Posted on 09/20/2018 6:15:29 PM PDT by papertyger
A CCW holder should avoid conflict. That is what I said. Not that they should use every means available to preserve a life of an assailant. Big difference.
If you are carrying as a CCW holder or otherwise, you do not seek out conflict. To the contrary, you avoid it knowing that if you need to - and only if you need to - you have protection with your weapon.
Forgive me if those of us from the "walks like a duck" school of thought do not fully appreciate the subtle nuances of your position.
My understanding of the "stand your ground" thesis is that citizens should be able to proceed about their lawful business without molestation from violent, unprincipled people, for whom only capitulation to their demands is the sole means of avoiding conflict with them.
Count me thankful to be a Floridian.
Interesting because they don’t look bad-ass at all. However sometimes being bad-ass is just the utter willingness to forget about any kind of law, decency, etc.
My wife and I both graduated college in Abilene, and I of course spent many years there at Dyess AFB. First son born in Abilene I’ll have to what neighborhood this was.
Let me make it really simple. If you are carrying and you get in a confrontation, walk away. You can end it at any time but you don't need to. How difficult is that to understand. Sorry, just having my fill of it today so yes I am being terse. Likely I am not making myself clear but that is the best I got for you. Stand your ground is if you are threatened. These guys were not threatened. They could have walked away without any consequence.
Jonn D. and James Miller (John’s younger brother who has since passed away) had a real penchant for pulling a gun at the drop of a hat. Or shooting people if the deemed it necessary. Looks like John’s boy is much like his father. IMHO they are best left alone.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that I somehow don't understand what you're saying; this is incorrect.
I disagree with you.
And that seems to be a worthwhile position judging from nonsense like "these guys were not threatened" and "Stand your ground is if you are threatened."
I dare say you have taken an ingrained mindset and elevated it into a moral postulate, so much so that you seem to have trouble conceiving of the proposition not being self evident. It is not, and your position is that of people who only begrudgingly admit the right to armed self defense, festooning it with so many caveats that it becomes largely a dead letter.
The Millers were doing nothing untoward in the video, unless you count being armed as untoward. Further, they were being expressly threatened by a mental case that was clearly unhinged. You've functionally asserted they had a duty to withdraw.
My questions is "predicated on what" other than an implied duty to preserve the life of their assailant?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.