The Glade 4.0

If you're going to bring it up after two years, you should do your homework.



Nope. Learn to read. Also, learn to move on after two years, Jesus Christ. What's it say that I have no idea what you posted two years ago in any thread? Kinda creepy, man.







Yeah, seriously creepy. You're getting a bit too worked up here. What quote did I have of Monty's? I don't even remember. Actually, nevermind. It doesn't matter.



I think somebody needs a hug.

As much as I appreciate being called a jackass for trying to talk about the subject at hand, I don't agree.

I think demonstrated intent is going to go a long way with any jury in establishing reasonable doubt for a crime. Opening a knife in public with no demonstrated intent to use it isn't going to get a conviction IMO. It's obviously not a particularly intelligent thing to do; I just don't see it as being a convictable offense.

...

"All my troubles seemed so far away."

_________________
Raell Kromwell

You should remember your own positions. What I said was similar enough that it should have rang a bell. You also should, when someone admits they made a mistake, not pretend that they didn't say so.



Yes. I did read, I just don't believe you. You're not credible. As for your last sentence, I remembered what you said only because it was so spectacularly outrageous. Had you not taken such an incredibly silly position (oh no, wait! it was a joke! really!) I would have forgotten it entirely.



Maybe if you hadn't made your own penchant for confrontation known....



I don't remember what quote, only that one of the admins made you take it down. Also, you can stop projecting. I'm not worked up. I am, however, amused (as usual) by your behavior. You're the one going "STFU!" and /bird.. and I'm the one getting worked up?

Here's a clue - there is nothing you can do to work me up. I'm posting lest someone read your nonsense and think you know what you're talking about. You can yell and scream here all day; it won't change anything and no one is going to let you anywhere near a position to actually make things work the way you think they ought to work.



Go see your wife. She'll help you out with that.


I don't really care if you agree. You're wrong. You have no basis other than personal intuition for what you are saying.



Unfortunately for you, it does demonstrate intent pretty clearly, and it isn't just about demonstrated intent, but what a reasonable person would perceive as the intent. If a person coming up to you with a deployed knife isn't a threat in your mind just because he theoretically could just want to sell it, you're unbelievably foolhardy.

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

No, what I said was, both would go down handily. The joke was just that maybe the kid could bob and weave and require an extra shot. Maybe he could get closer, if lucky. The point being neither will actually make it to the armed criminal. It hardly matters, after two years, though. I'm hardly interested. Besides, as much as you seem to pay close attention to my posts, you should know that I'm rarely serious about anything.



See, I remember the incident, but remember it being related to someone else. However, based on what I'm seeing here, it may have been the case. You certainly seem inclined to keep track of what I'm up to. As for STFU and /bird, I'm simply dismissing your nonsense and desire to bring baggage into the thread with an appropriate response. Much like an /eyeroll or a

To be serious for a moment, you seem way too invested in what I post. Remembering posts from the past, bringing baggage into unrelated threads, getting upset enough to call me names because I disagreed with you, etc. It's creepy as hell, and I'm not going to feed it. I'm good. I'll respond as long as you can keep it on topic and polite, but I'm going to at least try to be disciplined enough to ignore the attacks, posts about me, and other general creepiness, and not get sucked in.



Then why respond? I disagree. So what?



No, I don't agree.

Just so we're clear: In the >2 years I've worked in downtown Cinci, I've had exactly zero other people offer to sell me a personal item in exchange for cash. I've had a number of beggers and panhandlers ask to borrow my phone, spare a dollar, etc, but not once has anyone offered to sell me something.

The ONE time someone offers to 'sell' me something, its a weapon, and its not just sitting there, but being actively manipulated.

Do you honestly believe that the show of a knife was something other than an attempt to coerce cash from me? He may have never intended to hurt people, but the knife was being used as a tool of influence.


If he had a gun and was waving it my direction and offering to 'sell it to me' with his hand on the trigger (As opposed to say, holding the barrel and offering me the grip) it would be the same. Even if it had been a fake gun or fake knife, its still being used to create fear in the other person. The presence of a loaded weapon (or in this case, a blade opened) changes the social dynamic from a sales or begging situation to one where there is a (perceived) power disparity between two individuals and the one with the power is attempting to leverage cash.

That's robbery.

I wish you well, Ara; that's been my position for months now, and it rarely goes beyond one response before I stop responding to the name-calling, etc.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Maybe? Like I said before, you have to be there to get an overall impression of the situation. That said, I'm a firm believer in "never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by stupidity", which is a variation of a widely known saying that I think is worth considering here. I've met some dumb, naive people. "Manipulating" the knife around strangers is clearly a stupid thing to do if you're not intending harm. But there's a lot of dumb people out there.



Again, I wasn't there, but your gun scenario above differs greatly from my understanding of your situation from your description. When I hear "manipulating" the knife, "flicking the knife open and closed", and "didn't move like someone expecting a fight", I get a distinctly different impression than "waving a gun in my direction" and "hand on the trigger". They seem substantially different in my interpretation of your description.

If they are, indeed, the same, I'm just not seeing it in your description of the event.

If someone asked you for cash and just made a point of showing you their holstered gun, you would still feel coerced.

Openly carrying a weapon is a statement. It implies a willingness to use the weapon, presumably in self defense. It's no freaking different than a coral snakes bright colors. A warning that I'll mess you up if you **** with me.

It's literally a threat display. When that same threat display is used to obtain that which is not yours it becomes criminal.

From a conviction standpoint, it's not enough. You could easily argue that if you want to sell a knife, you have to show it to the potential buyer. It's enough reasonable doubt.

Literally no one on this board agrees with you on this.

I'm sure criminals are banking on exactly this level of obtuse thinking should something come to trial.

That's the thing, I think Ara is seeing it as I did as well, from your initial description. He even made it clear in his post of 11:04; some moron was opening and closing a knife not realizing the effect he could have on others.

You stated that you didn't think he intended to do you harm. Unless you were going to lie about it afterward, that alone would get you in deep if you assaulted him.

Now, I didn't read the rest of the back-and-forth, but that's my interpretation of page one, and these last few posts.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

If TR had preemptively struck this man due to perceived threat, he never would have made the statement and it couldn't have gotten him "in deep." If he had attacked the man, he certainly wouldn't have come here to post and say that he wasn't threatened.

Sure, he wouldn't be telling us the story the same way (if at all), but when he was asked by the police/lawyers/judge, whatever the case may be, if he felt that the guy was going to do him harm, he'd either have to lie, or he'd be "in deep", as I said. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that it's my feeling that it's hard to convince a jury that you attacked someone because of a "perceived threat" when you didn't think he was actually a threat.
<shrug>
Maybe I'm reading this all wrong, but that's the feeling I have.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Well it's a moot point because TR didn't actually attack anyone. We've just been arguing stupid hypothetical **** since the thread started.

Word. Obviously, TR made the right call.