The Glade 4.0

Yeah, I bet that's why Stathol's telling you nothing good can come of your actions, and Rynar is pointing out you might get shot, and Hopwin is rolling his eyes. They're all cops too. Good thinking.

Then again, it's not any better than the quality of reasoning (i.e. atrocious) in thinking that what you perceive as "rude behavior" or "lack of 'proper manners'" is a "problem" you need to "handle" at all.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Who are you arguing against? Did you read my statement where I said "I don't disagree"?

So... what's your point exactly? That you and I disagree that sometimes people need to be taught some manners? Ok. What else?

I have had loads of disagreements with a variety of people, and have never, ever, needed a cop to solve them. That you disagree with my approach in some scenarios is fine. Again, what's your point? Again, thanks for the advice, but I'm good.

Anyway, back to the point...

Here's another article:



Apparently the shooter pulled over with his wife and children in the car. There is no way I would do this. You cannot put other people in potential danger over these sorts of things. That is completely irresponsible.

That said, a little tip? While a lot of you take the (quite odd) position that a good, honest tussle is craziness, bear in mind that folks like me, who are not adverse to such things, may not have any inclination to do so in front of our families. In the event that I lose a fight, my family is now potentially at risk. Do not approach an individual aggressively if he is with his family. I sure as hell will avoid fighting at all costs when with my family, but if it is unavoidable it will not be a fair, honest fight.

As much as I don't want to say this, Harvey acted stupidly for approaching a man with his family. I am certain he had no intention of fighting, but you don't do this. You don't put your family at risk, and you don't put another man in a situation where he might feel he has to defend his family.

/sigh.

No one said anything about needing a cop to solve them at all. I didn't suggest that. I suggested that it's stupid for you to talk about "he'd go to jail" for shooting you when you go into one of these confrontations because.. you'd already be shot, and putting Rynar, or whoever else, in jail wouldn't fix that. Hilariously, it's the authorities you supposedly don't need to solve your problems that would be putting him in jail, now, isn't it?

This nonsense about "Let the authorities handle it!" and "I don't need a cop!" are irrelevant. It hardly takes a cop to point out that stopping to confront people over their supposedly "rude behavior" and being prepared to get in a fist fight over it is asinine.

Yes, I read where you said you don't disagree, then right after that you said you feel the need to "explain proper manners". Not only is this suspiciously similar to the schoolyard bully's excuse that the kid he picks on is "being annoying", but you just blatantly admitted that you can't control yourself from getting into verbal confrontations with people even when there's absolutely no meaningful gain to be had.

There's no "arguing against" anything going on here. There's the fact that you want to yell and scream about how you don't need the authorities, and don't need advice, despite the fact that you apparently feel other people need your advice, on the side of the road, regarding proper manners. Unless, of course, you feel they're idiots or just made a mistake, and then you're "patient". Because your determination in that regard is somehow important.

Other people don't need your opinion on proper manners any more than you need the cops to solve your problems. Those other people, however, may very well need the cops to solve their problem, when their problem is Mr Prepared-For-A-Tussle-Proper-Manners. Do you get out and yell at women who are rude and don't have proper manners too, tough guy? Or do they just automatically get classified as "idiots" and "people that make mistakes" because they're women?



Because it's somehow quite odd to think that just because you think a "good honest tussle" is fine, the guy you think you might "tussle" with doesn't, and that you shouldn't just be able to impose that on him. We have laws and police to protect people from people who do exactly the kind of **** you're talking about.

Guess what? If you get shot or stabbed, because the other guy is afraid of you and your "good honest tussle" and doesn't adhere to whatever arbitrary concept of street honor or what the **** ever thought process you use to come up with this nonsense, it's going to be of very small comfort to your wife and kids that it didn't happen in front of them. Oh good, they weren't at risk. whoop de do.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I've said in the past on a similar thread, I don't trust anyone I don't know, which includes cops. I don't trust doctors I don't know, either. People are people, no matter their profession or title.

I've known cops (deputy, highway patrol, police) that were great people. I've also known some that were complete thugs, and I wouldn't turn my back to them. The same can be said for doctors, judges, etc.

