Moderators: carlson1, Keith B, Charles L. Cotton
That's a good question.OldSchool wrote:I finally have to ask: What did he mean by "I'm going to live in this car"?
Read it as as "I get to LIVE in this car, or die outside of it." He chose "live."OldSchool wrote:I finally have to ask: What did he mean by "I'm going to live in this car"? I have thought of several possible meanings, none of which makes sense.
seamusTX wrote: The man has unplumbed literary depths.
Best line in the entire thread!!
The highlighted make me think they had some background that taught them how to respond. Probably thought you were a LEO. I think if I saw what they were doing I would have gone to passenger side first or went back to the store. But then again hind sight is 20/20. We all like to think we know what we would do in a situation but until we are in it we don't know. This why we trained in the Army so we would have something to fall back on.Upon presentation of sidearm, "His eyes got as big as saucers and he said, 'I'm going to live in this car.' He then quickly drew back into the cab, shut the door and put his hands on the console. He stared straight ahead; so did the driver."
If you haven't already read them, I would recommend the following:VoiceofReason wrote:Is this common?
Excaliber, While I agree that the ability to compartmentalize ones emotions while under great stress is a special gift, It is not one that is unique only to warriors. Those of us that work in the medial profession must be able to to do the same thing. In fact, anyone that works in a high stress environment where you see the worst that society and life has to offer must be able to control and suppress their emotions during the event. I have seen what happens when someone does not have the ability to suppress their emotions, and it aint pretty.Excaliber wrote:The emotional experience aspect is a bit different. LEO's see a great deal of trauma of all types. Most of us learn to reflexively suppress our emotional responses during an incident because allowing them to spill out would seriously interfere with doing what we need to do right then. If we're lucky (like when we can talk about these things with trusted people like our spouse, close coworkers, etc) and have other non work related interests we engage in often, we're able to deal with the feelings soon afterward when we can afford to sort them out and decompress. When this sequence takes place, in most cases we'll bounce back pretty well. There's nothing wrong with remaining mentally and spiritually healthy while doing things that would tear up many folks for good with one exposure, and doing them over and over during the couple of decades of a police career. It's a special gift to be able to do that, and one that's unique to warriors.
You might need to re-read his story. He said he parked far away from the store ( as I do), so most likely no other cars were around. And,k if you know history of the area you wouldn't hesitate to draw. As far as retreating, read the Castle Doctrine, you don't have to. If you feel threatened, draw!!!The Annoyed Man wrote:I'm not going to criticize. I wasn't there, and I might very well have reacted the same way you did. But, several thoughts do occur to me.
The first is that, if they really intended harm, it seems that their best tactic would have been to pull up behind your car, blocking you in. Pulling into the space next to yours, particularly since the driver never got out, but only the passenger, seems counter-intuitive for a developing assault. It would make it more difficult for them to get out of their vehicle to attack you, and it would make them as much trapped by narrow spaces as it did to you. OTH, if they stop across the back of your car, they have you boxed in; they enjoy the tactical advantage; and they are better situated for a quick getaway.
For those reasons, it seems purely in hindsight that the passenger was more likely going to try to hit you up for some money for gas or some other nonsense. You point out that both men were african-americans, but the intimidating factor seems to to be the sheer size of the passenger, rather than his race (hopefully).
Hindsight being 20/20, is it at all possible that the intimidation was due more to the passenger's size than to any purposefully threatening action on his part?
Just because the law states that you don't have to retreat doesn't mean that you shouldn't given the proper circumstance. There could be multiple reasons one would want to retreat; the one that comes to mind first is the idea that by retreating you might be able to put an immovable object between yourself and the BG. In the situation of the OP he could have moved behind another vehicle to block direct access to himself by the BG. Just because the law says you don't have to do something doesn't mean that you should never do it.jeelliott71 wrote:You might need to re-read his story. He said he parked far away from the store ( as I do), so most likely no other cars were around. And,k if you know history of the area you wouldn't hesitate to draw. As far as retreating, read the Castle Doctrine, you don't have to. If you feel threatened, draw!!!The Annoyed Man wrote:I'm not going to criticize. I wasn't there, and I might very well have reacted the same way you did. But, several thoughts do occur to me.
The first is that, if they really intended harm, it seems that their best tactic would have been to pull up behind your car, blocking you in. Pulling into the space next to yours, particularly since the driver never got out, but only the passenger, seems counter-intuitive for a developing assault. It would make it more difficult for them to get out of their vehicle to attack you, and it would make them as much trapped by narrow spaces as it did to you. OTH, if they stop across the back of your car, they have you boxed in; they enjoy the tactical advantage; and they are better situated for a quick getaway.
