Robert Lutes, a resident of Boise, Idaho suburb, Meridian, probably wishes he had done that. Asking the man on the lawn to tell him what it was about, his question was answered with a .357 magnum revolver pointed at him by the Republican Party chairman of Boise County, Charles McAffee, a "tea-party" activist. No, it wasn't high noon, it was just before dinner time.
There is a controversy of course about whether Lutes was engaged in heated discuss
ion or argument about his delinquent mortgage payments before McCaffee drew on him, but McCaffee, working for collection agency used by Wells Fargo, says he pulled the gun on the unarmed homeowner to "de-escalate" the conflict. No, really.I am unable to establish Idaho's policy on such use of a concealed weapon, but I know that in Florida, it is illegal to display or "brandish" even a legally carried gun to gain advantage in or "de-escalate" a dispute or argument. Since McAffee was arrested for aggravated assault, I would assume a similarity in the laws. Again, I don't know if Idaho is a "castle doctrine" state, but I suspect it is and under that philosophy, Lutes would have been justified in shooting a Republican Party County Chairman and tax protester like any other armed home invader.
The more civilized part of my nature is glad he didn't, but the little demon on my shoulder sort of wishes the idiot Mr. Teabags had been dealt a little bit of old fashioned Republican justice.
I once saw a chap flash a pistol to "de-escalate" a minor dispute over a parking space outside a city hall area. Funny thing is, the person flashing the piece was clearly in the wrong about who had the better claim to the space....
ReplyDeleteMy concealed weapon of choice when I wish to "deescalate" a conflict is my cell phone, and I have an itchy trigger finger called "911." I've only had to do this twice since moving into this millionaire's complex of hotheads, which is two incidents more than any other time or place in my life. Lucky me; it seems law enforcement always takes the side of the one using a cell phone.
ReplyDeleteCell phone ... Never leave home without it.
In my state of NC, we have "make my day" laws so a homeowner here probably would have seen his .357 and raised him a 12 gauge shotgun.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this is usually NOT a good idea. Much better to use 8pus' 911 solution if possible and let the police sort it out.
I have come up with a different solution for the young ladies in my life; I give them marine grade portable air horns to keep in their cup holders. A 10 decibel blast close to one's head ought to make any car jacker/thief give pause at least long enough for the young lady to turn the canister around and bash said attacker in the bridge of the nose.
Some people think the most important thing for girls to learn are good manners. Me, I believe in teaching them how to survive first.
Good idea with the air horns - they're loud enough to cause a lot of pain. Mace works too - they make an extra strength version as a bear repellent. It should work on bill collectors and Republican party chairmen as well.
ReplyDeleteThe cell phone camera might work well too. A picture of your party chairman pointing a gun at you might be a very valuable thing - of course it could be so valuable he'll shoot you to get it.
Anyway, Quick-Draw McGaw here is going to have a hard time proving his life was in immediate danger, which is the only legal justification and I suspect he won't be allowed to bring his little friend to court with him - even in Idaho - to "de-escalate" the proceedings.
What is also incredibly frightening about this is that the wack job that drew the gun still believes he did nothing wrong.
ReplyDeleteYou don't get very far up the Republican hierarchy by admitting fault or responsibility for your actions.
ReplyDeleteIf he goes to jail, it will be because of "activist" "Liberal" judges.
Now I feel even safer packing a cell phone.
ReplyDeleteGuns as conflict de-escalators? Interesting concept. Is that kind of like big is better? I say DO OVER and let's just skip the right to bear arms. It would be interesting to see how our society involved without them. Maybe John Wayne would have been an artist?
Yes, We could have evolved like Mexico with the strictest gun laws in the world. It worked out well for the drug cartels and gangs, didn't it? Almost as well as banning drugs.
ReplyDeleteWant to 'Bear Arms'? Fine.
ReplyDeleteYou're in the militia.
Training in weapons handling, tactics, map reading, first-aid, etc. One day per month.
Two weeks every other year, active duty. Guard our borders. Train. Dig & use latrines. Etc.
Collection agency work would not satisfy this commitment.
Enjoy!
Somehow the idea that things go away by legislation or that human nature will change if private citizens are deprived of weapons never seem to be born out anywhere.
ReplyDeleteDrugs don't go away, alcohol didn't go away, guns won't go away just by waving the magic ban wand - no matter how hard and long it's waved.
Still nobody wants to discuss statistics that fail to show that strict gun laws have a significant negative effect on crime because this is no more a rational issue than national health care. As to the things that do affect violent crime -- or proof that national health care can work well -- we won't talk about that either. Any of that kind of thing would require people to change their opinions.
Arthurstone,
ReplyDeleteBut you have to give me a Bible, a colorful bandana, some army surplus fatigues, and a generous stock of survival food! Otherwise that militia stuff is no fun at all….
