In general talking to people is completely legal, and definitely not a justification for deadly force.
You don’t get that a 2x4 and a firearm are different things, and that holding a 2x4 in one’s hand is different than pointed a gun directly at a person?
So you think it’s OK to kill people if they are white and perform completely legal actions?
Right, we’re talking about the idea of “talking to people,” not the idea of walking up to someone and demanding a proof that they have a right to be there.
Right.
Right, I gotcha.
Right, I clearly meant I literally would equate a 2x4 and a firearm. I cannot imagine what else I might have meant. The remainder of my post certainly contains no clues in that regard. You are correct sir or madame that in fact I see no difference between the two.
It can sometimes be morally permissible, yes.
So what? A weapon is a weapon, and just by sight, there’s no way to know who has a permit to use a gun and who doesn’t.
The fact that more states (in fact all of them) allow concealed carry to some extent, while far less allow open carry is not consistent with your assertion.
Why not? A guy pointing a gun directly at you could merely be signaling ‘I’m worried that guy might try to fight me, maybe this will deter him if he’s a bad guy’, right? Same thing if he’s carrying a 2x4.
Going out of the way to confront a person with either a 2x4 or a brandished gun is unnecessary escalating the likelihood of violence. In contrast, standing in a parking lot and minding one’s business with a hidden blackjack in one’s pants is not escalating anything. You are the one who has equated situations that are no way equilavent.
The OP said “asks me what I’m doing,” not demanding a proof that they have a right to be there. Asking someone what they are doing is not justification for the use of deadly force anywhere that I am aware of. And even if he did ask for a proof, that also is not justification for the use of deadly force. The only way demanding a proof would be a justification for the use of deadly force would be if it contained a threat.
I think that settles the issue of whether or not further conversation will be productive, talking to violent racists is generally not a hobby of mine.
For once I’m not responsible for an FRYLOCK ANGRY meltdown. Yay!
I equate walking up to a stranger in public and asking “what are you doing” to be demanding proof that they have a right to be there.
NO EXCEPTIONS ALWAYS EVERYTIME
Hey I was kind of thinking the same thing! Cool!
All states have different laws for different types of weapons, especially firearms vs anything else, so ‘a weapon is a weapon’ is not actually true. All states allow open carry of weapons to some extent, for example I’m not aware of any state where carrying a 2x4 openly is generally illegal, but I have provided two where carrying a blackjack concealed is.
You seem to be consistently arguing with things that I didn’t actually say, and getting very emotional about it, so I’ll let you have the last word if you like.
Stop projecting. FFS, you just lashed out at Frylock by calling him a violent racist. If that ain’t taking emotionality to new heights, I don’t know what else is.
Here is your original assertion played back so you can see it for yourself.
So let me spell this out to you again, since you’re still not getting it. A weapon in hand makes for a more threatening statement than a weapon that no one knows exist except the person carrying it.
Swap out the word “weapon” for “gun” and the point is the same.
And then you made this comment:
This makes no sense to anyone except you. To insist that an exposed weapon in general has more benevolent connotations that a hidden one marks you are too naïve to take seriously. Obviously your ancestors didn’t think this way because you would not be here.
I will happily take the last word.
I don’t, and I don’t think most reasonable people would.
Walking up to a stranger and asking “what are you doing” in a demanding and insolent tone might be. Walking up to a stranger and asking “what are you doing” in a curious and inquisitive tone might be intended merely as a conversation starter (maybe the guy’s curious about the protective eyewear, for example). Walking up to a stranger and asking “what are you doing” in a bored tone might be nothing more than a variant of “what’s up” or “how you doin’” or any of the other all-but-meaningless conversational set pieces. Without knowing more about manner, and demeanor, and tone and body language and inflection and all of the other questions that aren’t getting answered here, how do you know which possibility is correct?
There’s a guy I used to see in my neighborhood occasionally: great big guy who asked questions of everybody. Mental age about five (Down Syndrome). Curious, friendly, always cheerful, and always nosy, wanting to know who everybody was and what they were doing. Are you trying to assert that it would be morally acceptable to blow his brains out just because this big puppy-dog of a man had the audacity to ask a question? Seriously?
No!
No exceptions!
Every time!
Only if he’s white.
When his friend comes along with the other half and they set it on fire…
You still can’t shoot them.
