https://citizenfreepress.com/breakin...from-rite-aid/Originally Posted by Stephanie B
https://citizenfreepress.com/breakin...from-rite-aid/
The folks who want to normalize the open carry of weapons in public need to be careful what they wish for….
“Why are you carrying that baseball bat?” “Just in case I might need it. You got a problem with that?”
There are all sorts of garden implements and sporting goods that can be used as weapons, and I’d rather not have to spend every trip to the grocery store store wondering if the person carrying the golf club or spade is a threat or just odd.
If she had politely paid for the liquor, would the axe still be a problem?
At this stage in my life, incidents like this (in the places they routinely occur) don't really raise my hackles too much as I'm cognizant of the fact that this is simply the law of consequence being played out.
The Left-leaners of this world (individuals, corporations, entities, et al) need to start embracing the reality that their tolerance, acceptance and/or support for certain views and beliefs have predictable consequences attached to them. In other words, their chickens are coming home to roost, and I have no interest in injecting myself in their self-imposed hardships.
The path of least resistance will seldom get you where you need to be.
With all due respect my PF Friend,
I will politely disagree with this one.
I have absolutely zero issue with people being armed in the general sense and in fact I think it would be better if more people were. Generally speaking people are more civil, mind their manners, and are simply more polite to one another when people are armed. I live in a part of the country where people do not normally carry openly, but concealed carry is pretty normal and in general people still have manners. Even when people don't carry on their person, guns in cars (especially rurally) is extremely common.
The civility and behavior towards one another is extremely different towards one another than say the east coast urban areas. I recall an incident with a cab driver once when I was around the DC/VA area doing something for the State Dept. My work associate and the driver got into an argument that was explosive in nature over the cabbie trying to screw us on the fare. The they came to an agreement, and it was settled as quick as it began.
Being from where I am, I told him (paraphrasing the conversation as he mentioned coming "to see the West") don't ever talk to someone like that or behave like that. If you get confrontational like that with people in Pump Handle Wyoming (or any tiny farm and ranch country dot on the map in the rural west), you may get shot.
The whole "what if she was polite and paid for her liquor" is not really relevant. She wasn't polite. Her body language said it all right off the bat and the news report said the was being confrontational. She was asked to stop. She did not and was aggressive towards others. The fact is that she possessed the axe (a deadly weapon) to either use or intimidate people. The same thing a robber does when he produces a knife or a gun. He walks in produces a knife, scares people into inaction, or into fleeing, takes what he/she wants, then leaves. Knife or axe, the result is the same.
To be honest I would love it if a store owner went straight up "Roof Top Korean" on her and blew her right out of her axe wielding boots. That would be a much better deterrent to the next person who thinks about committing a crime. These criminals know that they are likely not even going to see a single day in jail. So the only deterrence that works is from the citizens themselves. Is that harsh? Yes. Too Much? Frankly, I don't care. The criminal element needs to be scared.
I kept my mouth shut for years because I wore the badge. I am retired now. The bottom line is that the court system is a complete disaster, and the criminals are getting away with more and more. They have become emboldened. They don't respect the law, fewer and fewer members of the general public respect the police anymore and the quality of candidates is seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel. That is understandable. When you are going to get prosecuted for doing your job, and likely have to put up (and lose) your house as collateral to pay for an attorney to defend yourself, why would you want to take a job like that. Agency heads will throw an officer to the wolves and replace them. Chiefs and Sheriffs are politicians and I have observed them time and again throw guys under the bus, instead of back them. Integrity is one word that should never be used in association with 95% of Police Chiefs and Sheriffs.
To give an example of how agencies are more interested in themselves than officers. The last shooting I was involved in, I had called for a flashbang and a shield. I was going to bang the guy and shoot him in the face (he was using a woman as a hostage and hiding behind her). They only sent a shield. I finally took care of it, but much later and it was not pretty.
The swat leader confided in me (he was also at the time my immediate supervisor) that they purposely didn't give me the bang. He said " You know Mack, the reason why they didn't give you the bang was because they knew you would use it.". WTF!
