For police, the goal is vigilance, not vigilantes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
maryjk said:
And I also drive around with my window down. And I meet and greet ordinary people. And I am not worried or paranoid.

I also have a concealed carry permit.
Click to expand...
But Pope Francis does just fine without a concealed gun permit.

Did Pope Francis need protection while he was a Cardinal? Probably not. How many priests, bishops and cardinals need to a carry concealed weapon? Maybe just a very, very few who are overly worried and paranoid.
 
We really need to adhere to left wing definitions when having a discussion like this.

Vigilante :white man shoots a black man

: black man shoots a black man
 
estesbob said:
We really need to adhere to left wing definitions when having a discussion like this.

Vigilante :white man shoots a black man

: black man shoots a black man
Click to expand...
What’s wrong with a dictionary definition?

Vigilante: Someone who punishes perceived lawbreakers themself rather than relying on the authorities
 
SamH said:
Agreed. Expections are that a person should only tell how terrified they were until the “proper authorities” handled the situation for them.
Click to expand...
Well, in some juridictions in the US the right of individuals to have the means to defend themselves is recognized.

In other jurisdictions in the US it ts expected you lay down and die; means for effect defense are denied to all but the politically connected. The “proper authorities” handle the situation by writing reports, notifying the next of kin and perhaps looking for the pepetrators after the tidying up of the crime scene.

In all jurisdictions the police have no duty to defend an individual.

Warren vs DC
Castle Rock vs Gonzalez
Riss vs The City of New York

etc. etc. etc.

The judge in a recent case ruled in accordance with those precedents establishing no duty for the police to protect you, in a case where the police were on-scene during the incident. So, even if a cop were light enough to carry, they still might not do you any good.

nypost.com/p/news/local/zero_for_hero_5Aw3bMHF7vSPG7f27c0jOO?utm_source=SFnewyorkpost&utm_medium=SFnewyorkpost

Anyway, as long as you realize the ‘handling the situation’ does not include protecting the victim.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Maybe just a very, very few who are overly worried and paranoid.
Click to expand...
You started out in California flew to Florida, can’t let go of GZ, no links, statistics, absolutely nothing, not even practical experience. You been to South Central preaching recently? Its pretty astonishing you should trot out the Pope and suggest everyone preach at the ghettos of South America.

So are you saying your a talker or a taker in this regard? I know your starting out at CAF.

Then to summarize they are all paranoid now?
 
Julian_Bashir said:
That’s never going to happen, Mason. There will always be people who are reported, approached, or have the police called on them (in all circles of life) who are doing nothing wrong. They are the minority, but it happens to law enforcement. It also happens to our intelligence agencies. That is the price of security.

Now if you want to pass laws that forbid neighborhood watches from approaching strangers, go ahead and good luck with that. But unless you undo the 2nd amendment, some citizens are going to carry a gun for protection (and some won’t). Perhaps a law that bars gun owners from participating in the NW. I am sure there will be a long list for signups if they went that route.
Click to expand...
I would be interested to see what an insurer would say about a HOA that supports a NW with gun carrying people as members.

I personally wouldn’t want any liability in any way for any gun carrying person in my neighborhood. I would imagine the home owners association pays premiums with money by those that pay dues. I simply wouldn’t join the association then.
 
Robert Sock:

If you think that anyone who has a CCW is a vigilante then would you say that a woman who walks in public (outside) with a concealed gun to protect herself from a rapist is a criminal and shouldn’t defend herself from a situation like that?
 
ronaldmiller said:
Robert Sock:

If you think that anyone who has a CCW is a vigilante then would you say that a woman who walks in public (outside) with a concealed gun to protect herself from a rapist is a criminal and shouldn’t defend herself from a situation like that?
Click to expand...
Where did I say that anybody who carries a concealed weapon is a vigilante? No, what I am saying is that any state that allows concealed weapons is also unwittingly promoting vigilantism. Big difference.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Pope Francis makes a remarkable role model for all of us in that he downplays the need for security. I’ll bet that he never owned a gun in his life. When his time comes, he’ll probably be rejoicing with the saints in Heaven.
Click to expand...
He’s probably never posted on Catholic Answers either. Which has as much to do with anything as your point.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Where did I say that anybody who carries a concealed weapon is a vigilante? No, what I am saying is that any state that allows concealed weapons is also unwittingly promoting vigilantism. Big difference.
Click to expand...
Ok, but it does demonstrate a lack of understanding of folks who choose (where it is legal) to carry a CCW. The mindset as well as the laws about CCW that are completely antithetical and incompatible with vigilantism.

Andrew Branca, lawyer and self-defense expert, author of “The Law of Self-Defense”

“I’d say the biggest misconception is that if you’re carrying a gun you get to take **** from fewer people. The reality is exactly opposite. When you’re carrying a gun you have to take **** from everybody. Except, of course, the guy actually trying to kill you. You can shoot him. That’s the tradeoff. The gun gives you the practical means to end the life of anybody in your immediate vicinity. In exchange for that power it is your moral and legal responsibility to conduct yourself in such a way as to make that outcome as unlikely as possible. The last thing you want to do if you’re carrying is to be the one who even inadvertently escalates a non-deadly encounter to a deadly one. Confronting the drunk loudmouth who’s making a scene at the table next to you in a restaurant, for example, may be seen as a potentially very bad idea if you think a few steps down the line. Best to just let it go, and just go, leave. One of my primary tactical rules of self-defense is to vacate the area at the first sign of a red flag. Let the bad stuff go down while you’re safely somewhere else.”

That typifies the mindset of the vast majority of CCW holders.
 
Hopefully the desire to carry a concealed weapon is just a quickly passing fad.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Hopefully the desire to carry a concealed weapon is just a quickly passing fad.
Click to expand...
The few people I know that carry a concealed weapon openly state they have no trust in the police department to keep law and order and thus they carry.
 
MaryT777 said:
The few people I know that carry a concealed weapon openly state they have no trust in the police department to keep law and order and thus they carry.
Click to expand...
The police department has NO duty to protect you. None.

It isn’t that people don’t trust the police department. It is that we know the law.
 
MaryT777 said:
The few people I know that carry a concealed weapon openly state they have no trust in the police department to keep law and order and thus they carry.
Click to expand...
They never come on time, they should tell you, honestly, “We probably won’t make it in time” 😛 Then its sort of like Forest Gump stated, you never know which Chocolate you’ll get in the box when they do arrive.

You see how 4-minutes can be eternity? If they are at Dunkin Donut your on your own, Gods hands.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top