Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:47 pm

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 213 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
 "Coconut Charlie" debate 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 9:48 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 5270
Location: Minneapolis
Magnum Mikie wrote:
I'm sure you've heard it said: "There's no such thing as a stupid question". Well, I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that's not always the case on this forum.....

I think you might have a point here and other of us agree with you. That's why we fixed that problem and set up a forum just for noob questions that get asked over and over again a couple weeks ago.

_________________
I am defending myself... in favor of that!


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 9:51 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
DeanC wrote:
Magnum Mikie wrote:
I'm sure you've heard it said: "There's no such thing as a stupid question". Well, I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that's not always the case on this forum.....

I think you might have a point here and other of us agree with you. That's why we fixed that problem and set up a forum just for noob questions that get asked over and over again a couple weeks ago.
Yup. And while we haven't been tested over there -- so far, the questions have been great -- I'm looking forward to something like, "Just how mad do I have to be before it becomes legal to dust a bad guy with a hot handload, huh?"

It'll be handled politely, I'm sure. Even the thirtieth time. After all, look who the moderators of Newbie Corner are . . .

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 10:23 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 124
Location: Twin Cities
I've been silent on this subject for a reason...I've never taken a class from Joe Penaz.

To circumvent the, "You're sucking up to the site owner or his cronies." accusations...My instructor was Rusty Ramirez and my class cost $65, including lunch and range fees. The fact that I've yet to make a fool of myself (regarding matters germane to the carry community) here is evidence that the class gave me an adequate understanding of Minnesota law in carrying and using a firearm.

I don't think Joel or anyone else here has an issue with what any other instructor charges for his services. My class was, roughly, 6 1/2 hours of lecture, demonstration, and Q&A. This was followed by 3 hours of range time for the shooting qualification. I don't believe that Rusty skimped on the content of his class and I know that he stressed that if anyone came up with additional questions or just didn't feel comfortable asking something in class they could feel free to call or e-mail HIM (not someone else).

As to the claim that everyone on here is just piling on the new guys or stomping out differing opinions...I've seen members with years more time on this board take more guff than anyone participating in this debate has been handed. I've even tried to defend a position that wasn't popular and gotten nothing more acidic than people stating that they could understand my viewpoint but they didn't agree. No one took me to task for my comments or disparaged my viewpoint. Why didn't anyone "pile on"? Could it be that I didn't feel the need to attack everyone with a different opinion. Might that be why the entire thread (devoted to a much more highly charged and divisive topic) was filled with statements of support or dissent for a members actions and the possible consequences.

No one cares who taught a particular class or what it cost. The members here are concerned that every single permit holder is representative of us all if they are involved in a DGU. We are all concerned that an instructor might be putting shoddy information in front of someone who could be ruined by acting on that information. We are also worried by how those actions might affect the future of our rights by reflection.

So if you've taken a Joe Penaz class and feel that it was a quality presentation and that all the salient points were covered please continue to put that info out there for the rest of us. Take advantage of the offers to sit in on someone else's class and compare it with Joe presented.


Finally, Mr. Penaz, if you feel that you've been wrongly accused or harshly painted...Speak up! If you think that the criticism of your website is distracting from an important argument (and I do feel that way)...Speak up. If anyone wants to take a look at my instructors website it's http://www.permittocarry.org/ It's not exactly a marvel of cutting edge internet technology either. Hell, I'd be willing to come sit in on a class and give an honest opinion of what was presented and I've never had one of those high-priced classes either so I'm working from experience in the same price point that Joe Penaz targets.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 12:31 pm 
Junior Member

Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:28 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Plymouth MN
The following is not meant to be in response to any single forum member, rather to the last few pages of posts in general (since MY last post)



I can not beleive the backlash here.

You are telling me, that if you were in fear of your life, you would not use deadly force? No matter what the law said?

Ok....Bye bye...your dead....

Makes absolutely no sense to me...

MY MORAL decision, is that I would use deadly force, if had fear of losing my life....no matter what the law might be....I don't have time to stop and think about laws in 2.2 seconds. I will hope that the jury beleive's it was an ETHICAL decision, and aquits me of all wrong doing. If not....I can live with it, becasue I KNOW, I made the right decision...

And No, Joe did not teach us that.....so don't go blaming him.....What he did do is OPEN PEOPLES EYES...so they could go and make their own decisions...


P.S. there were no bench rests for pistols,

there were no preloaded gunsd.

It is clear to me, you don't want to have an intelligent conversation, rather just a Joe Penaz bash fest....

