darkwolf45 wrote:Hmac wrote:Sounds like an attitude representing a good recipe for a road rage incident. Or worse.
A right to be in a given place does not equal a right to cause or wantonly escalate a conflict to violence.
Exactly.
darkwolf45 wrote:Hmac wrote:Sounds like an attitude representing a good recipe for a road rage incident. Or worse.
A right to be in a given place does not equal a right to cause or wantonly escalate a conflict to violence.
Hmac wrote:darkwolf45 wrote:Hmac wrote:Sounds like an attitude representing a good recipe for a road rage incident. Or worse.
A right to be in a given place does not equal a right to cause or wantonly escalate a conflict to violence.
Exactly.
Heffay wrote:Yeah, but how is anyone supposed to know how tough he is if he doesn't beat his chest on an Internet forum?
darkwolf45 wrote:Hmac wrote:Sounds like an attitude representing a good recipe for a road rage incident. Or worse.
A right to be in a given place does not equal a right to cause or wantonly escalate a conflict to violence.
hkrada wrote:You gals don't have to defend your rights if you don't want to. But you don't get to say standing your ground is escalating violence because everyone else doesn't share your yellow streak.
hkrada wrote:darkwolf45 wrote:Hmac wrote:Sounds like an attitude representing a good recipe for a road rage incident. Or worse.
A right to be in a given place does not equal a right to cause or wantonly escalate a conflict to violence.
You gals don't have to defend your rights if you don't want to. But you don't get to say standing your ground is escalating violence because everyone else doesn't share your yellow streak.
jshuberg wrote:While individual people do have the right to police their neighborhoods, follow and survail people who appear suspicious, question a person, perform citizens arrests, etc. its simply not a very good idea to do these things. Police have radios, backup, and much more training than the average person. They have the power of the state backing them, their department, their union, etc. While engaging in "police-like" activities may be perfectly lawful, by doing so you're taking a significant physical and legal risk. Calling the police and letting them deal with it is the much smarter approach whenever possible. Conflict avoidance and deescalation should always be the rule of thumb.
I have a student that performed a citizens arrest outside a bar a year or so ago. He physically restrained the individual, causing him injury in order to facilitate the citizens arrest. While I applaud his desire to break up a bad situation and arrest the bad guy, he had no idea the legal risks he was exposing himself to by doing so. Fortunately (and shockingly) the bad guy didn't lawyer up, so my friend wasn't sued, but it could have completely ruined him financially. After explaining the legal risks he exposed himself to, he seems much less likely to do the same thing again. Even a barely competent public defender would question the legality of the arrest when they discover that it was just some guy, and the legal costs you'll incur defending your actions in civil if not criminal court would likely be significant.
If I see someone I suspect is a bad guy, I'm *not* going to approach him, or do anything that would cause him to take additional notice of me. There's no upside for me in doing so. He's either not a bad guy, and nothing happens, or I'll find myself face to face with a now defensive bad guy, and the likelihood for violence has increased significantly. I'd much prefer to make the 911 call and have someone else take out the trash for me, there are very few situations where unnecessarily involving myself won't turn out badly for me in some way. It's just the smart choice.
That being said, if a person does the opposite, and injects himself into a situation that becomes violent, he's legally blameless for any resulting violence provided everything he did was lawful. Stupid doesn't necessarily mean unlawful.
hkrada wrote:darkwolf45 wrote:Hmac wrote:Sounds like an attitude representing a good recipe for a road rage incident. Or worse.
A right to be in a given place does not equal a right to cause or wantonly escalate a conflict to violence.
You gals don't have to defend your rights if you don't want to. But you don't get to say standing your ground is escalating violence because everyone else doesn't share your yellow streak.
XDM45 wrote:jshuberg wrote:While individual people do have the right to police their neighborhoods, follow and survail people who appear suspicious, question a person, perform citizens arrests, etc. its simply not a very good idea to do these things. Police have radios, backup, and much more training than the average person. They have the power of the state backing them, their department, their union, etc. While engaging in "police-like" activities may be perfectly lawful, by doing so you're taking a significant physical and legal risk. Calling the police and letting them deal with it is the much smarter approach whenever possible. Conflict avoidance and deescalation should always be the rule of thumb.
I have a student that performed a citizens arrest outside a bar a year or so ago. He physically restrained the individual, causing him injury in order to facilitate the citizens arrest. While I applaud his desire to break up a bad situation and arrest the bad guy, he had no idea the legal risks he was exposing himself to by doing so. Fortunately (and shockingly) the bad guy didn't lawyer up, so my friend wasn't sued, but it could have completely ruined him financially. After explaining the legal risks he exposed himself to, he seems much less likely to do the same thing again. Even a barely competent public defender would question the legality of the arrest when they discover that it was just some guy, and the legal costs you'll incur defending your actions in civil if not criminal court would likely be significant.
If I see someone I suspect is a bad guy, I'm *not* going to approach him, or do anything that would cause him to take additional notice of me. There's no upside for me in doing so. He's either not a bad guy, and nothing happens, or I'll find myself face to face with a now defensive bad guy, and the likelihood for violence has increased significantly. I'd much prefer to make the 911 call and have someone else take out the trash for me, there are very few situations where unnecessarily involving myself won't turn out badly for me in some way. It's just the smart choice.
That being said, if a person does the opposite, and injects himself into a situation that becomes violent, he's legally blameless for any resulting violence provided everything he did was lawful. Stupid doesn't necessarily mean unlawful.
I agree. You need to protect yourself legally since we live in such a litigious society.
Heffay wrote:hkrada wrote:
You gals don't have to defend your rights if you don't want to. But you don't get to say standing your ground is escalating violence because everyone else doesn't share your yellow streak.
Hah! He took it to 11. He called us yellow!
That sure showed us. I feel like some bully just kicked sand in my face at the beach and stole my girlfriend.
Hmac wrote:Heffay wrote:hkrada wrote:
You gals don't have to defend your rights if you don't want to. But you don't get to say standing your ground is escalating violence because everyone else doesn't share your yellow streak.
Hah! He took it to 11. He called us yellow!
That sure showed us. I feel like some bully just kicked sand in my face at the beach and stole my girlfriend.
As in blowhard. Internet poser.
hkrada wrote:
I thought trolls had thicker skin? oh well.
Hmac wrote:hkrada wrote:
I thought trolls had thicker skin? oh well.
You should go practice drawing your pistol while driving on the Interstate. Somebody could cut you off in traffic and you would hate to be unprepared for an appropriate response.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests