pic

paratrooper said:


> You never shoot to injure or kill. You shoot to stop.
> 
> Some years ago, I was involved in a trial where a cop (*NOT* me) was involved in a shooting.
> 
> Defense attorney was asking him questions, got him flustered, and the cop stated I shot to kill. He immediately corrected himself by saying shot to stop, but it was too late.
> 
> That was the tipping point when the trial began to go down hill.


Very good point. They could sure put a twist on that.
:smt023


----------



## SailDesign

SouthernBoy said:


> Truth be known no one can really say, with definitive certainty, how they will react in an extreme encounter... unless they have had a similar experience(s) in the past.
> 
> Us men are the worst at this. Some of us like to brag or come across as know-it-alls about what we would do to a perp if we had the chance. In reality, we might crap our pants and cry like a baby. You just cannot say with absolute certainty what you're going to do when you are suddenly and dramatically faced with the ultimate challenge LIKE RIGHT NOW; unless you have been faced with something like this before.


I was once told that the wisest 4-word phrase in the English language was "I do not know." I try to remind myself of that now and again.

I have no beef with those who carry (as long as they don't aim at me) but it is not my thing. Nor is it common where I live, and nor could I get a CCW here even if I wanted one. And I'm very happy with that. Anyone with a problem can go take a long walk on a short pier. 

What I canNOTabide are those who look only at their own history and circumstances and say that everyone else is wrong if they don't do exactly the same thing.


----------



## paratrooper

RK3369 said:


> so was the question whether or not the use of deadly force was justified? I would think if the cop drew his service weapon, that bridge had already been crossed however a slick defense attorney may have been trying to show the use of excessive force. How did it end up?


I can say this. It didn't end up as some would have hoped. It was a bad situation and we knew that going in.

Sometimes, it is what it is, and anything short of a miracle, it's gonna suck.


----------



## paratrooper

SouthernBoy said:


> Truth be known no one can really say, with definitive certainty, how they will react in an extreme encounter... unless they have had a similar experience(s) in the past.
> 
> Us men are the worst at this. Some of us like to brag or come across as know-it-alls about what we would do to a perp if we had the chance. In reality, we might crap our pants and cry like a baby. You just cannot say with absolute certainty what you're going to do when you are suddenly and dramatically faced with the ultimate challenge LIKE RIGHT NOW; unless you have been faced with something like this before.


Lots of police officers like what they are doing, until the day comes that they have to draw their service weapon and use it.

Things change at that point. Some continue to serve, only to let time take it's toll. Some can tough it out and make it work, others can't.


----------



## SouthernBoy

SailDesign said:


> *I was once told that the wisest 4-word phrase in the English language was "I do not know."* I try to remind myself of that now and again.
> 
> I have no beef with those who carry (as long as they don't aim at me) but it is not my thing. Nor is it common where I live, and nor could I get a CCW here even if I wanted one. And I'm very happy with that. Anyone with a problem can go take a long walk on a short pier.
> 
> What I canNOTabide are those who look only at their own history and circumstances and say that everyone else is wrong if they don't do exactly the same thing.


Good Lord, this must be a record. Again we agree on something. There is no shame, no shame at all in saying, "I don't know". In fact, it tends to improve one's credibility because it shows character and humility.


----------



## SouthernBoy

paratrooper said:


> Lots of police officers like what they are doing, until the day comes that they have to draw their service weapon and use it.
> 
> Things change at that point. Some continue to serve, only to let time take it's toll. Some can tough it out and make it work, others can't.


A neighbor of my youngest daughter, who lives three miles from me, is a Fairfax County LEO. I understand that he once had to fire on someone who was killed in the incident. It hasn't seemed to bother him from what I know of him. Apparently there was no question of his need to do this. But I really don't know any details at all, nor have I ever spoken with him about this.

He's still fairly young (40ish perhaps) and from all outward indications, a good man and a good cop. We have talked about firearms and citizens carrying them in the past. Of course, he has no problems with that. He's from New York state.


