TexasCHLforum.com

You are POTENTIALLY a rapists are you not? That really isn't that hard to understand is it? Is it true or not? Try to focus on the word POTENTIALLY. ( I used that bit of bull, due to it having been used just like this in a college newspaper that printed the names of all “potential” rapists on campus ((the name of every male registered at that school)) while I was teaching at OSU… It was deemed an accurate and protected bit of speech, if not inflammatory and misleading)

The statement is essentially true , but it does not mean it is valid or value added to the discussion..

Much like saying the simple presence of a fire arm at a confrontation = more potential to have a deadly result.

The BEHAVIOUR, the mind set, the actions of the people involved, not the method is what sets the potential for a deadly encounter. IMHO.

I think most are just poking at semantics, but really the ideas presented are not all that different in thought.

PeteCamp wrote:

You are POTENTIALLY a rapists are you not? That really isn't that hard to understand is it? Is it true or not? Try to focus on the word POTENTIALLY. ( I used that bit of bull, due to it having been used just like this in a college newspaper that printed the names of all “potential” rapists on campus ((the name of every male registered at that school)) while I was teaching at OSU… It was deemed an accurate and protected bit of speech, if not inflammatory and misleading)

Sophmoric. I am definitely not a potential rapist. That action would require me to decide to commit the crime of rape. Now if two of us were standing there, I might assume that the other person might have the potential to commit rape because I have no direct control over his actions. It is all about behavior. Was it inflammatory or misleading when the OP posted the actions of the people he encountered in Wal Mart?

PeteCamp wrote:

The statement is essentially true , but it does not mean it is valid or value added to the discussion..

Have you read the discussion?

PeteCamp wrote:

Much like saying the simple presence of a fire arm at a confrontation = more potential to have a deadly result.

That is exactly what I am saying. For exactly the same reason as above. Look, don't blame me if that concept is taught at almost every police academy in the United States. Go tell them they're wrong.

The BEHAVIOUR, the mind set, the actions of the people involved, not the method is what sets the potential for a deadly encounter. IMHO.

Bingo! We have a winner!

I think most are just poking at semantics, but really the ideas presented are not all that different in thought.

You're exactly right, although it is not simple semantics. It is serious business when you carry a deadly weapon and confront aggressive individuals. Therein lies the POTENTIAL.

bronco78 wrote:

PeteCamp wrote:

You are POTENTIALLY a rapists are you not? That really isn't that hard to understand is it? Is it true or not? Try to focus on the word POTENTIALLY. ( I used that bit of bull, due to it having been used just like this in a college newspaper that printed the names of all “potential” rapists on campus ((the name of every male registered at that school)) while I was teaching at OSU… It was deemed an accurate and protected bit of speech, if not inflammatory and misleading)

Sophmoric. I am definitely not a potential rapist. That action would require me to decide to commit the crime of rape. Now if two of us were standing there, I might assume that the other person might have the potential to commit rape because I have no direct control over his actions. It is all about behavior. Was it inflammatory or misleading when the OP posted the actions of the people he encountered in Wal Mart?

Sure you are, we all are,, man or woman
Definition of POTENTIAL
1: existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality.
Rape requires no "special equipment" just a mind set and or an action.

You are a potential rapists, more so you have a piece of equipment commonly used to commit rape against men and women.. .. the obvious parallel analogy to your statements would be.
Due to you carrying your specific piece of equipment, You sir are more likely to potentially cause or participate in a rape then a person with out that common piece of equipment.

Yes it's a silly position to argue from I admit it.. the words are used correctly by definition but the idea strung together with them is poorly constructed and misleading.

Much like your use of the word potential in this discussion above.. IMHO.

PeteCamp wrote:

The statement is essentially true , but it does not mean it is valid or value added to the discussion..

Have you read the discussion?

Every word.

PeteCamp wrote:

Much like saying the simple presence of a fire arm at a confrontation = more potential to have a deadly result.

That is exactly what I am saying. For exactly the same reason as above. Look, don't blame me if that concept is taught at almost every police academy in the United States. Go tell them they're wrong.

