Intimidation v. Fear

The Inigo Montoya line keeps running through my mind every time someone talks about how Open Carry — and for some anti-rights cultists Concealed Carry — talk about how it is “intimidating”

 

Inigo Montoya - You keep using that word "Intimidate" I don't think it means what you think it means

 

 

Let’s look at the definitions and see if it makes sense or I’m completely off base. Please and I mean this, let’s talk about this.

in·tim·i·date

[in-tim-i-deyt]

verb (used with object), in·tim·i·dat·ed, in·tim·i·dat·ing.

1.to make timid; fill with fear.
2.to overawe or cow, as through the force of personality or by superior display of wealth, talent, etc.
3.to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear: to intimidate a voter into staying away from the polls.

Look carefully at those definitions and see that for the most part action is required on the part of the person — “to make”, “to force”. Intimidation requires action, deliberate action on the part of the person doing it.
On the other hand, the definition of fear better covers what happens; a person decides or experiences a feeling based on their own mental state.

fear

[feer]

noun

1.a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid. Synonyms: foreboding, apprehension, consternation, dismay, dread, terror, fright, panic, horror, trepidation, qualm. Antonyms: courage, security, calm, intrepidity.
2.a specific instance of or propensity for such a feeling: an abnormal fear of heights. Synonyms: phobia, aversion; bête noire, bogy, bogey, bugbear. Antonyms: liking, fondness, penchant, predilection.
3.concern or anxiety; solicitude: a fear for someone’s safety.
4.reverential awe, especially toward God: the fear of God. Synonyms: awe, respect, reverence, veneration.
5.something that causes feelings of dread or apprehension; something a person is afraid of: Cancer is a common fear.

No deliberate action is required on the part of the other party, e.g. the Open Carry advocate.For some people this will be a distinction without meaning; intimidation or fear results in the same thing they’ll say; that people do not want to see firearms in public.

 

And this is one of the biggest issues I have with pro-rights advocates decrying Open Carry. In pushing against Open Carry of long guns they are making the exact same argument as the antis!

Think about it carefully and you’ll see what I mean. How many times has an anti argued they shouldn’t have to be any place where people have guns. That the mere presence of firearms makes them uncomfortable.

How many times have we’ve seen some pro-2nd Amendment advocate say “If I see someone walk in with a rifle, I’m going to get ready draw” or worse “I’ll assume the Open Carrier is about to shoot up the place and confront him”. Just for the mere presence of a firearm??? Really folks.

 

 

Oh, I understand the thought process that goes behind it — A pistol is what you use to fight to your rifle, right? But isn’t that a mindset that we gun owners have created. Or stolen from the military?

Does the general public really see any difference between a rifle carried in public and a pistol openly carried in public?

Frankly, I’ve seen a lot of people on “our side” talking about how Long Gun Open Carry “scares” the public but I’ve failed to see the direct media reports from people there at the events saying they were afraid. Time and time again the reports of “people being afraid” come long after the fact by people who weren’t there (Looking at you Moms Demanding Attention) or were completely fabricated (Fort Worth Police Department, can you explain ala Jack In The Box).

 

 

I want to make sure I’m very clear here. I support Open Carry and the activism going on in Texas. I don’t support the continued carrying in restaurants, not because I think it is wrong, but because that activity was so easily turned against us.

 

But I also think we need to very strongly and solidly support people Openly Carrying Long guns because failing to do so will provide leverage for the antis. Just because something makes a person uncomfortable or fearful is no reason to curtail the exercise of a right. From Nudity to Open Carry– folks grow up and deal with it. There are things we should make socially unacceptable because they are harmful to society but the vast majority of things are simply “I don’t want to see because it makes me feel icky” — as in this example.

 

 

We need to let people know their fear of an inanimate object or people exercising their rights is not a sufficient reason to stop that person from doing so. Maybe this hits home especially for me due to personal experience.

 

I was in college at the local junior college when on two separate occasions (years apart) I was told by two different female students that my mere physical size (6’2″ and 190# at the time) “intimidated” them. Both agreed that I had not acted untoward (I try to be a gentleman), that I had not crowded them or intruded into their personal space, acted hostile or anything else. Just that my physical size intimidated them.

Now this was two class mates out of hundreds so I took it with a grain of salt but it stuck with me and continues to be something I’m aware of. It is also appropriate to the discussion — should I have not gone to school because someone was fearful, should I have changed my schedule based on the 1 in a 100 reaction? Absolutely not, it was their issue to deal with. I’m not trying to be cold blooded here but they simply needed to deal with it.

 

 

And this is exactly how some people see Open Carry, it is exactly how some people see Concealed Carry — ‘Oh…the presence of a gun ‘intimidates’ me; you have to stop what you are doing’.

