Drunk Moron

[24Carat]

Are you serious? The sheepdog does not long for any fight, he merely possesses the tools and skill to do what needs done should the fight come to him.
Read LTC Grossman's words again:

"The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, “Baa.”
Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog."​

"Until the wolf shows up [to threaten the flock]". He (the sheepdog) is not out there hunting the wolf, his duty is to protect his own. Our duty is to protect our own, not to go looking for a fight. They have places for people who go looking for fights, they're called cemeteries.

If we were intended to go out and hunt the wolves, the vet in LTC Grossman's column would have called us Wolfhounds. But, he didn't. Sheepdog, one who protects the sheep, not one who hunts the wolves.
This, to me, hints of vigilantism. In your words, one is either too scared to face danger "their weapon shaking in one hand and their cellphone in the other", or is out looking for badguys hoping to scare them off.

I think you're doing a pretty heft dis-service to themembers here who have a flock they must protect. If you have no flock(family) (or society is my flock), and are a lone sheepdog, then by all means do what you feel is warranted. Do NOT, however, imply that I am a coward because I choose to not fight on someone else's terms or turf, in a fight that is not my own.

You speak as if the "flock" only consists of your immediate circle. If that is the extent of your "territory" then great, be the best you can be. I indicated in my earlier post that I recognize some sheepdogs are smaller with a softer bark. This is apparently your position. My point has yet to be addressed. Why do you feel it necessary to castigate those that would advance rather than retreat?

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day.

If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love.

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously.

I guess my work environment contributes to my degree of Sheepdog blood. Every time I expose myself to the public during the work day I have a large florescent target on my back. Not a career I suggest you get into. Also, I am not LEO.

 

[iChokePeople]

Every time I expose myself to the public during the work day I have a large florescent target on my back. Not a career I suggest you get into. Also, I am not LEO.

??

 

[richardraw316]

" Do NOT, however, imply that I am a coward because I choose to not fight on someone else's terms or turf, in a fight that is not my own."
i do not think he was implying that you are a coward. I am.
To hide when you see someone destroying someone elses personal property, because you are afraid of the situation might escalate into something potentially dangerous, is cowardly. I am sorry if this seems harsh. You may have some self confident issues that need to be addressed.

“Cowards can never be moral.” Mahatma Gandhi.

“It is better to be killed than frightened to death.” Robert S. Surtees.

"To know what is right and not do it is the worst cowardice." Confucius


looks like i am not the only one who feels this way.

​

 

[jamesg]

" Do NOT, however, imply that I am a coward because I choose to not fight on someone else's terms or turf, in a fight that is not my own."
i do not think he was implying that you are a coward. I am.
To hide when you see someone destroying someone elses personal property, because you are afraid of the situation might escalate into something potentially dangerous, is cowardly. I am sorry if this seems harsh. You may have some self confident issues that need to be addressed.

“Cowards can never be moral.” Mahatma Gandhi.

“It is better to be killed than frightened to death.” Robert S. Surtees.

"To know what is right and not do it is the worst cowardice." Confucius


looks like i am not the only one who feels this way.

​

so in your mind anyone who doesn't agree with you is a coward.....are you really unable to comprehend anything beyond your own existence?

 

[IndyGunner]

^ I'm not sure thats what he was saying exactly...

 

[thebishopp]

Chiming in with support for the OP!

IMO the worst "cowards" are the ones who always attempt to rationalize their "cowardice", attempting to call it something other than what it is.

The reality is that most everyone is a "coward" to some degree or another... for example, when the significant other asks if they look fat in their jeans and they do but you say "no dear" because you are afraid of the repercussions you have committed an act of cowardice.

There are different levels of cowardice though, some more "unforgivable" than others, ones that show truly "disgraceful fear or timidity". Of course we all may have different opinions on what constitutes "disgraceful fear or timidity".

 

[thebishopp]

so in your mind anyone who doesn't agree with you is a coward.....are you really unable to comprehend anything beyond your own existence?