----------



## SailDesign

SouthernBoy said:


> Good Lord, this must be a record. Again we agree on something. There is no shame, no shame at all in saying, "I don't know". In fact, it tends to improve one's credibility because it shows character and humility.












"Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove any doubt." Or something like that - I forget who said it but it works.


----------



## SouthernBoy

Here's a video of a police shooting that happened several years ago (I've seen this one before). Do you think it was a good shoot?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=670841776267356&fref=nf


----------



## Goldwing

I didn't think so on my first look. On the second look, I heard the backup yell "gun!" On the third look I saw his right hand. Very good shoot!
Goldwing


----------



## VAMarine

The issue of shoot to kill vs shoot to stop is a matter of semantics. I remeber when. There was none of this shoot to stop stuff.

What's the surest way to stop someone by shooting them? A hit to the central nervous system causing immediate shut down aka death.

Actually getting a hit to the CNS is easier said and done which is why LE and concealed carriers aim for the thoracic triangle (upper chest cavity for heart and lung hits) in hopes of damaging blood and oxygen supply enough to stop the attacker. Now if you pilot three rounds into an attacker and you hit the heart a lung and let's say thr spleen. They are going to die without immediate medical attention. 

That is shooting to kill .... unless they get to a Dr PDQ.

Here is why we have to differentiate. 

Shoot to kill is easily taken as even if they survive (read as not immediately DEAD that you keep shooting until they are dead despite the threat having ceased.

Shoot to stop seems like your not trying to kill them aka "why don't you just shoot them in the leg"

Shooting ti stop is a mixture of both of those. You shoot vital zones of the attacker that should result in them becoming deceased and stop shooting when the threat ends. If the attavker is still alive when the threat ends you stop shooting.


----------



## TAPnRACK

SailDesign said:


> "Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove any doubt." Or something like that - I forget who said it but it works.


That city (Hell) is in Michigan... real place for those who care... not to be confused with Detroit.


----------



## paratrooper

TAPnRACK said:


> That city (Hell) is in Michigan... real place for those who care... not to be confused with Detroit.


Or.....Chicago. :watching:


----------



## SouthernBoy

VAMarine said:


> The issue of shoot to kill vs shoot to stop is a matter of semantics. I remeber when. There was none of this shoot to stop stuff.
> 
> What's the surest way to stop someone by shooting them? A hit to the central nervous system causing immediate shut down aka death.
> 
> Actually getting a hit to the CNS is easier said and done which is why LE and concealed carriers aim for the thoracic triangle (upper chest cavity for heart and lung hits) in hopes of damaging blood and oxygen supply enough to stop the attacker. Now if you pilot three rounds into an attacker and you hit the heart a lung and let's say thr spleen. They are going to die without immediate medical attention.
> 
> That is shooting to kill .... unless they get to a Dr PDQ.
> 
> Here is why we have to differentiate.
> 
> Shoot to kill is easily taken as even if they survive (read as not immediately DEAD that you keep shooting until they are dead despite the threat having ceased.
> 
> Shoot to stop seems like your not trying to kill them aka "why don't you just shoot them in the leg"
> 
> Shooting ti stop is a mixture of both of those. You shoot vital zones of the attacker that should result in them becoming deceased and stop shooting when the threat ends. If the attavker is still alive when the threat ends you stop shooting.


You might be missing my point with this, my friend. What follows is based upon the training I have received in my state for carry and our state laws regarding the use of deadly force.

The terms "shoot to kill" and "shoot to wound" do not used in these classes. Yes, questions arise because people watch movies and TV. But the use of these terms are discouraged because of legal reasons as much as factual ones. So one is definitely encouraged to avoid their use. If you are involved in a shooting and are true billed, there is a very strong chance that an ambitious prosecutor may try to trip you up by asking, "Did you shoot to kill Mr. Jones, did you mean to kill him?" to which you may very well answer in the affirmative. Better to think, "shoot to stop the attack". And it directly relates to the law in that once the threat ends, you must cease your response.

