Escalation to use of force.

[ilikegunspdx]

All the woman and boyfriend had to do was go into the house. Simple. If other dude breaks into house then justified.

But these people were letting emotions rule them. Got to get the ego and emotions out of the way and use thinking part of ur brain, not the animal instinct part.

It's often hard to do unless we practice it imo. And we can practice that in day to day interactions, we can recognize the emotions (fe "this ahole is really pissing me off") and then choose the response with the thinking part of our brain, not let the emotion dictate how we respond. Acting on emotions can lead to crazy fast escalation, but recognizing u are feeling that emotion, then pause and choosing the right response can de-escalate or at least make sure you are choosing the right response (all imo).

 

[sobo]

It's often hard to do unless we practice it imo. And we can practice that in day to day interactions, we can recognize the emotions (fe "this ahole is really pissing me off") and then choose the response with the thinking part of our brain, not let the emotion dictate how we respond. Acting on emotions can lead to crazy fast escalation, but recognizing u are feeling that emotion, then pause and choosing the right response can de-escalate or at least make sure you are choosing the right response (all imo).

I have found that the easiest way for me to control my emotions is also a hallmark of polite society and professionalism... just don't interrupt people.
When you interrupt someone who is speaking, you have tuned them out and anything they say is then ambient noise to you.
So, even if you don't believe what they are saying, let them speak until finished before you offer a response/reply/rebuttal/retort.
This pause allows your brain to process what you've just heard, and formulate a response.
You may get your arse kicked for it, but at least you thought about what you were going to say/do ahead of time.
And more often than not, you come out the better person for not being an emotional, high-strung, bloviating massterpiece...

Y'all see what I did there in that last line?

 

[mkwerx]

+5 points for using the word "bloviating" in that last line, along with the extra "S"

 

[bbbass]

"Internet Police Guy"... I'll just let that one go...

Not me. A spanking was in order. And a 5 or 10yd penalty.

All the woman and boyfriend had to do was go into the house. Simple. If other dude breaks into house then justified.

But these people were letting emotions rule them. Got to get the ego and emotions out of the way and use thinking part of ur brain, not the animal instinct part.

It's often hard to do unless we practice it imo. And we can practice that in day to day interactions, we can recognize the emotions (fe "this ahole is really pissing me off") and then choose the response with the thinking part of our brain, not let the emotion dictate how we respond. Acting on emotions can lead to crazy fast escalation, but recognizing u are feeling that emotion, then pause and choosing the right response can de-escalate or at least make sure you are choosing the right response (all imo).

If one reads about the physical nature of the structures of the brain, and how they work, or fail to work, in the process of anger, one learns that the Amygdala (prehistoric brain responsible for fight/flight hormones etc) tries to control the cortex (the thinking part of the brain) as well as a few other structure that mediate anger. This process can be disrupted by physical injury, as in brain damage due to injury or being born that way, or early/childhood trauma, or training (and lack of training). Once the cortex is overruled, it can be very very difficult to stop the Amygdala train. And it is a weirdly quick train.

Poor impulse control is a thing, esp among violent criminals. The response can be retrained, but it takes time and effort that most people are either not aware of, or won't bother to undertake.

Graduate of anger mgt course. I still struggle. Esp now that the wife has dementia. I got most of it under control and was never physically violent fortunately for everyone involved. But there was the time I finally figured out why me ex-wife's ex had flung bullets at her as she ran down the hall. I used to think he was crazy... errrr, nope.

I have found that the easiest way for me to control my emotions is also a hallmark of polite society and professionalism... just don't interrupt people.
When you interrupt someone who is speaking, you have tuned them out and anything they say is then ambient noise to you.
So, even if you don't believe what they are saying, let them speak until finished before you offer a response/reply/rebuttal/retort.
This pause allows your brain to process what you've just heard, and formulate a response.
You may get your arse kicked for it, but at least you thought about what you were going to say/do ahead of time.
And more often than not, you come out the better person for not being an emotional, high-strung, bloviating massterpiece...

Does this mean we have to read all the way to the end of your posts before replying??? Sheesh.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[awshoot]

Everyone is a moron here. The men strutting for their women and the women tacitly enjoying the cock fight. If there was a way for eveyone to lose, I'd be OK with that.

 

[EHJ]

So a father goes to pick up his child... (Court ordered.)
Mother refuses to relinquish custody. (Now we're in 'kidnapping' territory.)
Boyfriend decides to capitalize the "KIDNAPPING" part with force and a weapon....
Dad is all bravado and anger. Someone (in his mind) is keeping his child from him, illegally and with apparent force via weapon.
"Boyfriend" never had a horse in this race and should have NEVER stood between a Father and his child. He should have called the cops - but now we know his mind, kinda... He was trying to impress GF and stepped way out of bounds.
Entire thing was a chit show, for sure. Mom was using kid to screw with husbands head - and it worked.
Straight up murder. Mom is complicit.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Except for the times. Dad was supposed to pick up his kid at 3:15. He and his new woman did not show up until after 4 and expected everyone to be ready and waiting for him.