As for the topic of road rage incidents.....I avoid them at all costs. I do not confront strangers on the road, and they should do the same. Often times I know I have a gun, and they may as well.

Nothing of the kind. Don't be ridiculous. I just listed situations where I will not do this under any circumstances, and as to bullying? That's nonsense. It's quite the opposite, actually.



Yell and scream? Nonsense. Don't need advice? I thanked you for the advice, and agreed with Stathol. Don't make **** up. As to whether my determination is important? Well, considering I'm the one taking action, it's pretty important. Don't be intentionally ignorant.



Certainly not. But I don't tussle with women. Nor to I engage in any activity that may make them feel intimidated. If that makes me sexist, I don't care. I'm not sure why this matters.



What law protects against two adults getting in a fight? And who's protected? And from whom, their own bad choices? Why should fighting be illegal?



Well, like I said, there's never a threat to anyone that doesn't feel compelled to fight. That decision is theirs to make. Sure, there's some pussies out there that might feel compelled to use a weapon because they are being told off, or if the engage in a brawl and cannot stand the thought of losing, but that's the risk. It's certainly not justified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_and_battery

Calling it a "tussle" doesn't change what it is. Maybe you don't mind trading blows with random angry people, but no one else is obligated to play along.

If someone is intent on doing you bodily harm, that's a pretty damn good reason to draw a weapon. Really, it's just about the only good reason.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

As I've said, we're talking about two adults willingly engaging in a brawl. If both sides consent, and neither is interested in pursuing charges, why should anyone care?

Now, don't get me wrong, there are times when assholes are asking to be assaulted, but I recognize that for what it is.

Arathain, I can see where you might derive this idea of having an honest brawl to learn some hooligan good and proper but I think what you're missing is the fact that the other guy might very well escalate the confrontation to lethal levels in mere moments. You could be maimed or dead before you could even react or adjust to the situation. That is why Jeff Cooper's Combat Mindset philosophy, which most modern schools of civilian small arms self-defense derive their operating philosophy from as far as I've been exposed to, stresses preemptive awareness to threats and elevating one's combat readiness accordingly.

Yes, the probability is low, in a relative sense. However, the real problem is you have no real way to determine what the threat is in advance and by the time you do, it will be too late because of the very nature of these types of confrontations.

It seems your entire philosophy that you should confront an unknown individual is predicated on said individual also honoring this logic:



That may be good and well for you but there's no reason the person you're confronting is going to share this philosophy. Chances are, a disproportionately larger number of people as compared to the number that exist in the total population, do NOT operate on that principle if we are talking about people who would actually stop in the middle of traffic to confront another person.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Why do you presume most road rage confrontations adhere to this axiom?

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

i would say that once you get to the point where two people are angry enough at each other with the way they are driving to actually pull over to the side of the road and confront one another, the potential for it becoming lethal for one party or the other is *extremely* high...

Yes, you did admit it. You stated Stathol was right, then in the very next sentence said that you do it anyhow. As for bullying, that's how schoolyard bullies operate. They provoke, and then when another kid finally retaliates, they say "but he swung first!". It's unsurprising that you prefer words, sinee simply walking over and taking a swing at someone would unequivocally constitute an assault. What you don't seem to understand is that walking over and confronting someone on the side of the road simply for their rude behavior might very well be taken as a threat even if you don't say something specific like "I'm going to kick your ***". It depends on the circumstances, and one of the major circumstance is the fact that whoever you're confronting doesn't know you or anything about you, except your appearance, and that seems from your photo and expressed desire to try Iron Man, to be a relatively young, physically fit, man.



No one's making **** up. You rolled your eyes at it first (because you had no intelligent response) then did your little e-sarcasm thing with the thumbs-up emote, so if by "thanked for the advice" you mean "totally sarcastically" then yes, you did. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that you actually do really love getting advice from "cops" and were totally sincere. In which case, since you like it so much, I'll happily tell you everything you should do from now on.

No? Good, didn't think so. We can stop the coy word games then.