I could care less...don't know the guy, and I don't know you Joel R....But by Joel's attitude, I am starting to like him less and less....

And by the way, Joel complains about Joe P's website, I beleive Joel R has typed more incoharant things in the last few pages of this thread, than Joe has on his websites....

Most of his comments are incomplete sentences, of which many make no sense to me.....coments like "NOPE" and such.

If anyone wants to have an intelligent debate about an instructor, teaching methods, opinions of laws, etc. Please do, as iI am more than up to the challange....I never back away from an intelligent debate. I do run for cover, when people do "flaming" or want to speak with in-coharant rants etc.


Last edited by Nitro on Sat May 23, 2009 4:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 1:03 pm 
Junior Member

Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:28 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Plymouth MN
mrokern wrote:

Ok, I'm getting grumpy. Nitro did NOT get slammed, trust me. If you knew Andrew, you'd know just how light Nitro got off.

Why did we take issue with his post?

Nitro wrote:
Ultimately, it does not matter what the law says, because a jury will end up decieding if a shooting is justified or not, and YOU will have to live with your decision to use deadly force. I actually think this is more important, because face it, if you are in a situation where you use dealy force, obviosly you were in fear for your life.


BECAUSE THIS IS OUTRIGHT WRONG, AND IF HE WAS TAUGHT THIS THEN HIS INSTRUCTOR IS DOING A SHITTY JOB.

I don't give a damn about the guy's grammar, although I do tend to pay more attention to those who speak and write with a degree of elegance.

I know the MADFI curriculum pretty damn well (shit, I can quote most of it verbatim), and let me tell you, it's very low on "feeling" and very heavy on the law. Why? Because the law dictates what you can and cannot do. It's that simple.

And I'll bet that Joel, Cobb, Kimberman, David Gross, BPR, and a plethora of other instructors (who, by the way, aren't all part of the same group...not by a long shot) all spend far more time on the law in their classes than they do on feelings.

I have two goals if I ever have a DGU:

1) Stay alive, and keep my loved ones alive
2) Keep my ass out of prison

That's it. If I need to talk about feelings, I'll go see my pastor.

-Mark



O.K.

So let me get this straight. 1) You think my grammer is bad? (If so, please do correct me. I know my grammer is not perfect, but is not all that bad. This is also an internet forum, if you haven't noticed, there are lots of cases of bad grammer on internet forums, becasue this stuff is supoused to be a "conversation", and as such, is not proof-read/etc.)

2) First you say that my statement is "BECAUSE THIS IS OUTRIGHT WRONG, AND IF HE WAS TAUGHT THIS THEN HIS INSTRUCTOR IS DOING A SHITTY JOB." - Then you go on and say "I have two goals if I ever have a DGU:

1) Stay alive, and keep my loved ones alive
2) Keep my ass out of prison"

Which is EXACTLY what I said in my staement, just in different words. The key is, the NUMBER ONE PRIORITY is to STAY ALIVE. THe stay out of prison is secondary.


You get into this "feelings" debate...would you rather me say it this way -

"If I were in a situation where my OPINION was that I was going to die, without me myself using deadly force to prevent it, I would not hesitate to use deadly force, no matter what the law says. Afterall, what good is a Dead man that followed the law, vs. an alive one, that did not."


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 1:15 pm 
Junior Member

Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:28 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Plymouth MN
P.S. for guys like myself, who are not permit to carry "nuts" or "twincitiescarry" aholics.

Please don't use so many accronyms....

What is a DGU? deadly gun unit? dog gorn ugly?

Joel R previously used an accronym to make fun of me too....

Really mature of him.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 1:22 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 5270
Location: Minneapolis
Nitro wrote:
dog gorn ugly?

LMAO Good guess.

Defensive Gun Use

Here's a couple things that will help you out:

The Firing Line's Abbreviation Primer

Marine Corps Dictionary

Weapons Dictionary

_________________
I am defending myself... in favor of that!


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 1:36 pm 
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:37 pm
Posts: 1571
Location: Detroit Lakes, MN
Andrew Rothman wrote:
phorvick wrote:
Quote:
if you are in a situation where you use dealy force, obviosly you were in fear for your life.


No it is not wrong. It is actually not that far off.


It's really, really far off.

Of course the jury's emotions matter. But the emotions of the shooter -- particularly "fear" -- have no legal relevance. I believe that Nitro walked away thinking that "reasonably in fear of death or great bodily harm" referred to an emotional state, not a legal one.

That's the hole we're driving a semi through.
I do not care to argue...not worth my time on this beautiful sunny Memorial Day weekend.