Is it semantics? Not really because words do have meaning... and often repercussions as well. Is there a difference? Yes there is... in reportable intent and actions. Is the perp likely to die in either case? If the hits are good ones and do their job, there is a strong chance he is going to expire for the reasons you gave which is, in order to stop an attack you have to be able to deliver effective rounds to your target to stop his attack. That means the areas you pointed out need to be badly damaged.

So really, it kinda boils down to legalese in our overly sensitive and sue-happy culture. Not really PC but you might say "cleanly".


----------



## paratrooper

VAMarine said:


> The issue of shoot to kill vs shoot to stop is a matter of semantics. I remeber when. There was none of this shoot to stop stuff.
> 
> What's the surest way to stop someone by shooting them? A hit to the central nervous system causing immediate shut down aka death.
> 
> Actually getting a hit to the CNS is easier said and done which is why LE and concealed carriers aim for the thoracic triangle (upper chest cavity for heart and lung hits) in hopes of damaging blood and oxygen supply enough to stop the attacker. Now if you pilot three rounds into an attacker and you hit the heart a lung and let's say thr spleen. They are going to die without immediate medical attention.
> 
> That is shooting to kill .... unless they get to a Dr PDQ.
> 
> Here is why we have to differentiate.
> 
> Shoot to kill is easily taken as even if they survive (read as not immediately DEAD that you keep shooting until they are dead despite the threat having ceased.
> 
> Shoot to stop seems like your not trying to kill them aka "why don't you just shoot them in the leg"
> 
> Shooting ti stop is a mixture of both of those. You shoot vital zones of the attacker that should result in them becoming deceased and stop shooting when the threat ends. If the attavker is still alive when the threat ends you stop shooting.


I can still remember when it wasn't a big deal to have your finger on the trigger.

Now.....even the ISIS terrorists are proud to show that their finger is straight and alongside the receiver on their firearm.


----------



## SouthernBoy

goldwing said:


> I didn't think so on my first look. On the second look, I heard the backup yell "gun!" On the third look I saw his right hand. Very good shoot!
> Goldwing


Good catch. At first glance, most people probably think it was a bad shoot. I thought this too when I first saw it several years ago. Great reaction by the officers and good shooting to end something that could have gone very bad for one of them.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

Here's a discussion, which I've just started, of the legal and technical issues which refute *SailDesign*'s dictum of "Shoot him in the legs."

Click on: http://www.handgunforum.net/tactics-technique/41419-shoot-him-legs.html#post329900


----------



## BackyardCowboy

VAMarine said:


> The issue of shoot to kill vs shoot to stop is a matter of semantics. I remeber when. There was none of this shoot to stop stuff.
> 
> What's the surest way to stop someone by shooting them? A hit to the central nervous system causing immediate shut down aka death.
> 
> Actually getting a hit to the CNS is easier said and done which is why LE and concealed carriers aim for the thoracic triangle (upper chest cavity for heart and lung hits) in hopes of damaging blood and oxygen supply enough to stop the attacker. Now if you pilot three rounds into an attacker and you hit the heart a lung and let's say thr spleen. They are going to die without immediate medical attention.
> 
> That is shooting to kill .... unless they get to a Dr PDQ.
> 
> Here is why we have to differentiate.
> 
> Shoot to kill is easily taken as even if they survive (read as not immediately DEAD that you keep shooting until they are dead despite the threat having ceased.
> 
> Shoot to stop seems like your not trying to kill them aka "why don't you just shoot them in the leg"
> 
> Shooting ti stop is a mixture of both of those. You shoot vital zones of the attacker that should result in them becoming deceased and stop shooting when the threat ends. If the attavker is still alive when the threat ends you stop shooting.


It's semantics because of lawyers. "Shooting to kill" means you always wanted a chance to kill someone. Not taking into account just how difficult shoot to wound is. (and they're more likely to sue if you only wound them.) "Shooting to stop" means you are a nicer person (or can aim better) who sends flowers to his/her mother on Mother's day.