Getting back to your determination, no your determination is not important. Yes, you're the one taking action. Duh. So what? That does not somehow mean your determination as to the quality of someone else's manners is important to anyone but you, and certainly does not entitle you to a hearing by them.



Because you seem to feel that a "tussle" is how to handle people that lack proper manners. Do women always have proper manners? Or when they don't are they just automatically "idiots" or "making honest mistakes"? How about young kids that just got a license? I'm quite certain many of them have atrocious manners. How about men that are fat, or older, or seem to be disabled? Or are they all somehow exempt? What's your plan if a woman or one of the various other people I mentioned takes a swing at you first? What's your plan if they pull out a weapon?

I don't care at all if you don't "tussle with women", sexist or not, men should not go looking for fights with women. Men are generally bigger and stronger; the type of "sexism" that says "don't hit women" is simple fairness. The problem here, however, is that despite the fact that driving is driving, and care accidents are car accidents, you seem to have a standard that physically fit men are at risk of a verbal harangue from you and maybe a "tussle" for their allegedly poor driving but others that appear unable to effectively fight back are not.

This makes very little sense, since ability to deal with a physical confrontation is not an indicator of driving ability, nor intelligence (idiots) nor of whether someone makes an honest mistake.



As Stathol pointed out, Assault or Battery laws,(name dependent on the state) protect people, and it protects the victim from whoever is assaulting him or threatening him. "Their own bad choices" is irrelevant; someone making what you perceive to be "bad choices" does not give you the right to fight with them. Aside from the fact that fighting is illegal whether it should be or not, fighting is illegal, because fights in public, over whatever matter is at hand, is by definition not consensual. In order to have that be the case, we would need to totally abandon the concept of self-defense, and basically give people license to fight, and assume that anyone defending themselves was "consenting". Claiming "well it shouldn't be illegal" is irrelevant. No one else is obligated to adhere to your ideas of what should or should not be legal. Take it up with the legislature if you want legal fights on the roadside.

Furthermore, in point of fact, consensual fighting between two adults is legal; that's how we get MMA, Boxing, etc. We specifically set up rules so that both sides know its consensual, know that weapons are off limits, and there are no misunderstandings. Even back when actually killing each other in a consensual fight was permissible (dueling) it was arranged in advance and there were rules you had to follow.

Your roadside tussles are not consensual, and that is not what we are talking about. You can't legitimately stipulate that because anyone you get into a confrontation with over their manners or rudeness or whatever will not necessarily perceive the situation the way you do. He isn't aware of your intentions, and there is no magic line between a "tussle" and "when weapons are called for". That's why Treyvon Martin is dead and George Zimmerman is on trial. We don't know; maybe Treyvon felt Zimmerman's behavior was racist and decided to learn that honky good and Zimmernan felt Treyvon was going to slam his brains into paste on the sidewalk, or maybe Treyvon felt threatened by this guy that's following him for no apparent reason, and then when he confronted the guy, Zimmerman decided he was not taking any crap from some hoodlum, and blasted him.

When you stop to confront someone on the side of the road, they do not give a **** about your idea of manners, nor your ideas about what constitutes a "good honest tussle", and neither does the rest of society. That's what this is about - your failure to understand that your perception of the situation and the code of behavior you have drawn up in your mind do not apply to anyone but you, and while other people's bad judgement might land them in jail for attacking you or shooting you, you might be seriously hurt in the process. You also might end up in jail yourself because guess what? The court does not care about your ideas about a good honest tussle either, and if your behavior legitimately caused the other person to feel threatened, they may very well get off on self defense, and you will be cooling your heels in the slammer.

At which point you'll no doubt be back here with a very self-serving version of events wherein you did nothing wrong, and where it's all about the power-tripping cops that arrested you, despite the fact that they A) didn't have anything to do with the driving you disliked B) didn't make you pull over to confront the other person C) didn't cause the other person to do whatever it is they did D) didn't cause you to "tussle" with them E) didn't make the law against street fights that you oppose and F) did not try nor sentence you for violating that law.