 

Because the next time they make that statement it might be “Anyone except for the police owning a firearm intimidates me; we need to ban all guns”

Please join the discussion.

Training Effectiveness

Let’s imagine there is an organization providing training for people wanting to get their Concealed Handgun License — in one class only 7 out of 27 students passed the written examination on the first attempt. An examination that requires students only to get 70% of the answers correct.

Well that could be a fluke, right? Just a bunch of people who didn’t take it serious.

What if you found out that out of the last 4 classes there were similar problems; students seemingly unable to master the concepts of when to use force, what the law says, etc?

I don’t know about you but I would worry just how much those students had learned.

 

Now what if I told you that organization was the Dallas Sheriff’s Training Academy?

 

An exclusive NBC 5 investigation reveals a crisis inside the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department.  

The Dallas County Sheriff’s Training Academy is at risk of being shut down by the state because last year’s recruits did so poor on the state’s basic licensing exam.

NBC 5 Investigates obtained records from the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, which certifies Texas Police Academies, that indicate only 25 percent of last year’s recruits passed the exam on the first try.  

Their records show 27 recruits took the exam at the academy in 2013 but only seven passed on the first try. The state requires 80 percent of recruits pass on the first attempt and every police academy in Texas did that last year, except Dallas County who had the worst percentage in the entire state.

NBC 5 Investigates learned the state put Dallas County’s academy on probation last fall, which means they are at risk for losing their license.

NBC5 posted that report back in May — sorry blog and real life issues kept me from addressing this sooner.

Does that fill you with confidence and security knowing that it took multiple attempts for the majority of the class to get a “C” on the final exam? In interest of full disclosure, for a Concealed Handgun License with its admittedly shorter/less comprehensive test also requires a passing grade of 70% on the examination.

Before last year, the academy had stellar grades.  In 2012, recruits logged a 100 percent passing rate.

Law enforcement training experts said a sudden drop often points to a poor recruiting class or poor teaching and that both could be a problem.

 

Follow up investigations reveal that the issues do not appear to be with a single class.

NBC 5 Investigates obtained copies of the scores for the last four academy classes. A score of 70 is a passing grade for individual cadets, but in the last four classes the average score on the problem solving and critical thinking portion of the test ranged from just 50 to 60 percent. Three of the last four classes had failing scores on the force options section — which gauges their knowledge of when it’s OK to use a weapon.

Recent Dallas County academy classes also had scores averaging below 70 percent in test areas including controlled substances, arrest search and seizure, traffic laws and crisis intervention – mental health code training.

In one recent academy class, the average score on the family code and juvenile justice portion of the test was a mere 36 percent.

So, let’s consider the ways that the recent classes, including the 2012 class which had a 100% pass rate could have passed.

a. The prospective peace officers took the test repeatedly until they got it right.
b. The prospective peace officers received illegal assistance in passing the test.

Does either scenario fill you with confidence and security about the peace officers coming out of that organization? Especially when you consider that once they passed the test; any department or agency could have hired them!

 

The anti-rights cultist generally harp on how people who carry firearms need to be trained like professional law enforcement officers are trained. Yet the reality of the situation is peace officers aren’t held to incredibly high standards. I’ll be covering the training requirements in more detail later. I want to assure people this isn’t a knock on law enforcement in general; more of pointing out the problems with a major training institution and the tendency of the antis to put law enforcement on a pedestal.

The simple fact is most officers are decent people trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately they are also working for agencies usually headed by political appointees or elected officials trying to stay in office. Unfortunately most officers do not possess the in depth knowledge of the law or the Constitutions.

In fact, I was shocked that for a Basic Peace Officer certification only 8 hours out of 643 — a measly 0.16% of the of the time — is spent on the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution and the Texas  Constitution.

Please join the discussion.

 

And thanks for sticking around and the messages regarding the blog; it really helped to know that people were reaching out to me during the past couple of months.

 

 

Another Reason Not To Live In Dallas

Regardless, that’s what Dallas police Chief David Brown advocated to City Council members wednesday in an effort to give his officer access to the private financial records of criminal suspects.

“This information can be used to take down these organizations — multiple drug houses, open air drug sales,” the chief said. “We can access this information.”

Brown asked the Council to let officers access private banking and financial information that’s protected under the federal Bank Secrecy Act. Brown said this information — already being collected by the feds, but tightly controlled — would help him take down local drug dealers.

Yep, Let’s not worry about the people’s rights when trying to enforce impractical drug laws.

Makes me wonder if there is an ulterior motive behind this action.

The vote lets the City enter into an agreement with the Department of the Treasury to access financial records at no cost to the city.