Your assertion on what Nitro meant is just that...your belief. I don't share it. I did not and do not read his statement to suggest the point you are making.

It sounds like you agree with me, and I agree with you, but we both don't agree on what Nitro meant. Fair enough.

_________________
Paul Horvick
http://shootingsafely.com
---
Contact us to schedule a class for you and your friends, and check our website for more information http://shootingsafely.com


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 1:45 pm 
Junior Member

Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:28 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Plymouth MN
phorvick wrote:
It was asked and commented thusly:

Why did we take issue with his post? (that said...)

Ultimately, it does not matter what the law says, because a jury will end up decieding if a shooting is justified or not, and YOU will have to live with your decision to use deadly force. I actually think this is more important, because face it, if you are in a situation where you use dealy force, obviosly you were in fear for your life.

BECAUSE THIS IS OUTRIGHT WRONG, AND IF HE WAS TAUGHT THIS THEN HIS INSTRUCTOR IS DOING A SHITTY JOB.
----

No it is not wrong. It is actually not that far off.

I did not read the post at all the way others here have read it. I interpret the post to mean that going to court is a crap shoot. Although 'tis true that the jury must stay within the bounds of the law, their decisions are very often based upon emotion and feeling. Some jury consultants opine that in a criminal trial, it is not unusual for a juror to make an initital decision on guilt/innocence within a few minutes of seeing the defendant...even before any evidence is given. Then, that juror cherry picks evidence ...accepting as true that which supports that decision, and rejecting that which does not. Juries have great latitude in accepting and weighing evidence. It is indeed a crap shoot. "Feelings" and "emotion" ceertainly can play a significant part in criminal jury trials.

Everyone here knows that given the exact same facts, different juries might well render completely different results. Jury consultants also will opine that it is very possible to lose a case in the jury selection process. Why? Because feelings, emotion, personal backgrounds, attitude, religion, philosophy etc etc all play into a juror's deliberation process.

Of course the LAW is important. It acts as an ultimate rein on juror's feelings. But, to suggest that an instructor does a shitty job because he or she emphasizes the reality of trials is, in my opinion, wrong.

The poster may have inarticulately expressed his opinion, or used hyperbole to suggest that "Ultimately, it does not matter what the law says"; but that is no more hyperbole based than saying that instructors do a shitty job if that is emphasized. I guess I am shitty then.

Do a few trials and see for yourself how jurors and juries think. If you think that fairness, truth and justice prevail because the law is clearly on your side, well.....that might happen, and it might not. It is often a crap shoot that has many, many variables in addition to the black/white letter of the law.

(Oh, I am getting seasick from the thread drift! Have a great holiday folks!)


Thank you.....

Someone well versed in the manners of a jury trial. The ETHICAL opinion of a jury is going to account for much more than any written law..... This is true in absolutely ALL trials by jury.

I'll give an example of a situation, and the members of this forum can think about it, and form their own opinions. This example actually happened to me....this is not made up.

I was working with a firend, when a wrench broke, and a peice of the wrench flew violently at my face, and hit me in the eye area. Imediately blood began to poor from my eye area, and my face, and eye went numb. I cloud not see out of my eye. I told my friend to cal 911. he in turn said to forget 911, he was going to drive me to the urgent care center just down the road.

We jumped in his truck, and he started driving. I was feeling sick, and felt like I might pass out. He was coming to a stop at a stop light, and I told him to go into the right turn lane, and "blow the reds"...."just get me to help." Which is what he did. It turns out at the Urgent care, i was going to be all right. My actual eye ball was fine... I survived with some stiches, to see again.

Was that legal?
Was that Moral?
Was that ethical?
What would you have done?
What if we were envolved in an accident while running the reds?


The above story is very similar to how Joe teaches his classes. He teaches what the LAW SAYS, but then throws this type of story at you. He does not provide the answers to the questions at the end of the story. That he says, "Is up to you", but he makes you think. In my opinion, there is no better teaching method, than getting the students to think criticaly, themselves.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 2:44 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:16 pm
Posts: 340
Location: Brooklyn Park
Nitro wrote:
Was that legal?
Was that Moral?
Was that ethical?
What would you have done?
What if we were envolved in an accident while running the reds?


Nitro, I understand what you are trying to say - but this scenario is just not analogous. In the very situation you describe, you and your friend are making choices to skirt the law and to deal with the consequences later. Unfortunately for the person on the other end of your decisions there is a major difference between blowing a red light and blowing someone away - you just can not compare the two.

