The only real reason anyone carries concealed.

[Blueshell]

The definition of retaliate is to return like for like. Self defense is not retaliation. Surprise might be an element of self defense but not always. Surprise and retaliation aren't the same thing. A person can retaliate against someone without surprise, and something can be a surprise without being retaliation.

Exactly.

 

[Blueshell]

Please look up the definition of civilian in either Webster's or the Oxford dictionary and then tell me LEO's are civilians.

Yes I've heard that argument many times. You are either military or you are not. Your whole chain of command are civilians. Dictionaries displaying informal vernacular do not establish law.

Civilians can only use lethal force defensivly. Nothing you've said regarding police changes this.

And as X40scinNC has already stated within the bounds of the USA our military cannot use lethal force Offensively. Unless of course we are attacked by a foreign invader.

My argument isn't limited to the geographical bounderies of the US. The military certainly can use lethal force offencivley, I've don it myself in Afghanistan.

Civilians can't do that.

 

[Blueshell]

Last, re-read my post as I never said lack of prosecution makes anything legal.

You argued such right here:

Never, in all my years in LE did I ever hear of anyone being charged with the crime of "Retaliation" because he drew a gun from concealment.

 

[Reba]

Exactly.

Therefore, the mode of carry has nothing to do with determining retaliation.

 

[BluesStringer]

Second, I am also aware that Police are civilians but if you had ever worked in LE you would know that Police refer to Non-police as Civilians. Wrong, yes but that's just the way it is.

Please look up the definition of civilian in either Webster's or the Oxford dictionary and then tell me LEO's are civilians.

You've already provided your years of experience as a cop to clear up whether or not cops are civilians. Now you're backpedaling by using Webster's or Oxford to contradict what your years of experience already taught you? You're arguing with yourself on this point.

"Referring" to non-cops as civilians doesn't make it "just the way it is," and thinking of cops as something akin to military doesn't make it "just the way it is" either. Is you is, or is you ain't a civilian as a cop? It's a constitutional question, which I do know makes it inexplicably difficult for cops to accept the realities of across a host of subjects, but here's a hint - you already answered correctly in one of the quotes above. You're not a "special" citizen or civilian just because you were a cop, you're just another retired citizen/civilian. That's just the way it is.

Blushell has admitted that he is OCD in this thread. "Clinically diagnosed" even. He said he "knows how to use it" in the context of arguing legal questions ad nauseum even in the face of incontrovertible evidence of him being dead wrong on the legal questions being bandied about in that thread. You will never get a concession from him about CC not being offensive under the law, or that drawing from concealment is somehow necessarily a retaliatory act. Apparently, if I read his post about OCD correctly, he's pre-wired to stubbornly and irrationally refuse admitting to being wrong.

Anyway, this is amusing as all get-out watching y'all argue over a wholly made-up premise that has no basis in fact or law. It's hard to know who to root for - the guy who open carries even though he argues absurdities as his rationale for doing so, or the retired cop who, like most cops, thinks "that's just the way it is" is a valid substitute for a constitutional argument based in legal realities.

I've been recuperating for the last three days from a ~2,500 mile round-trip motorcycle ride to D.C. for Rolling Thunder. I planned on posting some pics and my impressions of the event(s) somewhere around here, and might still do that, but watching dumb arguments like this one as a spectator was so mind-numbing I couldn't get my act together to put up a post about it. I think I'll sleep for another three days and see how things are going then before I decide.

Blues

 

[Blueshell]

Therefore, the mode of carry has nothing to do with determining retaliation.

Yes, as is the case when one carries to avoid being disarmed.

 

[Blueshell]

Civilians cannot use lethal force offencivly, even if police are civilians, even if police are not civilians. I don't see what this tangent about police has to do with anything.

 

[Blueshell]

You've already provided your years of experience as a cop to clear up whether or not cops are civilians. Now you're backpedaling by using Webster's or Oxford to contradict what your years of experience already taught you? You're arguing with yourself on this point.

"Referring" to non-cops as civilians doesn't make it "just the way it is," and thinking of cops as something akin to military doesn't make it "just the way it is" either. Is you is, or is you ain't a civilian as a cop? It's a constitutional question, which I do know makes it inexplicably difficult for cops to accept the realities of across a host of subjects, but here's a hint - you already answered correctly in one of the quotes above. You're not a "special" citizen or civilian just because you were a cop, you're just another retired citizen/civilian. That's just the way it is.