----------



## Goldwing

SailDesign said:


> YOU find it "calls the issue to the forefront" I find it intentionally misleading and doesn't help anything but some teenage-minded basement-dweller who gets a chuckle from it. You owuld be amazed the number of people who think this is real. Because that's how they perceive black people to act. This is called "racial profiling" and whether you're a cop or a commentator, it's wrong.
> 
> Whether you want to admit it or not profiling is something that we all do to some degree. It is a natural survival instinct that is deemed to not be politically correct by you so you say it is wrong. That's why we have Grandma being detained at airport security while Hadji walks right through. Oh heaven forbid we take a second look at the person who resembles the vast majority of the terrorists on Earth. Do you think that you wouldn't be profiled in an instant in the Middle East? If not maybe You should go over and check it out. Even little kids know enough to be afraid of mean dogs. Those who don't suffer terribly.
> Goldwing


----------



## SailDesign

goldwing said:


> SailDesign said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU find it "calls the issue to the forefront" I find it intentionally misleading and doesn't help anything but some teenage-minded basement-dweller who gets a chuckle from it. You owuld be amazed the number of people who think this is real. Because that's how they perceive black people to act. This is called "racial profiling" and whether you're a cop or a commentator, it's wrong.
> 
> Whether you want to admit it or not profiling is something that we all do to some degree. It is a natural survival instinct that is deemed to not be politically correct by you so you say it is wrong. That's why we have Grandma being detained at airport security while Hadji walks right through. Oh heaven forbid we take a second look at the person who resembles the vast majority of the terrorists on Earth. Do you think that you wouldn't be profiled in an instant in the Middle East? If not maybe You should go over and check it out. Even little kids know enough to be afraid of mean dogs. Those who don't suffer terribly.
> Goldwing
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not denying I would be profiled in the Middle East. That's why the State Dept warns against traveling in some regions there. OK - LOTs of regions.
> 
> Do we wish we wouldn't be profiled? Yes, we do. Why is it so hard to wish not have others profiled here?
Click to expand...


----------



## Goldwing

In my humble but not changing opinion, profiling is a necessary and positive thing. I am saying that people should use their power of observation to help sort the bad guys from the good. That can be done to people of all races. I am not going to stick my head in the sand and ignore any signs that someone near me may be about to do bad things. As a civilian I can be overt about my thoughts on profiling. I think that the lawmen out there might feel a little more constrained on the subject.
Goldwing


----------



## SailDesign

goldwing said:


> In my humble but not changing opinion, profiling is a necessary and positive thing. I am saying that people should use their power of observation to help sort the bad guys from the good. That can be done to people of all races. I am not going to stick my head in the sand and ignore any signs that someone near me may be about to do bad things. As a civilian I can be overt about my thoughts on profiling. I think that the lawmen out there might feel a little more constrained on the subject.
> Goldwing


Hmmm... I think we may be speaking at cross purposes here. You're talking about using your observation - I'm talking about assuming that anyone in a particular sub-group shares a common series of traits. That what I call a "profile". Looking at them and making a judgement is a different beast in my book. And I do it all the time even with the WASPs around here.


----------



## Goldwing

SailDesign said:


> Hmmm... I think we may be speaking at cross purposes here. You're talking about using your observation - I'm talking about assuming that anyone in a particular sub-group shares a common series of traits. That what I call a "profile". Looking at them and making a judgement is a different beast in my book. And I do it all the time even with the WASPs around here.


Sounds like profiling and stereotyping are first cousins, just as hatred and bigotry are first cousins. I can count on the first, the latter are repugnant and only cloud your judgement.
Goldwing


----------



## SailDesign

This is a definition I agree with, from Googles "dictionary" function.



> ra·cial pro·fil·ing
> noun US
> the use of race or ethnicity as grounds for suspecting someone of having committed an offense.


Anything involving observation is a personal opinion


----------



## PT111Pro

And if we not looking the liberals creating a Union for professional black street mobsters and gangsters .
Is robbing, killing of ordenary poeople a liberal right?


----------



## Goldwing

Google should amend that by adding "or are about to commit an offense"
Goldwing


----------



## PT111Pro

But you know guys, 10 years ago a guy with such a poster would be interigated by police. No it would no profiling, he said what he is. A Mobster that will government protection during his robberies.


