Was I out of line?

[RRLE]

This is an assumption that is not based in the scenario.

It certainly is, because otherwise I am supposed to believe that someone who started a threatening encounter, with no legal authority and no business starting it to begin with, is all of a sudden going to just back off. As I wrote earlier, one of my initial reactions to the original post was "who died and left you boss". Our OP is all full of himself and thinks he has some right to boss and intimidate other people just because they are engaged in lawful activity, in a lawful place and he just doesn't like what they are doing.

[RRLE]

As I mentioned before, we'll agree to disagree. I'll further mention that the reason I started this thread is to learn how to be better.

Well you haven't learned much. From all your replies, you still think you have some God-given right to intimidate people in a public place who are engaged in a lawful activity. I don't see any recognition on your part of where you screwed up or could have done it differently and better, if you were going to do anything at all.

[Luis R. Ramos]

You have shown you are more of a bully than he is.

Your reaction of "Who left you the boss" is as bad as his putting on a face.

You RRLE have used more intimidating words than he has.

I would distrust you more than the OP. Just because of your "I met bullies before so I am not backing down."

It is your behavior that has gotten people killed. Not his.

Who is using the phrase "God-given right?"

You. Not him.

Who chastises who?

RRLE. Not the OP.

Who is the bully?

RRLE. Not the OP.

[DakRadz]

I have often called someone out on immoral or rude behavior and then removed myself from the situation. If they stop, great. If it is illegal, then the authorities can handle it. If I'm the medic and on duty, I will attempt to give off a command presence to indicate you should listen so the police aren't necessary.

I certainly would never pull my firearm because a person kneeling on the ground looked at me with a "scary" or "angry" face. That's a prison sentence.

It's about being NOT a useless bystander; it isn't about being the PC police.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
ETA: clarified last sentence.

[RRLE]

Luis, you really have to try better than that. According to some other poster, my words aren't even close to threatening or fighting words. The OP still hasn't even begun to recognize where he went wrong from the get-go. He is still seeking affirmation of his threatening attitude.

And neither you, him or anyone else has shown where his original threatening behavior is in any way in conformance with CAP values, Character Development standards or anything else to do with CAP. Yet you and others keep defending him and his behavior. I'm sure the cadets are paying attention - I just don't know what lesson they are learning.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Ohh yeah?

Just before you posted your response to me, DakRadz posted a message. On this message, he is supporting the OP's behavior. It is like he says "the OP is capable of behaving like the OP is saying."

And he has stated the conduct you support, that of pulling a gun out if you do not like the looks of anyone, or the way he talked to you, is not acceptable.

And by your words, and I quote no one has shown his "threatening behavior is in any way in conformance with CAP values, Character Development standards or anything else to do with CAP."

Neither is your response. Or are you trying to get people to believe that "two wrongs, one by the OP the second by RRLE, do make a right?"

[LSThiker]

Two wrongs do not make a right, it takes 3 to make a right.

But two wrights do make an airplane.

[Luis R. Ramos]

 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


Good one.

[RRLE]

And he has stated the conduct you support, that of pulling a gun out if you do not like the looks of anyone, or the way he talked to you, is not acceptable.

That is a misstatement of what I said. I did say that situations that the OP instigated can lead to that. All it takes is for the victim to perceive that the perp/OP has threatened them with bodily harm. At least by Florida law, the OP's intent, whether he lives or not is not material. All that is material is the perception of the victim measured against a reasonable man standard, as determined by a prosecutor and maybe a jury.

Neither is your response. Or are you trying to get people to believe that "two wrongs, one by the OP the second by RRLE, do make a right?"

First of all, I deny your assumption that my posts were threatening, see above where you misstate my position.

Second, since the OP started this thread and asked the question - it is incumbent on him and his defenders to show how his deliberate intimidating behavior in any way conforms to CAP values, Character Development standards etc. I notice both you and him are dodging this bullet, so to speak. It doesn't matter what any other non-CAP party would do in a similar situation. The OP asked the question on a CAP board, so the reference point to any response to him should be in line with CAP values etc. I haven't seen that reply yet from anyone - other than Chappie, who agreed with my suggestion on how this could have been better handled.