For those reasons, it seems purely in hindsight that the passenger was more likely going to try to hit you up for some money for gas or some other nonsense. You point out that both men were african-americans, but the intimidating factor seems to to be the sheer size of the passenger, rather than his race (hopefully).
Hindsight being 20/20, is it at all possible that the intimidation was due more to the passenger's size than to any purposefully threatening action on his part?
Or to get closer to your trunk gun.hheremtp wrote:Just because the law states that you don't have to retreat doesn't mean that you shouldn't given the proper circumstance. There could be multiple reasons one would want to retreat; the one that comes to mind first is the idea that by retreating you might be able to put an immovable object between yourself and the BG.
That too!KD5NRH wrote:Or to get closer to your trunk gun.hheremtp wrote:Just because the law states that you don't have to retreat doesn't mean that you shouldn't given the proper circumstance. There could be multiple reasons one would want to retreat; the one that comes to mind first is the idea that by retreating you might be able to put an immovable object between yourself and the BG.
Hherempt, you and I are on the same page here, and I should have elaborated that the term "warrior" isn't exclusive to those who work with weapons.hheremtp wrote:Excaliber, While I agree that the ability to compartmentalize ones emotions while under great stress is a special gift, It is not one that is unique only to warriors. Those of us that work in the medial profession must be able to to do the same thing. In fact, anyone that works in a high stress environment where you see the worst that society and life has to offer must be able to control and suppress their emotions during the event. I have seen what happens when someone does not have the ability to suppress their emotions, and it aint pretty.Excaliber wrote:The emotional experience aspect is a bit different. LEO's see a great deal of trauma of all types. Most of us learn to reflexively suppress our emotional responses during an incident because allowing them to spill out would seriously interfere with doing what we need to do right then. If we're lucky (like when we can talk about these things with trusted people like our spouse, close coworkers, etc) and have other non work related interests we engage in often, we're able to deal with the feelings soon afterward when we can afford to sort them out and decompress. When this sequence takes place, in most cases we'll bounce back pretty well. There's nothing wrong with remaining mentally and spiritually healthy while doing things that would tear up many folks for good with one exposure, and doing them over and over during the couple of decades of a police career. It's a special gift to be able to do that, and one that's unique to warriors.
Voice of Reason,
To answer your question directly, yes that is normal. The suppression of your emotions is what allowed you to do your job without hesitation. I wouldn't worry about not being emotional during an event, I would worry if you cant decompress those emotions afterwards. You have to have a medium to release those bottled up emotions and feelings, otherwise they will start to consume you and tear you apart.
Excaliber,Excaliber wrote:Hherempt, you and I are on the same page here, and I should have elaborated that the term "warrior" isn't exclusive to those who work with weapons.hheremtp wrote:Excaliber, While I agree that the ability to compartmentalize ones emotions while under great stress is a special gift, It is not one that is unique only to warriors. Those of us that work in the medial profession must be able to to do the same thing. In fact, anyone that works in a high stress environment where you see the worst that society and life has to offer must be able to control and suppress their emotions during the event. I have seen what happens when someone does not have the ability to suppress their emotions, and it aint pretty.Excaliber wrote:The emotional experience aspect is a bit different. LEO's see a great deal of trauma of all types. Most of us learn to reflexively suppress our emotional responses during an incident because allowing them to spill out would seriously interfere with doing what we need to do right then. If we're lucky (like when we can talk about these things with trusted people like our spouse, close coworkers, etc) and have other non work related interests we engage in often, we're able to deal with the feelings soon afterward when we can afford to sort them out and decompress. When this sequence takes place, in most cases we'll bounce back pretty well. There's nothing wrong with remaining mentally and spiritually healthy while doing things that would tear up many folks for good with one exposure, and doing them over and over during the couple of decades of a police career. It's a special gift to be able to do that, and one that's unique to warriors.
Voice of Reason,
To answer your question directly, yes that is normal. The suppression of your emotions is what allowed you to do your job without hesitation. I wouldn't worry about not being emotional during an event, I would worry if you cant decompress those emotions afterwards. You have to have a medium to release those bottled up emotions and feelings, otherwise they will start to consume you and tear you apart.
In my view it includes all those who knowingly and repeatedly go into harm's way for others and those who handle the immediate aftermath of tragedies such as paramedics, firefighters, trauma surgeons and nurses, SAR teams, medevac pilots, and others in similar professions.