Blushell has admitted that he is OCD in this thread. "Clinically diagnosed" even. He said he "knows how to use it" in the context of arguing legal questions ad nauseum even in the face of incontrovertible evidence of him being dead wrong on the legal questions being bandied about in that thread. You will never get a concession from him about CC not being offensive under the law, or that drawing from concealment is somehow necessarily a retaliatory act. Apparently, if I read his post about OCD correctly, he's pre-wired to stubbornly and irrationally refuse admitting to being wrong.

Anyway, this is amusing as all get-out watching y'all argue over a wholly made-up premise that has no basis in fact or law. It's hard to know who to root for - the guy who open carries even though he argues absurdities as his rationale for doing so, or the retired cop who, like most cops, thinks "that's just the way it is" is a valid substitute for a constitutional argument based in legal realities.

I've been recuperating for the last three days from a ~2,500 mile round-trip motorcycle ride to D.C. for Rolling Thunder. I planned on posting some pics and my impressions of the event(s) somewhere around here, and might still do that, but watching dumb arguments like this one as a spectator was so mind-numbing I couldn't get my act together to put up a post about it. I think I'll sleep for another three days and see how things are going then before I decide.

Blues

Still upset over getting your ass handed to you in that thread, I see.

 

[Reba]

. . .
Second, I am also aware that Police are civilians but if you had ever worked in LE you would know that Police refer to Non-police as Civilians. Wrong, yes but that's just the way it is....

Depends:

civilian

NOUN

1A person not in the armed services or the police force.

1.1 informal A person who is not a member of a particular profession or group, as viewed by a member of that group.

civilian: definition of civilian in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

 

[Reba]

. . .

Police are civilians. As per the 3rd Geneva Convention you are either a member of your nation's military (which police are not), or you are an enemy combatant (which police are not) or you are a non-combatant (civilian). Police fight crime, not other nations, so police are civilians....

The Geneva Convention covers international relations. Within each sovereign nation, different classifications are used. In America, this is the usual classification:

"civilian

NOUN

1A person not in the armed services or the police force.

1.1 informal A person who is not a member of a particular profession or group, as viewed by a member of that group."

civilian: definition of civilian in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

 

[Reba]

. . .

I've been recuperating for the last three days from a ~2,500 mile round-trip motorcycle ride to D.C. for Rolling Thunder. I planned on posting some pics and my impressions of the event(s) somewhere around here, and might still do that, but watching dumb arguments like this one as a spectator was so mind-numbing I couldn't get my act together to put up a post about it. I think I'll sleep for another three days and see how things are going then before I decide.

Blues

Looking forward to your posts about Rolling Thunder. (After you get a well-deserved rest. )

 

[Reba]

Yes, as is the case when one carries to avoid being disarmed.

Even then, it's not retaliation unless one has previously been disarmed and is now seeking to disarm the person who disarmed him. Just avoiding the act of being disarmed in the first place is not retaliation.

In fact, if the gun is concealed, who would be attempting to physically disarm the wearer since no one would be aware that the person was armed?

 

[mikestone967]

Explain Kent State then....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Eidolon]

Much TPS in this thread

 

[Blueshell]

Even then, it's not retaliation unless one has previously been disarmed and is now seeking to disarm the person who disarmed him. Just avoiding the act of being disarmed in the first place is not retaliation.

In fact, if the gun is concealed, who would be attempting to physically disarm the wearer since no one would be aware that the person was armed?

Prove OC causes one to be attacked.

 

[Blueshell]

Explain Kent State then....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What about it?

 

[Reba]

Prove OC causes one to be attacked.

Why should I? That's never been my contention. I never said that OC causes one to be attacked.

 

[Blueshell]

Why should I? That's never been my contention. I never said that OC causes one to be attacked.

Yes you did, right here:

In fact, if the gun is concealed, who would be attempting to physically disarm the wearer since no one would be aware that the person was armed?

Evidence any kind of link between carry style and crime.

 

[Robgmn]

Yes you did, right here:


Evidence any kind of link between carry style and crime.

Actually, there is nothing in her sentence that states people who OC will get attacked.
The sentence reads as follow-up to the contention by someone else that people who OC will get attacked.

 

[Reba]

Yes you did, right here:

No, I did not.

Evidence any kind of link between carry style and crime.

Why should I? That's the opposite of what I've been saying. I've posted that the mode of carry is not what determines the character of the shot (posts #97 and 124).

In case I'm not clear enough, I'll rephrase my statement.

I believe there is no appreciable link between carry style and crime.