 

[Jay Walk]

"Internet Police Guy"... I'll just let that one go...

Let's try this again...

First, one must be in compliance with Section (2)(a) before anything else, as that is a primary requirement. That is, one must first have a valid concealed pistol license.

Then, one must be in compliance with any of the three follow-on subsections. That's where the "and" that you marked in bold comes in.

So you can either have it on your person (i), or have it within the vehicle as long as you are in the vehicle (ii).

The third subsection (iii) applies when you leave the vehicle but the loaded pistol is still "placed" [see (2)(a) again] within the vehicle. Hence the "or" that you marked in bold.

Perhaps it will make more sense if we strike out the alternative and cumulative sections that are not in play, thus:

(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

Note that there is no "and" between the end of subsection (i) and the the beginning of subsection (ii). This makes subsections (i) and (ii) alternative requirements, not cumulative requirements. By complying with Section (2)(a), which is a primary requirement, and then either of the following two subsections (since they are alternative and not cumulative requirements), one can clearly see that driving down the road with a loaded pistol in the console is legal as long as you have a valid concealed pistol license on you. The third subsection only comes into play when one leaves the vehicle and the pistol remains behind, hence the "or" in the law.

Of course, either of subsections (i) and (ii) presumes the vehicle to be in motion, since why else would one enter the vehicle if not to drive it somewhere. I mean, it would seem pretty silly to have your CHL, get your pistol, and then just go sit in your car and not go anywhere.

Finally, one would have to be a complete idiot to not grasp the concept that subsection (iii) only applies once the vehicle is parked and stationary. The State has not yet amended this law to account for autonomous-driving vehicles. More to come on that...

And & Or are interchangeable. got it

 

[Jay Walk]

So a father goes to pick up his child... (Court ordered.)
Mother refuses to relinquish custody. (Now we're in 'kidnapping' territory.)
Boyfriend decides to capitalize the "KIDNAPPING" part with force and a weapon....
Dad is all bravado and anger. Someone (in his mind) is keeping his child from him, illegally and with apparent force via weapon.
"Boyfriend" never had a horse in this race and should have NEVER stood between a Father and his child. He should have called the cops - but now we know his mind, kinda... He was trying to impress GF and stepped way out of bounds.
Entire thing was a chit show, for sure. Mom was using kid to screw with husbands head - and it worked.
Straight up murder. Mom is complicit.

View attachment 1080121

Pretty much. Same story plays out every day, all day. Once in a while a psycho goes and grabs a gun.
For what?

 

[sobo]

And & Or are interchangeable. got it

I see you failed to grasp a rather simple concept.

And no, they are not interchangeable. Never said nor intimated they were.

 

[Jay Walk]

Said 1, 2 and 3 were all OR.
Not

 

[sobo]

 

[awshoot]

...
Mother refuses to relinquish custody. (Now we're in 'kidnapping' territory.)
...

I was watching Rekeita on this topic (famous for his livestream during Rittenhouse with a gaggle of lawyers, himself included, giving commentary). He was adamant that the kidnapping thing is a red herring and then told a war story where a woman kept a kid out of state despite a court order for months, and he couldn't get anyone at all interested in the notion of it being kidnapping. He said that merely being late for a swap just doesn't make it into that territory.

I have no idea if he is right or wrong on this topic but I suspect that being late for a child-swap is a fairly common occurrence.

 

[awshoot]

And & Or are interchangeable. got it

I don't think he said what you think he did. The statute looks like: CCL and (i or ii or iii) (*) which expands to the concealed carrier being legal if CCL+i; or CCL+ii; or CCL+iii. In this case the "and" and the "or" are not interchangeable, they serve different functions in the formula.

EDIT: in a list with the "or" between the last two items, all items have an "or" between them -- same is true if there is an "and" between them.

If someone says: "you can have fries, chips, or a pickle" included with your burger -- this does not mean you can have "fries and chips" or "a pickle" without paying extra. That's just not how English works. It means you can have fries or chips or a pickle, and if you want more than that, you'll have to pay.

 

[Jay Walk]

Alright alright, iii does not pertain to my OP. and that was the OR.
i and ii were and.

 

[awshoot]

Alright alright, iii does not pertain to my OP. and that was the OR.
i and ii were and.

Are you trolling? Show me the "and" between (i) and (ii) -- forget it. This is 100% trolling.

 

[nobamaplease]

This post is about escalating of use of force, weather the shooting of the dad looking for his son was justified or not.
Not if traveling in an auto with a loaded pistol with CCL is legal or not, I believe that there are other post that has that same topic.

Please stay on topic guys!

 

[Koda]

9 pages of discussion. If we havent figured out the answer to the OP by now theres no hope. I typically let the OP decide on thread drifts.