If you meet the accepted definition of a coward then yes you are a coward, if you do not then no you are not a coward:


From Merriam-Webster's Learners Dictionary.

Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

cow·ard /ˈkawɚd/ noun
plural cow·ards
[count] : someone who is too afraid to do what is right or expected : someone who is not at all brave or courageous

 

[richardraw316]

so in your mind anyone who doesn't agree with you is a coward.....are you really unable to comprehend anything beyond your own existence?

it has nothing to do with agreeing with me or not. The coward part is seeing wrong and not doing your part to do right. made even worse, you chastise someone else for doing something you maybe afraid to do. There is nothing wrong with being afraid, it keeps us alive. Being courageous is not having no fear, it is doing what right even if you are afraid. if you were in this situation, i would have less problem with you doing nothing, but dont knock the people willing to stand up for people like you.

WW1,WW2,korea,vietnam, and the war in iraq. Is all brave men and women standing up and doing what is right. we are and have always tried to do the right thing. whether it is accross the ocean, or accross the street, doing what is right is never wrong.

 

[thebishopp]

it has nothing to do with agreeing with me or not. The coward part is seeing wrong and not doing your part to do right. made even worse, you chastise someone else for doing something you maybe afraid to do. There is nothing wrong with being afraid, it keeps us alive. Being courageous is not having no fear, it is doing what right even if you are afraid. if you were in this situation, i would have less problem with you doing nothing, but dont knock the people willing to stand up for people like you.

Exactly.

 

[jamesg]

If you meet the accepted definition of a coward then yes you are a coward, if you do not then no you are not a coward:


From Merriam-Webster's Learners Dictionary.

Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

cow·ard /ˈkawɚd/ noun
plural cow·ards
[count] : someone who is too afraid to do what is right or expected : someone who is not at all brave or courageous

accepted by whom?

because "what is right" is very different between one person and another and nobody is in any position to force their particular brand of "right" on anyone else.

 

[jamesg]

it has nothing to do with agreeing with me or not. The coward part is seeing wrong and not doing your part to do right. made even worse, you chastise someone else for doing something you maybe afraid to do. There is nothing wrong with being afraid, it keeps us alive. Being courageous is not having no fear, it is doing what right even if you are afraid. if you were in this situation, i would have less problem with you doing nothing, but dont knock the people willing to stand up for people like you.

WW1,WW2,korea,vietnam, and the war in iraq. Is all brave men and women standing up and doing what is right. we are and have always tried to do the right thing. whether it is accross the ocean, or accross the street, doing what is right is never wrong.

Doing what was right, could be simply notifying the cops, this isn't a war bro, this was Drunk Guy vs. Neighbors Car. You simply cannot connect the atrocities that have occurred across the globe, requiring action, to this situation. There are times when something isn't right, but you don't involve yourself. Then there are times you do. Life is not so black and white.

 

[thebishopp]

accepted by whom?

because "what is right" is very different between one person and another and nobody is in any position to force their particular brand of "right" on anyone else.

While you have a point on the perspective differences on what's right to one and what's right to another...let's look at the origin of the word to get a better idea on it's accepted definition (a little more detailed than the Miriam webster definition):

Word History: A coward is one who "turns tail." The word comes from Old French couart, coart, "coward," and is related to Italian codardo, "coward." Couart is formed from coe, a northern French dialectal variant of cue, "tail" (from Latin cda), to which the derogatory suffix -ard was added. This suffix appears in bastard, laggard, and sluggard, to name a few. A coward may also be one with his tail between his legs. In heraldry a lion couard, "cowardly lion," was depicted with his tail between his legs. So a coward may be one with his tail hidden between his legs or one who turns tail and runs like a rabbit, with his tail showing.