The BEHAVIOUR, the mind set, the actions of the people involved, not the method is what sets the potential for a deadly encounter. IMHO.

Bingo! We have a winner!

I think most are just poking at semantics, but really the ideas presented are not all that different in thought.

You're exactly right, although it is not simple semantics. It is serious business when you carry a deadly weapon and confront aggressive individuals. Therein lies the POTENTIAL.

I think we agree more then disagree... And I thank you for a polite discussion.

anygunanywhere wrote:I recall an internet story about some general being interviewed by some woman and he used the same type of analogy on her except is was that she was equipped to be a woman of the evening, so to speak.

Anygunanywhere

Keith B wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:I recall an internet story about some general being interviewed by some woman and he used the same type of analogy on her except is was that she was equipped to be a woman of the evening, so to speak.

Anygunanywhere

And that is just what it is, an Internet story and not true. http://www.snopes.com/military/reinwald.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:I'm probaly not going to be the most popular guy around for saying this but.......I would have to say he has as much right to practice his 1st Amendment as you have to practice your 2nd Amendment. I don't use profanity around the kids, in public, or that much in general; however, it is not my job to tell someone else the type of language they can use in public. If a friend or family member chooses to use that type of language in my house around my kids, I would tell them not to IN MY HOUSE. Otherwise, I would take it as an opportunity to teach my child that that type of language is reserved for adults and not appropriate for children. I don't think putting your hand on your piece was out of line given the confrentation, if it had escalated you need every second to count and having your hand at the ready would increase your odds if things went South.

jamisjockey wrote:I wouldn't have done much different. Unfortunately, politeness is a lost art anymore. As an adult, I don't care what you say around me. But swearing around my children is uncalled for.

Last year I was at a gas station with my kids. I had gotten them out of the truck while I filled up, we were going to go inside for Icees. Four youths at the vacum with some very dirty rap music blaring. I walked up and asked them to turn it down, because my kids could hear the language. I got a "sure" and a "yes sir". They didn't turn it down but bumped the player to a song that wasn't offensive.
The encounter stood out because while I wasn't looking for a fight, I wasn't going to tolerate the level of obsceninty being blared out in the presence of my children. It wasn't the reaction I expected.

My standard for armed response is much lower when my children are involved than myself or another adult. Getting between him and your child was the right call.
I would have probably ordered him to back off. 4 to 1 is clear disparity of force, as well as you being accompanied by your child.

As for the exit from the store, an option would be to tell the store manager that the other customer made threatening gestures (grabbing your cart) and used obscene language towards you, and that you need store security to escort you to your car.

By the way, under Texas Penal Code for disorderly conduct

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

Depending on the language, contacting the police might have been in order. It could have given you a better leg to stand on if you were forced into a position to defend yourself.

By the way, if he really was a Marine, he's disgracing the title wtih that sort of public display.

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:I'm probaly not going to be the most popular guy around for saying this but.......I would have to say he has as much right to practice his 1st Amendment as you have to practice your 2nd Amendment. I don't use profanity around the kids, in public, or that much in general; however, it is not my job to tell someone else the type of language they can use in public. If a friend or family member chooses to use that type of language in my house around my kids, I would tell them not to IN MY HOUSE. Otherwise, I would take it as an opportunity to teach my child that that type of language is reserved for adults and not appropriate for children. I don't think putting your hand on your piece was out of line given the confrentation, if it had escalated you need every second to count and having your hand at the ready would increase your odds if things went South.

dewayneward wrote:This guy was 3 ft. Of course you have to do what is right in your mind and what you feel comfortable with, but a gun that isnt able to immediately stop a threat is useless (unless it scares the person). Dont believe me, try to do a test on how long it takes to draw and present to a threat coming at you that wants to do damage. THEN (after you discover the timing isnt even close) compound that by stress of the encounter, tunnel vision , making sure your child is safe, etc.