----------



## SailDesign

PT111Pro said:


> And if we not looking the liberals creating a Union for professional black street mobsters and gangsters .
> Is robbing, killing of ordenary poeople a liberal right?


Still ranting about "liberals...." <sigh>


----------



## PT111Pro

@Sail
I told you before, it was not me that had occupied the word liberal for their goals.

Now only that you understand and I told you before. I myself like to think about me as a liberal conservative. That has absolutely nothing to do with liberals how it is understood today.

First they called themselves Marxists. As soon the people understand what that is it took Millions of dead Rumanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, they changed and called it all of a sudden Bolsheviks. 
This become very soon very ugly and they changed to the word communist because the Bolsheviks murderers cost again Millions of Russian and Ukraine, Lithuanian etc. life. 
Well – that took not long until the people realized what a communist really is and that’s only the ugly face of the Marxist-Bolsheviks. They was called that for a while by people that understood what it is. 
At the same time they changed their name from communist to socialist. That was the time of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pott, etc.. They called the nations than National socialistic, or Czechoslovak social democracy, or than Ulbricht called it the first real existing socialistic system GDR etc. Well the people realized what that is and so they called themselves than humanists because the people knew too well what a socialist really is a Marxist-Bolshevik nothing else.
That was the time of Rosa Luxemburg, Habermass and others. What it really is the name humanist was the same old Marxist-Bolshevik system than from the beginning. Well and then they had to change again and called themselves liberals. Now slowly the people realize what is really in that liberalism and the so called liberal leaders are already moving on to the word progressive. Only some ignorants need some time for the switch when they even able to switch in their lifetime again. Sure is in 10 years no one will use the word liberal anymore and you call have to call yourself than progressive when you will follow that system and real liberals are liberals again.

I have explained that for you before. I am not against liberals because I myself think I am a liberal. But I am not a liberal in the way it get thought on schools and in the media. I am not a Marxist-Bolshevik. Only if I would youse the real word for this system, no one in the US would understand what I mean. 

So don’t tell me I am against liberals. I am against that system that have killed 100 of Millions of people in Millions of different ways and will in the future again cost the life of Millions and Millions of peoples life. 

But not only Lenin knew. Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## SailDesign

PT111Pro said:


> @Sail
> I told you before, it was not me that had occupied the word liberal for their goals.
> 
> Now only that you understand and I told you before. I myself like to think about me as a liberal conservative. That has absolutely nothing to do with liberals how it is understood today.
> 
> First they called themselves Marxists. As soon the people understand what that is it took Millions of dead Rumanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, they changed and called it all of a sudden Bolsheviks.
> This become very soon very ugly and they changed to the word communist because the Bolsheviks murderers cost again Millions of Russian and Ukraine, Lithuanian etc. life.
> Well - that took not long until the people realized what a communist really is and that's only the ugly face of the Marxist-Bolsheviks. They was called that for a while by people that understood what it is.
> At the same time they changed their name from communist to socialist. That was the time of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pott, etc.. They called the nations than National socialistic, or Czechoslovak social democracy, or than Ulbricht called it the first real existing socialistic system GDR etc. Well the people realized what that is and so they called themselves than humanists because the people knew too well what a socialist really is a Marxist-Bolshevik nothing else.
> That was the time of Rosa Luxemburg, Habermass and others. What it really is the name humanist was the same old Marxist-Bolshevik system than from the beginning. Well and then they had to change again and called themselves liberals. Now slowly the people realize what is really in that liberalism and the so called liberal leaders are already moving on to the word progressive. Only some ignorants need some time for the switch when they even able to switch in their lifetime again. Sure is in 10 years no one will use the word liberal anymore and you call have to call yourself than progressive when you will follow that system and real liberals are liberals again.
> 
> I have explained that for you before. I am not against liberals because I myself think I am a liberal. But I am not a liberal in the way it get thought on schools and in the media. I am not a Marxist-Bolshevik. Only if I would youse the real word for this system, no one in the US would understand what I mean.
> 
> So don't tell me I am against liberals. I am against that system that have killed 100 of Millions of people in Millions of different ways and will in the future again cost the life of Millions and Millions of peoples life.
> 
> But not only Lenin knew. Ignorance is bliss.