Brown said the arrangement will let Dallas keep drug money it seizes instead of sharing it with federal agencies.

That couldn’t possible be an ulterior motive, could it?

Positive Open Carry / LEO Interaction

Congrats not only to the Come and Take It – Texas group but the Austin Police officer !

This is how it should be.

.

.

Now if we can get Open Carry of Handguns.

 

If You Get Gibberish Emails

You’ll know why

An Illinois-based digital artist has created a Gmail plugin that automatically adds blacklisted words to every email in an attempt to protest against online surveillance.

Ben Grosser has designed the ScareMail plugin in a way that, he says, will be ensure that even benign emails are picked up by the security filters of America’s National Security Agency.

I had thought about adding black listed words to my communications; glad someone found a way to automate the process.

Grosser’s idea takes the opposite tack to encryption tools including PGP and Silent Text, and to the IP-masking service Tor, which are designed to hide the contents of messages or the sender.

“One of the strategies used by the US National Security Agency’s (NSA) email surveillance programs is the detection of predetermined keywords. These “selectors”, as they refer to them internally, are used to identify communications by presumed terrorists,” said Grosser.

“Large collections of words have thus become codified as something to fear, as an indicator of intent. The result is a governmental surveillance machine run amok, algorithmically collecting and searching our digital communications in a futile effort to predict behaviours based on words in emails.”

ScareMail generates a chunk of text to append to the end of every email sent, containing as many selectors as possible.

The NSA could eliminate those emails from their filters if they choose though.

The plugin warns recipients by prefacing the text with the warning “Following Text Generated by ScareMail” — which would make it trivial for the NSA to ignore it in its current form.

But by doing so they increase our privacy; if enough people use this, the NSA would be overwhelmed with false positives or have to ignore large chunks of people’s communications.

“All ScareMail does is add words from the English language to emails written by users of the software. By doing so, ScareMail reveals one of the primary flaws of the NSA’s surveillance efforts: words do not equal intent.”

More accurate to say is not all words equal intent. Sometimes they do but to give up our essential liberty of free speech and privacy in the vain hope of safety is not something I’m willing to do. It isn’t something the government should be forcing people to do.

 

ScareMail is available as a plugin for Chrome, Firefox and Safari, and the source code is free for all at Github.

So folks, if you start seeing ‘scary words’ in my emails; you’ll know why.

Please join the discussion.

 

Law Enforcement Mentality

Before I get into this post, I want to make it very clear that I support law enforcement personnel in doing their job. I understand it is a dangerous job and reasonable precautions have to be taken. Where I differ is how ‘reasonable’ has been defined lately. I am not advocating any violence toward law enforcement officers; far from it. I’m trying to foster an understanding from where the average citizen sees this issue. I also completely understand that it is a minority of officers who cross the law into legal behavior. What is troubling is so many officers and agencies are pushing the boundaries of the law and seeking to create new laws that makes it easier for them to cross the line.

Ever wonder why so many police across the country in separate cities, departments and even agencies display much of the same behavior?

Part of it is because of articles like this from Policemag.com.  In article, supposedly on how to spot people carrying concealed weapons, I found this gems. (All emphasis though out mine)

 

That means that the best way to survive an encounter with an illegally armed individual is to exert complete control over everyone you stop, everyone you confront for any reason, and everyone you meet until you can confirm that they are not a threat to you.

Basic human decency and courtesy? Oh the door in the name of ‘officer safety’. Because just how can an officer confirm that someone isn’t a threat?
I understand officers wanting to go home but that does not justify them treating me as a threat until I show myself to be one.

Your job is to ensure that you always remain in a position to exert complete control at all times. In order to accomplish this you must inform all subjects involved in any stop or enforcement action that they must not move, they must keep their hands where you can see them, and they must not place their hands inside their clothing or inside any compartments for any reason unless you instruct them to do so.

And again, instant and complete obedience demanded by those hired to protect us. So once the police show up, for whatever reason, I’m supposed to become an automaton only following his/her orders?
Everyone’s seen the videos, I don’t have to post them here, of the police slamming people to the ground, on to cars or floors for the slightest reason. This writer is encouraging that behavior.

Sorry Sir but we don’t loose our rights just because an officer is on the scene. We can move, we can fidget, we can do things you don’t like. Please stop treating, stop telling every officer to treat us like we are all criminals waiting to murder you; it simply isn’t so.

It also makes sense to ask everyone you stop or challenge to tell you if they are armed with any firearms or weapons. Naturally, you should use a tone of voice befitting the circumstances at hand whenever you inform citizens of the rules of engagement and you ask if they are armed.