Giving birth the definition:

coward [ˈkaʊəd]
n
a person who shrinks from or avoids danger, pain, or difficulty
[from Old French cuard, from coue tail, from Latin cauda; perhaps suggestive of a frightened animal with its tail between its legs]

----------------------------


This gives us a better idea on what the origins/creators of the term view as "right" regardless of if you consider what they feel as "right" to be what you feel is "right".

Essentially it would be better that you argue not that you are NOT a coward (if you meet the definition as is generally accepted and what appears to have been intended looking at the history of the word) but that you do not think that being a coward is "wrong". and that it is actually "right" to be a "coward".

 

[richardraw316]

accepted by whom?

because "what is right" is very different between one person and another and nobody is in any position to force their particular brand of "right" on anyone else.

What is Right is sometimes open to debate, What is wrong is undisputed.
Rape is always wrong, the holocaust was wrong, keep the people under your boot is wrong, Breaking the law for no other reason to be an A** is wrong. and there is a whole lot more to add to this list. Anybody with even a shred of a working conscience knows whats wrong when they see it.
Stop trying to change the subject. you would see something wrong happening and do nothing. then attack the ones who would. This makes you a coward. If you want to refute something, let it be that. not what everyones opinion on Right vs. Wrong is.

 

[Lex Concord]

"I love the smell of testosterone on the interwebz"

 

[thebishopp]

Doing what was right, could be simply notifying the cops, this isn't a war bro, this was Drunk Guy vs. Neighbors Car. You simply cannot connect the atrocities that have occurred across the globe, requiring action, to this situation. There are times when something isn't right, but you don't involve yourself. Then there are times you do. Life is not so black and white.

I would agree that yes doing what was right could have simply been notifying the police.

I think where the disagreement now lies is that you have (or seemed to have) tried to chastise the acts of those who would do more than merely call someone on the phone hoping that someone else fixes the problem or will come to save them.

Please keep in mind that the role of the "police" is not necessarily to "protect" you or those around you. The Supreme Court has already ruled (some people here put a lot of weight in SCOTUS rulings) that LEOs do NOT have a constitutional duty to protect.

Leo's merely enforce and respond to violations of law. That is their task. They are more of a reactionary force than a proactive force.


Now all that being said. There are a few "tactical" issues that the OP could have found himself afouled of had things gone differently. I praise the OP for his pro activeness and courage AND (not "BUT") urge him to be more tactically aware of the potential dangers (such as the 2nd person attacking him instead of what happened) and if he should choose to be courageous again that he display more situational awareness.

 

[richardraw316]

Doing what was right, could be simply notifying the cops, this isn't a war bro, this was Drunk Guy vs. Neighbors Car. You simply cannot connect the atrocities that have occurred across the globe, requiring action, to this situation. There are times when something isn't right, but you don't involve yourself. Then there are times you do. Life is not so black and white.

i dont think you understand me, if every good person stood up against criminals, and bullies, then their would no longer be criminals and bullies. they would be to afraid of where the next hero will stand up and stop them. the police are heroes, but they are few. Criminals are cowards, but they are many. The people need to stand up in this country and all the other countrys. The world would be a whole lot better for it.

 

[jamesg]

While you have a point on the perspective differences on what's right to one and what's right to another...let's look at the origin of the word to get a better idea on it's accepted definition (a little more detailed than the Miriam webster definition):

Word History: A coward is one who "turns tail." The word comes from Old French couart, coart, "coward," and is related to Italian codardo, "coward." Couart is formed from coe, a northern French dialectal variant of cue, "tail" (from Latin cda), to which the derogatory suffix -ard was added. This suffix appears in bastard, laggard, and sluggard, to name a few. A coward may also be one with his tail between his legs. In heraldry a lion couard, "cowardly lion," was depicted with his tail between his legs. So a coward may be one with his tail hidden between his legs or one who turns tail and runs like a rabbit, with his tail showing.

Giving birth the definition:

coward [ˈkaʊəd]
n
a person who shrinks from or avoids danger, pain, or difficulty
[from Old French cuard, from coue tail, from Latin cauda; perhaps suggestive of a frightened animal with its tail between its legs]

----------------------------


This gives us a better idea on what the origins/creators of the term view as "right" regardless of if you consider what they feel as "right" to be what you feel is "right".

