Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Please stay off my side.

When is a shrieking hysterical antigunner not so shriekingly hysterical?

When the person he's accusing of vigilantism is actually engaged in... well... vigilantism.
So both got a concealed license permit and bought handguns. Now they walk with pistols in their pockets...looking for the bad guys.

Luong says, "I don't know if it's illegal to walk around and be bait. I'm kind of fishing for robbers."
Nice work, numbnuts; way to use every bit of that finely-tuned judgment that we all have when we're in college.

Look, there's a word for those thoughts running through your head: It's "premeditation". From now 'til the day you die, if you bust a cap in somebody even in the most righteous of self-defense incidents, any crusading prosecutor who knows which end of a Google search box you type the letters into is going to be able to crucify you as a dangerous lunatic who was spoiling for a fight.

18 comments:

pdb said...

Please repeat after me: A concealed weapons permit is NOT a junior G-man badge.

Nathan said...

There was a Bill Mauldin cartoon during WWII: "That can't be no combat man. He's lookin' fer a fight."

Ken said...

Some things it don't pay to advertise.

Paul said...

I remember in my CCW class, taught by a 20+ year veteran sgt of the local police (about 300 0fficers) that this was not an ok to be a police officer. What ever you where doing to stay alive keep doing it. You were gaining an option, not a license.

He relayed the example of a gang fight going down on a QT parking lot. You see that, you call the cops. hell, even the cops will call the cops when they see that kind of thing.

CCW does not make you Wyatt Earp.

OA said...

Wyatt Earp was actually skilled enough to stay alive. This sounds like a glorified exercise in natural selection...

Tirno said...

The WA-CCW community has a volunteer going over to the university to talk some sense into these kids.

cma said...

Alas, there is no set minimum required level of intelligence needed to get a concealed weapons permit.

Then again, neither is there one required to vote (and that may just be the more dangerous of the two, if done by the mentally challenged).

Phssthpok said...

While I in no way condone what he's doing, I have a problem with labeling it as 'vigilantism'.

He specifically stated that he was 'fishing' for robbers...not 'hunting them'.

The way I see it, hunting involves actively seeking your prey, whereas fishing involves dangling the bait to see if anything bites.....kinda like the cops do with hooker-stings and bait-cars. Hell, I've even heard of instances of cops dressing up like drunk bums in 'bad parts of town' to do the same thing this student is doing...bait a mugger into striking.

If it's a legal activity for the cops, why not for we little folk?

Again...not that I condone it (for either us OR the cops) but it seems a bit hypocritical to endorse one party doing it while wagging your finger at another.

I'm just sayin'...

Anonymous said...

At least they got the vigilantism part right. i.e. the so-called Subway Vigilante wasn't. Vigilantes are members of a group-plural...'Committees of Vigilance', so, by definition, must be plural.
I agree with Phssthpok, caveat miscreant, let the mugger beware.

Anonymous said...

You can't fix stupid!!!! If they have no common sence now what makes you think going to school (college) is going to make them anymore inteligent? too dumb to be drawing air!!

Joanna said...

This is why I have a drawer in my mental filing cabinet labeled, quote, "Shut up shut up you're making us look like idiots."

Kristopher said...

It was bound to happen.

Get enough folks with CCWs, and the idjit end of the bell curve WILL be represented.

Anonymous said...

They think they are ready, until the time comes when they are faced with the situation they are "baiting" for. Will they piss their pants, will they freeze in terror, will they shoot an innocent bystander, will they shoot somebody who approaches them to ask for the time, will the would be robber have a gun too, or worse yet, will the would be robber just take the gun from them and shoot them? I'd say having the gun makes them about 10% prepared, the other 90% comes from somewhere else. Looks to me like a group of dumbasses trying their best to make their lives as short as possible...

Dave R. said...

Something to be said for keeping your mouth shut. Most especially if you really mean it.

I don't consider this vigilantism though. Words mean things. They're not tracking anyone down and punishing or apprehending them for past crimes. They're walking areas they walk normally, more often than otherwise. It's a voluntary neighborhood patrol with minimal neighbor buy-in. Arguably ill-advised, but not a vigilante act.

Fenris said...

The problem is that they are inviting the conflict. If you are going out of your way to get the bad guys to attack you, ANYTHING that comes of that attack cannot be considered self-defense.

Enforcement of law is part of the cop's job description and the law gives them a little latitude in their use of force because of it.

Vaarok said...

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2207081116&v=app_2373072738#/topic.php?uid=2207081116&topic=16419

Clint said...

This feels like one of those “It's not entrapment if you volunteer..” situations.

Let's see,
"I don't know if it's illegal ..."

That means DON'T DO IT!

Remember: if you have to ask, the answer is the opposite of what you want.

Seriously, what is the point? No really. What, exactly, are these guys doing? Are they patrolling the area to deter crime (and being 21 year-olds playing macho for the camera)? Or are they planning to “citizen's arrest” anyone who comes after them, or something in between? Are they planning to call the cops if they witness a crime or scare off the thugs if they see someone else being attacked?

True, one of them DID say “take the law into (their) own hands” but are they really? Or is Mister Head-Strong-and-Cock-Sure acting tough for the cameras hoping to make the thugs afraid to confront him? (ignoring the fact that thugs won't see the news clip) Are they going to play judge, jury, and executioner or is this more a a “sting” operation were they hope to catch criminals on hand them over to the police? (Ignoring the fact that A) this is dangerous and a gun is only (a small) part of defending yourself, B) what if the thugs decide not to cooperate and run off, what are they going to do then, and C) what if the thugs decide to go on the attack when confronted? Here is a not-so-fun fact: 93.7% of cops who have their gun taken away are SHOT.)

The news clip showed a lot of flashing around of guns, but NO ONE mentioned if they were to be used. The “news” implied the guns were a key element of these “patrols.” Frankly, I'm insulted by what the “news” deliberately left out. For all the screen time the guns got, not one word what they were for: defense or offense? Not one word about anyone shooting anyone...

Maybe you have a bunch of boys in men's bodies eager to act tough and show off their new guns like some high dollar “toy” as they confront the night while being afraid of the dark.

Or maybe you have a bunch of milquetoast young men finally deciding to stand up for something and they're talking the big talk to bolster themselves up not realizing that the media will demonize them for doing exactly that, standing up for somthing.

Love 'em or hate 'em? I don't know, but if the media has to demonize them maybe they're not so bad. Maybe they just need decent leadership?

markm said...

There's just one thing in the first link I disagree with: "Oh, and GET A DAMNED HOLSTER. Carrying in your waistband without a holster is a good way to shoot your pee pee off."

That's a good thing, where people like this are concerned. Stops them from breeding.