EXTREMELY disappointing encounter with someone with a badge

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

Its threads like this that give gun owners a bad reputation. Anyone that would even consider getting into a physical altercation over a parking spot doesn't need to carry, period. All of this chest puffing bravado about how I WOULD make you move is just fuel for the anti gun fire. This is the exact argument that the anti gun lobby is using against the guns in bars initiative. They see gun owners as a bunch of hot headed vigilantes who cant be trusted with a weapon.

Appreciate your contribution

[Guest Jamie]

Rev, did you catch the fact that I said no gun or weapon plays any part in what I said, or my reasons for it?

J.

[Guest RevScottie]

Rev, did you catch the fact that I said no gun or weapon plays any part in what I said, or my reasons for it?

J.

I did catch that but how much of a leap is it to think you might use your weapon improperly if you are willing to get into a physical altercation over something as trivial as a parking space? I'm simply playing devil's advocate by pointing out this kind of stupidity is just what the anti gun folks feed on.

[Shark1591]

Its threads like this that give gun owners a bad reputation. Anyone that would even consider getting into a physical altercation over a parking spot doesn't need to carry, period. All of this chest puffing bravado about how I WOULD make you move is just fuel for the anti gun fire. This is the exact argument that the anti gun lobby is using against the guns in bars initiative. They see gun owners as a bunch of hot headed vigilantes who cant be trusted with a weapon.

Rev - I agree 100%. They would use the argument that it was posted on a GUN OWNERS site.. Anti-gun folks don't always read, use or quote all the facts. They pick and choose what they want to report...

[Guest Jamie]

I did catch that but how much of a leap is it to think you might use your weapon improperly if you are willing to get into a physical altercation over something as trivial as a parking space? I'm simply playing devil's advocate by pointing out this kind of stupidity is just what the anti gun folks feed on.

Play devil's advocate with your congregation, Reverend. Because I'm not too terribly concerned with the thoughts of people who've already made up their minds, and who's minds I have no chance of changing anyway.

As for it being stupid, it's far more so to let people get away with crap they have no business doing in the first place, simply because somebody is worried how a bunch of panicky, deluded sheep may take it, in my opinion.

Also, don't forget I used to be a cop... a deputy sheriff. I know quite well how to deal with someone who's being an idiot without it automatically turning into a fight or a shoot-out. I also know, from first-hand experience, how a court and/or judge will likely look at the situation we've been discussing.

J.

[Guest Jamie]

...They pick and choose what they want to report...

And twist and turn the rest to suit 'em.

So? Does that mean stand still and do nothing, simply so the anti's don't have anything to work with?

If so, there's no point in being armed in the first place. Might as well just line up and "Baaaa Baaaa Baaaa" with the rest of the herd.

J.

[Guest RevScottie]

Also, don't forget I used to be a cop... a deputy sheriff. I know quite well how to deal with someone who's being an idiot without it automatically turning into a fight or a shoot-out.

J.

Forgive me for assuming by your own punctuation Would Have moved was your way of saying you would have reached a peaceful amicable resolution to the problem at hand

[Guest Jamie]

Forgive me for assuming by your own punctuation Would Have moved was your way of saying you would have reached a peaceful amicable resolution to the problem at hand

Never said amicable, nor even peaceful.

But I never said anything about a brawl or a shooting, either.

In all likelihood, I'd probably pull as much of the front of my car into the parking place as possible, stop and get out, sit or lean on the hood, and simply fold my arms and wait. I don't think I'd need to say a word.

I'm sure it wouldn't take too long for the situation to cause quite a stir, and for the "place holder" to decide to take some action. If they vacate the spot, great. If not... well, that's on them, isn't it? One way or the other, there'd probably be a lot of witnesses, and quite probably the police, in a short period of time. And whoever the person was that the spot was being saved for would likely find someplace else to be anyway.

So yes, in the end, the person would move.

J.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Jamie

[Guest Jamie]

Oops... double tap.

That's what I get for changing mouse batteries in the middle of a post.

J.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Jamie
Double post

[Guest RevScottie]

If they vacate the spot, great. If not... well, that's on them, isn't it?

J.

So what you really meant to say was "I'd have gotten out of my car and you Might Perhaps Maybe Would Have Been Persuaded to have moved."

Just kidding but I couldn't resist

[Guest Jamie]

Nope. Thought I was pretty clear and without any ambiguity there.

I'll say it again: They are going to move. How is up to them.