Essentially it would be better that you argue not that you are NOT a coward (if you meet the definition as is generally accepted and what appears to have been intended looking at the history of the word) but that you do not think that being a coward is "wrong". and that it is actually "right" to be a "coward".

interesting, but it is still in all honesty your version of the truth, some people might call someone brave where i would call them ignorant. others would call someone a coward where perhaps i would call them smart.......

it's a pretty fruitless exercise, everyone has their own brand of right, but it is the ones who step outside of what affects them into the realm of what does not affect them, that makes the difference and knowing when it is appropriate. In this particular case, call the cops, let them handle a situation that really doesn't involve you and appears to be of no immediate threat. Don't grab your gun and run outside in the dark to see if you can get involved with a drunk stranger who is violent already. No heroes here.

What is Right is sometimes open to debate, What is wrong is undisputed.
Rape is always wrong, the holocaust was wrong, keep the people under your boot is wrong, Breaking the law for no other reason to be an A** is wrong. and there is a whole lot more to add to this list. Anybody with even a shred of a working conscience knows whats wrong when they see it.
Stop trying to change the subject. you would see something wrong happening and do nothing. then attack the ones who would. This makes you a coward. If you want to refute something, let it be that. not what everyones opinion on Right vs. Wrong is.

Sometimes I break the law completely out of spite. Because laws in my opinion were meant to be guidelines. The system is based on the fact that they know a certain percentage of people will not follow the rules. There is a certain amount of that which is acceptable and does not break the system or affect anyone else, and hence we find the proverbial victim-less crime. There is a certain amount of overhead that is acceptable.

I didn't say do nothing. I said react appropriately. Dark, drunk stranger, violent and only harming himself and someone's car. Not a situation for mr tough guy vigilante with gun. That is a classic situation best handled by calling the cops.

 

[jamesg]

i dont think you understand me, if every good person stood up against criminals, and bullies, then their would no longer be criminals and bullies. they would be to afraid of where the next hero will stand up and stop them. the police are heroes, but they are few. Criminals are cowards, but they are many. The people need to stand up in this country and all the other countrys. The world would be a whole lot better for it.

this world would never exist, it goes against human nature

 

[richardraw316]

this world would never exist, it goes against human nature

Dont you mean your nature? thank you for making my point. Fix yourself and hopefully the people like you will do the same.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

 

[24Carat]

" Do NOT, however, imply that I am a coward because I choose to not fight on someone else's terms or turf, in a fight that is not my own."
i do not think he was implying that you are a coward. I am.
To hide when you see someone destroying someone elses personal property, because you are afraid of the situation might escalate into something potentially dangerous, is cowardly. I am sorry if this seems harsh. You may have some self confident issues that need to be addressed.

“Cowards can never be moral.” Mahatma Gandhi.

“It is better to be killed than frightened to death.” Robert S. Surtees.

"To know what is right and not do it is the worst cowardice." Confucius


looks like i am not the only one who feels this way.

​

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA !! Yes it is harsh and misplaced. I no more judge jamesg and his inherent desire to protect himself and just his family than I judge the sheep that live their existence in ignorant bliss. This isn't a sheep vs sheepdog competition. My only contention is the blatant semi-hostility I see directed at those that venture forth by those that choose to stay behind closed doors. I am characterized as the insane risk taker that has no sense or intelligence if I don't stay concealed . Why is this?? What concern is it of anyone's how I conduct my affairs? My original contention is that we all have quite different life experiences, different levels of self determination and self confidence under stress. I would no more expect the majority on this board to be able to hand fly a single engine aircraft on instruments through a thunderstorm at night as I have and I don't expect those without such experience in their life to launch themselves into the jaws of a deadly confrontation. I'm just tired of being lectured to I guess.