[SarDragon]

OK, guys, it looks like we're degenerating into school yard behaviour. Are we ready to shut this off?

[RRLE]

l would really like to see my point two immediately above answered. It hasn't been. There has been a lot of weaving and dodging about but no one other than two or three (I just re-read Eclipse's early post) none have addressed the original question in a CAP context and CAP values. I think it would be very informative if the next several posters addressed that original issue directly.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I can't believe it's still going!

[Luis R. Ramos]

If we misconstrued your posts, you have yourself to blame. Several here showed you you were wrong in stating your impression of the OP, and yet you kept accusing him of being a bully. And you defended your behavior glorifying what you do to bullies.

Is not one of the CAP core values Respect?

The OP stated he was doing his initial behavior out of Respect to the victim. Did you show Respect to the OP?

No.

The OP stated he was performing a Volunteer Service. Helping someone in distress.

Related to at least two of CAP Core Values. Which you did not accept.

And how are your responses in line with CAP values?

[RRLE]

Luis, FWIW I am not a member of CAP. I joined this board years ago when I was invited to because members here were misstating facts about another organization I belonged to. I have hung around ever since. So in that context I am not bound by CAP values.

Second, nice dodge again. The issue is the intimidating interaction between the OP/Prep and his victim, the photographer. Are you trying to claim that the OP was showing him respect? What respect was shown the victim's rights as a person doing a lawful activity in a lawful place. That is the original question posed by the OP. I think even the mods would like us to focus on that.

[NCRblues]

Tick tock time for the lock clock!

[Luis R. Ramos]

What you are saying is that only the victim should defend itself and his/her rights. When you cannot attack someone, you call it a dodge.

We live in a democracy. Everyone can express their views, be them pro or con.

With a consistency of 99.8% we appear to believe the OP was right. A consistency of .2% appear to believe the OP was wrong. So who was right?

A consistency of 99.8% believe this thread should end. But it appears that .1% believes it should not. Another .1% believes it should end, that the OP demonstrated his point but is like a dog with his bone.

[RRLE]

I'll make this simple since it appears they are about to lock the thread.

Neither the OP, Luis or anyone else has shown, despite several requests, that the OP's original intimidating behavior toward the photographer was in any way in comportment with CAP values etc. It hasn't been done, because it can't be done. If it could be done, someone would have done it by now.

Further, I suspect Luis' posting behavior is a deliberate attempt to get the thread locked. He will probably succeed.

However, cadets, please take note. None of the OP's defenders were able to defend his actions within a CAP context or within CAP values.

Last note, take a look at what happened today in New Orleans when someone decided it was a good idea to intimidate someone else. Things escalate, brown stuff happens, people die.

[DakRadz]

Luis, FWIW I am not a member of CAP.

/thread

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

[Eclipse]

Neither the OP, Luis or anyone else has shown, despite several requests, that the OP's original intimidating behavior toward the photographer was in any way in comportment with CAP values etc. It hasn't been done, because it can't be done. If it could be done, someone would have done it by now.

Your assertion that "making a meanie face and telling someone to put a camera away" is a "threat" doesn't make it one,
especially legally, which negates the entirely of your argument in that regard.

Further, playing the "core values" card when you aren't in CAP just to "win the internet" simply exposes your argument as specious.

Lastly, if you believe brandishing a firearm is an appropriate and legally justifiable response to a "meanie face", you are in for
some exciting interactions with law enforcement and the court system.

Good luck with that.

[abdsp51]

Folks.  Many of you forgetting to remember it doesn't matter how you or the OP perceived their actions.  If this person the OP showed the alleged aggression towards felt threatened and if in fact WA is a stand your ground law.  The OP would have been legally within his/her right to present a weapon and take action. 

Under stand your ground there is no requirement to retreat and no legal requirement to utilize a lower level of force.  What is not told here is how far away was the OP and other attributes. 

Had this been in AZ and the person the OP did this too and that person felt threatened or perceived the angry face, tone and being pointed at a threat the OP could have been shot and there wouldn't be much recourse for the shooter.  And once the criminal stuff was done is free and clear of any civil liability.  In AZ all one has to have is the perception of a threat and fear for their well being. 

Either way OP performed an action some agree with it others don't.