But I will definitely take the situation out of their hands, and make them react to me, instead of the other way around.

J.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Jamie
"Therm"? No. "Them".

[Guest BEARMAN]

Nope. Thought I was pretty clear and without any ambiguity there.

I'll say it again: They are going to move. How is up to them.

But I will definitely take the situation out of their hands, and make them react to me, instead of the other way around.

J.

How?...clarify.

You threaten a pedestrian with your automobile, then that's assault with a deadly weapon...you know that, J.

You exit your automobile, and encroach him...then you become the aggressor, in the judge's eye's...because you initiated the confrontation.

[Guest Bonedaddy]

It "is" a vehicle parkin' spot and you ain't a vehicle so get yerself a steppin' 'cause you ain't 'sposed to be a standin' thar! Next time where roller skates and one of them little battery powered fans on you cap and claim you're a motor powered vehicle so you can tell him the kiss it!

[Guest Jamie]

How?...clarify.

You threaten a pedestrian with your automobile, then that's assault with a deadly weapon...you know that, J.

You exit your automobile, and encroach him...then you become the aggressor, in the judge's eye's...because you initiated the confrontation.

Wrong. The "pedestrian" is in a place not intended for him. And there's no threat so long as no contact is made. And by plopping myself on the front of my car and waiting, I'm not encroaching on him.

Remember, he/she is the one preventing me from doing what I'm supposed to be doing, not the other way 'round.

Therefore this imaginary person is the one initiating the problem, by obstructing people from doing what they are both legally allowed and obligated to do.

If this person were in a crosswalk, then the situation would be reversed. He/she would have the right to be there, while the vehicle would have to give way.

Edit: How many times have you heard of someone getting hit by a car while jay walking, or crossing at a place other than a crosswalk, and the driver not being faulted or cited? It's the same situation; the pedestrian isn't where they are supposed to be.

J.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Jamie

[Guest Jamie]

It "is" a vehicle parkin' spot and you ain't a vehicle so get yerself a steppin' 'cause you ain't 'sposed to be a standin' thar! Next time where roller skates and one of them little battery powered fans on you cap and claim you're a motor powered vehicle so you can tell him the kiss it!

Or at least get a motorized skateboard...

Oh wait... I think you'd need to be in/on a vehicle that you can register and get tags for...

No horses either.

J.

[Guest BEARMAN]

[quote name=Jamie;506578

Remember' date=' he/she is the one preventing me from doing what I'm supposed to be doing, not the other way 'round.

Therefore this imaginary person is the one initiating the problem, by obstructing people from doing what they are both legally allowed and obligated to do.

If this person were in a crosswalk, then the situation would be reversed. He/she would have the right to be there, while the vehicle would have to give way.

Edit: How many times have you heard of someone getting hit by a car while jay walking, or crossing at a place other than a crosswalk, and the driver not being faulted or cited? It's the same situation; the pedestrian isn't where they are supposed to be.

J.[/quote]

I see your logic now, J...and stand corrected. Pedestrian would be blocking legal activity...by standing, where automobiles "should" be parking.

[Guest Jamie]

Thank you. Somebody finally gets it.

J.

[Guest RevScottie]

Drivers to Exercise Due Care 55-8-136

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this chapter, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway, and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary,

I wouldn't think knowingly pulling into a parking spot while a pedestrian stands there would constitute due care. Also you are not on a roadway but in a parking lot where it should be expected that a pedestrian may be walking through any part of it at any time. If we are to follow Jamie's logic if I open my door and step into the adjacent parking spot he has the right to run over me.

While Jamie thinks he needs to prove something to guys who "get away with this kind of crap" I hope everyone realizes by now that the smartest thing to do would be to just drive on and find another parking place instead of risking an altercation over such a trivial thing as a parking space. It ain't worth the potential of being shot by a guy standing in a parking space just to prove I'm right.

[DaveTN]

I wouldn't think knowingly pulling into a parking spot while a pedestrian stands there would constitute due care. Also you are not on a roadway but in a parking lot where it should be expected that a pedestrian may be walking through any part of it at any time. If we are to follow Jamie's logic if I open my door and step into the adjacent parking spot he has the right to run over me.

While Jamie thinks he needs to prove something to guys who "get away with this kind of crap" I hope everyone realizes by now that the smartest thing to do would be to just drive on and find another parking place instead of risking an altercation over such a trivial thing as a parking space. It ain't worth the potential of being shot by a guy standing in a parking space just to prove I'm right.