Others,
I think the 2nd Amendment is tolerably clear; antiquated language aside, it sets forth a basic right to defend onself and not to surrender that function altogether to law enforcement or larger governmental entities.
Common sense is needed –"keeping" arms is the easier of the two issues. Unless you have a rap sheet or are at serious risk for suicide due to a history of severe depression, the constitutional language holds. I don't own a weapon (aside from a set of very large, jagged teeth, of course), but would not want to be forbidden to buy one if I thought it necessary.
It's "bearing" arms that calls for sensible limitations: people shouldn't be allowed to carry arms in a place where the presence of weapons would cause understandable alarm (a school, a hospital, a political rally, and so forth) and where it makes no sense for any rational person to suppose he or she is likely to be threatened. I suppose you could get gunned down at the shopping mall by some AK-47 wielding psychopath, but given the stats, I'd say it's not worth worrying about, and toting a gun at such a place would only bring you under suspicion of being exactly the sort of nut you inordinately fear.
It's fine to assert one's individual right to self-defense, or if you prefer, "the right to keep and bear arms." But I would stop there because while I don't know that banning guns would really make us any safer, I also don't buy the notion that "an armed society is a polite society." A polite society is a polite society – guns don't make people polite. It seems logical to me that guns are far more likely to make impolite people even more impolite. I don't put faith in any alleged social benefits stemming from firearm ownership.
Most ordinary, peaceable people, in this reptile's view, wouldn't use a gun with sufficient ease or celerity against even the most obvious "evildoer" to make being armed a worthwhile proposition. The wicked and the sociopathic, by contrast, do not shrink from violence – they lack the conscience and restraint that makes relative cowards of more decent people. In a fully armed society, I suspect, we would still have two distinct groups: those who are armed but "don't want any trouble" (who fear violence deep down and who have bills to pay, spouses who care about them, kids to take care of, elderly parents who would be devastated at their loss, and so forth) and rootless low-lifers, paranoid militiamen, bullies, and scumbags of various persuasions who wouldn't think twice about using extreme violence to get what they want, law and morality be damned. That would not be a "polite" society – it would be a society terrorized by those willing to use the guns they possess against those who possess them but are mostly too fearful, or too humane and trusting, to use them. I know that ordinary people do extraordinary things in some settings – most particularly in war or in disaster scenarios. But I don't expect the same heroism, on average, in "everyday affairs."
Excellent points, Bloggingdino. There are times, I must admit, when I thought of purchasing a gun but what prevents me is the irascible temperament of an “ink-the-aquarium” octopus. In short, I wouldn’t trust myself with a blunderbuss. And its not my tentacles I worry about.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, we come around to the same dilemma; what feeds the violence in this country?
ReplyDeleteIf we ban guns will we have safer streets? I think not.
Most guns on the street, largely held by various gang members, are illegal weapons, smuggled into this country either through Mexico or by boat.
The propensity toward violence is a societal ill; the result of years of ignoring the writing on the walls of the inner cities and our schools.
We no longer know who our neighbors are or care about what they are doing. We don't socialize on front porches or attend town meetings.
With all the media, social and business outlets available to us electronically, we don't even have to leave our homes much so we have become very insular and individually isolated.
The right to keep and bear arms should have read the responsibility to keep and bear arms - whereby you would be responsible for keeping it stored properly and judicious in deciding whether you need to carry it.
And I'm in full agreement with Arthurstone - if you want to keep and bear arms you should have to do your bit in protecting this nation and learn about proper gun handling and usage at the same time.
I have always found that all I had to do was stand up and stare down at someone to 'de escalate' a situation...
ReplyDeleteI have never owned a gun and truthfully I have no desire for one because I fall into the Octopus family when it comes to using a gun...
Well, being almost 65 and barely 5'7" the de-escalation might be the result of laughter. But absent a clear and immediate danger to life and limb, it's illegal to use a gun as a tool in this way -- and it should be.
ReplyDeleteCaptain,
ReplyDeleteAt 5'7" you are entitled to own a TANK! Gee, that is so little! :)
Couldn't resist....just remember, some of my best friends are little!
TAO: "Couldn't resist....just remember, some of my best friends are little!"
ReplyDeleteWe may be little, but we are larger than life. Couldn't resist!
I would remind all how Randy Newman's career sank after his song "Short people" came out.
ReplyDeleteJust a cautionary tale. Short people have conquered the world. Piss us off enough and we'll do it again.
The only time you pull a weapon is if you intend to ultimately shoot the person you pull the weapon on.
ReplyDeleteThe homeowner, at that point, should have had the decency to shoot this idiot GOP asshat. I'd have considered doing so if it were me
The Second Amendment only works if you have the law on your side.