Really, this entire discussion has nothing at all to do with cops; it doesn't take a cop to see that the actions you describe are foolish, and they don't make the laws you disagree with. Even if there were no cops at all, or street fights were totally legal, you could still end up shot or stabbed, or just having your brains bashed out because you don't understand that losing a fight without weapons on the street still means you are totally at the mercy of your opponent. You seem to recognize that it puts your family at risk if they're present, but if they're not, it becomes a "good honest tussle" apparently by magic. How this thought process works is a total mystery to me.



I hate to break it to you, but a threat is judged from the viewpoint of a reasonable person based on the totality of the circumstances, not based on whether you intend to make a threat or not. The totality of the circumstances includes the fact that a young physically fit adult male is confronting them on the side of the road over a traffic dispute. Not only is this out of the ordinary and an uncertain circumstance, but the fact is that people do not know what you will do. People do know, however, that there are crazies out there that will kill them for no reason, and the fact that you know you aren't one of those crazies means nothing.

The fact that people might use a weapon against you has nothing to do with them being "pussies" that are "afraid of losing" or "don't like being told off". Even if they don't like being told off, that does not change the fact that they don't know who you are or what crazy **** you might try to do. They can't read your mind, and the law does not expect them to. Losing a fight on the street can mean permanent injury or death. There is no "code of the good honest tussle" out there or however you think of it, no matter how much you might want one.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

To be blunt, I value my life and health too much to allow a situation to become a physical confrontation that I have no chance of winning. (and I don't have a chance of winning physical confrontations; I am deeply familiar with my limitations)

If that means using lethal violence, then sadly, better him than me.

_________________


Grenade 3 Sports Drink. It's fire in the hole.. Your hole!

DE:

I'm not going to argue with you and to be honest, only skimmed your essay there. Bottom line is this: I laid out my view. Not your view? Great. I'm not interested in your weird assessments or caveats or your interpretation of events for which you were not present. I explained them to you, you didn't listen. You're bringing up oddball unrelated issues that don't apply. Ok. Have a nice day.

Sure - nearly every fight is easy to avoid if you're not into it. Pretty much none of them require lethal violence, but that's an option if ever you do run into that crazy psychopath.

That makes no sense at all.

The only avoidable fights would be the ones you create. If another person instigates the fight, you aren't going to "easily avoid it if you're not into it". You will either have to try and escape, or defend yourself. And doing so with a complete stranger over road rage, I don't think it smart to expect some sort of rules of engagement, or sportsmanship.

I really don't care that I wasn't present (and it isn't relevant anyhow), and there's nothing "weird" about my views. Essentially, Stathol and Rafael laid out the same thing.

I am not bringing up any "oddball" issues. The simple fact is that you don't know what issues apply. You have a totally distorted view of how things work in real confrontations, and the only reason you have not suffered the consequences is that you're young, phyiscally fit, and most people are so shocked at your chutzpah that they don't respond violently. Eventually, you will run into someone like Rynar who will shoot your ***.

This is not about your personal events anyhow; you are in the habit of citing personal anecdotes as evidence, and don't seem to understand that your personal experiences aren't evidence of how things normally work, and that your personal description of events that you have an emotional investment in means very little. No, I wasn't there. I don't need to be. The simple fact is you have no business correcting people on their "manners" or their "rude behavior". Period.

It doesn't matter what your feelings are on a good honest tussle, it doesn't matter how much you resent "the cop" pointing out that you're wrong; if you do this often enough someone else will seriously hurt you. I'm not responding to you. I'm responding in case anyone else is reading your idiotic bullshit and thinks its a good idea. I don't expect you to listen; your ego is far to colossal, and you're far too wrapped up in the fact that I'm "the cop" to listen. That doesn't change the fact that I'm right, you're wrong, and that's all there is to it. Of course you skimmed my post. If you read it fully, you'd have to confront facts from "the cop" that you don't want to hear. The simple fact is that Rafael and Stathol pretty much summed up how incredibly stupid your views and actions are. Even Sam has the right of it in his most recent post. I really didn't even need to post, but it was very entertaining to watch you have your little hissy fit when confronted with the fact that just because you do not like someone else's actions, that doesn't justify yours.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's certainly not always the case, but generally I've found that if there is a fight, both created it. They are incredibly easy to avoid.

