I just found a link to a news article that tells of a man at a gas station getting robbed at gunpoint, a little over a mile from where I work.
Watch the video. You'll see two urban youths, with their hoods up, approach the victim. Now, I know it's Cleveland, and it's cold in November, but at what point do you start to think "uh-oh."? How far into your personal space do the criminals have to get before you realize that you're not overreacting and that you're really in danger?
Notice also the police reminding us to "not fight back", if we find ourselves in a similar situation. Obviously the man was not shot after allowing the criminals to steal his wallet from his back pocket, but it doesn't always end that way. He was lucky.
This also leads me to wonder at what point the police would say it's okay for us to start fighting back. I picture myself in the same situation, minding my own business, going about my day, pumping gas, heading for work. Two strangers begin to walk toward me, two hooded men. Maybe they don't want my purse. Maybe they want me. (who knows? does it really matter?) At what moment am I allowed to stop giving strangers the benefit of the doubt? When am I allowed to fight back?
It would be nice if we were all able to have our very own personal policeman to protect us if we ever found ourselves threatened - but they're awfully heavy to carry on your hip all day...plus, the care and feeding sure would get expensive.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"This also leads me to wonder at what point the police would say it's okay for us to start fighting back."
In Free America and Common-sence land, the moment a deadly weapon is presented you can retaliate with as much force as you have. This would also include hands-and-feet being presented in an agresive way.
In the "America" we live in, its reasonable for us to fight back when the coroner signs our death certificate....otherwise there was no way to be sure they really MEANT to hurt us.
Hell even shots fired could be "Warning Shots" Duhhh!
There will be NO warning shots. EVER. It is a violation of Rule #3 (Keep finger off trigger until sights are on target.)I am responsible for all bullets leaving my gun, and warning shots will not harm the attacker. They may injure a bystander.
These goblins had this guy pegged. He couldn't retreat- gas pumps, vehicle and hoses had him penned in on 3 sides. The only chance he had to inflict injury on them (if the gun they had was real) was after they had his wallet, at which point the LAW was on their side. Unless this was Texas after sundown, which it wasn't. Which is why they do what they do where they do.......... until the LAW stops discouraging the sheep from fighting back.
"If it looks like a rabbit, and acts like a rabbit, it will be treated like a rabbit: prey for all predators."
or
"If it looks like a rabbit, and bites like a rattlesnake, rabbits will be safer and predators more reticent."
We just need the LAW to stop persecuting rabbits that bite like rattlesnakes.
I agree with that bit about the rabbit, here.
Creepy story. I'm all for a means of self-defense with optimal portability - seems the only sensible approach.
Don't let anyone else decide for you when that point is. They're not going to pay your price.
kskdot: Used to deal with a color separation outfit named KSK (anyone remember color separators, if you're in the printing/publishing dodge?).
Meanwhile over in Huron, two hunters were attacked and seriously cut up by a man in a field with a knife. And he didn't really have the drop on them: they asked what he was doing in their field of fire, a scuffle ensued; one shotgun muzzle was pushed into the ground and went off, exploding.
Possibly one limitation of a shotgun for close-quarters self defense, and a good safety lesson for the rest of us; other than that, and the Jimmy Carter/rabbit thing, I don't know what to make of it.
Post a Comment