Exactly

Also, don't forget I used to be a cop... a deputy sheriff. I know quite well how to deal with someone who's being an idiot without it automatically turning into a fight or a shoot-out. I also know, from first-hand experience, how a court and/or judge will likely look at the situation we've been discussing.

I also am pretty sure how Judges would see this. They would see that they are dealing with either two very immature individuals or two nut cases. Two that are armed.

If weapons came to play in this in any way, either intentionally or accidentally through your reckless conduct; I think the Judge would make sure both your carry permits were revoked. Do what you want to each other, but if weapons come into play in something this stupid; you have put the public at risk

Trying to make an argument that you have some kind of legal right to bully someone, either with your vehicle or your person shows that you don’t know much about the law.

[Guest Jamie]

There you go again, Rev, with things that most definitely haven't been said.

No how, no where have I said anyone has a right to run anybody over... even in a parking place that the pedestrian has no business standing in. ( a parking lot is not a roadway, btw, and most traffic laws don't apply there. )

However, a pedestrian is obligated to get the hell out of the way when a motor vehicle has the right-of-way, just as the vehicle is obligated to yield way to a pedestrian in certain instances.

Sorry I'm not as tolerant of idiots and pushy people who are in the wrong as some of you seem to be, but that's just how it is. The fact I may be carrying a gun isn't their free pass to do as they please, or reason for me to ignore things that shouldn't be ignored.

J.

[Guest Jamie]

Trying to make an argument that you have some kind of legal right to bully someone, either with your vehicle or your person shows that you don’t know much about the law.

I'm not the one showing ignorance here, Dave. Nor do I think simply stopping and waiting can be seen as "bullying".

J.

[Mike.357]

Trying to make an argument that you have some kind of legal right to bully someone, either with your vehicle or your person shows that you don’t know much about the law.

thank you, about the only words of sense in this thread

However, a pedestrian is obligated to get the hell out of the way when a motor vehicle has the right-of-way, just as the vehicle is obligated to yield way to a pedestrian in certain instances.

this is dead wrong. Just because someone ought to not be standing somewhere does not automatically give the guy who hits him a free pass. a guy standing in a parking spot does not give anyone the right to threaten them with physical harm. You are wrong on this stuff. seriously. On top of that are we supposed to act as aggressors in society to get our way over something as dumb as a parking spot? and you carry a gun?

I would have asked the young man to move, if he said he was waiting with the spot for his date who iwas coming directly i would have told him to have a nice evening and gone on to another spot. Life is too short to act like a dick over stupid crap.

[Guest Jamie]

this is dead wrong. Just because someone ought to not be standing somewhere does not automatically give the guy who hits him a free pass. a guy standing in a parking spot does not give anyone the right to threaten them with physical harm.

Again, where in the hell have I said I would threaten anybody with harm?

I've said they would move, period. I've even outlined how I would probably go about getting it done. And no where in there was doing any physical harm mentioned, or any threats.

and you carry a gun?

Yeah, I carry a gun. Have since I was 17 and got the first one issued to me by Uncle Sam, some 30 years ago.

I've also worn a badge and uniform and have enforced the laws of this state and the county I live in.... and know the mind of the judges here pretty well. ( a couple of these judges I've known since high school, where I was a student and they were coaches and teachers. )

Some of you really need to get off of this "no conflict, for any reason, while you're armed" crap. A conflict with someone doesn't automatically mean a fist fight or a gun fight. It simply means opposing an action someone else is taking. And if you have good sense and can keep your temper under control, you can do that without anybody getting hurt or killed.

Some times you can do that with nothing more than a word, sometimes with nothing more than standing and waiting.

J.

[Mike.357]

threaten anybody with harm

my misinterpretation, apologies.

But I do believe you are of the mind you will try your best then to intimidate the person. Or is will become a pissing party to see who flinches first. I just think you are wrong, as you think I am wrong. Life is too short for me to worry about crap that does not matter, and it is just as easy to be nice as to not be nice.

[Guest Jamie]

What matters or doesn't matter depends on the situation, and the individual, I guess.

For me, letting some bone head that I'm apt to have to deal with again some day get away with something they shouldn't, and them probably make a habit of that, due to getting away with it.... matters.

Besides... I'm probably better suited to deal with them without it ending in bloodshed than some of the other hot heads they could - and probably will - encounter eventually.

Better they learn the error of their ways without anybody getting hurt or killed, no? Or are you of a mind that they should just be allowed to do as they please, without anybody interfering?

J.