You need to stop referring to Communists as Liberals - and vice versa. They are NOT the same. Although I realise Texans do feel that way sometimes.


----------



## PT111Pro

> Sail
> You need to stop referring to Communists as Liberals - and vice versa. They are NOT the same. Although I realise Texans do feel that way sometimes.


Yes they are, no doubt. Liberals in todays system are Marxist-Bolsheviks. Marxist-Bolsheviks have no other choice than hiding behind a well established idiom. They move on as soon the people realize who is behind it. After they moved on than the word liberal, human, social, comes back to the true meaning that this idiom had before not earlier. Today you can talk free of politics about a humanist, you could not do that 15 years ago when the todays liberal used the word humanist to hide themselfes behind it.
Like I said. Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## SailDesign

PT111Pro said:


> Yes they are, no doubt. Liberals in todays system are Marxist-Bolsheviks. Marxist-Bolsheviks have no other choice than hiding behind a well established idiom. They move on as soon the people realize who is behind it. After they moved on than the word liberal, human, social, comes back to the true meaning that this idiom had before not earlier. Today you can talk free of politics about a humanist, you could not do that 15 years ago when the todays liberal used the word humanist to hide themselfes behind it.
> Like I said. Ignorance is bliss.


Then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.


----------



## PT111Pro

I guess we do that.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

PT111Pro;
I suggest that you are confusing *l*iberals with *L*iberals, and you are also confusing liberals and Liberals with Progressives and Socialists.
• A "small-l" liberal is merely someone who believes that everyone is entitled to his own opinion and his own way of living his life, without any interference from "big government" or social regulators or "the morals police." A sure mark of the small-l liberal is the call for "equality of opportunity."
• A "big-L" Liberal is someone who subscribes to either the tenets and methods of the Liberal Political Party, or, if no specific Liberal Party exists, to the tenets and methods of the political party which considers itself to be Liberal (_e.g._, today's Democratic Party). Note that there exists some amount of interbreeding, or at least crossover, in the first three definitions ("liberal," "Liberal," and "Progressive").
• A Progressive is someone who believes that for human society to, well, progress, it needs to be guided from above by the superior intellects of the time. Note that these guiding "superior intellects" are always self-appointed, often rich, sometimes elected officials, and usually associated with both "Political Correctness" and the morals police. A sure mark of the Progressive is the call for "equality of outcome."
• A socialist is someone who requires government to construct "equality of outcome," regardless of the desires of the people. In the past, this "equality of outcome" applies evenhandedly to all...that is, to all except the superior intellects, the leaders of the government and the nation, who always know best what is good for you.
• Oh, yes-I forgot...and a Communist is a socialist who has gone mad with power.


----------



## PT111Pro

Hmm is that so? OK than you right than is that so.


----------



## SouthernBoy

Steve;

Don't forget the German Nazi party under Hitler. Most people think this organization was far right but that's not correct. They were far left and better described as fascist socialism. Remember, Nazi = National Socialist German Worker's Party.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

SouthernBoy said:


> Steve;
> 
> Don't forget the German Nazi party under Hitler. Most people this this organization was far right but that's not correct. They were far left and better described as fascist socialism. Remember, Nazi = National Socialist German Worker's Party.


Someone politically much wiser than I once illustrated the political continuum by describing it as an almost-complete circle, rather than a straight line.
We tend to think of a straight line because we relegate political parties to the Left, Center, and Right. This illustration doesn't always work, witness your comment about the National-Socialist German Workers' Party (_Nazis_).

Visualize the political spectrum as an almost-complete circle, with only a very small gap at its very bottom. Libertarian liberalism is at the very top of the curve, while to its left lie (in order, going downward) Liberalism, Progressivism, Utilitarianism, Socialism, and finally Russian-style Communism. To its right lie (also in the same order, going down) Republicanism, Greek-style Democracy, Authoritarianism, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Fascism, and Naziism. Generally speaking-although the concept isn't perfect, since the "diameters" are really chords-equivalencies lie diametrically across from one-another on the circle.
Now the close relationship between Russian Communism and German Naziism becomes usefully apparent: They both occupy their own extreme ends of the circular line, immediately across the tiny bottom-most gap from one-another.