They purposely put my life and the life of the lady hostage at risk (a woman with a gun screwed into her ear) because they were afraid that I would kill that methed up POS and end the crisis. The woman ended up being mentally tormented by this guy for a couple more hours before I could end it.
I was fucking furious when I found that out. After the Officer's AAR which I mostly bit my tongue at, I had a closed-door session with the leadership where I told them in no uncertain terms what sorry pieces of shit they were. They tried to threaten me, saying they would write me up for saying mean things to them, and I told them to fucking go for it and I would let absolutely everyone know what they did. They decided to drop it. They literally would rather risk a police officer's life and the life of a hostage than risk getting a hostage taker shot. Fucking pathetic.
Sorry for the rant, but the only way I see for things to change is for citizens to change it. That starts with making criminals fear them so they will think twice about doing crap like this woman pulled.
Got into a discussion with a highly intelligent and good person family member who lives in NorCal. Not anti-gun at all. He has consumed too much leftist media, however. He was advocating for even greater criminal and civil liability for officers. Making the current deal even worse in order to achieve "accountability." He essentially has been firehosed the Kool-Aid that officers can do almost anything and face no meaningful consequences.
After explaining that that's not the case almost everywhere, I argued that making the deal even worse than it currently is will cause the volunteer pool to shrink to two kinds of people:
1. People who are too dumb to realize how crappy the deal is. These people will not be capable of doing the job the way you wish for it to be done.
2. People who know how crappy the deal is and don't care because they intend to make their own deal that doesn't depend on arriving at a mutually acceptable negotiated agreement with management. This outcome is obviously close to the worst possible.
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
I agree that the threats and resulting theft were criminal and should be punished. No argument there. Just wanted to see if the objection was to the presence of the weapon or the behavior with the weapon.
The “what if….” question was the “glass houses” idea. A lot of people feel intimidated or threatened by openly carried firearms, and believe that intimidation is one reason for someone to openly carry.
First, congratulations. Second....spot on. The moral inversion inherent in the newly enacted changes to law here in California is one of the most disturbing aspects of this brave new world. Our policy explicitly makes clear that EVERY life at the scene of a violent criminal action has equal value. I've repeatedly pointed out that this idea makes "Law Enforcement" as we've always seen it impossible, if carried to its logical conclusions. No more "priority of life" which places innocent citizens at the top, cops second, and violent criminal actors at the bottom. If every life must be safeguarded to the same degree...in effect that places the criminal on top. If I can't shoot scumbag A to save Citizen B...or Cop C...but Scumbag A is free to act however he wishes because that's how he rolls...then the law and policy is placing the criminal first. And that's why you're seeing ineffective policing at best and a complete absence of policing in some cases. This IS what the public asked for. Sure...it isn't what they wanted. But it's absolutely what they voted for.
I fear that our brother @Lost River is correct in that private citizens acting as vigilantes will be the inevitable response in some places. To be clear....I think that is a disastrous outcome for society. I also think it's probably inevitable.
Future choices include private armies, warlords, gangsters, or vigilantes. With or without an overarching paramilitary national police force.
Seems like I've heard about these situations before. (scratches head)
"If I ever needed to hunt in a tuxedo, then this would be the rifle I'd take." - okie john
"Not being able to govern events, I govern myself." - Michel De Montaigne
There's nothing civil about this war.
The sad and realisitic outcome for the above actions by non-government entities aka private citizens will be a hammer being dropped on them by the bought and paid for political creatures we think we are electing to represent us. They will come down hard and make examples of people who defend themselves and then come down harder that ever on civil rights of the law abiding. As much as the above sounds like a conspiracy theory, its a sucky truth. Dependence and the eventual subservience is what government desires. Make things so bad that people will demand action and then give them the action you want instead of what they think they are asking for. Anything that gets in the way of that is eliminated. Individuals making criminals fear for their lives and not acting like criminals is not good for that process. The same people sitting around with their thumbs up their butts will act faster than you can think when it comes to something that threatens their process.
Unfrunately, the way this is going to stop is for enough economic damage to occur to the idiots buying political creatures that they decide to buy other creatures and discard these.
Reply With Quote