Rules of engagement? WOW! Law Enforcement isn’t the military; stop acting like it is. We already have a list of the “rules of engagement” — it is the Constitution (including all of the Bill of Rights) and the applicable laws !!  You don’t get to make up ‘rules’ on the spot, you don’t get to supersede the Constitution and the laws just in the name of ‘officer safety’.

This mentality of “rules of engagement” is one of the main contributors to the ‘us versus them’ attitude so prevalent among law enforcement. Look, you deal with some bad people. I get that. I also know you deal with people like me, probably more often then the ‘bad people’ — just the average citizen who is either a victim, seeking information or guilty of a minor infraction of the law (I’ve been caught speeding a few times).

Above all, listen to your instincts and be prepared to react when you perceive danger. Remember, outside of getting ambushed, cops get killed and get injured when they lose control.

And how do innocent people get killed or injured? When the police demand complete and utter control. Innocent people also get killed and injured when the law enforcement officers ‘lose control’ of their anger, their emotions, their rationality. And seems to be happening more and more often.

Think this mentality is just the author’s? How about this comment?

ERTLing007@hotmail.com @ 11/9/2007 9:12 PM

You owe it to your Family and anyone who cares about you to be prudent at all times and to never, ever let your guard down even when everything seems to be under control. If it feels weird then it probably is, so grab that bad guy and search him, secure him and keep an eye on him; he screws around, make him pay for his mistake because you’re going home tonight!!

Never mind rights, never mind due process, never mind the law, never mind the rules — make him pay for his mistakes — Holey Stinking Mackeral! Is it any wonder people are losing trust in law enforcement?

This comment really sums it up:

bk @ 6/8/2013 11:34 AM

I remember when the po-po were more concerned for citizens than for themselves. Our country is on a dangerous path that always leads to a police state.

Please join the discussion.

Proving Us Right

I’m finding the media, in their efforts at gun control, are actually having the opposite effect.
The media reports that we need gun control to stop “gun violence”  but wait:

(CNN) — Gun-related homicides and crime are “strikingly” down from 20 years ago, despite the American public’s belief that firearm crime is on the upswing, a new study said Wednesday.

Looking back 50 years, a Pew Research Center study found U.S. gun homicides rose in the 1960s, gained in the 1970s, peaked in the 1980s and the early 1990s, and then plunged and leveled out the past 20 years.

Then the media wants to portray gun owners as ‘paranoid’; always concerned about the slippery slope that doesn’t exist.

Well, maybe we aren’t.

OWINGS, MD — The father of a middle schooler in Calvert County, Md. says his 11-year-old son was suspended for 10 days for merely talking about guns on the bus ride home.

Bruce Henkelman of Huntingtown says his son, a sixth grader at Northern Middle School in Owings, was talking with friends about the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre when the bus driver hauled him back to school to be questioned by the principal, Darrel Prioleau.

“The principal told me that with what happened at Sandy Hook if you say the word ‘gun’ in my school you are going to get suspended for 10 days,” Henkelman said in an interview with WMAL.com.

So what did the boy say?  According to his father, he neither threatened nor bullied anyone.

“He said, I wish I had a gun to protect everyone. He wanted to defeat the bad guys. That’s the context of what he said,” Henkelman said. “He wanted to be the hero.”

No actual firearm, no actual threat of violence, no actual discussion of harming anyone. Just talking about what thousands of law enforcement officers say; they want to protect people.
Yeah, they suspended a kid for talking about “to protect and to serve”.

But it gets even worse; not only did the 1st Amendment get trampled on; they wanted to trash the 4th.

The boy was questioned by the principal and a sheriff’s deputy, who also wanted to search the family home without a warrant, Henkelman said. “He started asking me questions about if I have firearms, and [the deputy said] he’s going to have to search my house.  Search my house?  I just wanted to know what happened.”

No search was performed, and the deputy left Henkelman’s home after the father answered questions in a four-page questionnaire issued by the Sheriff’s Office.

Search the house for what?
Haven’t we warned about warrant-less searches, haven’t we complained that the gun control efforts will lead to a loss of privacy?
Yeah, we have.

Also notice that this wasn’t just a ‘school issue’ that the principal handled; they brought in a Sheriff’s Deputy. The father and the child could have faced criminal charges.

Sorry anti-rights cultists but the media is not helping your cause as they normally do. The media is actually proving some cliches, such as “slippery slope” and “camel’s nose under the tent” exist for a reason.

And our government, at all levels, is dead set on showing just how little they respect our rights.
Now you anti-rights cultists have a choice to make;  you can either stop trying to restrict or rights or you can face the consequences of your actions.
And given the mood of a large part of the country; you might not like us when we are mad.

Please join the discussion.