----------



## SailDesign

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Someone politically much wiser than I once illustrated the political continuum by describing it as an almost-complete circle, rather than a straight line.
> We tend to think of a straight line because we relegate political parties to the Left, Center, and Right. This illustration doesn't always work, witness your comment about the National-Socialist German Workers' Party (_Nazis_).
> 
> Visualize the political spectrum as an almost-complete circle, with only a very small gap at its very bottom. Libertarian liberalism is at the very top of the curve, while to its left lie (in order, going downward) Liberalism, Progressivism, Utilitarianism, Socialism, and finally Russian-style Communism. To its right lie (also in the same order, going down) Republicanism, Greek-style Democracy, Authoritarianism, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Fascism, and Naziism. Generally speaking-although the concept isn't perfect, since the "diameters" are really chords-equivalencies lie diametrically across from one-another on the circle.
> Now the close relationship between Russian Communism and German Naziism becomes usefully apparent: They both occupy their own extreme ends of the circular line, immediately across the tiny bottom-most gap from one-another.


You have WAY too much thinking time on your hands. 

But Yes, it works.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

SailDesign said:


> You have WAY too much thinking time on your hands...


Sigh! Such is retirement.
What else is there for me to do? All my "honey-do"s were done long ago.
I'm too old and creaky to climb up onto the roof and clear the gutters or ream the chimneys. Somebody does that for us now.
It takes me less than 15 minutes to stock the house with wood and start the fire, or-on cold days-fires.
So I think political thoughts, and I think back over the tactical and legal lessons I've learned, and I write stuff on forums. Oh, yeah-and I read _Pibgorn_, _Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal_, and _XKCD_. (Try them. You'll like them.)

Just you wait: It's coming to you soon, too.


----------



## TheReaper

goldwing said:


> In my humble but not changing opinion, profiling is a necessary and positive thing. I am saying that people should use their power of observation to help sort the bad guys from the good. That can be done to people of all races. I am not going to stick my head in the sand and ignore any signs that someone near me may be about to do bad things. As a civilian I can be overt about my thoughts on profiling. I think that the lawmen out there might feel a little more constrained on the subject.
> Goldwing


Thank you............... I am always aware of my surroundings.


----------



## PT111Pro

@The Reaper
Thanx for posting. True. In today's world we are not allowed to think. Its like telling a deer to ignore a Lion because of unfair profiling issues. But that is what you actually get ask for. Who says otherwise is a enemy of the nation at least the enemy of the democrat part of it. 
Never forget, Muslimism and Liberalism = peace.


----------



## SouthernBoy

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Someone politically much wiser than I once illustrated the political continuum by describing it as an almost-complete circle, rather than a straight line.
> We tend to think of a straight line because we relegate political parties to the Left, Center, and Right. This illustration doesn't always work, witness your comment about the National-Socialist German Workers' Party (_Nazis_).
> 
> Visualize the political spectrum as an almost-complete circle, with only a very small gap at its very bottom. Libertarian liberalism is at the very top of the curve, while to its left lie (in order, going downward) Liberalism, Progressivism, Utilitarianism, Socialism, and finally Russian-style Communism. To its right lie (also in the same order, going down) Republicanism, Greek-style Democracy, Authoritarianism, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Fascism, and Naziism. Generally speaking-although the concept isn't perfect, since the "diameters" are really chords-equivalencies lie diametrically across from one-another on the circle.
> Now the close relationship between Russian Communism and German Naziism becomes usefully apparent: They both occupy their own extreme ends of the circular line, immediately across the tiny bottom-most gap from one-another.


It is a circle, Steve. The linear description is useful when trying to graphically illustrate the differences between the historical political systems because it offers a measure of clarity. However if you go far enough on either side, you wind up with a form of totalitarianism and despotism. Total control over the populous.