Most of the posters in this thread have gone out their way to dismiss the OP’s assessment of the guys tone and demeanor.
If from the outset, you’re skeptical that the OP accurately read the guy’s non-verbal signs of hostility, I question why you would even entertain his question. Because his claim to self-defense largely depends on whether he would had good reason to believe the man posed an imminent danger to him, and that’s largely a subjective judgment.
Did the OP describe a scenario involving a grown man acting like a puppy-dog five year old? I thought he described a situation involving a grown man acting like hostile jerk.
If a person is approached pointedly and aggressively with the question “what are you doing here?”, yes, it’s perfectly reasonable to perceive this as a hostile action. Taken together with other cues, it’s also reasonable to be concerned about one’s safety.
And he’s interested in trains, knows a little about them, and came over to find out what you were doing.
[QUOTE=Frylock]
I equate walking up to a stranger in public and asking “what are you doing” to be demanding proof that they have a right to be there.
NO EXCEPTIONS ALWAYS EVERYTIME
[/QUOTE]
The point is that, on public ground, it is not illegal to walk up to a stranger and ask “what are you doing”. You can do that - it is not against the law.
In return, the person being asked has every right in the world to explain what they are doing/tell them to fuck off/try to sell them Amway/ask them out on a date/find out if they have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior/run away screaming/call the cops/ignore them and get along with your business/other things I can’t think of at the moment.
But you can’t kill them. That’s not a reasonable response to a rude question. If they threaten you, then you can defend yourself. But a rude question is not a threat. Even if they are holding a piece of lumber that they might use to hit you. You have to have some reasonable basis to think they are going to hit you, and carrying lumber isn’t it.
YMMV. But “he asked me what I was doing and he had a piece of wood” is not a good defense to a charge of murder.
Regards,
Shodan
The OP described no such thing (no “here,” for one thing); any of the versions slash2k described could have fit into it.
As I said above, I don’t think anyone here thinks the OP would be legally justified in using lethal force. What I have suggested, instead, is that given the situation as he describes it, it is not impossible that from a moral standpoint, he should be absolved of guilt.
The white man advanced on the black man threateningly, carrying what could easily be a weapon. I would not necessarily blame the black man for becoming deathly afraid for his life and answering accordingly.
As I said: White people need to learn to stay the fuck off of black people who are minding their own business. White people need to give black people the same courtesy they do to their own people. If it finally turns out, because of our stubbornness, that some of us have to die before we learn this lesson, then that is very unfortunate but does not reflect badly on any black person.
Characterizing the situation with much of the key substance taken out is called erasure, and it is a defensive move we white people engage in when we do not care whether we are engaging in morally wrong judgments, and intend instead to maintain our hold on power.
Can you. Not. Fucking. IMAGINE what kind of behavior we would justify in a white policeman should a black man have approached the police officer holding a two by four and asked “what are you doing”?
I’ve had strangers, black and white, talk to me when I am literally doing my job, which is sometimes in public and sometimes involves equipment and procedures that people don’t see every day. There’s nothing unreasonable about them occasionally asking what’s up.
By the same token, I feel free to talk to people in public, and it’s not generally related to their skin tone, one way or the other. (A random white person on the street is no more “my own people” than a random black person. If anything, the white person is more likely to not be from around here.)
I’m going to take the opposite stance. It’s morally wrong because if we lived in a society where people killed each other at the slightest twitch, an enormous amount more people would die than one where it took clear provocation.
Look at it another way. If the man with the wood actually wanted to kill the OP, and he wasn’t insanely stupid, he would follow the following procedure.
OP dead. Instantly. No chance to react or defend himself.
This is why police should not be permitted to kill people unless there is clear and defined proof, written down as guidelines in an actual law, that the suspect actually has a weapon and is about to use it. If the cop can’t see the physical gun, he should have to wait til the suspect fires.
Why? Because if the bad guy really wanted to kill the cop, the cop would already be dead. If a cop approaches a suspect who’s hands aren’t completely visible or the suspect makes a sudden twitch, what’s more likely?
a. The suspect actually had a gun, even though the cop doesn’t see it at the moment, and is a champion pistol marksman who can get a headshot on the cop before the cop can react
2. The suspect is not armed, or not willing to use deadly force
But if **a **is true, the cop would already be dead…This is why cops kill hundreds of people every year and tens of cops are killed by bad guys.