_________________
"The gun chooses you, you don't choose the gun"
- my wife


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 3:22 pm 
Junior Member

Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:28 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Plymouth MN
I dissagree.

Each situation has the possibility of someone lossing their life, because of no fault of their own.

In the use of deadly force, both the "perp" and innocent bystanders will be put at risk.

In the case of running red lights to save yourself possibly grave harm (loss of eyesight), my friend and myself were put at risk of lossing our lives due to a deadly car accident, and we also put at risk innocent bystanders to lossing theirs.

The only difference here, is that in the second scenario, there is no "perp".


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 3:29 pm 
Junior Member

Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:28 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Plymouth MN
Also, the situation I described, about running red lights, was not supposed to MIRROR a situation in using deadly force. Rather, it was to illustrate, the legal / moral / ethical debate of any decision one is to make in their life. It was also meant to illustrate how I beleive one should think about this debate, weather it is regarding a buisness deal you are making, a use of deadly force, or any other matter.

One should think about this stuff, BEFORE they are in a situation that deadly force is neccesary. One needs to have this debate settled in his OWN mind long before the need to use deadly force is encountered. That way there will be no question in your mind, no hesitation, and you will know that you have made the right decision, and be able to make that decision in a split second.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: I agree with you to a certain extent
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 3:35 pm 
Journeyman Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 8:34 am
Posts: 85
Location: Northwest Suburbs
Nitro wrote:
Also, the situation I described, about running red lights, was not supposed to MIRROR a situation in using deadly force. Rather, it was to illustrate, the legal / moral / ethical debate of any decision one is to make in their life. It was also meant to illustrate how I beleive one should think about this debate, weather it is regarding a buisness deal you are making, a use of deadly force, or any other matter.

One should think about this stuff, BEFORE they are in a situation that deadly force is neccesary. One needs to have this debate settled in his OWN mind long before the need to use deadly force is encountered. That way there will be no question in your mind, no hesitation, and you will know that you have made the right decision, and be able to make that decision in a split second.


I agree with Nitro to the extent that you must have given thought to the use of deadly force before you decide to become a permit holder. However, you should not have to think about it all the time to come to that conclusion. Being ex military the decision was made for me the first time an automatic weapon was pointed at me. Now that decision has been made for me so I know I will not have an issue if the situation calls for it


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 3:49 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 124
Location: Twin Cities
All right then...What part of my post was a bash at Joe Penaz? If you can't manage to be civil to people who are

not trying to belittle you how do you expect to accomplish anything with this thread (that's what we aholics and

nuts call a collection of replies on an internet forum) except to stir the pot (generally accepted colloquialism

meaning: to see how much S**t you can bring to the surface). I have not heard anyone bash (to malign or question the value of) Phorvick's abilities as a

PTC (Permit to Carry) instructor and his prices (the value set upon goods or services) seem to be more in line (in agreement with or similar to) with Joe Penaz than with Joel.

As I intimated (hinted) before, talk to your instructor (that person who taught you something) and tell him that you feel he's being unfairly maligned (bashed) and see if he

has any interest in participating in this discussion. If he's not concerned about it there probably isn't any

reason for you to get so worked up.

And since you've decided to flex your Net-Fu (ridiculous attitude that affects polite interaction with others in a nameless electronic medium) on someone who doesn't think that you're wholly wrong on some of the

things we've covered here recently...

An acronym is an abbreviation of several words formed in such a way that the indiviual letters themselves form a

pronounceable word. Thus, DGU would simply be an abbreviation...like FBI or IRS...meaning Federal Bureau of

Investigation or Internal Revenue Service...or as I used it Defensive Gun Use.

To further clarify:

$: A symbol meaning Dollar(s)
Q&A: Question AND Answer
e-mail: Electronic Mail

If there is anything else that confuses you please feel free to point it out in as confrontational a manner as

possible...Knowing that refusing to type a word or ABBREVIATION that you don't understand into a search engine, in

no way makes you come off as a pretentious ass and absolutely will not detract from the validity of your viewpoint

in any way. Remember we're all just thankful that you've saved such irrefutable gems as, "you're such a newb." and

"Because I said so." So that we can continue our little bash fest without the added irritation of trying to find

some mutually beneficial solution to what might be a real problem.


Yours in undying know-it-all bravery through keyboard anonymity,

Phil


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 4:00 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 5270
Location: Minneapolis
prushin wrote:
Yours in undying know-it-all bravery through keyboard anonymity,

Phil

LMAO. Image

_________________
I am defending myself... in favor of that!


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 213 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group