----------



## SouthernBoy

goldwing said:


> In my humble but not changing opinion, profiling is a necessary and positive thing. I am saying that people should use their power of observation to help sort the bad guys from the good. That can be done to people of all races. I am not going to stick my head in the sand and ignore any signs that someone near me may be about to do bad things. As a civilian I can be overt about my thoughts on profiling. I think that the lawmen out there might feel a little more constrained on the subject.
> Goldwing


Profiling, in one form or another, is a very good thing, is instinctive, and is a method of self-preservation. Even the numerous beasts of the earth do this. And the funny thing is that just like priorities, the level and scope of profiling can change on an instant for any one of a number or reasons or a bunch of them.

SailDesign is hung up on the idea of profiling using race or ethnic differences as the target of one's profile. But even that is fine. If you know that certain profile types living in certain areas have proven to have a rather high probability of criminal activity, you'd have to be a fool not to take this into consideration. Either a fool or someone who is bound and determined NOT to have the label of "profiler" attached to them at almost any cost.

There is an incident that comes to mind in just this climate. Some years back, maybe 20 or so, Jesse Jackson was walking back to his home (or temporary residence) late at night not far from the Capital in DC. Out of nowhere, he heard footsteps behind him and as he quickened his pace, so did those footsteps. When he reached his door, he later told someone that he was relieved to find that those footsteps belonged to a white person. Profiling, anyone? Hypocrisy, anyone? Reality, anyone?


----------



## SailDesign

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Sigh! Such is retirement.
> What else is there for me to do? All my "honey-do"s were done long ago.
> I'm too old and creaky to climb up onto the roof and clear the gutters or ream the chimneys. Somebody does that for us now.
> It takes me less than 15 minutes to stock the house with wood and start the fire, or-on cold days-fires.
> So I think political thoughts, and I think back over the tactical and legal lessons I've learned, and I write stuff on forums. Oh, yeah-and I read _Pibgorn_, _Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal_, and _XKCD_. (Try them. You'll like them.)
> 
> Just you wait: It's coming to you soon, too.


Heh! xkcd every morning. SinFest.net as well (you might want to start at the beginning and work your way through - it's complicated in spots)
Creaky? got that already.  As long as the boss keeps giving me raises to cover the extra expenses of chimney-reaming, etc, I'm good until retirement (5 to 10 years away now...)


----------



## SouthernBoy

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Sigh! Such is retirement.
> What else is there for me to do? All my "honey-do"s were done long ago.
> I'm too old and creaky to climb up onto the roof and clear the gutters or ream the chimneys. Somebody does that for us now.
> It takes me less than 15 minutes to stock the house with wood and start the fire, or-on cold days-fires.
> So I think political thoughts, and I think back over the tactical and legal lessons I've learned, and I write stuff on forums. Oh, yeah-and I read _Pibgorn_, _Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal_, and _XKCD_. (Try them. You'll like them.)
> 
> Just you wait: It's coming to you soon, too.


Retirement is a wonderful thing... with the exception of one outstanding issue. In most cases, you have to have reached the final quarter to third of your life to get there. It's a constant whisper that you're getting closer and closer to that great barrier between this life and what follows it.

However as long as you maintain a healthy perspective and a positive outlook on life, retirement can become some of the best years of your life. It's so nice not to have to deal with unreasonable deadlines, tight schedules, problematic bosses, uncompromising customers, and creeping requirements. No more, "We need to to stick around tonight because the system went down in ______ just in case your software was affected".

I don't miss work at all. With some folks, their whole life has been wrapped around their work. Not me. It was a very easy transition from work to non-work. Yep, retirement is fun and a heck of a lot better than going nuts five+ days a week.


----------



## pic

TAPnRACK said:


> That city (Hell) is in Michigan... real place for those who care... not to be confused with Detroit.


Yes we understand. Detroit is not in Michigan 
:smt033


----------



## paratrooper

pic said:


> Yes we understand. Detroit is not in Michigan
> :smt033


Nor is Paris in Texas, except the one that is.


----------