No, you're completely wrong. Rynar and I would not have any conflict at all, since he expressed interested in avoiding a confrontation.

I have every business correcting someone's bad behavior if they present it to be corrected. I am not adverse to a brawl here and there. I cannot abide people who treat others badly and will correct them. If they persist and seem willing to engage over it, I may very well oblige. That certainly is my business, and is frankly no one else's. If two adults decide to scrap, no one else should care. This is very basic human behavior.

Now, all the oddball scenarios you keep trying to bring up have nothing to do with this at all. You seem incredibly interested in my treatment of rude pricks, but it's certainly not going to change my view or how I respond to rude pricks. You being a cop has nothing to do with it.

Quite frankly, Arathain, if you engage willfully in any sort of violence in our overly litigious American society, you're a **** moron.

_________________

Well, there's that. But, no issues yet.

You don't actually know that, because he won't be in a position to avoid it until you engage in a behavior that is confrontational in the first place.



Society does care, and it's very basic human behavior to regulate who may fight whom, under what circumstances, and where. I already explained that there are places and circumstances under which you can fight and no one will care. That's always been the case, even when duels were permitted, they had rules that had to be observed.

You can whine about how no one should care all you want. The fact is that society does care, and has elected a legislature that has passed laws in that regard. Nobody cares what you can or can't abide, or what your opinion is of someone else's behavior is. It's only your business to the degree the other person is willing to listen to you. If you get in a fight with them, then it becomes the business of the police. The fact that you think it shouldn't be means jack ****. We do not have a dictatorship of your personal opinion.



I'm not citing any oddball scenarios. The scenarios I cite are the norm for street conflicts that arise suddenly. The problem is that you just don't want to acknowledge that because it's me telling it to you. When Stathol said it, it was all "oh, well I don't disagree", even though everything he said I've been 100% in agreement with.

Me being a cop has everything to do with it, or you wouldn't have been making your sarcastic little remarks about loving to get life advice from cops. I'm interested in your treatment of "rude pricks" because its an active topic on this forum and it is fascinating to see how far you will go in defending total foolishness.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

What are you, 15 years old? You haven't been shot or stabbed yet either.

You think it's no one's business if you get in a fight, but what happens if they do pull a knife or a gun. Oh, then all of a sudden it's the business of the police because they violated your sense of a fair fight? Maybe they felt the police should have arrested your *** because you were threatening them in the first place. Don't tell me that wouldn't happen, what matters is their perception, not yours.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

People are always in a position to avoid confrontations. Even as the confrontation is unfolding. Nonsense.



Society does care, and it's very basic human behavior to regulate who may fight whom, under what circumstances, and where. I already explained that there are places and circumstances under which you can fight and no one will care. That's always been the case, even when duels were permitted, they had rules that had to be observed.

You can whine about how no one should care all you want. The fact is that society does care, and has elected a legislature that has passed laws in that regard. Nobody cares what you can or can't abide, or what your opinion is of someone else's behavior is. It's only your business to the degree the other person is willing to listen to you. If you get in a fight with them, then it becomes the business of the police. The fact that you think it shouldn't be means jack ****. We do not have a dictatorship of your personal opinion.[/quote]

No one's whining but you. I'm telling you my views. You don't like them. Tough titties. I'm explaining to you how I feel things should be handled in such rare circumstances, and I'm explaining how society SHOULD NOT care at all. It is unsurprising to me that you feel the police should care. At no time have I suggested this is a dictatorship of my opinion, nor suggested anyone must conform to my opinion. Don't make stuff up.



Do you realize that you are sitting there at your computer attempting to explain to me the basis of my views? Wow. Anyway, you being a cop has nothing to do with it. My opinions on rude pricks are long-formed, and have not emerged suddenly because I'm talking to a cop. My statement in bringing that up was related to the prevailing view of police officers that the general public shouldn't take care of their own issues. This is so dramatically at odds with my own views that there's unlikely to be any common ground. Your coptitude has no basis for the formation of my views, but was merely a prediction in the outcome of this conversation. I can see I was not far off the mark.