SlowDave wrote:

dewayneward wrote:This guy was 3 ft. Of course you have to do what is right in your mind and what you feel comfortable with, but a gun that isnt able to immediately stop a threat is useless (unless it scares the person). Dont believe me, try to do a test on how long it takes to draw and present to a threat coming at you that wants to do damage. THEN (after you discover the timing isnt even close) compound that by stress of the encounter, tunnel vision , making sure your child is safe, etc.

Did the test. Draw and shoot vs. draw, rack, and shoot. Difference was not readily measurable with hand-held stopwatch. About 0.1 second difference. But you need 2 hands if you're gonna rack and shoot. There are arguments with either way, but I will never cease being irritated by the comments like "if it's not condition 0, you should not even carry", or my favorite, "a gun w/o one in the chamber is no better than a club." Those are ridiculous statements and speak mainly about the author's credibility.

p.s. I carry with one in the pipe now, no safety, which is what I believe is called condition 0.

bronco78 wrote:

PeteCamp wrote:

You are POTENTIALLY a rapists are you not? That really isn't that hard to understand is it? Is it true or not? Try to focus on the word POTENTIALLY. ( I used that bit of bull, due to it having been used just like this in a college newspaper that printed the names of all “potential” rapists on campus ((the name of every male registered at that school)) while I was teaching at OSU… It was deemed an accurate and protected bit of speech, if not inflammatory and misleading)

Sophmoric. I am definitely not a potential rapist. That action would require me to decide to commit the crime of rape. Now if two of us were standing there, I might assume that the other person might have the potential to commit rape because I have no direct control over his actions. It is all about behavior. Was it inflammatory or misleading when the OP posted the actions of the people he encountered in Wal Mart?

Sure you are, we all are,, man or woman
Definition of POTENTIAL
1: existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality.
Rape requires no "special equipment" just a mind set and or an action.

You are a potential rapists, more so you have a piece of equipment commonly used to commit rape against men and women.. .. the obvious parallel analogy to your statements would be.
Due to you carrying your specific piece of equipment, You sir are more likely to potentially cause or participate in a rape then a person with out that common piece of equipment.

Yes it's a silly position to argue from I admit it.. the words are used correctly by definition but the idea strung together with them is poorly constructed and misleading.

Much like your use of the word potential in this discussion above.. IMHO.

PeteCamp wrote:

The statement is essentially true , but it does not mean it is valid or value added to the discussion..

Have you read the discussion?

Every word.

PeteCamp wrote:

Much like saying the simple presence of a fire arm at a confrontation = more potential to have a deadly result.

That is exactly what I am saying. For exactly the same reason as above. Look, don't blame me if that concept is taught at almost every police academy in the United States. Go tell them they're wrong.

The BEHAVIOUR, the mind set, the actions of the people involved, not the method is what sets the potential for a deadly encounter. IMHO.

Bingo! We have a winner!

I think most are just poking at semantics, but really the ideas presented are not all that different in thought.

You're exactly right, although it is not simple semantics. It is serious business when you carry a deadly weapon and confront aggressive individuals. Therein lies the POTENTIAL.

I think we agree more then disagree... And I thank you for a polite discussion.

alvins wrote:their is some stupid law in webster tx about it being against the law to swear in public.

SlowDave wrote:

dewayneward wrote:This guy was 3 ft. Of course you have to do what is right in your mind and what you feel comfortable with, but a gun that isnt able to immediately stop a threat is useless (unless it scares the person). Dont believe me, try to do a test on how long it takes to draw and present to a threat coming at you that wants to do damage. THEN (after you discover the timing isnt even close) compound that by stress of the encounter, tunnel vision , making sure your child is safe, etc.

Did the test. Draw and shoot vs. draw, rack, and shoot. Difference was not readily measurable with hand-held stopwatch. About 0.1 second difference. But you need 2 hands if you're gonna rack and shoot. There are arguments with either way, but I will never cease being irritated by the comments like "if it's not condition 0, you should not even carry", or my favorite, "a gun w/o one in the chamber is no better than a club." Those are ridiculous statements and speak mainly about the author's credibility.

p.s. I carry with one in the pipe now, no safety, which is what I believe is called condition 0.